The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-1128 PECPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION November 28, 2011 1:OOpm AWN OVAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT 40 Minutes Eagle River Valley 10 -Year Waste Diversion Implementation Plan — Discussion of Draft Kristen Bertuglia 30 minutes A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to provide regulations that will implement sustainable building and planning standards, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090028) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Dimond/ Kristen Bertuglia ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulations amendment, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Chapter 12 -22, View Corridors, Vail Town Code, to allow for the maintenance of designated view corridors impacted by vegetation, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110056) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to December 12, 2011 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minutes 3. A request for findings of fact and a determination of accuracy and completeness, pursuant to Chapter 12 -3, Administration and Enforcement, Vail Town Code, and Article 12 -713, Commercial Core 1 District, Vail Town Code, for applications for a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12 -713-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the addition of GRFA (Rucksack Building), located at 288 Bridge Street, Unit R -2/ Part of Lots C & D, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110045); and a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12 -713-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions of enclosed floor area; a variance, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, from Section 12- 14 -17, Setback from Watercourse, Vail Town Code, to allow for encroachments into the Mill Creek setback and a variance, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, from Section 12- 713-15, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions of enclosed floor area in excess of allowable site coverage, located at 288 Bridge Street, Unit R -1 (Rucksack Building)/ Part of Lots C & D, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110046, PEC110050) ACTION: Table to December 12, 2011 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5 minute Page 1 4. A request for a work session on a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12 -71 -7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the area known as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), with multiple mixed -use structures including but not limited to, multiple - family dwelling units, fractional fee units, accommodation units, employee housing units, office, and commercial /retail uses, located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West rig ht-of-way/U n platted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080064) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to December 12, 2011 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5. Approval of November 14, 2011 minutes MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 6. Information Update 7. Adjournment MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published November 25, 2011, in the Vail Daily. Page 2 0 TOWN OF VAIL � Memorandum To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Community Development Department Date: November 28, 2011 Subject: Eagle Valley 10 -year Waste Diversion Plan I. SUMMARY The purpose of this work session is to provide an introduction to the draft Eagle Valley 10 -year Waste Diversion Plan. This effort, funded by a grant from the USDA, has been underway for the past 6 months. The plan is designed to outline and evaluate short and long -term waste diversion strategies to be implemented among Eagle County and Valley communities to achieve an- agreed upon waste diversion goal. II. BACKGROUND All of the communities in the Valley utilize Eagle County's solid waste facilities (e.g., the county landfill, recycling drop sites and processing facility, and special waste programs) and therefore have a role in — and responsibility for - solid waste management practices that support both environmental and economic sustainability. Existing Recycling Efforts: Residential Recycling. Recycling options are currently available to all Eagle Valley residents in one form or another. However, in some areas recycling is convenient and relatively inexpensive while in other areas recycling options are limited and costly. Curbside residential collection is available for no added cost for residents in Vail and Eagle, although participation rates are varied. There are six drop sites throughout the Valley, maintained and hauled by a contracted hauler which is paid by the county. Vail's drop site is maintained by Vail Staff and contracted through Waste Management. Hauls costs are covered by the County, with the exception of $5 per haul which goes toward recycling education programs. Collected items at the drop sites include: Office paper, magazines, Corrugated Cardboard, and Comingled Recyclables (glass, #1 & #2, aluminum, steel). There is no county -wide program for special event recycling. Residents can take electronics waste (E- waste) and Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) to the Eagle County facility located at the County landfill. Commercial Recycling. Commercial comingled recyclables and cardboard collection is offered by both local haulers. It is up to each individual business to determine whether or not they want to sign up for recycling collection. There is very little data available on the current generation, diversion, or participation rates in the commercial sector. Organics Recycling. There is currently no compost facility or official composting or organics diversion programs within the county. Existing Facilities. The County owns or operates the following solid waste and recycling facilities: • Eagle County Landfill: The facility is operated by county employees, landfill capacity is not an issue at this time • Eagle county Material Recovery Facility: Dual stream recycling facility brought on -line January 2010, the facility is operated by county employees and has ample capacity to handle increased material • Six Drop- Off Recycling Sites: The sites are located in Eagle, Gypsum, Edwards, Avon, Vail, Red Cliff. The sites have four to six 6 -cubic yard cardboard containers, one 40 -cubic yard container for commingled materials, one mixed paper 40 -cubic yard container • Household Hazardous Waste Facility: Opened in August, 2008, serves residents and CESQG businesses. Residents can bring 20 HHW items free of charge; the program is paid for through the tip fees at the landfill. Results of Waste Characterization Study: In 2009 Eagle and Garfield counties were awarded a USDA grant to conduct a waste characterization study. The study was used to determine what materials were being sent to the landfill and to uncover the potential for increased diversion in the region. The report found that approximately 60% of the materials currently sent to the landfill were potentially recyclable. Approximately 30% of the total materials sent to the landfill in 2009 were recyclable and another 30% of was compostable. Both streams can potentially be recovered in the County and currently represent a significant waste of resources. The data collected in the 2009 report were used as inputs in the modeling estimates for this 10 -year plan. III. 10 -YEAR WASTE DIVERSION PLAN GOALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The strategies and recommendation contained within the 10 -year Waste Diversion Implementation Plan for the Eagle River Valley are designed to achieve the goal of an overall diversion rate of 15% by 2014, and 25% by 2021. They are also designed to achieve several broad goals including: • Reduce the quantity of valuable resources that are currently being wasted • Reduce the carbon footprint of the valley • Create green jobs • Support the new Eagle Valley Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) • Extend the life of the Eagle County Landfill Town of Vail Page 2 The Eagle River Valley is home to 95% of Eagle County's population and includes those regions of the county east of Glenwood Canyon'. The Eagle River Valley is a geographically and demographically diverse area covering communities from Vail to Red Cliff to Wolcott and encompassing several ecosystems including rivers, high mountains, forests, and alpine tundra. Keeping this diversity in mind, the 10 -year Comprehensive Waste Diversion Plan contains a broad set of recommendations for waste management that have the greatest potential for diversion with the lowest level of impact on generators. The strategies are divided by short, mid, and long -term. Short Term Strategies While many of the short term programs do not divert a significant number of tons from the waste stream they are all designed to lay the foundation for future programs and to work within the existing infrastructure. The short term strategies rely primarily on education, incentives, and voluntary participation. The few regulatory or policy programs in the short term list are relatively easy to implement compared to the mid or long term strategy recommendations. The short term programs are divided by sector including: Government, Residential, Commercial and Institutional, Multi - Family, Construction and Demolition, and Capital Improvements, and their impacts and costs are found in Figure 1. Descriptions are found in Appendix A. Figure 1: Estimated Impacts of Short Term Diversion Strategies Basalt (population 2,681) is the only Eagle County municipality that will not be directly serviced by this project. Basalt is located in the Roaring Fork River Valley and uses solid waste programs operated by Garfield and Pitkin Counties. 2 Diversion and cost estimates are for one 10,000 person event. Town of Vail Page 3 Total Cost/ Cost 1 Ton Cost 1 Ton Sector Strategy Tons % Diversion County County Generator G1 Set Diversion Goals N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Space for recycling $0 to $500 per G2 code / ordinance N/A N/A $1 K - $5K N/A building Require 'zero' waste G3 events2 3 <0.01% N/A $333 $900 - $1,100 / Work with haulers to encourage reporting of tons collected, diverted, and accounts G4 served N/A N/A $1 to 2K N/A $0 Require that hauler embed the cost of recycling in residential (and commercial) trash R5A fees N/A N/A $1- 5K See below $0 Single- family outreach combined with Embedded Recycling (dependent upon 1,500— R5B implementation of R5A ) 5,500 3%-6% $15K - $30K $3-$7 $0 Bundled business C7 outreach program 400-2,000 .5% to 2% $20K - $100K $60-$120 $(-25)-$50 C8 Schools Programs 20 0.02% $10K $500 N/A Multi- family outreach MF9 and education program 60-80 .1% $20K-$40K $80-$120 $0 MF 10 Multi-family Pilot 1-10 1 0.0% $5k - $10K $400-$500 $0 Point system for CD11 builders Valley- wide 500-4,000 .5%-5% $20K - $40K $5-$13 $25-$40 Basalt (population 2,681) is the only Eagle County municipality that will not be directly serviced by this project. Basalt is located in the Roaring Fork River Valley and uses solid waste programs operated by Garfield and Pitkin Counties. 2 Diversion and cost estimates are for one 10,000 person event. Town of Vail Page 3 Sector Strategy Tons % Diversion Total Cost/ County Cost 1 Ton County Cost 1 Ton Generator $20K to >$120K depending on level Drop -off improvements of site CAP12 - Recycling 800-1,000 .8 % -1.0% improvement $50-$150 $0 Depends on level of study. A full Identify Short -term and market / feasibility / Long -term plans for site / engineering compost facilities in study maybe in County (or the range of $30- CAP13 partnerships) N/A N/A $100K N/A N/A Mid and Long -Term Strategies The potential mid and long term strategies are more aggressive than the short term strategies, and incorporate tools such as increased surcharges to raise revenues to pay for programs, mandates on generators and haulers, and economic incentives. In many cases, these are the programs that will divert a significant number of tons from the waste stream and ones that will need to be considered as the region strives to reach higher levels of waste diversion. A wide range of options are proposed in this plan. It will be up to each jurisdiction to determine which programs are most apt. IV. NEXT STEPS Though the final 10 -Year Waste Diversion Plan will be submitted to the USDA by January 1St, 2012, the stakeholder group intends to continue to meet to begin to implement some of the recommended short -term strategies outlined in the plan. Specifically, the group will begin by coordinating goal adoption by resolution by each entity, and work on draft ordinances for zero waste events, embedded recycling costs, and equal space for recycling. Staff will present the Plan to the Vail Town Council early 2012 to obtain direction on recommended strategies, adoption of the plan, or a variation thereof. VII. ATTACHMENTS A. Eagle Valley 10 -Year Waste Diversion Plan Town of Vail Page 4 Eagle River Valley 10 -Year Waste Diversion Implementation Plan b '�ir' i � ,• r err #i 31, 1. t u, Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability Skumatz Economic Research Associates DRAFT VERSION z Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following members of the Waste Diversion Steering team for their dedicated efforts in the development of this plan: Adam Bybliw — Vail Resorts Bill Carlson — Town of Vail Chris Cerimele — Town of Minturn, Deron Dircksen — Town of Eagle Fritz Bratschie — Vail Resorts Jeff Shreeve — Town of Gypsum Jennifer Schenk — Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability Jerry Velazquez — Waste Management Jesse Masten — Eagle County MRF Joe Histed — Town of Avon John -Ryan Lockman — Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability Ken Whitehead — Eagle County Landfill Kristen Bertuglia — Town of Vail LBA Consultants Matt Donovan — Honeywagon Ron Rasnic -Eagle County Landfill Scott Davis — David Excavating Scott Hutchings — Waste Management Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc. (SERA) Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 3 Contents SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................................... ..............................4 1.1 Background ............................................................................. ..............................4 SECTION 2: THE 10 YEAR PLAN ................................................... ............................... 8 2.1: Measurement and Goals ....................................................... ............................... 8 EagleValley Goal ...................................................................... ............................... 9 Tracking and Measurement .................................................... ............................... 10 2.2: Recommended Strategies ................................................... ............................... 12 2.3: Impacts of Short Term Strategies ........................................ ............................... 12 2.4: Description of Short Term Strategies ................................... ............................... 15 Governmental Strategies ........................................................ ............................... 15 Residential Strategies ............................................................. ............................... 16 Commercial and Institutional Strategies .................................. ............................... 17 Multi - Family Strategies ............................................................ ............................... 17 Construction and Demolition (C & D) Strategies ..................... ............................... 18 Capital Improvements ............................................................. ............................... 18 2.4: Impacts of High Impact / Low Cost Strategies ..................... ............................... 19 2.5: Description of High Impact / Low Cost Strategies ................ ............................... 21 Governmental Strategies ........................................................ ............................... 21 Residential Strategies ............................................................. ............................... 21 Commercial Strategies .............................................................. .............................22 Multi - Family Strategies ............................................................ ............................... 23 Construction and Demolition Strategies .................................. ............................... 23 AlternativeFunding ................................................................. ............................... 24 2.7: Additional Mid and Long Term Strategies to Consider ............ ............................... 25 APPENDIX 1: Goals and Diversion Rates ...................................... ............................... 28 APPENDIX 2: Detailed Descriptions of Short Term Strategies ...... ............................... 31 APPENDIX 3: Composting Research ............................................. ............................... 37 APPENDIX 4: Examples of Space for Recycling Ordinances ........ ............................... 45 APPENDIX 5: Examples of Embedded Recycling Fee Ordinances . .............................48 APPENDIX 6: Pay -As- You - Throw .................................................. ............................... 50 Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com El SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION The strategies and recommendation contained within the 10 -year Waste Diversion Implementation Plan for the Eagle River Valley (Valley) are designed to achieve several broad goals including: • Reduce the quantity of valuable resources that are currently being wasted • Reduce the carbon footprint of the valley • Create green jobs • Support the new Eagle Valley Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) • Extend the life of the Eagle County Landfill The Eagle River Valley is home to 95% of Eagle County's population and includes those regions of the county east of Glenwood Canyon'. The Eagle River Valley is a geographically and demographically diverse area covering communities from Vail to Red Cliff to Wolcott and encompassing several ecosystems including rivers, high mountains, forests, and alpine tundra. Keeping this diversity in mind, the 10 -year Comprehensive Waste Diversion Strategy (Plan) contains a broad set of recommendations for waste management that have the greatest potential for diversion with the lowest level of impact on generators. The 10 -year Comprehensive Waste Diversion Strategy contains a broad set of recommendations for waste management that have the greatest potential for diversion with the lowest level of impact on generators The planning team recognizes that the strategies that make the most sense may vary throughout the Valley and this plan does not mandate that any one community adopt any or all of the strategies contained herein. The plan does however represent the culmination of a long -term effort from a diverse group of stakeholders including non - profits, city / county staff, businesses, citizens, and consultants to identify the options that have the greatest potential to move to Valley and its various communities forward in its waste reduction and diversion efforts. All of the recommended strategies have been used successfully in other areas of the United States and are within the region and the communities within the Valley's authority and capability to implement. It is the hope that this Plan will be adopted by the municipalities, citizens, and businesses across the Valley and will lead to a more sustainable future. 1.1 Background All of the incorporated communities in the Valley utilize Eagle County's solid waste facilities (e.g., the county landfill, recycling drop sites and processing facility, and special waste programs) and therefore have a role in — and responsibility for - solid waste management practices that support both environmental and economic sustainability. Table 1.1 includes a list of the incorporated areas in the Valley which will be served by this project as well as their current waste and recycling arrangements. ' Basalt (population 2,681) is the only Eagle County municipality that will not be directly serviced by this project. Basalt is located in the Roaring Fork River Valley and uses solid waste programs operated by Garfield and Pitkin Counties. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com Table 1.1: Eagle Valley Communities (based on U.S. Census Bureau 2000 data) The Valley communities are extremely diverse in terms of both size, permanency and location — ranging from Red Cliff (a permanent 300 - person population base located 12 miles off the 1 -70 corridor) to Vail (with peak seasonal tourist fluctuations reaching as high as 38,000, a 40% occupancy rate, and location directly on 1 -70). A few of the important conditions taken into consideration in the design of this Plan include: • Nearly half of Eagle County's population is located in unincorporated areas - where solid waste practices are unstructured and varied • There is a large seasonal fluctuation in both residents and visitors, there are also a large proportion of second home owners in the Valley • Existing waste diversion programs are spotty and inconsistent — for example, neither Red Cliff nor Gypsum have any curbside recyclables collection options • Managing diverted materials can be expensive — especially when hauling 135 miles (one way) to Denver markets (this is especially problematic for the Eagle County drop site and private collection programs) • There are no collection programs for organics or diverted C &D materials — Vail and Avon, which generate some of the highest quantities of these materials, have extremely limited storage capacity and no hauling options for these materials • The Valley's citizens and businesses may not be fully aware of the potential economic, environmental, and community benefits of improved waste diversion • There is a strong desire for increased diversion from residents and businesses in the Eagle Valley Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com Commercial Percent and large MF Occupied Residential Trash Collection Location Population Housing Collection System System Recycling Open Public recycling drop site Avon 5,561 73.90% Open subscription subscription funded by county Recycling collected at curb with rates included in trash Single contracted Open contract, recycling drop site Eagle 3,032 95.30% hauler subscription contracted by county city staff collects Open Public recycling drop site Gypsum 3,654 95.00% MSW subscription contracted by county Recycling collected at curb Single contracted Open with rates included in trash Minturn 1,068 89.10% hauler subscription contract Open County picks up small Red Cliff 289 89.30% Open subscription subscription recycling drop site Open Town has contract for drop - Vail 4,531 40.20% Open subscription subscription Site collection County contracts for collection of 5 recycling 68.5% (Eagle Open drop sites: Avon, Edwards, Unincorporated 23,524 County Open subscription subscription Eagle, Gypsum, Red Cliff The Valley communities are extremely diverse in terms of both size, permanency and location — ranging from Red Cliff (a permanent 300 - person population base located 12 miles off the 1 -70 corridor) to Vail (with peak seasonal tourist fluctuations reaching as high as 38,000, a 40% occupancy rate, and location directly on 1 -70). A few of the important conditions taken into consideration in the design of this Plan include: • Nearly half of Eagle County's population is located in unincorporated areas - where solid waste practices are unstructured and varied • There is a large seasonal fluctuation in both residents and visitors, there are also a large proportion of second home owners in the Valley • Existing waste diversion programs are spotty and inconsistent — for example, neither Red Cliff nor Gypsum have any curbside recyclables collection options • Managing diverted materials can be expensive — especially when hauling 135 miles (one way) to Denver markets (this is especially problematic for the Eagle County drop site and private collection programs) • There are no collection programs for organics or diverted C &D materials — Vail and Avon, which generate some of the highest quantities of these materials, have extremely limited storage capacity and no hauling options for these materials • The Valley's citizens and businesses may not be fully aware of the potential economic, environmental, and community benefits of improved waste diversion • There is a strong desire for increased diversion from residents and businesses in the Eagle Valley Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com Existing Recycling Efforts: Residential Recycling: Recycling options are currently available to all Eagle Valley residents in one form or another. However, in some areas recycling is convenient and relatively inexpensive while in other areas recycling options are limited and costly. Curbside residential collection is available for no added cost for residents in Vail and Eagle, although participation rates are varied. There are six drop sites though -out the Valley, five of which are maintained and hauled by a contracted hauler which is paid by the county. Collected items at the drop sites include: Office paper, magazines, Corrugated Cardboard, and Comingled Recyclables (glass, #1 & #2, aluminum, steel). There is no county -wide program for special event recycling. Residents can take electronics waste (E- waste) and Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) to the Eagle County facility located at the County landfill. Commercial Recycling: Commercial comingled recyclables and cardboard collection is offered by both local haulers. It is up to each individual business to determine whether or not they want to sign up for recycling collection. There is very little data available on the current generation, diversion, or participation rates in the sector. Organics Recycling: There is currently no compost facility or official composting or organics diversion programs within the county. Existing Facilities: The county owns or operates the following solid waste and recycling facilities: Approximately 30% of the total materials sent to the landfill in 2009 were recyclable and another 30% was organic material. Both streams can potentially be recovered and represent a significant waste of resources. • Eagle County Landfill: The facility is operated by county employees, landfill capacity is not an issue at this time • Eagle county Material Recovery Facility: Dual stream recycling facility brought on -line January 2010, the facility is operated by county employees and has ample capacity to handle increased material • Six Drop- Off Recycling Sites: The sites are located in Eagle, Gypsum, Edwards, Avon, Vail, Red Cliff. The sites have 4 to 6 6 -cubic yard cardboard containers, 1 40 -cubic yard container for commingled materials, 1 mixed paper 40 -cubic yard container • Household Hazardous Waste Facility: Opened in August, 2008, serves residents and CESQG businesses. Residents can bring 20 HHW items free of charg; the program is paid for through the tip fees at the landfill. Results of Waste Characterization Study: In 2009 Eagle and Garfield counties were awarded a USDA grant to conduct a waste characterization study. The study was used to determine what materials were being sent to the landfill and to uncover the potential for increased diversion in the region. The report found that approximately 60% of the materials currently sent to the landfill were potentially recyclable. Approximately 30% of the total materials sent to the landfill in 2009 were recyclable and another 30% of was compostable. Both streams can potentially be recovered in the County and currently represent a significant waste of resources. The data collected in the 2009 report was used as inputs in the modeling estimates for this 10 -year plan. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com Benefits of Diversion JOBS * On a per ton basis, recycling can sustain 10 times more jobs than landfilling and composting can sustain 4 times more jobs than landfilling or incineration2. In addition, recycling and diversion has the opportunity to add jobs in the Valley during lean economic times. For example, the State of North Carolina reports that job gains in recycling have outgrown other sectors during the recent recession and for every 100 recycling jobs created in the state just 10 jobs were lost in the waste hauling and disposal industry3. ENVIRONMENT * Creating new items with recycled feedstock as opposed to virgin feedstock greatly reduces the environmental impacts of production. Using recycled feedstock harnesses the energy embedded in the material to reduce energy use. For example, it takes 90% more energy to make an aluminum can from virgin material than recycled. In 2009 Colorado alone conserved 640,000 tons of coal by using recycled steel and glass in the State4. Composting also greatly reduces the amount of GHG emissions released in the atmosphere by landfills. The US Composting Council estimated that if all the food waste sent to landfills in 2005 was composted instead, it would be like taking 7.8 million passenger cars off the road. Recycling * The embedded energy recovered in recyclables dramatically outweighs the makes emissions from transportation 5. For example, the "break even" point for environmental trucking aluminum (the point where the GHG emissions from transportation sense even in outweigh the potential GHG emissions avoided through recycling) is 116,000 remote areas miles, or the same as driving from New York City to Los Angeles 47 times6. 2 Institute for Local Self Reliance, Washington, DC, 1997 3 2008 Trends in North Carolina's Recycling Industry. North Carolina Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance 4 Colorado Department of Health and Environment, Colorado Solid Waste and Materials Management Program 2010 Annual Report to the Colorado General Assembly 5 Skumatz, Lisa. Recycling and Climate Change. Resource Recycling, October 2008. Platt, Ciplet, Bailey, Lombardi. Stop Trashing the Climate. Institute for Local Self- Reliance, June 2008 6 David Allaway, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 0 SECTION 2: THE 10 YEAR PLAN The remainder of this document contains the goals of the Plan, the recommended strategies to reach the goals, and the potential costs and impacts of the recommended strategies. 2.1: Measurement and Goals Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability currently tracks the materials disposed and diverted in Eagle County by weight (tons). The tracking includes two distinct yet related categories, Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Recycling Rate and Diversion Rate. The Eagle Valley Alliance uses the CDPHE and US EPA definitions of these two terms as follows: • MSW Recycling Rate: Describes the materials generated, disposed, and diverted (through recycling, composting and other activities) by the residential, commercial, and institutional sectors. Diversion Rate: This is the more inclusive descriptor and counts the industrial sector materials in addition to the commercial, institutional, and residential materials in the MSW recycling rate. The diversion rate includes construction and demolition materials. Figure 2.1 displays the material classifications for the two metrics. Figure 2.1: Material Classifications for Diversion Measurement (Source: CDPHE) MSW Recycling Rate Materials Diversion Rate Materials (includes all of the MSW Recyclinq Rate materials and the followinq non -MSW materials) Paper (includes cardboard) Aggregates Plastic Oil Glass Construction and Demolition Debris Metals (non- ferrous and ferrous scrap metals) Compost (non -MSW feedstock) Electronics Antifreeze Organics (includes yard waste and composted food scraps) Batteries Tires Commingled containers Other (includes items such as textiles, cooking oil, and small The MSW recycling and Diversion rates for Eagle County in 20107 are displayed in figure 2.2. Detailed data on community by community performance or sector based performance (residential vs. commercial vs. multi - family) is not available. 7 The estimated Eagle County Diversion rate in 2009 was 13% and the 2009 MSW Recycling rate was 19 %. Although the estimated 2009 rates were higher, the numbers are not as accurate as the 2010 estimates due to greater reporting and data availability in 2010. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 0 Figure 2.2: Eagle County and Colorado Recycling and Diversion Rates Metric 2010 Diversion Rate 11.1% MSW Recycling Rate 14.7% For perspective, the CDPHE reported state -wide rates for 20098 are displayed figure 2.3. Figure 2.3: Colorado Recycling and Diversion Rates 20099 (source: CDPHE) 2009 Solid Waste Material Management ■ Disposal ■ MSW Recycled Nan -MSW Diverted Total Diversion 177,953 36% 21/ 6;486,827 64% Eagle Valley Goal The Plan sets forward a progressive goal with increasing diversion and recycling benchmarks over the next ten years. The Plan recommends goals for both the more inclusive Diversion Rate (described above) called the Overall Diversion Rate in this plan, and the MSW Recycling Rate (described above) called the Recycling and Composting Rate10 in this plan. Although using two metrics may lead to some confusion around the nomenclature and definitions, the planning team felt it was important to have both goals and to track both metrics as each describes different achievements. Together they paint a more complete picture of what is happening in the region. The Overall Diversion Rate goal includes construction and demolition material generated and diverted which in many years, is the largest portion of the region's waste stream. The Recycling and Composting Rate goal, although covering less total materials, is the most common metric used around the US, allowing the region to readily compare progress with other communities. Figure 2.4 displays the 10 year plan goals and incremental dates. 8 This is the most recent data available from the CDPHE. 9 It is important to note that the CDPHE calculations for MSW Recycled and Total Diversion are completed using different formulas than those used by Eagle County. CDPHE's calculated MSW Recycled rate uses the larger a more inclusive denominator. With this formula, the Eagle County MSW Recycling rate is lower at 10.3 %, the diversion rate remains unchanged 10 The plan recommends calling the MSW Recycling Rate the Recycling and Composting Rate because it includes materials composted not just recycled. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 10 Figure 2.4: Eagle River Valley 10 Year Goals" Tracking and Measurement The following formulas will be used when measuring these goals: Overall Diversion Rate = (MSW Recycling rate materials diverted + Diversion rate materials diverted) (MSW Recycling rate materials diverted + Diversion rate materials diverted + total materials sent to landfill from all sectors13) Recycling and Composting Rate 14 = MSW Recycling rate materials diverted _ (MSW Recycling rate materials diverted + Commercial materials sent to landfill + institutional materials sent to landfill + residential materials sent to landfill) For continuity throughout the region the steering committee recommends that communities in the Valley use the Overall Diversion Rate goal and metric when presenting at council meetings, writing press release, and In addition to tracking progress toward the Overall conducting outreach / Diversion and Recycling and Composting Rate goals, education. Eagle Valley plans to use per capita generation as a J tracking metric. Per Capita generation is the total materials generated (typically not including the industrial generation) divided by the population. This metric allows the region to track whether any source reduction efforts are impacting the per person generation and it is reported as pounds per person per day. The formula for this metric will be: Per Capita Generation= (Total tons of materials generated * 2, 000) _ Total population _ 365 Finally, the plan also recommends that Eagle Valley and the communities within the region track materials diverted and disposed by each generator sector. This tracking will allow each community and the region to learn what programs are succeeding and identify which area needs improvement. The recommended sectors for tracking include: • Single- family Generators (up to an including 7 -units per structure): MSW sent to landfill, materials recycled, materials composted and materials otherwise diverted 11 Nuances to the incremental goals could include the per capita waste generation goals or sector based goals. For example, the region could have a recycling goal of 40% and a commercial goal of 25 %. 12 For continuity throughout the region the 10 -year plan steering committee recommends that communities in the Valley use the Overall Diversion Rate goal and metric when presenting at council meetings, writing press release, and conducting outreach / education. 13 This includes industrial materials such as aggregates and construction and demolition debris. 14 This is based on the current US EPA protocol for measuring calculating a recycling rate. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 2010 Baseline 2014 Goal 2017 Goal 2021 Goal Overall Diversion Goal12 11.1% 15% 20% 25% Recycling and Composting Goal 14.7% 20% 25% 30% Tracking and Measurement The following formulas will be used when measuring these goals: Overall Diversion Rate = (MSW Recycling rate materials diverted + Diversion rate materials diverted) (MSW Recycling rate materials diverted + Diversion rate materials diverted + total materials sent to landfill from all sectors13) Recycling and Composting Rate 14 = MSW Recycling rate materials diverted _ (MSW Recycling rate materials diverted + Commercial materials sent to landfill + institutional materials sent to landfill + residential materials sent to landfill) For continuity throughout the region the steering committee recommends that communities in the Valley use the Overall Diversion Rate goal and metric when presenting at council meetings, writing press release, and In addition to tracking progress toward the Overall conducting outreach / Diversion and Recycling and Composting Rate goals, education. Eagle Valley plans to use per capita generation as a J tracking metric. Per Capita generation is the total materials generated (typically not including the industrial generation) divided by the population. This metric allows the region to track whether any source reduction efforts are impacting the per person generation and it is reported as pounds per person per day. The formula for this metric will be: Per Capita Generation= (Total tons of materials generated * 2, 000) _ Total population _ 365 Finally, the plan also recommends that Eagle Valley and the communities within the region track materials diverted and disposed by each generator sector. This tracking will allow each community and the region to learn what programs are succeeding and identify which area needs improvement. The recommended sectors for tracking include: • Single- family Generators (up to an including 7 -units per structure): MSW sent to landfill, materials recycled, materials composted and materials otherwise diverted 11 Nuances to the incremental goals could include the per capita waste generation goals or sector based goals. For example, the region could have a recycling goal of 40% and a commercial goal of 25 %. 12 For continuity throughout the region the 10 -year plan steering committee recommends that communities in the Valley use the Overall Diversion Rate goal and metric when presenting at council meetings, writing press release, and conducting outreach / education. 13 This includes industrial materials such as aggregates and construction and demolition debris. 14 This is based on the current US EPA protocol for measuring calculating a recycling rate. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 11 • Multi - family Generators (8 or more units per structure): MSW sent to landfill, materials recycled, materials composted, and materials otherwise diverted • Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Generators: MSW sent to landfill, materials recycled, materials composted and materials otherwise diverted Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 12 2.2: Recommended Strategies The following strategies are recommended by the steering committee team due to their ability to assist the region in reaching the Plan goals. The programs chosen are those with the greatest potential to work successfully in the Eagle River Valley and are those that can divert the largest number of tons (high impacts) most effectively (low cost, low market intervention). Estimates of the potential impact on the region were developed and are included where applicable. The recommended strategies fall into one of three time frames corresponding to the Plan goals: Short term recommendations: 0 to 2 years. Designed to fit with existing infrastructure and solid waste systems Mid -term recommendations: 2 to 5 years Long term recommendations: 5 to 10 years. Some of the long term recommendations may require infrastructure and capital improvements to be fully realized The plan also sets forward a selection of 7 high impact / low cost strategies. This selection of strategies has the most potential for diversion in Eagle Valley for the least governmental cost. Some however, do require increased regulatory mechanisms and / or market intervention and two of the strategies would require increased processing options in the Region. The high impact strategies (with the exception of those related to organics and perhaps construction and demolition debris) could be implemented in the short, mid, or long term time frame. Each jurisdiction will need to evaluate whether these programs will meet their political, public, and business perspectives. Detailed descriptions of the short term and high impact / low cost programs and brief descriptions of all programs are included in the Plan. The steering committee recognizes that not all of the recommended strategies can be implemented in all of the communities in the Eagle Valley and this plan does not dictate that any community shall adopt any of the recommended strategies. It is hoped that each community will examine the strategy options and choose to adopt those that make the most sense for them. 2.3: impacts of Short Term Strategies The estimates of diversion and cost were developed using one of the following methods, or from triangulation of several approaches. The availability of data differs for each of the researched programs and a combination of multiple data sources was often used to develop our diversion and cost estimates. • Where data support, SERA's Waste Diversion Assessment Model (WDAM) was used to develop estimates; • Estimates derived from SERA's quantitative work on program performance — including available work on commercial and residential recycling, PAYT, single stream, education, composting, and similar. • Estimates or relationships based on data from communities in SERA's in -house database of communities that have a similar program; • Estimates adapted from work for other projects in the region; Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 13 o Computations based on generation for the affected sector and percent diverted or the cost based on information from secondary data, publications, rules of thumb, or interviews on program performances If all of the short term programs were implemented it is estimated that the Eagle Valley could divert between 6,500 tons and 13,1000 tons, potentially reaching an Overall Diversion Rate of 14% to 26 %. Programs Figure 2.5 displays the total impact of the short term programs. Figure 2.5: Estimated Impact of Short Term Strategies Figures 2.5A and 2.513 display the low and high estimates of impacts on the Overall Diversion rate in the County. 2.5A: Impact of Short Term Programs (low estimate) `Baseline / Rate 15% "New" Diversion 4% Materials to Landfill 81% 2.5A: Impact of Short Term Programs (high estimate) to Landfill 71% The estimated impacts of each of the short term strategies can be seen in Figure 2.6. Figure 2.6: Estimated Impacts of Short Term Diversion Strategies ID Strategy % "New" Total Cost/ Strategy Tons Diversion Count Set Diversion 3,300- N/A N/A TOTAL 12,600 3.8%-14.5% $143K -$462K Figures 2.5A and 2.513 display the low and high estimates of impacts on the Overall Diversion rate in the County. 2.5A: Impact of Short Term Programs (low estimate) `Baseline / Rate 15% "New" Diversion 4% Materials to Landfill 81% 2.5A: Impact of Short Term Programs (high estimate) to Landfill 71% The estimated impacts of each of the short term strategies can be seen in Figure 2.6. Figure 2.6: Estimated Impacts of Short Term Diversion Strategies ID Strategy Tons % Diversion Total Cost/ County Cost / Ton County Cost 1 Ton Generator G1 Set Diversion N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 14 15 Diversion and cost estimates are for one 10,000 person event. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com Total Costl Cost 1 Ton Cost 1 Ton ID Strategy Tons % Diversion County County Generator Goals Space for recycling $0 to $500 G2 code / ordinance N/A N/A $1 K - $5K N/A per building Require'zero' $900- G3 waste events15 3 <0.01% N/A $333 $1,100/ Work with haulers to encourage reporting of tons collected, diverted, and accounts G4 served N/A N/A $1 to 2K N/A $0 Require that hauler embed the cost of recycling in residential trash R5A fees N/A N/A $1- 5K See below $0 Single- family outreach combined with Embedded Recycling (dependent upon implementation of 1,500— R513 R5A) 5,500 3% -6% $15K - $30K $3-$7 $0 Bundled business 400— C7 outreach program 2,000 .5% to 2% $20K - $100K $60-$120 $(-25)-$50 C8 Schools Programs 20 0.02% $10K $500 N/A Multi- family outreach and MF9 education program 60-80 .1% $20K-$40K $80-$120 $0 $400- MF10 Multi- family Pilot 1-10 0.0% $5k - $10K $500 $0 Point system for builders Valley- 500- CD1 1 wide 4,000 .5%-5% $20K - $40K $5-$13 $25-$40 $20K to >$120K Drop -off depending on improvements - 800— level of site CAP12 Recycling 1,000 .8%-1.0% improvement $50-$150 $0 Depends on Identify Short -term level of study. A and Long -term full market / plans for compost feasibility / site / facilities in County engineering CAP13 (or partnerships) N/A N/A study may be N/A N/A 15 Diversion and cost estimates are for one 10,000 person event. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 15 There full list of the recommended short -term programs, a short description of the program, and the mechanism with which they are enacted is included below. More detailed descriptions of the programs can be found in Appendix 2 of this document. 2.4: Description of Short Term Strategies While many of the short term programs do not divert a significant number of tons from the waste stream they are all designed to lay the foundation for future programs and to work within the existing infrastructure. The short term strategies rely primarily on education, incentives, and voluntary participation. The few regulatory or policy programs in the short term list are relatively easy to implement compared to the mid or long term strategy recommendations. The short term programs are divided by sector including: • Government (4 programs) • Residential (2 programs) • Commercial and Institutional (2 programs) • Multi- Family (2 programs) • Construction and Demolition (1 program) • Capital Improvements (2 programs) Governmental Strategies The governmental strategies include a mix of resolutions, code changes and ordinances that can be relatively easily passed by City / Town councils. The strategies are designed to remove future barriers for recycling, set goals, increase event diversion, and to work with haulers to voluntarily report data on materials collected and diverted. Measurement (both of baseline and future impacts) is an important aspect of the Plan and is necessary for tracking progress toward goals. • (G1) Set diversion Tons Diverted: NA Percent Total Materials Diverted: NA Implementation: Resolution Adopted by City /Town Description: Adopt the diversion goal(s) and year(s) outlined in the 10 -year Plan (G2) Equal space for recycling code / ordinance's Tons Diverted: NA Percent Total Materials Diverted: NA Implementation: Code / Ordinance Adopted by City /Town Description: Encourage each municipality to pass an ordinance requiring all new and significant remodels to include equal space for trash and recycling containers (consider 16 Examples of ordinances can be found in the appendix Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com Total Cost/ Cost I Ton Cost I Ton ID Strategy Tons % Diversion County County Generator in the range of $30 -$100K There full list of the recommended short -term programs, a short description of the program, and the mechanism with which they are enacted is included below. More detailed descriptions of the programs can be found in Appendix 2 of this document. 2.4: Description of Short Term Strategies While many of the short term programs do not divert a significant number of tons from the waste stream they are all designed to lay the foundation for future programs and to work within the existing infrastructure. The short term strategies rely primarily on education, incentives, and voluntary participation. The few regulatory or policy programs in the short term list are relatively easy to implement compared to the mid or long term strategy recommendations. The short term programs are divided by sector including: • Government (4 programs) • Residential (2 programs) • Commercial and Institutional (2 programs) • Multi- Family (2 programs) • Construction and Demolition (1 program) • Capital Improvements (2 programs) Governmental Strategies The governmental strategies include a mix of resolutions, code changes and ordinances that can be relatively easily passed by City / Town councils. The strategies are designed to remove future barriers for recycling, set goals, increase event diversion, and to work with haulers to voluntarily report data on materials collected and diverted. Measurement (both of baseline and future impacts) is an important aspect of the Plan and is necessary for tracking progress toward goals. • (G1) Set diversion Tons Diverted: NA Percent Total Materials Diverted: NA Implementation: Resolution Adopted by City /Town Description: Adopt the diversion goal(s) and year(s) outlined in the 10 -year Plan (G2) Equal space for recycling code / ordinance's Tons Diverted: NA Percent Total Materials Diverted: NA Implementation: Code / Ordinance Adopted by City /Town Description: Encourage each municipality to pass an ordinance requiring all new and significant remodels to include equal space for trash and recycling containers (consider 16 Examples of ordinances can be found in the appendix Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 16 organics containers too). This program primarily impacts the commercial and MF sector and helps to address space barriers in future development. (G3) Require 'zero'waste events Tons Diverted: 3 (per 10,000 person event) Percent Total Materials Diverted: .01% (per 10,000 person event) Implementation: Code / Ordinance Adopted by City /Town Description: Each event with over 500 (or some other threshold) attendees is required to complete a recycling plan form prior to the event, have recycling stations at the event, and supply a report to the jurisdiction upon conclusion of the event on how many tons were recycled and disposed. Although 'zero' waste events might not be possible yet due to challenges in organics diversion, future events could require zero waste stations. (G4) Encourage reporting of tons collected, diverted, and accounts served Tons Diverted: NA Percent Total Materials Diverted: NA Implementation: Voluntary Program with Haulers and City / County Staff Description: the County and each municipality will coordinate with haulers to voluntarily report tonnages collected and diverted to establish a more accurate baseline. Residential Strategies The two single - family residential strategies focus on bolstering existing services provided by haulers and the use of outreach and education to inform generators about services that are already available. • (R5A) Require that Haulers Embed the Cost of Recycling in Residential Trash Fees" Tons Diverted: N/A Percent Total Materials Diverted: N/A Implementation: Code / Ordinance Adopted by City /Town Description: The two haulers servicing residential accounts in Eagle Valley report that they currently embed the costs of recycling in all single - family residential accounts and have been doing so voluntarily for the past several years. By passing an ordinance and codifying what is already happening, no changes will be required by the haulers or residents. The ordinance will help increase awareness among residents about the program and ensure that any other haulers entering the market will also embed recycling in their costs. Cities / Towns passing this ordinance may also wish to consider requiring haulers to inform their residents about the service at least annually, requiring that the cost of the recycling containers are also built into the garbage fees, and including a way to audit the program. • (R5B) Single- family Outreach Combined with Embedded Recycling (Impacts dependent on the implementation of R5) Tons Diverted: 1,500 — 5,500 Percent Total Materials Diverted: NA Implementation: Education / outreach program " Examples of ordinances can be found in the appendix Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 70 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 17 Description: The short -term single - family outreach and education program strategy focuses on existing services and options, primarily the fact that all residents are already paying for recycling service and might not be aware of this. The outreach should also inform residents about other `free' or low cost options including drop -offs, special events, and HHW diversion. County / city staff should use broad based (newspaper, radio, local TV) as well as social marketing based education to inform residents that they can get 'free' recycling if they contact their haulers, work to overcome specific barriers, and motivate residents to act. Commercial and Institutional Strategies One strategy targets the commercial sector while the other focuses on the institutional sector (schools). Both strategies include technical assistance, outreach, and potentially incentives in the form of small grants to increase diversion. (C7) Bundled Business Outreach and Assistance Tons Diverted: 400 — 2,000 Percent Total Materials Diverted: .2% - 2% Implementation: Education / outreach program Description: The business outreach program consists of three main elements 1) Business Technical Assistance: Includes hands -on assistance and outreach to businesses to conduct waste audits, assist in `right sizing' trash service, staff training, etc. 2) Cooperative Service Coordination: County or City / Town staff provides coordination for businesses in downtown areas or low density routes to assist businesses in sharing recycling dumpsters, locations, and costs. 3) Small Starter Grants / Rebates: City /Town or County provides a limited number of grants per year (in the range of $500- $2,000) to help generators overcome capital start -up barriers. (C8) Schools Outreach and Assistance Tons Diverted: 20 Percent Total Materials Diverted: .01 % Implementation: Education / outreach program Description: The region should work with the school district to examine and consider recycling diversion program throughout the school system including waste audits, education, outreach, recycling bins, composting, competitions, social marketing, etc. Although the program's focus is in diverting actual tons, education for school children is also an important benefit. Multi- Family Strategies The multi - family sector makes up a large portion of the overall population in the region. The two programs targeting this sector (along with the space for recycling ordinance) will lay the groundwork for future more aggressive programs that can be implemented in the mid or long term time frame. • (MF9) Multi - Family Outreach and Assistance Tons Diverted: 60 — 80 Percent Total Materials Diverted: .1 % Implementation: Education / outreach Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com Im Description: Work with a limited number of multi - family structures and HOAs on service agreements, barriers, and outreach. City / County or other staff will meet with a select number of HOAs / MF structures to promote / offer assistance on program & outreach. The strategy can potentially be combined with energy programs currently operating in the region. Unlike a broad outreach program focusing on all HHs in the MF sector, this strategy will allow the jurisdiction / county to focus their efforts on a much smaller pool of property managers and decision - makers. • (MF10) Multi- Family Pilot Tons Diverted: 1 - 10 Percent Total Materials Diverted: .01 % Implementation: Education / outreach Description: The jurisdiction (or County) works with a selected multi - family structure(s) to conduct a recycling pilot. The results will be presented as Best Management Practices and be transferable to other communities and MF structures. Consider applying for state grants for funding. Construction and Demolition (C & D) Strategies Construction and demolition debris makes up anywhere from 20% to 50% of the materials disposed of in the Eagle County landfill on a given year. It is important that strategies are adopted to address this sector for the region to move forward. (CD11) Point System for Builders Valley -wide Tons Diverted: 500 — 4,000 Percent Total Materials Diverted: .5% - 5% Implementation: Code / Ordinance Description: Encourage each municipality to adopt a point system for builders Valley - wide - like the current 'EcoBuild' program in the County. Under this strategy, in order for a contractor to get a building approved he /she must achieve a minimum 'score' on a point system of sustainable building practices. Builders can score points if they recycle more of the materials generated on -site, re -use deconstructed materials, etc. and each code /program can assign any weight they want to recycling points to encourage participation. Capital Improvements (CAP12) Drop -off improvements — Recycling Tons Diverted: 800 — 1,000 Percent Total Materials Diverted: .8 — 1 % Implementation: Capital improvement Description: Improve drop -offs located within the jurisdiction, including more signs, potentially fencing and staffing sites, adding compactors, stairs, lighting etc.. The Town of Eagle may act as a model for other municipalities. Costs for each site would depend upon the level of improvement. • (CAP13) Identify Short -term and Long -term Plans for Compost Facilities in County / Region (or partnerships) Tons Diverted: NA Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 19 Percent Total Materials Diverted: NA Implementation: Capital improvement Description: The 2009 waste characterization study found that 40% of the residential and 30% of the commercial materials going to the landfill are divertible organics. Identifying options for processing organics materials generated in Eagle County is an important component for moving the region closer to its diversion goals. The County and jurisdiction should continue to examine options for processing organics. This also includes the management of slash and wood waste, potentially at the landfill, or other options. 2.4: Impacts of High Impact/ Low Cost Strategies The recommended high impact / low cost strategies have the largest potential to increase diversion in the Eagle River Valley. With the exception of the two organics programs (and perhaps the one construction and demolition program) '$, all of the strategies could be implemented in the short, mid, or long term, depending on the situation in each jurisdiction and the county overall. Unlike the majority of the short term strategies which mainly use education and outreach to increase diversion, the high impact APlt High Impact strategies rely on mandates, bans and regulations to �pti °ns reach the goals. Thus, although they may divert a large portion of the targeted stream, they also Low High require political, business, and public support to be cost Cost enacted. All of the strategies also require some level of enforcement to be effective. opr;Q„5 Low Impact The impact estimates show that although these recommended strategies require more aggressive regulations they also have the potential to reach much higher rates of diversion at a significantly lower cost per ton. If all of the high impact strategies were implemented (with the exception of the material disposal bans) it is estimated that the Eagle Valley could divert between 25,000 and 35,000 additional tons, potentially reaching an Overall Diversion Rate of 40% to 50 %. Figure 2.6 displays the total impact of these strategies without the material disposal bans. Figure 2.6: Estimated Impact of Short Term Strategies (without Bans) If the material disposal bans were implemented, the estimated Overall Diversion Rate for Eagle County would be between 44% and 57 %. The impacts are included in figure 2.6A. Figure 2.6: Estimated Impact of Short Term Strategies (Including Material Disposal Bans) 18 Currently there is not adequate capacity to process organics cost effectively in the Valley. Some C &D can be processed using existing infrastructure but higher levels of C &D diversion may require additional processing capacity. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 70 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com % "New" Total Cost/ Strategy Tons Diversion Count 25,000- $100K - TOTAL 35,000 29 % -40% $165K If the material disposal bans were implemented, the estimated Overall Diversion Rate for Eagle County would be between 44% and 57 %. The impacts are included in figure 2.6A. Figure 2.6: Estimated Impact of Short Term Strategies (Including Material Disposal Bans) 18 Currently there is not adequate capacity to process organics cost effectively in the Valley. Some C &D can be processed using existing infrastructure but higher levels of C &D diversion may require additional processing capacity. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 70 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 20 Estimates of impacts for each of the individual strategies are included in figure 2.7. Figure 2.7: Impacts of High Impact Low Cost Strategies % "New" Total Cost/ Strategy Tons Diversion Count 30,200— County TOTAL 40,000 35%-46% $120K - $220K Estimates of impacts for each of the individual strategies are included in figure 2.7. Figure 2.7: Impacts of High Impact Low Cost Strategies 19 The combined county costs of G14A, B, and C are not significantly different than the costs of implementing only one material disposal ban. 20 Does not include the costs of the County building a composting facility Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com Total Generator County County Cost 1 ID Strategy Tons % Diversion Cost Cost/ Ton Ton Landfill Disposal Ban of 5,500— $20K - G14A Selected Materials (OCC) 6,000 6%-7% $40K $3 -$7 $0-$100 Landfill Disposal Ban of Selected Materials (Yard 8,000— $20K - G14B Waste) 8,500 9% $40K $2-$5 $60-$150 Landfill Disposal Ban of Selected Materials 4,500— $20K - G14C Containers 19 5,000 5% $40K $4-$9 so-$100 Residential Curbside 3,000— R15 Organics20 5,000 3%-5% $51K Minimal $60 - $100 $30K 1st $30K 1st Residential Pay -As- You -Throw 5,200 — year, $51K / year, $51K / R16 (with embedded recycling fees) 7,000 6%-8% year after year after $0-$10 Wide range Commercial Organics 2,500— $10K - ($25) to C17 Collection 5,000 3%-6% $20K $2-$8 $150 Wide range Embedded Recycling Fees 9,500— ($25) to C18 Commercial 10,500 10%-11% $51K - $25K $1 -$3 $200 TB Wide range Embedded Recycling Fees ($25) to MF19 (Multi - Family) 500-1,000 .5%-l% $51K - $25K $5-$50 $200A 1,500— $175- CD20A C & D Dum ster Service 2,500 2%-3% $51K - $30K $2-$20 $250 $30K 1st 3,000 to year, $10K $175- CD20B C & D Deposit 4,000 3%-4% additional N/A $250 19 The combined county costs of G14A, B, and C are not significantly different than the costs of implementing only one material disposal ban. 20 Does not include the costs of the County building a composting facility Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 21 2.5: Description of High Impact/ Low Cost Strategies The recommended high impact / low cost strategies are described briefly in this section. Governmental Strategies (G14A, G14B, G14C) Landfill Disposal Ban of Selected Materials Tons Diverted: 18,000 — 19,5000 (if all three were implemented) Percent Total Materials Diverted: 20% to 22% Implementation: County Ordinance or Landfill Policy Description: A ban on the disposal of selected materials21 at the landfill is a proven and effective strategy for increasing diversion. The ban is enforced by staff at the landfill through random inspections of incoming loads of materials. The ordinance sets a threshold (perhaps 5 -20% of incoming loads) and if the threshold is exceeded the hauler tipping the load is charged a penalty (for example $50.00 per ton). It is up to the hauler to decide if they want to contact the generator. The County / Jurisdictions would be partners in outreach and education about the ban. Without enforcement a ban is not successful, with enforcement, it can be highly successful. It is important to note that landfill bans, although potentially very effective, may not be a highly supported program by some generators or halers. Residential Strategies (R15) Curbside Organics Collection Tons Diverted: 4,000 — 5,000 Percent Total Materials Diverted: 4.1% - 5.2% Implementation: Hauler Contract or Ordinance Description: Similar to how all households currently have the costs of recycling embedded in their trash rates this strategy would require all haulers (either through an ordinance or contracting) to embed the costs of curbside collection of organics in residential trash fees. Residents are not required to participate but are required to pay for the service. This strategy would make a considerable impact on the estimated 40% off the residential waste stream that is organic material. Prior to implementation of this strategy a cost effective organics processor must be identified. An alternative (and less aggressive) option is to require all haulers to `offer' organics collection to residential accounts. The program would be totally voluntary and it would be up to each resident to decide whether or not they want to sign -up for service. Participation and diversion is lower and cost per ton is higher under this scenario. (R16) Pay -As- You -Throw (PAYT) /Variable Trash Rates Tons Diverted: 5,200 — 7,000 Percent Total Materials Diverted: 6% - 8% Implementation: Hauler Contract or Ordinance 21 A ban on the disposal of OCC, Yard Waste, and Recyclable Containers was modeled for this plan. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 70 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 22 Description: PAYT is the single most effective program a community can adopt to increase diversion and reduce the amount of MSW sent to the Iandfi1122. Under PAYT all residents have the costs of recycling embedded in their trash fees and are charged based not on how much recycling they set out but on how much trash they throw away. The less trash households dispose, the less they pay, the more they dispose, the more they pay. Rates are based on the number of bags / cans set out per week or on the size of the cart each household subscribes to. The program would be implemented through either an ordinance or a contract. (For more information in PAYT please see the appendix.) Commercial Strategies (C17) Organics Collection Tons Diverted: 2,500 — 5,000 Percent Total Materials Diverted: 3% - 6% Implementation: Ordinance, Education / Outreach Description: The County and / or jurisdictions adopt an ordinance requiring all haulers to `offer' organics collection to commercial accounts. In order to be effective the ordinance is coupled with technical assistance and outreach. The outreach targets high organics generators (grocery stores, resorts, restaurants, hotels) to inform them that organics collection is available and to help generators `right size' their trash service. In addition, for the program to be effective the costs of organics service must be the same or less than the costs of an equal level of trash service. Whether this is due to language in an ordinance or tip fees at the landfill / compost facility would depend on market conditions. (C18) Embed Costs of Recycling in Commercial Trash Rates Tons Diverted: 9,500 — 10,000 Percent Total Materials Diverted: 10% - 11 % Implementation: Ordinance Description: By embedding the costs of recycling in commercial trash fees, all commercial generators will be given the chance to divert recyclables and those that choose to do so may potentially see a lower monthly trash bi1123. This is an aggressive program that is most often implemented through a contracted hauler arrangement. However, in Eagle Valley this program would need to be adopted through an ordinance or licensing requirements. The ordinance would require all haulers servicing commercial accounts to include a minimum level of recycling service in the trash costs24 as a condition of operating in a jurisdiction. 22 Skumatz, Freeman. Pay -As- You -Throw in the United States. 2006 Update and Analysis. Submitted to US EPA 23 Commercial generators with the minimum level of trash service may not receive a price incentive to participate. Larger generators have the opportunity to divert more and reduce their level of trash service (lowered collection frequency or smaller sized containers) but the smallest generators are already on the lowest level of trash service and may not be able to reduce their trash costs through increased diversion. 24 The level of recycling service embedded in the trash rates varies in the communities that have implemented this program and can be set at any level in Eagle Valley. For example, some communities require that any business that request service they can have 'unlimited' recycling collection for no additional cost. More common is a limit on what should be included such as requiring haulers to provide recycling service up to 50% of trash, 100% of trash, or even 150% of trash (in some of the most aggressive west coast programs) as the limit under the embedded service payment. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 23 Multi- Family Strategies (MF19) Embed Costs of Recycling in Multi - Family Trash Rates Tons Diverted: 500 — 1,000 Percent Total Materials Diverted: .5% - 1 % Implementation: Ordinance Description: Same as the Commercial Trash Rates ordinance described above but deigned to address the Multi - Family sector. All haulers serving MF accounts must include at least a minimum level of recycling service in the trash bills. An alternative (and less aggressive) option is to address the property owners / management companies and requires that all owners of multi - family complexes with 8 or more units provide a recycling container for the residents. It is up to the property owner/ manager to contract with the hauler for service, complete a recycling plan (short one page form), and submit it to the jurisdiction. Exceptions could be made for space constraints, price constraints, or others. Construction and Demolition Strategies • (CD20A, CD2013) C&D Dumpster Service and Deposit Implementation: Ordinance Description: This strategy has two components, both of which would be implemented through county of city ordinance: C20A Tons Diverted: 1,500 — 2,500 Percent Total Materials Diverted: 1.6% - 2.5% Dumpster service: Requiring all new construction and significant remodels to contract for at least once a week collection of a recycling container that is at minimum half the size of the trash container(s) on -site. For example, if a builder contracts for 8 cubic yards of trash service they must also contract for weekly 4 cubic yards of recycling service. The recycling service would include cardboard, metals, and other designated recyclable materials. The ordinance must include a mechanism for enforcement such as notices of violations, fines, or potentially stop order of construction until the requirements were met. Under this program there is not mandate to use the recycling container, however, there is a built in economic incentive to do so for some generators as increased recycling may reduce the trash costs. Space for container constraints and other issues would be dealt with on an individual basis. C20B Tons Diverted: 3,000 — 4,000 Percent Total Materials Diverted: 3% - 4% Deposit Program: Requires all new construction or significant remodels to pay a deposit when applying for their building permit. The deposit is returned to the contractor prior to the approval of the Certificate of Occupancy only if the contractor meets required diversion rates. For example, the contractor must provide receipts showing that they diverted 40 %25 of the C &D materials generated on -site in order to get their deposit back. This is a very effective program that has been used in many west coast communities. 25 The diversion rate could beset at whatever level the county /jurisdiction and contractors feel is reasonable. Currently, there are not facilities conveniently located to divert all C &D materials but OCC, some metals, and conventional recyclables could be Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 70 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 24 Alternative Funding Implementing diversion strategies is not free. One alternative funding mechanism is recommended for consideration by Eagle County and jurisdictions in the Eagle River Valley. Solid Waste Surcharges on Residential and Commercial Generators Implementation: Ordinance Description: Currently user fees and landfill charges are used to pay for recycling services in Eagle valley. This strategy would raise revenue for the County or jurisdiction that is used for additional solid waste and diversion services / facilities. All generators in the County or Jurisdiction are charged an annual fee on their property taxes to help pay for solid waste and recycling services. This program does not divert tons but is an alternative funding mechanism. The fees vary for property type. easily diverted. Thus, the required diversion rate could start at 20% (presumably a rate that could be met with OCC and other currently divertible materials) and ratcheted up over time. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 70 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 25 2.7: Additional Mid and Long Term Strategies to Consider The potential mid and long term strategies are more aggressive than the short term strategies. Many of these strategies incorporate tools such as increased surcharges to raise revenues to pay for programs, mandates on generators and haulers, and economic incentives. In many cases, these are the programs that will divert a significant number of tons from the waste stream and ones that will need to be considered as the region strives to reach higher levels of waste diversion. A wide range of options are proposed in this plan. Once again, it is up to each jurisdiction to determine which programs are most apt. The programs are shown in figure 2.7. Figure 2.7: Additional Strategies (L =low, M= Medium, H =High) Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com Relative Relative Time Costs Costs Frame Type Strategy / ID Description City Generators Impacts This is an alternative funding mechanism. Disposal surcharge on MSW at the landfill with claw -back provision. The surcharge is charged on MSW brought the landfill and the 'claw back' provision requires that the funds collected through the surcharge can only be used on specified diversion related projects. Whether this is a Disposal surcharge compost facility, upgrades at the MRF, grants and dedicated to recycling / financial assistance to country generators, or other Mid Incentive diversion purposes is up to the county. L H M License haulers operating in County or Towns. Hauler license could include requirements to report tons, embed recycling services, provide waste audits to businesses, or others. Consider this option if voluntary efforts to gather hauler reports of tons disposed and diverted are Mid Regulation Hauler licensing unsuccessful. L L L Consider IGAs or other options to collect and consolidate materials for processing (recycling and / or organics) beyond Eagle Valley. This program may help regional Coordinated planning governments avoid 'doubling up' on infrastructure and throughout the region for processing and make the most cost effective and efficient Mid Policy diversion use of the regions resources. L -M L L -H L (but Capital "Fork it over" program - Eagle Valley purchases or supports the purchase of cost /ton improveme refrigerated trucks for refrigerated food trucks to gather edible food scraps and ratio is Mid nt reuse deliver to food pantry or other location. L L good) Work with a select number of restaurants to place a small scale in- vessel composting system (e.g. an Earth tub) nearby to the businesses. The businesses bring Capital compostables to the composter. This could be an improveme Shared Small In- Vessel education /PR type of program. This program could also Mid nt Composters be adapted to function at a resort or school setting. L -M L -M L -M Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 26 Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com Relative Relative Time Costs Costs Frame Type Strategy / ID Description City Generators Impacts Require compostable or Ban the use of non - compostable to -go container in recyclable take -out restaurants. (Could also be a future program for school Mid Regulation packaging lunch trays) L L L Capital YW Enhanced drop -off for residential and small improveme commercial generators. The drop -off would not be open to Mid nt YW Enhanced drop -off professional landscapers or other similar businesses. M L M Require use of local organics for Town /County transportation and parks departments, construction, EPP, Work with local govt.s to contracts & RFPs. his program does not divert tons establish a market for directly but it is important in building a market for Mid I Regulation composted organics processed com ostables. L L L Work with haulers and non - profits to establish a leaf Mid Policy Leaf collection in fall collection in the fall L M M Provide lower garbage rates for buildings qualified as "recycling" buildings, have effective recycling coordinators on site, or meet other criteria. The discount could apply to all buildings, or could be limited to those buildings limited in other savings because they are on the lowest container size. Both MF and commercial. The discount could be one time or continuous and are paid to the property management companies by the City / County (if funding is Two - tiered "recycling" available). The program is not self- funding and a funding Mid Incentive rates source would need to be identified. M L L -M Examine costs and benefits of converting the Eagle Consider converting MRF County MRF to SS (this strategy is the study only, not the Mid Facility to SS actual conversion) M L L Mid I Regulation Single use bag fee or ban Fee or ban on single use bags at certain retail outlets L L L Required haulers to implement certain strategies (additional education / reporting / PAYT / or others) if diversion goals aren't met by a set date. These goals may be the Eagle Valley goals or be more specific (e.g. a residential recycling rate or a commercial participation metric). Although not always popular, regulatory mechanisms may need to be incorporated in long term if non - regulatory tools (incentives, education, and assistance) are not increasing the diversion rate and helping the region reach its goals. This type of 'triggered' mandate has been used state wide in a few US states as Long Regulation Triggered' mandates well as in a number of counties. L -H L -H L -H Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 27 Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com Relative Relative Time Costs Costs Frame Type Strategy / ID Description City Generators Impacts City /Eagle Valley staff work with an interested hauler to identify and solicit sufficient "anchor" businesses for an organics collection route (examine opportunities for Public / private partnering for grants or other assistance). The program partnership to develop will target the largest generators (grocery, resorts, and commercial collection large restaurants). This program is dependent on an Long Policy routes economically feasible processing facility for food scraps. M M H Qualified businesses must recycle specified items. Mandatory recycling for Mandate can be by business types, certain materials certain qualified types(All Beverage Containers as one example), business Long Regulation businesses- size, waste generation, or other metric M M -H H Undertake a study to explore options for mixed solid waste processing facility to allow for limited source separation and increased processing. This type of processing, often called a'dirty MRF has been used to successfully reach high diversion rates in the commercial and multi - family sector elsewhere. In the highest performing models, the mixed waste processing facility Explore options for a relies on processing organics into composting or mixed waste recycling alternative energy (for example, anaerobic digestion) as Long Facility facility port of the strategy. M L L Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com M APPENDIX 1: Goals and Diversion Rates National Goals and Recycling Rates Goals: There is no national recycling goal /target. The US EPA does have a goal of 35% municipal solid waste recycling rate by 2008 (which was not met) and has adopted an action plan and guidelines for communities to reach the goal. The federal government has set forward some goals for "greening" the governmental operations (green purchasing, waste reduction, etc.). For the most part solid waste, unlike air or water which cross state lines and are regulated by the EPA and federal government, remains in the state in which it is generated and is left up to the individual states to manage and regulate. Recycling Rate: The national recycling rate in 2009 was 33.8 %, up slightly from the 2008 recycling rate of 33.4 %26. The per capita generation is 4.43 Ibs per person per day which includes commercial, multi - family, and residential but not industrial material S21. The figure below shows the growth in overall MSW recycling in the US since 1960 as reported by the US EPA. 40% 35% 30% ao 25% U 20% 0 15% 10% 5% 0% 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2007 2009 Legislation: There is no national legislation requiring recycling. The closest is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) which despite the title is directed almost exclusively to cover hazardous waste and superfund clean -ups. State Goals and Averages Goals: Overall, 42 states in the US have recycling or diversion goals (including states such as Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, West Virginia and many others that are not perceived to be "green" like Colorado). Colorado is one of the 8 states in the country without a goal. There was some discussion this year at the legislative level of measurement and potentially a goal but it did not move forward. Of the 42 states with a goal, 18 of them have goals that are 50% diversion or greater. 26 Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2009 Facts and Figures. US EPA Office of Solid Waste. December 2010 27 Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2009 Facts and Figures. US EPA Office of Solid Waste. December 2010 Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 29 Recycling Rates: Tracking down state recycling rates and then comparing them is a difficult challenge. Not all states measure or report materials generated and diverted and for those that do, what is considered recycling or diverted varies greatly between states. Some count WTE facilities as diversion, other consider industrial sludge as diverted, and other consider the fly ash from WTE as a divertible material States reporting the highest recycling rates are Minnesota, California, Oregon, and Washington. The CDPHE reports that Colorado recycles or diverts 19.8% of the MSW generated in the state but only 9.3% if scrap metal is excluded 28. Legislation: In the US seven states and the District of Columbia have mandatory source separation or mandatory recycling laws. A total of 23 states ban the disposal of yard waste in the landfill and a few states, like CT and WI, ban the disposal of recyclable materials in the landfill. There are currently 33 states in the US with producer responsibility laws covering such materials as electronics and paint. Local Goals and Averages SERA examined our in -house data base of 400 community goals in 2010. The average, median, and mode goal was 50% diversion. The dates varied from already passed (2000, 2005, and 2010) to 2020. SERA also examined diversion goals in Colorado, mountain areas, and small or resort communities to provide Eagle Valley with an idea of what is happening in other communities. Colorado Boulder (City of)- Zero Waste goal (90% diversion or better) (currently at 54% residential) Boulder (County) - Zero Waste goal (90% diversion or better) (currently at 35 %) Denver- Reduce landfill waste by 30% from baseline (plans to move to 50 %) Fort Collins- Divert 50% by 2010 (currently - 40 %) Golden- Reduce landfill waste by 30% from baseline (currently at 28 -32 %) Longmont- Zero Waste goal (90% diversion or better) (currently 38 %) Mountain Village- Zero Waste goal (90% diversion or better) Superior- 50% diversion goal (currently at 22 -23 %) Vail- Reduce waste going to the landfill by 5% (2010) and 10% (2020) Mountain 1 Resort Areas Aspen, CO- Increase recycling rate by 20% over 2006 baseline by 2009 (currently around 18 %) Mountain Village- Zero Waste goal (90% diversion or better) Park City, UT- "Increase Park City's community -wide recycling rates" Rutland Solid Waste District, VT (Killington)- Follow state goal of 50% diversion (currently 25 -30 %) Teton County, WY (Jackson)- 32% by 2011 (surpassed the goal (34% currently), planning on raising it) Telluride, CO- Zero waste initiative /goal "as quickly as possible" Truckee, CA- 80% landfill diversion goal (At 71 % but using CIWMB measurement ? ?) Vail- Reduce waste going to the landfill by 5% (2010) and 10% (2020) Whistler, BC- Zero Waste Goal and a per capita waste reduction goal to .4 tonnes /person /year (currently around 35% diversion) Other Communities 28 Colorado Solid Waste and Materials Management Program 2010 Report to the Colorado General Assembly. CDPHE Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 30 Beulah, MI (rural, resort area in great lakes region)- 25% goal, currently at 18 -20% Cheyenne, WY- 50% goal (currently at 22 %) Flagstaff, AZ- 50% goal, currently at 35% Gillette, WY- 50% goal, currently at 20% Hilo, HI- 50% by 2008 (currently at 30% diversion) Kauai County, HI- 50% diversion goal (25% current diversion rate) Nantucket, MA- Zero waste diversion goal (Currently at 90% diversion, highest in the nation) Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 31 APPENDIX 2: Detailed Descriptions of Short Term Strategies While many of the short term programs do not divert a significant number of tons from the waste stream they are designed to lay the foundation for future programs and to work within the existing infrastructure. Unlike some of the mid and long term strategies, the short term strategies rely primarily on education, incentives, and voluntary participation. The few regulatory or policy programs in the short term list are relatively easy to implement compared to the mid or long term strategy recommendations. Descriptions of the programs by sector are included below. Governmental Strategies Set New Diversion Goal Sector: All Implementation: Resolution Target materials: All Setting a new diversion goal in and of itself will not lead to additional diversion. Setting a goal will give the valley, its residents, and its businesses something to aim for and will also provide a justification for the implementation of some of the other programs. If the communities in the Valley adopt the Plan goals it will provide a benchmarking mechanism, a motivation for businesses and residents, and act as a long -term planning tool. It is integral that the region measure its recycling and diversion rates at least annually to understand progress toward the diversion goal(s). Space for Recycling Code / Ordinance Sector: Commercial and Multi - family Implementation: Ordinance Target materials: Recycling Inadequate space for recycling and trash containers is a barrier for multi - family and commercial generators in Eagle Valley. This program recommends that jurisdictions in the region adopt building codes that direct any new construction and significant remodels to include equal access and space for both recycling and trash containers. The ordinance is enforced through the codes department and site plans are not given approval unless they meet the guideline requirements. Although the program will not address existing space constraints it will help the region avoid this issue moving forward. This is an important strategy and is not an uncommon code requirement around the country. It has proven to be effective in other jurisdictions. Examples of existing codes can be seen in Appendix 3. Residential Strategies Require that Haulers Embed the Cost of Recycling in Residential Trash Fees29 Sector: Residential Implementation: Code / Ordinance Adopted by City /Town Target Materials: Recycling 29 Examples of ordinances can be found in the appendix Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 70 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 32 Embedding the cost of recycling in residential rash rates has proven to be a successful recycling model around the US. However, making sure that residents are aware of the program and setting a level playing field (one in which all haulers participate and there are no free riders) is integral in making the program work. Both of the haulers servicing residential accounts in Eagle Valley report that they currently embed the costs of recycling in all single - family residential accounts and that they have been doing so voluntarily for the past several years. By passing an ordinance and codifying what is already happening, no changes will be required by the haulers or residents but the ordinance will help increase awareness among residents about the program and ensure that any other haulers entering the market will also embed recycling in their costs. Cities / Towns passing this ordinance may want to include the following ordinance requirements: • A list of materials that must be collected • At least every- other -week collection • Bi- annual education by the hauler to customers on the availability of the service • The cost of at least one recycling container is included in the rates as well (to remove this barrier) • A mechanism to allow the jurisdiction to ensure that haulers are following the ordinance such as an annual audit Single- family Outreach Focusing on 'Free' Recycling Sector: Residential Implementation: Education / outreach program Target Materials: Recycling The short -term single - family outreach and education program strategy focuses on existing services and options, primarily the fact that all residents are already paying for recycling service and might not be aware of this. The outreach should also inform residents about other `free' or low cost options including drop -offs, special events, and HHW diversion. County / city staff should use broad based (newspaper, radio, local TV) as well as social marketing based education to inform residents that they can get'free' recycling if they contact their haulers, work to overcome specific barriers, and motivate residents to act. Social Marketing Outreach Program: Outreach and education is an important aspect of nearly all successful diversion programs. Not all outreach and education campaigns are the same. This strategy recommends undertake a comprehensive outreach and education using social marketing tools. Social marketing, unlike a conventional outreach and education campaign, targets specific actors, market segments, barriers to participation, and actions30. There is still a place for conventional broad outreach (postcards, bill inserts, posters, etc.) in Eagle Valley but social marketing is an effective way for the region to reach the next level of diversion. Social marketing utilizes personalized visits, door -to -door outreach, vivid messages, and focused on a specific targeted audience. The commercial tools include the use of business recognition, commitments to undertake certain recycling and diversion actions, and prompts 30 Skumatz, Freeman, 2011. Getting the Most for Colorado's Recycling Program's and Infrastructure: Social Marketing Outreach and Education Toolkit- A Guidebook for Communities. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 33 to business owners and property managers. Residential (Single family and multi - family) tools include commitments, door -to -door outreach, neighborhood contests, prompts, and others. In some areas of the country the county or solid waste district provides monetary assistance to Cities / Communities to conduct the assistance as long as the Cities / Communities meet basic requirements. Program design in the region is consistent (although the 'message' is crafted to meet individual barriers) to allow for some shared marketing materials. This program is more expensive than traditional outreach yet more effective in terms of both the cost per ton diverted as well as the behavior retention31 Commercial and Institutional Strategies Bundled Business Outreach and Assistance Sector: Commercial Target materials: Recycling Implementation: Education / outreach program The business outreach program consists of three main elements 1) Business Technical Assistance 2) Cooperative Service Coordination 3) Small Starter Grants / Rebates. • Business Technical Assistance: Business technical assistance includes commercial waste audits, staff training, assistance in designing a diversion program, and generator education. The assistance can be used by businesses (and schools) to not only understand what is being disposed of in the waste stream, but also to find ways to reduce waste and potentially save money on monthly trash bills. This program includes waste audits that will assist generators in identifying the amount of waste that is discarded, understanding the actual costs of trash service, uncovering the potential for recycling, organics diversion, and waste reduction, learn more about hauling service options, and estimate the avoided disposal costs that could be realized through waste diversion. In communities with contracted haulers the hauler may be required to include `free' waste audits in their bid. In an open subscription system (like Eagle Valley) the audits would be conducted by City /County staff or contractors and paid for through grants or solid waste and environmental service budgets. Offer Starter Grants to Businesses: The County or Region would provide small grants ($500 to $2,500) to commercial entities, including property management companies and multi - family structures interested in signing up for recycling services. The grants can be used to purchase bins and signs, provide technical assistance or training in setting up a program and contacting a hauler. The grants could also be used as a way to reduce the costs of service for a limited amount of time until the program is established. This program has been used successfully around the US as a way to encourage businesses to start recycling service and as a way to overcome initial start -up cost barriers. However, this is not a self- sustaining program and is limited by the availability of funding. It can only assist a finite number of establishments 31 Skumatz, Freeman, 2011. Getting the Most for Colorado's Recycling Program's and Infrastructure: Social Marketing Outreach and Education Toolkit- A Guidebook for Communities. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). "The Broadlands Project; Measuring the Cost Effectiveness and Impacts of Social Marketing" Skumatz, Freeman. Resource Recycling, October 2010. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 34 Support Commercial Recycling Cooperatives: Cooperative recycling programs can be set up by type of business, businesses that generate the same type of material, or businesses in a particular geographic location. The cooperative program can be administered by a non - profit, a city, a county, and in some cases by the chamber of commerce. The co -op determines if the business meets the credit requirement from the hauler, and provides technical information and site evaluation, as well as helping the business get competitive prices through group purchasing power. The co -op helps pre- arrange collection by a shared hauler with reduced costs to generators and increased volume of materials per stop for the hauler. In some examples recycling is single stream with multiple materials collected. In other cases, the containers are set up for only one material, such as OCC or office paper, although they can target any material. Pick -up of material can be from each participating business or there can be a central drop -off location, which is best used for multiple businesses in close geographic locations. Drop off locations also work well for businesses that may not have room to store recyclables. Typically the best price is achieved when pickups are consolidated. Costs can be paid by County or shared among businesses. In one example, the city will pay for the cost of pickup provided a certain number of near -by businesses agree to work together to establish a recycling program. Price structures may include hauler time plus materials, pickup and bin rental fees, or hauler incentives where prices are reduced after so many businesses sign on. Schools Programs Sector: Institutional Target materials: All Implementation: Education / outreach program School diversion and education programs are effective in both diverting materials from the landfill as well as increasing the knowledge about recycling and diversion activities for the region. Children play a large role in influencing parental behaviors and schools programs have been used in many jurisdictions as a way to build support for diversion at home as well as in the school. This program should include some combination of the following efforts: • Education on recycling in general in the form of an assembly or classroom activities. • Assistance for school staff in setting up a recycling program in classrooms and the cafeterias • The potential for start -up grants for bins and signage • Waste audits • Contests between schools to reach diversion goals Multi- Family MF Outreach and Education Program focused on Property Managers Addressing the multi - family sector is a challenging yet necessary element for Eagle Valley to address in order to reach higher levels of diversion. This program is the first step in pursuit of that goal. The program includes information and assistance to multi - family property management companies in setting up recycling programs, contracting for service, and identifying barriers to participation. By working with the property managers and those responsible for paying trash and recycling costs the region can identify the barriers that need to be overcome in the sector and assist those interested in recycling contract for service. This Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 35 program should be combined with the Technical Assistance and Starter Grants strategies as well as other Eagle Valley sustainability efforts (energy, water). Multi - Family Pilot Program Sector: Multi - family Target materials: Recycling Detailed interviews with high performing counties and regional districts in the US revealed that one of the main roles the regional cooperative can play in assisting communities in the region adopt new programs is by running pilot and demonstration projects. A multi - family pilot study for recycling coupled with technology transfer to jurisdictions in the region is recommended. This program alone will not get a large number of tons as it will only impact a few multi - family complexes but it will assist Eagle Valley in developing future multi - family programs. The pilot program will assist other properties I n identifying the costs of recycling and the potential for associated trash service sot savings, the potential for diversion, the barriers to participation, techniques for encouraging residents to participate, and other useful implementation. The results of the pilot will be helpful to the region in implementing some of the mid and long term recommendations of this plan. Construction and Demolition Point System for Builders Sector: Construction and Demolition Target materials: Construction and Demolition Encourage each municipality to adopt a point system for builders Valley -wide - like the current 'EcoBuild' program in Eagle County, the GreenPoints program in Boulder, and the national LEED program. Under this strategy, in order for a contractor to get a building approved he /she must achieve a minimum 'score' on a point system of sustainable building practices. Builders can score points if they recycle more of the materials generated on -site, re -use deconstructed materials, etc. and each code /program can assign any weight they want to recycling points to encourage participation. Capital Improvements Drop -off improvements - Recycling Sector: All Implementation: Capital improvement Target materials: Recycling The current drop -off facilities in the region tend to be unmanned, lack compactors, have limited signage, and often deal with issues including illegal dumping, litter, and contamination. Despite the issues, the drop -off facilities are popular with residents (both single family and multi - family), visitors, and small business generators. It is recommended that the County / jurisdictions consider drop -off facility improvements including the addition of compactors, fenced areas, set hours and staff (where possible), stairs for easier access, and increased signage. Funding sources must be identified but may include state and national grants, non - profits, or potentially partnerships with private businesses (advertisements, sponsorships, others). The drop -of Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 36 facilities will continue to play an integral role in Eagle Valley diversion for a number of years in to the future. Identify Short Term and Long Term Plans for Compost Facilities in County (or partnerships) Sector. All Implementation: Capital improvement Target materials: Organics Diverting organics from the landfill can be a cost effective way to reach diversion goals. There is currently a lack of composting facilities in the region. It is recommended that the jurisdictions in the valley continue to investigate options including: • private / public partnerships; • public owned and operated facilities; • private facilities; • consolidation and transportation; • and biomass or other alternative energy options. This investigation is part of the long term plan to improve processing options for the organics waste stream Slash and clean lumber are large volume materials in the region. This program would encourage the county landfill and private facilities to accept these materials as recyclables and either chip them for landscaping or consolidate them for possible re -use. The tons collected in the area would be limited to the currently available processing. The program would be voluntary and would include outreach to generators and assistance to facilities in determining options for diversion. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027 3031494 -1178 www.serainc.com 37 APPENDIX 3: Composting Research SERA and Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability conducted a series of interviews with compost operators in Colorado and Wyoming in order to provide data and information to the Eagle County Landfill. SERA also spoke with CDPHE staff and various private industry representatives and experts familiar with composting operations in Colorado and the region. Background: Section 14 of the State Solid Waste Regulations sets forward compost site classifications based on the type of feedstock, the volume of feedstock, the size of the facility and the facility's operation type. The state recently conducted a public process to update the composting regulations but the updated regulations are not yet available. The current regulations use three feedstock "types" in their classifications: Type 1: Agricultural crop residues, manure, untreated wood wastes, yard waste, and paper • Type 11: Animal material, animal mortalities and source separated food waste • Type 111: Biosolids, solid waste, processed solid waste and sludge The feedstock "types" are used to delineate the permitting classifications: • Class 1: The most highly regulated classification requiring the most site planning, accepts feedstock Types I, II, and III • Class 11: Accepts Type I and II • Class 111: Accepts Type I only, limited in volume but less regulation • Class IV. Accepts Type I only and food waste generated n site with less volume and regulations than Class III • Class V. For agricultural composters Figure 1 displays some of the permitted composting facilities in Colorado as reported by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (Note: The map does not include the South Canyon Landfill composting operation in Glenwood Springs, the `Grub Dump' in Eagle, and the newly opened facilities in West Rifle and at the Denver Arapahoe Disposal Site (DADS). There is also expected to be at least one other facility opening in the Denver metro area this year (an already permitted facility). Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc. (SERA) DRAFT Eagle Valley 70 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive Superior, CO 80027 (303)494 -1178 W Figure 1: Map of Permitted Compost Facilities (Source: CDPHE) AITIUN CTY SOLID WASTE CENTER' 6055 COMPOST- ... MESA COUNTY LANDFILL t ,- .. DONISGARDENSHOP .S ... '-ROCKET COMPOST. INC. -- - - - - -- y �k 1 A� MID4YAY LANDFILL,( n. ., _ RC+CKY TIP RESIU R G ES. I NC. 'CU INDUSTRIES COMPOSTING .. ., V COLORADO NATURAL COMPOST ar �•�'i COMPOST TECHNOLOGIES. LLC1 >r �.. ; V - Lrve.'. Results: ti _ . ".Lv . GAIA.INSTITUTE COMPOSTING PROJECT (Pilot) Legend nsFl The interviewees reported that a compost facility co- located at the Eagle County landfill could make sense because of several advantages including 1) the tip fees for MSW, although lower in Eagle County than in surrounding counties, are competitive with the costs of processing organics and may provide an economic incentive for a program 2) the existing availability of space for a facility at the landfill 3) a lined site at the landfill 4) the compost facility would extend the life of the landfill 5) the landfill could use compost on -site if necessary. Some of these same factors, along with issues related to permitting, may make it more difficult for a private facility to open and successfully operate a facility in the area. Other notes and results from the interviews include: Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc. (SERA) DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive Superior, CO 80027 (303)494 -1178 . COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY (Pelot) EATONCOMPOSTINGI F.It. l' HIGHVYAY66 COMPOSTING ti ..5 `; - <:. RATTLER RIDGE COMPOSTING TEAGUE ENTERPRISES; P ERMAGR EE N PRODUCT COMPANY r .c. ACECOMPO$TING a !y O.K. FARMS COMPOS7ING FACIL17Y CAGALOGOCOI1P[!;i F :: L w WtF`SIrtCNUR•F iAI ::01f11 ,it ;'!Ilr - "EIt STRQNIOCOMPGSTING,. LLC AITIUN CTY SOLID WASTE CENTER' 6055 COMPOST- ... MESA COUNTY LANDFILL t ,- .. DONISGARDENSHOP .S ... '-ROCKET COMPOST. INC. -- - - - - -- y �k 1 A� MID4YAY LANDFILL,( n. ., _ RC+CKY TIP RESIU R G ES. I NC. 'CU INDUSTRIES COMPOSTING .. ., V COLORADO NATURAL COMPOST ar �•�'i COMPOST TECHNOLOGIES. LLC1 >r �.. ; V - Lrve.'. Results: ti _ . ".Lv . GAIA.INSTITUTE COMPOSTING PROJECT (Pilot) Legend nsFl The interviewees reported that a compost facility co- located at the Eagle County landfill could make sense because of several advantages including 1) the tip fees for MSW, although lower in Eagle County than in surrounding counties, are competitive with the costs of processing organics and may provide an economic incentive for a program 2) the existing availability of space for a facility at the landfill 3) a lined site at the landfill 4) the compost facility would extend the life of the landfill 5) the landfill could use compost on -site if necessary. Some of these same factors, along with issues related to permitting, may make it more difficult for a private facility to open and successfully operate a facility in the area. Other notes and results from the interviews include: Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc. (SERA) DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive Superior, CO 80027 (303)494 -1178 39 • The Eagle County facility should consider applying for a Class 1 permit which although being the most regulated classification allows for the greatest flexibility in allowable feedstocks31 . • Organics gate fees nationally are in the $40-$50/ton 33 range and are in the $30 -$70 /ton range for the facilities interviewed. • The price of compost as an end - product ranges from $24 /cubic yard to $55 /cubic yard 34 • Compaction rates may range from 50 to 70% depending on moisture content and material type • Selling or even giving away the end product is a challenge at every facility interviewed and the issue has been compounded by the slowdown in new construction (one of the large potential markets). Working with the County /region to establish procurement requirements for public projects that include certified compost may help create a market • All the end markets should be located within a 50 mile radius of the facility • Private industry is almost exclusively leading the growth of facilities in the Front Range while a mix of county and private industry are operating in the mountains • Driving incoming tons /feedstocks though ordinances, mandates, or other programs can help to overcome cost barriers36 • Interviewees recommended that the gate fee for incoming materials should be set to cover the total cost of processing without counting on any revenue from the sale of composted materialS36 • The cost to process 4,000 tons of materials generated in Eagle Valley (and consolidated at the landfill) at the Summit County Landfill (including shipping and gate fees) is in the range of $185K- $225K per year37. • The initial capital cost for a full -scale Class I facility may be in the range of $1 M to $1.5M38 • A facility requires between 1.5 and 2 FTEs to operate • Permit review with the CDPHE is billed at $150 per hour for a maximum amount of $35K 3940 • A consultant for site set -up, permitting, and on -going operational assistance may be required at additional cost The results of the facility interviews can be seen in Figure 2 on the following page 32 One interview reported that they thought the Eagle County Landfill had already received its Certificate of Designation, which if true could make the permitting process much easier. 33 Freeman, Skumatz. 2010. Best Management Practices in Food Scraps Composting. Published by US EPA Region 5. 34 Using the APWA conversion factor of 1,400lbs /cubic yard for finished compost the price for a tons of outgoing material ranges from $34 -$77 /ton. 35 This is what is helping the growth of programs in the Front Range where the compost gate fees can be more than $30 more per ton than MSW. 36 Teton County /Jackson recommends never giving away compost for free because it will undercut any future sales of the commodity and will make it hard to sell it. 37 The cost to transport organic materials from the Eagle Valley Landfill to Summit County or Pitkin County is estimated to be in the range of $15 -$25 /ton or about $300 - $500 / load (assuming a full load would be about 20 tons). 38 This includes the cost for a clay liner which may not be needed at the Eagle County Landfill if one already exists. 39 Several interviewees reported that being charged the maximum or near the maximum amount allowable is not uncommon 40 The CDPHE states that the permitting process should total 90 -120 days but interviewees report it could take up to 6 months to 1 year. Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc. (SERA) DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive Superior, CO 80027 (303)494 -1178 e N a N L d rte+ t4 LL N O Q O U O N 3 N LL N d L C �6 Qom) O W W C.0 00 LL v rn 7t, c m cn ti N O U O O ao Qo U i o Cl) 0- U) U N C LU 2 O �w :3 N U)� O N N i Cf) -2-0 U o L N M N d 1) C:) N 0 00 ~ o � m U C m0 O � (Yj O p U C C � Q LO 00 ~ N Q O O -0.� .(3) i y C m cn V O — O — (6 0 N Cf) (6 UU -2 . ' O HO 00 m N U C cf)- W � U U 'C O LO U Q L 0 C fn U (6 (6 Cl) 2) O O) c) M N +-' 0 Q fl- O U � � O — :3 -0 (6 0 C O ( _ N i 0 O _0 O U 2 U� O U 6 N - O .N O Cl) 0 ` N >+ U fC U 75 2_ _0 N LO Q) O N C -0 � M N -g Q N UU 'U I� c LO _ 6 Q Q 2 2 2� -� O a) _ M LL co C7 00 U N U) .� i) 2 'C O (A Ln ONO z 00 0 O M a) c i O � 2 -a) C 0) a) (6 V N O C M= p 1 C (O6 N^ 0, C/) Y Ln 0) Q) fl' z (6 Q O O (6 � N_0 C N N m 0 Q Q = 'C ao O N O O U M co 0 E O in - O -a C, O _ O 2 Q) N O O N a) i 0 N U N m .� N O c(� 6 O V O U) 00 O Q Q O (6 J 2C� U 0 U �ti tiLL U (6 t O O- C O O O 0 � QO O 0 � _ 2 � � O O O O 6 H ✓ (n U 11i I- U n 2 � LL LL — N O O LL v> EA EA EA EA o �� Z -0 ?j m -0 _ N c) O� 0 � � 0 (6 O 0 T ao (6 O U fn C) '.O (6 0 0 0 0 U (6 O (h N N m C (6 ✓ Q 0 c) ¢ Cl) O O 0 --� T O p U U LL 2 N 2 U_ � N 0 O � Lo M p m � , O Cl) C (5 E �' O N 2 (6 U — N E .be � (6 O ) O U OO L � Cl) i U O � 11") 11") O � j C fn _ � LO cv o - (13 00 � - o -0 =_ � O LL — CY) ) O -0 a O U c c — 0 Cl) O M N o O c C o O J m O Q c �00 00 i) '— � �� O 0 O 0 UU 2U rn O M — o0 N O oN m O —v') OE Cl) V) U LLO Q) � z �6 z a) z =� Lo o � — C �6 Qom) O W W C.0 00 LL v rn 7t, c m cn ti N O U O O ao Qo U i o Cl) 0- U) U N C LU 2 O �w :3 N U)� r-I IZT c _m L 0 allr- W W V � 0 V C C m N a) r— (B (V O U O O ap QO U "o cu U a) E > C O 0 W 2 IN O ca _0 E W C (V c 2 1E c) U E C U E O E O --c° N 0 - O O O ° U ° L N J 7 O O N N N O U B -O m C O O 0 00 ?"C — H U 'O c m O O N(D U _O — a) cN6 C cn H O O a) c6 -o N cn cB C -p H >i (B -O p c6 cn C a) 0 p (B U O- c U 00 � -lu O CL -p O N Y -O C O (B C> N 0> LL .- C cu ) a0) cn O ) U cu 6 — � -0 cu U N L � f C:) -2 0 O (5 N 'O D a) � E cn c � O O- o m C-0 U U L E L OO ° -0 O °>+ O O c6 U N — 0 —c6 N -2 ff m X O U O- 7 U o o U- co N CO � U c (6 U N6 Q U ° CD ° C _0 cu lu O-L N C 1 .. > N cn E U c6 Y c6 a) _ ✓ i C L c O 0 a) Y 2) U C CO N 00 0 ( p U O0 o o m aa)) o o> o> p moo c a : 3 o O c "ai } ao 0 0 ca o i E cu 2E cu E ca O U L) _ m 00 a) O ON O N a) 0 ° O° E U cn c .� ca O CU cu-- 0 C O N N 0 O= -6 (D '� a) N N O -O 6) > O U> a) N a) " N C p O m a) c6 a): N O O C C�L C C 00 00 O = U -6 a0c) > c°n .� L cu O Q O .0 ) p O O (C�6 -� U ~ (6 O O O E C c6 cn (V U 0 C �' U N U — >+ p -p a) Cl) a) C � 76 O C..) - U �_ : C O c6 a) O > U a) O N (�6 U .-. cB LL 0 .c-6 _cn C) C O Q C U) a) c j O C a) O C (B cu 0 N Q p N C C CD "_' O O 0 0 cn O O cn .O Y a) �' cB N d U (V U N N O O c0 c6 >i Cl) D U cu O cn C >i Q 2� 5) N c6 ` C 0 O O O x U co m E At E c QU o 0 cn co coo m m m O O cam. O •... m N m O - G GZ3 O O -� O •O Vi c _m L 0 allr- W W V � 0 V C C m N a) r— (B (V O U O O ap QO U "o cu U a) E > C O 0 W 2 IN O ca _0 E W C (V N IZT Q�J O Q�J QJ W W C.0 00 w v rn 7t, c m a`/'i ti (V O U O O pp Q O U O � Q N � U) U N O p W 2 I� O W (V CO �� ,� � N N N (6 � �� 0 -- _ ^ O 0 — O0 0-0 � Q N � N N M c O 0 0- 0 'Q N O ) U C 0 0 Q .O 0 =� m E d .a O 0 0 0 O i U m U _ O fn -0-) O Y c p i >+ O Q C -C/) D N O O O p— OU O N N 2l O -0 0 N (06 .� N N> m Y m 00 .0 Q in �, O N fn O U N LA a) LL 0 Z5 — N p O C "(06 6 0 C c i N U N (U6 N � � E C OOU 0 '� O :: O0 in N U O U) .Q 0 CL U -00� i 0) m cu O O 0 0 0 C +-' C i Cl) C Oi N 2 .c N .i — 2 a) O y O T o Q m N O N N m p U S OU OU 0 0 0 2 Cl/D)- -O C C/) 0 0 O N O (6 0 C/) N 0 0Y 0 N O .� . i > O a C U. i O N U O � (6 O N a) -0 0 O 0 C N Q O N O 0 N U = Cl) O N -0 - 4�- � C/) 0 -0 N O U 0-0 in ca o c p -C o c) m � o O o o o o ° °a m ai -0 0 0 0 n M o v 0 a) CU cn O 0 �L � c � .. 0� C/) O C '� U o 0 > U .0 O �O M 0 fl-� U (6 O N N — O � U N o (6 C Q- 6 _0 O -0- N O O N (n O Y (6 (6 N U -0 c) (6 O O c) c) > -0 C U) 0U N O C (6 N OU ' c) N d ¢ m C:) U vii !D 0 o > Q _0 cv O U Cl) U) (6 c E C/) -0 U O V) UU J f� U C O C t p O p � Ln Q Q C .Y .�6 a -C J N M- E �., U W m 0 C_ O Q�J O Q�J QJ W W C.0 00 w v rn 7t, c m a`/'i ti (V O U O O pp Q O U O � Q N � U) U N O p W 2 I� O W (V CO m IZT C �6 Qom) O W W w v rn 7t, c m a`ni ti N O U O O pp C/) O U 0 N U) U N > C O -0 W 2 I� O w N U) r-- Cl) O Q U CD � N N — 0 >N , O N D D U O .�� 0 cu Cf) N i >, (6 N O �- Q 6�> >+ � N U to N N >+ C C .�? O -0 (6 O U O O (6 � " > (6 (6 m� co F C a c U�� Q. N >+ OI Cl) Cl) Cl) LO � `� A C- N O N N 0 (6 M O� m O LL _0 (��6 .`r- Q _0 d O U Q m U � O �n O w N O D U N -M Q Q 0 � 0 O� N 0 .� i Q E O N LL .0 = U C U — U U N m .L m C O X N N O CO C U 0 i N CO 0 N O N N O (6 N-0 Oi 6 O O N O N 0 U O J S V cnn O U i O C m O >+O O D O 0 C � U OO N N p 0 O C:) '� (n N N U a) p�� d O (6 N N (6 U O U) J Q a) N EA N C (6 m N p C N Cl) N >O cl V > Cl) U 0 U •-° O fn O D U N O 6 O ✓ m CO Q V U a) O a) cn w : C 0 0 p LC) a) C p U N ?� z O Z M Q (6 Y O 0 5 O O � �� p O O__ 0 i U N O cu O -0 _ O N EA M in X en N O c6 > a0 O T O O� N O �� O 0- O O O U — O (6 >i U O D M C Y cn �N O � .+ Ya O O N � 11i Lo U O U C/) N/ wC� v) > O �� U� v-) 0-0 0 C N N O 0 O Q U o ►� _0 E o °O O (6 Z J o' O V) U e» a W Ln :fl Ln � W O O Ln O O 0 O O O = z Ln V .�+ O 'O E •`� E C .E --:, U J N Q W G W Z W c Ov O ` cep C �6 Qom) O W W w v rn 7t, c m a`ni ti N O U O O pp C/) O U 0 N U) U N > C O -0 W 2 I� O w N U) r-- m \ \ \ ƒ � \ \ Q J\ Lu/ \\ \/ \o \ \ ƒ7 / .ƒ E \\ 0 \LU \\ 0 k\ \\ $ 2 5 4; k ƒ \ E2 \2 m ¢ _ &§ �] ° \/ $ 0 )_ k \\ \ \\ ®0 \ 2 -0 \ :3 & \ \ » / G / Ro Q /±.0 /± ,I- x \2+ CD \/ \�2 @ o + f 2 = LO CD -0 s o CD � @ 6 2 ^ cn + ® \ co \/ k/ \� \� 0 \ \ e :3 u c£& /= GE &§ / \/ m 0 � \ ƒ22 5 / \ 0 22 / / 4 f ° \r) \ 2 ® \ \$ \ � \ \ o-* / /� _ », 2 0 y \\ @7 0 �_ a/ • 0 C // 4 \e 2 / § % 6 E \ \\§/ M- c, Ln \ 2 §aacn « (zr) \ 3 n % 7§° 8 \ \ n c \ \ \ ƒ � \ \ Q J\ Lu/ \\ \/ \o \ \ ƒ7 / .ƒ E \\ 0 \LU \\ 45 APPENDIX 4: Examples of Space for Recycling Ordinances City of Sacramento, CA "Recycling and Trash Enclosures with receptacles of sufficient volume and number to meet the requirements ... shall be required for the following types of new developments: • Multiple Family Residential with 5 or more units; • Any commercial, office, public /quasi - public project where garbage receptacle(s) are being used and the receptacle(s) are not stored wholly within the building; • Any industrial project where garbage receptacle(s) are being used and the garbage receptacle(s) are not screened by landscaping, fencing or a structure. • "Recycling and trash receptacles of sufficient volume and number to meet the requirements in ... shall be required for every other new commercial, office, industrial, or public /quasi - public development." City of Sunnyvale, CA "All multi - family uses of four or more units, and all commercial and industrial uses ... approved after the effective date of this section, shall provide adequate and accessible enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials, trash and refuse in proper containers." City of Santa Rosa, CA "In new development, recycling collection areas shall be placed alongside waste collection areas so as to provide convenience for users and promote recycling." Boulder: Trash and Recycling Area Construction Requirements: Ordinance 7331 (2004) * Maintenance and Service: Trash storage and recycling area shall include adequate space for the maintenance and servicing of containers for recyclable materials that are provided by local disposal and recycling companies. * Adequate Space for Trash and Recyclables: The amount of space provided for the collection and storage of recyclable materials shall be at least as large as the amount of space provided for the collection and storage of trash materials. * Convenience and Accessibility: The recycling area shall be must be at least as accessible and convenient for tenants and collection vehicles as the trash collection and storage area. Source: Boulder Revised Code 9- 3.3 -25 Broomfield Ordinance: 17 -34 -060 Refuse and recycling areas. (A) All new and significantly remodeled structures where refuse is generated by the use of the structure shall provide adequate space for the collection Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc. (SERA) DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive Superior, CO 80027 (303)494 -1178 M and storage of refuse and recyclable materials. (B) Significantly remodeled, for purposes of this section, means structures where the value of additions or renovations is fifty percent or more of the fair market value of the structure prior to the additions or renovations. The value of the additions shall be as determined by the chief building official or the chief building official's authorized representative. The fair market value of the structure shall be the current actual value of the structure as determined by the county assessor. A party who disagrees with the decision of the chief building official or his or her authorized representative may appeal the decision to the building and construction review board. (C) The following structures are exempt from the provisions of subsection (A) above: single- family dwellings; and multi - family dwellings where there are no central or communal refuse or recycling collection or storage facilities or where refuse and recyclable materials are stored and collected on an individual unit basis. (D) The amount of space provided for the collection and storage of recyclable materials must be at least as large as the amount of space provided for the collection and storage of refuse materials, and shall be designed to accommodate collection and storage containers consistent with the recyclable materials generated. Exception may be granted by the city and county manager or a designee thereof for existing buildings where this provision will negatively impact parking stall requirements. (E) Storage and collection containers shall be clearly labeled or identified to indicate the type of materials accepted. Recyclable materials storage areas shall be located adjacent to refuse collection and storage areas in order to provide convenient recyclable materials drop -off and storage. (F) Refuse and recycling areas shall be enclosed such that they are screened from public view. The enclosure shall be constructed of durable materials, such as masonry, and shall be compatible with the structure to which it is associated. Gates on the enclosures shall be constructed of metal or some other comparable durable material, shall be painted to match the enclosure, and shall be properly maintained. (Ord. 1739 §2, 2003) Lafayette: Sec. 26- 19 -25. Refuse, waste, and recycling collection area. Every development shall provide one (1) or more areas for refuse, waste, and recycling receptacles for solid waste collection, except single- family detached development or multifamily development where there are no central or communal refuse, waste, and recycling collection or storage facilities, Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc. (SERA) DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive Superior, CO 80027 (303)494 -1178 47 and where refuse, waste, and recyclable materials are stored and collected on an individual unit basis. Where such refuse, waste, and recycling receptacles are required, the receptacles shall be located to facilitate collection and minimize negative impacts on public rights -of -way, adjacent properties, and within the development. (Ord. No. 2005 -22, § 1, 8 -2 -05) Superior Equal Space Code: Sec. 16 -763. Trash recycling areas. Recycling means the series of activities, including collection, separation, and processing, to the maximum extent reasonably possible, by which products or other materials are recovered from the solid waste stream for use in the form of raw materials in the manufacture of new products. The Town's goal is to obtain a diversion of 50% recycling from the waste stream. Equal space will be provided for both garbage and recycling in all new buildings, developments and significant remodels. Refuse means trash, garbage and recyclable materials. (a) All centralized refuse storage facilities, as provided in Article XX of this Code, must provide recycling containers as per the policies of either the Town or the contracted trash recycling services. (b) Homeowners Associations which provide or contract for trash disposal service must provide recycling containers as per the policies of either the Town or the contracted trash recycling services. (c) Criteria for trash recycling areas include, but are not limited to the appropriateness of the collection system for the use of the property, integration of the system with the site plan, minimization of noise and odor, and convenience of access. Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc. (SERA) DRAFT Eagle Valley 70 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive Superior, CO 80027 (303)494 -1178 M APPENDIX 5: Examples of Embedded Recycling Fee Ordinances Telluride, CO (residential only) Sec. 7 -5 -190. Separation of recyclable materials. (a) No refuse, rubbish, compost or trash shall be placed in any recycling receptacle provided by the Town or its designated recyclable material collection agent. (b) Separation of recyclable materials is vol- untary; however, the residential or commercial premises shall be charged for the recyclable mate -rial collection service. Aspen, CO (both commercial and residential) (B) Except for customers exempt from the provision pursuant to Section 12.06.020 above, Haulers providing trash service in the City shall include in the base rate for trash pickup service the pickup of Recyclable Materials as designated by the City Manager in the Recyclable Materials List. It shall be unlawful for Haulers to provide a separate line item for the cost of recycling services on any invoice, contract, or other document that is delivered to the customer, or to deduct any amount from a customer's rate if the recycling services are not used unless the customer has received an exemption from the Environmental Health Department. (C) The collection of recyclable materials for residential customers shall be provided on the same day and upon the same frequency as trash pickup. (D) Haulers shall provide collection of recyclable materials for multi - family and commercial customers as often as necessary to prevent the overflow of the recycling containers and to permit the customer to use the recycling containers without causing an overflow. Boulder County (Residential) D. Requirement to provide unlimited recycling services without an additional fee Haulers that provide Periodic Garbage Collection services to Residential Customers shall also provide to these customers weekly or bi- weekly collection of recyclables and shall charge a single rate for Garbage Boulder County (Commercial) (Haulers must `offer' service) Collection and collection of unlimited amounts of recyclable material. C. Service for Multi - family Customers and Commercial Customers Haulers who collect Discarded Materials including Recyclable Materials and Compostable Materials from Multi - family Customers and /or Commercial Customers shall offer such services with a frequency as is necessary to prevent overflow from the collection containers utilized for the collection and preparation of such materials by such Multi - family Customers and Commercial Customers. Thornton, CO (residential only) (B) The monthly solid waste collection services fee shall include the cost for weekly collection of one (1) refuse container; bi- weekly collection of Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc. (SERA) DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive Superior, CO 80027 (303)494 -1178 M recyclable materials container(s); and any special programs which may be in effect at those dates, times, and locations, approved by the Director. Such special programs may include, but, not be limited to, fall leaf collection; household chemical round -up; Christmas tree recycling; and special bulk item collection, during specified time periods only. Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc. (SERA) DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive Superior, CO 80027 (303)494 -1178 50 APPENDIX 6: Pay -As- You -Throw Pay -as- you -throw (PAYT; also called variable rates, volume -based rates, and other names) provides a different way to bill for garbage service. Instead of paying a fixed bill for unlimited collection, these systems require households to pay more if they put out more garbage and less if they set out less garbage — usually measured either by the can or bag of garbage. Paying by volume (like you pay for electricity, water, groceries, etc.) provides households with an incentive to recycle more and reduce disposal and creates a more equitable way for households to pay for trash services. Under PAYT each household is only responsible for paying for what they dispose of, low generators, good recyclers, small households, and others no longer need to help cover the costs of disposal for households that throw away large amounts of trash on a regular basis It is critical for communities to have realistic expectations about what will happen if they implement PAYT. Data from more than 1,000 communities around the country was used to identify the impacts of PAYT above and beyond any other recycling or yard waste program differences, demographics, and other factors. The research showed the following impacts on residential solid waste: 42 • Disposal decreases by 16 % -17% • Increases in recycling of 5 -6 percentage points or 5 -6% of residential waste generation (usually about a 50% increase in current recycling )43 • Increases in yard waste diversion of about 4 -5 percentage points • Source reduction of about 6% of generation 44 Years of research indicates that adding a PAYT program is the single most effective change a community can make to increase recycling. According to published research, PAYT increases recycling more than adding a new material, changing collection frequency, or many other potential program design or collection changes. Sectors In many communities PAYT programs are crafted to address residential households with less than a select number of units in the building. The cut -off may be 4 or less units, 8 or less units, or some other number, depending on what the Town decides. In addition to single family, PAYT programs may be planned to cover the multi - family and commercial sectors. Customers contracting for commercial dumpster service in Eagle Valley are already charged variable rates for trash collection (businesses and larger multi - family units are typically charged based on: 1) the size in cubic yards of their trash containers 2) the number of containers and 3) the frequency 42 Skumatz, Lisa A., Ph.D., "Beyond case studies: Quantitative effects of recycling and variable rates programs ", Resource Recycling 9/1996; and Skumatz, Lisa A., Ph.D., "Achieving 50% diversion: Program elements, analysis, and policy implications ", Resource Recycling, 8/2000. 43 Analyzing Iowa communities, Frable, 1994, found an increase of 30% to 100% with an average of 50% increase in recycling tonnages. 44 Skumatz, Lisa A., Ph.D., (2000) "Measuring Source Reduction: PAYT /Variable Rates as an Example ", Skumatz Economic Research Associates Technical Report, prepared for multiple clients, included on USEPA website; and Skumatz, Lisa A., Ph.D., "Source Reduction can be Measured ", Resource Recycling, 8/2000. Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc. (SERA) DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive Superior, CO 80027 (303)494 -1178 51 of collection) and it may only be necessary mandate embedding the costs of recycling in trash service costs similar to what the Town of Aspen implemented. Depending on what sectors the community chooses to address, it will affect the implementation steps. Public Education and Outreach Public education is critical to the planning, design, and implementation stages of variable rates program. A successful outreach campaign is effective at developing a general consensus among residents for the need of variable rates, it can combat fears and myths about variable rates (such as the fear of increased illegal dumping), and may also help avoid or mitigate the potential implementation problems. It may also make sense to re -brand the program as something other than Pay -as -you- throw. Perhaps considering options such as the Eagle Valley Trash Saver Program, Recycle and Save, or other options. Haulers In addition to citizens, the town / county must work closely with the haulers, the actors who will actually be running the program day to day. Hauler concerns typically range from: • Their new responsibilities — share what you're expecting of them, their customer contact responsibilities, service requirements (under either an ordinance or a contract), and the reasons behind the PAYT program • Financial risk -- the hauler's financial risk depends critically on the type of contract or agreement made with the municipality, or on the estimates they make on containers and customer reactions. • Enforcement- discuss any enforcement mechanism that will be enacted to ensure program success, this could include such items as auditing, spot- checks, customers surveying, and others. • Billing- Depending on what implementation method is chosen, haulers may be required to change billing mechanisms and may require additional direction in what is required under variable rate billing Eagle Valley should share as much information about the project as possible with the haulers and work with them to develop a program that will work for the community. The haulers are the best source for learning information such as which parts of the town need alley collection and which multi - family units do or do not have room for additional recycling containers. It may also be helpful to provide haulers with the names of other successful communities or haulers that have implemented PAYT programs45. Having agreements that end up with one -party that is substantially hurt is unlikely to be a long or particularly successful arrangement. To improve political viability, the following tactics are suggested: • Prepare question and answer briefing papers for politicians. As the program goes by, give them sound bites for the media. • Create a citizen advisory council, again involving both likely advocates and opponents, as well as groups needing special attention. • Issue press releases clearly explaining the system and benefits. • Hold public meetings to allow citizens a chance for feedback and comment and to educate customers. 45 If needed, SERA can provide contact of haulers /communities that have successfully implemented PAYT programs. Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc. (SERA) DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive Superior, CO 80027 (303)494 -1178 52 • Build support early to help ensure long -term success. • A survey of customer needs and preferences can help you retain features customers especially like when designing the new program. • Develop a "why we're doing it" message. • Stick to the facts and be consistent in your message and your program. • Plan the program to fit both the average customers and those that aren't well served by "one size fits all" approach. • Avoid poor terminology. Finding a catchy and easily understood term for the program can help improve success. • Provide credit for successes -- particularly to elected officials. • Monitor press coverage and don't ignore opponents and problems. Rebook the media if coverage starts to turn negative. Implementing the program There are three main ways to implement PAYT programs: • Municipal collection- A community can choose to take over trash collection themselves, purchasing a collection fleet, hiring FTEs, and all of the associated administration and O &M. • Ordinance- Local governments may pass an ordinance /licensing requirements requiring all haulers to follow certain guideline including setting PAYT rate structures. • Contracting- Local governments may contract for trash services Although all three methods are viable means of implementing PAYT, at this time it seems as if only the ordinance or contract makes sense in Eagle Valley. What route a community chooses depends greatly upon local preferences and politics. The pros and cons of both ordinances and contracts are discussed below: The advantages of an ordinance include: • It is quicker to implement: Unlike contracting in which an RFP process is required (a few months notice for eligible haulers to bid, choosing the winning bid, and completing contract negotiations) an ordinance can be passed in quite literally, one town council meeting. • Market competition: An ordinance does not favor one hauler over another. It creates a level playing field for all haulers operating in the community and does not give an advantage to one or the other. It also allows haulers to retain their current accounts as long as they meet the ordinance requirements. • Residential choice: Contracting limits residential choice of haulers to the one contracted hauler. Under an ordinance the residents are still able to contract with whichever hauler they choose. • Administrative burden: Once the ordinance is passed, the level of administrative involvement for the town may be minimal. Depending upon the pre- determined enforcement mechanisms, reporting, outreach /education requirements, and other aspects of the ordinance, there could potentially be very little administrative burden for the town. Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc. (SERA) DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive Superior, CO 80027 (303)494 -1178 53 The disadvantages of enacting an ordinance for PAYT include: • Less control over services /rates: Unlike contracting in which the community can set service requirements, rate structures, billing, and customer service specifications, an ordinance does not allow for as high a level of oversight and control. • May not be the most efficient: While ordinances maintain more hauler competition, they do not increase collection efficiencies. Under an ordinance there may be multiple haulers serving households on the same street with multiple trucks driving down the same street at different times of the day. This lack of efficiency may lead to increased wear and tear on the streets and vehicle emissions. Whereas there are pros and cons associated with ordinances, there are also are also a number of distinct advantages (and disadvantages) to contracting for trash service. Some of the advantages to contracting include: • Fewer trucks on the streets /environmental impact: With one contracted hauler all households in a neighborhood have the same trash day with the same trash truck limiting the number of trucks on the road, the GHG emissions from the trucks, wear and tear on roadways, and other impacts. • Lower costs for households: Under contracting households may see a reduction in monthly /yearly costs. The RFP process requires haulers to compete to provide the lowest cost service. Haulers are able to collect all the households on a block, not just some of the HHs, and thus are able to realize collection and routing efficiencies. This often results in potentially lower bids and rates for HHs. • More control over rates /services /options for Town- Contracting allows the community to include a number of stipulations in the contract including rates, reporting, enforcement and others. • Simplified reporting /problem solving: Under a single hauler contract it is easier to collect tonnage reports of MSW and recyclable materials. Additionally, if problems arise there is no question in finding the responsible hauler to contact to solve the problem. A few of the disadvantages of contracting for service include: • Haulers and citizen push back: Haulers generally prefer ordinances over contracting. Under contracting only one hauler (or a limited number of haulers) can win all of the accounts. Additionally, households may resent having their service provider dictated to them by local government. There may be a political battle to implement a single hauler contract. However, in many of the Colorado communities with single hauler contracts, the communities report that despite initial public and hauler pushback the programs are now well accepted and actually preferred by the residents46 • More difficult to implement: Completing the RFP process requires a substantial investment in time by the Town and may take longer to implement than an ordinance. Despite the strong points of both the ordinance and contract methods, it is important for each community to consider all of the factors contributing to the decision making process. While a contract may be best in some communities, for others there may be a strong citizen desire to maintain hauler choice. On the other hand, a contract may result in the lowest rates possible for citizens and the RFP process is open market competition, allowing all haulers to submit a bid and the lowest cost/best service provider wins. 46 For example, the City of Lafayette, CO reports that for the first 60 days of their contracted PAYT program there was significant feedback, calls, and questions from the citizens. After the first two months the calls dropped off precipitously and now residents prefer the PAYT contracted program. Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc. (SERA) DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive Superior, CO 80027 (303)494 -1178 54 Both the pros and cons of an ordinance and contract are displayed in the table below: Table 2: Pros and Cons of Contracts and Ordinances Ordinance Pros Cons Contract Pros Cons • Maintains competition in Less control over • Town has greater Limits competition in the the market place services control over rates and market • Allows customers to Political support is service options May be politically choose their service needed • Allows for routing unattractive provider May not be the most efficiencies for selected • Limits customer choice • Easier to implement efficient (more trucks hauler • Requires lengthier • Retains a "level playing on the roads, more • Simplified reporting of implementation process field" for all haulers GHG emissions, etc.) tonnages collected (RFPs, Bids, selection, operating under the • Potentially lower rates etc) same rules for customers • Higher resistance from • Less resistance from • Reduced wear and tear haulers haulers on streets • Less administrative • Can set facility demand designation for materials Locally, communities in Colorado use contracts, municipal collection, and ordinances to provide PAYT service. The table below lists a number of Colorado towns and the primary method 41 in which they implement PAYT: Table 4.1: Colorado Communities with PAYT Ordinance Contract Municipal Collection Fort Collins Lafayette Loveland Aspen Louisville Longmont Boulder (City) Original Town Superior Grand Junction48 Boulder County Golden Durango Larimer County Edgewater Key Elements of an Ordinance: The key elements of a PAYT ordinance are ❑ Safety Issues: Requirements for truck and operator safety issues, avoiding leakage, etc. ❑ Recycling Opportunities: All haulers providing service within the community boundaries must: 1) offer curbside recycling to every entity subscribing to garbage service; ( "entity" could be single family households under X units in size, it could 47 Towns that contract or have municipal collection often still pass an ordinance for PAYT. CO State Statute bars towns and counties from stopping a citizen from contracting with any hauler they want. For example, although Loveland has municipal collection of PAYT which every resident must pay for, they still have an ordinance and if a Loveland resident wanted to contract with a private hauler and pay for trash twice, the a may. 48 Although Grand Junction does have a municipally collected variable rate program it is not recommended as a model program due to its lack of meaningful economic incentives. Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc. (SERA) DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive Superior, CO 80027 (303)494 -1178 55 include MFU or commercial accounts depending on what sectors the community decides to focus on) 2) provide recycling service at least every other week; 3) must collect at least a base set of materials that the community lists (usually newspaper, waste paper, cardboard, chipboard / paperboard, aluminum and steel / bimetal cans, glass bottles, and #1 and #2 plastics, but the list will vary based on what the Eagle County MRF accepts); and 4) must provide recycling container(s); ❑ Fees and PAYT: The cost of the recycling program must be embedded in the trash rate, with no separate charge, fee, or line -item for recycling. The cost for trash service must be in a PAYT structure. The PAYT system must: 1) Offer, as its smallest container, a container (or bag) no larger than 32 gallons, and must offer service in 32 gallon increments above this service; 2) The cost of the trash container service must be set so that, throughout the service levels available, double the service volume cannot cost less than 80% more in total to the household. The community should establish auditing rights. ❑ Reporting and Audit Authority: The community should require haulers to report the trash and recycling tons collected within the community's boundaries, with reporting at least quarterly. This will allow the community to monitor progress in recycling. Establishing the authority to audit compliance with the ordinance is also important. ❑ Educational responsibilities: The community should designate minimum requirements for frequency of recycling education (e.g. requiring haulers to provide annual outreach or mailers to customers).49 Key Elements of a Contract: The elements required in an RFP for variable rates contracting are quite similar to those in an ordinance. The RFP should include the following elements and allow the responding bidders to "fill in the blanks" on the costs to provide service. The elements to include in the RFP are: ❑ Safety Issues: Requirements for truck and operator safety issues, avoiding leakage, etc. (same as ordinance) ❑ Recycling Opportunities: Respondents should return bids to provide the following services for the single family sector up to and including 8 units: 5) provide recycling service at least every other week; 1) must collect at least a base set of materials listed in the RFP (usually newspaper, waste paper, cardboard, chipboard / paperboard, aluminum and steel / bimetal cans, glass bottles, and #1 and #2 plastics, but the list may vary); and 2) must provide recycling container(s), the RFP can request that the bins be no smaller than 18- gallon open -top containers or could request larger 32 -96 gallon carts for residential recycling; ❑ Fees and PAYT: The hauler should provide the bid for costs in a PAYT rate structure with their best estimates as to how many HHs will be on each service level. The RFP can request how service is provided such as cart service, a hybrid bag /can program, or a sticker program. The cost of the recycling program must be embedded in the trash rate, with no separate charge, fee, or line -item for 49 Often the best programs have both the hauler and the community providing education to households. This establishes the portion for which the hauler is responsible. This can augment community outreach efforts and provide a coordinated message. Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc. (SERA) DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive Superior, CO 80027 (303)494 -1178 56 recycling. The cost for trash service must be in a PAYT structure. The PAYT system must: 3) Offer, as its smallest container, a container (or bag) no larger than 32 gallons, and must offer service in 32 gallon increments above this service; 4) The cost of the trash container service must be set so that, throughout the service levels available, double the service volume cannot cost less than 80% more in total to the household. 5) The bid should include the cost for containers /bags /tags separately to allow for an apples -to- apples comparison. A bid for automated collection that does not include the costs for containers (around $50 /cart for non - bear proof containers) may be underbid and require an additional cost for the households. The RFP should establish auditing rights. ❑ Reporting and Audit Authority: The hauler must report the trash and recycling tons collected within the community's boundaries on a quarterly basis. The request should lay out penalties for non - reporting. ❑ Educational responsibilities: Request a minimum requirement for frequency of recycling education (e.g. requiring haulers to provide annual outreach or mailers to customers).50 The RFP should set forward the roles for customer service between the community and the bidding hauler including: ❑ Billin : The RFP should clarify which party is responsible for the billing, the hauler or the town. ❑ Customer service calls: Similar to billing, the request should clearly define which party is responsible for customer service calls and suggest guidelines for response and penalties. The request may lay out service level requirements and penalties for missed collections, high levels of customer complaints, or other issues. Providing high customer service should be a goal of the contract Choosing a PAYT system: The three most common system types and the pros and cons of each are provided below. When a community chooses its system there are a number of factors that should be considered including the existing infrastructure, current collection systems, the input of the haulers, and the input of the citizens. If the community decides to pass an ordinance for PAYT more than one collection system may be appropriate. For example, one hauler may opt to use a variable can system if they are already providing automated collection for households while another hauler may opt for a bag program due to manual collection limitations. It is assumed that any PAYT system in Eagle Valley would rely on a variable can collection however the other options are included in this appendix. Hybrid bap /tap - In this system, households only pay for waste beyond a specified "base" set out volume. They pay a fixed bill or a tax bill that entitles them to a first can or bag of garbage (size limits are usually around 30 gallons). Then, additional waste is charged on a per -bag or per- 50 Often the best programs have both the hauler and the community providing education to households. This establishes the portion for which the hauler is responsible. This can augment community outreach efforts and provide a coordinated message. Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc. (SERA) DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive Superior, CO 80027 (303)494 -1178 57 sticker system. This system is a "hybrid" between existing garbage programs and the new incentive -based approach, and minimizes billing and collection changes. Variable can system- Under a variable can system; households sign up for a specific number of containers (or size of container) as their usual garbage service, and get a bill that is higher for bigger disposal volumes. This system is commonly used in conjunction with automated cart collection and variable can sizes are typically 32, 64, and 96 gallons. Bap /Sticker Programs- Households purchase special tags or stickers to put on their bags of garbage. The sticker price includes some or all of the cost of collection and disposal of the amount of waste in the bag. As with hybrid programs, some programs have a customer charge or base fee in addition to the sticker fees to help make sure they cover fixed costs. Bags are usually sold at convenience and grocery stores in addition to City hall -type outlets. In addition to the most three most common options, SERA previously worked with the Town of Vail to develop a feasible bag -in -a -can program to overcome the barrier for near proof carts. Bag -in -a -Can: This system, in use in a limited number of communities in the US, is basically a hybrid bag system including pre - purchased trash bags with a base fee. The proposed program for Vail includes the base fee and pre -paid bag elements of the hybrids programs and combines them with the bear - resistant semi - automated collection program already in use in Vail. The program requires that all trash is put in pre -paid bags (the cost of the bags includes the cost of collection and recycling) be placed in the bear - resistant containers. It relies on the fact that collection is semi - automated and the trash haulers must get out of their trucks and open the cans, thus allowing for cursory visual inspection. Trash not in the pre -paid bags as identified by the haulers is not collected. This helps to overcome the barrier of purchasing new carts. Rate Setting Setting rates to incentivize customer behaviors while covering costs and maintaining revenues is a very important aspect of PAYT. In both an ordinance and contract situation, the burden of setting appropriate, and revenue making, rates will fall on the haulers. Under an ordinance, the town will only set rate structures, not the rates themselves and allow each individual hauler to set their own rates. If a contract is chosen, the RFP will dictate the rate structures and the rates in the submitted bids will most likely be one of the key decision points in determining who is awarded the contract. However, the City / town could charge any rates they want to the households which is one of the advantages of operating under a contract The rates charged by the haulers must, among others items, cover the costs to get to the door (the highest cost for the hauler), the incremental cost of additional trash (a much lower cost to the hauler), and embed the cost of recycling. Under PAYT the challenge arises in setting the base fee and the incremental cost of additional trash. While incremental amounts of trash do not cost the trash hauler significantly more to collect, the new rates must be designed as an economic signal to the rate payer. The base rate will vary depending on each hauler's particular costs but an incremental price increase for additional units of trash of 80% is recommended. This value — 80% -- is based on statistical studies that balance two objectives: 1) providing a strong recycling incentive, and this value was found to provide almost the same recycling incentive to households as rates that double for double the service; and 2) backing off from very aggressive rates to recognize the fact that the largest cost in providing trash or recycling service is getting the truck to the door — arguing for flatter rates. This differential tries to provide Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc. (SERA) DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan 762 Eldorado Drive Superior, CO 80027 (303)494 -1178 W incentives, but also help decrease the risk of not covering fixed costs of the operations. If a community selects a lower percentage, be careful to provide enough incentive to modify behavior — perhaps not less than 50% extra. Under an 80% incremental price difference, a 32- gallon container costs $10 /month, a 64- gallon container would cost $18, and a 96 gallon container would cost $26, etc. Haulers may increase the level of the rates they need in order to cover the cost of recycling and the PAYT rate structure. PAYT Implementation Flow Chart The following flow chart outlines some of the major steps and decision that a community must take to implement PAYT. Choose Sectors /Timing Single - Family or Multi - Family or Commercial Short or Mid or Lona Conduct outreach camoaian (on- aoina) I Conduct stakeholder meetinas I Choose system Baa/taa hvbrid variable can Choose implementation method Contract ordinance II Ordinance II I Draft ordinance I Follow Council /Public process to enact II Implement program II Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc. (SERA) 762 Eldorado Drive Superior, CO 80027 (303)494 -1178 Contract Draft RFP Release RFP Bidders meeting Evaluate contracts /negotiate for service Announce winner Implement proqram DRAFT Eagle Valley 10 -Year Plan TOWN OF VAIL � Memorandum To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Community Development Department Date: November 28, 2011 Subject: Town of Vail Residential Sustainable Building Initiative; review of Site Design Proposed Measures SUMMARY The purpose of this work session is to review the suggested measures in the first category of the Sustainable Building Initiative (SBI): Site Design. The following measures have not been assigned points, and are still in the development phase with the SBI Committee. However each have been evaluated and vetted by the community representatives and recommended as important elements to the health of our local ecosystem and key to any green building initiative. II. BACKGROUND Site Design Measures No permanent improvements in stream setback Mandatory No removal of wetlands unless constructing wetlands, or completing a stream bank Mandatory restoration project of equal or greater square footage within the Town of Vail No permanent improvements within 5 feet of wetlands Points TBD No permanent improvements within 10 feet of wetlands Points TBD Post construction stormwater BMP installed according to the Stormwater Quality Points TBD Credits Program (re- infiltration methods only: e.g. re- infiltration basins or vegetated swales, retention pond, constructed wetlands channel, rain garden installed, vegetated roof.) Site Design Measures Rationale Stream Setback Currently, the Vail Town Code requires a minimum setback of 50 feet from the centerline of Gore Creek and 30 feet from all other established tributaries. The regulations are within Chapter 12 -14, Supplemental Regulations, and are as follows: 12- 14 -17. SETBACK FROM WATERCOURSE. Minimum setback from a creek or stream shall be not less than thirty feet (30) from the center of the established creek or stream channel as defined by the town comprehensive plan base maps, provided, however, that the setback from Gore Creek shall be fifty feet (50). Natural creek or stream channels may not be rechanneled or changed. This regulation was enacted by Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1976, in order to "provide for proper land development and use." As is the case with other established setbacks, there are certain encroachments permitted into the setback from watercourse. This includes a ten foot encroachment by at grade patios, as well as five foot encroachment by above grade decks. There is no limit on disturbance during construction, nor are there clear limitations on vegetation and other non - structural improvements. The SBI Committee recommends that at -grade patios be removed from stream setbacks entirely, because the impervious nature of most at grade patios leads to increased runoff that adversely affects water quality. The Committee also recommends that limits of disturbance during construction be limited within the stream setback, also to prevent adverse effects on the watershed. Wetlands Wetlands are a common land feature within the Town of Vail, but regulations for wetlands are vague and disturbance on or within wetlands requires federal approval from the Army Corps of Engineers. Town regulations have no clear requirements for limits of disturbance. The protection of wetlands is essential because wetlands act as a filter, ensuring clean water enters the aquifer. The current regulations for wetlands are as follows: 14 -7 -2: OTHER REQUIREMENTS: A. Wetlands: If staff determines that wetland vegetation exists on the site, a report conducted by a qualified environmental consultant delineating wetland areas must be submitted to the town of Vail and the army corps of engineers in conjunction with a design review board or planning and environmental commission application. Approval from the army corps of engineers must be obtained prior to building permit issuance. 14 -10 -6: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. B. The presence of significant site constraints may permit the physical separation of units and garages on a site. The determination of whether or not a lot has significant site constraints shall be made by the design review board. "Significant site constraints" shall be defined as natural features of a lot such as stands of mature trees, natural drainages, stream courses and other natural water features, rock outcroppings, wetlands, other natural features, and existing structures that may create practical difficulties in the site planning and development of a lot. Slope may be considered a physical site constraint that allows for the separation of a garage from a unit. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to request a determination from the design review board as to whether or not a site has significant site constraints before final design work on the project is presented. This determination shall be made at a conceptual review of the proposal based on review of the site, a detailed survey of the lot and a preliminary site plan of the proposed structure(s). The SBI Committee recommends wetland setbacks be encouraged to bring focus to wetlands on private property, which will hopefully influence site design to some degree, Town of Vail Page 2 ensuring the health of Gore Creek and surrounding habitat. Other municipalities have a range of wetland setbacks, anywhere from ten feet to one hundred feet. The requirement for wetland setback in the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program is one hundred feet. The Army Corps of Engineers approval is still relevant, as it is required by the federal government. Where wetlands must be removed, The Committee felt that more impact would be made by allowing not only the construction of new wetlands elsewhere in Vail, but that a stream bank restoration project be undertaken as an offset. This method would be more straightforward and appropriate than constructing a new wetland in many cases, and would directly impact the health of Gore Creek in needed areas where bank erosion has taken place. Post Construction Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) As Gore Creek, Red Sandstone Creek, and the Eagle River are currently considered by the State of Colorado as "impaired ", and may be listed on the State's 303(d) list for impaired waters, it is critical the Town take steps to ensure that future development does not impact the health of our water quality or habitat. The best way to mitigate stormwater impacts from new developments is to use practices to treat, store, and infiltrate runoff onsite before it can affect water bodies downstream. Innovative site designs that reduce imperviousness and smaller -scale low impact development practices dispersed throughout a site are excellent ways to achieve the goals of reducing flows and improving water quality'. While commercial site development may have more opportunity for large scale BMPs, residential developments may use innovative techniques such as rain gardens, constructed wetlands, swales, etc. to reduce stormwater runoff. The Design Review Board will determine appropriateness to Vail, but the specific measure will be determined by the site engineer. Points will be determined based upon the total square footage offset of stormwater runoff. The full description of the Post - Construction Stormwater BMP program is found in Appendix A. III. NEXT STEPS Staff will return to the Planning and Environmental Commission on December 12th with items from the next category of the SBI, revisions based upon feedback from the PEC and the public, and with updates from the December 12th SBI Committee meeting. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that the Planning and Environmental Commission provide feedback on the proposed Sustainable Building Initiative measures for Site Design and table this item to the December 12th, 2011 hearing. VII. Attachments A. Stormwater Quality Credits Program 1 US Environmental Protection Agency (2011): Post - Construction Stormwater Management in New Development and Redevelopment: http: // cfpub. epa. gov / npdes / stormwater /menuofbmps /index.cfm? action =min measure &min_measure _ id =5 Town of Vail Page 3 TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 vailgov.com A Guide to Stormwater Quality Credits Community Development Department 970.479.2138 970.479.2452 fax The Town of Vail Stormwater Quality Green Building Credits program offers Vail residents 1 -3 credits toward the Sustainable Building Initiative Site Design requirements. The purpose of the quality credits program is to encourage Town residents to manage rainwater and snow melt in ways that help deal with problems occurring in Gore Creek and Red Sandstone Creek from stormwater runoff in our urban areas of town. Vail, like other urbanized communities has a large amount of impervious surfaces (hard surfaces, such as building areas, asphalt or cement, patios, court yards, as well as heavily compacted soils) stopping stormwater from naturally absorbing into the ground. The runoff from these areas transports materials such as de -icing salt, metals and petrochemicals from cars, excess fertilizer, pet waste and trace amounts of other common chemicals to receiving waters such as Gore Creek and Red Sandstone. These materials are a major source of water pollution in the urbanized areas of Vail, and the most significant factor affecting the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff. By using stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) property owners can partially duplicate the effect of the open areas and wetlands that provided natural drainage prior to urbanization. The Quality Credits program offers property owners a credit up to three(3) credits for the portion of their impervious area that drains to an approved stormwater quality management BMP. Below is a partial list of stormwater BMPs approved for use in the Quality Credits programs. Rain Gardens Wet Ponds Sand Filters Infiltration Trenches Pervious Pavers Dry Wells Vegetated Filter Strips Green Roofs Although a 1 -3 credit range may seem small there are other potential benefits to qualifying for this site design category. In addition to creating a more sustainable urban environment many stormwater BMPs can be constructed as attractive landscape features that add to the "curbside appeal" of a location and significantly increase property values. These benefits add up to a contribution towards the common good and a common sense investment for the individual property owner by using stormwater as a beneficial resource verses a waste water disposal. Instructions for Stormwater Quality Credits Introduction: To qualify to receive a Stormwater Quality Credit for your property you will need to submit a completed credit application form that includes a scaled map showing the location of all impervious areas (including roof) and all Stormwater BMPs installed on your property. The map must also identify which exact portions of the impervious areas drain to which BMPs and include arrows to show the general direction of flow. A map drawn on a square grid notebook paper is an acceptable method of submitting a scaled map of your property. The Application Form Section I. Contact Information Provide the name, mailing address, telephone number and email address of the applicant include the property address for the site and parcel ID number. The property ID number can be found on the Eagle County property information web site. Go to http : / /www.eaglecounty.us /patie/ and follow the instructions to search the site. Section II. Measuring Impervious Area To determine what portion of the property is impervious area measure (in square feet) the footprint of your home or building, any patio or deck, sidewalks (do not include the public sidewalk along the street) your garage or parking area, driveway and any other such hard surface. Enter the figures for each category and the total in the appropriate boxes on Table 1. Example: Table 1 Square feet home /building 910 Square feet patio /deck Square feet home /building Square feet sidewalk 144 Square feet garage 325 Square feet parking /driveway 195 Square feet other Total square feet of impervious area 1574 Section III. Verify the Stormwater Quality Credits Single Family Homes: If your property is a single family home find the percentage of your impervious area that is flowing to an approved BMP(s) in Table 2 below to determine the stormwater quality credit(s) your will receive. Example: Using figures for a site with 1574 total impervious area: Table 2 Impervious Areas Square Feet Stormwater BMPs Square feet home /building 910 Rain Garden -Dry well Town of Vail Page 2 Square feet patio /deck Number of Credits Mandatory 50% Square feet sidewalk 60-80% 1 Square feet garage 325 Rain Garden Square feet parking /driveway Square feet other Total square feet of impervious area 1245 Section IV. Calculate the Percentage of Impervious Area Treated To determine the number of credits received in Table 3, simply divide the total area draining to Stormwater BMPs from Section III by the figure for total impervious area from Table 1 in Section II to arrive at the percentage of impervious area treated by Stormwater BMPs. Example: Divide the 1245 sq. ft. in treated impervious area by 1574 sq. ft. of total impervious area which equals 79 %. Find the percentage range in the table below to calculate the number of stormwater quality credits received. In this case 79% falls between 61 — 90% for two (2) stormwater quality credits. Stormwater Quality Credits Table 3: Percentage of Impervious Area Treated Number of Credits Mandatory 50% 0 60-80% 1 81 —90% 2 >91% 3 Section V. BMP Certification The purpose of this section is to certify that the Stormwater BMPs listed in the application have been property installed and to grant the Town of Vail inspectors the right to enter the property to verify the application information is accurate. Simply sign and date the form in the spaces indicated to complete the Stormwater Quality Credit Application and mail the completed application to Community Development Department, 75 S. Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657. If you have any further questions or need assistance in completing the forms please contact Vail Environmental Health at 970- 479 -2333. Town of Vail Page 3 APPLICATION FOR STORMWATER QUALITY CREDIT SUSTAINABILE BUILDING INITIATIVE TOWN OF VAIL Materials required to complete application Check when attached Materials Required for Application to be Processed Mailing Address Completed and signed application must include: City ST ZIP Code • Current account information Home Phone • Calculations for your site's pervious and impervious areas Work Phone Property map: E -Mail Address • Map must be to scale Property Address • Map must show impervious area and indicate how stormwater Street Address drains or flows to stormwater BMP structure /practice Submit Application to: This application must be completed and signed before it will be processed. When completed, send this application and all necessary attachments to: Town of Vail Community Development Department 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 If you have questions, please call Vail Environmental Health and /or Building Department at 970 - 479 -2333 or 479 -2124. I. Contact and Property Information Property Owner Name Mailing Address City ST ZIP Code Home Phone Work Phone E -Mail Address Property Address Street Address City ST ZIP Code Property Identification Number II. Measure the impervious area on your property Determine what portion of this property is impervious area (see instruction guide for definition). Town of Vail Page 4 Square feet home /building: Square Feet Square feet patio /deck: Square feet home /building: Square feet sidewalk: area treated for quality Square feet garage: 2 Square feet parking /driveway: Square feet sidewalk: Square feet other Total square feet of impervious area: III. Stormwater Management Tools /Practices (Stormwater BMPs) Fill out the table below to calculate the amount of impervious area that drains to a stormwater management tool /practice (see instruction guide for a list of tools /practices) Impervious Areas Square Feet Stormwater BMPs Square feet home /building: area (from Step II) area treated for quality Square feet patio /deck: 2 >91% Square feet sidewalk: Square feet garage. Square feet parking /driveway: Square feet other Total square feet of impervious area: IV. Calculate the Percentage of Impervious Area Treated Calculate the percentage of the impervious area that drains to your stormwater management BMPs. See instruction guide for more details. Total areas draining to Divided by total impervious Equals % of impervious BMPs (from Step III) area (from Step II) area treated for quality V. Stormwater Quality Credits Percentage of Impervious Area Treated Number of Credits Mandatory 50% 0 60-80% 1 81 —90% 2 >91% 3 VI. Certification of Stormwater Quality Credits 'By signing this application, 1 certify that 1 am the owner or authorized representative of the owner and read this application and understand the terms and conditions of the credit program 1 certify that this application and additional materials accurately describe Town of Vail Page 5 stormwater management and disposal on the property identified on this application 1 grant the Town of Vail permission to enter this property for the sole purpose of conducting a site inspection of the stormwater management and disposal facilities on this property. " Signature Print Name Date Town of Vail Page 6 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION November 14, 2011 1:OOpm AWN OVAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road W. - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Luke Cartin Bill Pierce Pam Hopkins Michael Kurz Henry Pratt John Rediker Tyler Schneidman 45 minutes A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation amendments to Chapter 12 -6, Residential Districts, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to establish a new zone district, Vail Village Townhouse (VVT) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto; and a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on proposed amendments to Chapter VII, Vail Village Sub - Areas, East Gore Creek Sub - Area ( #6), Vail Village Master Plan, pursuant to Chapter VIII, Implementation and Amendment, Vail Village Master Plan, to include recommendations related to a new Vail Village Townhouse (WT) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110040, PEC110041) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Recommendation of Approval with Modification(s) MOTION: Schneidman SECOND: Hopkins VOTE: 4 -1 -1 ( Rediker opposed and Pratt recused) Commissioner Pratt recused due to a conflict of interest. Commissioner Kurz was appointed chairman for this item. Bill Gibson gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Commissioner Hopkins asked for clarification on Staff's recommendation of a 1.25 GRFA ratio verses the 1.35 GRFA previously recommended by the Commission. She stated she was concerned about allowing roof pitches up to 6:12 when the existing roofs generally have shallower pitches. She believes a 6:12 pitch is too steep to maintain the existing architectural vocabulary. She recommended allowing 3:12 to 4:12 roof pitches instead of 3:12 to 6:12 pitches. Commissioner Cartin asked Staff to inform the Town Council that there are numerous unresolved street right -of -way issues east of Vail Valley Drive that have not been addressed with the proposed master plan amendments. Dominic Mauriello, representing the Galvins, spoke to the positive outcome of the past several years of review. He highlighted the history of Staff's recommendation of a 1.25 GRFA ratio and noted that this recommendation was made prior to the additional design guidelines being added to the master plan. He made an argument for a 1.5 GRFA ratio or a 1.35 GRFA ratio that involves not counting any of the basement level in the GRFA calculations. He noted the property owner letters supporting a 1.5 GRFA ratio. Page 1 John Dunn, representing Barbara and Dolph Bridgewater, stated again for the record his client's concerns with this proposal and its potential unintended consequences to the historical nature of the neighborhood. Commissioner Kurz spoke in regard to the roof pitch guidelines being reduced in order to preserve the existing architectural character and whether or not a full basement deduction should be incorporated into the GRFA calculations. He noted that the PEC has discussed GRFA at great length and he believes a 1.35 GRFA ratio is appropriate. Commissioner Hopkins spoke to the zone district benefitting new construction more than existing over /under units. Commissioner Cartin recommended not changing the GRFA basement deduction method. He supported reducing the allowable roof pitches to 3:12 to 4:12 to protect the existing architectural character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Schneidman noted his support the proposed zone district, the discussed changes to the roof pitch guidelines, and a 1.35 GRFA ratio. Commissioner Kurz asked Dominic Mauriello to speak to the roof pitch changes being discussed. Dominic Mauriello believes the 3:13 to 6:12 range allows for more flexibility and variety, but his clients would not be opposed to the discussed change. He also spoke to his knowledge that the Vail Trails East and Vail Trails Chalets are both considering complete demolition as a redevelopment scenario. Commissioner Kurz supported changing the allowable roof pitches to 3:12 to 4:12. Commissioner Schneidman made a motion to forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council with the modification that the roof pitch guideline be changes from 3:12 to 6:12 to a guideline of 3:12 to 4:12. 5 minutes 2. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations and Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to provide regulations that will implement sustainable building and planning standards, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090028) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Rachel Dimond/ Kristen Bertuglia ACTION: Tabled to November 28, 2011 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Schneidman VOTE: 6 -0 -0 5 minutes 3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulations amendment, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Chapter 12 -22, View Corridors, Vail Town Code, to allow for the maintenance of designated view corridors impacted by vegetation, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110056) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to November 28, 2011 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Schneidman VOTE: 6 -0 -0 5 minutes Page 2 4. A request for findings of fact and a determination of accuracy and completeness, pursuant to Chapter 12 -3, Administration and Enforcement, Vail Town Code, and Article 12 -713, Commercial Core 1 District, Vail Town Code, for applications for a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12 -713-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the addition of GRFA (Rucksack Building), located at 288 Bridge Street, Unit R -2/ Part of Lots C & D, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110045); and a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12 -713-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions of enclosed floor area; a variance, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, from Section 12- 14 -17, Setback from Watercourse, Vail Town Code, to allow for encroachments into the Mill Creek setback and a variance, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, from Section 12- 713-15, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions of enclosed floor area in excess of allowable site coverage, located at 288 Bridge Street, Unit R -1 (Rucksack Building)/ Part of Lots C & D, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110046, PEC110050) ACTION: Tabled to November 28, 2011 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Schniedman VOTE: 6 -0 -0 5. Approval of October 24, 2011 minutes MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 6 -0 -0 6. Information Update 7. Adjournment MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Schniedman VOTE: 5 -0 -0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published November 11, 2011, in the Vail Daily. Page 3 Ad Name: 7271158A PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Customer: TOWN OF VAIL /PLAN DEPT /COMM Novem00pm'2011 Your 1022233 account TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS - / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 -.. .... _ _, -_ MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT PROOF OF PUBLICATION 40 Minutes Eagle River Valley 10 -Year Waste Diversion Im- plementation Plan n Discussion of Draft Kristen Bertuglia STATE OF COLORADO } 30 minutes 1.A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulations amend - 1 ss ments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations and Title 14, 1 Development Standards, Vail Town Code, pursu- COUNTY OF EAGLE } ant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to provide regulations that will implement sustainable building and planning standards, and setting forth details in regard thereto. I, Don Rogers, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified (PEC090028) Applicant: Town of Vail representative ofthe Vail Daily. Thatthe same Daily newspaper Planner: Rachel Dimond/ Kristen Bertuglia ACTION: MOTION: SECOND:VOTE: in whole or in art and in the Count 5 minutes published Pprinted, part y 2.A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a circulation Council for a prescribed regulations amendment, general g g pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously Code, to amend Chapter 12 -22, View Corridors, Vail Town Code, to allow for the maintenance of and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of designated view corridors impacted by vegetation, and setting forth details in regard thereto. more than fifty -two consecutive weeks next prior to the first (PEC110056) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Warren Campbell of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and ACTION :: Table to 12, 2011 publication December that said newspaper has the requested legal notice �l 5 minutes published P g 3.A request for findings of fact and a determination and advertisement as requested. of accuracy and completeness, pursuant to Chap - ter 12 -3, Administration and Enforcement, Vail Town Code, and Article 12 -713, Commercial Core 1 District, Vail Town Code, for applications for a ma- The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, jor exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12 -713-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the addition of GRFA only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home (Rucksack IC at 28 Bridge R2/ Part oding), &ted Village Rule rOV1SlOri. Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. li (PEC110045); and a major exterior alteration, pur- suant to Section 12 -713-7, Major Exterior Alter- ations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was for additions of enclosed floor area; a variance, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town published in the regular and entire issue of every Code, from Section 12- 14 -17, Setback from Water - course, Vail Town Code, to allow for encroach- number of said daily for the period of 1 y P ments into the Mill Creek setback and a variance, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, from Section 12- 713-15, Site Coverage, Vail consecutive insertions; and that the first of said Town Code, to allow for additions of enclosed floor publication P area in excess of allowable site coverage, located notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 11/25/2011 and at 288 Bridge Street, Unit R -1 (Rucksack Building)/ Part of Lots C & D, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 1, that the last publication of said notice was dated 11/25/2011 in and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110046, PEC110050) the issue of Said newspaper. ACTION: Table to December 12, 2011 MOTION: SECOND:VOTE: 5 minute 4.A request for a work session on a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12 -7I -7, Exterior In witness whereof, I have here unto set m hand this day, or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to � y y� allow for the redevelopment of the area known as 12/O5 /2011. ]Ever VailT (West Lionshead), with multiple mixed -use structures including but not limited to, multiple- family dwelling units, fractional fee units, accommodation units, employee housing units, office, and commercial /retail uses, located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West right - of- way /Unplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail General Mana er /Publisher /Editor Community Development Department), and setting g forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080064) Vail Dally Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to December 12, 2011 the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 12/05/2011. MOTION: MOTION: SECOND:VOTE: of November 14, 2011 minutes MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 6.Information Update 7.Adjournment MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: The applications and information about the propos- Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public als are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage My Commission expires. November 1, 2015 Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published November 25, 2011, in the Vail Daily. (7271158) Ad Name: 7216830A Customer: TOWN OF VAIL /PLAN DEPT /COMM Your account 3 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO } }SS. COUNTY OF EAGLE } I, Don Rogers, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative ofthe Vail Daily. Thatthe same Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty -two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 11/11/2011 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 11/11/2011 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 11/21/2011. General Manager /Publisher /Editor Vail Daily Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 11/21/2011. Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2015 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12 -3 -6, Vail Town Code, on November 28, 2011, at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: There are no new items. Please see the Novem- ber 28, 2011 agenda which will be published on November 25, 2011 for items to be heard. The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Develop- ment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend site visits. Please call 970 - 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon re- quest, with 24 -hour notification. Please call 970 - 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Im- paired, for information. Published November 11, 2011, in the Vail Daily. (7216830)