Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20100601MEETING AGENDA June 1, 2010 4 PM Council Chambers QUARTERLY JOINT WORK SESSION OF CITY COUNCIL & BOCC 4:00 Rio Graude Recycling Center 4:30 CMAQ Grant Possibilities 5:00 Executive Session 6:00 Adjourn AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY WORK SESSION DATE: June 1, 2010 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Rio Grande Recycling Drop-off Center STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Chris Hoofnagle, Solid Waste Manager ISSUE STATEMENT: County Staff is looking for new funding mechanisms for the recycling program. BACKGROUND: Recycling is not free. The difficulty in rural/remote communities like ours is that there is not enough volume of materials to pay the huge costs of collection, processing, and shipment of the recyclables. In Pitkin County, Landfill revenues have traditionally been the only support for the recycling program. While there is some revenue from the sale of collected recyclables, the program still operates at a loss each year. In 2008 the program operated with about $884,000 in expenses against about $192,000 in revenue. Landfill revenues have typically covered the operating deficit. In addition to paying for the recycling program, Landfill revenues are used to support to the County General Fund, save for the closure of the Land£ll, save for future recycling facility capital expenditures, and mitigate environmental liabilities. In 2009 there was not enough Landfill revenue to pay for all of these priorities. Similar deficits are projected for 2010 and the foreseeable future. In order to meet the growing gap, the Resource Recovery Department lowered service levels in 2009. In addition to lowering the Landfill staff by one, the recycling route of 90-gallon containers at housing and other public buildings was eliminated. This change was enabled by the City's hauler ordinance that mandates recyclables be picked up at the curbside. Nevertheless, with construction related waste volumes dropping off as precipitously as they have, the Landfill budget is still unable to meet all the operating priorities. The Drop-off Centers in Aspen and Basalt provide highly-desired services to citizens and they divert material from being buried at the Landfill, thereby extending its lifespan. They are also are very large expenditures for the Landfill budget. The Aspen drop-off center will cost the County over $136,000 in 2010. A breakdown ofthese costs is included in the attachment. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: Fiscal Sustainability. Organizational Excellence. KEY DISCUSSION ITEMS: Recycling fees at MRFs: The MRFs in the Denver area began charging $30/ton fees in 2009 and reduced them to $]0/ton in 2010. Currently the Pitkin and Eagle County MRFs charge no fee to receive recyclables. In order to recoup the approximate $350,000 cost of operating its MRF, Pitkin would have to charge a tipping fee somewhere between $60 and $70/ton. Charging any fee for recyclables at the MRF is likely to cause the haulers to ship them directly to Eagle County's new facility instead. In this case, the MRF would only receive recyclables hauled from the Drop-off centers by Pitkin County for which the MRF would still receive no fee. This case would however, save about $40,000 in shipping expenses to the Eagle County MRF. Hauler Ordinance: Pitkin County and Aspen have hauler ordinances mandating haulers of trash also provide recyclable pick-up service. The City mandates that haulers include the cost of pick-up in their bill so customers are paying for it regardless of whether they use the service. The County requires that the hauler provide pick-up at least as often as they provide trash pick up to customers who request the service. The ordinances require that haulers pick-up comingled containers, newspaper, and office paper. Hauling and shipping these materials from the drop-off centers costs the County about $70,000 annually. These materials would continue to get picked-up at the curbside if they were not picked up at the drop-off center. The City requires Cardboard pick-up at commercial accounts. Neither the City nor the County require curbside cardboard pick-up. Single Stream Recycling: Every major study has shown that mandating single stream recycling collection by the haulers at the curbside is will result in higher volumes of recyclables being collected. Single Stream collection would also solve two of the problems associated with reducing drop-off services - It would be much easier to assure that the recyclables collected at the drop-off were collected at the curbside; and curbside collection would include collection of cardboard. Mandating single stream recyclable collection has certain challenges however. First, glass is a high weight and low value material. In collecting and shipping glass, there is very little bang-for-the- buck. Aspen/Pitkin County has a very high ratio of glass in the recycling mix relative to other communities. Removing glass from the recyclable mix raises the value of the recyclable materials while lowering the shipping cost. Removing glass also enables the remaining materials to be baled for shipment which further increases shipping efficiency. Secondly, the Eagle County MRF would not accept the paper and comingled containers materials mixed together in a single stream. Pitkin County would have to return to shipping to the MRF in Boulder for sorting. However, Boulder would likely be able to pay for the materials if there were no glass. Landfill lifespan: There about 5,000 tons of recyclables collected in the recycling program each year. That equates to about 10,000 cubic yards of airspace annually if compacted into the Landfill. The Landfill currently consumes about 90,000 cubic yards of airspace each year. There are approximately 2.2 million cubic yards remaining to be filled at the landfill leaving an approximate 25 years of life remaining at the current filling rate. Public Comment: Public comments received during the past several weeks reflect the sentiment that there would be no other way to recycle certain items if the drop-off center were eliminated. Firstly, there is no proposal to eliminate the drop-off center. It is responsible to evaluate the expenditures in the budget, especially in times like the present where revenues are decreasing. The evaluation has revealed that the County is providing services which the private sector also provides and at great expense. This discussion is meant to try and decide if the County will continue to provide those same services or reduce them to those services that the private does not provide; and to Find ways to pay for whatever service level is chosen. Secondly, every recyclable item, from the traditional items to the hard to recycle items such as batteries and plastic bags, can always be dropped off at the Landfill. BUDGETARY IMPACT: If the City contributed 50% of the current Drop-off center operating cost less their current expense, then about $57,000 would be generated for the Landfill budget. Reducing service level at the Drop- offcenter to those items not handled by the private sector reduces a 50% contribution to $22,000. RECOMMENDED BOCC ACTION: Charge for comingled recyclables at the MRF from commercial haulers. Negotiate a cost sharing agreement with the City of Aspen. Reduce service level at drop-off center in concert with revisions to the County hauler ordinance that evaluate Pay-As-You-Throw mandates or adding single stream recyclable collection. ATTACHMENTS: RIO drop-off center expenses. Attachment RIO Grande Recycle Center Expenses 2010 Hours Rate TOTAL City Parks Gean-up $ 4,000 City EH Gean-up and leaf bin main(. $ 16,000 City Streets plovAng 12 60 $ 720 pavment patching 6 90 $ 540 grading 6 130 $ 780 City Expense TOTAL E 22,040 County Hauling Cardboard 572 97 $ 55,484 Comingle 156 97 $ 15,132 Newspaper 104 97 $ 10,088 Office paper 52 97 $ 5,044 grass/leaves 42 97 $ 4,074 x-mas trees 35 97 $ 3,395 Gean-up and illeagal dumping 100 37 $ 3,700 Hauling TOTAL $ 96,917 Loads Rate County Shipping Materials Shipping 104 380 $ 39,520 County Expense TOTAL $ 136,437 TOTAL Expense $ 158,477 Revenue CB revenue 12 1000 $ 12,000 NET Ex nse $ 146,477 RIO Grande Recycle Center Expenses 2011 projected without Comingle, news and offcepaper Hours Rate TOTAL City Parks clean-up $ 4,000 City EH clean-up and leaf bin main(. $ 16,000 City Streets plowing 12 60 $ 720 pavment patching 6 90 $ 540 grading 6 130 $ 780 Ciry Expense TOTAL S 22,040 County Hauling Cardboard 572 97 $ 55,484 Comingle 97 $ - Newspaper 97 $ - Offcepaper 97 $ - grass/leaves 42 97 $ 4,074 x-mas trees 35 97 $ 3,395 clean-up and illeagal dumping 100 37 $ 3,700 Hauling TOTAL $ 66,653 Loads Rate County Shippin Materials Shipping 0 380 $ - County Expense TOTAL 66,653 TOTAL Expense 86,693 Revenue CB revenue 12 1000 $ 12,000 NET Ex nse E 76,693 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY WORK SESSION DATE: June 1, 2010 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Joint Meeting CMAQ Discussion STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Brian Pettet, County Public Works Director G.R. Fielding, County Engineer John Krueger, Aspen Transportation Director Lynn Rumbaugh, Aspen Transportation Programs Manager ISSUE STATEMENT: Staff was directed to bring an agenda item forward for the joint City of Aspen and Pitkin County meeting to discuss use of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant. BACKGROUND: Each year the CMAQ grant alternates between the City of Aspen and Pitkin County and should extend, at least, to the year 2017. The grant requires 20 percent local match and with the local match total CMAQ annual project budget is expected to continue to be approximately $200,000. CDOT has stated that it would be possible to combine CMAQ funds from consecutive years if the City of Aspen and Pitkin County decided to collaborate on a project of larger financial scale. Pitkin County Staff proposed several projects recently for the CMAQ grant. The Board of County Commissioners wanted to have a discussion with the City of Aspen regarding possible pooling of grant money to do a larger project. If no other project is identified the BOCC has directed County Staff to pursue paving on the Rio Grande Trail. The types of projects that qualify for CMAQ funding are as follows: Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) o Programs to improve public transit o Restriction of certain roads or lanes to, or construction of such roads or lanes for use by, passenger buses or HOV o Employer-based transportation management plans, including incentives o Trip-reduction ordinances o Traffic flow improvement programs that reduce emissions o Fringe and transportation corridor parking facilities serving multiple-occupancy vehicle programs or transit service o Programs to limit or restrict vehicle use in downtown areas or other areas of emission concentration particularly during periods of peak use o Programs for the provision of all forms ofhigh-occupancy, shared-ride services o Programs to limit portions of road surfaces or certain sections of the metropolitan area to the use ofnon-motorized vehicles or pedestrian use, both as to time and place o Programs for secure bicycle storage facilities and other facilities, including bicycle lanes, for the convenience and protection of bicyclists, in both public and private areas o Programs to control extended idling of vehicles o Reducing emissions from extreme cold start conditions o Employer-sponsored programs to permit flexible work schedules o Programs and ordinances to facilitate non-automobile travel, provision and utilization of mass transit, and to generally reduce the need for SOV travel, as part of transportation planning and development efforts of a locality, including programs and ordinances applicable to new shopping centers, special events, and other centers of vehicle activity o Programs for new construction and major reconstructions of paths, tracks, or areas solely for the use by pedestrian or other non-motorized means of transportation when economically feasible and in the public interest Previous CMAQ projects have included: • City of Aspen o Cemetery Lane Path o Truscott intersection o Street Sweeper o Flush Truck and diesel retrofit Pitkin County o Owl Creek Road Paving o Flush Truck o Van Pool Program o Sheet Sweeper The goal of the CMAQ grant is to reduce PMio air pollution and Ozone levels. Information regarding levels of PM~o and Ozone in Aspen can be found at: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Environmental-Health/Air-Quality/ KEY DISCUSSION ITEMS: What larger projects are of interest to Aspen City Council and Pitkin Board of County Commissioners? The following were the ideas brought forward to the BOCC: • Transit o SH82 Pedestrian amenity at AABC/Airport o Secure Bicycle Storage Facilities at BRT stops • Paving Rio Grande Trail (unpaved portions are located between Woody Creek and Aspen) • Enhancements to the Buttermilk Parking Lot (paving) • Enhancements to the Intercept Lot (paving) • Vanpool program (outside of County Staff) • Roll money over into a collaborative project with the City of Aspen BUDGETARY IMPACT: This years grant is for $165,580 of federal funds and a mandatory $34,420 local match for a total budget of $200,000. If rolled over the total would be $331,160 of federal funds and a mandatory $68,8401oca1 match for a total of $400,000. Recommended Action: No action needed; for discussion only.