HomeMy WebLinkAboutInformation Only 051126AGENDA
INFORMATION UPDATE
May 11, 2026
4:00 PM,
I.Information Update
I.A Follow Up Report: Downtown Right of Way Enforcement
I.B Construction & Demolition Debris Recycling Program Updates
2026_5.11 Downtown ROW Enforcement Follow Up Report.pdf
Construction___Demolition_Debris_Recycling_Program_Updates(1).docx
1
1
FOLLOW-UP REPORT
ORIGINAL MEETING DATE: April 6, 2026
FOLLOW-UP MEMO DATE: May 11, 2026
SUBJECT: Downtown Right of Way Enforcement
PRESENTED BY: Emmy Oliver (Community Development), Aaron Reed (Engineering)
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Richards, Councilor Doyle, and Councilor
Rose were present. Councilors Benedetti and Guth provided comments via e-mail.
WORK SESSION DISCUSSION SUMMARY: Staff requested Council’s guidance on
whether to maintain the current regulatory and enforcement approach to pop-up
activations, sandwich board signs, and bicycle fleets in the right of way (ROW), or to
explore amendments to current policies.
Council provided the following directions in response to staff’s questions:
1. Does Council wish to permit the use of the ROW by businesses for pop-up
activations? Majority Yes.
2. If yes, does Council want staff to develop a regulatory framework for pop-up
activations? Majority No.
3. Does Council want staff to enforce the existing sandwich board sign code?
Majority No.
4. Does Council want staff to develop a regulatory framework for sandwich board
signs? Majority No.
5. Does Council want to continue allowing bike shops to stage rental fleets in the
ROW? Majority Yes.
6. Is Council willing to expand permissions for bike shops to stage for-sale and
repair fleets in the ROW? Majority No.
Key takeaways from the discussion are as follows for each topic:
• Pop-up activations: Council recognized that pop-ups add vitality to Aspen’s
Commercial Core, and all Councilors were supportive of allowing pop-ups in the
ROW on a short-term basis. The majority of Councilors agreed that they did not
want to create a formal permitting system for these types of activations and
2
instead requested the development of a handout intended to educate businesses
about acceptable ways to activate in the ROW. Guidelines should include
instructions for placement, staff notification, time limits, and waste management,
in addition to restrictions on product sales, commercialization of the ROW, and
parking space usage. Activations adhering to staff’s guidelines are to be allowed
in the ROW on a trial basis until further notice.
• Sandwich board signs: Council acknowledged that the current proliferation of
unregulated sandwich board signs is both unacceptable and out of alignment
with Land Use Code requirements. Council understood that because of the Reed
v. Gilbert, AZ case, the City cannot regulate sign content and subsequently may
not permit only select categories of businesses (like second tier spaces) to have
signs. The Council majority declined to enforce the current sandwich board sign
prohibition out of courtesy to businesses, and asked staff to bring alternative
options to sandwich board signs for a follow-up discussion by Winter 2026-2027.
• Bicycle fleets: Councilors acknowledged that bike shops face real estate
challenges in Aspen, and also that they are treated differently than other retailers
by being allowed to stage rental fleets in the ROW. The majority of Councilors
favored continuing to allow bike shops to stage rental fleets on ROW if shops
remain willing to remedy access that is negatively impacted. The Council was not
in favor of allowing bike shops to place for-sale or repair bikes in the ROW due to
restrictions on vending.
NEXT STEPS:
• Pop-up activations: Staff will request a recommendation on pop-up activations
from CCLC at their May 2026 meeting. Community Development, Engineering,
Parks, Clerk, and Environmental Health staff will collaborate to create guidelines
for pop-ups in the ROW. By summer 2026, guidelines will be delivered to
businesses that have activated in the past, and to any that express interest in
activating in the future. Staff will confer with ACRA to disseminate the information
to their members and collect feedback on the pop-up strategy.
• Sandwich board signs: Community Development, Engineering, and Parks staff
will continue interacting with sandwich board signs on a complaint-only basis and
as needed to maintain accessibility. Staff from these departments will also
collaborate on a list of alternatives to sandwich board signs. Staff will request a
recommendation from CCLC for sandwich board signs and poll the board on
alternative options. Staff will collaborate with ACRA to gather feedback on
sandwich board sign alternatives from the business community. Staff will present
findings to Council by Winter 2026-2027.
• Bicycle fleets: In Spring 2026, Community Development and Engineering staff
will communicate to bike shops that for sale and repair fleets are not allowed in
the ROW and work with each business to determine the appropriate staging set
up for rental fleets based on spatial constraints of the location. Moving forward,
staff will continue interacting with bicycle fleets on a complaint-only basis and as
needed to maintain accessibility for sidewalks and adjacent parking spaces.
CITY MANAGER NOTES:
3
INFORMATION ONLY REPORT
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Elisabeth Richardsen, Construction Debris Coordinator
THROUGH: Aaron Reed, Engineering Plans and Construction Supervisor
Tricia Aragon, City Engineer
Daniel Lawson, Public Works Director
Tyler Christoff, Deputy City Manager
MEETING DATE: May 11th 2026
SUBJECT: Construction & Demolition Debris Recycling Program Updates
INTENDED OUTCOME & SUMMARY: This information-only memo provides City
Council with a first-year implementation update on the Construction and Demolition
Debris Recycling Program. Program data shows high overall diversion compliance
across project types, but also demonstrates that the Diversion Compliance Deposit is an
unnecessary regulatory burden rather than an effective tool for improving compliance.
Based on these findings, staff will return later this year with proposed code amendments
to remove the deposit requirement for all project types and exempt reroofing projects
from the program.
DISCUSSION: City Council adopted Chapter 29.02 Construction and Demolition Debris
Diversion following a first reading on December 17th, 2024, and a second reading on
January 14th, 2025, of Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2024.
The chapter applies to projects with 2,000 square feet or more of Construction
Mitigation Area1. Required materials for diversion from the landfill are:
o Concrete
o Corrugated cardboard
1 The combined square footage of building work area and soil disturbance area, where building work area
includes all square footage undergoing construction, alteration, or reconfiguration, including new
construction.
4
o Porcelain
o Metal appliances
o Asphalt
o Rock & dirt
o Metal
o Single stream recyclables
o Organics
o Untreated (no stain, paint, or chemical treatment) lumber and pallets.
These materials are either locally processed into products such as road base, wood
chips, or transported to specialized facilities for further recycling.
The chapter also includes enforcement tools to address noncompliance, which are the
fully refundable Diversion Compliance Deposit2 when 50% diversion rate has been
achieved, the non-refundable Unsorted Load Fee3 and, the Stop Work Order.
Program Overview and First-Year Implementation
The Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Program has completed its first year
of implementation, providing sufficient data to evaluate overall compliance, equity
across project types, and the effectiveness of enforcement tools.
First-year results show strong overall compliance with the 50 percent diversion
requirement across most project types, indicating that the program ’s core diversion
goals are being met.
The following sections summarize diversion performance by project typ e.
Demolition Projects – High Diversion Rates
Since 2023, staff has required Green Halo4 debris documentation for demolition permits.
The data in Table 1 5 shows that most demolition projects met or exceeded the 50%
diversion rate, even though most permits were not subject to the Diversion Compliance
Deposit. This demonstrates that compliance is achievable without the deposit
requirement.
2 (Construction Mitigation square footage × 0.05) × $495
3 Unsorted Load Tonnage x $495
4 Debris tracking software
5 Each year shown in the table represents a single demo permit from that year
5
Table 1
Remodel Projects – Variable Divertible Materials
Remodel projects each generate different types and quantities of recyclable materials
and trash. Because of this, it can be difficult to accurately estimate diversion rates
ahead of time. Project teams often need to adapt as the work progresses, and the
actual diversion rate typically becomes clear only on ce the project is complete. Although
diversion rates for remodel projects can vary, it is still important to require the diversion
of recyclable materials. Including remodel projects in the program ensures that all
recyclable materials are properly recycled.
Interior Finish and Fixture Removal (IFFR) permit data shows lower than 50% diversion
rates across projects, reflecting the limited availability of recyclable materials typically
generated by this type of work, such as flooring and drywall. Including IFFR projects in
the program ensures that all recyclable materials are recycled, regardless of the overall
diversion percentage achieved.
Re-Roofing – No Diversion Options
Re-roofing projects generate waste streams with minimal recycling or reuse
opportunities, resulting in consistently 0% diversion rates. Based on first-year outcomes,
staff is recommending including this project type in the exemption section of the code.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2023 2023 2023 2023 2024 2024 2024 2024 2024 2025 2025DIVERSION %PERMIT YEAR
Diversion Rate of Demolition Projects by
Year of Permit
Diversion Rate
50% Requirment
6
New Construction – Data Still Developing
Data collection for new construction projects is ongoing. Preliminary Waste Diversion
Plans indicate that ground-up construction typically generates limited amounts of
divertible material, and staff does not have sufficient completed project data to draw
conclusions regarding diversion performance.
The next section shifts focus from diversion outcomes to first-year Diversion
Compliance Deposit findings.
Diversion Compliance Deposit – Equity and Effectiveness
First-year implementation indicates that the current diversion deposit structure does not
differentiate by project type or expected material output, resulting in disproportionate
impacts on the projects without clear compliance benefits. As a result, remodel and re-
roofing projects are subject to the same deposit requirements/amounts as demolition
projects, despite generating substantially less recyclable materials. This has led to
multiple deposit exemption requests from remodel and re -roofing projects, which want
to comply with all other program requirements.
Conversely, demolition projects have raised concerns regarding the overall size and
duration of required deposits, particularly in cases where deposits are held for extended
periods due to multi-year redevelopment timelines.
To date, staff have requested 18 Diversion Compliance Deposits, totaling
$3,887,242.50, with individual deposits ranging from $68,000.00 to $510,000.00. Of
these, seven deposits have been received, totaling $1,101,127.50. One deposit has
been fully returned following project completion. The remaining projects are either still
under construction or have not yet commenced.
Staff has observed that the administrative processing of the Diversion Compliance
Deposit creates unnecessary workload and burden for both staff and applicants,
particularly given the effectiveness of other enforcement tools.
The primary purpose of the Diversion Compliance Deposit is to incentivize projects to
follow waste diversion requirements. When unsorted loads are identified during
construction or demolition, staff requires contractor training or enforces penalties such
as unsorted load fees or stop work orders, ensuring compliance. With these robust
enforcement mechanisms in place, staff believes the deposit re quirement is redundant
and results in overregulation of the program. As such, staff does not see a need for the
continued use of the Diversion Compliance Deposit.
7
NEXT STEPS: Staff will return to Council later this year with proposed code revisions to
the Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion Program informed by first-year
implementation results. Staff recommendations:
Removal of the Diversion Compliance Deposit requirement, as it has not been
shown to improve diversion compliance and creates unnecessary administrative
impacts.
Exemption of re-roofing projects from diversion requirements due to the lack of
viable recycling or reuse options for roofing waste materials.
No changes are anticipated to the recycling requirements for demolitions, remodels,
interior fixture and finishes removals, and new builds or existing enforcement tools,
which have proven effective in achieving compliance.
CITY MANAGER NOTES:
8