HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20180116
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
January 16, 2018
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Phase 2 Waste Study / Waste Diversion Update
II. Lift 1 Study Update
P1
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Liz Chapman, Environmental Health and Sustainability
THRU: CJ Oliver, Environmental Health and Sustainability Director
DATE OF MEMO: January 12, 2018
MEETING DATE: January 16. 2018
RE: Phase 2 of the Solid Waste Assessment Report
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting City Council direction to pursue certain
recommendations of the Waste Diversion Study - Phase 2. Specifically, staff requests direction
to move forward with amending the Solid Waste chapter of the Municipal Code and to propose
options for increasing the diversion of organic material at future Council meetings.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Aspen City Council approved partnering with Pitkin
County to conduct both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Waste Diversion Plan. The City of Aspen
contributed $44,500 as part of the 2015 fall supplemental budget and has committed to paying
half of the costs for the second phase (approximately $37,000). Waste reduction efforts were first
incorporated into the Solid Waste portion of the Municipal Code in 2005 which required haulers
to include recycling fees in the base rate for trash service. The 2015 Construction Mitigation
Plan approved by Council included reporting requirements for construction and demolition
waste, but required no specific actions to divert material. In 2008, Council evaluated and rejected
instituting a Solid Waste Fee to be collected with building permitting fees. Council amended the
code to include waste diversion through composting in 2011.
BACKGROUND: The Pitkin County Solid Waste Center (landfill) is intended to be the primary
location for disposing of waste from the City of Aspen. The landfill is estimated to have less than
8 years left at the current rate of deposition and diversion. The waste composition analysis done
as part of Phase 1 revealed that over 50% of the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) could be diverted
through recycling or composting. Although 80% of the material arriving at the Pitkin County Solid
Waste Center (landfill) is attributed to construction and demolition (C&D) activities, 47% of that
material was diverted from burial in 2015. This resulted in a ratio of 41% MSW and 59% C&D
material buried at the landfill in 2016. In 2016, the reported diversion rate for MSW hauled out of
Aspen was 16%, with 1% of that being compost diversion. This is a reduction from the highest
diversion rate of 30% in 2012.
P2
I.
Page 2 of 3
DISCUSSION: Phase 2 of Waste Diversion Plan (Attachment A) examined the results of Phase
1, challenges and opportunities of our local waste infrastructure, and successful waste diversion
programs in other communities. The primary recommendations of the plan are to evaluate the
policies and infrastructure needed to divert more of the construction and demolition (C&D) waste
from being buried, to create programs and/or polices to increase food waste going to the landfill
compost operations, and to revise the waste ordinances in Aspen and Pitkin County to be in
alignment and encourage diversion activities. These recommendations also factored in feasibility,
costs, and greenhouse gas (ghg) savings. The Climate Action Plan (Attachment B) released by the
City of Aspen includes many of the same recommendations.
The current waste ordinances in Pitkin County and the City of Aspen differ in ways that creates
confusion for both waste haulers and their customers. The Aspen ordinance requires curbside trash
and recycling services to be bundled as a single price, bi-annual reporting from waste haulers of
waste quantities, and bans yard waste from disposal into the landfill, while the Pitkin County
ordinance does not contain these elements. In following the recommendations of Phase 2, not only
will the two ordinances be more closely aligned, but there is an opportunity to improve compliance,
diversion, and measuring progress in these areas. Aspen has seen the recycling diversion rate
decline in the past 5 years and changes to the Solid Waste chapter of the Municipal Code have the
potential to reverse that trend. Aligning waste ordinances and increasing compliance with
diversion goals are two of the actions listed in the Climate Action Plan to reduce ghg emissions
from waste disposal.
Although food and paper waste (organics) diversion has steadily increased over the past 5 years,
it remains far below the 36% potential diversion Phase 1 identified (less than 1% of organics were
diverted in 2012 to over 2% diverted in 2016). New residential and business customers are being
added each week, but these additions are not keeping pace with the organic material being buried
in the landfill. Creating a mandatory policy or providing incentives to capture the food waste being
discarded by the large generators in town would have a significant impact on the diversion rate
while also implementing one of the objectives of the Climate Action Plan.
The Climate Action Plan and the Waste Diversion Plan both emphasize the need to reduce the
amount of C&D waste. The Pitkin County landfill has established diversion programs for rock,
soil, concrete, metal, and asphalt, but almost half of the remaining C&D waste is buried. V isual
audits of these mixed waste loads were conducted in 2016 (during the building moratorium in
Aspen) and indicated a substantial amount of material could have been diverted with existing
programs. City and County staff, along with the consultants, solicited feedback from various
stakeholders in the development community to determine what the barriers were to increased
diversion. The responses pointed to limiting factors of time, space, and markets. The City of Aspen
has been encouraging diversion as part of the Construction Mitigation Plan, but this voluntary
program has not resulted in a notable increase in diversion during construction or demolition. The
County has increased the cost for disposing of trash and C&D loads by $20/ton in 2018 as part of
their effort to encourage diversion. Further audits of the composition of mixed C&D loads, reaction
to increased fees, and more work with the development community in Aspen are needed to
determine the most effective and feasible process for the City of Aspen to stimulate more diversion
of C&D waste. Both the Waste Diversion Plan and the Climate Action Plan recommend moving
material to market, so it will take cooperation with the business community to realize these actions.
P3
I.
Page 3 of 3
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: None at this time. Depending on the policies Council
chooses to implement, there may be financial costs associated with increased staff or facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
If Council pursues any of the recommendations of the Phase 2 report (and Climate Action Plan -
Waste section), there will be positive impacts on the environment.
Sustainability initiative Yes
Outcome area affected: Air, Waste
Key metric affected: Air- Levels of particulate matter; Waste – Waste diversion rate;
Amount of landfill space available; Number of miles waste travels
for processing
By reducing the amount of material sent to be buried in the landfill and finding ways to reuse,
resources are conserved. It also extends the life of the raw materials sources. Composting organic
materials is the most cost-effective method for reducing the material going into the landfill,
developing a saleable product produced in our area, and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions
associated with landfills. The embodied energy and carbon emissions of manufacturing
construction materials from virgin resources would be reduced if materials are reused and recycled.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests Council act on some of the recommendations of
the Waste Diversion Plan – Phase 2 by directing staff to return with revisions to the Solid Waste
chapter of the Municipal Code. Additionally, Council is asked to direct staff to develop programs
and policies to increase diverting organics to compost for Council consideration.
ALTERNATIVES: If Council does not approve pursuing some of these recommendations, then
it is expected that diversion will not increase and may possibly decrease from present levels.
Further, without these actions, significant components of the Climate Action Plan will not have
the support of the City of Aspen.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
P4
I.
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX
7340 E. Caley Avenue • Suite 110 • Centennial, Colorado 80111 • 720.529.0132 • wcgrp.com • Offices Nationwide
January 10, 2018
Via electronic delivery
Cathleen Hall
Pitkin County
76 Service Center Road
Aspen, CO 81611
Liz Chapman
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Waste Diversion Plan – Phase II
Pitkin County Solid Waste Center
Project No. 2796-495-11-10-06
Dear Cathy and Liz,
Please find the attached Waste Diversion Plan – Phase II that sets out details of the waste
diversion study of the Roaring Fork Valley area, performed by Weaver Consultants Group and
LBA Associates, Inc. Also included are recommendations to increase waste diversion in the area.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Weaver Consultants Group
Ryan Ellis, P.E.
Project Manager
John Briest, P.E.
Principal
Attachment
P5
I.
PREPARED BY
PITKIN COUNTY SOLID WASTE CENTER
WASTE DIVERSION PLAN
PHASE II
PREPARED FOR
CITY OF ASPEN AND PITKIN COUNTY
January 10, 2018
P6
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................................. 2
2.1 Plan Objectives ............................................................................................ 2
2.2 Plan History ................................................................................................. 2
2.3 Existing Solid Waste System & Diversion Success Rate .............................. 3
2.4 Waste Diversion Challenges ........................................................................ 4
2.5 Stakeholder Commitment ........................................................................... 5
3 MSW HAULER POLICY ................................................................................................ 6
3.1 Hauler Policy Objectives ............................................................................. 6
3.2 Collection System ........................................................................................ 7
3.2.1 Existing System ............................................................................... 7
3.2.2 Existing Diversion Policy.................................................................. 9
3.3 Hauler Policy Successes in Other Communities ........................................ 11
3.4 Hauler Input .............................................................................................. 11
3.5 Recommended Hauler Policy Changes ..................................................... 12
3.5.1 Recommended Policy Components .............................................. 13
3.5.2 Estimated Diversion Benefits and Cost Impacts ........................... 14
3.6 Implementation Considerations ............................................................... 17
3.6.1 Enforcement ................................................................................. 17
3.6.2 Public Education and Outreach .................................................... 18
3.7 MSW Hauler Policy Summary Points ........................................................ 19
4 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION ................................................................................20
4.1 Commercial Food Waste Diversion Objectives ......................................... 20
4.2 EPA Hierarchy ............................................................................................ 21
4.3 Existing System ......................................................................................... 22
4.3.1 Commercial Food Waste Generators ........................................... 23
4.3.2 Existing Diversion Challenges........................................................ 24
4.4 Food Waste Policy Successes in Other Communities ............................... 25
4.4.1 Colorado Examples Similar to the RFV .......................................... 25
4.4.2 Example Food Waste Diversion Programs .................................... 25
4.5 Commercial Food Waste Generator Input ............................................... 26
4.6 Recommended Commercial Food Waste Policy ....................................... 28
4.6.1 Policy Components ....................................................................... 28
4.6.2 Other Recommendations .............................................................. 30
4.6.3 Estimated Benefits and Cost Impacts ........................................... 31
4.7 Implementation Considerations ............................................................... 32
4.8 Commercial Food Waste Policy Summary Points ..................................... 32
P7
I.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
iii
5 C&D DEBRIS DIVERSION ..........................................................................................33
5.1 C&D Diversion Objectives ......................................................................... 33
5.2 C&D Debris Composition .......................................................................... 34
5.3 Current Handling of C&D or Existing System ............................................ 35
5.3.1 C&D Debris Management ............................................................. 35
5.3.2 Obstacles for C&D Diversion ......................................................... 36
5.3.3 Opportunities for Additional C&D Diversion ................................ 37
5.4 C&D Diversion Successes in Other Communities ..................................... 38
5.4.1 Example Regulatory Programs in Colorado and U.S. .................... 38
5.5 Stakeholder Feedback ............................................................................... 38
5.6 Recommended C&D Management Changes ............................................ 39
5.6.1 C&D Waste Regulations ................................................................ 39
5.6.2 Used Building Material Handling .................................................. 40
5.6.3 Increase Tipping Fees .................................................................... 40
5.7 City and County Roles in C&D Waste Diversion ........................................ 41
5.7.1 ComDev to Require a Waste Diversion Plan ................................. 41
5.7.2 Waste Tracking by Project at PCSWC............................................ 42
5.7.3 Develop an Outlet for Reusable Materials ................................... 44
5.7.4 Material Donation Tax Deductions ............................................... 45
5.8 Diversion Potential .................................................................................... 45
5.8.1 Goal Setting ................................................................................... 46
5.9 C&D Waste Management Summary Points .............................................. 46
6 CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................................47
7 LIMITATIONS ...............................................................................................................48
TABLES
Table 3-2 Existing Aspen and Pitkin County Hauler Regulation .................................. 10
Table 3-3 Comparative Benchmark Results ................................................................. 12
Table 3-5 Potential MSW Diversion Increase – Recycling Only ................................... 15
Table 3-6 Annual Implementation Costs for Local Governments ............................... 16
Table 4-1 2016 Food Waste Stakeholder Survey Results ............................................ 27
Table 4-2 Potential MSW Diversion Increase – Food Waste Recovery Only ............... 31
Table 5-6 Potential C&D Diversion Increase – Building-Related Waste Stream Only . 45
P8
I.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
iv
FIGURES
Figure 3-1 MSW Hauler Ordinance Flow Chart ............................................................. 14
Figure 4-1 U.S. EPA Food Recovery Hierarchy .............................................................. 22
Figure 4-2 Food Waste Regulation Applicability ........................................................... 30
Figure 5-1 Composition of Building Construction Debris Landfilled at PCSWC ............ 34
Figure 5-2 Conception Plan for Increasing C&D Waste Diversion ................................ 43
APPENDICES
Appendix A Potential Hauler Policy Mechanisms – Pros & Cons
Appendix B Other Hauler Policy Considerations
Appendix C Waste Diversion Potential
Appendix D Hauler-Based Waste Diversion Policy Cost Estimate
P9
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
1
1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Aspen (City) and Pitkin County (County) Public Officials are aware that Pitkin
County Solid Waste Center (PCSWC) has a limited disposal life and that the recent
increases in waste generation rates could make the remaining life shorter without an
expansion. The PCSWC currently operates several waste diversion programs in an effort
to reuse materials, as well as conserve landfill airspace. The City also participates in
waste diversion through generator and collection programs.
The Roaring Fork Valley (RFV) is unique in many ways and some of these programs make
solid waste management difficult. Some of these challenges include seasonal population
changes due to tourism, the distance to larger population centers, the local climate and
wildlife populations, and the high real estate values. Through the process of developing
this Phase II Waste Diversion Plan (Phase II Plan), Weaver Consultants Group (WCG),
working with LBA Associates, Inc. (LBA), has worked to understand these challenges and
have provided recommendations to increase waste diversion within the RFV. This Phase
II Plan specifically addresses potential hauler ordinance changes, the potential
introduction of a food waste ordinance, and the potential introduction of a variable rate
tipping fee structure for large construction and demolition (C&D) debris generators.
Through the implementation of the recommendations included in this Phase II Plan, the
waste diversion rates should increase. The benefits of the increased waste diversion
rates will include conservation of resources, including landfill airspace and natural
resources, and the increased usage of reusable materials.
P10
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
2
2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Phase I Roaring Fork Valley Comprehensive Waste Diversion Plan (Phase I Plan) was
undertaken by the County and the City to evaluate opportunities for the
environmentally and economically sustainable reuse, recycling, and composting over a
10-year planning horizon that extends from 2017 through 2027. The RFV planning area
extends from Aspen through the Town of Carbondale and includes parts of both Eagle
and Garfield Counties.
WCG and LBA assisted these agencies and other parts of the RFV with this Phase II Plan.
It is intended that the objectives of this Phase II Plan will be realized through two
separate phases. Phase I was completed in 2016. This document sets out the Phase II
findings.
2.1 Plan Objectives
The Phase II Plan objectives were developed by representatives of both the County and
the City. Both operating entities are interested in making collaborative waste diversion
improvements in the RFV. The primary objectives of the Phase II Plan include the
following:
• Maximize solid waste diversion
- Diversion is defined as sustainable reuse, recycling, and composting
- Diversion will consider municipal solid waste (MSW), including food waste
- Diversion will also consider non-MSW such as C&D debris;
• Leverage the value of public awareness and participation;
• Incorporate appropriate incentives and enforcement; and
• Develop an implementation strategy and goals for both the mid-point of the
planning period (2022) and the end-point (2027).
2.2 Plan History
Phase I was conducted from mid-2015 to early-2016 and developed the three diversion
priorities to be analyzed in Phase II. These included diversion efforts for diverting
commercial food waste and C&D debris, plus an evaluation of the hauler collection
policies currently in place in Pitkin County and Aspen to expand their effectiveness and
consistency. Phase II was conducted from late in 2016 through late 2017 and included a
detailed assessment of these three focus areas. This report summarizes
recommendations for the development of new and revised policies (Sections 3.0
through 5.0) and overall plan recommendations for implementation (Section 6.0).
P11
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
3
2.3 Existing Solid Waste System & Diversion Success Rate
The cornerstone of solid waste management in the RFV is the PCSWC. The PCSWC
consists of the following features:
• a landfill for the disposal of solid
waste and lead contaminated soils
• mattresses, books, and textiles
collection for reuse or recycling
• Class I composting facility • electronic waste collection
• single-stream recyclables transfer site • aggregate recycling
• drop and swap reuse operation • waste tire collection and use
• household hazardous waste collection • scrap metal collection
Other attributes of the RFV-wide waste management system include the following (see
the Phase I Plan for a more detailed summary):
• Largely privatized collection network for MSW and C&D – the Town of Snowmass
Village is the exception, with public trash and recyclables hauling service.
• Recyclables drop sites throughout the RFV – the Rio Grande site in Aspen is the
largest and accepts seasonal yard waste.
• Pitkin County, Aspen and Basalt require private trash haulers to offer and
incentivize recycling services – Aspen also has a yard waste disposal ban, and
both Aspen and Carbondale have plastic bag use bans at grocers.
• The County and the City operate a food waste recovery program (SCRAPS) – and
both agencies have active public outreach programs 1.
In 2015, the RFV’s waste stream was evaluated to identify material-specific
opportunities. The roughly 192,000 tons of solid waste managed consisted of
approximately 20% MSW by weight and 80% non-MSW (primarily C&D). This ratio can
be deceiving, however, and depends heavily on the quantity and type of construction
projects in the RFV each year 2. Data is typically available for MSW and the RFV is no
exception. Figure 2-1 includes an evaluation of the composition of landfilled MSW in
2015. An analysis of the make-up of the landfilled C&D stream is described in Section 5.
1 In 2017, Pitkin County’s “Talkin’ Trash” campaign won both a Telly Award and a Communications,
Education & Marketing Excellence Award (gold level) from the Solid Waste Association of North America.
2 For example, in 2016, the City of Aspen imposed a moratorium on commercial building and the C&D
quantities dropped by roughly one-third., The ratio of MSW to non-MSW that year was 41% to 59%.
P12
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
4
Figure 2-1. MSW Fractions by Weight
The overall PCSWC diversion rate in 2016 was 58% (including 42% diversion of MSW).
Unlike most county/municipal diversion dynamics, this value is a reflection of Pitkin
County’s success, as Aspen’s MSW diversion rate was about 20%3 4. Despite this success,
the County estimates that nearly 22,000 tons of recyclables and organics could have
been diverted through existing programs in 2016, while additional tons of C&D may be
divertible with new policies and infrastructure.
2.4 Waste Diversion Challenges
The Phase I Plan confirmed several challenges to implementing new or improved
policies, programming, and infrastructure in the RFV. Some of the most significant
challenges include the following:
• A small population that is heavily impacted by strong summer and winter visitor
base – that is hard to influence on a short-term basis.
• Landfilled tons have increased significantly in recent years (primarily due to high
C&D quantities 5) – the PCSWC is expected to close in 2025, if an expansion is not
approved. The PCSWC is actively pursuing a landfill expansion that will allow for
waste disposal beyond the 10-year planning horizon. Presently, there are no
other permitted landfills in the RFV. An additional impact to this was the
Highway 82 bridge reconstruction during 2017, which impacted C&D quantities
in the RFV disposed at the PCSWC.
3 Despite its more aggressive hauler diversion policies and material bans, Aspen is especially challenged
with many visitors, second homeowners and seasonal employees who may not understand the
importance of diversion opportunities in the RFV.
4 The diversion rates listed are based on material quantities managed at the PCSWC and Rio Grande
Recycling Center. Waste and recyclables quantities managed at other landfills or directly by the haulers is
not included.
5 Eighty-three percent of Pitkin County is Federal land and many new residential and commercial
construction projects require an initial demolition of existing structures.
P13
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
5
• Despite comprehensive programs, diverted tons are low, which exacerbates the
ability to control costs through an economy of scale.
• The RFV is located 160 miles from Denver and has limited highway access
(especially in the winter), making recyclables transport to Front Range facilities
for processing expensive.
2.5 Stakeholder Commitment
The County, the City, and other RFV governments are committed to addressing the
RFV’s waste diversion challenges and understanding the real opportunities for effective
improvements. Private, non-profit, and citizen stakeholders have proven equally
committed. Numerous stakeholder meetings have been held during the plan
development. Stakeholders consisted of business owners in the food service areas,
hospitality industry, retail establishments, citizens, and solid waste haulers in the RFV.
Participants helped define issues in the Phase I study and to craft priorities for the
Phase II study. Most recently, meetings with haulers, restaurants, and contractors have
allowed a practical evaluation of Phase II policies that reflect stakeholder barriers and
needs. It is expected that as the policies are considered for ultimate promulgation, these
stakeholder groups will continue to be tapped for their expertise and collaboration.
P14
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
6
3 MSW HAULER POLICY
The large quantity of recyclables and organics still being landfilled in the RFV were
described in Section 2.3. They underscore the need to more effectively encourage waste
generator participation in diversion programs. This is a challenge faced by recycling
managers across the country, but is exacerbated in the RFV by the large number of
visitor, second-homeowners and seasonal employees who may not understand the
importance of recycling in the region.
Many communities have addressed this challenge for MSW generation by creating
waste diversion incentives to “recycle more” and “trash less” with a mandatory
recycling ordinance. These ordinances require MSW generators to subscribe to—and
use—curbside recycling collection. In Colorado, the more common practice is to put the
responsibility on haulers with a service mandate for curbside recycling that creates the
same general incentives but stops short of mandating that waste generators separate
out divertible materials. As shown by the City, however, these policies are not a
guarantee of high diversion rates when some components are incomplete.
Both Aspen and Pitkin County have existing code that includes hauler requirements
intended to drive waste diversion; however, they lack the full complement of
implementation and/or enforcement mechanisms needed to maximize success. This
section evaluates the feasibility of modifying existing regulation through new
ordinance/code language to improve the impact of current incentives, accomplish more
consistent implementation, and encourage more generator participation.
3.1 Hauler Policy Objectives
Section 1 described the overall Phase I Plan goals. In support of those goals, the
objectives for improved hauler-based diversion policy implemented in Aspen and Pitkin
County include:
• Increase diversion, to divert more of the recyclable materials that are currently
being collected for landfill disposal.
• Establish consistency between Aspen and Pitkin County collection services and
hauler operating requirements. At best, the differences between the two codes
cause confusion for haulers and their customers. At worst, the lack of a curbside
recycling mandate in Pitkin County leads to lower recycling rates and places an
additional burden on local recycling drop sites. Improved policies would:
- Provide consistency between services, incentives, and fees in Aspen and Pitkin
County, and
P15
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
7
- Foster consistency RFV-wide for materials collected, level of commingling, and
service/fee structure if the new policy is adopted by other governments (most
haulers provide collection in other municipalities in the region).
• Obtain data to verify compliance and measure diversion progress. Currently,
data is not reported for trash, recyclable, or organics materials collected outside
of Aspen, even though this information is needed to accurately track waste
generation and diversion in Pitkin County.
3.2 Collection System
To evaluate the feasibility of making changes to how trash and recyclables are collected
in Aspen and Pitkin County, an understanding of the current system is required.
3.2.1 Existing System
Collection in the RFV is largely privatized. The primary private haulers that provide a mix
of trash, recyclables, and organics collection services include:
• Alpine Trash
• Evergreen Zero Waste (organics only)
• Mountain Waste & Recycling
• Valley Garage Solutions
• VIP Trash
• Waste Inc.
• Waste Management of Colorado
These haulers are required to provide a broad range of services due to a wide variety of
customer densities, recycling subscription levels, collection distances from Highway 82,
and roadway and wildlife conditions. Curbside collection services can generally be
characterized as follows:
• Residential trash and recyclables collection is varied;
- Collection occurs with a mix of containers (bags, bins, cans, and carts)
- Containers are provided by customers and/or haulers
- Size options range from 18 to 96 gallons6
- Collection is weekly, every other week, monthly, or on demand
6 These standard container sizes are used throughout this report for simplicity; it is noted that some
customers and haulers may use slightly different sizes (e.g., “small” containers may be 30-39 gallons,
“medium” containers 60-69 gallons and “large” containers 90-99 gallons; recycling containers may also be
as small as 18 gallons).
P16
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
8
• Commercial trash collection services range from 1-cubic yard Dumpsters to roll-
offs and compactor units greater than 30 cubic yards
• Commercial recyclables collection may also be collected in carts or dumpsters
• Most curbside recyclables collection is single-stream, although VIP Trash
provides some dual-stream service
• Curbside recycling is augmented by multiple public and private drop sites that
serve residential and commercial generators
• Two of the haulers also collect curbside organics and the Rio Grande drop site
accepts yard waste
The Town of Snowmass Village is the sole municipal hauler, providing a mix of service
options to MSW customers including base drop site collection for trash and single-
stream recycling, plus subscription curbside for both streams.
A large portion of the trash, recyclables, and organics collected in the RFV are landfilled,
transferred, or composted, respectively, at PCSWC (which also includes a recycling drop
site). There are two private trash transfer stations for moving trash and some
recyclables out of the RFV to Eagle County and Denver. Other haulers may also take
landfill materials to the South Canyon Landfill in Garfield County. Exportation is more
common for materials collected in the northern areas of Pitkin County.
Level of Recyclables Collection
Although definitive participation data is not available, it is probable that close to 100%
of MSW generators in Aspen have recycling service, but the actual participation level is
likely lower. Haulers have anecdotally estimated that between 0% and 90% of trash
customers outside of Aspen voluntarily subscribe to curbside recycling and participate at
some level, with 70% being a generally agreed-upon average. This value is expected to
more closely represent participation, as recycling is a separate subscription option, and
additional cost, from most haulers.
Collection Costs
The cost of trash and recycling services also varies widely. The mandatory provision of
recycling to all trash customers in Aspen drives both subscription levels and costs, and
these differ from those throughout the RFV. While customer fees were not available
from every hauler, Table 3-1 provides the general range of current residential pricing
(commercial fees are more complicated and depend on number, type, and size of
containers, as well as a wide range of collection schedules). These will be higher if
multiple containers, container replacement/delivery, concierge services, or other
features are added. In general, non-Aspen fees decrease as the customer location
moves down-RFV, although remote and hard-to-reach customers require higher-fee
service and limited service options.
P17
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
9
Table 3-1
Per Household Monthly Collection Fees (weekly collection)
Area Trash Only Recycling Only Trash + Recycling
Aspen Not an option Not an option $65 to $1057
Snowmass Village $40 base rate for drop site collection with optional
$12 curbside collection service
Non-Aspen Area $22 to $70 $7 to $15 $29 to $77
3.2.2 Existing Diversion Policy
Both the City’s and the County’s existing code requires regular, commercial trash
haulers8 to offer or provide recycling to their customers, offer or provide pricing
incentives, and report material and/or account data. Table 3-2 (below) lists the code
components for each government.
Aspen
Aspen’s municipal code was last revised in 2013 (Chapter 12.06) and does not apply to
recyclables-only or organics-only haulers, although these companies typically comply
with the reporting requirements. That said, City staff have observed that compliance
with the pricing and reporting components of the code by regulated haulers has been
incomplete some years, and that city enforcement has been mostly non-existent. Also of
note, the City’s code includes a yard waste disposal ban that is similarly not enforced.
Pitkin County
The County code was promulgated in 1991 (Chapter 6.16). Unlike the City’s code, the
County’s does not mandate curbside recycling for all customers, specify pay-as-you-
throw, or require customer notification. There is limited enforcement capability; the
County has one code enforcement office in the Community Development Department,
with minimal resources to investigate hauler compliance. The County has not collected
hauler-specific data reports, although annual reporting is required.
7 These fees typically include 96-gallon trash carts and recycling containers that range from 18-gallon bins
to 96-gallon carts, collected weekly. The fee can be reduced slightly for 64-gallon trash cart service where
available.
8 Commercial haulers as those who provide services for a fee. Regular haulers provide ongoing, scheduled
service.
P18
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
10
Table 3-2
Existing Aspen and Pitkin County Hauler Regulation
Requirement Aspen Pitkin County
Business License
Annual
Occupation tax based on number of
employees
Annual
$200/company plus $50/vehicle,
vehicles may be inspected,
liability/auto insurance, penalties
up to $1,000/violation
Mandatory
Curbside
Recycling for All
Trash Customers
Yes, haulers must provide
Trash and recycling cost must be
bundled together as one fee on
customer invoices
No
Haulers must only offer, and
customers may decline
Pricing
Residential fee must include
bundled trash/recycling based on
variable trash quantity
(32 gallons = base unit)
Quantity-based pricing that
considers discounts available
from PCSWC
(base or increase is not specified)
Collection
Requirements
Residential trash and recycling on
same day, at same frequency
Multi-family and commercial as
often as needed to prevent
overflow
Trash and recycling at same
frequency, with equal priority
Recycling
Requirements
Minimum materials determined by
the City (differs for
residential/commercial), must
divert all recyclables unless 15%
contamination
Must divert all recyclables unless
25% contamination (not in code –
imposed at PCSWC)
Customer
Notification
Reasonable notice of services and
pricing to new and existing
customers
N/A
Reporting Bi-annual
Trash, recyclables, organics weight
Annual
Services, routes, facilities, and
pricing (no quantities)
Records and
Auditing
Maintain for 3 years, the City may
audit, penalties up to
$2,650/violation
N/A
Other Comply with yard waste disposal
ban, issue audit cards for violations
Deliver all materials collected in
Pitkin County to PCSWC (flow
control is not enforced)
Other Regulations in the RFV
The Town of Snowmass Village code requires payment for drop site trash and recycling
service by single-family and duplex residences. Flat fees are charged for both drop site
and curbside service (the latter is a voluntary subscription). The town’s code was
promulgated in 1999 and the town is currently considering revision.
P19
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
11
The Town of Basalt passed a new ordinance in 2016 that generally mimics the City’s
code, except that it applies to residential service only, does not specify parameters for
variable trash pricing, does not address recyclables contamination, and includes annual
reporting (license renewal).
3.3 Hauler Policy Successes in Other Communities
In preparation for the Phases I and II policy evaluation, a survey of Colorado hauler
regulations in other communities was conducted (see Table 3-3 on the following page).
These findings provide guidance for new policy in the RFV, as well as an indication of
what has/has not worked elsewhere9.
Table 3-3 also includes recent diversion rate measurements for the example
communities; three of four municipalities exceed the City by 50% or more (Vail’s policy
is too new to track against). The differences between the benchmarked programs and
the city’s program include a trash overflow prohibition to support variable trash pricing
incentive and a requirement to provide between 64 gallons/week and unlimited
recycling at no extra cost.
3.4 Hauler Input
The Phase I Plan included public meetings, which haulers were encouraged to attend,
and face-to-face and teleconference meetings with individual hauling companies to help
identify potential policy components. In Phase II, a hauler-specific meeting and online
survey were conducted 10 to utilize local haulers’ expertise in creating a policy that is
practical and well supported.
This survey was also used to solicit hauler feedback about the feasibility of a cardboard
disposal ban in the RFV. Such a ban, which has not been considered as part of the
hauler-based waste diversion policy, had only minimal hauler support due to customer
space and hauler equipment and enforcement limitations, as well as a recyclables cap at
PCSWC that would hinder haulers ability to manage the material.
9 Table 3-3 includes updates from the original benchmark summary provided in the Phase I Plan.
10 In October 2016 and February 2017, respectively.
P20
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
12
Table 3-3
Comparative Benchmark Results
Potential New
Requirements Boulder Boulder County Fort Collins Golden Larimer County Vail
MSW Diversion
Rate
(Goals)
41%
(85% diversion
by 2025)
N/A
(zero waste
by 2025)
68%
MFU/commercial
components not
effective until 2017
(zero waste by
2030)
30% residential
only
(reduce disposal
25% by 2025)
N/A
~25% ordinance
not effective until
2015
(N/A)
Mandatory
Recycling for all
Trash Customers
√
includes
residential
organics
N/A
√
includes residential
yard waste
(effective 2017)
√ N/A √
Bundles Trash
and Recycling Fee
in Customer Bill
√
applies to
SFU/MFU
√
√
applies to
SFU/MFU/
commercial
√
applies to MFU/
HOA/commercial
(SFU is contract)
N/A
√
Applies to
SFU/MFU/
commercial
Residential
Bundled Fee
Based on Variable
Trash Volume
√
32-gal unit, no
trash overflows,
every other week
unlimited
recycling
√
32-gal base,
unlimited
recycling
√
32-gal unit, no
trash overflows,
recycling frequency
varies by container
size
√
32-gal unit, no
trash overflows,
weekly recycling
pricing to
incentivize
diversion (no
specifics)
√
32-gal unit,
minimum 64-gal
recycle cart with
same frequency
as trash collection
Reporting √
annual
√
annual
√
quarterly
√
annual
√
annual
√
bi-annual
Cardboard Ban N/A N/A √
separate policy N/A N/A N/A
Other
tax for homes
and businesses,
default flow
control
county MRF
hauler recycling
plan requirement,
limitations on
surcharges
vehicle
registration and
signage
vehicle signage,
county landfill
and recyclables
transfer
MFU/commercial
must provide
customer
recycling, 25%
maximum
contamination
Notes: MFU = Multiple Family Unit
SFU = Single Family Unit
HOA = Home Owners Association
3.5 Recommended Hauler Policy Changes
There is a long list of policy mechanisms that successfully support incentives to “recycle
more” and “trash less” in community regulations around the country (Appendix A
includes more information of the pros and cons of several). In considering which
mechanisms will best address the County’s and the City’s policy needs, it is assumed
that 1) regulatory applicability will generally be for haulers providing regular, scheduled
collection of MSW, 2) implementation will be more fully described in a collections
operations plan developed by each organization, and 3) appropriate enforcement and
public outreach will accomplish each code and/or operations plan.
P21
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
13
3.5.1 Recommended Policy Components
The core components of a hauler policy for further consideration include:
1. Mandatory Curbside Recycling Service for All Residential & Commercial Trash
Customers:
- Single-stream collection of those recyclables established by city/county
- Residential recyclables collected for no fee in addition to trash service
- Residential recyclables collected on same day/same frequency as trash
- Prohibition on disposing of any recyclables
2. Establish Variable Fees for Residential Service:
- Fees that include the cost of both trash and recycling service, but are tied to
the level of trash service
- Fees based on 32-gallon (or “small” container) service with a 100% fee increase
for each increase of the same size (i.e., “x” for “small” container service, “2x”
for “medium” container service, and “3x” for “large” container service)
- Multiple trash service levels (within the small, medium, and large options)
- Prohibition on trash overflows (haulers may refuse to collect or charge
appropriate volume-based fee for any trash that is outside of the trash
container and/or keeps the container lid from closing completely)
3. Annual Licensing/License Renewal:
- Trash and recyclables quantity reporting11 for the past year (or partial year in
the case of the first year after the policy becomes effective)
- Customer account, services, and pricing summary reporting
- License fees (if applicable)
Figure 3-1 (next page) includes a compliance analysis tool for determining hauler
compliance with improved policy. Additionally, Appendix B includes suggestions for
flexible implementation of the policy, additional enforcement, and public outreach
considerations and suggested actions for the second half of the planning period to
augment hauler policy and further diversion in the RFV.
11 Including organics where applicable.
P22
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
14
Figure 3-1. MSW Hauler Ordinance Flow Chart
3.5.2 Estimated Diversion Benefits and Cost Impacts
When developing a hauler ordinance, benefits and negative impacts need to be
considered. The benefits include increased diversion and, a major impact would be
increased costs for MSW management.
3.5.2.1 Estimated Diversion Increase
Estimating future diversion increases resulting from improved hauler-based policies is
difficult given available data and the overlap with other programs. Based on successes in
other Colorado communities and knowledge of Pitkin County’s current trash
composition, however, a conservative projection based on the ability to divert 40% to
60% of the traditional recyclables currently in the waste stream can be made. This
P23
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
15
assumption relies on the ability to improve policy comprehensiveness, enforcement,
and public outreach.
Table 3-5 provides a range of potential diversion increases and extended landfill life
based on findings in the 2015 waste composition study12. Additional information about
diversion potential is included in Appendix C.
Table 3-5
Potential MSW Diversion Increase – Recycling Only
2022
(Projected)
2027
(Projected)
If 40% Landfilled Recyclables Diverted
Additional Tons 2,600 2,900
New Diversion Rate 23% 23%
Landfill Life Added 8 days/year 9 days/year
If 60% Landfilled Recyclables Diverted
Additional Tons 3,900 4,300
New Diversion Rate 26% 26%
Landfill Life Added 11 days/year 13 days/year
Note: For reference, the 2015 recycling levels added 19 days of landfill every year; the potential
new diversion described above represents an extension of landfill life, in addition to
current levels.
3.5.2.2 Other Diversion Benefits
While the impact on landfill longevity described in Table 3-5 may not be large, the ability
to divert hundreds of additional tons each year will also:
• Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – The diversion potential described in
Table 3.5 is estimated to represent a reduction of up to 17,000 metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent13 (these values will help both the County and City
achieve their GHG reductions goals over the planning period). Increased traffic
will generate increased emissions (based on research in other parts of the
country, the net GHG reductions are still expected to be significant).
• Foster a cultural shift for residents, multi-family units, businesses and
institutions by raising awareness about the importance and ability to “trash less”
and conserve resources – This may occur slowly over the planning period but will
12 The study found that approximately 25% by weight of samples measured included recyclables that
could have been diverted by existing curbside and drop site programs.
13 Based on the EPA Waste Reduction Model (v. 2015) using long-distance recyclables hauler for
processing.
P24
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
16
have growing importance as the landfill closes and is replaced by transfer or
alternative operations in the future.
• As curbside recycling participation increases under this policy, there will likely be
less recyclables managed at local drop sites (especially the Rio Grande and
PCSWC sites). This will reduce public sector costs for drop site operations and
potentially free up resources for public outreach and enforcement.
3.5.2.3 Estimated Cost of Implementation
The cost of implementing improved hauler policies is a critical factor in determining its
feasibility. Table 3-6 describes anticipated costs for the City and the County during the
initial year of implementation and annually for subsequent years (see Appendix D for
additional details). Costs are slightly more moderate for the City, whose existing policy
will require less modification than the County’s, and who will be able to rely on the
county for some implementation. Both governments’ costs in this table consider only
minor enforcement actions (e.g., warnings in the first year).
Table 3-6
Annual Implementation Costs for Local Governments
Government
Labor
(full-time
equivalents)
Costs Revenues Net Costs
City of Aspen
First Year 0.4 FTE $31,000 $0 $31,000
Subsequent Years 0.2 FTE $20,000 $8,000 $12,000
Pitkin County
First Year 0.5 FTE $39,000 $0 $39,000
Subsequent Years 0.2 FTE $19,000 $5,000 $14,000
Note: Estimates are based on 2017 dollars
These conservative estimates are for the hauler-based policy implementation only. They
are presented in 2017 dollars using current salaries and benefits for labor costs. The
costs are subject to change once policy components are confirmed, enforcement and
penalty levels are established, and implementation begins. The estimates provide an
indication of potential future costs only.
To put these costs in perspective, the annual County costs are less than 20% (first year)
and less than 7% (subsequent years), respectively, of what the County currently pays for
P25
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
17
managing recyclables collected at the Rio Grande recycling drop site14. The City’s costs
are similarly a small portion of current operational costs.
Of note are the compliance personnel costs, which represent much of the labor shown
in Table 3-6 totals for the first year and 50% in subsequent years. This is the only new
position expected and will require additional compliance activities from other
departments if this is to be a full-time position.
Finally, haulers expect an increase in customer fees in the range of 15% to 30% to
provide recycling to all trash accounts in non-Aspen locations. This increase is consistent
with charges to the current residents who subscribe to trash and recycling (see Table 3-
1). This number does not specifically cover the cost of managing trash overflows,
customer notifications, or increased reporting, and fees can be expected to increase
slightly beyond this estimate to achieve full compliance.
3.6 Implementation Considerations
Two key resource areas that should be provided by local governments to facilitate the
success of hauler operations include code enforcement and expanded public outreach
(Appendix B includes additional suggestions in these areas).
3.6.1 Enforcement
It is easy to minimize compliance efforts when participation is high and the ability of the
regulating government to cover inspection and enforcement costs are low. Many argue,
however, that passing new solid waste policy without appropriate enforcement action
will result in no real change and may even undermine the credibility of the local
government’s policy efforts. Currently, neither the City nor the County has effective
enforcement capacity for current policy, and it is expected that new (part-time) staff will
be needed.
Enforcement actions could include:
• Review of license renewal submittals for compliance by the City’s Finance
Department and the County Manager’s office (not expected to exceed current
staff requirements).
• Review of service, pricing, and reporting compliance by the City’s environmental
health and County solid waste staff.
• Verification of variable container service, prohibitions on trash overflows, and
disposing of recyclables by City and County enforcement staff.
14 Nearly $203,000 in 2016 (excludes costs associated with PCSWC and Redstone drop site recyclables).
P26
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
18
• Tracking and management of illegal dumping by City and County staff.
• Audits of hauler self-reporting and pricing by City and County financial staff
(expected to occur periodically).
• Issuance of warnings and citations by enforcement staff as appropriate for
violations.
• Combining enforcement actions with appropriate financial and license
suspension/revocation penalties, enacted by City and County legal staff
(probably minimal to non-existent, especially after the first year).
3.6.2 Public Education and Outreach
Pairing effective public education and outreach with any government policy and service
change is part of transitioning smoothly, maintaining customer support, and ensuring
success. The need for educational materials was also identified by haulers during the
2017 survey.
Helping the Public Understand the New Policy
Expected public outreach activities are needed prior to and early in the implementation
phase to explain the what, why, who, how, and when of the policy modifications. This
initial campaign will address customer concerns about changing services and higher
rates. It will also pave the way for better recycling participation. Outreach activities may
include the following:
• Hold an open house and participate in elected official caucuses.
• Produce a new joint City/County video.
• Provide radio and newspaper ads.
• Develop an update of the Waste Free Roaring Fork Valley Recycling Guide and
the http://wastefreeroaringfork.org website (previously developed by the
Colorado Office for Resource Efficiency and the Carbondale Environmental
Board).
Ongoing Public Engagement
Additional, ongoing information will also be important and may be a critical factor to
increasing participation by residents and businesses. Examples of methods to provide
information include:
• Offer comprehensive guidance on preparing recyclables for collection (especially
around food containers and plastics).
• Promote waste diversion success in a user-friendly sustainability report.
P27
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
19
• Provide an ongoing reminder that customers are paying for recyclables collection
and should use the service.
• Generate public discussion that engages the public on the hard issues such as the
myth that recycling is a “money-maker”, why variable trash rates help recycling,
and why some hard-to-recycle materials are not yet collected for recycling in the
RFV.
3.7 MSW Hauler Policy Summary Points
The key takeaways for improved hauler policies in Pitkin County and Aspen include:
• There is a need to improve MSW diversion incentives and participation through
hauler regulation. Ideally, improvements in Aspen and Pitkin County will be
leveraged through similar programs throughout the RFV.
• Policy improvements should include mandatory curbside recycling service for all
regular trash customers with pricing based on trash volume and annual
reporting. Enforcement and public outreach are critical supporting aspects of
these improvements.
• Policy improvement benefits include a modest extension of landfill life, GHG
reductions, fostering of a waste management culture shift, and reduced use of
recycling drop sites. Costs are estimated at only a fraction of existing drop site
operations.
• Hauler policy successes in other Colorado communities and input from local
MSW haulers have helped frame the recommendations in this section.
Additional coordination with County and City staff, officials, haulers, and the
public is needed to ensure effective implementation.
P28
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
20
4 ORGANIC WASTE DIVERSION
In most MSW streams, organics are the largest material category. There are haulers in
the RFV that collect segregated organics for composting, and both the County and the
City operate programs and infrastructure that encourage composting, instead of
landfilling, these materials. However, more than one-third of waste landfilled at the
PCSWC was observed to be organic materials (Figure 2-2 showed this to be 36% by
weight of all trash materials).
Within the organic fraction, food waste makes up most of the waste stream; it is
estimated that in 2015, nearly 4,000 tons of food waste were disposed at the PCSWC,
including food and food-contaminated paper15. In Colorado, food waste is primarily
diverted by donating excess food to those in need, by using as an animal feedstock and
by composting. Aside from addressing the contaminated food waste, there is limited
demand for donated food or animal feedstock in the RFV; the PCSWC does operate a
compost facility that accepts most organics materials, including food waste.
Figure 4-1 illustrates the types of organics in the MSW. During the 2015 waste audit, it
was observed that 27% of all commercial samples, including restaurant, grocery and
cafeteria waste, was food debris; food content well over 50% was seen in some
restaurant samples16. This finding was significantly greater than the residential samples
and supported the typical prevalence of food waste in most commercial waste streams
around the country. In other words, commercial food waste diversion remains the
largest potential opportunity in MSW diversion. This section evaluates the feasibility of
new diversion policy for this sector.
4.1 Commercial Food Waste Diversion Objectives
In support of the overall RFV waste diversion goals, the objective of a new commercial
food waste diversion policy is to increase the diversion of food waste that is currently
being landfilled through the existing compost system and to aid in a cultural shift
towards resource conservation. The ability to increase food waste composting will have
several benefits, as follows:
• Increased waste diversion and reduced GHG emissions – Not only is commercial
food waste the biggest target within the MSW stream, it is a tangible way to
address waste generated by visitors and second homeowners through
15 Based on 2015 waste audit findings of 17% food waste and PCSWC-reported 22,800 MSW trash tons.
16 Had special event samples been included in the waste audit, it is likely that these percentages would be
even higher.
P29
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
21
businesses they patronize. GHG emission reduction over the landfilling
alternative would occur as these materials degrade aerobically (in the compost
system) instead of anaerobically (in the landfill). The natural decomposition
process of breaking down the food waste aerobically generates carbon dioxide
(CO2) where as if the decomposition occurs absent of oxygen, anaerobically,
methane (CH4) is produced. However, additional composting will increase
volatile organic compounds emissions.
• Production of beneficial products – Compost products used as soil amendments
have the benefit of increased soil health, reduced soil loss, increased water
retention and reduced use of fertilizers and pesticides.
• Extension of landfill life – Without an expansion, the PCSWC landfill is expected
to close in 7 years, unless changes in waste management are made. Both the
cost and environmental footprint of managing trash is expected to increase
significantly after the landfill closes. Any success in diverting materials that
would otherwise be managed as trash will be a significant benefit to Pitkin
County and users of its facilities, now and in the future.
4.2 EPA Hierarchy
In reviewing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Food Recovery Hierarchy
(Hierarchy), the Hierarchy shows that reducing the volume of surplus food generated
has the largest impact on the generation of food waste, as shown in Figure 4-1. By the
time the food waste gets to the PCSWC, the preferred options for managing the food
waste have been missed. The RFV has food banks and a limited amount of agriculture
areas to accept the food waste, but the existing programs do not keep up with the
volume of food waste that is being generated locally. Currently, a significant portion of
the food waste generated in the RFV ends up being landfilled, which is the least
preferred option. The intent of policy changes discussed in this section is to provide
mechanisms to force food waste generated in the RFV to be managed in the upper
levels of the pyramid Hierarchy.
P30
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
22
Figure 4-1. U.S. EPA Food Recovery Hierarchy
As noted on Figure 4-1, composting of food is on the fifth tier of the Hierarchy.
Composting of food and organics is beneficial, as it will improve soil quality.
4.3 Existing System
The current means for managing food waste within the RFV includes a mix of policy and
infrastructure, as follows:
• Both Evergreen Zero Waste and Mountain Waste & Recycling collect curbside
organics throughout the RFV. Commercial collection costs vary widely as a
function of the number, type and size of containers as well as collection
frequency.
• Both the City (chapter 12.08) and the County (chapter 6.44) have wildlife
protection rules associated with solid waste. These require organics stored for
collection to be in bear-proof metal containers located in secure enclosures OR
moved out to the curb only on collection days.
• The County and the City jointly operate the SCRAPS program. SCRAPS accepts
food waste, food-contaminated paper and plant debris. Steady increase in
participation in the SCRAPS program has been achieved through subscribing to
curbside collection service or dropping waste at the PCSWC at no cost. A limited
number of bear-proof, metal containers are available to businesses for outdoor
food waste storage.
P31
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
23
• The PCSWC compost facility accepts food waste and green waste (including yard
waste, plants, flowers, sticks, branches, grass and leaves). The facility produces
finished compost and potting soil, although product demand has exceeded
supply for the last several years.
The City also has a yard waste disposal ban (code chapter 12.06) and the South Canyon
Landfill in Glenwood Springs accepts some green waste for composting. While neither of
these programs target food waste, they help to raise awareness around organics
recovery in the RFV.
4.3.1 Commercial Food Waste Generators
There are numerous businesses, institutions, and special events in the RFV that generate
both pre- and post-consumer food waste. It is expected that new diversion policy will be
phased in over the planning period and apply only to “large” generators initially, with
more moderately sized generators included in subsequent phases. The intent of only
regulating large generators is to have the largest increase in food waste diversion while
impacting the least amount of generators. Large generators will be categorized by easily
measurable fixed quantities (e.g., tons of waste generated per week, building floor area
for grocery store, maximum occupancy for restaurants). The threshold for being
categorized as a large generator could be adjusted by the City or County managers to
address food waste diversion in the best manner as conditions change. Potentially
regulated generators located in Aspen or the unincorporated Pitkin County include17 the
following:
• Grocers – Two national stores (Safeway and City Market) operate in Aspen18.
Other local grocers include Clark’s Market and Roxy’s Market16.
• Restaurants – These can be broken into two categories
- Aspen Ski Company restaurants – Ajax Tavern, Element 4718, Limelight Hotel8,
Sundeck18, Chair 19, Bumps19, Cliffhouse18, Merry Go Round, Cloud 9, Sam’s
Smokehouse, Ullrhof, Two Creeks18, Elk Camp and Lynn Britt Cabin.
- Other restaurants – Plato’s, Hotel Jerome, Hops Culture, Matsuhisha,
Burnelleschi’s, Mezzaluna, Su Casa and The Grey Lady.
• Schools – These include the Aspen School District No. 1 (elementary, middle and
high schools) and the Aspen County Day School.
17 Additional large generators located in other municipalities or in southern Garfield County/Carbondale
include Whole Foods and two other City Market stores,
18 While neither national grocer is currently diverting food waste currently, both donate food to local food
banks. Additionally, many other City Market stores (which are a supermarket brand of Kroger in the Rocky
Mountain region) operate extensive reduction, recycling and organics recovery programs,
19 Currently a SCRAPS member.
P32
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
24
• Hospitals – The primary facility in the southern end of the RFV is the Aspen
Valley Hospital.
• Special events – These include the Food & Wine Classic, X Games, Aspen Music
Festival and the Jazz Aspen Snowmass festivals.
Many of the generators listed above conduct some level of waste diversion already,
although most do not compost food waste. Many other, smaller Aspen restaurants also
participate in SCRAPS or have expressed interest in food waste composting. It is likely
that some of these would voluntarily comply with new commercial policy even if they
are not regulated.
4.3.2 Existing Diversion Challenges
There are many challenges associated with collecting, storing, hauling and composting
food waste, as follows:
• Space limitations - Many commercial operations lack space for extra waste
containers in their kitchens and at the curb.
• Staff training for pre-consumer collection – Many businesses and special events
have a high level of staff turnover (or even volunteer staff) who need timely
training and oversight (often in multiple languages).
• Post-consumer collection – Due to the inability to control recyclables and
organics contamination in “front of the house” materials diverted by the public,
many programs do not include post-consumer materials.
• Nuisances and wildlife attraction – If not containerized properly, food waste can
generate noxious odors, leaks, and insects, and attract wildlife. The City and the
County have strict requirements for containers and enclosures (which can
require additional space).
• Cost of containers and hauling – The expense of additional material storage and
requirements for wildlife-resistant containers or enclosures add costs whether
commercial generators provide their own storage or obtain through their hauler.
Hauling costs will also increase for adding a new organics collection service; this
may be offset, in part, by reducing the size and/or frequency of trash collection
service.
• Cost of composting – Compost facilities require site investigations, engineered
infrastructure and comprehensive permitting. Ongoing operational, monitoring
and reporting requirements are similarly extensive. Most facilities rely on tip
P33
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
25
fees, selling finished products, or both, to offset capital and operating costs 20.
Composting at altitude has additional challenges related to prolonged low
temperatures during winter months.
4.4 Food Waste Policy Successes in Other Communities
In preparation for the Phases I and II policy evaluation, a review of organics recovery
programs in Colorado was conducted.
4.4.1 Colorado Examples Similar to the RFV
The Colorado mountain communities reviewed include Summit County and Steamboat
Springs. Both of these areas have significant summer and winter tourism influx that
impact food waste management. Both Summit County and Steamboats Springs have
food waste collection services and operate high altitude compost operations. Both of
these areas do not have any mandatory food waste diversion for any of their
generators.
4.4.2 Example Food Waste Diversion Programs
Since the similar areas in Colorado did not operate mandatory food waste diversion
programs, additional areas were reviewed for possible policy components. In the larger
metropolitan areas, the quantity of organic waste is large enough to justify private
composting operations in addition to the composting that is conducted at landfills. A
few of the larger metropolitan areas are discussed below.
• Boulder, CO - The City of Boulder passed a new ordinance that required all
businesses to divert recyclables and organics (Boulder also requires recycling and
food waste recovery as part of its special event permitting process) beginning in
2016. Boulder’s commercial regulation applies to both pre- and post-consumer
materials. Generators must provide adequate access to collection, new
employee and annual staff training, and multi-lingual signage. Exemptions may
be issued for up to one year in cases of less than 32 gallons of trash per month
(or less than the “small” container service discussed in Section 3 or about 0.15
cubic yards/month), severe space constraints or economic hardship, and
innovative reuse/repurposes options21. Penalties for non-compliance can result
in fines up to $2,000 per violation.
20 In 2017, PCSWC’s tip fees for source-separated food waste is $15/ton ($45/ton for other compostables)
versus $66/ton for MSW and other waste. SCRAPS program participants can tip food waste for free.
PCSWC compost and potting soil are sold for $34 and $35/ton, respectively.
21 Boulder’s City Manager Rules detail these exemptions and other implementation details in a separate
code-specific operations plan.
P34
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
26
• San Francisco, CA – The San Francisco Department of the Environment requires
all food generators (including special events) to divert recyclables and organics
(green waste, food-contaminated paper, and food waste, excluding fats, oils and
grease)22. Generators must provide adequate containers, signage, access and
training for customers, staff, janitors, and any contractors for effective material
recovery. Waivers may be considered after container-sharing and drop-site
collection options have been exhausted. Enforcement is based on inspections
paid for by generators. Like Pitkin County, San Francisco’s generators rely on
private haulers, although there is one primary service provider for residential
and commercial collection.
• Seattle, WA – Since 2010, Seattle has required food waste generators to divert
organics (food waste and food-contaminated paper) and replace all single-use
food service products (e.g., cups, clamshells) with recyclable or compostable
alternatives. Exceptions have been allowed in instances of extreme space
constraints: where shared containers are not feasible and trash containers that
receive public waste. After two warnings, violators are fined $50 for every trash
collection that includes banned materials. The city’s commercial generators are
primarily served by two private haulers and Seattle Public Utilities has confirmed
that commercial organics collection costs 32% less than trash collection.
• State of Vermont 23 – In 2012, Vermont passed a state-wide universal recycling
and composting law that required food waste donation or composting by any
generator with more than 2 tons/week (roughly 4 cubic yards/week) of food
waste and a compost facility within 20 miles. This mandate was expanded each
year since and currently requires diversion for any generators with more than
0.35 tons/week (about 1 cubic yard/week). By 2018, any trash hauler must also
provide green and food waste collection service to its curbside customers. By
2020, food residuals will be banned from landfill disposal in the state, effectively
regulating households, as well as commercial generators24.
4.5 Commercial Food Waste Generator Input
Stakeholder group meetings and web-based surveys were used to collect input on food
waste recovery options in the RFV. Among others, stakeholders included hotels,
restaurants, and grocery stores. Stakeholder meetings were held in October 2016 and
the surveys were conducted in October 2016 and February 2017. Most stakeholders
22 San Francisco was more aggressive than required by the State of California’s AB1826 which mandated
commercial organic recovery programs to start with generators of 8 cubic yards of organics/week in 2016
and expand to include smaller generators until the goal of 50% commercial organics is achieved.
23 The States of Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island have similar laws.
24 This law also mandates recyclables diversion, recyclables collection at all solid waste transfer stations, a
clean wood disposal ban, municipal PAYT
P35
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
27
were in favor of an organics diversion program and were optimistic about opportunities.
The survey results, however, indicated a number of challenges (see Tables 4-1 and 4-2
below for survey results).
Survey responses on this topic were low, as a total of only 5 and 4 responses were
received for the first and second surveys, respectively. The results, however, supported
input obtained during stakeholder meetings: Costs of an organics program, as well as
space constraints and staff training, are the primary obstacles.
Table 4-1
2016 Food Waste Stakeholder Survey Results
Potential New Requirements Service Info Provided Stakeholder Comments
Donated food waste No (5)
Food waste used as animal
feed No (5)
Separate food waste out for
compost collection
• Yes (2)
• No (3)
Importance of diverting food
waste instead of landfilling it
• Yes (4)
• Unsure (1)
• Diverting food waste slows
down the filling of landfills
• Takes material out of waste
stream and makes it
available for agriculture
Incentivizing or regulating food
waste composting in the Raring
Fork Valley
• Yes (3)
• Unsure (2)
• A hard sell in an industry
with traditionally low
margins$5000/year to
compost
• Collection costs could be
offset by selling compost
Customers asking for food
waste diversion
• No (3)
• Sometimes (2)
Distance willing to take food
waste to a designated centrally
located collection facility to
avoid landfilling
• 0 miles (4)
• 5 miles (1)
Space for onsite collection
(e.g., prep areas, public areas,
alleys)
• Not a challenge (1)
• Challenge that can be
overcome (2)
• Challenge that might not
be overcome (1)
• Challenge that cannot
be overcome (1)
P36
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
28
Table 4-1 cont’d.
Potential New Requirements Service Info Provided Stakeholder Comments
Cost of collection
• Challenge that can be
overcome (1)
• Challenge that might not
be overcome (3)
• Challenge that cannot
be overcome (1)
• This will be the biggest
challenge
Staff training and ability to
limit contamination in food
waste
• Not a challenge (1)
• Challenge that can be
overcome (3)
• Challenge that might be
overcome (1)
• Challenge that cannot
be overcome
Money for additional food
waste collection services
• Reduced Bill (1)
• Stays the Same (3)
• 10% (1)
Making food waste separation
easier
• Staff training programs (1)
• Daily food waste collection subsidized by local agencies
(3)
• Requirements so all food establishments are doing the
same thing (2)
• Subsidized cart costs (2)
Programs to improve feasibility
and effectiveness of recovering
more food waste in the
Roaring Fork Valley
• Free bags/percentage of the compost revenues/free
collection
• Daily pickup
Note: Numbers in parentheses indicate number of respondents
4.6 Recommended Commercial Food Waste Policy
Through thee stakeholder process and a working knowledge of the solid waste industry,
recommendations for a food waste policy have been developed. Considerations
included in the policy include what entities would be regulated and what exemptions
may be appropriate.
4.6.1 Policy Components
• Applicable to large commercial entities, including; groceries, restaurants,
schools, special events, or other businesses or institutions that generate food
waste as part of normal operations (but does not apply to any residential
properties). The threshold to determine large commercial entity to be
determined and or modified by the City and the County managers.
P37
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
29
• Require any large commercial generator to divert pre-consumer food waste
generated part of food preparation intended for public, student, patient, or
other consumer (including food-contaminated paper and approved compostable
packaging). A flow chart depicting the target of the food waste regulation is
shown on Figure 4-2 on the following page.
• The initial thresholds for the different types of large food waste generators are
planned to target the approximate largest 25% for each category. These
thresholds should be adjusted, as needed, as diversion success data is gathered.
- Restaurant (maximum occupancy greater than 100 people)
- Grocers (building square footage greater than 2,500 square feet)
- Schools (total enrollment greater than 25 students)
- Hospitals (inpatient capacity greater than 10 patients)
- Special events (event participants greater than 500 people)
• Diversion may include food donation, use as animal feed, or collection for
composting at the PCSWC
• Appropriate sized and labelled containers shall be provided in all food
preparation areas for each regulated entity.
• The County and/or the City should provide initial assistance in verifying
generation levels, identifying donation and feedstock options (if any), obtaining
hauler services, including right-sizing trash containers where both organics and
trash collection are utilized, providing training materials and train-the-trainer
assistance for educating staff on diversion practices, and program reporting.
P38
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
30
Figure 4-2. Food Waste Regulation Applicability
4.6.2 Other Recommendations
• Conduct food waste diversion in City and County operated buildings. If the City
and the County officials have determined that food waste diversion in necessary
for the public, then they should lead by example.
• Expand public education operations. The main consideration for not
recommending post-consumer food waste diversion is that the level of
contamination in the food waste prevents it from being accepted into the
compost operation. If the public can be educated into the compostable materials
and reduce contamination, additional, future food waste diversion could be
achieved.
P39
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
31
4.6.3 Estimated Benefits and Cost Impacts
The estimated benefits of implementing mandatory food waste diversion for large
commercial generators include:
• Increased feed stock for the compost operation, which increases the amount of
topsoil and compost available for sale. This increase in food waste volumes
allows for more yard waste to be incorporated into the compost operation.
• Decreased food waste in the landfill, which reduces nuisance conditions,
reduced attraction of animals, reduced landfill gas generation, and reduced
landfill airspace consumed each year.
Table 4-2 provides an estimate of the potential diversion impacts associated with
recovering food waste and food-contaminated, compostable paper through a
commercial food waste recovery program. These quantities represent a potential GHG
reduction of up to 6,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.11
Table 4-2
Potential MSW Diversion Increase – Food Waste Recovery Only
2022
(Projected)
2027
(Projected)
If 40% Landfilled Recyclables Diverted
Additional Tons 2,100 2,300
New Diversion Rate 27% 27%
Landfill Life Added 6 days/year 7 days/year
If 60% Landfilled Recyclables Diverted
Additional Tons 3,100 3,500
New Diversion Rate 30% 30%
Landfill Life Added 9 days/year 20 days/year
Note: For reference, the 2015 organics diversion levels added 25 days of landfill every year; the
potential new diversion described above represents an extension of landfill life, in
addition to current levels.
The estimated cost to be incurred by the City or County would be limited. Potential
costs would include the purchase of additional food waste bins to be located at the
newly regulated food waste generators. The PCSWC currently operates the compost
operation at a profit through the tipping fees and compost sales. The cost of any new
bins could be offset by the additional food waste revenue and operational efficiencies of
higher volumes. This cost could also be supported by the City or County in a similar
method that is used for the SCRAPS program, which has purchased various sized bear-
resistant food waste containers.
P40
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
32
There will be additional fees for the collection of the food waste, in addition to the
current trash and recycling services. The extent of the increase in waste collection fees
is not known and will vary (e.g., generator location, volume generated). As more food
waste generators participate in diversion, additional collection efficiencies will be
available, as well as haulers offering food waste collection.
4.7 Implementation Considerations
The implementation of the requirement for large commercial food waste generators to
divert food waste will require a detailed review of the site-specific challenges of food
waste. One of the challenging areas may be in the downtown Aspen area, with multiple
businesses sharing waste service. This area may require an exemption due to conditions
that are outside of the food waste generator’s control, including nuisance conditions to
the public and other businesses, physical space for an additional waste container, and
wildlife concerns. Continued stakeholder engagement will help to determine which
areas should be granted exemptions from the food waste diversion requirement, if any.
4.8 Commercial Food Waste Policy Summary Points
Food waste was identified as a significant portion of the MSW being landfilled at the
PCSWC. There is an existing system to divert food waste to the compost operation at
the PCSWC and other food donation avenues. Food waste diversion within the RFV is
challenging due to the significant influx of non-permeant residents, weather, space, and
wildlife. The recommendation is to require pre-consumer food waste diversion for large
commercial generators. The two benefits of expanding food waste diversion are 1)
increased compost production at the PCSWC, and 2) reduced impacts from the PCSWC
that include reduced landfill gas generation and air emissions. These benefits will likely
not have a significant impact on landfill life.
P41
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
33
5 C&D DEBRIS DIVERSION
In 2015, Pitkin County estimated that 80% of the total solid waste managed at the
PCSWC was non-MSW and that most of this portion (about 153,500 tons) was C&D
waste. The C&D stream includes both building and road construction waste. Nationally,
asphalt pavement and bulk aggregates from road and bridge construction contribute
more than three-quarters of the C&D stream, while the mixed C&D from building
construction contributes the remainder 25.
The County has observed that C&D debris sources align with national metrics: In 2015,
PCSWC diverted about 73% of its C&D stream, which was primarily concrete and asphalt
from road construction projects, and used an alternate daily cover for the landfill’s
operation. However, the remaining C&D (about 41,000 tons) was not diverted, and was
mostly building-related debris. Compared with landfilled MSW tons, this quantity
represented more than two-thirds of all solid waste landfilled that year.
Building C&D can be further broken down into construction sources. Although PCSWC
doesn’t track this information, national metrics indicate that about 48% of building
debris is generated by deconstruction of existing buildings, 44% from renovations and
upgrades, and the remaining 8% from new construction 26.
As Aspen and other areas of Pitkin County approach buildout, the level of
deconstruction is expected to increase. As a result, mixed C&D debris generated from
building deconstruction is a critical focus for the City’s and the County’s waste diversion
efforts.
5.1 C&D Diversion Objectives
Since the C&D waste generated within Aspen and Pitkin County makes up such a large
portion of the total waste managed, evaluating ways to divert a portion of the C&D
waste is a primary topic of this Phase II Plan. The C&D diversion objectives include:
• Establish a system to track the volume of waste generated from C&D projects.
• Encourage large generators of C&D waste to divert from the PCSWC.
• Limit the consumption of the remaining airspace at the PCSWC.
25 Based on findings by the Construction & Demolition Recycling Association, 2015.
26 Duffy, MSW Management Magazine, 2017.
P42
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
34
5.2 C&D Debris Composition
In the fall of 2016, PCSWC conducted waste audits of mixed building-related C&D debris
loads delivered to the landfill for disposal 27 (as noted previously, the building-related
debris may be only one-quarter of the C&D stream, but represents mixed materials that
are cost-prohibitive to recycle and, therefore, are typically landfilled). The City and the
County wanted to gather additional information on this waste stream to help determine
what was possible to divert from the C&D waste. Figure 5-1 includes a summary of audit
findings. The primary findings of the C&D waste audit are as follows:
• Non-reusable and non-recyclable materials comprised nearly 78% of the loads
observed. These included treated/engineered wood, drywall, and roofing
materials.
Figure 5-1. Composition of Building Construction Debris Landfilled at PCSWC
• If sorted for recycling, about 22% of the building-related debris, most notably,
metals, concrete (including both clean and reinforced material), cardboard, and
organics, and organics could potentially be diverted through existing programs.
• Limited amounts of clean wood (e.g., dimensional lumber), wooden pallets, or
scrap metal were observed in these loads. However, these are common
components of most C&D debris streams.
27 This was a visual audit conducted by staff. It included a snapshot observation of 28 building debris loads
(25 from new construction, renovation, and deconstruction residential projects and 3 from commercial
projects). The audit targeted about 90 tons of C&D debris. Because of the brevity of the audit and lack of
commercial samples (the audit occurred during a moratorium on commercial development in the City of
Aspen), the composition data should be verified with additional audits in the future.
P43
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
35
• Due to high variability in annual materials types and quantities (such as that seen
between 2015 and 2016) and the limited characterization data, no projected
escalation in building-related C&D debris generation rates were made over the
planning period.
5.3 Current Handling of C&D or Existing System
The PCSWC currently accepts and C&D and has specific tip fees based on the content, as
discussed below.
5.3.1 C&D Debris Management
Waste generated during the replacement of small roads, patios, sidewalks, and other
outdoor hardscapes generates concrete and asphalt waste. When this concrete and
asphalt waste is brought to the PCSWC, the waste is generally clean (i.e., contains only
concrete or only asphalt) and is produced in large quantities (i.e., greater than one
dump truck load). This material is currently processed and reused at PCSWC or sold to
other users. The concrete and asphalt waste generated from large road construction
projects generally is reused on that particular project or is hauled back to the producer
of the concrete and asphalt for recycling. As noted, the County attributes its 73% C&D
diversion rate largely to the reuse and recycling of concrete, asphalt and other
aggregates from construction projects.
Waste generated during the new construction, renovation, and demolition of buildings
has been observed to be a smaller part of the C&D stream, but is expected to represent
the bulk of mixed C&D waste. This mixed C&D waste is difficult to divert because of the
requirement for processing and high percentage of low-value materials. C&D from
building C&D typically arrives at PCSWC mixed in the container available at the
construction site. While these C&D loads may contain some locally reusable or
recyclable materials (e.g., metals, clean wood and pallets, cardboard, plastics, and some
aggregates), they are typically mixed with materials that cannot be effectively separated
and/or for which there is no local demand (e.g., treated wood, drywall, insulation, and
roofing materials). The county has observed that these mixed C&D loads account for
most of the landfilled C&D (and solid waste overall) in 2015.
5.3.1.1 Existing Regulations in the RFV
The City and the County have a joint, points-based Efficient Building Program for
residential construction that is not well enforced by either entity. Requirements include
submittal of a deconstruction plan, and a waste reduction/ diversion and environmental
conservation checklist, as part of the building permit application. There are also
construction debris recycling and demolition debris reduction requirements for new
buildings and remodels/demolitions, respectively.
P44
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
36
The City requires the submittal of deconstruction plans but no follow through on actual
implementation of any diversion activities. The County’s Community Development
Department is currently working on a building code update that replaces the Efficient
Building Program and includes a more practical approach to waste diversion. The City
may consider similar changes in the near future.
Additionally, both the Town of Snowmass Village and Carbondale have adopted the
International Green Construction Code, which requires 50% diversion levels for some
building projects. Actual implementation may include a waiver; however, the lack of
C&D processing capacity in the RFV and the availability of end-use markets make the
50% diversion level impractical.
5.3.2 Obstacles for C&D Diversion
Some of the C&D diversion obstacles are discussed below.
Time
Building C&D is a time- and space-sensitive activity, especially within Aspen. Contractors
are frequently rewarded by clients to accomplish their project as fast as possible. The
construction restrictions imposed by the City during busy tourist holidays and the
climate of the area further reduce the working days available to complete projects. The
time constraint reduces contractors’ willingness to conduct selected deconstruction of
their projects or to segregate waste materials.
Space
Space is very limited on construction sites in Aspen, which limits contractors’ ability to
store and segregate materials. Often, construction sites can only afford the space for
one roll-off, which results in all waste materials being mixed and hauled to PCSWC.
Along with limited space at the construction sites, there are limited avenues for
connecting prospective users of used building materials with construction projects that
need to remove building materials.
Local Market Demand for Durable Goods and Used Building Materials for Reuse
There is limited demand within Pitkin County for the utilization of used building
materials. Existing deconstruction contractors and used building material recyclers
typically haul the materials collected within Aspen to facilities outside of Pitkin County.
This is not unique to the RFV. ReSource’s non-profit used building facility in Boulder
observed that the majority of the used building materials are generated within the City
of Boulder, and the majority of the customers purchasing the used building materials
are from smaller towns outside of the city limits. This scenario could reflect the relative
incomes of property owners in these areas, as well as the constraints described above.
P45
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
37
Local Market Demand for Used Building Materials for Recycle
Many of the materials used in the construction of buildings are difficult to recycle. These
difficulties can be attributed to the fact that building materials are a composite of
several raw materials. Below is a list of common building materials that have significant
local obstacles to being recycled.
• Drywall has very limited development of local end uses such as use in soil
amendment, biomass feedstock, or recycled back into dry wall at the local
drywall plant..
• Carpet, if not reused, can be feedstock in cement furnaces.
• Lack of local markets for materials like ceiling tiles, vinyl composite tiles.
• Other materials with significant market development challenges are insulation,
cement fiberboard, roofing membranes, and treated wood
Economies of Scale
C&D processing for recycling and direct reuse is more common in larger metropolitan
areas than it is in smaller mountain resort communities. Several factors drive these
trends. Large communities generate more waste and processors have more material to
justify the cost of operating a waste processing facility. Colorado, in general, has little of
both C&D processing capacity and market demand for processed materials.
5.3.3 Opportunities for Additional C&D Diversion
Depending on the type of project, C&D loads can be predominantly one type of waste,
e.g., when a hardwood floor is replaced or when a project is only in the framing stage of
construction. When these are good-quality materials that are in demand by other users,
they can be managed as a source-separated load and hauled to one of the facilities
described below. Creating awareness, incentives, and practicality around diverting these
materials early in the deconstruction and renovation process can facilitate reuse and
recycling of this waste stream.
• There are currently companies operating in Pitkin County that provide
deconstruction services and accept used building materials for resale. One of
these companies, Habitat for Humanity (headquartered in Carbondale with
warehouses in Pitkin and Garfield Counties), is a global, non-profit organization
that finances affordable home building through ReStore operations. The
Carbondale ReStore network has diverted over 500 tons of reused and
repurposed furnishings and used building materials since 2011.
• PCSWC – In addition to diverting aggregates, PCSWC includes a compost
operation that accepts land-clearing debris. The facility has the potential for
diverting more wood through shredding of dimensional lumber in the future. The
PCSWC currently has diversion operations for concrete, metal, and cardboard.
P46
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
38
5.4 C&D Diversion Successes in Other Communities
C&D Diversion is not a new initiative in the solid waste industry and is practiced
throughout Colorado. The primary materials that are diverted from the C&D waste
stream are concrete, metal, clean wood, and cardboard. The City of Fort Collins has
established regulations requiring a waste diversion plan for C&D projects and has
specified the materials that need to be diverted. The Fort Collins requirements vary,
based on the project size, building use, and whether demolition is needed. The program
has allowed the City of Fort Collins to generate road base for internal use and offers
payment for clean loads of cardboard instead of charging for it.
5.4.1 Example Regulatory Programs in Colorado and U.S.
Other Colorado municipalities, such as Boulder, Fort Collins, Eagle County, and Summit
County, operate green building programs with varying applicability to building projects
and a range of diversion requirements. Boulder’s residential program is one of the more
rigorous with 50% to 65% diversion for new construction and deconstruction,
respectively. Most of these programs are only partially enforced, however, because of
the time and space challenges described above, lack of enforcement staff, and limited
processing and end-use opportunities in the state.
Communities throughout the U.S. have successfully developed more aggressive C&D
diversion policies. The use of minimum diversion levels, refundable deposits submitted
with building permits, and end-of-project diversion mechanisms tied to certificates of
occupancy were researched during the Phase I study. While those examples provided
some interesting approaches, the successes in Chicago, Plano, and San Jose were tied to
strong regulatory climates, large quantities of C&D generation, long construction
seasons, and the availability of one or more C&D processing facilities in close proximity –
none of which exist in Pitkin County. Most notably, the County’s 2016 observations
indicated that a minimum of 25% of the building waste currently being landfilled at the
PCSWC can be diverted through existing end users and markets.
Although some of the incentives, reporting, and partnership aspects of these programs
support recommendations for C&D diversion in the RFV, it was clear that a new, hybrid
approach was needed.
5.5 Stakeholder Feedback
Through the development of this Phase II Plan, the opinions of various stakeholders
were sought. Public meetings were held, online surveys were posted, and information
was placed in the local newspaper. Stakeholders included contractors, architects, reuse
facilities, haulers, municipalities, and citizens expressed the following key concerns
associated with increasing C&D diversion in the RFV:
P47
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
39
• Building should be limited and construction debris controlled to preserve the
resources of Pitkin County and the PCSWC landfill.
• Any changes that cause a delay in issuance of building permits, putting recycling
containers in Aspen right-of-way, or new regulations could be a hardship for
some stakeholders.
• Materials generated at demolition sites are harder to conserve because they are
a mixture of low-value materials.
• Increased C&D tipping fees at PCSWC will increase traffic on Highway 82, as the
waste materials will likely be hauled to the South Canyon Landfill.
• Deconstruction and salvage operations could be incentivized by:
- Providing faster turnaround on demolition and building permits – possibly
including faster permits for deconstruction and salvage projects
- More resources to help contractors, including deconstruction training and
education on tax benefit opportunities
- Expanded drop/swap at PCSWC
- Acceptance of more source-separated materials (e.g., clean wood) at PCSWC
- Increased commercial recyclables cap at PCSWC (especially for cardboard)
- Increased landfill tip fees
• Need for consistent diversion requirements for Pitkin County and municipalities
in the RFV.
Based on in-person stakeholder meeting comments, online surveys were developed
with the intent of reaching additional stakeholders that may not have been able to
attend the in-person meetings.
5.6 Recommended C&D Management Changes
Through the Phase II study, WCG/LBA has developed recommendations to help facilitate
the diversion of C&D waste from the PCSWC. These recommendations are also intended
to prevent the C&D waste from bypassing PCSWC and hauling to the next landfill.
Increasing C&D diversion can be accomplished through implementing new regulations,
developing building material reuse programs, and by increasing the costs to dispose of
C&D waste. WCG/LBA reviewed how other municipalities handled and encouraged
diversion of C&D Waste.
5.6.1 C&D Waste Regulations
Implementing new regulations pertaining to how waste is handled on construction sites,
provides a method to track waste generation rates by project and to track how waste
and recyclable materials are managed. When waste diversion regulations are tied to
obtaining a building permit, there is a tangible mechanism to require C&D waste
P48
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
40
diversion. Additional details of a requirement for a waste diversion plan are included in
Section 5.7.1.
5.6.2 Used Building Material Handling
Developing a location where used building materials can be taken for donation could
promote waste diversion from the waste generator aspect. Through participation in
online surveys, many of the citizens of Pitkin County have said that they would take
their used materials to a facility to be donated, instead of seeing that material be placed
in the landfill. A used building material handling facility within Pitkin County could
provide a diversion alternative to landfilling. The used building materials could be
packaged and efficiently hauled to other locations where the materials are in demand.
Materials expected to be donated, stored, and sold through a used building materials
facility would include excess new building materials, cabinets, appliances, doors,
windows, flooring, and other reusable finishing materials.
The used building materials can be donated upon arrival to the facility, which allows the
donator to receive a tax deduction based on the value of the materials donated. There
are limits to the quantity that can be deducted based on donation values, and
thresholds that will trigger that the valuation of the donated materials should be
evaluated by a certified public accountant.
Material that is no longer usable but is free of other waste material has opportunities
for recycling, such as the following:
• Clean wood – Shredded and used for composting, mulch or biomass fuel
• Bricks – Crushed and used for drainage media
• Metal – Recycling back into raw materials
• Windows – Recycling back into raw materials
5.6.3 Increase Tipping Fees
The cost to dispose of C&D waste includes both transportation and tip fees at the
PCSWC. Increasing the tipping fees will, in turn, increase the costs to the waste
generator and in some cases will incentivize waste diversion to avoid a portion of the
tipping fees. For other waste generators, the cost of waste disposal is insignificant to the
costs of a project, and increasing the tipping fees will have little to no impact on waste
generation or waste diversion from those projects. In this instance, the lack of diversion
compliance may be balanced by the generation of additional revenue from higher tip
fees for C&D. This additional revenue could be used for funding new staff for tracking
compliance and implementing new or expanded waste diversion programs.
A likely unintended consequence of raising the tipping fee for C&D at PCSWC would be
that haulers would choose to haul the waste to the next nearest landfill (South Canyon
P49
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
41
Landfill) and bypass the tipping fees at PCSWC. This is likely already happening based on
the current tipping fee difference between PCSWC and the South Canyon Landfill, but is
unknown since haulers are not required to report where they haul waste materials to.
The consequences of this unknown includes the additional environmental impacts of
hauling waste longer distances, but also less reliance on the PCSWC landfill, which could
extend its life.
5.7 City and County Roles in C&D Waste Diversion
Establishing new regulations on C&D will require coordination between the Community
Development (ComDev), the entity that issues building and demolition permits, and the
PCSWC, the entity that accepts the waste generated from building C&D. A conceptual
plan of how these two entities can work together to incentivize waste diversion has
been developed and consists of three main steps; 1) require a waste diversion plan, 2)
track waste generation quantities, and 3) increase the tipping fees to large waste
generating projects. This Conceptual Plan has also been detailed visually on Figure 5-2,
to follow.
5.7.1 ComDev to Require a Waste Diversion Plan
During the application for a building or demolition permit, ComDev would require that
the applicant submit a waste diversion plan, which is already a requirement of the City’s
ComDev. ComDev would inform the applicant of the benefits of deconstruction prior to
demolition, the available tax incentives for material donation, and the savings at the
PCSWC when it comes time to dispose of waste. The waste diversion plan and project
details would be forward to the PCSWC for waste tracking.
During the development of the waste diversion plan, County or City staff would be able
to assist the applicant as to what materials are salvageable for donation or reuse and
provide resources for obtaining the tax deductions. As more waste diversion plans are
developed, the components within the plan will become routine to the applicants and
example diversion materials and quantities will become available.
The details about how a waste diversion plan could work are still in progress, but would
include the following concepts:
1. Include building information like construction type, age of construction, and
size. This will be used for waste tracking and future waste projections.
2. What materials are planned to be diverted from the landfill during demolition or
construction.
3. Where waste materials will be hauled to and will they be segregated?
P50
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
42
The development of the waste diversion plan would initially need to be assisted by a city
or county employee to help builders navigate the new process. During the development
of the waste diversion plan, the building would be inspected to show what materials
could be diverted, and if there is an opportunity to donate any materials for a tax
deduction.
5.7.2 Waste Tracking by Project at PCSWC
WCG/LBA recommends that PCSWC work with the respective ComDev departments to
obtain copies of the building permits with waste diversion plans. The waste brought to
PCSWC will be tracked in relation to what was planned in the waste diversion plan.
When the quantity of waste reaches a threshold level, an increased tipping fee would be
charged for the remaining waste for that project. Evidence of waste diversion activities
would be presented to the scale house attendant and would be used to offset a portion
of the waste that is being charged at a higher rate. The waste diversion activities would
also be tracked based on what was stated in the waste diversion plan.
Initially, the tracking system would be used to gather information on the waste
generated by typical projects. After the information has been gathered to determine
what type of projects are the large waste generators, thresholds will be adjusted as to
how much waste can be generated before triggering a higher tipping fee for C&D waste
from a project. The recommended initial threshold is 20 tons of C&D waste per project.
A conceptual for increasing C&D waste diversion at PCSWC is provided on Figure 5-2 on
the following page.
P51
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
43
Figure 5-2. Conception Plan for Increasing C&D Waste Diversion
P52I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
44
Enforcement
To avoid the higher tipping fees at the landfill, the large C&D waste generators are
responsible for diverting and providing receipts of their diversion. The contractors who
operate in the RFV will initially require City- or County-provided training on the process
and the development of waste diversion plans.
While the conceptual plan for increasing C&D waste diversion puts the responsibility on
the waste generator, if no significant changes to C&D management are noticed,
additional motivation may be needed. Some of the potential ways to motivate C&D
generators to divert more waste could include:
• Stop work orders;
• Cash deposit system attached to waste diversion plans;
• Fines; and
• Additional training.
5.7.3 Develop an Outlet for Reusable Materials
Used materials collected from within Pitkin County frequently have repurpose or reuse
opportunity. Private companies operate within Pitkin County to collect and resell used
building materials, ranging from interior finish items like appliances and cabinetry, to
lumber and flooring materials. These private companies collect materials within Aspen
and Pitkin County and then warehouse the materials for resale in areas outside of Pitkin
County. Suitable commercial real estate within Pitkin County is generally not cost-
effective for the storage and resale of used building materials. There is also a greater
market for reusable materials in other communities in Colorado than in the RFV. This
increased market demand in other communities is driven by population size and the
desire to use lower cost used materials.
WCG/LBA recommends that the City and the County develop a local facility for used
material collection. This would allow contractors and homeowners working within Pitkin
County the ability to donate materials without transporting the materials out of the
county to do so. While these materials may not be reused within Pitkin County, the
materials would be diverted and not landfilled. The used material collection facility
could facilitate the efficient removal of used building materials to communities that will
use them and pay for them.
The County is already evaluating a long-term facility to collect and resell used materials
at the PCSWC. This facility would replace the current outdoor area at the PCSWC where
materials are donated and available for free collection and reuse. This facility is
currently contemplated to include a warehouse and sales area, along with office and
training areas. This facility would allow for the expansion of the PCSWC efforts to
conduct solid waste and recycling education and community outreach.
P53
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
45
5.7.4 Material Donation Tax Deductions
WCG/LBA recommends that the local Community Development Departments inform
building permit applicants of the tax deductions available for material donation.
Significant tax deductions are available for individuals to donate materials (e.g., used
appliances, cabinets, and used building material) to a nonprofit entity like Habitat for
Humanity. Not all contractors are aware of this benefit and may be agreeable to
allowing building deconstruction to gain access to these tax deductions. The applicable
tax codes could be referenced in a handout to demolition permit applicants.
5.8 Diversion Potential
The waste diversion potential of implementing the recommended changes to how C&D
waste is managed will primarily be determined by C&D waste generators’ willingness to
participate in the waste diversion programs. A review of existing reuse retail stores
shows it is estimated that through the installation of an outlet for used materials,
approximately 500 tons of materials could be diverted annually. Through the
implementation of a waste diversion plan requirement for demolition projects, it is
expected that between 10% and 30% of the easily divertible C&D waste could be
diverted through existing recycling programs. These materials include metal for offsite
recycling, concrete for onsite recycling, and the shredding of clean untreated wood to
be included into the compost program or sold as mulch. The projected tons diverted are
presented in Table 5-6.
Table 5-6
Potential C&D Diversion Increase – Building-Related Waste Stream Only
2022
(Projected)
2027
(Projected)
If 10% Landfilled Recyclables Diverted
Additional Tons 4,100 4,100
New Diversion Rate 76% 76%
Landfill Life Added 12 days/year 12 days/year
If 25% Landfilled Recyclables Diverted
Additional Tons 10,300 10,300
New Diversion Rate 80% 80%
Landfill Life Added 30 days/year 30 days/year
Note: For reference, the 2015 C&D diversion levels added 330 days of landfill every year; the
potential new diversion described above represents an extension of landfill life, in
addition to current levels.
P54
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
46
Other Diversion Benefits - While the impact on landfill life described in Table 5-6 may
not be large, the ability to divert additional tons each year will also provide the following
benefits:
• A small reduction in GHG emissions, although this estimate is difficult to make,
given the mixed nature of these materials.
• Provide usable resources to lower income areas while, at the same time,
adjusting the current culture.
5.8.1 Goal Setting
To have a meaningful impact of C&D waste diversion, the materials diverted and
landfilled need to be tracked and realistic diversion goals must be set. As diversion data
is collected, the City and the County can establish diversion targets and make changes
on how to encourage participation in waste diversion to achieve those targets.
5.9 C&D Waste Management Summary Points
C&D waste is a dominant component of the waste generated within the RFV and
managed at the PCSWC. Land available for building within Pitkin County and, more
importantly, within Aspen, is limited. This has led to the increasing trend of needing to
demolish a building prior to the construction of a new structure. The demolition
activities are the primary driving force to the large volumes of C&D generated.
The PCSWC currently achieves a high diversion rate of C&D based on the aggregate
recovery operation, but there is still a large amount of divertible C&D waste being
landfilled. Increasing the quantity of C&D being diverted from the landfill will have the
largest impact on extending the landfill life.
The key takeaways for improved C&D waste management in Pitkin County and Aspen
include:
• Require a waste diversion plan when obtaining a building or demolition permit.
• Track the waste generated by project at the PCSWS and establish thresholds for
when a large waste generating project will trigger a higher tier of tipping fees.
• Increase C&D tipping fees at the landfill to cover the future costs of solid waste
management when the landfill closes.
• Develop an outlet for reusable materials.
P55
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
47
6 CONCLUSIONS
The RFV is generating waste at a rate that will deplete the remaining permitted airspace
at the PCSWC in 7 years. While there is an opportunity for landfill expansion in the
future, waste generation rates need to be reduced to slow the consumption of landfill
airspace, as well as reduce the impacts of solid waste management. The waste diversion
options investigated in this Phase II Plan include waste hauler ordinance changes,
introduction of a food waste ordinance, and the introduction of a variable rate tipping
fee structure for large C&D debris generators. While some of these waste diversion
activities are already being conducted, in varied capacities, there are portions of the
waste stream that could be recovered through changes in how the waste is managed.
The tiered tipping fee for large C&D waste generators is expected to have the largest
impact on waste diversion, followed by changes to the hauler ordinance and, lastly, the
diversion requirement on commercial food waste generators.
P56
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\REPORT.DOCX 1/10/2018
48
7 LIMITATIONS
The information presented in this Phase II Plan is based on limited, publically available
information and responses from stakeholders. The recommendations included are
limited to the information available to WCG/LBA during the preparation of this report.
P57
I.
APPENDIX A
POTENTIAL HAULER POLICY MECHANISMS – PROS & CONS
P58
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\APPENDIX A.DOCX
A-1
APPENDIX A
POTENTIAL HAULER POLICY MECHANSIMS – PROS & CONS
Component Pros Cons
Curbside Recycling Service
Mandate
(trash hauler required to provide
recycling service to all residential
& commercial customers)
• Increased convenience for &
diversion by generator
• Increased hauler efficiency (fees
will likely be less than
separately adding recycling to
trash service)
• Increased business for haulers
• Implemented as mandatory fee
program but no requirement
for actual recycling
• Increased container
requirements
• Increased fees for trash-only
customers
• Challenging in congested
commercial areas (there is
inadequate space for multiple
containers)
• Can be expensive in remote
areas
Single-Stream Recycling
(all haulers except one currently
provide to all customers)
• Minimized customer confusion
between dual-/single-stream
option (especially for visitors
used to single-stream programs)
• Increased convenience &
diversion
• New containers & messaging
for customers with dual-stream
• Policies in most communities
do not specify level of
commingling
Set Minimum Quantity for
Recyclables Collection
(to be provided for same fee/fee
portion regardless of quantity)
• Increased diversion by ensuring
minimum container sizing
• May need additional recyclable
containers
• Makes setting recycling portion
of total fee difficult if maximum
size is not set
Recyclables Collection on Same
Day/Frequency as Trash
(part of existing Aspen & Pitkin
County code)
• Increased convenience &
diversion
• Less confusion
• Discouragement of frequent
trash collections
• May require re-routing by
haulers
• Increased cost
Variable Trash Rates Based on
Equivalent 32-Gallon Unit
(may not initially require specific
containers or 32-gallon service)
• Proven incentive to increase
diversion
• No initial requirement for
haulers/ customers to change
containers
• Eventual need for new trash
container sizes & recycling
containers for some customers
• New pricing structure from
some haulers
• Initial confusion for customers
Bundled Trash & Recycling Fees
(dual service priced as one fee
based on trash quantity –
recycling service is mandatory)
• Some haulers already bundle
• Proven incentive for making
recycling more attractive to
generators
• Facilitates unlimited recycling
requirements
• New pricing & accounting
structure for some haulers
• Some customers don’t realize
they pay for recycling service
• Is not transparent & can create
inaccurate impression that
recycling is “free”
Limitation on Surcharges
(to increase billing consistency
throughout the valley)
• Increased billing consistency
• Itemizing on customer bills
provides transparency
• Some haulers feel their lack of
these charges differentiates
them
P59
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\APPENDIX A.DOCX
A-2
Maximum Allowable Recyclables
Contamination
(allows haulers to not collect
contaminated recyclables or to
manage as trash)
• Generator/haulers are used to a
contamination limit in Aspen
• Contamination levels measured
in 2015 were only <10% 1
• Increased recyclable quality
through generator separation
• Decreased rejection/fines for
recyclables delivered to Front
Range processors
• Consistent rate must be
established - Aspen (15%) &
county (25%) currently have
different rates
Customer Notification
(service options & diversion
guidelines)
• Reduced generator confusion &
increase awareness
• Encourages participation
• Additional hauler requirement
(but can be supported with
city/county outreach materials)
• When haulers fail to comply,
customer communications
suffer
No Trash Overflows
(needed to support variable trash
pricing)
• Increased diversion if
recyclables contamination limit
is enforced
• Common component in other
community policies
• Requires haulers to notify
customers & establish penalty
(skip collection, assess
additional fees, etc.)
Annual Business
License/Renewal
(fleet & insurance data, annual
reporting)
• Common approach throughout
Colorado
• Facilitates reporting as part of
license renewal process
• Increased reporting
requirements
• Renewal fee (expected to
remain nominal)
Reporting, Recordkeeping &
Auditing
(report material quantities,
services, routing & pricing)
• Submit as part of license
renewal
• User-friendly reporting form
• Audits verify acceptable self-
reporting procedures
• Provide data for measuring
diversion progress
• Annual can be adequate if data
collection is effective
• Haulers feel data is proprietary
& will be skeptical of
city/county’s ability to maintain
confidentiality
• Bi-annual creates more hauler
costs
1 This included measurements of Rio Grande drop-site and curbside recyclables delivered to the PCSWC.
P60
I.
APPENDIX B
OTHER HAULER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
P61
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\APPENDIX B.DOCX
B-1
APPENDIX B
OTHER HAULER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
Implementation Flexibility
To facilitate effective policies that are fair to local haulers, the following exemptions,
delayed effective dates of other implementation options can be considered:
• Delay the effective date for moving all customers to single-stream for one year
for existing haulers.
• Allow the effective date for adding recycling to trash accounts in a formal service
contract (e.g., homeowner associations) to be delayed until the current term
expires (but no more than two years).
• Allow a recyclables curbside exemption in communities (especially those low-
densities areas located farther from Highway 82) where cost would be excessive;
consider replacing with drop site collection provided directly by haulers
providing trash service (or paid for by haulers and their customers if operated by
the local government).
• Allow haulers and customers to determine what type and size of containers to
meet equivalent requirements including pre-paid disposable trash bags, plastic
garbage cans, or automated carts.
• Allow haulers to collect recyclables every other week (regardless of trash
frequency) if a 96-gallon or larger service is provided (on same day as trash
collection).
• Allow haulers to reject or charge the equivalent trash fee for recyclables with
more than 15% contamination.
• Delay the effective date for requiring 32-gallon equivalent service for up to three
years but still require pricing based on 32-gallon base size.
• Allow fixed fees in addition to variable fees where disposable bags are used to
offset routing costs and where uncontrollable factors affect costs (e.g., fuel
costs, recyclables market pricing), but set fee limits.
Enforcement Considerations
It is expected that only part-time enforcement staff will be required to help enforce the
new hauler policy in both the city and county. This will represent new costs, however.
There are several opportunities for leveraging these enforcement resources:
• Enforcement staff could also conduct field investigations of residential and
commercial containers on collection day to assist the haulers by giving
customers “gentle reminders” about trash overflows and recyclables
contamination.
P62
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\APPENDIX B.DOCX
B-2
• The city and county could potentially share code enforcement personnel to
reduce costs and encourage consistency.
• Aspen could expand hauler policy enforcement to include the city’s yard waste
disposal ban.
• There could be overlapping with enforcement of wildlife-resistant containers
and/or enclosures.
• Pitkin County may add new field inspection staff for its future C&D debris
diversion program, as discussed in Section 5 of the Phase II Plan, which could
also overlap with hauler policy enforcement.
Public Outreach Considerations
Providing clear messaging that the city and county could help haulers in developing that
will ease haulers’ customer communication efforts and increase consistency:
• Create a sample customer notification letter for new and ongoing services and
prices (for haulers’ ultimate distribution and ongoing communications) including
a description of services, recyclables, and trash containers options and pricing,
accepted recyclables, and education guidelines.
• Generate a sample bill statement reminder that recycling service is not optional
(even if this service is called out separately from trash).
• Provide graphics of acceptable recyclables and separation guidelines (suitable for
hauler use on websites, bills and containers).
• Design a customer violation notice (like Aspen’s audit card) that haulers can use
for trash overflows and contaminated recyclables.
Possible Actions for Second Half of Planning Period
The core policy components —if done with full enforcement and public outreach
support—represent significant changes for haulers, their customers, and the city and
county. As the planning period advances, there are several additional activities that
could and should be considered to further advance the hauler policy and regional waste
diversion goals:
• Re-evaluate resource allocation for local recycling drop sites, reallocating to
other services (such as enforcement and public outreach) where possible.
• Work with the towns of Snowmass Village, Basalt, and Carbondale to adopt
similar hauler policy such that there are universal collection practices, pricing,
messaging, and incentives throughout the Roaring Fork Valley.
• Conduct waste audits every 3 years to compare recyclable diversion levels to the
content of recyclables and organics still being disposed in landfill trash at PCSWC
and re-align public outreach messaging to address materials with lower recovery
levels.
P63
I.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\PITKIN LF\SOLID WASTE\WASTE DIVERSION\WD PLAN PH II\APPENDIX B.DOCX
B-3
• Based on waste composition results, consider a cardboard disposal ban or other
policy needed to create incentives around materials with lagging diversion
successes. For example, the top three recyclables measured in the 2015 waste
composition study trash were cardboard, glass and plastic film.
• Enforce the Aspen yard waste disposal ban and consider expanding throughout
the valley.
• Support beyond-the-valley regional efforts for a western slope single-stream
processing facility that would reduce transportation costs and improve the
economics of recycling for haulers and local governments.
P64
I.
APPENDIX C
WASTE DIVERSION POTENTIAL
P65
I.
F:\Admin\Pitkin LF\Solid Waste\Waste Diversion\WD Plan Ph II\App C Page 1 of 3 Jan 2018
DATE: January, 2018 BASIS: 2015 Waste Composition Study
PROJECTION OF POTENTIAL FUTURE DIVERSION - PITKIN COUNTY (MUNICIPALITIES & UNINCORPORATED AREAS)
ACTUAL
2015 2022 2027
38,200 43,400 48,300
Trash Only (tons/year)22,800 25,900 28,800
Curbside/DOC Recyclables Diverted (tons/year)6,500 7,400 8,200
Diversion Rate - Recycling Only (percent by weight)17.0%17.1%17.0%
5,700 6,500 7,200
If 40% of Recyclable in Trash Are Diverted
Additional Diverted Tons (tons/year)2,280 2,600 2,880
Resulting MSW Diversion Rate - Recycling Only (percent by weight)23.0%23.0%22.9%
Cumulative Landfill Capacity Added Over 5 Yrs3 (total days)33 37 41
If 60% of Recyclables in Trash Are Diverted
Additional Diverted Tons (tons/year)3,420 3,900 4,320
Resulting MSW Diversion Rate - Recycling Only (percent by weight)26.0%26.0%25.9%
Cumulative Landfill Capacity Added Over 5 Yrs3 (total days)50 57 64
1 Based on population projections from CO State Demography Office, October 2015 projections (permanent population - does not consider tourism).
2 Based on 2015 Waste Composition Study findings (25% of MSW samples were curbside/DOC recyclables - paper & containers).
3 Based on 1,700 lbs/cy density (as reported by PCSWC for MSW) and 146,000 cy/yr airspace consumption (average 2016-2027 projections
by PCSWC) for all solid waste.
TASK PROJECTED1
Total MSW Managed at PCSWC
Recyclables in Composition Study Trash Samples2
APPENDIX C
WASTE DIVERSION POTENTIAL - IMPROVED HAULER POLICY
P66I.
F:\Admin\Pitkin LF\Solid Waste\Waste Diversion\WD Plan Ph II\App C Page 2 of 3 Jan 2018
DATE: January 2018 BASIS: 2015 Waste Composition Study
PROJECTION OF POTENTIAL FUTURE DIVERSION - PITKIN COUNTY (MUNICIPALITIES & UNINCORPORATED AREAS)
ACTUAL
2015 2022 2027
38,200 43,400 48,300
Trash Only (tons/year)22,800 25,900 28,800
Organics Diverted (tons/year)8,500 9,700 10,800
Diversion Rate - Recycling Only (percent by weight)22.3%22.4%22.4%
4,560 5,180 5,760
If 40% of Organics in Trash Are Diverted thru Food Waste Program
Additional Diverted Tons (tons/year)1,824 2,072 2,304
Resulting MSW Diversion Rate - Organics Only (percent by weight)27.0%27.1%27.1%
Cumulative Landfill Capacity Added Over 5 Yrs3 (total days)26 30 33
If 60% of Organics in Trash Are Diverted thru Food Waste Program
Additional Diverted Tons (tons/year)2,736 3,108 3,456
Resulting MSW Diversion Rate - Organics Only (percent by weight)29.4%29.5%29.5%
Cumulative Landfill Capacity Added Over 5 Yrs3 (total days)40 46 51
1 Based on population projections from CO State Demography Office, October 2015 projections (permanent population - does not consider tourism).
2 Based on 2015 Waste Composition Study findings (20% of MSW samples were food waste & non-recyclable/compostable paper).
3 Based on 1,700 lbs/cy density (as reported by PCSWC for MSW) and 146,000 cy/yr airspace consumption (average 2016-2027 projections
by PCSWC) for all solid waste.
TASK PROJECTED1
Total MSW Managed at PCSWC
Food Waste/Non-Recyclable Compostable Paper in Composition Study Trash
Samples2
APPENDIX C
WASTE DIVERSION POTENTIAL - COMMERCIAL FOOD WASTE POLICY
P67I.
F:\Admin\Pitkin LF\Solid Waste\Waste Diversion\WD Plan Ph II\App C Page 3 of 3 Jan 2018
DATE: January 2018 BASIS: 2015 Waste Composition Study
PROJECTION OF POTENTIAL FUTURE DIVERSION - PITKIN COUNTY (MUNICIPALITIES & UNINCORPORATED AREAS)
ACTUAL
2015 2022 2027
153,500 153,500 153,500
Landfilled C&D Only (tons/year)41,300 41,300 41,300
Diverted C&D (tons/year)112,200 112,200 112,200
Diversion Rate - Recycling Only (percent by weight)73.1%73.1%73.1%
If 10% of Landfilled C&D is Diverted
Additional Diverted Tons (tons/year)4,130 4,130 4,130
Resulting C&D Diversion Rate (percent by weight)75.8%75.8%75.8%
Cumulative Landfill Capacity Added Over 5 Yrs3 (total days)59 59 59
If 25% of Landfilled C&D is Diverted
Additional Diverted Tons (tons/year)10,325 10,325 10,325
Resulting C&D Diversion Rate(percent by weight)79.8%79.8%79.8%
Cumulative Landfill Capacity Added Over 5 Yrs3 (total days)152 152 152
1 Given high tonnages observed in 2015 & unpredictable annual vagaries, no escalation was assessed over the planning period.
2 Based on 2016 C&D audit findings (25% of landfilled C&D samples included currently divertible materials).
3 Based on 1,700 lbs/cy density (as reported by PCSWC for MSW) and 146,000 cy/yr airspace consumption (average 2016-2027 projections
by PCSWC) for all solid waste.
PROJECTED1
Total C&D Managed at PCSWC
Potential C&D Diversion2
TASK
APPENDIX C
WASTE DIVERSION POTENTIAL - CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION DEBRIS POLICY
P68I.
APPENDIX D
HAULER-BASED WASTE DIVERSION POLITY COST ESTIMATE
P69
I.
F:\Admin\Pitkin LF\Solid Waste\Waste Diversion\WD Plan Ph II\App C and D Univ Hauler Ord August 2017
DAT June, 2017 BASIS:Concept Estimate, 2017$
2017 ESTIMATION OF IMPLEMENTATION COSTS - City of Aspen
Salary1 Days FTE Cost
ED 0 0.00 $0
ES 0 0.00 $0
ES 5 0.02 $1,827
CE 2 0.01 $529
ES 7 0.03 $2,558
CE 68 0.26 $17,994
Refine Tracking System AD 2 0.01 $531 $0 $531 $0 $531
ED 0 0.00 $0
ES 0 0.00 $0
Update Waste Free RFV Guide w/
CORE/Carbondale EB ES 3 0.01 $1,096 $3,100 $4,196 $0 $4,196 10,000 color copies/10 stapled pages
(Aspen FedEx quote) - 40% city
Develop City/County Video ES 5 0.02 $1,827 $0 $1,827 $0 $1,827
ED 1 0.00 $442 $0 $442 $0 $442
ES 2 0.01 $731 $0 $731 $0 $731
95 0.37 $27,535 $3,100 $30,635 $0 $30,635
Enter Bi-Annual Report Data AD 5 0.02 $1,327 $0 $1,327 $0 $1,327
CE 26 0.10 $6,880 $0 $6,880 $0 $6,880
LG 5 0.02 $3,173 $0 $3,173 $7,950 -$4,777
Periodic Audits FM 3 0.01 $1,283 $0 $1,283 $0 $1,283 Audit 6 haulers every 3 years
Guidance to Generators ES 6 0.02 $2,192 $0 $2,192 $0 $2,192
Annual Report to BOCC & Public ES 3 0.01 $1,096 $0 $1,096 $0 $1,096 Sustainability report
ED 2 0.01 $885 $0 $885 $0 $885
ES 5 0.02 $1,827 $0 $1,827 $0 $1,827
Update Outreach Materials ES 3 0.01 $1,096 $500 $1,596 $0 $1,596
58 0.22 $19,759 $500 $20,259 $7,950 $12,309
1 Burdened salaries based on:
Env Health Director ED $115,000 Admin AD $69,000 Finance FM $111,200
Env Health Sr. Specialist ES $95,000 Code CE $68,800 City LG $165,000
2 Based on penalties of per incident-day $2,650
EXPENSES TOTAL
COSTS REVENUES2 NET
COSTS
Citywide inspection monthly, no
enforcement actions first year$20,552
Assume covered by county
$2,356 Inspection guidelines, checklist &
enforcement strategy
On-Going Annual Implementation (second year and beyond)
Initial Public Open House & Council
Caucuses (2)$0 $0 $0 $0 Assume covered by county
Code Enforcement
$0 $2,356 $0
$0 $20,552 $0
Develop Content for Hauler's Use
in Customer Communications
Enforcement Citywide inspection quarterly, assume
equivalent of 3-day penalty each year
TASK PERSONNEL EXPENSES
Initial Implementation (first year only)
Hauler Training Sessions (2)$0 $0 $0 $0
Develop & Test Compliance
Assessment Materials
On-Going Public Discussions
APPENDIX D
HAULER-BASED WASTE DIVERSION POLICY COST ESTIMATE
P70I.
F:\Admin\Pitkin LF\Solid Waste\Waste Diversion\WD Plan Ph II\App C and D Univ Hauler Ord August 2017
2017 ESTIMATION OF IMPLEMENTATION COSTS - Pitkin County
Salary1 Days FTE Cost
DM 4 0.02 $1,711
CE 4 0.02 $1,058
DM 4 0.02 $1,711
CE 2 0.01 $529
DM 7 0.03 $2,994
CE 68 0.26 $17,994
Develop Tracking System for
Material Reporting OM 8 0.03 $2,382 $0 $2,382 $0 $2,382 New spreadsheet system - could be
assisted by consultant
Test Tracking & Reporting
Mechanisms OM 2 0.01 $595 $0 $595 $0 $595 Using initial data set - could be assisted by
consultant
DM 2 0.01 $855
OC 8 0.03 $1,855
Work with CORE to Update
Waste Free RFV Guide OC 3 0.01 $696 $4,700 $5,396 $0 $5,396 10,000 color copies/10 stapled pages
(Aspen FedEx quote) - 60% county
Develop City/County Video OC 5 0.02 $1,160 $0 $1,160 $0 $1,160
DM 1 0.00 $428
OC 2 0.01 $464
120 0.46 $34,432 $5,200 $39,632 $0 $39,632
Enter Bi-Annual Report Data OM 5 0.02 $1,488 $0 $1,488 $0 $1,488 8 reports, twice/year
CE 26 0.10 $6,880 $0 $6,880 $0 $6,880
LG 5 0.02 $3,365 $0 $3,365 $5,000 -$1,635
Periodic Audits FM 4 0.02 $1,711 $0 $1,711 $0 $1,711 Audit 8 haulers every 3 years
Guidance for Generators OC 6 0.02 $1,392 $0 $1,392 $0 $1,392
Annual Report to BOCC & Public DM 2 0.01 $855 $0 $855 $0 $855 Sustainability report
DM 2 0.01 $855 $0 $855 $0 $855
OC 5 0.02 $1,160 $0 $1,160 $0 $1,160
Update Outreach Materials OC 3 0.01 $696 $500 $1,196 $0 $1,196
58 0.22 $18,402 $500 $18,902 $5,000 $13,902
1 Burdened salaries based on:
Department Manager DM $111,200 Outreach OC $60,300 Finance FM $111,200
Office Manager OM $77,400 Code CE $68,800 County LG $175,000
2 Based on penalties of $1,000/licensing violation (current) & assumed incident-day non-license violation $1,000
Costs do not include ordinance or operations plan developer or efforts to gain commission/council approval.
Citywide inspection quarterly, assume
equivalent of 5-day penalty each year
Code Enforcement Citywide inspection monthly, no
enforcement actions first year
$0 $892 $0 $892
$0 $20,988 $0 $20,988
$500 $3,211 $0 $3,211 Could be assisted by consultant
Could be assisted by consultantHauler Training Sessions (2)
Develop & Test Compliance
Assessment Materials
Inspection guidelines, checklist &
enforcement actions
NOTES
$0 $2,769
$2,240 $0 $2,240
TOTAL
COSTS
$0 $2,769
TASK PERSONNEL EXPENSES REVENUES2EXPENSES
APPENDIX D
HAULER-BASED WASTE DIVERSION POLICY COST ESTIMATE
On-Going Public Discussions
Initial Implementation (first year only)
NET
COSTS
On-Going Annual Implementation (second year and beyond)
Initial Public Open House &
Commissioner Caucuses (2)
Enforcement
Develop Content for Hauler's Use
in Customer Communications
$0
P71I.
P72I.
ļÄâ»ÄôƵƶȤƶƴƵƻ
LçüÐÄ÷ñÄã¼çââþãÑüē°ãÀçþôĐÑ÷Ñüçô÷Ȥ
#üÑ÷çþôñÝÄ°÷þôÄüçÑãüôçÀþ¼Ä÷ñÄãɛ÷ãÄđÝÑâ°üļüÑçãBÝ°ãɂBɃȤ
đÐѼÐ÷Äü÷üÐÄ÷ü°ÎÄÍçô¼çãüÑãþÑãΰãÀÎôçđÑãÎ÷ñÄãɛ÷ÝÄΰ¼ēçͼÝÑâ°üÄ
üаü°÷ü°»ÝļÝÑâ°üÄÑ÷ÍçþãÀ°üÑçã°ÝüçüÐÄ÷ñÄãüаüđÄÜãçđ°ãÀÝçĐÄȤ
8ññçôüþãÑüÑÄ÷üçôÄÀþ¼ÄÄâÑ÷÷Ñçã÷°ôÄâçôÄñô°¼üѼ°ÝȤ°»þãÀ°ãü°ãÀ
ļçãçâѼ°ÝüаãüÐÄēÄĐÄôаĐÄ»ÄÄãȩLç°¼¼ÄÝÄô°üÄçþôâçĐÄâÄãüÑãüÐÄ
ôÑÎÐüÀÑôļüÑçãȤüÐÄBâ°Ñãü°Ñã÷÷ñÄãɛ÷°â»ÑüÑçþ÷ÎôÄÄãÐçþ÷Äΰ÷ɂ " Ƀ
¼çââþãÑüē¼°ãôÑ÷ÄüçüÐļаÝÝÄãÎÄçÍâÄÄüÑãÎüÐÄ÷ÄÎç°Ý÷Ȥ»°÷ÄÀçãçþô
ñ°÷üđçôÜ°ãÀÍçôđ°ôÀüÐÑãÜÑãÎȤ¼çââÑüüÄÀ¼çââþãÑüēȤñçÝѼēâ°ÜÄô÷Ȥ°ãÀ
»þ÷ÑãÄ÷÷Ä÷ȩ
8ãÄçÍ÷ñÄãɛ÷ÐçñÄ÷Ñã»Ä¼çâÑãΰãÄ°ôÝēÝÄ°ÀÄôđ°÷üаüçüÐÄô¼çââþãÑüÑÄ÷đçþÝÀü°ÜÄãçüѼÄȩLçÀ°ēȤÝç¼°ÝÎçĐÄôãâÄãü÷°¼üÑãÎ
çã¼ÝÑâ°üÄÑ÷°ÎÝç»°ÝñÐÄãçâÄãçãȩ#ãƶƴƴƻȤÍÄđ¼ÑüÑÄ÷аÀ°ÀçñüÄÀÍçôâ°Ý¼çââÑüâÄãü÷ȩLçÀ°ēȤüÐçþ÷°ãÀ÷çͼçââþãÑüÑÄ÷°ôçþãÀ
üÐÄđçôÝÀȤÐþãÀôÄÀ÷°ôçþãÀüÐļçþãüôē°ãÀÀçĖÄã÷ÑãçÝçô°ÀçаĐļçââÑüüÄÀüç¼ÝÑâ°üÄ°¼üÑçãȩçÝÝļüÑĐÄÝēȤüÐÄ÷ļçââÑüâÄãü÷
Äâ»çÀēüÐÄñçüÄãüÑ°ÝÍçôôÄÀþ¼ÑãÎÎÝç»°Ý " ÄâÑ÷÷Ñçã÷°üüÐÄĐçÝþâÄ÷ãļÄ÷÷°ôēüçâ°Ñãü°Ñã°ÝÑĐ°»ÝÄñÝ°ãÄüȩ
LÐÄôÄа÷ãÄĐÄô»ÄÄã°»ÄüüÄôüÑâÄüçüþôã¼çââÑüâÄãüÑãüç°¼üÑçãȩ÷ÐÑ÷üçôēа÷÷ÐçđãȤ÷ñÄãа÷°¼ÑĐѼôÄ÷ñçã÷Ñ»ÑÝÑüēüç°¼üçã
»ÄаÝÍçÍÑü÷¼çã÷üÑüþÄãü÷Ȥ°âçô°ÝÑâñÄô°üÑĐÄüçü°ÜÄüÐÄ÷üÄñ÷ãļÄ÷÷°ôēüçâÄÄüüÐļаÝÝÄãÎÄçͼÝÑâ°üļаãÎÄȤ°ãÀüÐÄñçüÄãüÑ°Ý
üç»Ä°¼°ü°Ýē÷üÍçôâÄ°ãÑãÎÍþÝ°ãÀÄÍÍļüÑĐÄ°¼üÑçã°ôçþãÀüÐÄ÷ü°üÄȤ¼çþãüôē°ãÀđçôÝÀȩ#âñÝÄâÄãüÑãÎüÐÑ÷BôÄÍç¼þ÷Ä÷÷ñÄãɛ÷
¼çââÑüâÄãüüçÑü÷ÍþüþôÄ°ãÀđÑÝÝþ÷ÐÄôÑãüÐÄãÄĒüñа÷ÄçÍÝ缰ݼÝÑâ°üÄÝÄ°ÀÄô÷ÐÑñȩ
$VSHQȇV&LW\&RXQFLOLVSURXGWRFRQWLQXHDQGH[SDQGWKH
FRPPXQLW\ȇVOHJDF\RIFOLPDWHOHDGHUVKLS)URPOHIW %HUW0\ULQ
:DUG+DXHQVWHLQ0D\RU6WHYH6NDGURQ$QQ0XOOLQV$GDP)ULVFK
P73I.
P74I.
X°÷üÄÎÄãÄô°üÑçãÑã÷ñÄãȤÄ÷üÑâ°üÄÀ°üƵƵñçþãÀ÷
ñÄôñÄô÷çãñÄôÀ°ēÑĐȤÑ÷°»çĐÄ»çüÐüÐÄ÷ü°üÄ°ãÀ
ã°üÑçã°Ý°ĐÄô°ÎÄȩLÐÄ°ĐÄô°ÎÄÍçôçÝçô°ÀçÑ÷ƽ
ãþâ»Äô÷Ñã¼ÝþÀÄüÐÄüçþôÑ÷üñçñþÝ°üÑçã°ãÀüÐÄ
°¼üÑĐÄÀÄĐÄÝçñâÄãüļçãçâēȩ " ÄâÑ÷÷Ñçã÷Ñã
8ôΰãѼ¼çâñçãÄãü÷đÑüÐÑãüÐÄđ°÷üÄ÷üôÄ°â
ÎÄãÄô°üÄâÄüаãÄ°÷üÐÄēÀļçâñç÷Äƽȩ8ôΰãѼ
Àôēđ°ÝÝ°ãÀđççÀȩLÐÄÀôēđ°ÝÝ°ãÀđççÀ°ôÄ°ñ°ôü
çÍüÐļçã÷üôþ¼üÑçã°ãÀÀÄâçÝÑüÑçãɂˁɃđ°÷üÄ
¼°üÄÎçôēȤđÐѼÐÄóþ°üÄ÷üçƼƴʔçÍüÐÄüçü°Ýđ°÷üÄ
Ƶƴȩ"Ä°ĐēÀþüēĐÄÐѼÝÄ÷аþÝÑãÎ
¼çâ»þ÷üÝÑóþÑÀÍþÄÝ÷ȩ
8ññçôüþãÑüÑÄ÷üçôÄÀþ¼ÄÄâÑ÷÷Ñçã÷ÑãüÐÑ÷÷ļüçô
Ñã¼ÝþÀÄÀÑĐÄôüÑãÎçô÷°ÝĐ°ÎÑãÎçôΰãѼ¼çâñçãÄãü÷
°ãÀÑâñôçĐÑãÎÝç¼°ÝÄãĐÑôçãâÄãü°Ýóþ°ÝÑüēȩ
ƽ
üа㼰ô»çãÀÑçĒÑÀÄÑãüÐÄ÷ÐçôüüÄôâȩ#ãĐÄô÷ÄÝēȤđÐÄã¼çãĐÄôüÄÀÑãüç
Ƶƴ
ÄãÄôÎē¼çã÷þâñüÑçã°ãÀ¼°ô»çãÄâÑ÷÷Ñçã÷Ȥ¼ôÄ°üÄãÄđÛç»÷đÑüÐüÐÄ
ôÄþ÷Äçͼçã÷üôþ¼üÑçãâ°üÄôÑ°Ý÷°ãÀÝçđÄôüÐļç÷üçͼçã÷üôþ¼üÑçã
â°üÄôÑ°Ý÷ÍçôñôçÛļü÷ȩP75I.
ƶƴƴƸɍƶƴƵƸ
Hçþô¼Ä÷çÍ
" ÷
çââÄô¼Ñ°Ý
X°÷üÄ
ˆ
X°÷üÄ
ƻƴȤƴƴƴ
ƸƴȤƴƴƴ
ƷƴȤƴƴƴ
ƶƴȤƴƴƴ
ƵƴȤƴƴƴ
ƴ
ƶƴƴƸ ƶƴƵƸ ƶƴƶƷ ƶƴƸƵƶƴƷƶ ƶƴƹƴ3ÄüôѼLçã÷8ƻÄƹƴȤƴƴƴ
ƺƴȤƴƴƴ
P76I.
BôçâçüÄ÷óþÑüē #âñôçĐÄ÷.ç¼°Ý
ãĐÑôçãâÄãü°ÝDþ°ÝÑüē
ãаã¼Ä÷Bþ»ÝѼ.ÄĐÄÝçÍBçüÄãüÑ°Ý
þôÑãÎüÐÄBñôç¼Ä÷÷ȤüÐÄÀĐÑ÷çôēçââÑüüÄÄÑãÑüÑ°ÝÝē»ô°Ñã÷üçôâÄÀçĐÄôƹƴñçüÄãüÑ°Ý°¼üÑçã÷ÍçôôÄÀþ¼ÑãÎ " ÄâÑ÷÷Ñçã÷ÑãüÐÄ
LÐÄBôļçââÄãÀ°üÑçãÑ÷üçñþô÷þÄÑâñÝÄâÄãü°üÑçãçÍüÐÄÍçÝÝçđÑãÎãÑãÄ°¼üÑçã÷çĐÄôüÐÄãÄĒüüÐôÄÄ
#ã¼ôÄ°÷Äô°üÄ÷çÍȩ°ãÀñ°ôüѼÑñ°üÑçãÑãȩ
¼çâñç÷üÑãΰãÀôļē¼ÝÑãÎ
¼çâñç÷üÑãÎô°üÄ÷
3°ĒÑâÑĖÄÀÑĐÄô÷Ñçãçͼçã÷üôþ¼üÑçã°ãÀ
ÀÄâçÝÑüÑçãɇˆɈđ°÷üÄ
ôÄ°üÄ°÷ē÷üÄâÍçôâçĐÑãÎˁđ°÷üÄüç
â°ôÜÄü÷
Àçñü°ãÀÄãÍçô¼Ä°ôÄóþÑôÄâÄãü÷Íçôˁ
đ°÷üÄÀÑĐÄô÷Ñçã
BôçĐÑÀÄÑã¼ôÄ°÷ÄÀçññçôüþãÑüÑÄ÷Íçô
Àļçã÷üôþ¼üÄÀ»þÑÝÀÑãÎâ°üÄôÑ°Ý÷üç»Ä
÷°ÝĐ°ÎÄÀ°ãÀôÄþ÷ÄÀ
÷÷ç¼Ñ°üÑçã
P77I.
BôçâçüÄ÷óþÑüē #âñôçĐÄ÷.ç¼°Ý
ãĐÑôçãâÄãü°ÝDþ°ÝÑüē
ãаã¼Ä÷Bþ»ÝѼ.ÄĐÄÝçÍBçüÄãüÑ°Ý
#ã¼ôÄ°÷ļçââþãÑüē¼çâñÝÑ°ã¼ÄđÑüÐđ°÷üÄ
ÀÑĐÄô÷ÑçãçôÀÑã°ã¼Ä÷
ôÄ°üÄÑã¼ÄãüÑĐÄ÷Íçôôļē¼ÝÑãΰãÀ
ÀÑ÷Ñã¼ÄãüÑĐÄ÷Íçô¼çãü°âÑã°üÑãÎôļē¼ÝÑãÎÝç°À÷
ÝÑÎã¼ÑüēȤ¼çþãüē°ãÀôÄÎÑçã°Ýđ°÷üÄñçÝѼÑÄ÷
°ãÀ¼çÀÄ÷
#âñôçĐÄÄĒÑ÷üÑãÎđ°÷üÄаþÝÑãÎñô°¼üѼÄ÷
#ãĐÄ÷üÑΰüÄаþÝÄô÷ɛôçþüÄ÷°ãÀÝççÜÍçô
ã¼çþô°ÎÄüÐÄþ÷ÄçͼÝÄ°ãÄôĐÄÐѼÝÄ÷ÍçôÝç¼°Ý
đ°÷üÄаþÝÄô÷
Eç°ôÑãÎ çôÜW°ÝÝÄēçâñôÄÐÄã÷ÑĐÄ
X°÷üÄÑĐÄô÷ÑçãBÝ°ã
BÑüÜÑãçþãüē#ãüÄôã°ÝÝÑâ°üÄ
¼üÑçãBÝ°ã
P78I.
BôçâçüÄ÷óþÑüē #âñôçĐÄ÷.ç¼°Ý
ãĐÑôçãâÄãü°ÝDþ°ÝÑüē
ãаã¼Ä÷Bþ»ÝѼ.ÄĐÄÝçÍBçüÄãüÑ°Ý
HþññçôüôÄÝÄĐ°ãüÍÄÀÄô°Ý°ãÀ÷ü°üÄñçÝѼÑÄ÷
üÐôçþÎа¼üÑĐÄÝÄÎÑ÷Ý°üÑĐÄ°ãÀôÄÎþÝ°üçôē
ÄãΰÎÄâÄãü
LÐôçþÎмçãüÑãþÄÀÄãΰÎÄâÄãüđÑüÐ
ñ°ôüãÄôçôΰãÑĖ°üÑçã÷Ȥ÷ñÄãđÑÝÝ°¼üÑĐÄÝē
ÄãΰÎÄÑãđ°÷üÄ°ãÀđ°÷üÄɎÀÑĐÄô÷ÑçãñçÝѼē
Àēã°âѼã°üþôÄçÍüÐÄñçÝѼēÝ°ãÀ÷¼°ñÄȤ÷ñÄã
đÑÝݼçãüÑãþÄ°Íçôâ°Ýñôç¼Ä÷÷ÍçôñôÑçôÑüÑĖÑãÎ
°ãÀÄãΰÎÑãÎçãÜÄēÑ÷÷þÄ÷ȩ
P79I.
Lift 1A Study Phase 2
January 16, 2018
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
THROUGH: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
RE: Lift 1A study
MEETING DATE: January 16, 2018
The purpose of this work session is to have City Council review the proposed scope and costs associated
with undertaking a second phase of the Lift 1A study and to verify
that staff may move forward with the study and expenditure of
funds.
BACKGROUND & SUMMARY: Since the October work
session staff has worked with the consultant (Chris Cushing, SE
Group) and stakeholders representing Gorsuch Haus, Lift One
Lodge, and Aspen Skiing Company to develop a scope based on
the direction provided by the City Council at the work session.
The proposed scope (Exhibit A) will provide additional analysis,
building upon the initial feasibility study, of three scenarios
identified by City Council at the 10/30 work session including:
· 1) Scenario 1 (a lift extension south of Gilbert Street),
· 2) Scenario 7 (a lift extension south of Dean Street), and
· 3) Scenario 7A (Scenario 7 with the addition of a mid-station).
Scope
The three scenarios will be analyzed both for physical planning requirements (for example, ensuring a
ski run meets minimum dimensional requirements for safety) as well as qualitative parameters stake
holders have provided (for example, the ideal width of a ski run for skier experience). The qualitative
comments have been provided as Exhibits B, C, and D.
Due to concerns expressed by some stakeholders on the feasibility of a mid-station, the stakeholders are
suggesting conducting a general vs. detailed study of the mid-station. All stakeholders agreed to this
approach and are suggesting this change in the scope for Council to consider. No other scenarios are
proposed to be evaluated.
The detailed options will look at the best lift technology dependent on the proposed location and the
specific design aspects needed to locate any infrastructure, will look at grading and retaining
requirements in more detail, provide for more detailed pedestrian and skier circulation, identify skier
Lift 1A
P80
II.
Lift 1A Study Phase 2
January 16, 2018
Page 2 of 2
operation needs and placement of those services, incorporate qualitative concerns and provide 3-d
renderings. A more general review will not include 3-d renderings, the qualitative issues and provide for
a less detailed physical planning analysis.
As part of the study staff will be conducting outreach with various neighbors and analyze any land use
implications with regard to the historic resources, Lift One Lodge entitlements, and the resultant
development scenarios that may be necessary due to the results of the study.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed cost of the study is $42,500.00 and is expected to be completed
within eight weeks of signing of the contract. The stakeholders have committed to provide $10,000.00
each (or $30,000.00 total), with the city providing the balance. Similar to the last study, an open house
and work session with the consultant will be part of the roll-out of the completed study. If Council
approves the scope, staff will request $16,000.00 from City Council as part of the spring supplemental to
cover the balance of the cost of the study and to provide funding for public outreach costs associated
with project.
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION:
Stakeholders are anxious to move forward, and staff is looking for approval from Council to move
forward with the contract, recognizing that a supplemental will need to be requested in the spring. A
representative for each stakeholder is anticipated to be at the work session to answer any questions about
their qualitative considerations with regard to the proposed study.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL:
1. Does Council support the scope with the suggested general review of the mid-station option
as proposed by the stakeholders? A more detailed review would be undertaken for
Scenarios 1 and 7.
2. Does Council support staff pursuing a signed contact and expenditure of funds, recognizing
that staff will be returning at a later date to formally request the allocation?
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Draft scope
Exhibit B – SkiCo qualitative parameters
Exhibit C – Gorsuch Haus qualitative parameters
Exhibit D – Lift One Lodge, qualitative memo
P81
II.
Professional Services Agreement
between the City of Aspen and SE Group approved by the City Manager on_______________,
contract number_______.
Statement of Work
The City of Aspen, with agreement from the Gorsuch Haus developers, the Lift One Lodge developers,
and Aspen Skiing Co. would like to valuate two options from the results of the City of Aspen Lift 1A
Assessment Report (October 2017). The scope includes additional analysis of 2 of the options listed in the
report: options 1 and 7, to further determine the feasibility of lowering Lift 1A closer to Dean Street.
Following is SE Group’s proposed contract for undertaking new work.
TASK 1 – Additional Analysis for Option 1
1. Establish preferred lift technology (detachable chairlift, telemix/chondola, or gondola) through
discussion with stakeholders.
2. Coordinate with Leitner-Poma on specific design aspects, spatial layout, and vertical alignment
requirements of selected lift technology.
3. Develop schematic design drawings for Option 1 that address the following specific components:
a. vertical lift alignments, grading, and retaining wall placement;
b. pedestrian path and vertical circulation from Dean Street to the lift elevation;
c. pedestrian access routes from the Monarch Street area, Lift One Lodge project area, Lift
One Park, South Aspen Street, and the St. Regis Neighborhood area, including
improvements such as additional sidewalks, pathways, stairs or outside escalators which
could improve accessibility;
d. identification of the land ownership within ski corridors, and required corridor limits and
building areas affected by ski runs or lifts at the Lift One Lodge and Gorsuch Haus
projects;
e. 1,000-1,500 sq. ft. of ticketing and skier services space (ticketing, restrooms, day lockers)
located under the lift building platform, entered from the north at elevation ~7,990;
f. ADA access from the Dean St. bus drop-off to the ticket office and to the lift load point
elevation;
g. east-to-west cross sections through the north end of the lift building to the ground floors
of existing and proposed structures east and west of the lift building;
h. suitably sized ski rack and pedestrian/skier milling areas, and skier circulation functions
which sequentially precede skier mazing and serve end of day exiting;
P82
II.
i. access and staging space for emergency vehicle loading at the top of South Aspen Street,
outside of the cul-de-sac fire lane, and accessible to snow;
j. event and operations staging space, including winter and summer heavy truck unloading
and material transfer to cats at the top of South Aspen Street, outside of the cul-de-sac
fire lane, with connection to summer road;
k. dimension the lift maze area, depict placement of a typical access gate, demonstrate how
snow maintenance can be mechanically performed by snowcats;
l. depict, dimension and profile alternate lift equipment (telemix or gondola), including
loading/unloading platforms and circulations patterns.
4. Coordinate with Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge on integration of the Lift 1A schematic
design with their site plans.
5. Present concepts to Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board for opinion on variances and
anticipated conditions required for variance.
6. Prepare 3-D rendering of the schematic plan.
TASK 2 – Additional Analysis for Option 7
1. Establish preferred lift technology (detachable chairlift, telemix/chondola, or gondola) through
discussion with stakeholders.
2. Coordinate with Leitner-Poma on specific design aspects, spatial layout, and vertical alignment
requirements of selected lift technology.
3. Develop schematic design drawings for Option 7 that address the following specific components:
a. vertical lift alignments, grading, and retaining wall placement;
b. limits to the ski run zone adjacent to and in between buildings and lift towers (new and
old), return ski run width required for repeat skiing, and operationally functional skiing
corridor;
c. dimension desired set back from proposed trail edge to building face;
d. relation to the St. Regis Hotel neighborhood for pedestrian and skier access, with routes
and pedestrian improvements such as sidewalks, pathways, stairs or outside escalators
identified;
e. space and maneuvering requirements for grooming of the ski run;
f. lift and skiing infrastructure requiring a permanent easement for use, including the space
required for snowcat movement and snow making;
P83
II.
g. 1,000-1,500 sq. ft. of ticketing and skier services space (ticketing, restrooms, day lockers)
accessible from the Dean Street arrival and convenient to snow and the 7,950-foot load
elevation;
h. ADA access from the Dean St. bus drop-off to the ticket office and to the lift load point
elevation;
i. suitably sized ski rack and pedestrian/skier milling areas;
j. access and staging space for emergency vehicle loading at the top of South Aspen Street,
outside of the cul-de-sac fire lane, and accessible to snow;
k. event and operations staging space, including winter and summer heavy truck unloading
and material transfer to cats at the top of South Aspen Street, outside of the cul-de-sac
fire lane, with connection to summer road;
l. depict, dimension and profile alternate lift equipment (telemix or gondola), including
loading/unloading platforms and circulations patterns.
4. Specify snow making requirements, including seasonal volume, equipment location, hours of
operation, and surface storage requirements to maintain snow access to lift for viable portal
operation.
5. Coordinate with Gorsuch Haus and Lift One Lodge on integration of the Lift 1A schematic
design with their site plans.
6. Present concepts to Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board for opinion on variances and
anticipated conditions required for variance.
7. Prepare 3-D rendering of the schematic plan.
TASK 3 – Analysis of Option 7A to include Mid-station at Gorsuch Haus
1. Establish preferred lift technology (detachable chairlift, telemix/chondola, or gondola) through
discussion with stakeholders.
2. Coordination with Leitner-Poma on specific design aspects, functionality, spatial layout, and
vertical alignment requirements of a mid-station
3. Develop schematic design drawings for Option 7A that address the following specific
components:
a. load platform length, cut and fill requirements and retaining walls required;
b. ski trail to the east and the platform or plaza to the west adjoining the proposed Gorsuch
Haus;
P84
II.
c. vertical circulation (stairs, elevators, etc.) required to get from the South Aspen Street
cul-de-sac at roughly 8,000 feet elevation, including ADA requirements.
d. mid-station access, circulation requirements and patterns for loading and unloading;
e. relationship of the mountain access road to the mid-station
4. Coordinate with Gorsuch Haus on integration of the mid-station schematic design with their site
plans.
TASK 4 – Evaluation of Qualitative Criteria from Stakeholders
The three options will be evaluated, through written commentary, regarding how they conform with the
following qualitative criteria developed by the stakeholder group:
1. Ski run width
2. Snowmaking, snow management, maintenance and grooming
3. Skier and pedestrian circulation
4. Repeat skiing and ski access to bottom terminal
5. Ticketing and guest services
6. Employee and ski patrol operational facilities
7. Emergency service access and staging
8. Mountain access road
9. Maintenance access
10. Mid-station terminal functionality (Option 7A only)
11. Adverse impacts to lodge development sites
12. Conditions that could lead to infeasibility (e.g., historic preservation goals, property ownership
restrictions, unobtainable variances)
TASK 5 – Review with City of Aspen
1. Illustrations of initial findings sent to City of Aspen
2. Conference call with City of Aspen to review initial findings
3. Revisions
TASK 6 – Report Production
P85
II.
1. Report outlining study methodologies, information sources, findings, and conclusions
2. Graphics production of report illustrations
Task 7 – Presentation
1. Preparation for presentation
2. Travel to Aspen and presentation to City of Aspen
Timing
Work shall begin with the authorization to proceed from the City. It is anticipated that finishing the tasks
covered in the statement of work will take 8 weeks to complete. The presentation in Aspen would occur
following completion of tasks 1-6, as schedules dictate.
Compensation
Professional fees and project expenses for the statement of work are not anticipated to exceed $42,500.00.
SE Group will not exceed this budget estimate without prior authorization and/or a scope revision from
the client.
Invoicing
Invoices must be submitted to AP@cityofaspen.com and include the City’s PO number on each invoice.
Failure to do so may result in significant delays in processing payment.
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: SE Group:
________________________________ _________________________________
[Signature] [Signature]
By: _____________________________ By: _____________________________
[Name] [Name]
Title: ____________________________ Title: ____________________________
Date: ___________________ Date: ___________________
P86
II.
1
Lift 1a Alternatives
Qualitative Criteria and Functional Requirements
Aspen Skiing Company
11-28-17
Dating to the original South Aspen Street COWOP, Aspen Skiing Company has consistently
described the design goals and qualitative criteria necessary to provide and meet ASC’s desired
ski experience, guest services, and operational necessities in the Lift 1a portal. These design
goals and criteria are:
· Provide convenient mountain access for resort guests and occupants of the area,
· Meet uphill transportation requirements and guest expectations,
· Balance mountain access and use; spread and disperse skier traffic,
· Foster repeat skiing,
· Accommodate, adequately stage and service World Cup and other race events,
· Do not impair or cause a loss of terrain,
· Maintain mountain road access,
· Provide emergency vehicle access,
· Incorporate typical skier services, as well as back-of-house operational facilities,
· Connect the bottom of the mountain to the built environment, and
· Avoid constrained, impractical or unpopular snowmaking and maintenance
requirements within a residential neighborhood.
To provide a feasible, functional ski portal and meet operational requirements, brand standards
and guest expectations, Aspen Skiing Company considers the following criteria to be functional
and qualitative requirements for lift alternatives in the South Aspen Street / Lift 1a portal.
Some requirements may be expressed as prohibitions, rendering alternatives or components of
alternatives infeasible or dysfunctional and unacceptable to Aspen Skiing Company.
1. Ski Run Width: A ski run returning to a Dean Street base terminal location must be a
minimum operational width of 66 feet edge to edge, not including any other set back
from the face of buildings and other structures. This trail width is the equivalent of
three snowcat tracks wide. ASC considers this trail width to be essential for continuous
skiing to a Dean Street terminal location, snow grooming and maintenance. Such a trail
must be unimpeded and clear of trees, shrubs, fences, equipment, the historic ski
towers and other structures or obstructions to skiing and snowcat travel, all of which
must be removed.
P87
II.
2
2. Snowmaking, Snow Management, Maintenance and Grooming: (a) Snowmaking, snow
management, maintenance and grooming must be provided and included in each lift
location Scenario to assure adequate snow cover, in sufficient quantities and quality for
140 days of operation. In particular, a lower lift terminal location at or near Dean Street
requires snowmaking, snow management and grooming to occur in the lower 250 feet
of the ski run and must include snowmaking and storage on City property and the
Dolinsek property. (b) Snowmaking, maintenance and grooming activities generate
substantial impacts from drifting snow, noise generated by snow guns, noise generated
by snowcats, visual impacts, and other impacts associated with the activities of
mountain personnel and related ski operations, both during the day and at night. The
City, surrounding property owners and others who may be affected by such operational
impacts will have to provide ASC with acknowledgments, variances, waivers and
releases concerning such impacts, including, but not limited to relief from provisions in
the land use code and other regulations and release from complaints or claims for
nuisance and similar causes of action.
3. Skier / Pedestrian Circulation: In any alternative, sufficient space must be provided for
pedestrian and skier circulation to and from the snow, including ADA access and milling,
racking, and mazing areas sized to accommodate a 1,200 pph lift and a 10 minute maze
design capacity and/or sufficient to accommodate a 10% initial portal peak day demand
[approx. 400 skiers], while also maintaining sufficient space for on-snow lift approach,
repeat skiing and bypass skier circulation.
4. Ticketing and Guest Services: Ticketing and guest services including public restrooms,
lockers, cubbies or other guest storage [totaling approx. 1,000 – 1,500 s.f.], must be
located at or immediately adjacent to the lower lift terminal, wherever it is located.
5. Employee / Ski Patrol Operational Facilities: Base Area employee and Ski Patrol
equipment station, office and lockers [approx.. 1,500 s.f.], together with access to public
restrooms or the provision of separate Patrol restrooms [approx. 300 s.f.], must be
located on the Gorsuch site or adjacent to the mountain access road and the top of the
South Aspen Street cul de sac. Ski Patrol facilities must be directly accessible from snow
level and adjacent to the mountain access road and Emergency Service Vehicle staging.
6. Emergency Service Access and Staging: Emergency vehicle access and staging must be
located at the top of South Aspen Street, immediately accessible to snow to enable the
P88
II.
3
transfer of injured skiers from sleds to ambulances. Ambulance staging must be located
outside of the street Right of Way and fire lane(s).
7. Mountain Access Road: The mountain access road must be maintained in any Scenario
and site plan, including both winter and summer access for wheeled and tracked
vehicles. Winter surface width for snowcat or skier use should be no less than 30’ wide.
Summer surface width should be no less than 15’ wide. Grade should not exceed 15%
slope. Vertical clearance of 14’ minimum is required. Sufficient staging and circulation
space must be maintained to: (a) turn a cat around in winter conditions, and (b) park,
unload, and transfer materials and heavy equipment to and from trucks in both winter
and summer conditions.
8. Maintenance Access: Summer vehicular and heavy equipment access must be provided
legally and physically to the lift terminal, towers, cables and other lift equipment,
wherever located, for construction, replacement, repair and other maintenance,
including on properties not owned by ASC as may be required.
9. No Surface Lift: No surface lift, such as a Poma or similar surface carrier, shall be
installed or shall such a lift be operated and maintained by ASC, which attempts or is
designed to (a) provide access to an upper lift terminal, and (b) include a separate
groomed and maintained return skiing trail in any corridor less than 66’ wide or (c) to
include a shared uphill and downhill track in the same corridor of any width, maintained
or not, requiring alternating operation.
10. No Mid-Station Terminal: No Scenario or lower lift alternative location shall include a
separate and additional mid-station terminal on the Gorsuch Haus site due to capacity
and operational redundancies, terminal size, site plan and grading impacts, spatial and
maintenance constraints, and circulation restrictions.
P89
II.
Design Workshop, Inc.
Landscape Architecture
Planning
Urban Design
120 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
970.925.8354
970.920.1387 fax
Asheville
Aspen
Austin
Chicago
Denver
Dubai
Houston
Lake Tahoe
Los Angeles
Shanghai
designworkshop.com
November 29, 2017
To: Jennifer Phalen and Jessica Garrow
From: Gorsuch Haus
Re: Significant and Qualitative Criteria for Lift Evaluation
As you have requested, we are providing feedback
and/or qualitative criteria that Gorsuch Haus believes should be addressed with any option.
Criteria #1: Lodge Potential
subsequent grading requiring the modif
lodge and public space could not be constructed would not be supported as a replacement
for the existing Lift 1a.
Criteria #2: No Mid-Point Terminal
existing Lift 1a terminal location using a detachable lift, is not supported. The terminal size,
site plan and grading impacts, vertical and skiing implications of a mid
site would result in an unacceptable site for lodging use
aerial people mover connection lift from Dean Street to a higher lift location, such as
cabriolet or pulse lift is acceptable
Criteria #3: Impossible Conditions
implement would not be supported; such as:
· Historic preservation goals that would prevent lift construction and/or inhibit skier
safety in the ski run
· Property ownership or use easements that are not committed and able to be
secured as needed
· Conditions that
· Unobtainable variances making lift construction unf easible
Criteria #4: Informal Review
preliminary, informal review by the C
determine viability
Criteria #5: Repeat Skiing and Ski Access to Bottom Terminal
that provides access to the bottom terminal for repeat skiing is wide enough to retain a
quality ski experience. A marginal, narro
buildings will be an impediment to lodging upgrades
the larger objective of improving the 1a side of the mountain. F
the priority to serve Aspen Mountain, rather than
result in a dysfunctional mountain portal and community loss.
and Jessica Garrow
Re: Significant and Qualitative Criteria for Lift Evaluation
As you have requested, we are providing feedback on the list of items that are significant
and/or qualitative criteria that Gorsuch Haus believes should be addressed with any option.
Criteria #1: Lodge Potential Any lift option that requires extensive setbacks and
subsequent grading requiring the modif ication of the site to such an extent that a qualit y
lodge and public space could not be constructed would not be supported as a replacement
for the existing Lift 1a.
Point Terminal A lift option with mid-point lift loading station, n
existing Lift 1a terminal location using a detachable lift, is not supported. The terminal size,
site plan and grading impacts, vertical and skiing implications of a mid-point load terminal
site would result in an unacceptable site for lodging use and skier/pedestrian circulation. An
aerial people mover connection lift from Dean Street to a higher lift location, such as
cabriolet or pulse lift is acceptable
Criteria #3: Impossible Conditions Any lift option resulting in conditions impossible to
lement would not be supported; such as:
Historic preservation goals that would prevent lift construction and/or inhibit skier
safety in the ski run
Property ownership or use easements that are not committed and able to be
secured as needed
Conditions that would inhibit lift, operation or skiing due to property restrictions
Unobtainable variances making lift construction unf easible
Criteria #4: Informal Review Lift option(s) supported by the stakeholders must undergo a
preliminary, informal review by the Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board to
Repeat Skiing and Ski Access to Bottom Terminal Ensure that the ski run
that provides access to the bottom terminal for repeat skiing is wide enough to retain a
nce. A marginal, narrow, or otherwise constrained corridor between
buildings will be an impediment to lodging upgrades, neighborhood redevelopment, and
the larger objective of improving the 1a side of the mountain. Focusing on repeat skiing is
to serve Aspen Mountain, rather than creating a narrow chute
result in a dysfunctional mountain portal and community loss.
on the list of items that are significant
and/or qualitative criteria that Gorsuch Haus believes should be addressed with any option.
Any lift option that requires extensive setbacks and
ication of the site to such an extent that a qualit y
lodge and public space could not be constructed would not be supported as a replacement
point lift loading station, near the
existing Lift 1a terminal location using a detachable lift, is not supported. The terminal size,
point load terminal
and skier/pedestrian circulation. An
aerial people mover connection lift from Dean Street to a higher lift location, such as
Any lift option resulting in conditions impossible to
Historic preservation goals that would prevent lift construction and/or inhibit skier
Property ownership or use easements that are not committed and able to be
would inhibit lift, operation or skiing due to property restrictions
Lift option(s) supported by the stakeholders must undergo a
olorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board to
Ensure that the ski run
that provides access to the bottom terminal for repeat skiing is wide enough to retain a
corridor between
, neighborhood redevelopment, and
ocusing on repeat skiing is
chute which would
P90
II.
LIFT ONE LODGE ASPEN, LLC
LIFT ONE LODGE ASPEN, LLC
605 W MAIN ST, SUITE 2
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611, USA
T: +1 (970) 544-4187
10 January 2018
Ms. Jessica Garrow, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
By email: jessica.garrow@cityof aspen.com
Re: Role of SE Group in Providing an Independent Analysis
Dear Jessica:
On behalf of Loft One Lodge (LOL), we have reviewed ASC’s and Gorsuch Haus’
“Qualitative Criteria and Functional Requirements” notes. We are hesitant to lay
down prescriptions for the lift and to restrict the work of SE Group in this way. Our
position is that SE Group should offer design recommendations for a lift and site
plan that best fits the space available for each option, getting as close to valid
qualitative criteria and functional requirements as possible. Keep in mind that the
points made by ASC and GH are not equally-weighted and that some may not be
absolutely necessary, but rather may be a perspective put forward in order to reach
a certain outcome and couched as a “requirement.”
Our role is to make commercial judgements about our development in the context of
the lift options, and we understand that there are certainly very valid safety and
functional requirements in the context of a ski lift and mountain access – SE Group is
fully aware what they are. At the same time, we are all free to agree or disagree on
whether and to what extent any of ASC’s or GH’s “Qualitative Criteria and Functional
Requirements” are actually valid or required at all. Some may be required, some
may not, and should be subordinated to the overall goal, which is to move the lift
down the mountain and to create a second, vibrant mountain portal, to complement
and support the Gondola at Little Nell. To be clear, we view the priority as
creating a vibrant, sustainable second mountain portal.
It is SE Group’s role to independently design the lift program according to their
experience and what they think is reasonable under the circumstances. We will
then evaluate that work relative to the requirements of our development. If we
need to iterate with everyone to get it to work, we will. One example of our point is
ski grooming. I think ASC contemplates ski grooming in the ski corridor by its
P91
II.
Ms. Jessica Garrow, AICP
10 January 2018
Page 2
largest and probably loudest equipment, in the same manner that it might groom
Ruthie's Run. While we don’t want to be definitive at this stage, that is unlikely to
work in any lift option scenario. At the same time, there must be a compromise in
terms of grooming equipment and grooming times (and this could equally apply to
snowmaking) that would work for us, GH, and ASC. It is SE Group’s role to apply
that type of independence, creativity, and mediation to this process rather than
applying ASC’s and GH's “Qualitative Criteria and Functional Requirements” as a
strict rulebook.
Once SE Group has completed its additional stage of work we will need the physical
specifications of all the lift equipment and 3D or CAD models/BIM drawings of
everything (lift elements, terrain, mazing, ski corridor, foundation requirements of
base and tower structures). We plan to model the lifts into our Revit models and to
start to make judgements about how we can get the lift to work with our
development, or how each might need to be adjusted in order to be commercially
acceptable.
In terms of scope of work, we have the additional following thoughts, which we
believe need to be incorporated into the work by SE Group:
Option 1:
1. In addition to general grading for skier access and maintenance, how does the
grade change specifically adjacent to the east and north edges of our building?
2. How does the slope improvement affect / support the utility corridor / easement
and the proposed or possibly ongoing work at Hill Street?
3. Provide section and elevations of equipment for each option, including structural
and load requirements to allow for study of below grade building elements.
4. Detail maintenance and skier services requirements for study in LOL
superstructure, or as needed.
Option 7 and 7A:
1. What kind of grade changes would be recommended for the corridor space
between the buildings?
2. What are required buffer / safety zones at the edges?
3. What can be done to the south edges of the building (relative to skier access and
maintenance) to mitigate the grade change?
4. What is the variability of the lift / tower height and how can we modify to best
relate to the adjacent structures (need section / elevation details)?
5. Detail maintenance and skier services requirements.
P92
II.
Ms. Jessica Garrow, AICP
10 January 2018
Page 3
In conclusion, we strongly recommend that the “Qualitative Criteria and Functional
Requirements” not be included with any charge to SE Group for further work. We
recommend that all options under further consideration be accorded an
independent analysis by the SE Group, without any constraints from third parties.
Kindly share these comments with the City Council at their 16 January Work Session
on this matter.
Very truly yours,
Aaron Brown
For Lift One Lodge Aspen LLC
Cc: J. Bart Johnson, Esq.
Stan Clauson, AICP
P93
II.