Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20080804 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner :~JI V' `l, t THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ( ' IIIAA/1 RE: Council Work Session -Multi-Family Replacement Program (combining condos) DATE OF MEMO: July 25, 2008 MEETING DATE: August 4, 2008, S:OOpm REQUEST OF COUNCIL: There is no formal action requested at this time. This meeting is a follow-up to the Council's May 19, 2008 work session where Council asked staff to examine potential code amendments to the Multi-Family Replacement Program. The purpose of this meeting is to provide an overview of the history of the Multi-Family Replacement Program, and outline potential land use code amendments. DISCUSSION: City Council has been approached by private land owners to initiate code amendments that would permit the combining of multi-family units with less mitigation than is currently required, or with no mitigation. Staff met with City Council on May 19, 2008, and was directed to return to Council with possible options to amend the program. At the May 19`" work session, Staff provided a detailed history of the program. A basic overview of the program is discussed below, with the detailed history attached as Exhibit A. The provisions of the current program are also outlined below, as aze options for code amendments. Multi-Family Replacement Program Overview: Since the 1970s, the City of Aspen has attempted to regulate the loss of free-market housing that is attainable for low and moderate income individuals. The Multi-Family Replacement Program as we know it today originated in 1988 through Ordinance 47, Series of 1988 after City Council and City Planning Staff became concerned that the demolition of existing free-market residential dwelling units was resulting in the exclusion of working residents from the City's neighborhoods. The program regulates the combination and demolition of multi-family dwelling units and is triggered any time construction, remodeling, or demolition results in the loss of amulti-family unit. The program is one of the main reasons older multi-family building remain in Aspen's housing stock. Current Multi-Family Replacement Provisions: As part of the recent Land Use moratorium, City Council amended the program with Ordinance 14, Series of 2007. The Ordinance moved the Multi-Family Replacement program to the Growth Management section of the Land Use Code, eliminated a provision allowing homeowners to file a "certificate of exemption" proving the multi-family unit(s) had never been occupied by a local worker (a copy of this code section is 'See Exhibit A for a more detailed overview of the history of this program. Page 1 of 11 attached as Exhibit B), and eliminating a provision allowing the demolition of multi-family housing when an exact replacement is proposed. Today, the Land Use Code permits two different options for Multi-Family Replacement, neither of which permits a net loss of density: 1. Replace all the former units as RO units and expand the remainder of the project with no mitigation; or, 2. Replace half of the former units with Category units and mitigate for any expansion. Previously, the program consisted of an administrative review. With the recent code changes, the program was amended to require review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. In addition, the combination, conversion, or demolition of multi-family units cannot result in a loss of density (number of units} between the existing development and the proposed development. The previous version of the program permitted acash-in-lieu payment for a fraction of a unit by right. The changes eliminated this provision, replacing it with a requirement that City Council approve all cash-in-lieu payments. Potential Code Amendments: Staff has identified four (4) possible code amendments that would exempt certain homeowners and developers from the regulations when they are converting, combining, or demolishing multi-family units, Each potential code amendment is outlined and includes an analysis of additional resources that staff anticipates would be required to enforce the amendment. 1. Re-adopt the `°Exemptions" that were eliminated in the 2007 code amendments. A copy of the Exemption language is attached as Exhibit B. There were a number of exemptions that were eliminated by the 2007 code amendments; some were unintentionally omitted while others were purposefully eliminated. The language that was in the code prior to the 2007 amendments is vague and would permit an exemption for any reason. The language should be tightened to enable a homeowner or developer to obtain an exemption from the Multi-Family Replacement requirements only if they can prove that the multi-family dwelling unit(s) they wish to eliminate were never occupied by local worker. Additional language should also be added to the section which outlines the kind of information that is required to prove a local worker never lived in the unit(s) (i.e. signed affidavits by former residents, rental records, etc). If the information provided purposefully omits certain information that would indicate a local worker had resided in the unit(s), the code section should provide a remedy or require compliance with the Multi-Family Replacement Program. Staff has initiated code amendments that would add this exemption to the multi-family replacement program This particular exemption was accidentally omitted from the revised code section in 2007. The previous code also included exemption language that stated "Any RMF housing unit which is ordered demolished by a public agency, including the city, as a result of damage caused by civil commotion or natural disaster shall not be subject to the terms of this Chapter." This provision could be re-adopted and expanded to include those Page 2 of 11 multi-family units ordered demolished for the public's health and safety. This exemption was unintentionally omitted from the revised code section in 2007. Staff has initiated code amendments that would bring this exemption back. An exemption for "bandit units" has been applied through interpretation but has never been codified. This exemption stated that if a bandit unite was demolished, it was not subject to the provisions of the multi-family replacement program because it was never a legal multi-family unit. Staff has initiated code amendments that would codify this exemption. Additionally, the exemption for non-profit agencies and similaz groups was removed from the code in 2005. The code previously stated, "The City Council, at their discretion, may exempt non-profit agencies or organizations from the provisions of this chapter." This provision would allow for some discretion in the code for organizations that Council believes benefit the public or should be exempted for another reason. If this option is pursued, some criteria for these exemptions should also be adopted to serve as a guide to the City Council and an Applicant. Rather than Council reviewing an exemption based on the merits of the project, this exemption enabled Council to review a requested exemption based on if they liked the applicant or the applicant's mission. This section was purposefully eliminated from the code by City Council because it left too much room for subjectivity. Staff has not initiated a reinstatement of this exemption. At this time, staff anticipates that the adoption of the exemptions would require no additional staff or financial resources. The burden of proving that an exemption is warranted would fall on the individual requesting the exemption, as would the cost of providing documentation. When this exemption was in the code, it was reviewed as a regulaz land use application, and staff would treat it similarly if re-adopted. This would fall under the Community Development Department's current job functions. Staff has initiated code amendments that would re-adopt the exemptions that were unintentionally omitted from the 2007 code changes (i.e. never housed a local worker, natural disasters, and bandit units). The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved these code amendments at a recent public hearing. 2. Provide a delay in meeting the Multi-Family Replacement requirement for certain homeowners and developers. Currently the APCHA guidelines permit a deferral of the affordable housing impact fee when the developer is a qualified working resident. A copy of this language is attached as Exhibit C. A similaz delay could be enacted for the Multi-Family Replacement Program. For instance, an individual who converts, combines, or demolishes an existing multi-family dwelling unit(s) who also qualifies as a local working resident could defer the requirements of the Multi-Family Replacement Program until the unit(s) is sold to a buyer who is not a qualified working resident. When the unit(s) is sold, it would be required to come into compliance. Currently, the code is written to not permit a decrease in the a A Bandit Unit is defined as, "A dwelling unit or other structure developed or used in violation of the land use or building regulations in effect at the time of its construction." Page 3 of 11 pennitted density of units. So, for instance, two units that have been combined would be required to become stand alone units again (the demising wall would need to be rebuilt); any units that have been demolished will be required to be built again; and any units that have been converted to a different use would be required to return to a multi-family use. Staff anticipates that this option would require additional staff and financial resources to administer. This option requires detailed tracking on the part of the City. First, the City must create and keep a database listing all "deferred" units. The City must constantly follow the real estate market to see if one of these units is up for sale, and, if so, track that sale. Second, any time a "deferred" unit is sold, the City must determine if the buyer is a qualified working resident. If the buyer is not a working resident, then the unit will be required to come into compliance. Third, the city must track what has happened to the "deferred" unit in order to know what needs to be done to restore the unit to its original status. Has it been demolished? Has it been combined with another unit? Has it been converted into a lodge unit? The amount of staff work devoted to this will depend in large part on what has happened to the unit. It is possible that some of these responsibilities could fall to the City's real estate agent. This would likely involve an expansion of that person's existing scope and cost of services. Depending on how much usage this deferral program receives, an additional City FTE (or a portion) may be required to conduct the tracking. 3. Create a new deed restriction to ensure units are occupied by locals. An exemption could be created that allows a local resident to combine multi-family units if they create a deed restriction that requires the unit be occupied by a local working resident. This exemption would not apply to demolished or converted units. Staff has not explored this option with the City Attorney, who would need to weigh in on the legal feasibility of this option. If a new type of deed restriction is not desirable, an RO deed restriction could be placed on the unit and achieve a similar end. This option would require additional resources to administer. The creation and designation of a deed restriction is relatively easy, but tracking and enforcement of the program could be complicated. Either the Community Development Department or APCHA would need to keep a database of all properties under this new deed restriction. A periodic audit of the residents in these units would be required to ensure compliance. 4. Add an option to the Multi-Family Replacement Program allowing acash-in-lieu payment or off site deed restriction when amulti-family unit is lost. This option would enable homeowners to combine, convert, or demolish existing multi-family units if they provide some kind of mitigation in exchange. This could be a deed restriction of another unit in the City, or a cash-in-lieu payment to the Housing Fund. The provision of a deed restriction would be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission like today's other options. The Code currently requires that all cash-in- Page 4 of 11 lieu payments for Affordable Housing mitigation are subject to City Council review, so the cash-in-lieu option could be reviewed similarly. At this time, Staff predicts little or no additional costs would be associated with this option. The review would be administered that same way the current options aze administered, it just adds an additional option for an applicant. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the adoption of a portion of Option 1, above. This option would re-establish exemptions from the Multi-Family Replacement Program that were in the Land Use Code prior to the 2007 Amendments. Staff has initiated code amendments for the exemptions and P&Z has recommended in favor of adoption. These exemptions are consistent with the goals of the program, in that it exempts units that never met the goals or intent of the Program. Additionally, this would exempt units that are destroyed by natural causes, or that aze demolished for reasons of public health. This exemption ensures the public's safety and protects a landowner when unforeseen events occur. These amendments will be scheduled for City Council review. Staff does not recommend adoption of the exemption that was purposefully eliminated from the program (i.e. the exemption for non-profits and other organizations). This exemption provides too much discretion with no clear review standards and there does not appear to a "problem" to be fixed with such an amendment. Further, this program has historically applied to all multi- family units, no mater what organization or agency they are owned by, including non-profits. Staff does not recommend anv of the other potential amendments be pursued These other options significantly diverge from the core purpose of the Program - to maintain the existing housing stock. Staff firmly believes that this long standing Program is a cornerstone to maintaining housing choice and housing stock diversity in Aspen. This was just recently reinforced with the `no reduction in density' addition to the regulations as a result of the '06-'07 moratorium. To create exemptions for certain homeowners because the code is inconvenient is not good planning policy, and does not further the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan related to Housing. Indeed, the Housing section of the AACP states, "When employees have the ability to live near where they work, their reliance on the automobile lessens and they have greater opportunities to become part of the town's social fabric." The AACP continues, "No one location or type of housing can be relied upon to solve our problems. The conversion of resident housing to second homes threatens our community." Staff is convinced that without the foresight of the 1988 City Council and Planning Staff, most of the existing free-market multi-family buildings would either be gone entirely, or would have been converted to units entirely unattainable by local working class residents. The units subject to the Multi-Family Replacement Program are units that have historically housed local waiters, lift operators, ski instructors, outdoor guides, retail assistants, etc. These are the people needed to maintain a vibrant, healthy community. The AACP states, "While we still believe that "our goal is not to house everyone who would like to live here," we believe it is important for Aspen to maintain a sense of opportunity and hope (not a guazantee} for our workforce to become vested members of the community." Many of Page 5 of 11 these multi-family units have represented "entry-points" to people who come to Aspen and who ultimately become dedicated lifelong Aspenites. The fewer "entry points," the more insurmountable is the barrier to the next generation of Aspen employees and citizens. The Multi-Family Replacement Program is a program that focuses on maintaining the existing housing stock that has housed a local worker. While the program has received minor modifications over the years, it continues to address the same problems the community faced 20 years ago, that is, the attractiveness converting existing, sometimes aging multi-family units into tourist accommodations or second homes at the expense of worker housing. Attachments: Exhibit A -History ofMulti-Family Replacement Program Exhibit B -Certificate of Exemption code language from previous Land Use Code Exhibit C - APCHA Guidelines Deferral of Affordable Housing Impact Fee section Page 6 of 11 Exhibit A: Multi-Family Replacement Program History: Program Origins: Since the 1970s, the City of Aspen has attempted to regulate the loss of free- market housing that is attainable for low and moderate income individuals. Originally this was done through the condominiumization regulations, which required an owner who wanted to condominiumize their property to show that the condominiumization would not result in a reduction of the supply of low and moderate income housing. The Multi-Family Replacement Program as we know it today originated in 1988 through Ordinance 47, Series of 1988 after City Council and City Planning Staff became concerned that the demolition of existing free-market residential dwelling units was resulting in the exclusion of working residents from the City's neighborhoods. The City Council at the time recognized that Aspen's neighborhoods were comprised of a mix of different housing types that served many of Aspen's working residents. They also recognized that Aspen's attractiveness as a resort and second home market placed pressure on older homes and condominiums to be redeveloped to serve these needs, rather than to continue to provide housing that was attainable by locals. In an effort to preserve the housing inventory and provide dispersed housing opportunities in Aspen, the program regulates the combination and demolition of multi-family dwelling units. The program is triggered any time construction, remodeling, or demolition results in the loss of a multi-family unit. The Aspen Area Community Plan establishes a goal of providing affordable housing for working residents by both the public and private sector. The multi-family replacement program ensures that the private sector maintains an active role in providing housing that is affordable for local workers, and ensures a housing shortfall will not result from the destruction of existing units that have or do serve local residents. Legislative History: Ordinance 47, Series of 1988 created the Multi-Family Housing Program, which required that an applicant replace 50% of the units and 25% of the bedrooms as affordable housing. The units were required to be placed on the same site on which demolition occurred, unless it could be demonstrated that the replacement on-site would be incompatible with adopted neighborhood plans or would be an inappropriate planning solution given the site's physical constraints. This location requirement has not been altered, and remains in effect today. In 1990, the program was amended by Ordinance 1, Series of 1990, to require replacement of 50% of the square footage of net residential area demolished, and 50% of the bedrooms demolished. The Ordinance also added a new provision that required 50% of the replacement housing to be above natural grade. The next revision to the program came in 2003 with Ordinance 51, Series of 2003. The location requirement remained the same, but the requirement that 50% of the replacement housing be above natural grade was eliminated (this requirement was added back in by Ordinance 12, Series 2005). Ordinance 51, Series of 2003 amended the replacement requirements to provide three (3) options for homeowners to replace multi-family housing they wished to demolish: 1. 100% Replacement Without Unit Expansion -This requirement allowed an applicant to replace exactly what was demolished (i.e. a 1-bedroom is replaced with a Page 7 of 11 1-bedroom, etc), and did not permit an expansion in the amount of net livable area. This option did not require any affordable housing mitigation; or, 2. 100% Replacement With Unit Expansion -This requirement allowed an applicant to replace 100% of the units and bedrooms demolished (same as above), and allowed the net livable azea to increase only if affordable housing was provided equal to the expansion of net livable area (i.e. if the applicant wanted to expand the original net livable area by 15%, then they would need to provide 15% of the original units, bedrooms, and net livable area as affordable housing); or, 3. 50% Replacement -This requirement allowed an applicant to demolish dwelling units and replace 50% of the units, bedrooms, and net livable area as affordable housing. For example, if two 2-bedroom units in 2000 total net livable space were demolished, this would be replaced by one 1-bedroom deed-restricted unit in 1000 sq. ft. of net livable space. Any new free-mazket residential units were required to be mitigated for through the regular growth management process (i.e. 30% of the net livable expansion). The discussion leading up to the adoption of Ordinance 51, Series of 2003 focused on the importance of maintaining density on pazcels that underwent demolition of their multi-family units. This was the reasoning behind adding the Option 1, above (100% Replacement Without Unit Expansion). No projects were ever submitted under this provision. The 50% replacement program requirements were amended to include units, again to maintain density on parcels undergoing multi-family dwelling unit demolition. Page 8 of 11 F:Aub~F2~ 26.530.030 Certificate ofcompliance/exemption. Any applicant, prior to applying for a building permit from the Community Development Depart- ment for the purpose of demolishing any multi-family dwelling unit, must first obtain a certificate ofcompliance or a certificate of exemption from the requirements of this Chapter. A. Certificate of Compliance. In order to obtain a certificate of compliance, the owner shall: I . Submit to the Community Development Director a statement, certified by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer, declaring the number of RMF housing units, bedrooms, and the net residen- tial area to be affected by demolition. 2. Where required, secure necessary land use approvals and development orders for the project to be developed on the site of the demolished building. or on such other location as may be approved. Execute a housing replacement agreement with the City of Aspen setting forth the terms and conditions upon which any replacement housing required by this Chapter shall be de- veloped, which agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. The agree- ment shall burden the property and be recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County. The obligation to provide replacement housing as set forth in the agreement shall be secured by a bond, letter of credit, or other security acceptable to the City. B. Certificate of exemption. In order to obtain a certificate of exemption, the owner must submit a statement certifying that the dwelling unit(s) is exempt from the provisions of this Sec- tion, the basis upon which exemption is claimed, and such additional documentation as may be required by the Community Development Director in order to establish the exemption. If the Community Development Director is satisfied that the dwelling unit is exempt from the provisions of this Title, a certificate of exemption shall be issued. C. Procedure. A Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption shall be obtained prior to the submission of a building permit. D. Form of Certificate. A Certificate of Compliance or Exemption shall be in a form approved by the Community Development Director. The Certificate shall constitute a Development Order issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, Development Orders. (Ord. No. 40-2002; Ord No. 51-2003, §1) Q ~T ~` ExbibrF G 8. Rents for dormitory units will be set by Special Review on a case-by-base basis, given the unique and varying characteristics of dormitory units, with affordability as the key issue. SECTION 12 AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEDICATION FEE (Payment-In-Lieu Fee) Pursuant to the applicable City or County Land Use Codes, an applicant for a development may, under certain conditions and subject to certain requirements, satisfy the affordable housing requirement by payment of an affordable housing dedication fee (payment-in-lieu fee). The number of employees (affordable housing residents) required to be housed is determined by the Employee Generation schedules contained in the applicable City and County Codes, or included herein. The time of payment of the fee is prior to the issuance of a building permit. Acceptance of the payment- in-lieu fee shall be at the sole discretion of the respective governing body at the recommendation of the Housing Office. 2. All County fees shall be paid to the Pitkin County Finance Director and all City fees shall be paid to the City Finance Director. A receipt shall be issued by the Finance Directors to the applicant for submission to the Community Development Director as verification of payment, with a copy of the receipt supplied by the developer to the APCHA prior to issuance of a building permit. The number of employees generated will be dictated by the applicable City and County codes or included herein. The City and County Codes will prevail in any conflict between the Guidelines and the Codes. The Employee Generation Table is included in the City Code for the specific zone districts. 3. Payment-In-Lieu Fee: Category 1 $264,228 Category 2 $217,072 Category 3 $208,593 Category 4 $130,113 The fee required for the constructiott of an exempt sing/e family home or duplex unit shall be calculated as follows: Average of the Category 2 and Category 3 payment-in-lieu fee as specified above, divided by 3,000 square feet X the net increase in FAR ojthe new struMure will equal the paymem-in-lieu payment for replacement structures. The formula assumes that jor every 3,000 square feet ofnew singte-fatuity or duptex floor area, the public will be required to provide housing jor one moderate income employee. Currently, that amount is $211,072 + $208,593 +2 = $214,832.50 +3,000 = $71.62 per square foot of new shucMre. When any other payment-in-lieu fee is required and the category is not specified, an average of Category 2 and 3 will be used to calculate the amount owed. 4, Defercal of the Affordable Housing Impact Fee: If the owner of asingle-family or duplex unit for which an affordable housing impact fee is due is a qualified working resident, as that term is defined in the Guidelines, the obligation to pay the impact fee may be deferred, at the owner's request, until such time as the dwelling unit is sold to a buyer who is not a qualified working resident. AspeNPitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines AMENDED/APPROVED OY/a8 Page 47 of 66 ~r/~~~ ~~ Furthermore, the amount of the impact fee that was deferred shall be recalculated at the time of sale '~~ based on the Guidelines in effect at the time of sale. The obligation for the fee and the procedures for calculating the fee shall be set forth in a written document, signed by the owner or owners of the subject dwelling unit, approved by an APCHA representative and the Community Development Department Director, and recorded in the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 5. For the purposes of calculating payment-in-lieu fee, the following occupancy standards shall apply: TABLE V OCCUPANCY STANDARDS BY UNIT TYPE UNIT TYPE OCCUPANCY Dormitory/Lodge 1.00 employee/150 sq. ft. Studio 1.25 employees One Bedroom 1.75 employees Two Bedrooms 2.25 employees Three Bedrooms 3.00 employees For each bedroom in excess of three, the occupancy standard increases by .5 employees SECTION 13 CONVEYANCE OF VACANT LOTS Pursuant to the applicable Ci ounty Land Use Codes, an applicant for a development, er certain conditions and subject to certain re menu, may satisfy the affordable-housing re ' ement by the conveyance of vacant lots. Acceptance oft ors shall be at the sole discretion of the spective governing body upon recommendation of the Housing Offi ~ 1. All lots must be fully developed and ready for co ction, i.e., improved lots with water or well, sewer or septic, roads, and telephone, electricity and g 'f a '~ble) in place to the property line. A soils report, prepared by a qualified engineer and b on test holes within the building envelope of each lot, stipulating that the lot is suitable r constru of the intended dwelling type without requiring unusual excavation, founda' n work or acco dation of other unusual conditions shall accompany the conveyance. 2. All lots shall be conveyed to the sing Office concurrent with recordation of fin at for the project. 3. At the time of convey e, the developer shall establish an escrow account in an amount sufficient to cover 125% of t estimated costs required to complete the improvement of the lots in accordance with number 1 ove. Improvements as noted in number 1 above, shall be completed within one yeaz from date of conveyance of the property to the Housing Office. 4. Th ubdivision Improvements Agreement and the Protective Covenants shall incorporate the nditions stated in 1, 2 and 3, directly above this pazagraph. Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines AMENDED/APPROVED 01/08 Page 48 of 66 ~u~~e. ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Hoofnagle, Pitkin County Solid Waste Manager THRU: Lee Cassin, Environmental Health Director THRU: Bentley Henderson, Assistant City Manager CC: Ashley Cantrell, Environmental Health Specialist DATE OF MEMO: August 1, 2008 MEETING DATE: August 4, 2008 RE: Construction impacts on the land£rll REQUEST OF COUNCIL: We request that council discuss and consider the use of a Solid Waste Impact Fee as a way for the City of Aspen to dramatically impact the lifespan of the Pitkin County Landfill. BACKGROUND: Prior to the initial passage of the City's recycling ordinance in 2005, the Council asked of the county how the City might have a positive impact on the lifespan of the landfill. Since that time, the County has completed a Solid Waste Management Plan which has put new light on ways the city can contribute. The County Solid Waste staff has consulted with the City of Aspen Environmental Health and Building Departments to help shape this proposal. DISCUSSION: Typically at landfills azound the country, 25% of the waste received is Construction and Demolition debris (C&D). The rest, and much larger percentage, of the waste received by landfills is Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), the sofr trash and garbage that comes from our kitchens and homes. Based on these mixing percentages of C&D waste to MSW, the landfill industry developed operational standazds and equipment commensurate with the requirements of this waste stream archetype. That is to say, a trash compactor is the primary equipment used at landfills because it is very effective at placement and volume reduction of soft trash -the primary material buried at landfills. For C&D however, the compactor is very inefficient and ill-suited. It doesn't have the ability to break down and actually compact all the air out of loads of demolished roofing material, walls, foundations, steel structures, pipe, brick, etc.; which is the type of material found in typical C&D loads. So, landfills trade-off efficiency in C&D burial because it's not cost effective to maintain the additional equipment needed to compact a relatively small percentage of the overall waste stream. Page 1 of 4 Pitkin County and Aspen aze atypical in many ways and the waste stream is no exception. Only a third of the waste stream brought to the Pitkin County Landfill is MSW while the rest is made up of C&D materials. Construction and Demolition debris is bulky, and is responsible for filling up the Pitkin County Landfill. Typical Landfill Volumes D G6D ^MSW Pitkin landfill Volumes •MSW ocao Because of the inherent inefficiencies involved in landfilling so much C&D with conventional landfilling equipment, Pitkin County piloted a program to process C&D waste before it was land filled. The processing includes sorting valuables from the waste stream and grinding the remaining material to achieve volume reduction. This processing successfully recovered 69 tons of scrap steel, severa] hundred tons of boulders, and reduced the volume of material buried in the landfill by more than 50% during a six month trial period. If implemented successfully, a 50% volume reduction would add 10 additional yeazs of landfill life. As mentioned above, the equipment necessitated by these volumes of construction and demolition waste is not typically used at land£-lls. But, employing such equipment at the Pitkin County landfill will have a dramatic positive effect on the landfill lifespan. In 2007, 183,445 cubic yards of waste were delivered to the landfill. 116,510 cubic yards of that total (64%) was Construction and Demolition debris. The processed C&D waste will be used as daily cover for the MSW, eliminating the use of soil each day. This provides an additional 20% reduction in the use of landfill airspace annually. The table shows the estimate of landfill lifespan for Pitkin County in 2007. Total landfill airspace used in 2007 was 159,445 CY Projected Remaining LF airspace in 2007 volume in Projected volume in was 3.5 M CY landfill if landfill with daily processed cover reduction C8~D delivered to 116,510 landfill in 2007 CY 80,952 58,255 Estimated landfill Lifesoan 15 23 29 Page 2 of 4 The equipment and labor associated with this program includes an excavator, front end loader, low-torque grinder, and two operators. The County has negotiated a fixed monthly cost for this service. It is this cost that the County intends to recover through a Solid Waste Impact Fee. The fee would be assessed upon issuance of a demolition or construction permit. The demolition material that is brought to the landfill is faz greater in quantity than waste from the new construction activity. Therefore, the formulation of the fee is portioned so that the fees assessed for demolition aze greater than construction. Although this proposal mainly focuses on the financial needs of the C&D process, there is opportunity in this policy to encourage deconstruction practices. Some of the material that ends up in the landfill is useable, but these materials are currently thrown in with the rest of the C&D waste instead of salvaged. We propose that the square foot permit fee be decreased for those contractors who participate in deconstruction practices instead of demolition. These practices may include a 1 week salvage period, in which useable items aze offered to the public prior to demolition, or a period in which the contractor works with a salvage company, such as Habitat for Humanity, to reuse those materials. This will add a financial incentive for reuse and recycling. This incentive could work in a number of ways. One example of how this could work would be that participating contractors receive a refund from the landfill if they prove that they salvaged material. Staff is open to suggestions on this topic, but we see opportunity to increase deconstruction practices through this policy. The County Commissioners have given conceptual approval for a per square foot fee on new construction and demolition in unincorporated Pitkin County. They fifrther requested that staff talk to municipalities about implementing a similaz fee to be passed through to the County landfill. County staff is making appointments similar to this one with the Basalt Town Council and the Town of Snowmass Village. The intent is to seek initial buy-in from the municipalities, then craft a resolution to be passed by the various entities together and begin implementation on January 1, 2009. In this way all construction activity in the County will be contributing its shaze towazd managing its impact on the lifespan of the landfill that serves the entire community. Furthermore, by including incorporated areas of the county, the per-foot assessment will be lowered. The table below summarizes what the per-square foot assessment might look with City of Aspen participation. Approximate square footage County TOTAL Dollar per foot numbers City SF SF SF Amount assessment Demolition $300,00 2006 215,000 50,000 265,000 0 $1.14 New construction $200,00 2006 486,000 250,000 736,000 0 $0.27 Page 3 of 4 FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: The costs to develop a new landfill would include land acquisition, engineering development, permit approval, environmental monitoring, and cell construction costs. Even if spread over a 50 yeaz life span, the costs are prohibitive and would certainly lead to unacceptable curbside trash service prices. However, for compazative purposes in this case, one could say that if the $SOOK raised by this fee reduces the volume of 75,OOOCY of debris by 50%, then it creates 37,SOOCY of landfill airspace at a cost of $13.34 per CY. Similarly, Pitkin County's landfill reclamation project has produced about 150,000 CY of landfill airspace at a per-unit cost of about $6. The current value of a cubic yazd of airspace in the Pitkin County Landfill is $26.25. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: While this does not have direct impact to City operational budgets, it does significantly impact the lifespan of the landfill. Preserving the landfill protects the environment by providing local solutions to waste generation. It is also a tangible step for the Council to take that demonstrates its commitment to environmental protection. RECOMMENDED ACTION: We recommend that Council direct staff to bring forward a resolution enacting a Solid Waste Impact Fee to be passed to or administered by the County in order to contribute to its efforts in conserving the landfill from impacts of construction activity. ALTERNATIVES: As an alternative to the per foot assessment, the City of Aspen might consider a direct transfer of funds to the County Landfill. They can also choose to not financially support the new C&D process at the landfill. PROPOSED MOTION: We propose that council consider and provide feedback regarding the conceptual idea of a per square foot assessment on construction and demolition permits in order to finance C&D processing at the landfill. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Page 4 of 4