HomeMy WebLinkAboutInformation Only 010924AGENDA
INFORMATION UPDATE
January 9, 2024
5:00 PM,
I.Information Update
I.A Development of the Aspen Public Art Plan Work Session Follow-Up
I.B Discussion on the Plastics Pollution Reduction Act’s Repeal on Restrictions to Ban
the Use of Certain Materials on July 1, 2024
FollowUp Memo for the Development of the Aspen Public Art Plan.docx
Info Only_ PPRA Plastics_2024.docx
1
1
1
FOLLOW-UP MEMORANDUM
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MEETING DATE:December 4, 2023
FOLLOW-UP MEMO DATE:December 12, 2023
AGENDA TOPIC:Development of the Aspen Public Art Plan
PRESENTED BY:Sarah Roy, Red Brick Center for the Arts
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:Mayor Torre, John Doyle, Bill Guth,
Ward Hauenstein, Sam Rose,
_______________________________________________________________________
WORK SESSION DISCUSSION SUMMARY:
1. Topic: Draft of the Public Art Plan Selection and Development Process
Council requested to see a more scaled-down/streamlined process for project selection
and development to achieve a timelier, more efficient manner. Council agreed to a
community based committee being formed to serve in the project review process, and
Council does not wish to take on the role of an arbitrator.
2. Topic: Benchmarking
Council would like to see examples from other similar communities for funding and staffing
levels.
3. Topic: Budget Allocation
Council supported overall proposed budget with a new full-time employee.
NEXT STEPS:
1.Staff will submit an Informational Only Memo to Council in January or February
of 2024 that address topic 1 and 2. Memo will include more details on topic 3,
specifically how the operating budget will be used.
2.Staff will make a formal request for budget allocation.
CITY MANAGER NOTES:
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
2
INFORMATION ONLY MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and City Council
FROM:Ainsley Brosnan-Smith, Waste Diversion and Recycling Program
Administrator; Jimena Baldino, Waste Diversion and Recycling
Specialist
THROUGH:Tessa Schreiner, Sustainability Manager;CJ Oliver, Environmental
Health and Sustainability Director; Ben Anderson, Community
Development Director
MEMO DATE:January 4, 2024
MEETING DATE:January 9, 2024
RE:Discussion on the Plastics Pollution Reduction Act’s Repeal on
Restrictions to Ban the Use of Certain Materials on July 1, 2024
PURPOSE:
No action is requested of Council. This informational memo was requested by Council as
an update on the options to reduce single-use materials in the community. The Plastics
Pollution Reduction Act passed by Colorado legislature in 2022 repeals restrictions on
municipalities to ban the use of certain materials on July 1, 2024.
BACKGROUND:
On July 6, 2021, Colorado General Assembly enacted House Bill 21-1162 Plastic
Pollution Reduction Act (PPRA) to manage the distribution of single-use materials such
as plastic and polystyrene in Colorado. In response, on March 14, 2023, Aspen City
Council adopted Ordinance No. 06, Series of 2023, (attachment B) which amended
Chapter 13.24 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code to mirror Colorado House Bill 21-1162
that expands restrictions on the use of single-use plastic bags by certain retailers. The
PPRA also repeals the state law currently prohibiting local governments from requiring or
banning specific plastic materials or products. This repeal occurs on July 1, 2024, granting
the City authority to enact more stringent laws that prohibit, restrict, or mandate the use
or sale of plastic materials, containers, packaging, or labeling.
At the October 9, 2023, Environmental Health and Sustainability budget presentation,
City Council directed staff to provide additional information regarding options for
additional single-use plastics restrictions in preparation for the July 1, 2024, date. This
3
information only memo provides initial information, and staff will follow up with a work
session in Q2 of 2024.
DISCUSSION:
This section provides contextual information on the amount and type of waste disposed
at the Pitkin County landfill and considers potential mandatory restrictions on single-use
plastics and the alternatives available.
Though banning specific materials from use in Aspen would reduce the demand for that
plastic product, businesses would still need to find an alternative material to serve their
products in. Without addressing Aspen’s low recycling rates, replacing a plastic product
with an alternative material would not address the issue of throwing away recyclable
materials as trash, and in some cases could increase related emissions if the material
used in place of plastic has a greater GHG potential from virgin (new)extraction and
processing (e.g. glass or aluminum).
Types and amounts of waste disposed at the landfill:
Pitkin County Waste Characterization Study:In the summer of 2022, the Pitkin County
Solid Waste Center hosted a waste characterization study that determined percentages,
by weight, of each material found in the trash. The information below summarizes the top
categories of materials in the landfill by percentages and provides context to single-use
plastics’ relatively low impact on our waste stream at 6%.Graph 1 summarizes the
materials buried at the Pitkin County Landfill in 2022: more than half of the wasted
material buried at the landfill is construction and demolition (C&D) debris, and the
remainder, called municipal solid waste (MSW),is the sum of materials thrown away in
residential and commercial trash bins. Graph 2 shows the material breakdown of MSW
disposed of at the landfill.
Graph 1:
Graph 2:
4
MSW and C&D waste are studied as two separate streams. By a considerable margin,
C&D debris is by far the greatest impact category by volume and weight disposed of as
trash on an annual basis. When evaluating the materials disposed of as municipal solid
waste, the largest category was organic materials, followed by recyclable materials
(single-stream recyclables like carboard, aluminum, glass, etc.). The following policy and
programs are being executed by City staff to curb the permanent disposal of the
recoverable materials most disposed of as trash.
C&D:Staff are working internally with City departments to discuss practical C&D diversion
options that would address Aspen’s largest contribution to the landfill. Staff have also
been collaborating with Pitkin County to discuss their mandatory C&D recycling code that
has seen major successes in recycling, with an average 80% recycling of materials from
a jobsite. Following Pitkin County’s lead on mandating C&D recycling would be the most
impactful action for extending the landfill’s life, and reducing emissions related to waste.
Staff will provide an information only memo with further discussion on January 16, 2024.
Organics:City Council passed the organics diversion ordinance in 2023 addressing the
disposal of organic material in the landfill. As of October 15, 2023, it is illegal for
restaurants to dispose of organics as trash. Staff are conducting site visits of all
restaurants to check on their success, or challenges, and offer resources like trainings,
compostable bags, extra containers, and signage. The next phase of the ordinance
begins in 2026 and applies to all commercial businesses and multi-family properties.
Single-stream recyclables:Aspen’s recycling code, Chapter 12.06, does not require
anyone to recycle their recyclable materials, it only requires people to pay for a recycling
service if they pay for a trash service. As a result of this, staff have found some residents
and businesses opt-out of recycling (removing dumpsters from their property) even
though they are paying for the service; this happens for a variety of reasons like, high
contamination rates, space constraints,or bear intrusions.Pitkin County's waste
5
characterization study found 29.75% of our trashed materials could have been recovered
through single-stream recycling. Strengthening Aspen’s waste diversion through a
recycling mandate would be the most beneficial to reducing the municipal solid waste
(waste of everyday items generated by the residential and commercial sector) buried at
the Pitkin County Landfill. Staff continue to target multi-family properties, and commercial
businesses, with collateral on how-to recycle right.
Plastic film recycling: The largest category of trashed plastic in the MSW stream is plastic
film, bags, and wrap at 9.35%. In response to the strong community desire to recycle
plastic film, the Waste Diversion team began partnering with City Market in Aspen and
Trex Company Inc. to collect and recycle plastic film from residents. This program is
managed by two EHS staff and is so highly utilized that it requires daily emptying of two
60-gallon containers and transportation to City Market’s for recycling. Staff recommends
individual businesses work directly with their suppliers to reduce plastic film usage, and
partner with plastic film recyclers, such as Trex, as staff does not have the capacity to
expand the program beyond residential use.
Single-use plastics: In preparation for the restriction lift in July 2024, City Council
members have voiced an interest in pursuing additional policies and programs that reduce
single-use plastics in the community to decrease Aspen’s demand for plastic and its
contribution to the Pitkin County landfill. Outlined below are various approaches and
policy options to divert or replace single-use materials, ranging from mandated
restrictions to voluntary participation. This analysis is primarily focused on the retail food
sector, analyzing available alternatives to single-use plastics and practices seen in other
Colorado communities.
DISCUSSION ON SINGLE-USE PLASTIC ALTERNATIVES
Work dedicated to single-use plastics restrictions would require staff to reprioritize
program and policy objectives that are currently addressing the largest landfill
contributions, such as C&D waste and single-stream recycling. Planning, developing, and
implementing further single-use plastic restrictions would dominate the waste diversion
staff’s day-to-day activities.
The following discussion includes:
1. Mandatory restrictions or prohibitions
2. Reusable take-out containers for ready to eat materials
3. Targeted approach: voluntary participation and incentives
4. Compostable to-go containers
Mandatory restrictions or prohibitions:
In response to the state of Colorado lifting the ban on local governments restricting certain
materials, City Council could consider mandatory restrictions or prohibitions of certain
items, in addition to or instead of the voluntary options listed below. Staff have met with
6
other Colorado municipalities that have developed ordinances to ban materials like single-
use water bottles. Targeting specific products for prohibition requires consideration for
the environmental and economic impact of the material that would be used in place of
plastic. For example, the current economic market for PET plastic (bottles) is strong,
meaning there is a demand for plastic bottles to be purchased from the Materials
Recovery Facility (MRF) for recycling into a new product; whereas, alternative bottling
materials, like a carton (Tetra Pak) has a weak economic market, meaning the demand
for purchasing cartons from the MRF is low and does not lend to frequent sales (recycling)
of that material. The banning of a certain plastic does not eliminate the demand for
packaging, so alternative materials are needed as substitutes. Staff could target City
owned and operated buildings, such as the Wheeler Opera House (Aspen Public House)
or Rio Grande Building (Yogi’s), to pilot alternative material uses and evaluate the
environmental and economic impact on the business and the community.
Reusable take-out containers for ready to eat meals:
Replacing single-use take-out containers with reusable materials has the greatest
potential to reduce GHG emissions, and waste, only if the materials are continually
reused. Under current circumstances, staff does not believe a reusable take-out system
to be an adaptable solution for the City of Aspen.
A reuse program only sees environmental benefits if the containers are returned and
reused multiple times over. One local business that offers reusable to-go containers found
a 30% return rate of their reusable to-go containers; staff can assume the remaining 70%
have been discarded as trash or recycling. The impact of trashing a container made from
reusable materials, such as glass or metal, has a greater environmental impact
(emissions from extraction and production) than trashing a single-use plastic. The
emissions related to recycling these materials, instead of reusing them, are also greater
than if the material was continually reused. Additionally, a small rate of return requires
businesses to purchase more supply (to re-stock unreturned containers) and does not
prove the typical cost savings model of a circular system. This increases costs for
business operations since reusable materials are more expensive than single-use
materials.
Reusable container systems are most successful in communities with a higher
percentage of long-term residents who will revisit the same businesses on a regular basis.
With Aspen’s transient population, the circular system of reusable containers may not be
seen. Restaurants would need to store and clean the reusable containers in-house. Not
all establishments in Aspen have the capacity to expand dishwashing capacity, or staff
availability, beyond current operations.
Other cities that use a third-party company to collect, wash, and redistribute reusable
containers require an industrial space for machine washing and storing of containers.
Staff have not been able to identify a location that meets the needs of this kind of
operation locally.
7
There are certainly members of the community who would contribute to the success of a
reusable take-out container system and staff supports establishments in encouraging
patrons to bring their own reusable containers for packing take-out foods.
Targeted Approach: Voluntary Participation and Incentives
Upon audits of the recycling containers in public spaces, staff found large amounts of
contamination in the recycling from single-use cups (hot and cold take-out cups, including
lids). These cups are not accepted at the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), where
Aspen’s recycling is transferred for separation and resale, and should be disposed of as
trash. Despite additional signage added to these recycling containers, staff continue to
find single-use cups improperly disposed of in the recycling. Staff are considering the
following approaches to reduce the use of single-use plastic from take-out cups, as well
as improve the recycling stream.
1. Introduce a bring your own cup campaign that rewards people for bringing their
reusable cup to a coffee shop for a refill.
2. Work directly with interested businesses to help them reduce their single-use
practices by offering discounts for a reusable cup.
3. Work with City Council to develop a single-use cup ordinance, similar to the City’s
carry-out bag fees, that disincentivizes the distribution of single-use plastic cups.
Compostable to-go containers:
Replacing single-use to-go materials with compostable alternatives could reduce plastic
use distributed by retail food establishments, however, there may be little impact on
landfill disposal rates. The City’s organics diversion ordinance does not require public
facing organics collection containers because unmonitored containers lead to the
contamination of compost from people disposing of trash in the container. For example,
all City permitted special events are prohibited from using single-use plastics, using
compostables to serve their food and drink. However, this effort requires event staff to
assign volunteers, or hire a company, to manage the three waste streams (trash,
recycling, compost) throughout the event and remove inevitable contamination from the
compost and recycling. Additionally, the organics diversion ordinance does not require
commercial buildings, multifamily residents, or the public, to divert their organic waste
until 2026, or 2028. So, due to the lack of publicly available organics collection containers,
at this time, staff can assume compostable take-out containers will be disposed of as
trash.
Landfilling compostable materials is not environmentally advantageous since these
materials do not break down any differently when buried, holding their volume in the
landfill for years, and generate methane gas. Though compostable materials have
become a popular alternative for disposable plastics, Colorado’s largest organics recycler
on the front range, A1 Organics, discontinued the acceptance of compostable materials
due to high contamination rates and products falsely claiming composability. Staff are
careful to suggest compostable alternatives as the solution for take-out materials because
8
their environmental benefits are very circumstantial and would require staff to evaluate
each businesses supplier of materials.
Next steps: This information only memo is intended to equip City Council with
background information and options for future policy and program consideration. If
desired by City Council, staff can return for a work session to discuss further policy
development.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
When evaluating the environmental impacts of substituting single-use plastic with
alternative materials, it’s important to consider the emissions related to extraction and
production of those substitutes. Staff is considering the greenhouse gas savings from
single-use plastic restrictions and the emissions comparison of using alternative
materials; and the costs it would add to the community since plastic is typically the most
inexpensive option. Staff will have additional information on these findings in Q3 of
2024.
ATTACHMENTS:
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
9