HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20160419
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
April 19, 2016
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Mobility Goals Update
II. Waste Study Update
III. Winter Outdoor Dining Policy
P1
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D. Krueger / Lynn Rumbaugh, Transportation
THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: April 15, 2016
DATE OF MEETING: April 19, 2016
RE: Burlingame Winter Service Pilot – Results and Options
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Transportation Department is requesting direction from
Council regarding future service levels for the Burlingame route. As part of this discussion, staff
will update Council on the winter performance of the route and provide comments submitted by
riders. In addition, representatives of the Burlingame Homeowner’s Associations may be on
hand to provide feedback. The deadline for adding service to the summer City of Aspen service
is April 22.
Questions for Council:
1. Is there any other information that you would like about the results of the Burlingame
Winter Service expansion pilot project?
2. Do you agree with the staff recommendation to include 30-minute Winter Service on the
Burlingame route in the base service schedule and in the 2017 in-town transit budget?
3. Does Council have direction regarding the desirability and/or timing of Summer Service
expansion to half hour service?
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council previously approved a budget request in the
amount of $254,000 for the purpose of expanding the Burlingame bus route to provide 30-minute
service for winter of 2015-2016. The half hour winter service cost estimate of $254,000 was
prepared for the City budget in October of 2015 prior to RFTA finalizing their budget. After
P2
I.
Page 2 of 5
RFTA finalized its budget and contract costs were refined the estimated cost forecasted for the
winter service has reduced to approximately $205,000.
BACKGROUND: The Transportation Department is charged with maintaining traffic at 1993
levels in perpetuity. A major factor in the ability to meet this goal is Aspen’s eight-route transit
system that typically carries over 1-million riders annually. Some routes are seasonal, offering
service only in winter and/or summer. Core routes typically operate 365-days per year from
approximately 6:30am-2:00am, with decreased hours of service in the spring and fall. The
Burlingame route is an exception to this, having taken numerous forms since the Burlingame
Ranch development was built. Initial service was provided via taxi and has progressed to a bus
service that has operated with a variety of schedules. Most recently, until winter 2015-16, the
service operated once per hour.
As part of the 2016 budget process, Council and staff discussed increasing the Burlingame
service to 30-minute frequency based on requests from residents and potential for ridership
growth and traffic reduction. Council ultimately opted to provide 30-minute service as a trial for
winter 2015-16. Council requested that residents be challenged to ride and that staff report
results back at winter’s end. Winter season ends April 17, 2016 with the Burlingame service
returning to hourly on April 18.
DISCUSSION: Increased frequency on the Burlingame bus route commenced December 12,
2015, operating every 30-minutes from 6:35am-12:20am daily. Staff marketed the service via a
variety of postings and events throughout the winter. In addition, staff requested feedback via
surveys and has received a number of comments via email. The message relayed from the vast
majority of riders was an appreciation for the 30-minute service and a desire for it to continue
indefinitely.
Service Performance
During the budget process, staff indicated that a winter ridership increase of 40%, would be
considered appropriate and successful related to a doubling of frequency. Ridership exceeded
P3
I.
Page 3 of 5
these expectations, increasing by 90% through March of 2016 when compared to the previous
winter. In fact the service has outperformed several core Aspen routes including over the course
of the winter including Cemetery Lane, Galena Street Shuttle, Cross Town Shuttle, and Mountain
Valley Dial-A-Ride. Based on this significant increase in ridership staff considers the pilot
program a success. More detailed ridership information is included below and in Attachment A.
Locations of particularly high boardings include Burlingame-area stops as well as Rubey Park.
Boardings at stops such as Buttermilk and Truscott have not been significant, indicating that the
route is doing more than simply providing alternatives to Hwy 82 riders. In general, ridership
was highest during morning and afternoon commute times. However, mid-day, evening and
weekend ridership spikes occurred frequently.
Alternatives Analysis
There are a number of future options for the Burlingame route including continuing 30-minute
service in the winter, providing 30-minute service in winter and summer only, standardizing the
route with other core services (half hourly, year-round) or reverting back to hourly service.
Based on resident enthusiasm around and support for transit, staff assumes that higher than
average ridership increases would occur in the summer if 30-minute service were resumed.
Although ridership does tend to drop on City routes during warmer summer months, a 50%
increase in summer Burlingame ridership is a fair assumption given this winter’s trend. This
would mean an increase of over 9,000 additional rides for a total of almost 28,000 rides over 87
days and would certainly help to address a number of Council’s goal including:
• keeping traffic at 1993 levels
• reducing traffic in the next two years
• reducing carbon emissions 30% by 2020
• encouraging the Drive Less messaging to be undertaken this summer
However, service increases have impacts on the Transportation Long Range Plan (LRP) that
would need to be addressed. Additional Burlingame 30-minute service this summer could be
P4
I.
Page 4 of 5
accommodated by the Transportation fund for 2016 with limited impact. Other service scenarios
and the impacts may need to be considered as part of the 2017 budget development process.
LRP scenarios are included in this memo as Attachment B.
Additional options that have been previously tried at Burlingame, meeting with poor feedback
from residents include dial-a-ride taxi service and an hourly/half-hourly hybrid bus service.
Other scenarios that have been considered but rejected due to poor ridership projections include
options connecting Burlingame Ranch to points along Hwy 82 as shown in the table below.
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED SCENARIOS
Service Scenario Total Cost Projected Ridership Increase
Burlingame to Buttermilk Shuttle $642,000 8,160 annually
Burlingame to Roundabout Shuttle $625,000 No significant increase
Additional service increase options that have been frequently requested but remain unfunded are
summarized below.
ADDITIONAL SERVICE INCREASE OPTIONS
Service Scenario Total Cost Projected Ridership Increase
Additional fall service hours on
other in-town routes
(early and late-night)
$68,368.80
6,320 annually
Additional Cross Town Shuttle
hours (extend to 11pm)
$25,000 1,400 annually
P5
I.
Page 5 of 5
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS : 30-minute winter service to Burlingame for winter 2016-
(through December 31) is included in the Transportation fund budget. Half-hourly service for
summer and/or fall of 2016 are not included. A variety of scenarios and budgetary impacts are
included in this packet as Attachment B.
Scenario Additional Cost Budgeted
30-minute service summer 2016 $150,000 No
30-minute service year-round $666,000 No
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Increased transit ridership has a positive impact on traffic
congestion and air pollution. Increased transit ridership directly addresses Council’s Top Ten
goal of reducing traffic congestion in the next two years. Additionally, increased transit service
relates to reduced PM-10 pollution and contributes to the City’s GHG reduction goals.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Transportation staff recommends that 30-minute winter service
for the Burlingame route be included in the 2017 budget process. Staff also recommends that
summer service expansion be considered during the 2017 budget review process this fall for
summer 2017 implementation.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ridership Detail / Comparisons
Transportation LRP Scenario
P6
I.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000 457,649
257,566
74,305 72,886 52,593 44,748 39,213 33,671
2015 ANNUAL RIDERSHIP
P
7
I
.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
209,937
107,256
43,654 39,074 29,135 28,132 26,268 15,550
2015/16 WINTER RIDERSHIP
DEC-MAR
P
8
I
.
City of Aspen : Burlingame Route Monthly Ridership Since 2013 Dec-Nov
Burlingame DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV Total/YTD
2013/14 7,041 8,011 6,963 7,413 4,761 3,359 4,775 6,547 5,679 3,833 4,115 6,146 68,643
2014/15 8,383 8,820 6,619 6,919 5,079 2,955 4,803 7,409 6,221 3,659 3,454 5,293 69,614
2015/16 11,655 16,974 15,025 14,779 58,433
2014/2015 8,383 8,820 6,619 6,919 30,741
2015/2016 11,655 16,974 15,025 14,779 58,433
INCREASE
3,272
8,154
8,406
7,860 27,692
%
INCREASE 39% 92% 127% 114% 90%
P
9
I
.
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV
Ri
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
Month of Year
Monthly Ridership Comparison
2013/14 2014/15 2015/16
P
1
0
I
.
City of Aspen - 2016 Budget (Winter Burlingame 1/2 Hour Bus Service)
141 Transportation Fund 4/5/2016
Actual Adjusted Projected
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Beginning Balance $4,438,577 $5,369,987 $4,511,977 $3,410,237 $4,214,777 $3,913,327
Revenues
0.15% Sales Tax $1,003,035 $1,024,000 $1,065,000 $1,108,000 $1,152,000 $1,198,000
2.10% Use Tax $670,337 $1,195,000 $1,343,000 $1,253,000 $1,166,000 $1,055,000
0.50% Lodging Tax $0 $806,500 $827,000 $864,000 $903,000 $944,000
Federal / State Grants $170,000 $720,000 $616,000 $61,200 $185,400 $32,400
Car Share Program $42,529 $46,000 $47,800 $49,700 $51,700 $53,800
Highlands Route $191,780 $199,000 $206,960 $215,240 $223,850 $232,800
Investment Interest $57,235 $48,000 $90,000 $68,000 $84,000 $78,000
Other Misc. Revenue $190,102 $14,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Rubey Park Ops - RFTA Share $0 $120,000 $122,400 $124,800 $127,300 $129,800
Revenues $2,325,018 $4,172,500 $4,318,160 $3,743,940 $3,893,250 $3,723,800
Lodging Tax - Transfer $809,330 $72,540 $0 $0 $0 $0
Parking Fund - Transfer $0 $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
AMP Fund - Rubey Park $450,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Transfers $1,259,330 $72,540 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Total Revenue / Transfer $3,584,348 $4,245,040 $4,818,160 $4,743,940 $4,893,250 $4,723,800
Expenditures
Base Operating $644,522 $649,330 $671,900 $695,300 $719,100 $744,300
GF & IT Overhead $338,300 $359,300 $372,000 $384,700 $397,400 $411,100
Savings, PC & Workstations $1,780 $63,460 $0 $0 $0 $0
Supp. Operating Expenses $0 $285,810 $253,800 $259,800 $265,900 $272,200
Operating Expenses $984,602 $1,357,900 $1,297,700 $1,339,800 $1,382,400 $1,427,600
RFTA Less 1% CO Sales Tax $984,737 $1,170,000 $1,216,400 $1,265,100 $1,315,500 $1,368,000
Car Share Program $50,421 $54,000 $55,100 $56,200 $57,300 $58,400
Taxi Service $12,329 $17,000 $17,300 $17,600 $18,000 $18,400
Planning and Impact Studies $5,590 $12,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Base Transportation Expenses $1,053,077 $1,253,000 $1,298,800 $1,348,900 $1,400,800 $1,454,800
Supp - Goal #1 Trans. Planning $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Supp - BG Winter Service $62,000 $254,000 $264,000 $275,000 $286,000 $297,000
Supp. Transportation Expenses $62,000 $304,000 $264,000 $275,000 $286,000 $297,000
Transportation Expenses $1,115,077 $1,557,000 $1,562,800 $1,623,900 $1,686,800 $1,751,800
Completed / New Projects $439,359 $1,420,000 $1,498,700 $851,800 $1,997,400 $396,350
Increase in Diesel Bus Costs $0 $60,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $0
Carry Forward Proj.$0 $591,650 $0 $0 $0 $0
Capital Expenses $439,359 $2,071,650 $1,518,700 $851,800 $1,997,400 $396,350
Civic Replacement Proj. (000)$0 $0 $1,420,000 $0 $0 $0
EE Housing Allocation (505)$16,000 $16,000 $17,000 $17,000 $18,000 $18,000
Use Tax Position (001)$90,000 $93,000 $96,000 $99,000 $102,000 $106,000
Food Tax Refund (100)$7,900 $7,500 $7,700 $7,900 $8,100 $8,300
Transfers $113,900 $116,500 $1,540,700 $123,900 $128,100 $132,300
Total Uses $2,652,938 $5,103,050 $5,919,900 $3,939,400 $5,194,700 $3,708,050
Inc. (Dec.) to Fund Balance $931,410 ($858,010)($1,101,740)$804,540 ($301,450)$1,015,750
Fund Balance $5,369,987 $4,511,977 $3,410,237 $4,214,777 $3,913,327 $4,929,077
Percent of Fund Balance 1,941%980%617%1,092%979%1,191%
Reserve (12.5% of Uses)$276,697 $460,381 $552,650 $385,950 $399,663 $413,963
Over/(Short) of Target $5,093,289 $4,051,596 $2,857,587 $3,828,827 $3,513,664 $4,515,114
P11
I.
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Liz O'Connell, Environmental Health and Sustainability
THRU: CJ Oliver, Environmental Health and Sustainability Director
DATE OF MEMO: April 14, 2016
MEETING DATE: April 19. 2016
RE: Solid Waste Assessment Report
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Council will evaluate the Phase I report assessing the diversion
opportunities for solid waste prepared by Weaver Consultants and LBA Associates to determine
whether to pursue partnering with Pitkin County to continue into Phase II.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved partnering with Pitkin County to
conduct a Solid Waste Assessment which was Phase I of a Comprehensive Waste Diversion
Plan. The City of Aspen contributed $44,500 as part of the 2015 fall supplemental budget. 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. 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
15 years left at the current rate of deposition and diversion. A study was done in 2009 to
categorize the waste coming from Aspen and indicated approximately 57-80% of the municipal
material could be diverted from the landfill to recycling or composting. In 2014, the reported
diversion rate for municipal waste in Aspen was 21%, with 1% of that being compost diversion.
In 2015, the landfill diverted 47% of the construction and demolition waste received from being
buried.
DISCUSSION: The Solid Waste Assessment (performed by Weaver Consultants Group and
LBA Associates) examined the waste brought to the Pitkin County landfill over the course of
two weeks (one in high season and one low season), as well as meeting with various stakeholders
to discuss diversions opportunities and barriers for municipal solid waste (MSW). Knowing what
we are burying in the landfill, where it is originating, and what is diverted, are the first steps in
determining how to bury less.
P12
II.
Page 2 of 3
The Comprehensive Waste Diversion Plan - Phase I report (Attachment A) includes data
collected during the waste assessments, information from the waste haulers, and input from
various community stakeholders. This report has compiled a list of feasible policy, program and
infrastructure options for reducing the waste buried in the landfill to be evaluated in phase II.
Staff comments on Phase I report:
• Pg. ES-1 – In addition to the 38,200 tons of MSW brought to the landfill last year,
153,500 tons of construction and demolition waste was received.
• Pg. 3 – Staff feels the State estimate for population growth is too high considering
Aspen’s growth restrictions of space and cost of living.
• Pg. 4 – Some green and clear glass collected on the Front Range is recycled into
fiberglass and terrazzo. Only amber bottles are recycled into new bottles in Colorado.
• Pg. 8 – Although the Pitkin County Solid Waste Center is intended as the primary solid
waste management facility for Aspen, it is unknown what quantities of waste are
transported out of the county.
• Pg. 8 Footnote 5 – Private haulers are limited to bringing 40 tons per year of recycling.
Snowmass Village is exempt from this limit and the tipping fee for them is partially
subsidized by Pitkin County. Phase II should include an evaluation of these policies.
• Pg. 11 Table 3 - The most significant component of MSW (non-construction) is organics
(~37%). In 2015, 22% of the MSW received at the landfill was diverted through
composting. Only 2% of the material reported as hauled out of Aspen was diverted to
compost.
• Pg.11 Table 4 - The most significant component of the overall waste stream is material
from construction and demolition activities. In 2015, roughly half of the 112, 200 tons
diverted was used as cover for the landfill.
• Pg. 17 Figure 6 - Policies aimed at waste diversion are not wholly effective at
encouraging recycling as seen by the large amounts of plastic, paper and organic material
in the Aspen waste analysis.
• Pg. 19 – The yard waste ban in Aspen is not effectively enforced.
• The results demonstrate there is a need to evaluate the most effective strategies for
achieving higher diversion rate in Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: If Council directs staff to partner with Pitkin County and
continue with phase II, the estimated cost for the City of Aspen would be $37,500 (half of the
cost of Phase II, Attachment B).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Extending the life of the landfill allows Aspen to minimize
the carbon footprint of waste disposal by keeping that disposal local. Over half of the material
buried at the landfill consists of waste from construction activities and finding ways to divert and
reuse this material would significantly extend the life of our local landfill. Increasing the
materials recycled conserves resources needed for goods manufacturing. When the amount of
recycling increases, the environmental impact for recycling each item is decreased by taking
advantage of the economies found in larger scale operations. 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.
P13
II.
Page 3 of 3
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends Council discuss partnering with Pitkin
County to continue to Phase II of the Comprehensive Waste Diversion Plan and direct staff to
request the appropriate funding in the fall, if continuation is approved.
ALTERNATIVES: If Council does not approve continuing to Phase II of the Comprehensive
Waste Diversion Plan, then the public concerns and policy and programming opportunities for
Aspen will not be comprehensively evaluated. The Environmental Health and Sustainability
Department will not have the information needed to implement the most effective strategies for
increased waste reduction within Aspen or be active partners in the development of the valley-
wide plan.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to discuss continuing to Phase II of the Comprehensive Waste
Diversion plan with the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
P14
II.
7340 E. CALEY AVENUE, SUITE 110
CENTENNIAL, COLORADO 80111
PHONE: (720) 529-0132
FAX: (720) 529-0137
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX Weaver Consultants Group
MEMORANDUM
To: Cathy Hall (via email)
Pitkin County Landfill
Date: April 13, 2016
From: John Briest, P.E.
Weaver Consultants Group
Project #: 2796-495-11-06-01
Re: Comprehensive Waste Diversion Plan, Phase I
Roaring Fork Valley
Please find the attached Comprehensive Waste Diversion Plan, Phase I for the Roaring Fork
Valley located in Colorado.
It is our understanding that you will be submitting this to both the City of Aspen and the Board
of County Commissioners as part of upcoming meetings on April 19, 2016.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 720-529-0132.
Attachment
P15
II.
PREPARED BY
ROARING FORK VALLEY
COMPREHENSIVE WASTE DIVERSION PLAN
PHASE I
PREPARED FOR
PITKIN COUNTY & CITY OF ASPEN
April 13, 2016
P16
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Roaring Fork Valley Comprehensive Waste Diversion Plan (Plan) was undertaken by
Pitkin County and the City of Aspen to maximize municipal solid waste (MSW) and
construction and demolition (C&D) waste diversion in the Roaring Fork Valley (Valley)
through 2027 utilizing a strategy that involves incentives, regulatory enforcement, and
public involvement. The planning area extends from Carbondale in Garfield County to
the City of Aspen. The Plan includes two phases; Phase I has been completed and is
reported in this document, and Phase II will be started later in 2016.
Data collection revealed that approximately 38,200 tons of MSW is managed in Pitkin
County annually; C&D quantities can more than double the total waste managed at the
Pitkin County Solid Waste Center (PCSWC), and Carbondale quantities were not
available. A majority of trash and compost is managed at the PCSWC, while Carbondale's
MSW is likely managed at both the PCSWC and the South Canyon Landfill.
An audit of the Pitkin County MSW trash conducted in 2015 showed that 75% of the
MSW stream during the audit periods was comprised of organic, paper, and plastic
materials (see Figure ES-1). Over 36% of the stream included food, yard, and other
organic waste. These results indicated that more than half of Pitkin County trash was
recoverable through existing recycling and organic recovery programs.
Figure ES-1: 2015 Pitkin County Trash Composition (percent by weight)
An audit of single-stream recyclables at the Rio Grande and Pitkin County drop sites
revealed cardboard and glass compositions equal to nearly one-third of all single-stream
recyclables measured. These results indicate an opportunity to target these materials,
both of which have collection and contamination challenges.
Series1,
Glass, 6% Series1,
Metals, 4%
Series1,
Plastics, 19%
Series1,
Paper, 20%
Series1,
Organics ,
36%
Series1,
Haz/Special
Waste , 6%
Series1,
Residue, 9%
P17
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
ES-2
Phase I also consisted of a comprehensive public process to obtain input on waste
diversion barriers and opportunities in the Valley. Stakeholders included businesses,
property managers, haulers, governments, non-profits, and citizens. Their input,
together with audit results, helped to inform a selection of waste diversion
improvement options for future evaluation in Phase II.
Through a collaboration of municipal leaders, a short-list of priority (Tier #1) options was
deemed worth further evaluation in Phase II. The following options will include a
combination of incentives and regulations, and will be supported by appropriate
enforcement measures:
• C&D materials diversion;
• Commercial and special event recycling and organics recovery;
• Yard waste disposal ban;
• Full service recyclable drop sites in Basalt, Snowmass Village, and Carbondale;
• Hauler curbside collection policy that encourages recycling and requires
reporting;
• Cardboard disposal ban with backhaul options out of the Valley;
• Source-separation of glass from drop-off and/or curbside collections; and
• Collection at commercial sites where single-use recyclables are provided to
customers.
These options will be evaluated in Phase II to quantify the potential to reduce the
environmental footprint and create jobs, as well as to ascertain costs and cost savings.
Once completed, Phase II will provide an implementation strategy that involves the
permanent and vacationing population, creates an even playing field for affected
parties, encourages practical public/private partnerships, and supports quantified waste
diversion goals over the next 10 years. Phase II of this project will be initiated later in
2016 and will be completed in 2017.
P18
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... ES-1
1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Plan Objectives ............................................................................................ 1
1.2 Plan History ................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Planning Area .............................................................................................. 2
1.4 Population ................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Diversion Economics ................................................................................... 3
2 PUBLIC PROCESS .......................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Meetings ..................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Stakeholder Observations ........................................................................... 6
3 EXISTING WASTE SYSTEM ........................................................................................ 7
3.1 Background ................................................................................................. 7
3.2 Solid Waste System ..................................................................................... 7
3.2.1 Collection ........................................................................................ 7
3.2.2 Solid Waste Management Facilities ................................................ 8
3.2.3 Administrative Policy ...................................................................... 9
3.3 Existing Waste Quantities ......................................................................... 10
3.3.1 Quantity Assumptions................................................................... 10
3.3.2 Solid Waste Quantities .................................................................. 10
4 WASTE COMPOSITION .............................................................................................11
4.1 Trash Audit ................................................................................................ 12
4.1.1 2009 vs. 2015 Results .................................................................... 13
4.1.2 2015 Summer vs. Fall Composition............................................... 14
4.1.3 Municipal Results .......................................................................... 17
4.2 Recyclables Audit ...................................................................................... 18
4.2.1 Summer vs. Fall Results ................................................................ 18
4.3 Recommendations for Future Programs and Policy ................................. 19
5 POTENTIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS ..................................20
5.1 Future Diversion Improvements ............................................................... 20
5.1.1 Universe of Potential Options ....................................................... 20
5.1.2 Prioritized List of Waste Diversion Options .................................. 21
5.2 Next Steps ................................................................................................. 23
6 LIMITATIONS ...............................................................................................................24
P19
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
iii
FIGURES
Figure ES-1 2015 Pitkin County Trash Composition .................................................... ES-2
Figure 1 Roaring Fork Valley Planning Area ................................................................. 2
Figure 2 PCSWC Waste Sorting Area and Weigh Station ........................................... 12
Figure 3 Comparison of 2009 and 2015 Trash Composition ..................................... 13
Figure 4 Summer and Fall Trash Composition by Material Category ........................ 14
Figure 5 Summer and Fall Trash Composition by Material Type ............................... 15
Figure 6 Aggregated Trash Composition in Municipal Samples ................................ 17
Figure 7 Single-Stream Composition ......................................................................... 18
Figure 8 Types of Potential Waste Diversion System Options................................... 20
TABLES
Table 1 Planning Area Population ................................................................................ 3
Table 2 Administrative Policies & Programs ................................................................ 9
Table 3 Annual Pitkin County Municipal Solid Waste Quantities .............................. 11
Table 4 Annual Pitkin County C&D Quantities ........................................................... 11
APPENDICES
Appendix A List of Plan Stakeholders
Appendix B Stakeholder Observations
Appendix C MSW Audit Categories and Descriptions
Appendix D Waste Audit Results – Raw Municipal Data
Appendix E Universe of Waste Diversion Options
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
C&D Construction and demolition
CORE Community Office for Resource Efficiency
HDEP High-density polyethylene
HHW Household hazardous waste
LBA LBA Associates, Inc.
MRF Materials recovery facility
MSW Municipal solid waste
PCSWC Pitkin County Solid Waste Center
PET polyethylene terephthalate
Plan Roaring Fork Valley Comprehensive Waste Diversion Plan
PPCD Pounds per capita-day
SCRAPS City of Aspen/Pitkin County restaurant and residential compost program
TPY Tons per year
Valley Roaring Fork Valley
WCG Weaver Consultants Group
WMC Waste Management of Colorado
P20
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
1
1 BACKGROUND
The Roaring Fork Valley Comprehensive Waste Diversion Plan (Plan) was undertaken by
Pitkin County and the City of Aspen, 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.
Weaver Consultants Group (WCG) and LBA Associates, Inc. (LBA) assisted Pitkin County,
Aspen, and other parts of the Roaring Fork Valley (Valley) with this Plan. It is intended
that the objectives of this Plan will be realized through two separate phases. This
document sets out the objectives and findings of Phase I.
1.1 Plan Objectives
The Plan objectives were developed by representatives of both Pitkin County and the
City of Aspen. Both operating entities are interested in making collaborative waste
diversion improvements in the Valley. The primary objectives of the Plan include the
following:
• Maximizing and identifying opportunities for additional waste diversion. For the
purposes of this Plan, diversion is defined as sustainable reuse, recycling, and
composting. Diversion will consider municipal solid waste (MSW), including food
waste, and non-MSW, such as construction and demolition (C&D) debris.
• Leveraging the value of public awareness and participation.
• Incorporating appropriate incentives and enforcement.
• Developing an implementation strategy and goals for both the mid-point of the
planning period (2022) and the end-point (2027).
1.2 Plan History
Phase I was conducted from mid-2015 to early-2016 and included an initial public
process (Section 2), an assessment of the existing waste management system (Section
3), and trash/recycling composition audits (Section 4). The key outcome of this phase
was a prioritized listing of policy, program, and infrastructure improvements (Section 5).
If approved to move forward, Phase II will begin late in 2016 and will analyze those
Phase I improvements that combine the greatest feasibility for implementation and
waste diversion success. Developing an implementation plan for these improvements
and establishing measurable diversion goals will be developed as part of Phase II work.
P21
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
2
1.3 Planning Area
The planning area includes that portion of the Valley that extends from Carbondale in
the northwest to Aspen in the southeast (see Figure 1). It includes all of Pitkin County,
and parts of Garfield and Eagle Counties. The area is located about 170 miles from
Denver and is surrounded by mountains; the Elk Mountains in the southwest are home
to the Aspen Skiing Company resorts, while Mount Sopris dominates the opposite end
of the Valley. The only all-season access is State Highway 82, which extends from
Glenwood Springs about 45 miles to Aspen.
Pitkin County is a 943-square mile area; 83% of this land mass is Federal public lands.
The Valley is bisected by State Highway 82, which originates at Interstate 70 in
Glenwood Springs, passes through Aspen, and crosses Independence Pass into Lake
County. In the winter, Independence Pass is closed and Highway 82 is not continuous
beyond Aspen. The City of Aspen, Town of Basalt 1, and Town of Snowmass Village are
the only incorporated areas in the County.
The Town of Carbondale is a 2-square mile municipality located mid-valley at the
southeastern edge of Garfield County. It is situated on the bank of the Roaring Fork
River and adjacent to State Highway 82, about 15 miles from the Interstate 70 and 30
miles from Aspen.
Figure 1: Roaring Fork Valley Planning Area
1 Part of the Town of Basalt is also located in Eagle County.
P22
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
3
1.4 Population
Population is important, as it ties directly to the quantities of waste generated and
managed. Table 1 tabulates the permanent population of the Pitkin County/Carbondale
planning area. The projected 2017 population of 25,200 is expected to be less than 1%
of the population of Colorado, at that time.
Table 1 also provides projected populations over the 10-year planning horizon. As
shown, between 2017 and 2027 the combined population of Pitkin County and
Carbondale increases from 25,200 to 30,900, an increase of about 23%. These numbers
do not reflect seasonal variations, which are anecdotally observed to be significant 2.
Table 1: Planning Area Population (rounded to the nearest 100 people)
Planning Area Estimated Populations*
2017 2022 2027
Aspen 7,100 7,800 8,700
Basalt 1,000 1,100 1,200
Snowmass Village 3,000 3,300 3,700
Unincorporated Pitkin County 7,200 7,900 8,800
Total - Pitkin County 18,300 20,200 22,300
Total - Carbondale 6,900 7,600 8,600
*Based on the Colorado State Demography Office, October 2015 estimates.
1.5 Diversion Economics
The economics of diversion is complicated. Diversion variables at the local level include
ease of customer use with accessible collection, and clear, consistent information;
proximity to processing facilities and end markets; and cost of local disposal. The
quantity of tons diverted as a result of these local variables also impact economics; as
diversion levels increase, relative costs improve. Predicting diversion cost and revenues
is challenging as they are also impacted by many factors communities cannot control,
such as global oil prices, transportation, and the strength of the U.S. dollar. Global
factors, in particular, fluctuate over time and cannot be counted on beyond the
constancy of a cyclical secondary materials market economy. One of the economic
difficulties with diversion is global factors changing in a shorter cycle than communities
can react to.
Despite these variables, there are some characteristics that make individual materials in
our waste streams more or less profitable than others. Examples include the following:
2 Aspen estimates that its population swells to between two and three times its permanent population in the winter
and summer seasons, respectively, and some businesses observe a 50/50 local/tourist customer base overall.
P23
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
4
• Cardboard is typically a high-value fiber with a waste stream content level on the
rise, as consumers do more online shopping, but it is bulky to transport and
easily contaminated by moisture when stored outdoors or commingled. There
are currently cardboard markets as close as New Mexico.
• Newspaper and low-grade papers are moderate-value fibers with a waste stream
content that is declining, as consumers do more online reading. These materials
are also subject to contamination when commingled. Most paper mills used to
process recycled newspaper are located on the west coast of the United States.
• Glass is often considered by the public as "the" recyclable, but is a low-value
material (especially mixed color glass) that is expensive to transport. Glass is also
a major contaminant of other materials when commingled; some communities
have removed glass form their single-stream for this reason. There is a Colorado
market for amber glass; however, at present, revenues do not cover the costs for
collection and transportation.
• Plastic resins #1, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and plastic resins #2, high-
density polyethylene (HDPE), are high-value materials in most markets (except
when oil prices are low), but are challenging to transport due to their low
weight/high volume nature. Other plastic resins have lagging markets. Also,
mixed plastics present a challenge for the public that can result in high levels of
contamination. There is currently a Denver market for HDPE only.
• Metals can typically be relied on for a consistently high-value, although the
downturn in China's economy has impacted pricing in recent months. However,
used beverage containers have the same transportation issues as plastics. Scrap
metal can also be expensive to transport due to bulkiness. There are steel
markets in Pueblo.
• Food and yard wastes are most commonly diverted in Colorado, with a
composted product as the typical end use. Composting is most economical if
conducted close to the point of collection. Processing is cost-intensive, however,
and may or may/not compete effectively with landfill prices. Class 1 compost
operations are located in Pitkin and Garfield Counties.
It is important to remember that most recyclable collections in the Valley are
commingled (either dual-stream with paper and containers or single-stream with all
materials mixed together). Moving toward single-stream collection has grown in
popularity due to customer ease and lower hauler costs. Commingling impacts the
quality of materials and cost of processing on the back end, however. Food and yard
waste are generally collected separately.
Phase I does not attempt to quantify diversion economics specific to the Valley.
However, this is critical to evaluating the feasibility of future diversion options, and will
be addressed in Phase II.
P24
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
5
2 PUBLIC PROCESS
An inclusive public process was conducted throughout Phase I to gain information and
input from as many waste generators, recyclers, service providers, and program
managers as possible. This information was key to developing a future waste diversion
strategy that is practical and effective, supported by stakeholders, and avoids putting an
undue burden on individual companies or governments.
2.1 Meetings
The public process began with the meetings informally during the collection of existing
system information and conducting the waste composition audits in 2015, and extended
through formal stakeholder and government meetings in late 2015 and early 2016.
Public stakeholder meetings included:
• Group meeting for restaurants, grocers, and liquor stores – November 9, 2015;
• Group meeting for managers of single- and multi-family properties – November
10, 2015;
• Aspen Public Meeting – February 3, 2016;
• Basalt/Carbondale Public Meeting – February 3, 2016;
• Town of Carbondale Environmental Board and staff meeting – March 8, 2016;
• Group meeting with representatives of Aspen, Basalt, Carbondale, Snowmass
Village, and Pitkin County to review future waste diversion options - March 8,
2016; and
• Additional face-to-face and teleconference meetings with individual haulers,
municipalities, grocers, liquor stores, property managers, the Aspen Skiing
Corporation, Colorado Mountain College, the Basalt Thrift Store, Habitat for
Humanity, the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE), and the South
Canyon Landfill.
Notification for most of the meetings was placed in the local papers, on the City of
Aspen and Pitkin County internet sites, in the Basalt and Snowmass Village Chamber of
Commerce newsletters, as well as through placement of flyers in local Aspen
restaurants and through electronic mail blasts to Aspen, Pitkin County, and the Plan's
distribution lists. The intent was to widely advertise the Plan's development and
encourage as much participation from all residential and commercial stakeholders as
possible.
P25
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
6
The meetings generally included a presentation of baseline findings and waste
composition results, and openly sought a discussion of waste diversion obstacles and
opportunities. Appendix A includes a list of participating stakeholders.
2.2 Stakeholder Observations
Numerous stakeholder meetings were held throughout Phase I. The purpose of the
stakeholder meetings was to gather input on the current status of perspectives in the
Valley. This input was used, together with other system information, to identify
potential waste improvement opportunities. These perspectives are broadly
characterized as follows:
• Education and Communication – Education and communication considerations
centered around programs currently in place; lack of customer awareness; need
for focus on renters, second home-owners, and tourists; and program/policy
inconsistency between the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, and other towns.
• Commercial Generators – Commercial generators’ concerns centered on staffing;
need for lodging, restaurants, retailers, and multi-family/homeowner properties
to provide diversion opportunities; having adequate space to manage waste
streams; cultural barriers with visitors; and the need for incentives and
recognition.
• Collection – Collection concerns centered on inconveniences and environmental
impacts related to equipment (trucks, collection bins, and limited space); lack of
consistency in hauler services; differences between single-stream and dual-
stream collection; accessibility; as well as customer messaging at drop sites.
• Operational Issues – Operational concerns centered on a general lack of program
enforcement; cost of services; lack of residential participation; glass as a
contaminant in single-stream, including the need for closer recyclables
processing options; and bear-proof containers for organics.
Appendix B includes a more detailed tabulation of stakeholder observations.
P26
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
7
3 EXISTING WASTE SYSTEM
Data collection for Phase I of the Plan included collecting available information,
obtaining an understanding of the various solid waste programs, policies and practices
in the Valley, and finally, surveying the infrastructure used for solid waste services.
3.1 Background
Generally, wastes are broadly characterized into MSW and non-MSW streams. MSW is
that waste generated by residential and commercial entities. Non-MSW is generally
generated by industrial entities, and primarily includes C&D debris generated by road
and building contractors. C&D debris was not characterized in Phase I, but will be a
component of Phase II. This phase of the Plan focuses on the MSW portion of the waste
stream generated and disposed of within Pitkin County.
3.2 Solid Waste System
3.2.1 Collection
Collection is privatized throughout the Valley, with the exception of the Town of
Snowmass Village. The primary private haulers that provide a mix of trash and
recyclables collection services include Mountain Waste & Recycling (MWR) (formerly
Intermountain Waste Solutions and Mountain Refuse, Inc.), Waste Management of
Colorado3 (WMC), Alpine Trash, Waste Inc., Garbage Solutions, and VIP Trash. MWR and
Evergreen Events also collect organics. Collection services can generally be characterized
as follows:
• Most curbside recyclables collection is single-stream – MWR and VIP Trash
provide dual-stream to some accounts (especially multi-family customers);
• Most drop site recycling is single-stream4;
• Both yard and food waste is accepted in many of the curbside organics
collections – the Rio Grande drop site accepts yard waste in the spring and fall;
and
• Snowmass Village provides curbside and drop site trash and single-stream
recycling services to residential and commercial customers.
3 In 2014, MWR and WMC hauled approximately 87% of the waste and recyclable material managed at the PCSWC.
4 Most drop sites are used by generators beyond the area where they are located (recent surveys show that up to
40% of Rio Grande users are from outside of Aspen and 20% of Basalt users are from outside of Basalt).
P27
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
8
3.2.2 Solid Waste Management Facilities
Pitkin County owns the PCSWC that serves as the primary solid waste management
facility for the southern end of the Valley. PCSWC operations include:
• Disposal for MSW and non-MSW wastes 5,6;
• Drop and swap operation – materials are used by the County and other local
residents;
• Class 1 Composting facility – mulch, compost, and soil is sold to local users;
• Single-stream recyclables/metal drop site and transfer operation – materials are
hauled out of the Valley for processing and sale; and
• Household hazardous waste (HHW)/electronic waste collection center –
materials also managed outside of the Valley.
Other solid waste management facilities operated in the Valley include the following:
• The City of Aspen and Pitkin County jointly operate the 24/7 Rio Grande
recyclables drop site in Aspen. This facility accepts single-stream recyclables 7,
utilizes a contract hauler, and materials are processed outside of the Valley.
• Pitkin County operates a drop site and is serviced twice monthly in Redstone.
This facility also accepts single-stream recyclables, utilizes a contract hauler, and
materials are processed outside of the Valley. This facility has limited hours.
• The Town of Basalt hosts a recycling drop site owned and operated by WMC.
Recyclables are transferred outside of the Valley. The future use of this site for
recyclables collection in 2016 is unknown 8.
• The Town of Snowmass operates several small trash and recycling drop sites that
serve its residential population, and hauls all materials to the PCSWC.
• The Town of Carbondale's Public Works Department operates a paper/cardboard
and bi-annual yard waste recycling drop site at its facility during regular business
hours.
• MWR has a mixed-use solid waste transfer station located in the Town of
Carbondale; however, the facility is not currently available for public use.
5 The PCSWC tipping fees reflect mountain operations. Residential recycling is free but commercial haulers pay a
relatively low tipping fee and are limited in tons accepted. Source-separation of soil, rock, asphalt, organics, metals,
and recyclables is encouraged with lower tipping fees.
6 The MSW landfill has an approximate lifespan of 15 years. If the landfill is expanded, the life span of the landfill
may be extended, although this potential is expected to be limited.
7 Rio Grande also accepts source-separated glass, as well as seasonal yard waste and Christmas trees.
8 The Town of Basalt is considering a solid waste collection ordinance that may address support for the WMC
recycling drop site.
P28
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
9
Solid waste management facilities located outside the Valley planning area that may
manage some of the area's waste stream include:
• South Canyon Landfill and Class I Compost Facility in Glenwood Springs;
• City of Glenwood Springs Recyclables Drop Site (public) in Glenwood Springs;
• West Garfield County Landfill in Rifle;
• Eagle County Landfill, Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) (dual-stream recyclables
processing) and HHW center in Wolcott; and
• Summit County Landfill, Recyclables Transfer Station and Compost Facility in
Keystone.
3.2.3 Administrative Policy
In addition to the physical infrastructure described above, there are several public
policies that create incentives for recycling, encourage materials use that minimize the
environmental footprint, and prohibit disposal of some materials. There are also
numerous public and non-profit programs that create awareness and collect a wide
variety of hard-to-recycle and hazardous waste materials. Table 2 includes a partial
listing of the Valley’s policies and programs.
Table 2: Administrative Policies & Programs
Policies
Aspen hauler/recycling ordinance (for residents - volume-based trash rates, bundled with
recycling; for businesses - trash bundled with recycling; tonnage reports for all collections)
Aspen yard waste disposal ban
Aspen plastic bag use bans (paper bag fee)
Carbondale plastic bag use ban (paper bag fee)
Carbondale recycling ordinance (under development)
Pitkin County hauler/recycling ordinance (trash bundled with recycling offered for an additional
fee)
Programs
Aspen & Pitkin County SCRAPS organics recovery program for restaurants and other commercial
generators, as well as residents
Aspen Police Department pharmaceuticals collection
City Market & Whole Foods food donation
City Market plastic bag recycling
Clothing and textile reuse/recycling facilities (Basalt Thrift Store & several others)
Habitat for Humanity ReStore household goods and furniture reuse/recycling facilities
Periodic public hazardous waste and electronic waste collections in Aspen and Carbondale
Alpine Bank cell phone and light bulb recycling
P29
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
10
Programs (continued)
Xcel Energy & Holy Cross refrigerator recycling
Millennium Pack 'n Ship packaging material recycling
UPS packaging material recycling
Tires, oil and anti-freeze recycling at tires and service outlets (Big O Tires & others)
Paint recycling drop locations at PCSWC, Sherwin Williams (Aspen), Ace Hardware (Carbondale)
Ski Industry Association snow sports equipment recycling
CORE Waste Free Roaring Fork program
3.3 Existing Waste Quantities
Determining the quantity of solid wastes currently generated, collected, and diverted is
needed to identify diversion opportunities and for establishing a baseline against which
future progress can be tracked. This subsection discusses quantities as they relate to the
specific study area.
3.3.1 Quantity Assumptions
In the initial stages of any planning process, it is often challenging to obtain waste
generation quantities. This is due to a variety of considerations, including wastes that
are not measured and private entities that may not wish to disclose collected
information to the public domain. The Valley is no exception; while both the City of
Aspen and Pitkin County require some quantity reporting by haulers, data is generally
incomplete. To address this limitation, it has been assumed for initial planning purposes
that all Pitkin County waste is managed at the PCSWC, along with 50% of the waste
generated in Carbondale. The other 50% of Carbondale waste is assumed to be
managed at Garfield County facilities or outside the Valley. Although private haulers,
recyclers, and composters confirm transportation of waste across Pitkin County
boundaries, the quantities and frequency of importing and exporting are unknown.
3.3.2 Solid Waste Quantities
Table 3 summarizes available data describing annual MSW quantities for Pitkin County
in 2014/2015. This data was provided by several sources, including the PCSWC; the City
of Aspen; and several haulers, grocers, and non-profit program managers. As noted
above, there is no quantity data available for the Town of Carbondale as all curbside
collections are privatized and most materials are hauled to Garfield County (tons are not
tracked by generator area at the South Canyon Landfill).
P30
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
11
Table 3: 2015 Annual Pitkin County Municipal Solid Waste Quantities
(rounded to nearest 100 tons unless otherwise noted)
Material Tons
MSW Reused, Recycled & Composted Materials
Recyclable Paper/Containers 6,500
Textiles/Household Goods 500
Organics 8,500
Donated Food <100
Metals 400
Tires <100
E-Waste/HHW 200
Trash 22,800
Total Municipal Solid Wastea 38,200
MSW Generationb (pounds/capita-day) 11.8 ppcd
Diversion (% by weight) 42%
a Total as reported by Pitkin County. Rounding errors account for
mathematical differences in totals.
b Based on the 2015 permanent population of 17,800, although much of
the waste is generated by visitors and second homeowners (transient
population data is not available).
Non-MSW quantities in Pitkin County are not as well defined as MSW, but have been
observed to consist of primarily C&D materials. C&D material quantities over the past 3
years are provided in Table 4 below. Incoming C&D materials are typically very cyclical
and the volume of C&D is largely dependent on the state of the local economy.
Table 4: Annual Pitkin County C&D Quantities
(rounded to the nearest 100 tons)
Year Non-Diverted Quantity Diverted Quantitya
2014 33,500 tons 62,500 tons
2015 41,300 tons 112,200 tons
a Diverted quantity represents material either 1) beneficially reused at
the landfill under the CDPHE Solid and Hazardous Waste rules or 2)
brought in and processed at the landfill and resold.
Generally, it is more difficult to generate quantitative data on C&D wastes in the course
of short-term waste audit studies, as incoming C&D material is dependent on demolition
projects, which can be sporadic. In addition, C&D waste is typically bulky and dangerous,
which creates difficulties for individuals to sort, weigh, and categorize. It is anticipated
that Phase II will address C&D wastes to the extent possible.
P31
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
12
4 WASTE COMPOSITION
To better understand diversion opportunities, an audit of MSW trash and single-stream
recyclables was conducted in 2015 to identify what MSW materials were being disposed
of and the quality of recyclables. The waste audits are waste composition analyses
modified to accommodate a two season audit that reflects the population variability and
data needs of the Valley. Audits were conducted during the following two seasons:
• Peak summer season, when tourism, second homeowner occupancy, and
vacation rental was high – week of July 6th (summer audit); and
• Off-peak season, when tourism would be considered low – week of October 5th
(fall audit).
The audits were conducted at the PCSWC and the Rio Grande drop site and were
completed by Pitkin County staff, temporary workers, volunteers from the City of Aspen,
and the WCG/LBA team. Figure 2 depicts the sorting area and weigh station,
respectively.
Figure 2: PCSWC Waste Sorting Area and Weigh Station
4.1 Trash Audit
The trash audit was designed to identify future diversion opportunities. Samples were
taken from loads hauled by public and private haulers operating in the Valley, and were
sorted at the PCSWC landfill. While these loads were collected mostly within Pitkin
County, some included waste from both Eagle County (primarily Basalt waste) and
Garfield County (primarily Carbondale waste). A total of 8.5 tons of MSW was sorted
P32
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
13
into 34 individual glass, metal, plastics, paper, organics, hazardous/special waste, and
residue material types9. Appendix C contains the makeup of the individual categories.
4.1.1 2009 vs. 2015 Results
An earlier waste audit was conducted at the PCSWC in 2009 10. A comparison to the
more current data provides some background and context for this work. Figure 3
compares waste composition data from waste audits for the two time periods. While
the audit methodology and materials sorted were very similar in both audits, new waste
diversion incentives, mandates, and programs have been implemented since 200911 that
have impacted trash composition. These improvements include the following:
• Shift from source-separated and dual-stream recycling to mostly single-stream
collection (2014);
• New recycling collection and yard waste disposal ban policies in Aspen (2013);
and
• New/expanded organics recovery programs (PCSWC facility and City of
Aspen/Pitkin County restaurant and residential compost program (SCRAPS) (re-
introduced in 2015).
Figure 3: Comparison of 2009 and 2015 Trash Composition
The most obvious difference between 2009 and 2015 is the decrease in relative organics
content. The paper content of the waste measured is also lower in 2015, while plastics
9 Thirty-two trash samples (8,828 pounds) were sorted during the summer audit and 34 samples (8,117 pounds)
were sorted during the fall audit. This total represents about 2% of the average weekly trash tipped at the PCSWC.
10 "Waste Composition Study for the Pitkin County, West Garfield County, South Canyon, and Eagle County Landfills",
prepared by LBA Associates, Inc., 2009.
11 Other changes include a state-wide electronic waste ban and expanded household/small business hazardous waste
and electronic waste collections.
Glass,
5% Metals,
3%
Plastics,
15%
Paper,
24%
Organics
48%
Haz/
Special
Waste,
3%
Residue,
1%
Glass, 6% Metals,
4%
Plastics,
19%
Paper,
20%
Organics
36%
Haz/
Special
Waste,
6%
Residue,
9%
2015 Pitkin County Trash Composition 2009 Pitkin County Trash Composition
P33
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
14
demonstrated an increase in 2015, and likely reflects changes to online reading and new
packaging trends in recent years.
4.1.2 2015 Summer vs. Fall Composition
Figures 4 and 5 compare seasonal results by material category and material type,
respectively. These figures provide a comparison of the impacts of seasonal tourism and
seasonal residents in the Valley.
Figure 4: Summer and Fall Trash Composition by Material Category
Glass,
6% Metals,
4%
Plastics,
18%
Paper,
22%
Organics
32%
Haz/
Special
Waste
5% Residue,
13%
Glass, 6% Metals,
4%
Plastics,
20%
Paper,
18%
Organics,
41%
Haz/
Special
Waste,
8%
Residue,
4%
Summer 2015 Trash Audit Results Fall 2015 Trash Audit Results
P34
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
15
Figure 5: Summer and Fall Trash Composition by Material Type
(percent by weight)
0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%16%18%
Thermostats & Smoke…
Compact Fluorescent…
Juice Boxes & Milk…
Other Batteries
Motor Vehicle Waste
Other Consumer Products
Other Glass
Steel/Tin
Office Paper
Other Haz/Special Waste
Aluminum
Rigid Plastic #3-#7
HDPE Plastic Bottles #2
Electronics
Junk Mail & Mixed Paper
Untreated Wood
Other Paper
Newspaper
Magazines & Catalogues
PET Plastic Bottles #1
Other Organics
Other Metal
Chipboard/Paperboard
Non-Rec, Compostable…
Plastic Film, Bags & Wrap
Residue
Cardboard & Brown…
Glass
Municipal C&D
Textiles
Other Plastic
Food Waste
Yard Waste
Summer
Fall
P35
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
16
Key observations on the relative content of audited materials are included below.12
• Organics represent the largest trash fraction in both seasons:
- Incoming yard waste appeared to be consistent with fall clean-up season;
- Given the high quantity of yard waste and the predominance of Aspen trash
managed at the PCSWC, it appears that the City of Aspen yard waste disposal
ban is not effective;
- Food waste appears to increase with high tourism levels in the summer,
especially when residue (which included a high amount of unsortable
organics - especially in the summer) is considered; and
- Textiles were higher in the fall audit and may correspond to donations made
when tourists and second homeowners leave the Valley.
• Plastic content was relatively consistent between audits. Plastic bags were high
in the summer (despite grocery bag use bans in Aspen and Carbondale), while
other plastics (plant pots, take-out containers, packaging and construction
materials) were elevated in the fall season.
• Municipal C&D (a component of the Hazardous/Special Waste category) was
higher in the fall audit, and was possibly the result of a mix of do-it-yourself
home/office projects and the use of residential trash containers by contractors.
• Glass was consistent in both audits.
• Paper content was slightly higher in the fall audit. As the largest material in this
category, cardboard was higher in the summer audit. This appears to correspond
to tourism.
• Residue content was significantly higher in the summer audit and is likely tied to
high food waste content. (Residue was defined as sand, soil, dirt, materials not
classified elsewhere, or materials too small or too wet to sort).
By weight, 53% of all materials audited in the summer and 62% in the fall could have
been managed as recyclables and recovered organics in existing diversion programs.
When averaged over both seasons and compared to Pitkin County's 2015 MSW trash
tons, these values indicate that roughly 13,000 tons per year (TPY) of recyclables and
organics - or more than one-half of the 2015 MSW landfilled materials - could have been
diverted. This estimate assumes a 100% diversion rate and assumes a program that is
100% efficient. This is statistically unlikely even in the most effective programs.
It appears that the tourist-based economy had an impact on the summer and fall audits.
Materials like food waste (including that in the residue fraction); other plastic (e.g., waxy
12 Observations were, in part, based on a comparison to other rural Colorado audits conducted between 2004 and
2014 by LBA.
P36
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
17
coffee cups, waxy cardboard and foil-lined paper); cardboard; plastic film; and other
organics (e.g., diapers, animal waste, and carpeting) reflected an increase in the summer
consistent with increased activity in the Valley. Other materials such as yard waste,
other plastics, municipal C&D, and electronics (currently banned statewide in all
landfills) were higher in the fall and appear to represent the impact of a population that
uses the Valley as their primary residence.
4.1.3 Municipal Results
Given the variability in waste generation across Pitkin County, an evaluation of trash in
each municipality was conducted based on loads delivered to the PCSWC. Figure 6
provides a comparison of the waste category composition for Aspen, Basalt, Snowmass
Village, and Carbondale.
Figure 6: Aggregated Trash Composition in Municipal Samples
There were a few observable differences in the waste samples from each municipality,
including the following:
• Plastics - Carbondale samples had lower plastic film than the others (even Aspen,
which also has a bag use ban).
• Paper - Snowmass Village samples had notably less cardboard than the other
municipalities, which could be a result of the comprehensive mix of public and
private collections.
• Organics - Aspen samples had the greatest food waste content (consistent with
the high number of restaurants in the city). Aspen samples also had the same
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Aspen Basalt TOSV Carbondale
19%
21%
18% 21%
22% 21%
17%
21%
36% 38%
31%
38%
Glass
Metals
Plastics
Paper
Organics
Haz/Special Waste
Residue
P37
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
18
amount of yard waste as Snowmass Village and Carbondale, despite having a
yard waste disposal ban, while Basalt had twice as much yard waste as the other
municipalities. Also of note, Basalt samples had lower textiles (3%), which may
reflect the Thrift Store's success in El Jebel.
• Hazardous/Special Waste - Snowmass Village samples had twice as much
municipal C&D (these materials are typically generated from do-it-yourself home
and office projects).
Overall, there were not huge variances in the municipal waste categories beyond the
high food waste in Aspen and the lower textile, cardboard, and film quantities in other
municipalities, probably due to isolated recycling efforts in these specific locations.
4.2 Recyclables Audit
The recyclables audit was designed to measure the distribution of single-stream
materials and to identify opportunities for more efficient recycling. Recyclable samples
were collected from the PCSWC storage area (which contains materials tipped by
Snowmass Village and some public drop site recyclables), as well as directly from
dumpsters and recyclers unloading at the Rio Grande Drop Site. The audit focused on
glass and cardboard content, the remainder of single-stream materials, and
contaminants.
4.2.1 Summer vs. Fall Results
A total of 2,546 pounds of recyclables were categorized into the four material types
during the two-season audit in 2015 13. When all audit samples were analyzed, the
average single-stream composition included 33% glass, 31% commingled material, 28%
cardboard, and 8% contaminants. Approximately 916 lbs were categorized in the
summer audit and 1,600 lbs were sorted in the fall audit. The aggregated single-stream
recyclable results for each audit season are shown in Figure 7.
13 This total represents about 8% of the average daily recyclables generation in Pitkin County.
P38
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
19
Figure 7: Single-Stream Composition
This figure illustrates significant differences between the audits. Most notably, the glass
content increased dramatically in the fall, while the relative content of both cardboard
and the remaining single-stream declined. Reasons for this variation may include the
following:
• Less glass content in the summer audit seems counter to the expected tourism
impact during summer. This could indicate, however, that restaurants and bars
are willing to divert this material, but are not as successful during peak business
seasons when space and resources are limited.
• Recycled cardboard was higher in the summer. This is consistent with the
summer trash audit, which also had high cardboard levels and likely corresponds
to increased activity in the Valley.
• The recycled commingled (or single-stream) fraction appeared to be higher in
the summer as compared to the fall, but this is most likely the result of low glass
levels in the summer audit that changed relative composition.
• Contaminants in the recyclable streams were higher in the fall and appeared to
be largely attributable to yard waste at the Rio Grande site, despite the presence
a yard waste-only roll-off (leaves and grass are banned from disposal in the City
of Aspen). The relatively low contamination levels in these single-stream samples
indicated generally effective recycling practices at the drop sites.
4.3 Recommendations for Future Programs and Policy
While waste audits do not provide an exact replica of materials composition beyond the
seasons in which they were conducted, these results are helpful in indicating the
opportunity for additional diversion. These opportunities were developed into specific
waste diversion improvement options in Section 5 of this report.
Glass,
18%
Card-
board,
40%
Single-
Stream,
37%
Contam-
inants,
5%
Glass,
42%
Card-
board,
22%
Single-
Stream,
27%
Contam-
inants,
9%
Summer Single-Stream Composition Fall Single-Stream Composition
P39
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
20
5 POTENTIAL WASTE MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
5.1 Future Diversion Improvements
Input from the public process (Section 2), research into the existing waste system
(Section 3), and observations from the waste audit (Section 4) were all used to develop
future waste diversion improvements. Options were identified that represent the
greatest potential of meeting the Plan objectives of maximizing MSW and non-MSW
waste diversion in the Valley with a strategy that involves appropriate incentives,
regulatory enforcement, and public involvement. It is intended that those options with
the greatest potential will be evaluated in detail in Phase II of the Plan.
5.1.1 Universe of Potential Options
Initially, a lengthy list of program, policy, and infrastructure options was developed to
capture as many reasonable opportunities for addressing gaps and barriers in the
existing waste system as possible. Figure 8 includes the major types of options
identified.
Figure 8: Types of Potential Waste Diversion System Options 14
Nearly 80 options were developed in the initial universal list (Appendix E includes a full
tabulation). These options are expected to vary in applicability, operations, resource
requirements, and effectiveness.
14 Photo credits - www.ccaresearch.org, www.wasteminz.org.nz, www.thecompliancecenter.org,
wastefreeroarkingfork.org, Rio Grande drop site, www. zmiscience.com.
C&D
Material
Diversion
Organics
Diversion
Other
Commercial
&
Residential
Materials
Diversion
Regional
Diversion
Policies
Education &
Outreach
Implemen-
tation
& Funding
P40
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
21
Consideration of any option in Phase I or II of the Plan does not constitute a
recommendation for implementation or approval at this time; rather, further evaluation
is recommended to determine the feasibility and impact on the Valley's future waste
diversion system. Only those options found to have substantial potential for effectively
meeting the Plan objectives will ultimately be recommended for implementation.
5.1.2 Prioritized List of Waste Diversion Options
To focus Phase II efforts, government staff and environmental board advisory members
from Pitkin County, City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt, and Town
of Carbondale collaborated to prioritize several options from the universal list (Appendix
E). This prioritization was based on knowledge of the Valley's solid waste system and an
expectation of feasible implementation based on factors, such as social and political
acceptance, enforceability, and timeliness. These options were subsequently separated
into two groups as noted below.
Tier #1 options were considered by municipal leaders to have the greatest likelihood for
directly increasing diversion or establishing a strong foundation for future diversion
efforts. Due to this potential, Tier #1 options will likely be evaluated in detail in Phase II
in terms of several metrics (e.g., estimated tons diverted, greenhouse gases reduced,
jobs created, costs, and/or cost savings), as well as less measurable impacts such as
enforceability, regional breadth, and ability for public-private partnerships). The Tier #1
options below will include a mix of incentives and regulation, and will be supported by
appropriate enforcement (unless otherwise noted, these options are expected to be
evaluated in the Valley):
• C&D evaluation and diversion;
• Commercial and special event recycling and organics recovery with dedicated
food waste collection in urban areas;
• Yard waste disposal ban;
• Single-stream recyclable drop sites in Basalt, Snowmass Village, and Carbondale;
• Hauler curbside collection policy that encourages recycling, minimizes waste
truck collection days in neighborhoods, and requires reporting of tons managed;
• Cardboard disposal ban with backhaul of cardboard in vehicles that typically only
import materials into the Valley;
• Source-separation of glass from drop-off and/or curbside collections; and
• Collection at commercial business locations where single-use materials are
provided to customers.
Tier #2 options were considered to also have potential for increasing diversion in the
Valley, but their potential would likely be less direct. In Phase II, it is expected that the
P41
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
22
Tier #2 options will be evaluated for diversion and greenhouse gas impacts. They include
the following:
• Expanded used building material outlets;
• Local end-markets for wood mulch/compost product (local governments) and for
glass (industry and contractors);
• Consistent single-stream recyclables collection (versus dual- or multi-stream) and
a regional single-stream MRF (with service beyond the Valley);
• A purchasing cooperative for businesses and special events;
• Recyclable or compostable take-out packaging;
• Room for recycling and organics collection/storage in new multi-family and
commercial construction and major renovations;
• Local electronic waste dismantling and refurbishing;
• Far-reaching, on-going education and outreach program;
• Grant program to encourage new programs and infrastructure;
• Regional intergovernmental agency function(s) for implementation; and
• Funding options to generate on-going implementation resources.
During the Phase II evaluation, the following general guidelines will be used to evaluate
Tier #1 and #2 options, as appropriate, to ensure that Plan objectives are met in an
even-handed and practical manner that involves all waste diversion generators and
stakeholders in the Valley:
• Consistent messaging, programs, and services throughout the region;
• Use of existing partners, programs, policies, and infrastructure, to the extent
possible;
• Comprehensive programs for multiple generator groups within the residential,
tourist, and commercial sectors;
• Fair application to achieve an even playing field for affected public and private
stakeholders;
• Assessment of relative implementation steps and requirements;
• Examples of successful implementation in other communities;
• Development of a practical and sequential implementation plan with roles and
responsibilities clearly delineated;
• Examples of successful implementation in other communities;
• Ability to track the progress and success of future improvements; and
P42
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
23
• Contribution to a measureable 5- and 10-year waste diversion goal for the
planning area.
Based on Phase II results, those Tier #1 and #2 options that appear feasible and effective
will be included in a valley-wide implementation strategy. Options whose evaluation
results do not indicate a likelihood of accomplishing these outcomes will not be
recommended.
5.2 Next Steps
Phase II of the Plan will include a comparative analysis of Tier #1 and #2 waste diversion
options as described above. Those options found to have substantial potential for
meeting the Plan objectives will be recommended in a comprehensive implementation
strategy for the 10-year planning period. Phase II is expected to be underway during the
summer of 2016.
P43
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX 4/13/2016
24
6 LIMITATIONS
This report is intended for the sole and exclusive use by the City of Aspen and Pitkin
County, based on specific and limited objectives. Re-use of this document is not
permitted without WCG’s and LBA’s written approval. We assume no responsibility or
obligation for the unauthorized use of this report by other parties and for conclusions,
opinions, or recommendations made by others based on the data presented in this
report. Limitations to this document include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Population impacts cannot be fully predicted as data on tourism numbers were
not available nor was a population analysis conducted. Fluctuations caused by
seasonal tourists can have a significant impact on waste generation, diversion,
and disposal practices. Observations based on these values for the existing
system and for future predictions should be used judiciously.
2. Data accurately and fully describing waste generation, source reduction,
reuse/repurposing, recycling, composting, and disposal was not available. A
reasonable survey of authoritative information sources was conducted and it is
expected that the tonnage summary in Section 3 represents a majority of MSW
quantities. It is unlikely that all tons have been accounted for, however. Missing
data may alter per capita generation values and diversion calculations. It is
further noted that the inability to track non-MSW tons as well as tons generated
in the study area but managed elsewhere, further challenge the ability to fully
quantify waste totals.
3. While reasonable efforts were made to conduct the summer and fall audits
consistently, the use of different sorters, different weather conditions, and
different hauler collection schedules may have introduced variables that are
difficult to quantify. Consistency in the recyclable audits in particular was
challenging, especially at the PCSWC drop site. As recyclables were arbitrarily
pulled from a stockpile at this location, it was difficult to obtain representative
samples, and in some instances, this resulted in samples pulled from glass-only
or cardboard-only loads. Also, as this site is uncovered, wet materials may have
elevated weights.
4. Stakeholder observations were used to assist in understanding the existing waste
system, identifying barriers and opportunities for improvement, and developing
waste diversion options for further consideration in the Valley. Multiple
business, public, hauler, and non-profit meetings, site visits, and teleconferences
were held to collect a wide breadth of opinions and input. However, it is
expected that many stakeholders did not participate in these dialogues and their
observations were not available to inform the process.
P44
II.
APPENDIX A
LIST OF PLAN STAKEHOLDERS
P45
II.
APPENDIX A
ROARING FORK VALLEY WASTE DIVERSION PLAN STAKEHOLDERS
LBA Associates, Inc.Page 1 of 3 4/13/2016
ORGANIZATION EMAIL PHONE ADDRESS
HAULERS
Waste Management lbenning@wm.com
970-778-5541 (cell)
970-263-5610 (office)
Waste Management krichar1@wm.com 970-384-6216 (office)
Waste Management cherring@wm.com
970-765-6930 (cell)
970-384-6230 (office)62 CR 113, Bldg L, Carbondale
Mountain Waste & Recycling scott.eden@mountainwaste.com
970-319-1830 (cell)
970-945-2822 (office)Carbondale
Mountain Waste & Recycling doug.goldsmith@mountainwaste.com 970-749-2802
Aspen Trash no email 970-963-7098 Carbondale
Moes Inc / Waste Inc m@moeinc.com 970-925-2392 Aspen
VIP Trash Services 970-945-9228 Glenwood Springs
Valley Garbage Solutions 970-963-3922
Evergreen Events alyssa@evergreenevents.net 970-987-3140
520 S. Third St, #2, Carbondale
81623
CVEPA/Heartland dfarris@sopris.net 970-948-9470
MUNICIPALITIES
City of Aspen liz.oconnell@cityofaspen.com 970-429-1831 630 W Main, Aspen
City of Aspen bert@myrin.com 970-925-8645
City of Aspen jannette.whitcomb@cityofaspen.com 970-920-5069
City of Aspen rachel.burmeister@cityofaspen.com 970-920-5075
Town of Snowmass dogren@tosv.com 970-923-5110, x-4 POB 5010, Snowmass Village
Town of Snowmass amartens@tosv.com 970-922-23210 POB 5010, Snowmass Village
Carbondale Env Adv Board coldmountainstream@yahoo.com 970-927-4468
Carbondale Town Manager jharrington@carbondaleco.net
Carbondale Asst PW Director llindberg@carbondaleco.net 970-510-1325 Larry Balanger = PW Director
Town of Carbondale
Town of Carbondale
Carbondale Env Adv Board natalierae13@gamil.com 503-960-9428
Carbondale Env Adv Board rhollis@billposs.com 303-718-7067
Town of Basalt Plan. Dir susan.philp@basalt.net 970-927-3551Susan Philp
Laurie Lindberg
Larry Balanger
Mark O'Meara
Natalie Fuller
Rob Hollis
Rachel Burmeister
Dave Ogren
Ann Martens, PW Dir
Jason White
Jay Harrington
NAME
Lance Benninghoff
Kevin Richards (Linda)
Courtney Herring
Scott Eden
Alyssa Reindel (Dave)
Dorothea Farris
Liz O'Connell
Bert Myrin
Janette Whitcomb
Doug Goldsmith
Debra & Robert Kennedy
Moe Owen
Dee
62 CR 113, Bldg L, Carbondale
P
4
6
I
I
.
APPENDIX A
ROARING FORK VALLEY WASTE DIVERSION PLAN STAKEHOLDERS
LBA Associates, Inc.Page 2 of 3 4/13/2016
ORGANIZATION EMAIL PHONE ADDRESSNAME
Town of Basalt Asst. Plan. Dir james.lindt@basalt.net
970-279-4468
970-927-4701
Town of Basalt Green Team poindexter.amanda@gmail.com
Town of Basalt Green Team charlie@aspencore.org
Town of Basalt Green Team phillip@rds-aspen.com
Town of Basalt Green Team broush@designworkhop.com
Town of Basalt Green Team jhanle@aspensnowmass.com
Town of Basalt Green Team ericvandjillg@comcast.net
Town of Basalt Green Team gterwilliger@gmail.com
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY
Aspen Skiing Corp mhamilton@aspensnowmass.com 970-300-7153
Aspen Skiing Corp aschendler@aspensnowmass.com 970-300-7152
Aspen Skiing Corp holiver@aspensnowmass.com
Aspen Skiing Corp hrahm@limelighthotel.com
Aspen Skiing Corp lsolomon@aspensnowmass.com 970-923-1220
RESTAURANTS/GROCERS/LIQUOR STORES/RETAILERS
Clark's david@clarksmarket.com 970-925-8046 Aspen
City Market - Aspen john.hailey@stores.citymarket.com 970-925-2590, x-0 Aspen
City Market - Basalt trent.cook@stores.citymarket.com 970-963-3360, x-0 Basalt
City Market - Carbondale marty.martin@stores.citymarket.com 970-963-3255, x-0 Carbondale
King Soopers/City Markets ralph.power@kingsoopers.com 720-859-0782 Denver
Roxy Market
roxysmarket@yahoo.com
courtneylawleratroxys@yahoo.com 970-920-7699 Aspen
Whole Foods lorelei.mcpeek@wholefoods.com Basalt
Chamber of Commerce Aspen eklanderud@aspenchamber.org 970-920-7149,925-1940 Aspen
Chamber of Commerce Basalt director@basaltchamber.com 970-927-4031 Basalt
Chamber of Commerce Snowmass rabello@snowmasstourism.com 970-923-2000, x-8 Snowmass
The Grog Shop grogshop@sopris.net 970-925-3000 710 E. Durant, Aspen 81611
Local Spirits 'n Liqour Store gotgas@sopris.net 970-925-7699 Aspen
0f Grape & Grain 970-925-8600 Aspen
John Hailey
Trent Cook
Marty Martin
Ralph Powell
Robin Waters
Courtney Lawler
Aaron McCallister, Asst Mgr
Loralei Mcpeek
Erik Klanderud
Auden Schendler
Henrietta Oliver
Henning Rahm
Lee Solomon
David Clark, Gen. Mgr.
Ben Roush
Jeff Hanle
Eric Vozick
Gerry Terwilliger
Matt Hamilton
James Lindt
Amanda Poindexter
Charlie Eckart
Phillip Ring
Whole Foods aaron.mccallister@wholefoods.com
970-927-1500 (office)
303-913-6538 (cell)Basalt
Rosa Bello
Mark McLoone
Mike, Owner (also gas station)
Jerry Plumley
P
4
7
I
I
.
APPENDIX A
ROARING FORK VALLEY WASTE DIVERSION PLAN STAKEHOLDERS
LBA Associates, Inc.Page 3 of 3 4/13/2016
ORGANIZATION EMAIL PHONE ADDRESSNAME
Sundance Liquor swickes@rof.net 970-923-5890 POB 6238, Snowmass Village
Carbondale Ace Hardward chris@alpineace.biz 970-963-6663
PROPERTY MANAGERS
Aspen/PC Housing Authority pat.hinch@cityofaspen.com 970-429-5139 18 Truscott, Aspen
Frias Property Mgmt 970-429-2436 Aspen
Aspen Property Mgmt peter@aspenpropertymngt.com 970-920-3960 Aspen
Alpine Valley Services tim@alpinevalleyservices.com 970-948-7673 Aspen
McCartney Property Management res@mccartneyproperties.com 970-925-8717 Aspen
Moes Inc. (see above)
Aspen Alps sabrina@aspenalps.com 970-925-7820 700 Ute Ave, Aspen
INSTITUTIONS
Aspen Valley Hospital
Aspen-Pitkin County Airport
Aspen School District
Colorado Mountain College kbejarano@coloradomtn.edu 970-925-7740 Aspen
NON-PROFITS
CORE mona@enegysmartcolorado.com 970-925-9775, x-500 Carbondale & AABC
CORE lucy@aspencore.org 970-925-9775
H2H for Roaring Fork Valley habitat.jeffs@gmail.com 970-366-2669 Glenwood Springs
Basalt Thrift Store/Car EB juliafarwell1@gmail.com
970-927-6488 (work)
970-963-7435 (home)
also chairs Carbondale
Environmental Board
Roaring Fork Food Alliance gwen@roaringforkfood.org 970-963-9182 Carbondale
LANDFILLS
South Canyon Landfill
West Garfield County Landfill
Eagle County Landfill
Summit County Landfill
Mesa County Landfill
Chris Peterson
Patrick Hinch
Paddy Allen
Cameron Garcia
Aaron Byrne
Kelly Bejarano, Gr. Team
Jesse Matsen
King Lloyd
Gwen Garcia
Julia Farwell
Steve Wickes
Jeff Sirbu
Lucy Kessler
Mona Newton
Sabrina van Doorn
Peter/Chris
Tim Riggins
(Jack)
P
4
8
I
I
.
APPENDIX B
STAKEHOLDER OBSERVATIONS
P49
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\ATTACHMENTS\APP B.DOCX
APPENDIX B
STAKEHOLDER OBSERVATIONS
STAKEHOLDER OBSERVATIONS
Education Issues
Reuse, repurpose, diversion ethic is critical - need to practice what we preach
Reusing and repurposing more important than recycling
Critical target groups are tourists, youth & "middle" of permanent population that are
not already recycling but may be encouraged to do more
Short/long-term renters, vacationers, second home-owners and students all have
different education and service needs
High contamination/illegal dumping at shared containers - generators often mix of
residential/commercial, lack "ownership", hard to target for education or
enforcement
Elevated contamination worse during tourist seasons
Lack of feedback on curbside contamination (haulers don't consistently notify)
Cultural/language barriers for some guests and tourists (e.g., music school students,
Latino population in Carbondale)
Education messages need to decrease confusion and encourage participation (need to
capitalize on Waste-Free Roaring Fork branding/messaging)
Lack of staff for education and outreach in Aspen and Pitkin County
Lack of champions in every community to help prioritize waste diversion
Lack of clarity around relative benefits of disposal locally versus hauling recyclables to
Western Slope or Front Range (exacerbated by mixed messages from some haulers)
Confusion about who can/cannot use the Rio Grande drop site
Lack of awareness that Aspen generators are already paying for recycling (haulers not
getting message out, results in over-use of Rio Grande drop site)
Confusion about Pitkin County Solid Waste Center (PCSWC) versus South Canyon
Landfill compost services
Confusion about whether recyclables/organics are actually diverted or landfilled
Consumers' need to demand less packaging and/or more recyclable packaging (both
individuals and businesses)
Confusion about why diversion is expensive, not understanding relative disposal costs
Messaging must be done by professionals (govt staff don't have skills) - needs to be
big campaign that provides consistent messaging, addresses tourists, is attractive &
fun
Develop regular media messages to engage/educate public and letters to elected
officials to approve new programs, policies (also use utility bills for messaging)
Needs incentives (especially for youth)
Commercial
Generator Staffing
Issues
Variety of recycling services - some lodging/restaurants find sorting recyclables out of
trash can be more effective than educating guests (safety issues, however)
Hotels/lodges/resorts/restaurants are not doing enough - these are the access points
for tourists
Restaurants need help specifying recycled/compostable products, buying in bulk,
P50
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\ATTACHMENTS\APP B.DOCX
STAKEHOLDER OBSERVATIONS
customer messaging, staff training - purchasing collaborative would help
Green business recognition program would help
Various grocery departments have different staffing outreach issues
Divert food waste for food banks, needy, wildlife - organize delivery systems to move
food past expiration but still safe
Cultural and language barriers make any diversion difficult
Homeowner associations may have housekeeping separate from property manager -
no direct way to control diversion activities
Homeowner associations need to do more recycling, composting
Collection Issues
Require all homes, businesses to subscribe to trash curbside collection
Require all homes, businesses to subscribe to trash, recycling, organics collection with
fines for not participating
Need consistent recycling region-wide (i.e., materials accepted, commingling level)
Mandate single-stream valley-wide as is easier for generators - but not all processors
accept commingled materials, may be difficult for some haulers
Single-stream does not maximize value of cardboard, allows glass contamination -
business who want to source-separate materials don't have space for extra containers
Dual-stream recycling at Aspen Public Housing Authority properties due to inability to
change city contract
Lack of recycling access for tourists (e.g., no recycling bins in many lodging rooms)
Inconvenience, congestion and recent closures limit utility of Basalt drop-site
Add more drop sites - Rio Grande should be kept open at any cost
Drop sites need to have limited hours, be staffed and enforce material restrictions
(user-friendly sites like Glenwood Springs with volunteer staff especially helpful)
Drop site recyclables can be twice as contaminated as curbside recyclables
County heavily subsidizes drop-site recycling (led to tonnage limits at PCSWC)
High cost/increased environment impacts from multiple haulers serving same
neighborhood or business district
Collection not frequent enough to keep up with strong diversion activity (some small
haulers do not have equipment/staff to meet needs)
Limited space for more recycling and composting containers
Composting expensive because of wildlife containers, more frequent collection,
permitting enclosures (city permitting process is an obstacle), not available
everywhere
Confusion by some haulers about PCSWC's acceptance of all organics
Complicated/expensive enclosure permitting in Aspen
Some food waste not well containerized and harmful to wildlife
Liquor stores prefer glass recycling to state bottle bill
Lack of collaboration between adjacent businesses - commercial property
P51
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\ATTACHMENTS\APP B.DOCX
STAKEHOLDER OBSERVATIONS
owners/managers need to actively encourage and support diversion activities
Lack of quantity data to track diversion levels
Operational Issues
Inconsistent pay structures in Aspen/Pitkin County ordinances increases use of Rio
Grande drop site by county residents
Lack of enforcement for Aspen and Pitkin County hauler ordinances (provision of
recycling to all trash customers) - also increases Rio Grande drop site use
Lack of enforcement for yard waste disposal ban in Aspen
Lack of enforcement for wildlife containers
Limited SCRAPS participation (started in 2015)
Address compostable products in Pitkin County compost (limit in organics stream
and/or obtain new processing equipment)
Inconsistent plastic bag ban policy in region (none in Basalt, Snowmass Village - only
applies to large grocers - exempts some grocery departments) - expand "bring your
own bag" practices
Expand policies for requiring new/renovated multi-family units (MFU), commercial
properties to have adequate space for recycling, composting
Lack of data (in- versus out-of-county waste flow, facilities used, etc.)
Get toxic materials out of waste stream
Use incentives and avoid punishing those who "do the right thing"
Identify single improvement and form region around it (e.g., Roaring Fork Transit
Authority (RFTA))
Suggestions for
Future Diversion
Strategy
Develop short- and long-term measurable waste diversion goals
Promote waste diversion successes as way of encouraging participation
Target large generators (commercial and multi-family) for greatest diversion
Identify long-range cost of disposal once the county landfill closes
Consider not accepting glass in single-stream (or at all) as it is not used locally and is
expensive to ship/process OR identify new local markets
Evaluate how to make a single-stream processing facility cost-effective in the region
(western slope)
Evaluate new construction products made from plastics, how to attract new
manufacturing to valley
Look at previously-considered waste-to-energy options
Implement fines to pay for programming
Implement a tourist-based fee to pay for programming
P52
II.
APPENDIX C
MSW AUDIT CATEGORIES AND DESCRIPTIONS
P53
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX
APPENDIX C
MSW AUDIT CATEGORIES & DESCRIPTION
MATERIALS DESCRIPTION
GLASS
Glass Food & Beverage
Containers All colors of food & beverage bottles & jars
All Other Glassa
Mirrors, window/auto glass, bulbs other than compact
fluorescents, ceramic, porcelain, glass cookware - COMPACT
FLUORESCENT BULBS in COMPACT FLUORESCENT BULBS
METAL
Aluminum Food &
Beverage Containers, Foil &
Pie Tins
Aluminum, tin, steel & bi-metal beverage & food cans, empty
aerosol cans, foil, food trays and pie tins
Steel/Tin Food & Beverage
Cans
Tin, steel & bi-metal beverage & food cans - EMPTY METAL
PAINT CANS IN OTHER METAL
All Other Metale
Coat hangers, cook pots, non-food containers, all scrap metal &
items that are primarily metal, container lids/caps, empty aerosol
cans - AEROSOL CANS CONTAINING PRODUCT IS OTHER
HAZARDOUS/SPECIAL WASTE
PLASTICS
PET Plastic Bottles #1
Resin #1 bottles with necks/openings narrower than body,
including beverage containers, cleaning product containers and
others - LOOSE PLASTIC BOTTLE CAPS ARE OTHER PLASTICS
HDPE Plastic Bottles #2
Resin #2 natural/narrow neck (milk & water bottles),
colored/narrow neck (detergent & shampoo bottles) - LOOSE
PLASTIC BOTTLE CAPS ARE OTHER PLASTICS
Rigid Plastic Containers #3-
#7
Resin #3-#7 plastic containers & tubs, including yogurt/dairy
containers
Plastic Film, Bags & Wrape BUBBLE WRAP IS OTHER PLASTIC
All Other Plastica Film, styrofoam, other extruded polystyrene, other rigid
packaging, including all foam food containers, foil-lined chip
bags, foam products, loose bottled caps, un-numbered plastics
PAPER
Cardboard & Brown Paper
Bags Corrugated cardboard, Kraft paper/bags
Newspaper Inserts and glossies
Office Paper
"High" grade paper, including whole or shredded printer paper,
typing paper, copy paper, computer paper, sticky notes (including
plain & pastel colors) - PAPER WITH WAXY LINERS IS OTHER
PAPER - BRIGHT COLORS ARE OTHER PAPER
Chipboard/Paperboard Cereal, cracker boxes & other single-layer packaging - WAXY
CARDBOARD IS OTHER PAPER
Junk Mail & Mixed Paperb "Low" grade paper including junk mail, file folders(b), telephone
books, paperback books
Magazines/Catalogues Magazines
P54
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX
MATERIALS DESCRIPTION
Juice Boxes & Milk Cartons Waxy cartons packaging - FOIL LINED PAPER IS OTHER PAPER
Non-Recyclable,
Compostable Paperc
Recyclable paper contaminated with food, moisture or other
contaminant, including paper towels & napkins with food
contamination, cardboard that is too wet to recycle - WAXY OR
FOIL-LINED PAPER IS OTHER PAPER
All Other Papera Microwave trays, any foil-lined paper, waxy cardboard, carbon
paper, neon/bright paper, photographs, waxy coffee cups
ORGANICS
Food Wastec
All food/beverage waste (out of containers where active
emptying not required), including bones & rinds - FOOD
CONTAMINATED PAPER IS NON-RECYCLABLE COMPOSTABLE
PAPER
Yard Wastec Grass, leaves, weeds, pruning, stumps trees
Untreated Woodc
Unpainted or untreated wood, wood that is not heavily mixed
with other materials (such as dimensional lumber, pallets, crates,
etc.) - TREATED WOOD IS MUNICIPAL C&D
Textilesd Clothing, shoes, rags, towels, rugs other than carpeting
All Other Organics
Carpet & padding, diapers, rubber products, upholstery, leather
products, animal foods & waste, combustibles including wax,
soap, cigarettes, briquettes, ash
HAZARDOUS/SPECIAL WASTES
Electronics
Electronics with circuit boards (computer monitors, televisions,
VCR or DVD players, portable music devices, cell/wireless phones,
answering machines, digital cameras, electric razors, newer small
household appliances) - TOASTERS, TOASTER OVENS, OLD/SMALL
HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES ARE OTHER METAL
Other Consumer Products Furniture, mattresses & box springs, electronics or similar devices
without circuit boards (such as headsets)
Batteries All batteries except lead-acid vehicle batteries - LEAD-ACID
VEHICLE BATTERIES ARE MOTOR VEHICLE WASTE
Compact Fluorescent Bulbs Bulbs with folded/fitted tube and compact electronic ballasts in
base - NON-FLUORESCENT BULBS ARE OTHER GLASS
Thermostats & Smoke
Detectors Thermostats, smoke detector units
Paint Latex, oil paint - IF METAL PAINT CAN IS MOSTLY EMPTY IS OTHER
METAL
Motor Vehicle Waste Automobile/lead-acid batteries, used oil, used filters, tires
Municipal C&D
C&D debris, painted or treated wood, drywall, fiberglass,
rock/concrete/brick, ceramics other than glassware), sawdust,
scrap debris
Other Hazardous/Special
Waste
Antifreeze, pesticides, herbicides, cleaners, adhesives, glues,
explosives, asbestos, aerosol containers with product, medicines,
cosmetics & other household chemicals, gasoline, kerosene, fuels,
medical/biohazard waste, other hazardous materials or difficult
to manage (requires special handling)
RESIDUE
P55
II.
Weaver Consultants Group
F:\ADMIN\ROARING FORK\SOLID WASTE\SW PLAN 2016\REPORT.DOCX
MATERIALS DESCRIPTION
Residue
Sand, soil, dirt, inorganic materials not classified elsewhere,
mixed MSW fines, recyclables, organics & other materials too
small to sort
Notes:
a Materials not accepted in Pitkin County recycling programs or at Waste Management's Franklin St. MRF.
b Materials not accepted in Pitkin County recycling programs but accepted at Waste Management's Franklin
St. MRF.
c Currently or potentially accepted for Pitkin County composting.
d Potentially divertible in future.
e Currently diverted outside of Pitkin County's traditional recycling programs.
P56
II.
APPENDIX D
WASTE AUDIT RESULTS – RAW MUNICIPAL DATA
P57
II.
APPENDIX D
2015 TRASH AUDIT
Summary of Raw Data
LBA Associates, Inc.page 1 or 3 4/13/2016
Weight
(pounds)
% by
Weight
Weight
(pounds)
% by
Weight
% by Weight
Materials
% by Weight
Category
Glass 452.47 5.13%425.38 5.24%5.2%
Other Glass 105.57 1.20%37.10 0.46%0.8%
Aluminum 83.87 0.95%65.93 0.81%0.9%
Steel/Tin 64.04 0.73%49.20 0.61%0.7%
Other Metal 171.48 1.94%208.88 2.57%2.2%
PET Plastic Bottles #1 181.20 2.05%168.01 2.07%2.1%
HDPE Plastic Bottles #2 48.58 0.55%91.83 1.13%0.8%
Rigid Plastic #3-#7 137.72 1.56%72.71 0.90%1.2%
Plastic Film, Bags & Wrap 509.88 5.78%318.94 3.93%4.9%
Other Plastic 708.92 8.03%939.68 11.58%9.7%
Cardboard & Brown Paper Bags 628.56 7.12%397.00 4.89%6.1%
Newspaper 200.00 2.27%142.21 1.75%2.0%
Office Paper 83.20 0.94%53.49 0.66%0.8%
Chipboard/Paperboard 180.11 2.04%210.92 2.60%2.3%
Junk Mail & Mixed Paper 31.78 0.36%100.48 1.24%0.8%
Magazines & Catalogues 117.07 1.33%152.80 1.88%1.6%
Juice Boxes & Milk Cartons 14.02 0.16%1.39 0.02%0.1%
Non-Recyclable, Compostable Paper 285.71 3.24%292.82 3.61%3.4%
Other Paper 374.83 4.25%137.36 1.69%3.0%
Food Waste 1536.94 17.41%1272.49 15.68%16.6%
Yard Waste 494.83 5.61%1276.92 15.73%10.5%
Untreated Wood 94.22 1.07%122.80 1.51%1.3%
Textiles 271.57 3.08%457.17 5.63%4.3%
Other Organics 414.68 4.70%184.97 2.28%3.5%
Electronics 54.03 0.61%99.77 1.23%0.9%
Other Consumer Products 44.98 0.51%15.94 0.20%0.4%
Motor Vehicle Waste 2.35 0.03%7.16 0.09%0.1%
Other Batteries 2.81 0.03%4.40 0.05%0.0%
Compact Fluorescent Bulbs 0.00 0.00%0.85 0.01%0.0%
Thermostats & Smoke Detectors 0.78 0.01%0.00 0.00%0.0%
Municipal C&D 342.72 3.88%428.79 5.28%4.6%
Other Haz/Special Waste 15.79 0.18%60.51 0.75%0.5%
RESIDUE Residue 1173.44 13.29%319.12 3.93%8.8%8.81%
8828.15 100.00%8117.02 100.00%100.00%100.00%
6.02%
AGGREGATED SEASONALSUMMER AUDIT FALL AUDIT
3.80%
18.75%
6.38%
PA
P
E
R
20.09%
OR
G
A
N
I
C
S
36.16%
CATEGORY MATERIAL
TOTAL
HA
Z
/
S
P
E
C
I
A
L
W
A
S
T
E
ME
T
A
L
GLASS
PL
A
S
T
I
C
S
P58
II.
APPENDIX D
2015 TRASH AUDIT
Summary of Raw Data
LBA Associates, Inc.page 2 or 3 4/13/2016
Pounds % by
Weight Pounds % by
Weight Pounds % by
Weight Pounds % by
Weight
Glass 454.61 5.43%143.65 5.68%155.28 5.66%61.12 4.47%
Other Glass 74.03 0.88%6.93 0.27%6.28 0.23%11.56 0.85%
Aluminum 63.06 0.75%21.38 0.85%27.74 1.01%26.36 1.93%
Steel/Tin 59.98 0.72%12.86 0.51%22.80 0.83%5.94 0.43%
Other Metal 126.20 1.51%61.45 2.43%84.82 3.09%30.79 2.25%
PET Plastic Bottles #1 167.36 2.00%55.02 2.18%50.36 1.84%47.24 3.46%
HDPE Plastic Bottles #2 69.23 0.83%26.81 1.06%21.48 0.78%11.06 0.81%
Rigid Plastic #3-#7 115.80 1.38%21.92 0.87%20.77 0.76%21.69 1.59%
Plastic Film, Bags & Wrap 485.10 5.79%156.95 6.21%107.17 3.91%43.80 3.21%
Other Plastic 781.42 9.33%271.77 10.75%290.23 10.59%167.49 12.26%
Cardboard & Brown Paper Bags 548.41 6.55%219.55 8.68%115.37 4.21%93.41 6.84%
Newspaper 198.69 2.37%39.88 1.58%45.14 1.65%15.46 1.13%
Office Paper 80.35 0.96%12.80 0.51%12.83 0.47%7.55 0.55%
Chipboard/Paperboard 181.43 2.17%53.41 2.11%83.75 3.05%35.91 2.63%
Junk Mail & Mixed Paper 90.76 1.08%20.01 0.79%8.35 0.30%11.04 0.81%
Magazines & Catalogues 163.39 1.95%27.96 1.11%35.34 1.29%10.59 0.78%
Juice Boxes & Milk Cartons 8.21 0.10%0.87 0.03%2.22 0.08%1.70 0.12%
Non-Rec, Compostable Paper 315.91 3.77%102.97 4.07%63.44 2.31%64.14 4.69%
Other Paper 229.19 2.74%63.35 2.51%101.45 3.70%41.16 3.01%
Food Waste 1647.72 19.68%344.30 13.62%393.22 14.34%211.20 15.46%
Yard Waste 693.38 8.28%401.75 15.89%197.91 7.22%120.81 8.84%
Untreated Wood 88.20 1.05%35.30 1.40%71.37 2.60%7.08 0.52%
Textiles 369.86 4.42%85.96 3.40%138.94 5.07%64.85 4.75%
Other Organics 234.65 2.80%103.19 4.08%54.01 1.97%111.39 8.15%
Electronics 86.82 1.04%8.42 0.33%15.42 0.56%8.58 0.63%
Other Consumer Products 20.71 0.25%14.36 0.57%0.00 0.00%5.46 0.40%
Motor Vehicle Waste 4.56 0.05%3.10 0.12%0.00 0.00%1.20 0.09%
Other Batteries 3.60 0.04%1.44 0.06%0.58 0.02%0.54 0.04%
Compact Fluorescent Bulbs 0.06 0.00%0.70 0.03%0.09 0.00%0.00 0.00%
Thermostats & Smoke Detectors 0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00%0.00 0.00%0.54 0.04%
Municipal C&D 323.37 3.86%51.71 2.04%220.28 8.03%10.58 0.77%
Other Haz/Special Waste 45.72 0.55%7.62 0.30%8.45 0.31%4.11 0.30%
RESIDUE Residue 640.33 7.65%151.40 5.99%386.78 14.11%112.02 8.20%
8372.11 100.00%2528.79 100.00%2741.87 100.00%1366.37 100.00%
HA
Z
/
S
P
E
C
I
A
L
W
A
S
T
E
TOTAL
PL
A
S
T
I
C
S
PA
P
E
R
OR
G
A
N
I
C
S
MUNICIPAL SAMPLES (both summer & fall audit results)
CATEGORY MATERIAL
GLASS
ME
T
A
L
ASPEN BASALT CARBONDALESNOWMASS
VILLAGE
P59
II.
APPENDIX D
2015 TRASH AUDIT
Summary of Raw Data
LBA Associates, Inc.Page 3 or 3 4/13/2016
Weight
(pounds)
% by
Weight
Weight
(pounds)
% by
Weight
Weight
(pounds)
% by
Weight
Weight
(pounds)
% by
Weight
Weight
(pounds)
% by
Weight
Weight
(pounds)
% by
Weight
% by
Weight
Glass 57.37 15.68%101.16 19.70%158.53 18.03%390.00 49.97%289.80 34.16%679.80 41.74%33.42%
Cardboard &
Kraft Bags 135.22 36.96%214.5 41.77%349.72 39.77%133.00 17.04%225.90 26.63%358.90 22.04%28.25%
Other Single-
Stream
Recyclables
153.4 41.93%175.54 34.18%328.94 37.40%216.60 27.75%225.00 26.52%441.60 27.11%30.72%
Contaminants 19.86 5.43%22.36 4.35%42.22 4.80%40.80 5.23%107.60 12.68%148.40 9.11%7.60%
TOTAL 365.85 100.00%513.56 100.00%879.41 100.00%780.40 100.00%848.30 100.00%1628.70 100.00%100.00%
PCSWC RIO GRANDE AGGREGATED
FALL AUDIT OVERALL
RESULTS
SUMMER AUDIT
PCSWC RIO GRANDE AGGREGATEDCATEGORY
P
6
0
I
I
.
APPENDIX E
UNIVERSE OF WASTE DIVERSION OPTIONS
P61
II.
APPENDIX E
UNIVERSE OF WASTE DIVERSION OPTION SHORT-LIST
LBA Associates, Inc.
4/13/2016
EXPECTED COMPONENTS POTENTIAL TIMING
D1 Require minimum construction/renovation/
deconstruction diversion
If minimum diversion not achieved require waste diversion plan, refundable deposit
requirement, Int'l Green Construction Code
Phase I (voluntary),
Phase II (mandatory)
D2 Require food waste diversion for large commercial food
establishments
Incl groceries, restaurants, cafeterias - seating/square footage threshold,
enforcement, incl donation, composting Phase I
D3 Provide dedicated commercial food waste collection Urban, clarify PCSWC v SCLF composting, assume mandatory commercial diversion Phase I
D4 Expand yard waste disposal ban Incl drop sites, enforcement Phase in 2-3 years
D5 Add drop-sites in Basalt, Carbondale, TOSV Model one - paired with new hauler reqt, public
D6 Add drop-sites in Basalt, Carbondale, TOSV Model one -not paired with new hauler reqt, public
D7 Expand hauler requirements Incl licensing, PAYT, bundled T/R (T/R/O) , consolidated haul days, reporting,
disposal prohibition, enforcement
Revise Aspen/PC Phase I,
others Phase II
D8 Implement cardboard disposal ban Incl collection, baling, shipping - tie to backhaul Phase II
D9 Create backhaul for OCC (voluntary)Use major vendors, incl OCC baling - support OCC ban Phase II
D10 Require source-separation of glass Start with commercial/special events - add residential Phase II
D11 Establish minimum "green" practices or diversion for
commercial generators, special events
Will vary by type - support with audits, tech assistance & procurement support -
phase in by size, include recognition/awards Phase II
D12 Require any commercial entity who provides single-use
materials to provide collection (containers, film, paper)At least as convenient as trash (in place of bag use ban expansion)Phase I
S1 Expand used building materials facilities Expand Habitat for Humanity north, new facility south - public Phase II
S2 Mandate single-stream (no dual or multi) Minimum/uniform list of recyclables Phase I/II
S3 Develop purchasing cooperative for buying in bulk,
recyclable/compostable products Commercial entities, special events Phase I
S4 Require recyclable/compostable take-out packaging Supported by purchasing coop (includes groceries)Phase II
S5 Expand commercial space reqts for recyc/organics Apply to major renovations/new, enforcement Phase I
S6 Add local ewaste dismantling at PCSWC Blue Star/VERN partnership Phase I
S7 Require govts to use of mulch, compost For landscaping, erosion control, etc. - incl promotion Phase I
S8 Western slope single-stream MRF New facility (consider Eagle option), public Phase II/III
S9 Develop local glass processing/market Based on public/private partnership Phase II/III
S10 Develop multi-faceted, multi-audience, on-going
outreach program
Incl brand growth; campaigns for tourists, property managers, non-English
speakers, schools Phase I
S11 Develop grant program For diversion projects by any party, criteria/evaluation approach Phase II
S12 Expand or form regional IGA Build on VRM model Phase I
S13 Funding analysis (multiple components)Incr hauler fees, non-compliance fees, landfill tip fees (new fee for unsorted trash)Phase I
Phase I = 1-3 years
Phase II = 4-6 years
Phase III = 7-10 years
WASTE DIVERSION OPTIONS
Phase I
DETAILED ANALYSIS (tons, ghgs, costs, jobs)
SUMMARY EVALUATION (may include tons, ghgs if applicable)
P
6
2
I
I
.
Attachment B
Estimated costs of Phase II of the Comprehensive Waste Diversion Plan
Task Description Labor Costs Direct Costs Total
1. Stakeholders Involvement $9,000 $1,500 $10,500
2. Alternatives Evaluation $36,000 $1,500 $37,500
3. Public Involvement for
Alternatives
$9,000 $1,500 $10,500
4. Finalization of Alternatives $9,500 $1,000 $10,500
5. Phase II Report $5,000 $1,000 $6,000
Phase II Total $75,000
P63
II.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Linda Manning, City Clerk
Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Winter Outdoor Dining
MEETING DATE: April 19, 2016
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: A number of restaurants have recently approached the City to
explore options for winter outdoor dining. Council is asked to provide direction on if winter
dining should be allowed on the malls and/or on public amenity spaces.
SUMMARY: In December 2015 City Council reviewed a temporary use request to enclose the
Grey Lady patio for the winter season. That request was denied and a new request was reviewed
and approved from December 24th through January 3rd.
During those meetings there was discussion that 27 other
restaurants also have private patio space included in their
liquor licensed leased/owned space. This year other
restaurants expressed interest in pursuing a winter outdoor
dining component so staff reached out to all 28 restaurants
requesting feedback. Several were interested, three not
interested and the rest did not respond.
(Photo of Grey Lady with windows rolled up.)
Staff met with the CCLC on April 6th and while they were supportive of winter dining
maintaining the look and feel of the summer model with heaters and umbrellas, they were not
supportive of tents on private property. They were supportive of a city owned structure down the
center of Hyman and Cooper that would be leased out to restaurants during the winter.
(Private patio space for Ellina)
(Mi Chola private
Patio with trellis)
P64
III.
On April 13th staff met with HPC. Amy Simon, the City’s Historic Preservation Officer, related
this to the air lock discussion from several years ago - airlocks are temporary in nature and are
now required to be built out of real material. Employee mitigation was brought up and the
restaurant owners have said they will mitigate at a pro-rated basis (see attachment D). Generally,
HPC said there should be no tents. Generally, HPC is supportive of heaters and umbrellas on
private space but no tents. Some Commissioners expressed support for tents based on the
desire to attract customers and maintain commerce as much as possible and to create additional
vitality. Other Commissioners were not supportive of tents because of the housing mitigation
impacts and the visual impacts to the downtown and Historic District.
Included in the packet are the comments received back from the restaurants. Clerk staff also
spoke with Deryk Cave and Grant Sutherland, owners of Mezzaluna, and Craig and Samantha
Cordts-Pierce, owners of CP Burger, Monarch, Wild Fig and Steakhouse 319. Both had
concerns about the need for additional dining, the look and owners know what they are getting
(space wise) when they sign their lease. Su Casa was also not in favor of winter outdoor dining.
Restaurants interested in additional dining space include Meat & Cheese, Ellina, Kenichi, Grey
Lady, Mi Chola, Hops and Brunelleschis.
It appears everyone is in agreement that white wedding tents are not the aesthetic Aspen is
looking for, but there is some interest in bringing some of the vibrancy associated with summer
dining to the winter season.
Council is asked to consider the following questions:
1. Does Council support enclosures on private restaurant space during winter months? If so,
for what period of time?
2. Does Council support enclosures on pedestrian mall space for restaurants who lease from
the City (same space as during summer months)?
3. Does Council support a grand structure down the center of the malls with lease to
restaurant by City as suggested by CCLCs second option?
4. Does Council support a winter dining model without enclosure, just umbrellas and
heaters, as suggested by CCLCs first option?
Attachments:
A. Restaurant list
B. Feedback
C. 12/1/2015 Council minutes
D. Affordable Housing Mitigation example
E. HPC Memo
P65
III.
Restaurants with private patio space included in liquor licensed area
Hops
Ellina
Asie
Ryno’s
Brunelleschis
Meat & Cheese
Peaches
Aspen Espresso
Square Grouper
Jimmy’s
Spring Café
Cache Cache
Mi Chola
Mezzaluna
Campo
Le Creperie
Rustique
BB’s Kitchen
Matsuhisa
Kenichi
Wild Fig
Aspen Over Easy
Casa Tua
L’ Hostaria
Su Casa
Main Street Bakery
White House Tavern
Grey Lady
Attachment A - Restaurant list P66
III.
From:Ryan Chadwick
To:Linda Manning
Subject:Re: grey lady photos
Date:Thursday, April 14, 2016 3:34:33 PM
Hey Linda-
Here is the revised letter- I'll check for an image. I think I do.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this letter to bring awareness to an issue that I, along with many other locals, have
experienced this season – lack of dining capacity in Aspen. A couple weeks ago on a Tuesday
in the middle of March, I was unable to get a table at more than 3 different restaurants.
I have not only experienced this problem as a patron, but I have experienced it as the owner
of Grey Lady in Aspen. In our 2015-16 second season, we were unable to use our covered
outdoor dining space. It affected our sales tremendously - as of 3/22/16, our sales are down
$102,638.20 from last year, solely due to the lack of outdoor dining space.
There are twenty-six restaurants in Aspen that have the ability to create a covered outdoor
dining experience on private property. By allowing more of these restaurants to utilize this
space, it would help solve the lack of tables available as well as create a tremendous amount
of tax revenue for the city.
For example, if you allowed 10 additional restaurants to have covered space, (for this purpose,
sales figures similar to mine) -
140,165.93 (extra revenue from outdoor space) X 10 (potential outdoor permits allowed by
city) = $1,401,659.3 (total extra revenue) X 9.2% (total retail tax) = $128,952.65 (potential
tax revenue).
We would want to pay any and all employee housing mitigation fees for every additional
square foot added to Grey Lady for as long as the permit is issued. We feel that this is only
fair given that other building and business owners pay per square foot for leasable space.
I am hoping we can work together on changing the current city codes to allow
outside dining (utilizing an acceptable awning that doesn't impact other local
businesses) during winter months. Aspen offers a unique experience of world class winter
activities and increasing our restaurant capacities will only help keep our vitality that makes
us a top tier, destination resort town.
Sincerely,
Ryan Chadwick
Attachment B - Feedback P67
III.
From:Bill Guth
To:Linda Manning
Cc:Dan Scesnewicz
Subject:Re: winter outdoor dining
Date:Thursday, March 24, 2016 1:17:05 PM
HOPS is interested. Thanks.
_________________
Bill Guth
bill@wnggroup.com
970-300-2120
On Mar 24, 2016, at 12:44 PM, Linda Manning <linda.manning@cityofaspen.com> wrote:
Hello Liquor License Holder,
This past winter during a meeting about whether to grant the temporary use permit for
the tent for the Grey Lady patio, City Council suggested maybe winter outdoor dining
should be a larger discussion. I have identified 27 restaurants that have outdoor space
included in their liquor license footprint, including yours. I would like to know if any of
you would be interested in enclosing your outdoor space for a portion of the winter
season, with some type of tent like structure. This process needs to begin now
because it will involve many departments especially community development and
historic preservation including temporary use permits and public amenity space.
I will be discussing this with the CCLC on April 6th and then at a City Council work
session on April 19th.
Please let me know if this is something you might be interested in and reply to me with
any comments by April 1st.
Ryan Chadwick is spear heading this from the restaurant owner standpoint. Please feel
free to reach out to him as well.
Thank you, Linda
Linda Manning
City of Aspen
City Clerk
970.429.2685
P68
III.
From:Brent H Reed
To:Linda Manning
Subject:Re: winter outdoor dining
Date:Thursday, March 24, 2016 4:05:27 PM
Yes please! Kanpai from Hakuba Japan
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 25, 2016, at 3:44 AM, Linda Manning <linda.manning@cityofaspen.com> wrote:
Hello Liquor License Holder,
This past winter during a meeting about whether to grant the temporary use permit for the
tent for the Grey Lady patio, City Council suggested maybe winter outdoor dining should
be a larger discussion. I have identified 27 restaurants that have outdoor space included in
their liquor license footprint, including yours. I would like to know if any of you would be
interested in enclosing your outdoor space for a portion of the winter season, with some
type of tent like structure. This process needs to begin now because it will involve many
departments especially community development and historic preservation including
temporary use permits and public amenity space.
I will be discussing this with the CCLC on April 6th and then at a City Council work session on
April 19th.
Please let me know if this is something you might be interested in and reply to me with any
P69
III.
From:Zgpizza
To:Linda Manning
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:Re: winter outdoor dining
Date:Friday, March 25, 2016 11:33:39 AM
Brunelleschis my not be well suited for winter patio dining but would like the option. I know
Ryan's case and believe he should be granted that right as well as the others. Summer's are too
short.
Gil Vanderaa
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 24, 2016, at 12:44 PM, Linda Manning <linda.manning@cityofaspen.com> wrote:
Hello Liquor License Holder,
This past winter during a meeting about whether to grant the temporary use permit for
the tent for the Grey Lady patio, City Council suggested maybe winter outdoor dining
should be a larger discussion. I have identified 27 restaurants that have outdoor space
included in their liquor license footprint, including yours. I would like to know if any of
you would be interested in enclosing your outdoor space for a portion of the winter
season, with some type of tent like structure. This process needs to begin now
because it will involve many departments especially community development and
historic preservation including temporary use permits and public amenity space.
I will be discussing this with the CCLC on April 6th and then at a City Council work
session on April 19th.
Please let me know if this is something you might be interested in and reply to me with
any comments by April 1st.
Ryan Chadwick is spear heading this from the restaurant owner standpoint. Please feel
free to reach out to him as well.
Thank you, Linda
Linda Manning
City of Aspen
City Clerk
970.429.2685
P70
III.
From:Wendy Mitchell
To:Linda Manning
Subject:Re: winter outdoor dining
Date:Thursday, March 24, 2016 7:07:03 PM
YES!!!! We would love to enclose our patio in the winter. While there are plenty of engineering questions
it is something we have always wanted to do. I feel like it is something that can be done while still
maintaining the aesthetic of the neighborhood. It will also help keep the restaurant warm when customers
open the door. I think we could increase our winter revenues by about 30%, which also means more sales
tax revenues for the city. I’d be happy to share my thoughts with council or anyone concerned.
Regards,
Wendy Mitchell
Avalanche Cheese Company
Meat & Cheese Restaurant and Farm Shop
970-379-3829
From: Linda Manning <linda.manning@cityofaspen.com>
Date: Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 12:44 PM
To: City Clerk <Clerk@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: winter outdoor dining
Hello Liquor License Holder,
This past winter during a meeting about whether to grant the temporary use permit for the tent for
the Grey Lady patio, City Council suggested maybe winter outdoor dining should be a larger
discussion. I have identified 27 restaurants that have outdoor space included in their liquor license
footprint, including yours. I would like to know if any of you would be interested in enclosing your
outdoor space for a portion of the winter season, with some type of tent like structure. This process
needs to begin now because it will involve many departments especially community development
and historic preservation including temporary use permits and public amenity space.
I will be discussing this with the CCLC on April 6th and then at a City Council work session on April
19th.
Please let me know if this is something you might be interested in and reply to me with any
comments by April 1st.
Ryan Chadwick is spear heading this from the restaurant owner standpoint. Please feel free to reach
out to him as well.
Thank you, Linda
Linda Manning
City of Aspen
City Clerk
970.429.2685
P71
III.
From:deryk cave
To:Linda Manning
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:Re: winter outdoor dining
Date:Monday, March 28, 2016 3:11:32 PM
Hi Linda,
I am very much against this idea.
Basically I see it as - if you want a sixty seat restaurant then rent a space, like everybody else,
that has sixty seats AND pay the rent, year round, on a sixty seat restaurant!!
Don't rent a thirty seat restaurant and then try to weasel your way to sixty seats by putting up a
tent and paying almost no rent, certainly nowhere near market rent.
It would allow those who do this to operate less expensively and therefore unfairly against
those of us who pay full market rent, year round, for all our space, including our patio.
I already think all the outdoor patios on city property should pay a fair market rent for the
privilege, much more than what they currently pay. Give the extra money raised to the school
district for example, but LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD.
Also when is enough enough as far as seats available goes?
Why do we need more seats in the winter?
What is next? Enclosed areas outside all stores and real estate offices so that they can peddle
their goods and services on city property?
Why can't commercial be commercial and city remain city and commercial operators pay only
commercial rents, not receive subsidized rents from the taxpayers.
I think the present regulations allow for one time tent usage of a few days at a time. I think
that is adequate and should not change.
I can be reached at 309 1010 if needed.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our opinions.
Deryk Cave
Grant (Jr.) Sutherland
Mezzaluna Owners
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 24, 2016, at 12:44 PM, Linda Manning <linda.manning@cityofaspen.com> wrote:
Hello Liquor License Holder,
This past winter during a meeting about whether to grant the temporary use permit for
the tent for the Grey Lady patio, City Council suggested maybe winter outdoor dining
should be a larger discussion. I have identified 27 restaurants that have outdoor space
included in their liquor license footprint, including yours. I would like to know if any of
you would be interested in enclosing your outdoor space for a portion of the winter
season, with some type of tent like structure. This process needs to begin now
because it will involve many departments especially community development and
historic preservation including temporary use permits and public amenity space.
I will be discussing this with the CCLC on April 6th and then at a City Council work
session on April 19th.
Please let me know if this is something you might be interested in and reply to me with
any comments by April 1st.
P72
III.
From:Darren Chapple
To:Linda Manning; ryan.chadwick@gmail.com
Cc:Adam Malmgren
Subject:winter outdoor dining
Date:Thursday, March 31, 2016 11:50:41 PM
To Whom It May Concern:
I want to express my full support in the idea of allowing some of Aspen’s restaurants to
temporarily winterize their patios, including my own at Mi Chola Cantina. This is a move that
has for many, many years been of interest to me and one that I’m having a hard time
understanding why the city wouldn’t allow. In brief, the rational for my support is as follows…
First off and most importantly, due to the unbelievably astronomical sized rents that now exist
in Aspen, it is extremely difficult to provide tourists and locals a value based dining
experience. Our limited space and high rents force us to charge unrealistically high prices for
meals that would be a fraction of the price elsewhere. While our current winter tourist
demographic seems more than willing and able to sustain these high costs, it is the locals that
are suffering. I can unequivocally tell you that should we be able to temporarily winterize our
patio, we can easily lower our prices by at least 10-15% and take much better care of our own
well deserving and hard working locals.
Furthermore, given the massive fluctuations in hotel occupancy rates throughout the seasons,
very often are there times where it seems every single restaurant in town is bursting at its
seams and in dire need of more dining space. Nobody wants to wait hours to get seated and
nobody wants to get pushed off to another, less appealing restaurant because there weren’t
seats available. Our small dining rooms also make it extremely difficult to accommodate large
parties and increasing our dining space makes it easier to cater to all group sizes. It is also my
experience that most consumers and guests very much enjoy a patio feel dining experience in
the winter if it is available to them.
At any rate, it seems the city’s hesitancy in allowing some of these restaurants to enclose their
patios is based on the idea that these patios are considered “open space” and part of the
“public good”. Unfortunately, this “open space” is sitting unused throughout the winter and
not doing any public good.
The other concern with the city seems to be aesthetics, which is actually a valid argument. I
don’t believe any restaurant should be allowed to temporally winterize their patio unless it
somehow flows with the shape of the restaurant. Having something detached from the
normal dining room doesn’t make sense and I believe eliminates many of Aspen’s restaurants
from wanting to file a claim on winterizing in the first place. Furthermore, for those that do
wish to winterize, I agree it is critical that any system is of the highest quality in design and
aesthetics. Aspen is and always shall be an exclusive community that places a high value on
P73
III.
presentation and designs should be held to the highest standards.
There are more community advantages to allowing some of Aspen’s restaurants to winterize
their patios, but most critically it’s making it very difficult for restaurateurs to be successful &
profitable and it’s adversely affecting the locals ability to enjoy a reasonably priced meal in
town. I do hope you seriously consider allowing some of us to temporally winterize our patios
and I very much look forward to discussing this with you more sometime soon.
Darren Chapple
Owner / GM
Mi Chola
411 East Main St
Aspen, CO 81611
970-710-7076
707-318-7801 (cell)
www.AspenChola.com
P74
III.
From:Ryan O"Donnell
To:Linda Manning; City Clerk
Subject:RE: winter outdoor dining
Date:Thursday, March 24, 2016 5:26:42 PM
I am very interested in this as an option too.
Ryan O’Donnell
Ellina Restaurant + Bar
From: Linda Manning [mailto:linda.manning@cityofaspen.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 12:44 PM
To: City Clerk <Clerk@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: winter outdoor dining
Hello Liquor License Holder,
This past winter during a meeting about whether to grant the temporary use permit for the tent for
the Grey Lady patio, City Council suggested maybe winter outdoor dining should be a larger
discussion. I have identified 27 restaurants that have outdoor space included in their liquor license
footprint, including yours. I would like to know if any of you would be interested in enclosing your
outdoor space for a portion of the winter season, with some type of tent like structure. This process
needs to begin now because it will involve many departments especially community development
and historic preservation including temporary use permits and public amenity space.
I will be discussing this with the CCLC on April 6th and then at a City Council work session on April
19th.
Please let me know if this is something you might be interested in and reply to me with any
comments by April 1st.
Ryan Chadwick is spear heading this from the restaurant owner standpoint. Please feel free to reach
out to him as well.
Thank you, Linda
Linda Manning
City of Aspen
City Clerk
970.429.2685
P75
III.
From:Mary Lynn Casper
To:Linda Manning
Subject:Re: winter outdoor dining
Date:Monday, April 04, 2016 5:49:22 PM
I really don't like the idea. A special permit is ok, but a semi permanent structure for winter
does not seem ok. How about a 4 foot snow storm. How about enough walking space around
it? How about heat, light, access? I say no.
Sent from my iPad
Mary Lynn Casper
Su Casa, Inc.
On Mar 24, 2016, at 12:44 PM, Linda Manning <linda.manning@cityofaspen.com> wrote:
Hello Liquor License Holder,
This past winter during a meeting about whether to grant the temporary use permit for
the tent for the Grey Lady patio, City Council suggested maybe winter outdoor dining
should be a larger discussion. I have identified 27 restaurants that have outdoor space
included in their liquor license footprint, including yours. I would like to know if any of
you would be interested in enclosing your outdoor space for a portion of the winter
season, with some type of tent like structure. This process needs to begin now
because it will involve many departments especially community development and
historic preservation including temporary use permits and public amenity space.
I will be discussing this with the CCLC on April 6th and then at a City Council work
session on April 19th.
Please let me know if this is something you might be interested in and reply to me with
any comments by April 1st.
Ryan Chadwick is spear heading this from the restaurant owner standpoint. Please feel
free to reach out to him as well.
Thank you, Linda
Linda Manning
City of Aspen
City Clerk
970.429.2685
P76
III.
Attachment C - 12/1/2015 Council minutes P77
III.
P78
III.
P79
III.
Attachment D -Affordable Housing Mitigation Example
Variables:
•Size of tent – estimated at 800 sq. ft.
•Employee generation is calculated by FTE per 1,000 sq. ft. of net leasable space
•Employees generated per 1,000 of net leasable space in CC zone district = 4.7
•$246,881 = Category 2 rate, per APCHA
•3 = tent will be on-site for approximately 1/3 of the calendar year
•40 = typical life of a building in years
Methodology:
800/1000 = .8 x 4.7 = 3.76 x $246,881 = $928,272.56/40 = $23,206.81/3 = $7,735.60
Suggested Affordable Housing Mitigation:
$7,735.60
P80
III.
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Planner
RE: Winter Outdoor Dining
DATE: April 13, 2016
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY:
City Council is holding a work session later in the month to discuss the possibility of expanded
outdoor dining in the downtown during winter months. The Commercial Core and Lodging
Commission (CCLC) and the Clerk’s Office have received interest from a number of businesses.
On private property, outdoor spaces that are used for dining are allowed to use umbrellas or
retractable awnings as protection from weather. In winter months, businesses that have wanted
to enclose those spaces with tents have required a temporary use approval from City Council. A
recent example of this was the Grey Lady tent at 305 S Mill, pictured below, which installed a
roof and roll-down sides on the existing trellis structure. City staff in the past has expressed
concerns related to the use of plastic canopies and tents as a way to avoid design review and
employee mitigation requirements.
CCLC met on this issue on April 6th, and expressed concern about the possibility of tents
enclosing outdoor dining located on the pedestrian malls. They expressed support for a look and
feel similar to summer months, with heaters and umbrellas allowed on the mall, but no
structures. The idea of a city-owned tent on the mall, with sub-leases to individual restaurants
came up. CCLC was strongly opposed to tents on private property.
Attachment E - HPC Memo P81
III.
Page 2 of 2
HPC is asked to provide some thoughts on this issue so Council can weigh the design and
historic preservation issues related to temporary winter enclosures at their upcoming work
session. Some specific questions for HPC to consider:
1. Does HPC support enclosures on the Pedestrian Malls during the winter months?
a. If so, does HPC support tents, or the use of heaters and umbrellas as
suggested by CCLC?
2. Does HPC support enclosures, such as the Grey Lady example, on private property?
a. If so, should this be allowed at all times or during limited times?
P82
III.