The URL can be used to link to this page

04.09.14 EAB Packet CITY OF BOULDER ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD MEETING AGENDA DATE: April 9, 2014 TIME: 6 p.m. th PLACE: 1739 Broadway, 401 Conference Room, 4 floor 1.CALL TO ORDER 2.SWEARING IN OF NEW BOARD MEMBER 3.APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 19, 2014 A.The Environmental Advisory Board minutes are scheduled for approval. 4.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 5.DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Climate Commitment: Brett KenCairn 6.PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A.Zero Waste Strategic Plan: Jamie Harkins (Staff is requesting feedback from the board on the Trash Tax Program Evaluation Study) 7.DISCUSSION ITEMS (CONTINUED) A.Energy Future: Jonathan Koehn 8.OLD BUSINESS/UPDATES 9.MATTERS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD, CITY MANAGER, AND CITY ATTORNEY 10.DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 11.ADJOURNMENT For more information call (303) 441-1880. Board packets are available after 4 p.m. Friday prior to the meeting, online at www.bouldercolorado.gov, at the Boulder Public Main Library’s Reference Desk, or at the Planning and Development Services Center, located at 1739 Broadway, third floor. CITY OF BOULDER ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD MEETING GUIDELINES CALL TO ORDER The board must have a quorum (three members present) before the meeting can be called to order. AGENDA The board may rearrange the order of the agenda or delete items for good cause. The board may not add items requiring public notice. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The public is welcome to address the board (three minutes* maximum per speaker) during the Public Participation portion of the meeting regarding any item not scheduled for a public hearing. The only items scheduled for a public hearing are those listed under the category PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS on the agenda. Any exhibits introduced into the record at this time must be provided in quantities of eight to the Board Secretary for distribution to the board and admission into the record. DISCUSSION AND STUDY SESSION ITEMS Discussion and study session items do not require motions of approval or recommendation. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS A Public Hearing item requires a motion and a vote. The general format for hearing of an action item is as follows: 1. Presentations Staff presentation (15 minutes maximum*) Any exhibits introduced into the record at this time must be provided in quantities of eight to the Board Secretary for distribution to the board and admission into the record. Environmental Advisory Board questioning of staff for information only. 2. Public Hearing Each speaker will be allowed an oral presentation (three minutes maximum*). All speakers wishing to pool their time must be present, and time allotted will be determined by the Chair. Two minutes will be added to the pooled speaker for each such speaker’s allotted time up to a maximum of 10 minutes total. Time remaining is presented by a green blinking light that means one minute remains, a yellow light means 30 seconds remain, and a red light and beep means time has expired. Speakers should introduce themselves, giving name and address. If officially representing a group please state that for the record as well. Speakers are requested not to repeat items addressed by previous speakers other than to express points of agreement or disagreement. Refrain from reading long documents, and summarize comments wherever possible. Long documents may be submitted and will become a part of the official record. Any exhibits introduced into the record at the hearing must be provided in quantities of eight to the Board Secretary for distribution to the board and admission into the record. Interested persons can send a letter to the Community Planning and Sustainability staff at 1739 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302, two weeks before the Environmental Advisory Board meeting, to be included in the board packet. Correspondence received after this time will be distributed at the board meeting. 3. Board Action Board motion. Motions may take any number of forms. Motions are generally used to approve (with or without conditions), deny, or continue agenda item to a later date (generally in order to obtain additional information). Board discussion. This is undertaken entirely by members of the board. Members of the public or city staff participate only if called upon by the Chair. Board action (the vote). An affirmative vote of at least three members of the board is required to pass a motion approving any action. MATTERS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORYBOARD, CITY MANAGER, AND CITY ATTORNEY Any Environmental Advisory Board member, City Manager, or the City Attorney may introduce before the board matters which are not included in the formal agenda. ADJOURNMENT The board's goal is that regular meetings adjourn by 8 p.m. Agenda items will not be commenced after 8 p.m. except by majority vote of board members present. *The Chair may lengthen or shorten the time allotted as appropriate. If the allotted time is exceeded, the Chair may request that the speaker conclude his or her comments. CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SUMMARY NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Environmental Advisory Board DATE OF MEETING: March 19, 2014 NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Juliet Bonnell, 303-441-1931 NAMES OF MEMBERS, STAFF AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT: Environmental Advisory Board Members Present: Mara Abbott, Tim Hillman, Larissa Read, Stephen Morgan, and Morgan Lommele. Staff Members Present: Brett KenCairn, Jamie Harkins, Juliet Bonnell MEETING SUMMARY: EAB liked the idea of the public playing a role in the Boulder Energy Challenge Program and wanted the program to be accessible and exciting for the public. The board felt that marketing and outreach should be emphasized in order to attract a wide variety and number of qualified applicants. The board was interested in maximizing the benefit of grant award money by exploring mentorship and in-kind support opportunities so that every dollar spent has a multiplier effect. M. Lommele agreed to write an OpEd for the Daily Camera showing the board’s support for and raising awareness of the Boulder Energy Challenge Program. 1. CALL TO ORDER M. Abbott The Environmental Advisory Board Chair declared a quorum and the meeting was called to order at 6:11 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES L. Read, T. Hillman On a motion byseconded by, the Environmental Advisory Board approved S. Morgan (4-0, hadn’t arrived yet) the December 4, 2013 meeting minutes. L. Read, T. Hillman On a motion byseconded by, the Environmental Advisory Board approved S. Morgan (4-0, hadn’t arrived yet) the February 5, 2014 retreat notes. S. Morgan arrived late to the meeting at 6:15 p.m. 3. OLD BUSINESS/UPDATES A. B&C coordination approaches considered by other boards. J. Bonnell shared feedback from other board secretaries and staff board liaisons regarding board and commission coordination approaches discussed by other boards. Several boards were interested in and planning to hold joint board meetings to discuss topics that were relevant to multiple boards’ expertise. Some boards already have designated ex-officio members who regularly attend other boards’ meetings providing a useful link and communication between boards. Staff board liaisons mentioned the importance of ensuring that any additional B&C coordination efforts that are undertaken are an efficient and effective use of board members’ energy, move the city’s goals and staff’s work plan items forward, and are not an unmanageable draw on staff/other boards’ resources. B. Specific topics board wants covered in facilitation/meetingmanagement training. L. Read would like information on the best way to handle public input at a meeting when members of the public have factual knowledge that could help to inform the board’s discussion of agenda items. She was also interested in suggestions on how to build time into the agenda and appropriately follow up on “old items” that may require additional discussion. T. Hillman wanted to know more about basic meeting facilitation and techniques for managing public input. M. Lommele also wanted clarity on public comment procedure and a refresher on Robert’s Rules. She also would like additional information/best practices on processes for the board to reach consensus and provide recommendations. M. Abbott was interested in learning additional tips on how to run effective meetings and be provided different options/approaches that can be used and what the pros and cons might be for each. She also thought there would be value in lessons learned from past board members/chairs. The board was interested in scheduling a facilitation/meeting management training which would ideally be scheduled during an existing EAB meeting. C. Board “point persons” quarterly goals based on Feb 11 City Council Study Session Summary st L. Read is the EAB point person for local food and emerald ash borer/IPM. During the 1 quarter she plans to do some research to educate herself and better understand what is happening in the community regarding these issues. She mentioned also researching bees, other IPM issues and transportation in relation to access to local agriculture. She also mentioned providing additional feedback as needed and following up on points from the board’s previous discussion of emerald ash borer. T. Hillman is the EAB point person for local generation, Climate Commitment, and Housing. He noted that he plans to keep an eye on these topics (especially as climate commitment and its integration with energy and local generation is heard by City Council in April). He will keep the board updated and work to understand how the board can assist as these topics move forward. Regarding housing he mentioned that there is interest in revising the laws defining the number of unrelated occupants allowed in residential dwellings which he will watch and keep the board apprised of. S. Morgan is the EAB point person for Climate Commitment and Housing. He is looking forward to working with the Solar Grant Committee to award the city’s spring cycle grants to increase solar installations on affordable homes. He is excited about being on the Boulder Energy Challenge Working Group and moving this forward and awarding funding for proposed th projects. He wants to be briefed on the 14 St. parking garage and ensure that transportation and environmental concerns are integrated into the design plan. M. Lommele is the EAB point person for IPM and emerald ash borer. She enjoyed the joint PRAB/EAB meeting where the boards were informed of what staff is doing to address the emerald ash borer. She mentioned that once staff has completed their next steps that she and L. Read can provide their feedback, including any comments from other EAB members. She is also the point person for Energy Future for which she mentioned that she is following this item as it’s heard by council and is ready to react to updates and provide feedback as EAB’s agenda allows. M. Abbott is the point person for local food and zero waste. Similarly to L. Read, she noted that she plans to research and learn what is going on around Boulder County so she can speak from an informed place on this topic. She will attend June 3 City Council meeting during which the Zero Waste Strategic Plan is being discussed. Her goal is to become and stay informed on each of these topics and attend meetings during which they are being discussed. L. Read requested that staff provide the EAB with a calendar and information of the topics being heard by other boards so that they will be able to stay informed and attend relevant meetings. She also suggested that point people ensure that relevant topics are added to the EAB’s agenda under old business at appropriate times to keep the entire board updated. M. Lommele is also committed to discussing transportation/environmental items with her board buddy on Transportation Advisory Board. S. Morgan mentioned that he has seen interest growing in hydroponic businesses using large office spaces for local food. He thought that local neighborhood groups will likely be interested and engaged in this issue. M. Lommele noted that Micah Parkin ran for council on a local food platform and suggested that EAB point people check in with Micah to find out how the board could help advance this issue. B. KenCairn mentioned that a multi-departmental team is being formed to deal with the emerald ash borer issue and he will keep the board apprised of their progress. 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 5. DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Boulder Energy Challenge (formerly referred to as Market Innovations) Program Development Update: Jamie Harkins (Staff is requesting feedback from the board on the proposed program structure for Boulder Energy Challenge). J. Harkins provided an update on Boulder Energy Challenge and its structure. She requested feedback from the board on the program structure, the community showcase and outreach approaches. She informed the board that a community working group has been formed and they have been discussing the best way to structure the program and use funds (and how money can be leveraged in order to get more from other community organizations) and the scope of the program including eligibility requirements. The program is designed to invite and stimulate local innovation and create market driven solutions to address climate change. The objectives are to increase energy efficiency and decrease GHG emissions through the use of renewable energy sources. The goal is to keep the program as flexible as possible in order to allow as many entities as possible to apply. The group has drafted potential evaluation criteria and suggested weights for each criterion. The working group is hoping to fund a portfolio of 5-10 projects with a range of $10,000- $100,000 in grant funds per project through this program. The program is open to businesses, nonprofits, and individuals. The applicants aren’t required to be Boulder-based, but implementation needs to occur in Boulder. Eligible projects include pilots, concept/feasibility demonstrations to test viability of an idea, new product/service development, education and behavior change, and other innovative projects to significantly reduce emissions. Applicants will be required to submit a letter of intent on the city’s website as well as a concept video that includes the energy challenge being addressed, a description of and potential of the project, the barrier they’re addressing with their solution and why they’re the team to do it. Applicants must also submit a narrative document that includes their installation plan, team qualifications, details of the project benefits including side benefits to the community and an explanation of how people will be able to participate in the project. The application will also require a detailed budget and work plan. City staff will screen applications and the working group will do a merit evaluation to determine the finalists. Merit evaluation criteria will be weighted to assist with scoring and include bonus criteria such as location, collaboration, and cost-share. Finalists will be featured at a community showcase event. The community showcase event will include a pitch by the project teams and a chance for members of the public to weigh in with a “people’s choice” award. J. Harkins asked the board for feedback on: Boulder Energy Challenge program structure; Public role at the community showcase event; and Networks, groups, or organizations for outreach efforts S. Morgan added that the city needs to have some fiscal and operational control such as quarterly reporting to ensure that award money is being spent appropriately. He suggested regular check-ins, in-kind funding, and support/mentorships. He also suggested piggybacking the showcase with another community event. B.KenCairn suggested the possibility of having a volunteer/mentor/liaison to keep track of each project. M. Abbott suggested piggybacking the community showcase with Green Streets or perhaps with Bike-to-Work Day. S. Morgan wanted to ensure that a good cross-section of the community be engaged and asked the “right” people could be attracted to apply. L. Read suggested that projected GHG reductions shouldn’t be weighted too heavily in the evaluation criteria due to variation in scales of projects. She also felt that cost-sharing shouldn’t be weighted heavily either. She thought that location as a criterion needed to be clarified. For example, would Boulder-based applicants get the most “credit” under the location criteria, followed by other local applicants, with no “credit” for applicants from out of state? She liked the idea of having a people’s choice award during the community showcase and suggested asking other communities how they’ve handled people’s choice awards during similar events. For marketing, she thought staff should reach out to other local city councils, federal labs such as NCAR, UCAR, Bell Labs, Volunteers for Outdoor Colorado (similar to Sierra Club), other organizations within the environmental field, and school districts with innovation for education. T. Hillman thought this is a super exciting project and complimented staff and the working group on moving this forward. He felt there is an opportunity to combine scalability with L. Read projected GHG reductions as mentioned. He thought that the focus on opportunities this program is trying to stimulate such as awareness and community-engagement are less significant than GHG reductions. This awareness-raising is a great investment in community-values which will be cultivated and grow through this program. He suggested getting as much news coverage as possible on this program and emphasized the need to continually engage the community. For the community event he also liked people’s choice idea. He mentioned working with city attorneys to include language in the award agreement that if funds are used inappropriately, all funding will be lost so that the city’s funding of this program is protected. J. Harkins mentioned that Seattle is doing a similar project and that California and Massachusetts each have a 1 year program similar to this. She let the board know that listserv emails would be helpful to get the word out about this project to various groups. She noted that all finalists will likely be funded to some extent, but the way in which funds will be disbursed hasn’t been decided on yet. S. Morgan noted that the evaluation criteria need to be kept general enough to allow some flexibility in awarding grant money. The city is underplaying the fact that they have a lot of information and data which is important in-kind value. B.KenCairn mentioned that the city has more small data than big data and that in some cases the opportunity to have access to try new technology could be an even larger incentive than money and that potentially there could be an additional category to capture applicants with different motivations. S. Morgan mentioned that there are many crowdsourcing funds available within Boulder and suggested that money will come and be available to implement the best ideas. M. Lommele clarified that the members of the working group are well connected in the energy world and are able to help with outreach. She asked if energy efficiency and transportation folks should also be included in these groups in order to help with outreach. She mentioned that TechStars holds an event where finalists for funding pitch it to the community, it then gets tweeted about and posted on social media and she suggested that this could be used as a model. She mentioned Dancing with the Boulder Stars as a fun event that people attend and suggested creating a similar, fun event at the Boulder Theater that includes a people’s choice award. She emphasized encouraging blogging and providing an opportunity for public to provide feedback. For additional outreach opportunities, she mentioned NREL, the Governor’s energy office, CSU, CU, CRC email listservs and 350.org and on-line opportunities M. Lommele for posting grant opportunities. volunteered to write an OpEd for the Daily Camera about EAB’s support of this project. An additional article by Alicia Wallace might be possible in the Monday Daily Camera. She mentioned that more thought needs to be put into timelines, criteria, and milestones. She suggested brainstorming a list of in-kind needs that could be provided. She felt that GHG reduction is the most important and should be weighted heavily. Criteria that should be weighted in the middle range are addressing the barrier, innovation, longevity, community visibility, team qualifications, work plan, equity, location, and collaboration are important. Readiness, time to benefit, scalability and number of people reached by the project are less important and should be weighted less. KenCairn mentioned that public/private partnerships should be explored so that a private entity could take on an administrative role in managing these projects while the city would provide the money to support the project. J. Harkins agreed that these projects may need more active management and that some of the available money may need to help pay for administration of the awarded grant money. M. Abbott discussed the program structure and provided TechStars as an example of a good model to potentially follow. She suggested using mentors or a point person/champion for each project to help streamline communication and administration. TechStars provides some money and teaches project starters to self-sustain by helping projects find mentors and disburse the administrative load. She would like to see the community showcase become an exciting, community event like Ignite. She thought having the event at the Boulder Theater and including a people’s choice award will make it fun and a real draw for people. She suggested making a video to promote this program and using it as well as social media and looking at the tech side of things to get the word out and make things exciting. S. Morgan noted that the city needs to consider opportunities for more funding down the road and be aware of any conflicts of interest with reviewers/companies, etc. M. Lommele suggested creating a listserv to provide updates to interested parties and getting an article about this program published in the Boulder Blueline. L. Read suggested testing the evaluation criteria on one or two example proposals to vet it and finalize it prior to using it to rate the first few applications. 6. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 7. MATTERS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD, CITY MANAGER, AND CITY ATTORNEY M. Lommele inquired if other EAB members thought EAB had a role to play in the proposed new dog/leash laws. M. Abbott felt it was more of an OSBT issue and the rest of the board agreed. KenCairn asked the board for ideas on how to effectively frame climate issues in ways that people can relate to and care about. The new emphasis is on energy transition with no more burning of fossil fuels. How can everyone engage in the process of energy transition and be energy efficient? He mentioned that the four main pieces of the proposed new framework are 1. Decarbonization through source changing and efficiency 2. Energy resilience 3. Economic development based on low carbon 4. Energy policy reform to change the system. M. Abbott liked the specificity of this message and framing and felt it was very clear and effective. M. Lommele noted that most success will come from mandates and regulation. B.KenCairn agreed thatthe system needs to be changed andmandates and policy reform are what will support people’s abilities to and ease in changing their individual action. T. Hillman suggested viewing it through an economic lens and emphasizing that money spent on locally generated renewable energy is spent in and benefits our community versus money spent on fossil fuels that are not a good investment. L. Read suggested focusing on changes people might notice in their community that can be connected to climate change to make it real (e.g. fish in ponds, time of when gardens can be started, timing of when you can go on trail ridge road, etc). B.KenCairn noted that individual action needs to be balanced with fundamental system changes. 8. DEBRIEF MEETING/CALENDAR CHECK 9. ADJOURNMENT Environmental Advisory Board adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Approved: _________________________________________________________ Chair Date MEMORANDUM To:EnvironmentalAdvisoryBoard From:DepartmentofCommunityPlanningandSustainability DavidDriskell,ExecutiveDirector SusanRichstone,DeputyDirector KaraMertz,EnvironmentalActionProjectManager JamieHarkins,BusinessSustainabilitySpecialist Date:April9,2014 Subject:ZeroWasteStrategicPlan ThepurposeofthisagendaitemistoupdatetheEnvironmentalAdvisoryBoardontheZeroWaste StrategicPlan(ZWSP),andspecificallytoobtainfeedbackon: 1.TheTrashTaxProgramEvaluationStudyfindings;and 2.TheproposedZWSPupdateprocess,includingthepublicoutreachcomponent. BACKGROUND TheCityofBoulderhasagoalofbecomingaZeroWastecommunity.Inpracticalterms,thismeans 85to90percentofthewastestreamisreused,recycledorcomposted,andonly10to15percentis senttoalandfill.TheĐŝƚǇ͛ƐmostrecentMasterPlanforWasteReductionwaswrittenin2005and acceptedbyCityCouncilinFeb.2006(https://wwwstatic.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/zerowaste reductionmasterplan1201305071148.pdf).Itlaidoutaplanfor70percentdiversionbyDec.2012 and85percentby2017. ArecentcommunitywidesustainabilitysurveyconductedinconjunctionwithBoulderCountyshows thatthevastmajorityofcityresidentsengageinwastereductionactivitiesandwouldsupportthe expansionofprogramsthatworktowardthisend.Inaddition,WesternDisposalconductedasurvey ofsomeofitscommercialandmultifamilypropertyowners.Themajortakeawaysfromthese surveysarethatzerowasteisanembeddedcommunityvalue;residentsandbusinessesarewillingto increasetheirzerowasteeffortsifprovidedwithsupportfromthecityandcommunitypartners;and recyclingandcompostingcollectionarebasicserviceexpectationsfromresidents,employeesand customersinBoulder. InJanuary2014,thecitycompletedaProgramEvaluationStudythatreviewedtheeffectivenessof pasttrashtaxexpendituresandmaderecommendationsformovingforwardtowardzerowaste. Duringthecomingyear,theresultsoftheProgramEvaluationStudywillbevettedwiththe communityandusedtoinformtheZeroWasteStrategicPlan(ZWSP).TheProgramEvaluationStudy, conductedbyKesslerConsultingandLBAAssociates,isincludedasAttachmentA. Overtheeightyearperiodbetween2004and2012,ŽƵůĚĞƌ͛Ɛwastediversionincreasedfrom30 percentto39percentwithhigherdiversionduringsomeinterimyears(2010communitywide 1 diversionwas46percent).In2012,overallcommunitywidewastediversionwasapproximately39 percent,resultingfromthefollowingrecyclingandcompostingratesbysector: 62percentofsinglefamilyresidentialwaste; 20percentofmultifamilywaste;and 35percentofcommercialwaste In2011,twostudysessionswereheldontheMasterPlanupdate(renamedtheZeroWasteStrategic Plan).Atthattime,councilidentifiedthefollowingsixhighlevelprioritiesfortheplanupdate: Increasewastediversion Reducetotalwastetothelandfillthroughsourcereduction Reducegreenhousegasemissions Reducetoxicityinthewastestream Increaseparticipationinzerowasteprograms Buildafoundationforazerowastecommunity Thepastseveralyearshavebeencriticaltolayingthegroundworkforbecomingazerowaste community.Manyoftheessentialzerowastefacilitiesarenowdeveloped,providingacritical foundationforallwastegeneratingsectorstoaccessrecyclingservices.Thefollowingrecyclingand reusefacilitiesarenowalllocatedwithinonemileofeachother;͞ZĞĐǇĐůĞZŽǁ͟Ϳ͗ 6400ArapahoehousingEcoǇĐůĞ͛ƐCenterforHardtoRecycleMaterialsandReSource usedbuildingmaterialsyard BoulderCountyRecyclingCenter BoulderŽƵŶƚǇ͛ƐHazardousMaterialsManagementFacility WesternŝƐƉŽƐĂů͛Ɛcompostprocessingsite Thecityyardandwoodwastedropoffcenters Inadditiontotheexistingrecyclingandreusefacilities,thePlanningBoardapprovedaconceptplan rd forWesternDisposaltobuildanewtransferstationadjacenttotherecyclingcenteron63Street thatincludesconstructionwastesorting,relocationofthewoodandyardwastedropoffcenters,and increaseddiversionopportunities. ANALYSIS I.ZeroWasteProgramEvaluationStudy ThepurposeoftheProgramEvaluationStudy(AttachmentA)wastoevaluatetheefficacyofthe currentwastediversionfacilities,programsandpolicies;andalsoevaluatefuturealternativesfor achievingtheĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͛Ɛzerowastegoals.Thestudyprovidesrecommendationsforimprovingthe efficiencyandeffectivenessoftheĐŝƚǇ͛Ɛtrashtaxfunds,aswellasforgeneraloperationaland partnershipimprovementsacrosstheĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͛Ɛzerowastesystems.Keyfindingsfromthestudy include: Boulderisuniquelypositionedtobecomeazerowastecommunity,withprogressive nonprofitsandforprofitpartnersinvestingintheownershipandoperationofthe ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͛Ɛzerowasteinfrastructure;thecityshouldsolidifyitscontractualrelationship withitspartnerstoensurethefutureofthesefacilities. 2 Whenassessedagainstbothquantitativeandqualitativeobjectives,theeffectivenessoftrash taxexpendituresvaries.Thefollowingprogramenhancementsarerecommendedfor consideration: ReprioritizeexistingfundingforzerowastefieldtripsinBoulderschoolstoinvest o directlyinschoolreuse,recyclingandcompostingactivities; Modifycommercialrecyclingincentivesinanticipationofnewdiversionpoliciesfor o thissector; ExpandtheimpactsoftheĐŝƚǇ͛ƐGreenBuildingGreenPointsprogramtoaccomplish o increasedreuseandrecyclingfromconstructionactivities;and Improvedatacapturefrombothcityandvendorprogramsandimprovethe o applicationofqualitativemetrics. Thegreatestopportunityforfuturediversionandgreenhousegasreductionswouldoccur withacombinationofthefollowinginitiatives: Everyotherweektrashcollection; o Mandatorysubscriptiontotrashserviceforallowneroccupiedhomes; o Mandatorysinglestreamrecyclingforbusinesseswithmorethan10employees; o Mandatorycommercialcompostingforfoodserviceestablishmentsincluding o supermarketsandrestaurants;and Aconstructionanddemolitiondebrisdepositprogram. o ͛ƐfeedbackonanyofthepotentialstrategiesintheProgramEvaluationStudy,aswellasany strategiesnotprioritizedinthestudybutforwhichmembersseeaneed,willbeusefulasstaff estrategiesforpublicinput. evaluatesth II.ZeroWasteStrategicPlan FormatofPlan:The2014updatedZWSPwillbepresentedinadifferentformatfromtheprevious MasterPlanforWasteReduction.Thenewstrategicplanwillbepresentedasaninteractivegraphic withwhichthecommunitycaneasilyengage.Thegraphicwillallowthepublictoseethecurrent statusofwastediversioninBoulder;whatstrategieswillbepursuedtoachieveourgoals;andwill havetheabilitytobeupdatedandadjustedascircumstancesinthecommunitychange. ThereasonforchangingfromamasterplanformattoastrategicplanreflectstheĐŝƚǇ͛Ɛ understandingofŽƵůĚĞƌ͛Ɛuniquelandscapeinthezerowastearena.Inourchangingworld,therole oflocalgovernmentsismorphingtobeonewherecitiesharnessthesignificantknowledgeand powerofthecommunitiestheyserve.Bouldercanfacilitateacommunityvisionaroundzerowaste; ͞ƐĞƚtheƌƵůĞƐ͟soeveryonecanplayonanevenfield;andhelpnurtureandexploiteachƉůĂǇĞƌ͛Ɛ uniquestrengthstocontributetothatsharedvision. Ascomparedwithothercommunitieswheremunicipalcontrol,statemandatesorhighlandfilltip feesdrivezerowasteinvestments,theBouldercommunityreliesonastrongnetworkofnonprofit, forprofit,governmentalandcommunitypartnershipstoinvesttimeandmoneyintothesuccessof ourzerowastesystems.TheproperrolefortheCityofBoulderistolayoutaframeworkforour ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͛Ɛzerowastevisionandtoidentifytheproperrolesforeachofthesecommunitypartners, recognizingthatthecitydoesnothaveallofthecontrolnordowewanttomakeallofthe investmentinthesefacilities.Thislendsitselftoastrategicframeworkforzerowaste,with 3 accompanyingactionplansthatchangeascircumstanceschangetoaddressspecificprogramsand serviceofferings,periodicallymeasuringprogresstowardoursharedcommunitygoals. Towardthisend,theZWSPwillincludethefollowingmajorcomponents: Recommendationsforwherethecityanditspartnersmaybestcollaboratetoremovewaste beforeitiscreatedinordertomaximizeupstreamwastediversion; Facilityinvestmentprioritiestoinformdevelopmentat6400Arapahoeandelsewhere; Program,serviceandpolicyprioritiestomaximizerepairandreuseopportunities; Program,serviceandpolicyprioritiestomaximizeresourcerecoverybydirectingdiscarded materialstoallthefacilitiesalongRecycleRow,suchthatonlythetiniestamountofwaste travelseastwardtobeburiedinlandfills;and Measurementoftotalpercapitadiscardgenerationinordertotracksourcereductiontrends overtime. ThestrategiesrecommendedintheProgramEvaluationstudywillbeevaluatedagainstthefollowing criteriatobothpresenttothepublicforfeedbackandsubsequentlycreateadraftZWSPthatwill pavethewaytoazerowasteBoulder: DiversionImpacts CostImpactstoCity CostImpacttoCustomers GHGReductions JobCreation CommunityEngagement/Participation EaseofImplementation New/ExpandedPartnerships Asamplematrixispresentedbelowwhichratesseveralstrategiestodecreasesinglefamily residentialwasteagainstevaluationcriteria.Finalmaterialsprovidedtothecommunitywillinclude numericalanalysesforthosewhoareinterestedinthequantificationofcostsandbenefits. RESIDENTIAL[SINGLEFAMILY]STRATEGIES Possible COST COSTTOGHGCOMMUNITYEASEOFPARTNERSHIP new DIVERSIONTOJOBS CITYREDUCTIONENGAGEMENTIMPLEMENTATIONOPPRTUNITIES initiative USER EveryOther WeekTrash ***$************** Collection Required Trash **revenue************ Collection Service Construction Debris ****revenue*************** Recycling Deposit Meatand Dairyadded **$************** toCurbside Compost 4 OutreachPlan:TherearetwophasesofcommunityoutreachandengagementfortheZWSP.Thefirst phase,whichbeganinearly2013,solicitedinputonthebarrierstoimprovedwastediversionandon whatstrategiesshouldbeincludedintheProgramEvaluation^ƚƵĚǇ͛Ɛanalysisforfutureprograms, services,regulationsandinfrastructure.InputonthestrategieswasobtainedfromtheWasteTask Force,agroupofcriticalcommunityzerowastestakeholdersandpartners.Alistoftaskforce participantscanbefoundinAttachmentB.Thisphasealsoincludesengagementwiththepublicprior totheJune3CityCouncilmeetingtoobtaingeneralinputontheĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͛Ɛpreferenceof strategiesfromtheProgramEvaluationStudy.PhasetwowillbeginaftertheJune3Councilmeeting andwillbeusedtoobtaincommunityandstakeholderinputonthespecificstrategiesthatCity Councilidentifiesasprioritiestobeincludedinthet^W͛Ɛaction(shortterm)implementationplan. Thisphasewillalsosolicitfeedbackon(a)PhaseIIoftheapprovedsiteplanfor6400Arapahoe;and (b)developmentguidelinesandprinciplesforthevacantparcelatthatsite.Basedontheevaluation andfeedback,thezerowasteteamwillreturntocouncilonJune3withrecommendedstrategiesfor updatingtheZWSP. PhaseOne:Thisphaseoftheoutreachplanaimstointeractwiththepubliconthreetopicareas: I.tŚĞƌĞǁĞĂƌĞĂŶĚǁŚĞƌĞǁĞǁĂŶƚƚŽŐŽʹThiswillfocusonthecurrentstateofwaste diversioninthecity.Thepublicwilllearnabouthowmucheachsectorofourcommunity isdivertingandwhatouroverallgoalsforthefutureare. II.,ŽǁĚŽǁĞŐĞƚƚŚĞƌĞ͍ʹThecommunitywillbeshownagroupofstrategiestoincrease wastediversionineachsector,generallyratedagainstthecriteriaabove,suchasabilityto divertwasteandcosttothecustomer.Theywillbeaskedtoprioritizewhichstrategies theywouldliketoseeusedineachsector. III.tŚĂƚĐŽƵůĚŚĞůƉǇŽƵƌĞĐǇĐůĞŵŽƌĞ͍ʹBoulderhasalltheinfrastructureandprogramsin placeformostmembersofthecommunitytoliveazerowastelifestyle.TheZWSP outreachprocessprovidescitystaffanopportunitytobetterunderstandtherealbarriers, strugglesandperhapsmisunderstandingsthatarepreventinghigherwastediversion. TheseconversationswillprovideinsightintohowbothcurrentprogramsandZWSP strategiescouldbetweakedtobemoreeffective,aswellaswhatitemsarecurrentlyin e. theĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͛Ɛtrashthatstillneedfuturemarketdevelopmenttoberecyclabl ComponentsofPhaseOneinclude: WasteTaskForcemeetingsʹThroughout2013andearly2014.DefinedscopeofProgram EvaluationStudy,inputonstrategiestobeincludedinstudy,feedbackonstudyresults. LargePropertyOwnerFeasibilitySurveyʹConductedbytheĐŝƚǇ͛Ɛbusinesszerowaste advisorswithrepresentativesofsevenlargecommercialpropertyowners.Thesurveyfocused onthefinancial,spaceandtimebarrierstoincreasedwastediversionattheirproperties, financialincentives,andtheirfeedbackonrecyclingmandatesandregulation. InspireBoulderʹStaffwillbeusingtheInspireBoulder.comsitebeginninginlateAprilto obtainpublicinputonbarrierstorecyclingandcompostingandpreferencesonproposed ZWSPstrategies. PublicOutreachEvents FarmersMarketʹoccasionalpresenceatWednesdayandSaturdayfarmersmarkets o focusingonengagementwithchildren,MayʹAugust. TravelingZeroWasteTourʹlateAprilandMay.Citystaffwillbetakinganoutreach o displaythatiscurrentlybeingproducedfeaturinginformationonthecurrentwaste 5 diversioninBoulderandadditionalzerowasteinformationtocoffeeshops,happy hours,coworkspaces,andotherlocations.Thisopportunitytoengagewiththepublic willfocusonfindingoutwhatcouldhelpthemrecyclemore,whatbarriersexistfor them,andinformthemhowtheycangetinvolvedintheZWSPprocess. ZeroWasteCommunityCelebrationat6400ArapahoeʹSaturdayMay10,36pm o NowthatEcoCyclehasmoveditsofficesandCHaRMto6400Arapahoe,this ribboncuttingandcommunitycelebrationwillhighlighttheideaof͞ZĞĐǇĐůĞ ZŽǁ͟tothepublicandwillbeanopportunitytoobtaininputfromattendees oncurrentandfuturezerowasteprogramsandstrategiesfortheZWSP. Eventwillincludefoodtrucks,livemusicalentertainment,commentsfrom representativesofcitystaff,CityCouncil,BoulderCounty,EcoCycleand ReSource,theGardeninaBoxpickupandplantsale,andavarietyofstations andboothsfeaturingdifferentprogramsandservicesaswellasothergoods andservicesvendorssuchasGreenGuruandCommunityCycles. rd PublicMeetingʹ3weekofMay o PhaseTwo:BasedonCityCouncilinputonJune3,thisphaseoftheoutreachplanwillfocuson obtainingpublicandstakeholderinputonthestrategiesthatcouncilidentifiedasspecificpriorities. PhasetwowillbegininlateJuneandcontinuethroughearlyfallwhenthedraftZWSPiscreated. ComponentofPhaseTwoinclude: AdditionalWasteTaskForcemeeting ContinuedengagementonInspireBoulder Publicmeetings FocusedstakeholdermeetingsʹDependingontheCityŽƵŶĐŝů͛Ɛinput,specificinputwillbe solicitedfromtheappropriatestakeholdergroups,suchastheĐŝƚǇ͛Ɛzerowastepartners, haulers,commercialbusinesses,propertymanagers,etc. AnintegratedcommunicationsplanfortheZWSPaswellasenhancementstotheĐŝƚǇ͛Ɛongoing programsandservicesisalsoincludedinAttachmentCforreference. Timeline:AtimelinefortheupdatetotheStrategicPlanisasfollows.AttachmentDincludesa processtimelinegraphic. AprilthroughMay2014:Zerowastecommunityawarenesseventsand solicitfeedbackonzerowastestrategiesfrom public June2014:PresentpolicyoptionsforupdatingtheZero WasteMasterPlanatCityCouncilMeeting Jun.throughSeptember2014:Phasetwopublicoutreachonspecific ;begintodevelopand prioritizedstrategies solicitstakeholderfeedbackonpotentialnew policiesifdirected Fall2014:ReturntocouncilwithadraftZWSPandaction planforacceptance;aswellasfeedbackon recommendedpoliciesand/orregulations 6 Attachment A ǡ 2014 Prepared for: City of Boulder, CO 1739 Broadway, Third Floor Boulder, CO 80306 Submitted by: Kessler Consulting, Inc. ŝŶŶŽǀĂƚŝǀĞǁĂƐƚĞƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶƐ 14620 N. Nebraska Ave., Bldg. D Tampa, FL 33613 In Association With LBA Associates 2186 S. Washington St. Denver, CO 80210 ƉƌŝŶƚĞĚŽŶƌĞĐǇĐůĞĚƉĂƉĞƌ Attachment A This report has been prepared for the use and benefit of the client for the specific purposes identified in the report. The conclusions, observations, and recommendations contained herein attributed to Kessler Consulting, Inc. constitute the opinions of Kessler Consulting.The services provided by Kessler Consulting and this report are not intended for the benefit of any third party and shall not be relied upon by any third party.To the extent that statements, information, and opinions provided by other third parties have been used in the preparation of this report, Kessler Consulting has relied upon the same to be accurate, and for which no assurances are intended and no representations or warranties are made. Kessler Consulting makes no certification and gives no assurances except as explicitly set forth in this report. Copyright 2013, Kessler Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved. Kessler Consulting, Inc. is a proud member of or was awarded the following: Attachment A Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1 ES.1Existing Program Findings ....................................................................................... 1 ES.2New/Expanded Program Findings ........................................................................... 2 ES.3Additional Findings .................................................................................................. 3 ES.4Recommendations................................................................................................... 4 ES.5Implementation Costs ............................................................................................. 5 Section 1Introduction ............................................................................................................. 7 1.1Study Purpose .......................................................................................................... 7 1.2Study Components .................................................................................................. 8 1.3Project Background ................................................................................................. 8 Section 2Existing Trash Tax Program Evaluation ................................................................. 11 2.1Process ................................................................................................................... 12 2.2Results ................................................................................................................... 12 2.2.1Criteria Selection .................................................................................... 12 2.2.2Evaluation ............................................................................................... 12 2.3Existing Program Recommendations .................................................................... 16 Section 3Future Zero Waste Initiatives Evaluation .............................................................. 19 3.1Process ................................................................................................................... 19 3.1.1Alternatives Identification and Selection ............................................... 19 3.1.2Evaluation of Initiatives .......................................................................... 19 3.2Results ................................................................................................................... 20 3.2.1Initiative Selection .................................................................................. 20 3.2.2Evaluation of Individual Initiatives ......................................................... 21 3.2.3Evaluation of Bundled Initiatives ............................................................ 25 3.3Future Zero Waste Initiatives Recommendations ................................................. 30 Section 4Additional Alternatives .......................................................................................... 33 4.1Contractual Relationships ..................................................................................... 33 4.1.1General Residential Recyclables Collection Needs ................................ 33 4.1.2Single-Hauler Versus Open-Market Collection Systems ........................ 34 4.1.3Other Contractual Relationships Between City and Partners ................ 37 4.2Hauler Financial Incentives .................................................................................... 41 4.3Zero Waste Education Programs ........................................................................... 41 4.3.1Best Practice Examples ........................................................................... 42 4.3.2Other Resources ..................................................................................... 43 i LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Table of Contents Section 5Recommendations ................................................................................................ 45 5.1Measurable Implementation Strategies ............................................................... 45 5.2Non-Measurable Implementation Strategies ....................................................... 47 5.3Estimated Expenditures ........................................................................................ 49 Table 2.1: Evaluation Criteria for the Zero Waste Evaluation Study ....................................... 13 Table 2.2: Existing Waste Diversion Program Analysis (2012) ................................................ 14 Table 3.1: Description of Future Zero Waste Initiatives .......................................................... 20 Table 3.2: Summary of Individual Initiatives Evaluation - Quantitative Analysis .................... 22 Table 3.3: Summary of Non-Measurable Impacts from Individual Initiatives ......................... 23 Table 3.4: City Staffing Estimates ............................................................................................ 24 Table 3.5: Summary of Bundled Initiative Evaluation ............................................................. 26 Table 4.1: Single-Hauler Versus Open-Market System ............................................................ 35 Table 4.2: Western Disposal Service and Rate Comparison .................................................... 36 Table 4.3: Diversion Program and City Contracts/Partnerships .............................................. 37 .............................................................. 38 Table 5.1: Existing Versus Future City Zero Waste Expenditures ............................................ 50 Figure 1.1: Current Diversion and Disposal of Boulder's Municipal Solid Waste Stream ........ 9 Figure 2.1: 2012 City Trash Tax Expenditures ......................................................................... 11 Figure 3.1: Bundle #1 Diversion Potential .............................................................................. 27 Figure 3.2: Bundle #1 GHG Emission Reductions ................................................................... 27 Figure 3.3: Bundle #2 City Costs/Initial Development ............................................................ 28 Figure 3.4: Bundle #2 City Costs/Annual Costs ....................................................................... 29 Figure 3.5: Bundle #3 Customer Costs .................................................................................... 29 Appendix A Diverted and Discarded MSW Composition Data Appendix B Existing Zero Waste Program Analysis Appendix C Potential Zero Waste Initiatives Appendix D Individual Zero Waste Initiative Impacts Appendix E Zero Waste Scenario (Bundled Initiatives) Impacts Appendix F Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Appendix G Job Creation Factors Appendix H Hauler Financial Incentives ii LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Table of Contents BCPH Boulder County Public Health KCI Kessler Consulting, Inc. BCRC Boulder County Recycling Center LEAD Local Environmental Action Division BRC Boulder Revised Code MFU Multi-family unit BVSD Boulder Valley School District MSW Municipal solid waste CDD Construction and demolition debris MFU Multi-family unit CHaRM Center for Hard-to-Recycle Materials mtCOe Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents 2 CRC Center for Resource Conservation NA, na Not applicable DOC Drop-off center P&R Parks & Recreation Department EOW Every other week PDS Planning & Development Services FTE Full-time equivalents SFU Single-family unit GBGP Green Building Green Points Program SS Single-stream GHG Greenhouse gas USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency HOA Homeowners association WDS Western Disposal Services HMMF Hazardous Materials Management Facility ZW Zero waste ZWTF Zero Waste Task Force iii LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report Attachment A Attachment A The City of Boulder has made significant strides in waste diversion, recording an overall solid waste diversion rate across all waste streams of 41 percent in 2011. As the City focuses on moving to a zero waste system, more aggressive policies and programmatic solutions will be required for reducing waste generation and maximizing material recovery. The purpose of the City of Boulder's Zero Waste Evaluation Study is to evaluate the efficacy of the current waste diversion system and identify future alternatives for achieving the City's zero waste goals over a 15- year planning period. These goals include: Attaining a landfill diversion rate of 85 to 90 percent. Maximizing greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions. Maximizing job creation. Minimizing capital/implementation and operating costs. Additionally improving the options for source reduction, reuse, repair and reduced toxicity; engaging the public; supporting zero waste practices; easy implementation; good accountability from service providers; and partnership opportunities with local businesses and organizations. This report provides recommendations for enhancing resource allocation within the City's existing programs, for implementing new or modified programs, and for general operational and partnership improvements across its solid waste system. The results of this study will be used to inform a Zero Waste Plan update in 2014. Ǥͳ The City operates several solid waste activities with Trash Tax revenues, which totaled over $1.7 million in 2012. Seventeen different programs with direct waste diversion impacts were evaluated in this study against both measurable and qualitative criteria. These criteria reflect the City's goals, and were established with the assistance of the Zero Waste Task Force (ZWTF). These programs fall into four categories: Diversion programs for single-family and multi-family residences. Diversion programs for local businesses. Support for waste diversion facilities owned and operated by City partners. Collection of diverted materials from City government buildings (contracted service). The annual cost of these programs represent about one-third of the Trash Tax revenues, and cost the City an average $72/ton. The diverted materials are responsible for reducing GHG emissions equal to removing over 1,300 vehicles from Boulder roads. Some of the programs engender strong community involvement (especially Western Disposal Services, or WDS's, drop-off collection sites and Eco-Cycle's operations). Others have the potential for providing a strong foundation for future 1 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Executive Summary zero waste strategies as they can be a direct stepping stone to more aggressive programming (all commercial programs, ReSource's used building material activities and the City's zero waste rebates for special events). ǤʹȀ While waste generators in the City of Boulder have posted laudable waste diversion progress in recent years, as much as 21,000 tons of recyclables and 20,600 tons of organics in the City's municipal solid waste stream are being landfilled. The City and the ZWTF chose to evaluate 11 program initiatives with the potential to help address this gap. These initiatives include: Every Other Week Trash Collection - mandatory policy to decrease single-family trash collection to every-other-week and increase organics collection to weekly. Multi-Family Composting - modify existing policy to require haulers to provide organics collection to homeowners with shared trash containers. Take-Out Packaging - encourage voluntary use of recyclable or compostable packaging by take-out restaurants. Homeowner Collection Service - modify existing policy to require all homeowners to subscribe to curbside trash collection (and other material collection as appropriate to the type of residence). Commercial Recycling - mandatory policy requiring businesses to subscribe to curbside recyclables collection. Curbside Organics Recovery - mandatory policy requiring food establishments to subscribe to organics collection. Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD) Deposit Program - modify Green Building Green Points (GBGP) requirements to include commercial projects and establish a refundable deposit. Special Events Diversion - modify existing policy to require diversion at all events requiring a City permit and to establish a deposit system. City Purchase of Local Compost - new policy to require the City to purchase only locally produced compost. Boulder County Recycling Center Improvements - City funding to support facility improvements targeted towards greater efficiency for processing more recyclables Existing Policy Enforcement - resources for improved City enforcement of existing recycling requirements for homeowners, construction/deconstruction projects and special events. These initiatives were evaluated against the same measurable and qualitative criteria used for existing programming. It was estimated that if all 11 initiatives were implemented, the City's diversion level could potentially reach its diversion rate goal, reduce significant GHGs and enjoy numerous new partnership opportunities. Collectively, however, these programs would add new 2 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Executive Summary City costs. Customers would also be impacted in terms of increased service rates and compliance costs. As a means of prioritizing those initiatives most likely to meet the City's environmental and economic goals, three groupings (or bundles) of initiatives were created: Bundle #1 for Greatest Landfill Diversion/Greatest GHG Reductions - including Every Other Week Trash Collection, Homeowner Collection Service, Commercial Recycling, Commercial Organics Recovery and CDD Deposit Program. Bundle #2 for Lowest City Cost - including Every Other Week Trash Collection, Homeowner Collection Service, Multi-Family Composting, Take-Out Packaging and CDD Deposit Program. Bundle #3 for Lowest Customer Costs - including Every Other Week Trash Collection, Multi- Family Composting, Take-Out Packaging, Commercial Recycling and Commercial Organics Recovery. The environmental and economic impacts of these bundles were evaluated over the 15-year planning period. When considered in the aggregate, Bundle #1 demonstrated the greatest environmental benefits, increasing the City's overall waste diversion rate to 79 percent and new GHG reductions equal to 15,000 less cars by 2027. Both Bundles #1 and #2 would generate net revenues when considered separately from existing programs - Bundle #2 had the highest with estimated annual earnings of $59,000 by 2020 and $72,000 by 2027. Alternatively, Bundle #3 is expected to create the lowest economic impact to customers with new monthly costs ranging from $2 to $6 (residential initiatives) and $15 to $50 (commercial initiatives). These costs reflect the exclusion of the CDD Deposit program from this bundle (as "green" building increases new construction costs). Ǥ͵ As Bundle #1 may fall short of fully meeting the City's waste diversion goal and some of its qualitative goals, additional alternatives were considered. The primary alternative focused on the ability to clarify partner roles and increase diversion through contractual relationships. A review of existing partner contracts identified opportunities for the City to share revenues from the sale of recyclables, more firmly secure organics processing capacity at WDS's composting facility, support private-sector CDD processing, involve ReSource in the GBGP expansion, and obtain more detailed cost-accounting of the City's investment in CHaRM. The concept of a single-hauler collection system was also revisited (the City has considered this concept in the past). This type of system would typically require a competitive procurement process to select a hauler to serve the City's single-family and small multi-family homes. Ultimate pros and cons cannot be definitively identified prior to implementation due to numerous variables. A comparison of residential services in Boulder (with an open-market collection system) to those in Louisville and Lafayette (both with a single-hauler contract) identified many of these variables, and observed that while rates are higher in Boulder, the level of service is higher as well. Key benefits of a change in Boulder to single-hauler collection are expected to include the potential for lower customer (homeowner) costs, greater City control over service, improved collection metrics and a new opportunity for a consistent, citywide public education campaign. Disadvantages will include loss of customers' ability to choose their hauler and loss of business for existing haulers who do not 3 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Executive Summary win the contract (non-collection services and facilities operated by unsuccessful bidders may also be impacted). A new contract with Boulder County regarding improvements and operation of the Boulder County Recycling Center (BCRC) was also considered as a means of having formal input to materials accepted for processing, and facility improvements to increase efficiencies. ǤͶ Initial recommendations address existing programs and will be the most timely and straightforward to implement. It is expected that these modifications would be made in 2014 and would save the City approximately $82,000 per year: Re-prioritize Eco-Cycle funding for Boulder Valley School District to direct reuse, recycling and composting activities. Modify all commercial programs (in anticipation of new diversion policy for this sector) - including refocusing funding to Boulder County Public Health for standardized tools useful to many businesses and eliminating recycling coupons, the zero waste start-up rebate and the compost subsidy. Expand the impacts of GBGP to accomplish increased diversion and improve the value of the City's investment in ReSource. Improve data capture from both City and vendor programs and improve the application of qualitative metrics - both will enhance the City's ability to review and value ongoing programming. Once current programming has been maximized in terms of its ability to support the City's goals, the City can begin to expand these programs and tackle new zero waste policies. It is expected that the City Council, Environmental Advisory Board and ZWTF will review the study findings and decide whether one of the bundles of new initiatives should be adopted, or whether a new grouping should be developed from the 11 initiatives evaluated. Based solely on the findings of this report, the suggested course of action is implementation of Bundle #1. It is specifically recommended that this occur in two phases: Phase I (2014-2016) - revise BRC Chapter 6-12 to implement Every Other Week Trash Collection for single-family homes, create new policy for both Commercial Recycling (applies to all businesses) and Commercial Organics Recovery (applies to food establishments only) subscription requirements. Phase II (2017-2018) - revise BRC Chapter 10-7.5 to the CDD Deposit Program to add commercial construction to GBGP and establish a deposit program and revise BRC Chapter 6-3 to require all homeowners to subscribe to curbside trash service. It is estimated that City costs for development and initial implementation of these initiatives will be about $105,000. This will primarily include salary costs for 1 to 2 new staff for research, a public input process, developing expanded/new partnerships with regulated and vendor groups, obtaining necessary approvals, pilot testing and stakeholder outreach. The CDD Deposit Program is likely to require the most intensive development, as a deposit structure, fee schedule and compliance verification system must be put in place. 4 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Executive Summary Once this program is fully implemented, however, ongoing operations are expected to generate $45,000/year through 2020, and up to $74,000 by 2027 (both costs include 2 full-time staff). These favorable economics are due primarily to the CDD Deposit Program, which will provide revenues in the form of non-refunded deposits (customer costs are higher, however, with green construction estimated to increase costs by an average $13,800/project). Also of economic significance is the impact Bundle #1 will have on the City's Trash Tax revenue potential. While commercial tax revenues will be lost as commercial and construction diversion increases and landfill tons drop, residential tax revenues will be gained as all homeowners are required to subscribe to collection service. The cumulative impact is expected to be significant, but earnings will depend on when initiatives are implemented, actual diversion, costs of programming not evaluated in this study staying constant, and enforcement. Other recommendations to support Boulder's future zero waste program activities include: Increased investment in public outreach and education with universal messaging and branding - this has an approximate annual cost of $42,000 to $86,000 for the first few years in addition to current outreach costs (about $45,000/year). Increased enforcement of existing and future programs to ensure consistent implementation, increase diversion and maintain the City's credibility in terms of managing Boulder's zero waste system - the cost of $8,000 was included in Bundle #1. Redefining partner responsibilities through enhanced contractual relationships - this should include the WDS compost facility, CHaRM and ReSource/GBGP operations. Utilization of available acreage at 6400 Arapahoe Road - with space for assisting new initiative implementation (especially the CDD Deposit/expanded GBGP program), supporting additional materials diversion (CDD and materials not currently collected in Boulder), training and community engagement activities. Ongoing zero waste plan implementation - to include at least an every-other-year plan review as well as continual improvement of tracking metrics, review of costs against Trash Tax and CDD Deposit revenues, and audits to identify new diversion and public education needs. Lastly, it is acknowledged that implementation of a contractual single-hauler system in Boulder would be difficult and was not recommended for consideration. It is strongly suggested, however, that this concept be pursued if the City is unable to obtain reasonably strong support from haulers for development and implementation of the Bundle #1 initiatives (or whichever initiatives the City ultimately selects in its 2014 Zero Waste Plan Update). Ǥͷ Based on the study recommendations, it is estimated that the City would: Phase I (2014-2016) - spend an additional $115,000 to $187,000 per year over the current $1.7 million budget (this considers initial development of Bundle #1 initiatives, as well as projected CDD Deposit Program and phased-in changes to Trash Tax revenues). Phase II (2017-2027) - earn net revenues in the range of $500,000 per year (including projected CDD Deposit revenues and overall changes to Trash Tax revenues - net revenues 5 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Executive Summary can be used to increase zero waste programming and expand public outreach and education activities, especially for multi-family and commercial generators). These recommendations represent aggressive policy and programmatic initiatives. They will require fundamental changes to the status quo and significant effort by the City, waste generators and the City's partners. It will be important for the City to apply any data updates, revisions to the study assumptions and clarification of qualitative criteria to the initiatives ultimately selected to ensure the best estimation of environmental, economic and social outcomes. The KCI Team performed this analysis and developed these recommendations for the City to consider as part of a broad-based community process to update the Citys Zero Waste Master Plan. The KCI Team believes that a delayed implementation schedule may significantly impact the City's ability to achieve its zero waste goals. 6 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report Attachment A ͳ The City of Boulder has made significant strides in moving toward zero waste, recording an overall solid waste diversion rate of 41 percent in 2011. This success is all the more impressive as it was based primarily on voluntary measures and an open-hauler collection system. As the City focuses on a zero waste diversion goal, more aggressive policies and programmatic solutions will be required for reducing waste generation and maximizing material recovery. Although simple concepts, these will take significant effort by the City, waste generators and City partners - and will require fundamental change in the status quo. Despite the relatively high diversion levels currently observed, 42 percent ential waste and (landfilled) is compromised of recyclables and organics that could have been diverted through existing programs. On the industrial side, the ability to increase construction and demolition material diversion was estimated at over 200 percent. Clearly, the opportunity for increased diversion exists. 1.1 The purpose of the Zero Waste Evaluation Study is to evaluate the efficacy of the current waste diversion system and identify future alternatives for achieving the City's zero waste goals over a 15- year planning period. These goals include: 1 Maximizing landfill diversion - generally defined as a diversion level of 85 to 90 percent. Maximizing greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions. Maximizing job creation. Minimizing capital/implementation and operating costs. Achieving additional criteria more qualitative in nature - including the ability for upstream conservation (source reduction, reuse, repair and reduced toxicity); to engage the public, raise awareness and broaden the foundation for zero waste practices; for smooth implementation; for the City to obtain reasonable accountability in services provided by others; and for partnership opportunities with community businesses and organizations. The City developed the most recent version of its Master Plan for Waste Reduction in 2006 and will update it in 2014. This study will provide City staff with information that, along with a community and Council process, will help complete the Zero Waste Program Update in 2014. 1 Based on the City of Boulder's Master Plan for Waste Reduction (prepared by the Office of Environmental Affairs in 2006) and the Zero Waste Community Planning Guide & Ten Year Strategy (prepared by Eco-Cycle in 2012). 7 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 1: Introduction 1.2 The study includes three distinct components for assessing the City's potential for achieving zero waste. These evaluations utilize data and input from City staff, the Zero Waste Task Force (ZWTF) and best management practices in other zero waste programs. They include: 1.Evaluation of Existing Waste Diversion Programs Supported by Trash Tax Revenues - This analysis is described in Section 2 of this report and provides: Improved understanding of program effectiveness. Identification of modifications to improve efficacy and provide a better foundation for future policy and programming. Re-allocation of City dollars to program activities expected to better meet its zero waste goals. 2.Evaluation of Future Initiatives Identified by City Staff and the ZWTF - This analysis is described in Section 3 of this report and considers: A wide range of initiatives for achieving the zero waste goals. Criteria for short-listing and analyzing the initiatives. Detailed analysis of those initiatives for which further environmental and economic analysis is needed to determine their value. Bundling of initiatives to meet the City's measurable goals (i.e., diversion, GHG reductions, jobs and costs). 3.Consideration of Additional Activities - This analysis builds upon the findings of the future initiatives evaluation with additional recommendations for increasing the probability of reaching the City's zero waste goals, and is described in Section 4 of this report. 1.3 The City's waste diversion system includes a network of policy, programs and partnerships with private and non-profit service providers. Key components include: 1.Hauler Ordinance for Residential/Multi-Family Collection (BRC Chapter 6-12) - This requires haulers: Who collect single-family and multi-family trash to also collect recyclables and organics every-other-week (only recyclables from multi-family homes). To utilize variable rate trash pricing with embedded recycling/organics collection costs. To take recyclables to the BCRC unless customers choose another option. To report material quantities annually. 2.Commercial Programs These include technical assistance, rebates and an organics collection subsidy. 8 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 1: Introduction 3.Partnership for Materials Collection and Processing - The City works with WDS for the collection and/or processing of yard and wood waste, Eco-Cycle's CHaRM for hard-to- recycle materials, and the County's Hazardous Materials Management Facility (HMMF) for hazardous waste. The City also works with ReSource to provide infrastructure and customer outreach associated with the reuse/resale of used building materials and durable goods. 4.Hauler Occupational Tax (BRC Chapter 3-10) - The City requires all haulers to pay an occupational tax (known as the Trash Tax) that is essentially a pass-through to homeowner and commercial generators. Trash Tax revenues are the sole source of funding for City 2 programs. 5.Lease 6400 Arapahoe Property - Lessees include both Eco-Cycle and ReSource. 6.Miscellaneous City Programs - These include recycling/organics recovery at the Pearl Street Mall and several public outreach activities. Figure 1.1 illustrates the diverted and landfilled recyclables and organics waste within Boulder's municipal solid waste (MSW) stream. The figure illustrates that the untapped diversion potential for these streams is high - as much as 21,000 tons of MSW recyclables and 20,600 tons of organics were landfilled. Landfilled non-MSW (primarily CDD), which is not well defined and therefore not included in this figure, represents additional diversion potential. * Figure 1.1: Current Diversion and Disposal of Boulder's Municipal Solid Waste Stream Diverted Other Recyclables, Landfilled 26,100 (22%) Materials, 25,900 (22%) Recovered Landfilled Organics, Organics, 22,400 (19%) 20,600 (17%) Other Diverted Landfilled Materials, Recyclables, 3,700 (3%) 21,000 (17%) * Based on the City's 2011 Annual Waste Tracking report and 2012 waste composition studies (compiled in WDS's Summary of Waste Sort Results, March 2013). 2 The City does not require all owner-occupied homes to subscribe to curbside collection, although rental properties do have this requirement. It is estimated that approximately two-thirds of all homes currently subscribe. 9 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 1: Introduction This page intentionally left blank. 10 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report Attachment A ʹ The purpose of this evaluation is to consider the effectiveness and cost efficacy of the existing waste diversion programs supported by Trash Tax revenues as the first component of meeting the City's zero waste goals. Figure 2.1 illustrates the current allocation of Trash Tax revenues. Figure 2.1: 2012 City Trash Tax Expenditures Government Collections (3%) Personnel/Non Waste -Personnel Diversion Expenses (31%) Facility Support (20%) Commercial Programming (11%) 6400 Arapahoe Single/Multi Rd. Bond (31%) Family Programming (4%) It is important to note that not all of the waste diversion programs funded by Trash Tax revenues were assessed in this evaluation: 1.Programs Included in the Evaluation - These include the mix of specific services provided directly by the City or with City funds, as well as diversion facilities supported by the City. In 2012, approximately 38 percent of the total $1.7 million Trash Tax revenue was spent on 3 these programs. In the same year, these programs were responsible for at least 31 percent of all tons diverted in Boulder. 2.Programs Excluded from the Evaluation - Activities funded by the remaining 62 percent of the 2012 Trash Tax revenues directly support the City's waste diversion mission; however, they were not evaluated because they could not be tied to specific programs or goal outcomes. These include: Personnel expenses by the City's LEAD General Services for overall planning, policy development, research and training activities. 3 Based on the City's FY2012 budget (still uses 2011 numbers). 11 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 2: Existing Trash Tax Program Evaluation Non-personnel expenses including office equipment, office supplies, travel, consulting services, capital projects, etc. Bond payments for the 6400 Arapahoe Road property. Additional waste materials diverted through curbside collection services provided by private haulers and the University of Colorado recycling programs (none of which 4 receive City funding). 2.1 The existing Trash Tax program evaluation process includes two steps: 1.Identification of criteria to assess the relative ability of any program or new zero waste initiative to help reach the City's goals. 2.Application of both measurable and applicable non-measurable criteria to exiting Trash Tax programs to assess relative value. 2.2Re 2.2.1 Table 2.1 presents the evaluation criteria selected for this study. These were based on an initial list identified by City LEAD staff and the City Manager's Office (Information Packet Memorandum, December 2012), and subsequently modified with input from ZWTF members. These criteria were developed for use in evaluating both the City's existing programs and future zero waste initiatives. As noted below, not all criteria were deemed useful for the evaluation of existing Trash Tax programs due primarily to the fact that some programs were fully implemented or relatively mature. 2.2.2 The evaluation of the City's existing Trash Tax programs was based on 2012 data obtained from the 5 City, haulers, Eco-Cycle and the Center for Resource Conservation (CRC). Where data was missing or incomplete, assumptions were made to generate comparative estimates. Table 2.2 summarizes the results of this evaluation. Appendix B includes additional details. Key observations are noted below. 4 City ordinances do impose requirements on residential MSW collection (i.e., materials to be collected, provision of containers, rate setting and other factors) as well as Trash Tax collection by haulers for service in all sectors. 5 Note that this analysis is based on data collected specifically for this evaluation of the 2012 baseline year and does not rely on the 2011 database referenced in Table 1.1 (i.e., some values differ between these sources). 12 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 2: Existing Trash Tax Program Evaluation Table 2.1: Evaluation Criteria for the Zero Waste Evaluation Study USED FOR EXISTING USED FOR FUTURE CRITERIA RANKING BASIS PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION EVALUATION Measurable Criteria Diverted Tons tons diverted Yes Yes metric tons CO equivalents Reduced GHG Emissions 2 Yes Yes reduced Jobs Creation Potential jobs created No Yes Costs costs (capital or operating $/year) Yes Yes Non-Measurable Criteria Support Source Reduction, 1 for one mechanism up to 4 for all Repair, Reuse and Reduced Yes Yes 4 mechanisms Toxicity (4 mechanisms) Community Engagement 1 for engaging up to 25% of City (encourages participation and households; 2 for up to 50%; 3 for Yes Yes a raises awareness) up to 75%; 4 for up to 100% 1 for outreach to 25% of City Zero Waste Foundation households; 2 for outreach to 50% (provides good basis for future of households; 3 for supporting Yes Yes zero waste activities) study initiative(s); 4 for additional support 1 for high effort (high cost, public vote, etc.); 2 for policy with high Ease of Implementation enforcement; 3 for policy with NA Yes (including policy needs) light enforcement or aggressive education; 4 for minimal effort 4 for implementation in < 2years; 3 Timeliness (effective within the in < 5 years; 2 in < 10 years; 1 in < NA Yes a 15-year planning period) 15 years Service Provider Accountability 4 for long-term contract; 3 for (for services supported by the short-term contract; 2 for policy; 1 NA Yes City) for minimal accountability options New/Expanded City Partnerships 4 for >2 new partners; 3 for 2 new (with community businesses and partners; 2 for 1 new partner; 1 for NA Yes organizations existing partnerships a See Recommendations in Section 5.1 for suggested implementation schedule. 13 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 2: Existing Trash Tax Program Evaluation a Table 2.2: Existing Waste Diversion Program Analysis (2012) (rounded to the nearest 100 tons; 100 mtCO2e, $1,000 total $) COST IMPACTS (operating $/year, UP-COM-ZERO GHG EXISTING CITY WASTE TONS 2012$) STREAM MUNITY WASTE REDUC- DIVERSION PROGAM DIVERTED CONSER-ENGAGEFOUNDA- TIONS Total $ $/mtCOe $/ton c c c VATION-MENTTION 2 SINGLE-FAMILY/MULTI-FAMILY RECYCLABLES and ORGANICS DIVERSION PROGRAMS b b 2 1 1 BVSD/Com Gardens 0 0 $25,000 $769$2,365 3 2 2 Eco-Cycle Outreach NA NA $10,000 NA NA 1 1 0 CRC Sponsorships NA NA $8,000 NA NA NA NA NA NA $5,000 0 1 1 Pearl St. Mall Program NA NA NA 2 1 1 Event Education Table NA $3,000 NA NA NA 0 1 3 Special Event Rebates NA $13,000 NA NA NA 0 1 1 Recycling Green Team NA $7,000 NA ^ƵďƚŽƚĂůϬϬΨϲϵ͕ϬϬϬNA COMMERCIAL RECYCLABLES and ORGANICS DIVERSION PROGRAMS NA 0 1 3 BCPH Outreach NA NA $106,000 NA NA 0 1 3 Recycling Coupons NA NA $2,000 NA NA 0 1 3 ZW Start-Up Rebate NA NA $2,000 NA 0 1 3 Composting Subsidy 4,700 900 $79,000 $84 $17 ^ƵďƚŽƚĂůϰ͕ϳϬϬϵϬϬΨϭϴϴ͕ϬϬϬNA NA WASTE DIVERSION FACILITIES Organics 1 3 2 Yard Waste DOC 8,000 1,100 $145,000 $134 $18 1 1 1 Wood Waste DOC 2,000 400 $31,000 $78 $16 Hard-to-Recycle Materials 4 3 2 CHaRM Operations 700 2,200 $101,000 $45 $135 Used Building Materials/ReSource 2 2 3 Customer Service 800 800 $63,000 $84 $81 Hazardous Materials 2 1 1 County HMM Facility 100 200 $2,000 $10 $30 ^ƵďƚŽƚĂůϭϮ͕ϯϬϬϱ͕ϰϬϬΨϯϰϮ͕ϬϬϬNA NA CITY GOVERNMENT DIVERSION COLLECTION 0 1 3 City Govt Collection 200 400 $41,000 $103 $205 ^ƵďƚŽƚĂůϮϬϬϰϬϬΨϰϭ͕ϬϬϬNA NA NA NA TOTAL 16,500 ϲ͕ϬϬϬ$640,000 ZŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĞƌƌŽƌƐŵĂǇŽĐĐƵƌ͘ a Appendix B includes estimating details for Table 2.2 (including estimated participation levels). b Based on a report of 10 tons diverted and estimated 32 mtCOe reduction. 2 c See Table 2.1 notes for qualitative ranking approach (Appendix B includes participation estimates). 14 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 2: Existing Trash Tax Program Evaluation In reviewing the Table 2.2 results, the following observations stand out: 1.Diverted Tons - Table 2.2 indicates that City-funded programs were responsible for diverting 16,500 tons in 2012 (if tonnage data for all programs were available this number would be higher). Based on available data, the most successful diversion activities occurred 6 at the yard and wood waste drop-sites and through the compost subsidy program. 2.Costs - As shown in Figure 2.1, in 2012 the City spent: 4 percent of annual Trash Tax revenues on residential/multi-family zero waste programs - which reflects the mature, City-regulated collection systems in these sectors (commercial diversion is voluntary and unregulated). 11 percent on commercial zero waste programs - with Boulder County Public Health (BCPH) outreach and the compost subsidy comprising the bulk of this investment. 20 percent on zero waste partner facilities - with W yard waste drop-site and CHaRM receiving most of these dollars. 3 percent on contracted collection of recyclables and organics from City operations and buildings - a full third of this investment was dedicated to management of this program and employee education. Expenditures equate to an average $72 per diverted ton and $77 per reduced metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalents (mtCO2e) for programs with available metrics (the BVSD outliers were not included in this average). 3.Greenhouse Gas Emissions - All program estimates indicate that GHG emissions were reduced, with at least 6,000 less mtCO2e than would be created without these diversion activities (which is equivalent to the carbon dioxide emissions of over 1,400 vehicles each 7 year). As these estimates are tied to tons diverted, they could not be calculated for the programs that do not track this metric. 4.Source Reduction, Reuse, Repair and/or Reduced Toxicity - Most programs have relatively limited direct impact on upstream conservation. Eco-Cycle's collective activities, (including overall outreach, the new Fixit Clinic workshops and CHaRM), however, have the greatest direct focus on reusing and repairing components of the waste stream. 5.Community Engagement - The yard waste drop-off and CHaRM programs may have the greatest community outreach, based on estimated participation by City users (see Appendix B - this estimate is based on an assumed level of repeat customers, however, and should be verified in the future). 6.Foundation for Future Zero Waste Activities - Based on a combination of participation levels and being direct stepping stones for new programs or policies, several existing programs will serve as good foundations for future initiatives. These include all of the 6 The compost subsidy program tracks subscribed tons (not actual tons diverted), and Table 2.2 likely overestimates actual diversion. Includes passenger cars, vans pickup trucks and sport/utility vehicles and assumes all waste tons are managed at a landfill that has a gas collection and energy recovery system (based on U.S. Federal Highway Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calculations at http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy- resources/calculator.htm#results). 15 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 2: Existing Trash Tax Program Evaluation commercial programs in Table 2.2, the ReSource used building materials facility and special events rebates. 2.3Re These recommendations are based on the quantitative findings in Table 2.2 and anticipate potential new policies and programming described in subsequent sections of this report. They focus on the ability to reallocate current investments to future waste diversion activities that are expected to improve the City's opportunity for achieving its zero waste goals. Section 5 includes a suggested implementation schedule and cost impact estimate associated with these recommendations. 1.Improve Data Capture - This should include accurate hauler reporting of collection accounts 8 and tons by waste generator category, as well as increased reporting of program effectiveness on any programs benefitting from City revenues. Without better tonnage, account and program data, evaluations will continue to have less-than-optimal value. 2.Utilize Non-Measurable Criteria - Due to their subjectivity, these criteria are more challenging to apply. Their ability to verify the value of programs that cannot be fully defined with quantitative metrics, however, is important (especially where low tons are diverted or higher costs are incurred, but education and awareness-raising are strong). Strategies for maximizing value with these metrics include development of a sound ranking basis, consistent application, consistent evaluators from one year to the next, and clear documentation (Table 2.1 provides the ranking basis used in this study to evaluate existing programs in this section and future initiatives). 3.Re-prioritize Use of Eco-Cycle Funds for BVSD Program - These should primarily support direct reuse, recycling and organics recovery in Boulder schools and associated education activities relative to sound recycling and composting practices. While student education alone is expected to have strong impacts on long-term waste diversion, these impacts are indirect and represent the most expensive investment by the City on a per-ton basis. 4.Re-focus BCPH's Services Solely on Technical Assistance - This should include standardized tools that can be used to help a relatively large number of businesses comply with future diversion mandates with limited staff involvement. As nearly 6,800 businesses would be 9 impacted by the commercial mandates described in Section 3, the ability to utilize current funding to reach more businesses will be important. As the mandates are implemented, these efforts and associated costs should decrease over time. 5.Eliminate Compost Subsidies - Despite the estimates indicated for this program in Table 2.2, it is likely that City costs are closer to $7 per cubic yard (current tonnage measurements are based on subscription levels, but tonnage data indicates that only about 30 percent of Support for this recommendation include the haulers' inconsistency in reporting multi-family versus commercial accounts, incompleteness of the City's 2012 databases and lack of reporting by the City's Pearl St. Mall contract hauler. Per the City's 2011 Hauler Waste Inventory, less than 50% of these businesses subscribed for trash collection services (it is assumed that the rest self-hauled their waste directly to local landfills - according to the Boulder Economic Council, 80% of the total reported businesses had fewer than 10 employees). Of the total trash accounts, just over half had recyclables collection service and less than 10% had organics collection service. 16 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 2: Existing Trash Tax Program Evaluation subscribed tons were actually diverted). Given this relatively high cost and the targeting of nearly 1,000 food establishments by the commercial organics mandate described in Section 10 3, it is recommended that these payments be eliminated as the mandate is implemented. 6.Eliminate/Reduce Redundant Programs When Future Policies are Implemented - These should include eliminating the recycling coupons and zero waste rebates available to businesses as future commercial mandates become effective. The City should also consider eliminating other programs that appear to have very low household influence (see Appendix B), such as the CRC sponsorships. 7.Work with WDS to Track Users of Yard/Wood Waste Drop-sites - This should be tailored to address specific questions about residential usage. Results should identify unique versus repeat customers and evaluate usage by residences with curbside service. These data collection requirements should be added to future WDS contract language. 8.Better Understand of Impact of City Funding on CHaRM's Operations and Costs - Require documentation verifying that CHaRM's accomplishments support the City programs and are in line with the City's investment (which is high on a strict per-ton basis). Examples include the provision of service gaps (such as the need for more reuse and repair activities) and measured usage by City taxpayers. These requirements should be added to future Eco- Cycle contract language. 9.Increase the Cost-Effectiveness of ReSource Investments - One key way of accomplishing this would be by increasing the tons of used building materials and durable goods diverted (ideally through new requirements for CDD diversion/an expanded GBGP program in the future). Per the City's 2011 Annual Waste Hauler Inventory, less than 300 businesses subscribed for organics collection service. 17 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 2: Existing Trash Tax Program Evaluation This page intentionally left blank. 18 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report Attachment A ͵ The purpose of this evaluation is to identify those future zero waste policy and programmatic initiatives that will best help the City meet its zero waste goals, and to subsequently analyze those initiatives in terms of the evaluation criteria previously selected. 3.1 The evaluation process is three-fold and includes: Identification of potential initiatives with reasonable political, social and economic feasibility - then prioritize those requiring further environmental and economic analysis to estimate their value. Detailed evaluation of 11 individual initiatives against measurable criteria and non- measurable criteria (See Table 2.1) - analyzed in present time. Consideration of 3 aggregated bundles of initiatives that best meet the City's quantitative goals of greatest diversion/greatest GHG emission reductions, lowest city costs and lowest customer costs - analyzed against non-measurable criteria over the 15-year planning period. 3.1.1 An extensive list of potential initiatives was developed by the ZWTF and City staff. It was in part based on the City's 2006 Master Plan for Waste Reduction and the City of Boulder's Strategies Toward Zero Waste report (SERA, 2012). This list was subsequently prioritized to select key initiatives for further evaluation. 3.1.2 To maximize the value of this step, the evaluation is conducted as follows: Analysis of each individual initiative against all applicable criteria without consideration of any other initiative. Bundling of those initiatives with the potential to achieve specific City goals for subsequent analysis against measurable criteria. The primary sources of data for these evaluations are the City's Annual Waste Tracking and Hauler Waste Inventory reports (both 2011 and 2012 data were used to provide the best assessment of current conditions and compensate for incomplete 2012 data). Information from private/non- profit haulers and facility operators is used where available. Metrics and published information from other programs is used where needed to fill in data gaps and allow a reasonable analysis of 19 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 3: Future Zero Waste Initiatives Evaluation each initiative. The analyses also include a number of assumptions pertaining to participation and/or diversion levels. 3.2 3.2.1 Appendix C includes the extensive list of potential initiatives originally developed by the ZWTF and City staff. Table 3.1 includes the priority list of 11 initiatives with a description of each. As shown, this list covers all sectors of waste generators and includes optimization of existing programs, diversion incentives and services, new generator requirements, material market improvements and future relationships between the City and its partners. Table 3.1: Description of Future Zero Waste Initiatives SECTORS VOLUN- CITY ROLE AFTER ZERO WASTE INITIATIVE NEW LEAD/CITY PARTNERSHIPS IMPACTED TARY? POLICY DEVELOPMENT Every Other Week Trash (for Single-family Mandatory Minimal No existing subscribers) Mandatory for Multi-Family Composting haulers, Homeowner associations, Boulder Area Multi-family Minimal (requirement for hauler service) voluntary for Realtor Association homeowners Take-Out Packaging (recyclable/ Individuals, Colorado Restaurant Voluntary Reporting compostable products) restaurants Association/Boulder County Chapter Homeowner Collection Service Single-family & (single-family and owner-Mandatory Enforcement No Multi-family occupied multi-family) Local business association, CO Commercial Recycling (all Association for Recycling, Rocky Commercial Mandatory Enforcement businesses) Mountain Organics Council, US Composting Council), etc. Commercial Organics Recovery WDS, local business association, US Commercial Mandatory Enforcement (food establishments only) Composting Council CDD Deposit Program (diversion, Review/track/report & City Finance Dept, City PDS, Built Green deposit requirements for all All Mandatory manage deposits Colorado, US Green Building Council construction, deconstruction) City P&R Dept., Boulder Commercial Special Events (any covered by Review, enforcement & Events Mandatory Districts, Downtown Boulder, Inc., City Special Events permit) manage rebates a Council for Responsible Sports City Purchase of Local Compost City departments Mandatory None City Purchasing Department BCRC Improvements (increase Coordination with NA NA Boulder County efficiency, cost efficacy) Boulder County Existing Policy Enforcement Review, enforcement & All Mandatory City Finance P&R & PDS Departments (existing recycling programs) manage deposits/rebates a Council for Sports (non-profit interested in partnering with Boulder to incentivize sustainable sports events). 20 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 3: Future Zero Waste Initiatives Evaluation 3.2.2 For consistency, all implementation is assumed in present time (waste generation estimates, existing diversion levels and the time-value of money is based on 2011/2012 levels). The results of each initiative's impact on quantitative criteria are summarized in Table 3.2. The results from comparing them against non-measurable criteria are described in Table 3.3. Appendix D includes the supporting modeling data for this analysis. Several key observations can be made from this evaluation: 1.Aggressive implementation of all Initiatives will be required to meet the City's zero waste goal of 85 to 90 percent diversion: A mix of residential, multi-family, commercial and construction initiatives will be needed. Full implementation of all 11 initiatives could divert as much as 53,400 additional tons - when this tonnage is added to current diversion levels, a community-wide diversion 11 level of 82 percent could be achieved. This will require successful policy development, high participation, consistent follow- through and enforcement. Many assumptions were used in this analysis to compensate for lack of data or unknown conditions - where these assumptions are not verified and adjusted in the future, the City's ability to reach its goal may be compromised. 2.GHG Emission Reductions potential is equivalent to the emissions generated by between 10,000 and 16,000 vehicles (detailed GHG estimates for all analyses were completed by Gracestone, Inc. and are provided in Appendix F). 3.Job creation estimates may not be useful in determining the City's future Zero Waste Strategy (job creation estimates for individual initiatives are included in Appendix G). Most new jobs would be created from initiatives with the greatest quantity of new tons requiring collection (the highest job creator) and/or processing. The basis of these estimates is national sources (some were limited to other parts of the country or only to certain materials) and information supplied by WDS, Eco-Cycle and Boulder County (which represent a snapshot in time and may not reflect future operations) - while the findings provide some indication of potential job creation, they should not be considered a definitive indicator without additional analysis. Tracking jobs created in Boulder through the reuse/repair and the collection/processing of recyclables, organics, and other materials will help the City further validate the value 12 of waste diversion programs. For 2011, a total of 131,700 tons were generated and 54,100 of these tons were diverted. For example, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources recently confirmed that job creation in the State of North Carolina has tripled in the last two decades. This type of statement can be extremely useful in passing new policy, obtaining state or regional grant funding and garnering public support. 21 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 3: Future Zero Waste Initiatives Evaluation Table 3.2: Summary of Individual Initiatives Evaluation - Quantitative Analysis COST IMPACTS TO CITY a DIVER- GHG COST SION Initial Ongoing Costs REDUC-JOBS IMPACTS IMPACTS Development (Revenues) TIONS(near- INITIATIVE TO CUSTO- (nearest (nearest est $/Yr $/Yr MERS c $/ $/ 100 100 FTE) (nearest (nearest ($/month) 2b Ton Ton tons/year) mtCOe) $1,000) $1,000) 2,600 to Every-Other-Week Trash 2,500 - 5,000 $16,000 $4 $0 $0 $2 - $3 2 to 3 5,200 Multi-Family Composting 300 - 600 $12,000 $27 $0 $0 $3 - $4 < 100 1 Take-Out Packaging 100 - 200 $13,000 $87 $2,000 $13 $2 - $6 < 100 0 Homeowner Collection Service Single-Family $20 - $25 7,400 $24,000 $3 $3,000 $0 15,000 19 Multi-Family (owner-occupied) $11 - $16 5,500 - 17,000 to Commercial Recycling $30,000 $3 $10,000 $1 $15 - $30 15 to 33 11,900 36,600 Commercial Organics 8,600 - 1,800 to $30,000 $2 $5,000 $0 $30 - $50 19 to 39 d Recovery 17,100 3,600 e CDD Deposit Program New Construction $13,800 1,200 2 5,400 $37,000 $7 ($63,000) ($12) Deconstruction $0 3,000 6 i Special Events 0 $14,000 NA $18,000 NA $0 < 100 0 City Purchase of Locally- $18,000- 0 $18,000 NA NA $0 NA 0 f Produced Compost$23,000 $158,000 f, g BCRC Improvements 0 (place-NA NA NA NA NA 22 holder) Existing Policy Enforcement 3 Volume Service to SFUs 200 400 $0 0 $8,000 $5 $0 $0 50% MFU Recycling 1,400 $0 4,300 4 Residential GBGP h 500 - 4,200 $0 $0 $93,000 $40 $0 4,700 1 to 8 h Special Events0 $0 $0 $5,000 NA $0 < 100 0 31,900 - $91,000 - 50,200 to 91 to TOTAL $360,000 NA NA NA NA 53,400 $96,000 74,200 137 Rounding errors may occur (programs with less than 50 tons are represented as 0 tons). a Appendix D includes waste generator/vendor costs (differ from City costs due to multiple variables) - all costs in 2012$. b Appendix F includes estimating details for GHG reductions. c Appendix G includes estimating details for job creation from collection and processing (differentiation is not made between public and private-sector jobs, but it is expected that most will be in the private sector). d Savings from the elimination of existing commercial compost subsidy program based on 2012 costs of $78,500. e Revenues from administrative fee and small number of un-refunded CDD deposits were estimated to be $200,000/year. f Tons affected do not represent new diversion (City compost purchase = 1,600 to 2,000 tons, BCRC modifications = 48,000 tons). g Potential costs could not be estimated without future City discussions - this value is a placeholder only. h These analyses are duplicative of others summarized earlier in table. i City has discussed the possibility of adding dedicated staff for this program. 22 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 3: Future Zero Waste Initiatives Evaluation a Table 3.3: Summary of Non-Measurable Impacts from Individual Initiatives COM-ZERO EASE OF SERVICE UPSTREAM NEW/ ZERO WASTE MUNITY WASTE IMPLE-TIME-PROVIDED CONSER-EXPANDED CITY b INITIATIVE ENGAGE-FOUNDA-MENT-LINESSACCOUNT- VATION PARTNERSHIPS MENT TION ATION ABILITY Every Other Week 0 2 3 3 4 2 1 Trash Multi-Family 0 1 3 3 1-2 2 4 Composting Take-Out Packaging 0 2 3 3 1-2 0 3 Homeowner 0 2 3 3 3 2 1 Collection Service Commercial Recycling 0 3 3 2 4 2 4 Commercial Organics 0 2 3 2 4 2 4 Recovery CDD Deposit Program 2 1 4 2 3 3 4 Special Events 0 1 3 4 1-2 1 4 City Purchase of Local 0 1 3 4 1-2 0 2 Compost BCRC Improvements 0 2 3 1 1-2 4 1 Existing Policy 0 1 3 2 4 0 2 Enforcement a Table 2.1 provides a description of criteria and ranking basis. b See recommendations in Section 5.1 for suggested implementation schedule. Additional observations from the evaluation of individual initiatives include: 1.Customer (Waste Generator) costs are tied to the level of existing services: Initiatives for altering or enforcing existing services (i.e., every-other-week collection, multi-family composting and existing policy enforcement) are expected to increase customer costs only minimally, making these easier to put in place (at least from a cost perspective). Initiatives for adding new services are estimated to result in greater cost increases - some of which would ultimately be offset by avoided tip fees from self-hauled materials (homeowner collection service), reduced trash collection costs (commercial 13 diversion) or by tax refunds (CDD deposit ). 2.Ability to create revenue to offset other program costs: Most of the initiatives would incur expenses but generate no revenues. The exception is the deposit CDD program, which is estimated to generate as much as $200,000 per year from administrative fees and un-refunded deposits (may decrease as the program matures) - this revenue would help to offset the costs of other initiatives 13 Tax refunds will apply primarily to deconstruction projects. New construction projects are expected to incur higher net costs - it is noted, however, that residences have been subject to similar regulation since 2007. 23 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 3: Future Zero Waste Initiatives Evaluation (it would, however, be subject to many variables that will likely change from year to year). The ability to eliminate the current commercial programs (i.e., recycle coupons, zero waste start-up rebate and compost subsidy) when the commercial mandates are phased in will improve the potential for a revenue-generating system. 3.CDD processing infrastructure - Most of the initiatives described in Table 3.1 are policies that were analyzed assuming that the County, private and non-profit sectors would provide the infrastructure for collection and processing (most of which is currently in place). The exception in the future may be CDD processing. While clean wood is managed at WDS's drop-site and WDS also provides mixed CDD sorting, the CDD Deposit Program may 14 generate enough tons to require additional processing space and storage capacity. 4.City staffing requirements - These are estimated in Table 3.4 for both the initial development and ongoing operations (Appendix D includes detailed modeling results). It is noted that some programs have City costs other than staffing and other programs have revenue potential that would more than offset staffing expenses. a Table 3.4: City Staffing Estimates (rounded to nearest $1,000) INITIAL COSTS (YEAR ONE) LONGER TERM COSTS ZERO WASTE INITIATIVE FULL-TIME SALARY COST FULL-TIME SALARY COST EQUIVALENTS ($/year) EQUIVALENTS ($/year) Every Other Week Trash 0.17 $16,000 0 $0 Multi-Family Composting 0.12 $12,000 0 $0 Take-Out Packaging 0.14 $13,000 0.02 $2,000 Homeowner Collection Service 0.21 $24,000 0.05 $3,000 Commercial Recycling 0.29 $30,000 0.17 $10,000 Commercial Organics Recovery 0.29 $30,000 0.09 $5,000 Deposit CDD Program 0.37 $37,000 1.76 $137,000 Special Events 0.18 $14,000 0.16 $12,000 City Purchase of Local Compost 0.16 $18,000 0 $0 BCRC Improvements 0.05 $6,000 0 $0 Existing Regulation Enforcement 0.08 $8,000 1.25 $97,000 a All costs in 2012$. 5.Value cannot be completely defined by Tons diverted -as the City's over-arching goal from this study is to achieve a zero waste system, initiatives that can divert high tons have the most direct, most obvious value. However, the evaluation of measurable benefits (though challenging to conduct) can provide both the City and its partners with helpful input for future program and policy implementation: Voluntary initiatives (multi-family composting and recyclable/compostable take-out packaging) - divert minimal tons but would build a foundation for future mandates. 14 The Boulder County Construction & Demolition Infrastructure Study, Materials Generation Estimate & Market Analysis report (UHG, 2012) identified the need for a 7-12 acre site to aggregate and transfer CDD generated countywide. 24 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 3: Future Zero Waste Initiatives Evaluation Special events diversion - diverts negligible waste but builds awareness, educates the community and demonstrates the City's commitment to zero waste. City purchase of locally-produced compost - would help drive the local compost market, improving the economics of private operations and (ideally) decreasing future tip fees by reducing operator risk associated with a stable end-market (current trip fees at WDS's facility are about three times as high as local landfill rates). Improvements to increase BCRC's processing capacity - would support other initiatives, allow the diversion of more materials and increase efficiencies such that hauler rebates may increase over time, which in turn would increase the City's diversion rate and (ideally) reduce customer costs (these benefits will help offset the initial investment likely required by the City). Ability to better leverage the resources of the City and its existing partners - several of the initiatives (multi-family composting, commercial diversion, CDD program and special events diversion) have the opportunity to add new partner organizations to the City's overall waste management efforts (public and non-profit groups are identified in Table 4.4), which may ease implementation, expand community engagement and improve overall success rates. 3.2.3 The intent of this evaluation is to evaluate the ability to achieve specific goals identified by the City. Each bundle includes multiple initiatives analyzed individually in Section 3.2.2. Unlike the individual analyses, the bundled scenarios analysis: Evaluates maturation over the City's 15-year zero waste planning period with a mid-point in 2020 and end-point in 2027. Considers coordinated development and phased-in implementation of all initiatives. Table 3.5 provides a results summary for each bundle. Appendix E includes the supporting modeling results. A discussion of the pros and cons for each bundle follows the table. 25 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 3: Future Zero Waste Initiatives Evaluation Table 3.5: Summary of Bundled Initiative Evaluation CUST- OMER a DIVERSION GHGS (nearest 100 CITY COSTS (REVENUES) a COSTS (nearest 100 tons) mtCOe) (rounded to nearest $1000) 2 ZERO WASTE SCENARIO Ongoing ($/year) ($/month) Devel- % opment 2020 2027 2020 2027 2027 2020 2027 Diversion BUNDLE #1 - GREATEST DIVERSION/GREATEST GHG EMISSION REDUCTIONS Every-Other-Week Trash Collection $2 to $3 Homeowner Collection Service (new service) $11 to $25 13,400-25,300-13,600-31,700- 79.0% $105,000 ($45,000) ($74,000) Commercial Recycling $15 to $30 28,800 50,000 37,800 71,100 Commercial Organics Recovery $30 to $50 b $13,800 CDD Deposit Program per project BUNDLE #2 - LOWEST CITY COSTS Every-Other-Week Trash Collection $2 to $3 Homeowner Collection Service $11 to $25 4,000-9,800-4,400-10,600- 51.9% $92,000 ($59,000) ($72,000) MFU Composting $3 to $4 5,900 14,300 6,200 15,100 Take-Out Packaging $2 to $6 b $13,800 CDD Deposit Program per project BUNDLE #3 - LOWEST CUSTOMER COSTS Every-Other-Week Trash Collection $2 to $3 MFU Composting $3 to $4 10,900-19,300-10,800-24,700- 73.8% $80,000 $7,000 $2,000 Take-Out Packaging $2 to $6 26,100 43,100 34,800 63,300 Commercial Recycling $15 to $30 Commercial Organics Recovery $30 to $50 a All costs in 2012$. b Represents average construction project deposit. 26 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 3: Future Zero Waste Initiatives Evaluation Bundle #1 Greatest Diversion/Greatest GHG Emission Reductions This bundle includes the five initiatives included in Table 3.5 and Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1 shows the estimated diversion potential of Bundle #1, and Figure 3.2 depicts the estimated reduction in GHG. Figure 3.1: Bundle #1 Diversion Potential (projected 2027 tons) EOW Trash & Homeowner 6,100 8,000 Collection Service Commercial Recycling Commercial Organics 19,400 17,100 Recovery CDD Deposit Program Figure 3.2: Bundle #1 GHG Emission Reductions (mtCO2e, 2027) 4,700 1,300 4,700 300 Mixed Recyclables Yard Debris Food Waste New Construction 60,100 Demolition The pros and cons of Bundle #1 are as follows: PRO - Up to 50,000 new tons would be diverted by 2027 (these initiatives represent nearly 94 percent of the total tonnage potentially diverted by all 11 initiatives evaluated individually). PRO - High increase to City's overall solid waste diversion rate (up to 79 percent by the end of the planning period). PRO - High GHG emission reductions equivalent to the carbon dioxide emissions from nearly 15,000 vehicles (2027). 27 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 3: Future Zero Waste Initiatives Evaluation PRO - Ability to cover costs and generate revenue (the CDD deposit program's potential revenues are expected to offset other program costs - based on the assumption that 2.5 percent of deposits will not be refunded due to lack of compliance). CON - Implementation requires comprehensive new policy for five mandatory programs; high participation by waste generators, haulers and City departments; and effective enforcement. Impacts on single-family/small multi-family residents - only 62 percent of single- R family, duplex and triplex residents currently subscribe for trash/recycling service 15 (also organics service for homes with individual containers). Impacts on large multi-family residents - Over 1,000 multi-family accounts with more R than three units currently have trash/recycling service (it is unknown how many actual 15 residences this represents). Impacts on commercial generators (previously noted in Section 2.3) - just over 40 R percent of existing businesses currently subscribe to trash collection (only 21 and 4 15 percent, respectively, subscribe to recyclables and organics collection). CON - Current compost tip fees minimize the financial benefit of every-other-week trash collection program (WDS's tip fees are approximately three times local landfill rates). CON - Higher customer costs from the CDD deposit program (which increases project costs by an average $13,800 for new construction). Bundle #2 Lowest City Costs This bundle includes the five initiatives listed in Table 3.5 and Figure 3.3. Figures 3.3 and 3.4 Figure 3.3: Bundle #2 City Costs/Initial Development (2012$) $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 EOW Trash & MFU Composting Take-Out CDD Deposit Homeowner Packaging Program Collection Service Based on the City's 2011/2012 Annual Waste Hauler Inventories - these values assume that the universe of commercial trash accounts is the same as total subscribers (when some businesses may have recycling collection but not trash) and that haulers consistently define multi-family and commercial accounts (which is known to be faulty but better data does not exist at this time). Note that it is expected that new City policy affecting these waste generators would include waivers to address residents and businesses with defensible hardship conditions related to collection. 28 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 3: Future Zero Waste Initiatives Evaluation Figure 3.4: Bundle #2 City Costs/Annual Costs (2012$, projected 2027 tons) $20,000 $0 EOW Trash & MFU Composting Take-Out CDD Deposit -$20,000 Homeowner Packaging Program Collection Service -$40,000 -$60,000 -$80,000 The pros and cons of Bundle #2 are as follows: PRO - Ability to cover costs and generate revenue (the CDD deposit program's potential revenues are expected to offset other program costs - based on the assumption that 2.5 percent of deposits will not be refunded due to lack of compliance). PRO - GHG emission reductions are estimated to be equivalent to the emissions of more than 3,000 vehicles (2027). CON - Implementation requirements, including comprehensive new policy for three mandatory and two voluntary programs; high participation by waste generators, haulers and City departments; and effective enforcement (see the impacts on waste generators listed for Bundle #1 above). CON - Low diversion (only 14,300 new tons by 2027). CON - Low increase to City's overall solid waste diversion rate (to only 51.9 percent through the planning period). CON - Current compost tip fees minimize the financial benefit of every-other-week trash collection program (WDS's tip fees are approximately three times local landfill rates). Bundle #3 Lowest Customer/Waste Generator Costs This bundle includes the five initiatives shown in Table 3.5 and Figure 3.5, which estimates the potential impact to customer costs. Figure 3.5: Bundle #3 Customer Costs (2012$/month, projected 2027 tons) $40.00 $30.00 $20.00 $10.00 $0.00 EOW Trash MFU Take-Out Commercial Commercial Composting Packaging Recycling Organics 29 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 3: Future Zero Waste Initiatives Evaluation The pros and cons of Bundle #3 are as follows: PRO - Moderately high tonnage diversion (up to 43,100 new tons by 2027). PRO - High increase to City's overall solid waste diversion rate (up to 73.8 percent through the planning period). PRO - High GHG emission reductions equivalent to the emissions of over 13,000 vehicles (2027). PRO - Low City development costs of only $80,200 (see Appendix E). PRO - Low customer costs (this bundle does not include the CDD Deposit program). CON - Implementation requirements include comprehensive new policy for three mandatory and two voluntary programs; high participation by waste generators, haulers and City departments; and effective enforcement (see the impacts on waste generators listed for Bundle #1 above). CON - Current compost tip fees minimize the financial benefit of every-other-week trash collection program (WDS's tip fees are approximately three times local landfill rates). CON - Lack of City revenues generated by the CDD deposit program to offset other programs. 3.3 These recommendations are few in number as it will be up to the City to verify whether the bundled scenarios capture those future initiatives that truly reflect the overall zero waste goals. While every effort was made to identify study objectives prior to the research and analytical steps, review of project results may cause the City to revise its objectives slightly (especially when multiple options are considered in the aggregate). While Section 5 presents overall recommendations for Boulder's future zero waste programming, there are several important considerations relative to future initiatives: 1.Improve Analytical Assumptions - In the course of the study analyses, unknown outcomes, data gaps and conflicting information were managed with either metrics and published information from other programs or assumptions based on professional experience (especially for estimating participation and diversion levels). To provide the most useful and accurate results, these metrics and assumptions should be verified with actual data. For example, the City should work with local haulers to improve the quality and consistency 16 of reported account and tonnage numbers for 2013 and subsequent years. This data should be used to update the analytical results in Appendices D and E. 2.Identify the Best Bundling of Initiatives to Achieve the City's Goals - This is expected to include a review of study findings with the community, City Council, the City's Environmental Advisory Board and the ZWTF. Although different combinations of future Of particular note are the categorization of multi-family and commercial accounts (often applied differently between haulers and even within the same hauling company) and the reporting of bundled trash/recycling/organic accounts versus accounts for a single material collection. 30 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 3: Future Zero Waste Initiatives Evaluation initiatives may ultimately be selected for implementation, Bundle #1 appears to include the best potential for meeting the City's measurable goals (described in Section 3.2.3). The non-measurable impacts for the individual Bundle #1 initiatives (listed in Table 3.3) do not present a clear direction for City reviewers, however. This bundle will likely: Provide strong partnership opportunities but only moderate community engagement and service provider accountability potential. Present implementation challenges for the new commercial programs and expanded CDD programs (the commercial mandates essentially represent the first regulation of solid waste in this sector, and the CDD program represents significant new requirements and costs for new construction). 3.Consider Impacts to Annual Trash Tax Revenues - Bundles #1 and #2 include initiatives that will increase revenues by increasing the number of homeowners affected by BRC Chapter 3-10 (at $3.50/month). All three bundles will also decrease revenues by reducing the commercial tons landfilled (by increasing the diversion of commercial and/or construction 17 waste) at $0.85/cubic yard. While several variables impact the outcome, the increased revenue from the homeowner service collection initiative is expected to trump any commercial loss, and is quantified in Table 5.1. Variables include the timing of initiatives implementation, actual diversion success, the likelihood of the cost of Trash Tax programs not evaluated in this study staying constant, and enforcement (City costs for enforcement are included in Bundle #1 and Bundle #2 results). 31 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 3: Future Zero Waste Initiatives Evaluation This page intentionally left blank. 32 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report Attachment A Ͷ The purpose of this section is to evaluate what additional program, policy or infrastructure alternatives the City might utilize to reach its zero waste goals over the next 15 years. While the initiatives evaluated in Section 3 include the means for largely achieving these goals, they fall short in areas (i.e., Bundle #1 was estimated to have a potential diversion of 79 percent instead of 90 percent as well as potential challenges implementing some initiatives). Three alternatives based on best management practices observed in other communities have been considered for improving the City's ability to achieve zero waste success: Contract changes or relationships aimed at improving service consistency, data collection and contractor accountability. Financial incentives to encourage haulers to work with the City and their customers to increase diversion. Public education and outreach including best management practices from other zero waste cities. 4.1 The City currently has an open-market system for residential solid waste collection service, but establishes required service levels through local ordinance. On multiple occasions, the City has considered the pros and cons of contracting for solid waste collection, commonly referred to as a 18,19 single-hauler system. These discussions all resulted in a decision to maintain the existing open- market system. 4.1.1 Regardless of whether the City retains its open-market system or implements a single-hauler system, the following residential diversion improvements are needed: Universal Collection (or Curbside Recycling for All Residents) Approximately one-third of homeowners do not subscribe to curbside trash/recycling collection service. Although these homeowners have access to the County drop-off center, the convenience of curbside service has been demonstrated to increase recycling rates. It is expected that this would be accomplished by ordinance. This option was evaluated in Section 3.2.2 (see the Homeowner Collection Service initiative). 18 Previous studies use the term single-hauler system; however, the City could contract with more than one hauler, each having its owned defined service area. 19 Colorado state law prohibits local governments from requiring multiple family homes with more than seven units or establishments to use or pay for municipal waste services or from setting commercial service fees. 33 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 4: Additional Alternatives Greater Accountability in Hauler Data To increase accuracy and completeness, the City should have greater control over the data that is provided and require clear documentation to support the data. The City could potentially accomplish this through local ordinance; however, meaningful consequences (e.g., loss of the right to provide collection services in the City) for not complying with the ordinance would need to be established and enforced. A more common approach is to establish these requirements and consequences as part of a license or contract. Recycling Revenue The City could supplement its Trash Tax earnings by sharing in the revenue generated from the sale of residential recyclables collected within its boundaries (approximately $150,600 tons of single- 20 family and multi-family recyclables collected curbside in 2011). Louisville and Lafayette, both of which have single-hauler systems, receive revenue from residential diversion. The City could accomplish this revenue sharing by continuing to direct haulers to deliver residential recyclables to the BCRC and incorporating a revenue share for these materials into an agreement with Boulder County. Because of the fluctuating nature of commodity markets, haulers typically do not rely on recycling revenue when setting their collection fees. For Boulder to make these improvements and achieve its zero waste goal and objectives, significant policy changes will be required. Depending on the success of these changes and level of hauler support, a single-hauler system (described below) may be a necessary alternative. 4.1.2ǦǦ Table 4.1 summarizes the potential impacts to the City of converting to a single-hauler system as compared to an open-market system. Given WDS's predominance in the local market, Boulder essentially has a single-hauler system at this time - but without the conditions and controls of a contractual relationship that would enable the City to more directly govern the level, quality and cost of service. Although some requirements could be incorporated into local ordinance, City staff has indicated that resources are not available to enforce existing ordinance components. Lack of enforcement hurts the City's credibility and represents missed opportunities associated with the benefits described in the following table. Table 4.2 provides a comparison of W residential services/rates in Boulder with those in Louisville and Lafayette, both of which have single-hauler contracts in place with WDS. Direct comparison of fees between municipalities is cautioned because fees are impacted by a variety of factors, including differences in service level, density of customers, and local market competition. If all other factors were equal, the expectation would be that a larger service area (in terms of re accounts. Because the City of Boulder residents currently receive a higher level of service than the other two cities, they pay a higher rate. These service fees could potentially be reduced if the City competitively procured collection service, even if the current service level and ancillary services were retained. 20 Based on an average BCRC payment of $15/ton last year - these revenues can vary dramatically (e.g., in May 2013, BCRC paid only $5 per ton for residential materials). 34 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 4: Additional Alternatives Table 4.1: Single-Hauler Versus Open-Market System POTENTIAL IMPACT SINGLE-HAULER SYSTEM OPEN-MARKET SYSTEM Level of Service, including Formalize minimum and consistent level of Sets minimum level of residential/MFU service Universal Curbside Collection services in binding contract with clear through ordinance - but minimal enforcement. penalties for lack of compliance. Haulers provide varied service. Cost to Homeowners (two Service fees may be reduced if service is Service fees set by haulers (not controlled by potential impacts) competitively procured. Further reduction is competition in Boulder due to one primary possible with lower service levels. hauler). Cost to City Additional staff time required to procure and Minimal Trash Tax dollars are required to administer contract, verify compliance/data. collect/report hauler data. Material Recovery RatesAbility for consistent service to all customers May be improved through program changes and a generally leads to higher material recovery. public education (although more mandatory Also potential to establish hauler incentives approaches are needed). Hauler incentives for increasing diversion.typically not feasible. Recycling Revenue Revenue sharing can be included in collection City earns no revenues (versus revising hauler contract or in a separate processing contract. ordinance and/or contracting with BCRC). Hauler Reporting and Accuracy of Contract typically includes reporting Reporting and auditing is currently required, but Data requirements, penalties for noncompliance completeness and accuracy is not strictly enforced. Ability to Direct Flow of Materials Could direct flow of materials to incentivize City directs recyclables to BCRC by ordinance. infrastructure investment and reduce tip fees Though not likely in the near future, there could (especially for organics). Limits potential for be risk of legal challenge in the future if WDS legal challenge from non-contracted haulers. loses its majority service share. Truck Traffic and Associated Fuel Would further reduce truck traffic, fuel Western services about 95% of residential/MFU Consumption/GHG Emissions consumption and GHG emissions (minimal accounts; therefore, reduction in truck traffic improvement expected). and GHG emissions might not be significant. Quality of Service Could set clear service standards with City sets standards through ordinance, but has liquidated damages for noncompliance. limited enforcement capability. Residents'/MFU's Ability to Select Competitive procurement would select one Residents/MFUs can currently select hauler for Hauler (or more) hauler(s). If WDS not selected, 95% curbside collection (WDS serves 95%) or self- of accounts would be serviced by a new haul. hauler. Potential for Haulers to Gain or Limited number of haulers will retain/gain This is currently determined by market Lose Market Share share (rest will lose) via procurement process. competition and individual residents' choice. Consistent Messaging & Branding City/hauler can work on outreach materials/ Haulers have independent, separate means for brand (especially long-term contracts). customer communications and outreach. Potential Impacts on Other Waste Ability to direct materials can encourage Currently the City guarantees no material flows Management Operations facility investment, increased capacity/ outside the BCRC ordinance language for efficiency - or operations managed by existing recyclables. Without this guarantee for organics, haulers/subsidized by collection fees may be CDD, and other materials, private vendors will be impacted (WDS's composting operation may reluctant to invest in new/expanded facility be impacted if this hauler is not selected). infrastructure. a Despite the fact that WDS currently has about 95% of single-family and multi-family accounts in Boulder, the combined diversion rate from these sectors was only 48% - it is also probable that contractual requirements to increase diversion for single-family and small multi-family accounts would influence (increase) diversion by the same hauler for any large multi-family and commercial accounts serviced but no covered by the contract. 35 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 4: Additional Alternatives Table 4.2: Western Disposal Service and Rate Comparison BOULDER LOUISVILLE LAFAYETTE (Trash/Recycling/Organics (Trash/Recycling bundled, (Trash/Recycling bundled, no bundled) Organics extra) Organics) SERVICE AREA Approx. 19,000 SFUs & 1,000 5,100 SFUs (excludes HOAs that are 5,421 SFUs (excludes 5,000 HOA MFUs not SFUs) homes) HAULER SCENARIO Open system with regulation for 5-year contract with WDS 5-year contract w/ 2-year SFUs & MFUs extension with WDS SINGLE-FAMILY LEVEL OF Trash - 1x/week Trash - 1x/week Trash - 1x/week SERVICE Recycling - EOW (SS to BCRC) Recycling - EOW (SS to BCRC) Recycling - EOW (SS to BCRC) Organics - EOW Organics - EOW (extra charge) Organics - not available Bulky - generally a charge Bulky - 2 free collections/year Bulky - 1 item free/quarter CARTSNot required, but WDS provides WDS provides automated trash, WDS provides automated trash automated trash, recycling & recycling & organics carts carts; organics carts City provides recycling carts 2013 PRICING Prices exclude Trash TaxRates effective 8/1/13 - exclude city Rates effective 7/1/13 - exclude (MONTHLY FOR COLLECTION (60% of units have 32-gal service administrative fee city fees and DISPOSAL/PROCESSING) or smaller)(39% of units have 32-gal service) (18% of units have 32-gal service) 32-gal trash = $23.40 32-gal trash = $8.58; 32-gal trash =$6.85 (includes recycling, organics) 32-gal organics = $2.97 64-gal trash = $35.60 64-gal trash = $15.42; 64-gal trash = $13.70 (includes recycling, organics) 64-gal organics = $5.94 96-gal trash = $47.80 96-gal trash = $22.29; 96-gal trash = $20.54 (includes recycling, organics) 96-gal organics =$8.90 Overflow 32-gal trash = $3.30 Overflow 32-gal trash = $2.92 Overflow 32-gal trash = $3.17 Overflow recycling/organics - no Overflow 32-gal recycling/organics Overflow recycling - no cost cost up to 1,212 gal/collection = $2.92 BILLING Hauler bills; option of credit card, City utility bill (Enterprise Fund) City utility bills include $1/month e-billing, automated clearing includes $0.60/month for for recycling carts & $0.15/mo for house administration (~$3k) admin (< $1k) CITY REVENUES Trash Tax with SFU/MFU & 100% recyclable revenues from 100% recyclable revenues from commercial equivalents - earns BCRC BCRC $1.7M/year Cart revenues (carts paid off) ADDITIONAL SERVICES Pre-paid bag option Yes No No EOW trash option Yes No No Seasonal service Switch anytime at no cost Switch anytime at no cost Switch monthly at no charge Senior discounts 10% No No Extra trash stickers Charged & mailed Must be picked up in person at city Must be picked up in person at city offices offices Alley collection At no cost Fee if regular collections are at the Fee if regular collections are at the curb curb Christmas tree collection Free on route Free if in compost cart NA (city has drop-site) Reminders Through email, telephone, By subscription at $0.61/month NA newsletter, Smartphone app - also free diversion challenge 36 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 4: Additional Alternatives 4.1.3 The City partners with various entities to provide other collection and processing services for recyclables and organics, as well as education and public outreach. role in the local solid waste management system relative to its partners, which is summarized in Table 4.3, is similar to that of many local governments. Table 4.3: Diversion Program and City Contracts/Partnerships PRIVATE SECTOR NON-PROFIT ROLES and RESPONSIBILITIES LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTNERS PARTNERS Ensure Goals/Objectives Are Met (i.e., basic solid waste services, waste X diversion minimums, etc.) Set Standards and Establish Policy X (including enforcement) Establish System for Public, Private and Non-Profit Service Providers (can be X structured or incidental) Administer Service Contracts (not all May have subcontracts May have subcontracts services provided by others are covered X for service provision for service provision by contract) X X X Often must offer services (typically Must comply with Must comply with low-profit or hard to implement local/state/national policy local/state/national General Service Provision services) not provided by others - but need to generate policy (typically do not examples include education/outreach profit (therefore services fluctuate as much as and reward/ recognition/rebate may vary with economy) private sector with programs economy) While this division of responsibilities is typical, the leadership provided by local government and the number of services provided by private and non-profit partners governed by contract (versus by ordinance or, in many cases, no policy at all) varies widely. The City utilizes a mix of relatively strong policy, service contracts and incentive programs to drive waste diversion in all sectors. Table 4.4 describes the City's existing contracts and partnerships. 37 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 4: Additional Alternatives Table 4.4: CityContracts and Partnerships CITY SERVICE CONTRACTOR OR ENTITY RESPONSIBLE PROGRAMS CONTRACT? for SERVICE RECYCLING City Organization Collection Yes WDS CHaRM Yes Eco-Cycle Residential: Single-Family Curbside No Haulers; BCRC Multi-Family Curbside No Haulers; BCRC Community: BCRC Drop-off Center No County Commercial Curbside No Various Haulers University of Colorado Recycling No University of Colorado Transfer Station Recovery No WDS HMMF Diversion Yes County CDD Recycling No Various Haulers ReSource Yard Diversion Yes (lease) CRC ORGANICS RECOVERY City Organization Collection Yes WDS Storm Debris Cleanup Yes WDS, others as needed Single-Family Curbside No Various Haulers Multi-Family Curbside No Various Haulers Commercial Curbside No Various Haulers University of Colorado Compost No Yard Waste Drop-off Yes WDS Wood Waste Drop-off Yes WDS While the City's waste diversion policy is fairly aggressive, both its enforcement capabilities for existing ordinances and its contractual relationships could be improved to better support a zero waste system (enforcement has been addressed elsewhere in this report). Formalizing its strategic partnerships through new or enhanced contractual relationships would provide stability to programs, enhance the accountability of service providers in terms of contract compliance and data reporting, and work to continually increase diversion. The following paragraphs provide a brief summary of contractual relationships the City should consider. Based on the current flow of tons, the areas of greatest waste diversion opportunities relate to commercial recyclables and organics. Therefore, contractual relationships that provide stable, long-term partnerships with the owners and/or operators of facilities that process these materials should be of high priority for consideration. Recyclables Processing and Marketing - City ordinance requires haulers to deliver single-family and multi-family recyclables to the BCRC; however, since expiration of the Intergovernmental Agreement that governed the Boulder County Recycling and Composting Authority, no contractual relationship exists between the City and County relating to this facility. These recyclables (10,600 38 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 4: Additional Alternatives tons in 2011) represent 40 percent of the MSW recyclables diverted from disposal - an additional 21,000 tons of residential and commercial recyclables are still being disposed that could potentially be captured for recovery (see Figure 1.1). This contractual relationship is important as the City considers implementing other initiatives outlined in this study that will increase recovery of residential and commercial recyclables. Although the City could potentially require haulers to share recycling revenue through ordinance, another approach would be to limit hauler services to collection only and contract directly with the 21 County for processing the collected recyclables. An agreement between the City and County could provide the City with the following benefits: Revenue to the City for Residential Recyclables - Based on an industry-accepted market index, over the past year, materials typically found in single-stream recyclables have a 22 combined market value in the range of $100-$140 per ton. Processing these materials into marketable commodities costs approximately $60 per ton, leaving about $40 to $80 in profit to be shared between the various stakeholders, which should include the City. Assured Capacity to Process Recyclables Collected Within the City. Greater Input by the City Regarding Materials Accepted at BCRC, Processing Efficiencies and Expansions - An initiative discussed in Section 3.2.2 (see the BCRC Improvement initiative) addressed improvements currently needed at the BCRC with an estimated cost of about $3 million. If the City contributes toward funding these improvements, the City should have a 23 contractual relationship with the County to protect this investment. Organics Processing and Marketing - The City contracts with WDS to accept yard and wood waste from homeowners, commercial businesses and the City organization at its Boulder location for processing. Efficiencies can be realized by having a single composting operation for this material - currently, WDS has the only large-scale composting operation in the immediate vicinity. While the City requires that WDS accept residential and multi-family organics from other haulers, WDS is free to set the tip fee for this material. These fees could conceivably put other haulers at a disadvantage when competing to provide collection services. Although 22,400 tons of organics were diverted in 2011, an additional 20,600 tons of residential and commercial organics were landfilled (see Figure 1.1). Achieving zero waste will not be possible without increasing diversion of organics from disposal. Therefore, ensuring a viable facility is available to process these materials is critical for other program components to be effective. A contract for composting organics would provide the City with the following benefits: Enable the City to Offer a Facility with Established Fees for All Haulers - This would ensure that all haulers have a place to deliver organics for a reasonable fee. If the City establishes a single-hauler system, the City could utilize contractual flow control to require the 21 Because of the fluctuating nature of commodity markets, haulers typically do not rely on recycling revenue when 22 Based on commodity prices for the South Central/Midwest/Central, Southwest and Pacific Northwest U.S. as reported on RecyclingMarkets.net and the typical composition of a ton of residential single-stream recyclables. The cost of this investment is unknown at this time - a place-holder of $158,000 (5 percent of the total estimated cost) was used in Table 3.2 as a discussion starting point. As the City's recyclables constitute a notably larger percent of the total materials processed by BCRC, however, this value may need to be increased during contract negotiation. 39 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 4: Additional Alternatives 24 contracted hauler to deliver organics to this facility. Ensuring this flow of materials to the facility would provide the processor with an assured flow of tonnage that might be needed to invest in expansion or upgrades, and also should enable the City to establish a fee structure that competes favorably with other regional compost and landfill facilities. Enable the City to Designate a Drop-site for All Organics - Instead of just yard and wood waste (i.e., amend the current contract with WDS or Eco-Cycle for CHaRM operations). Enable the City to Specify the Quality of Mulch and Finished Compost. Enable the City to Purchase Finished Compost at Discounted Rate - This would be similar to the current drop-site contract, and could go hand-in-hand with establishing a purchasing policy requirement for City departments to use locally made mulch/compost (see City Compost Use analysis). Through this contract, the City could also continue to provide free mulch to residents. Potentially Reduce the Use of Organics Drop-Site and Associated City Expense - As collection of homeowner and commercial organics by the haulers increases, the amount of 25 materials received at the drop-sites should decrease. Enable the City to Require Accurate Data Reporting - This will be necessary in ongoing efforts to strive for zero waste. CDD Materials Processing and Reuse - The City leases a facility at 6400 Arapahoe Road to the Center for ReSource Conservation (CRC). CRC's ReSource operation diverts about 700 tons of used building materials and durable goods annually through reuse and resale. This represents about 12 percent of the total CDD diverted in 2011. The City also contracts with CRC to support a customer service coordinator at ReSource. While the City currently relies on ReSource less than it has in the past to provide deconstruction services on behalf of the City, this organization was instrumental in implementing the Green Building Green Points (GBGP) program, including contractor education, residential deconstruction services, and data collection. Future contractual relationships related to CDD diversion might include the following: City-Subsidy of WDS's Existing Mixed CDD Processing Operations - WDS provides this sorting at its transfer station, which may be expanded in the future. If the City decides to provide a subsidy for CDD processing to WDS or any other partner, it should do so through a contract that includes setting targets or required material recovery rates, setting gate rates for other haulers that deliver mixed CDD to the facility and requiring a detailed accounting of expenditures and revenues. Provide Additional Space for CDD Management - If the CDD Deposit Program initiative evaluated in Section 3 is successful, additional processing capability/space may be required. The City may consider working with Boulder County and other regional partners to implement a transfer station for source-separated CDD materials (one version of which was 24 Despite the fact that WDS currently has about 95% of all single-family and multi-family accounts in Boulder, the combined diversion rate from these sectors was only 48%. 25 Use of the drop-sites by homeowners is currently very high, even though most residents have curbside organics collection. Western currently is conducting a survey to better understand this issue. 40 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 4: Additional Alternatives evaluated in the County's 2012 study). A CDD partnership could cover facility property, 26 capital development and/or operating costs. Expand CRC's Contract for Assistance with the Existing/Expanded GBGP Program - CRC staff could conduct contractor education regarding any changes made to the GBGP program (e.g., see the CDD Deposit Program analysis), conduct audits, review permits/approvals, assist with enforcement, prepare reports, perform data tracking, and otherwise assist City LEAD and Planning and Development Services (PDS) staff with the program. Hard to Recycle Materials Processing and Marketing - The City currently contracts with Eco-Cycle to operate CHaRM. In 2011, the City paid a fee of approximately $100,000 to CHaRM, which equated to about $135 per ton of material recovered (see Table 2.2). The City should further evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this contract, including: Require a more detailed accounting of how City funds are expended. Ensure the City . Require a more detailed breakdown of the types of materials recovered and evaluate other options for managing these materials. 4.2 Although an evaluation of potential hauler incentives was conducted for this study (see Appendix H), it was ultimately concluded that the ability to create meaningful financial incentives for haulers open-market system will be difficult because open-market systems have a high level of competition between vendors, passing this financial burden on to its customers can affect the ability of a hauler to compete - however, this is not likely to occur in Boulder when WDS services more than 95 percent of residential customer accounts. Given the limitations of establishing an effective financial incentive within the City's current open- market system, future zero waste efforts should prioritize greater collaboration with local partners (especially WDS) for meeting the City's goal and objectives. 4.3 Costs for outreach and education can vary widely depending on population densities, whether new programs are being implemented or major changes introduced. SWANA and Curbside Value Partnerships used an expenditure of $1 per household for existing recycling programming, but recommended a budget as high as $4 per household-year on residential education and outreach 26 The Boulder County Construction & Demolition Infrastructure Study, Materials Generation Estimate & Market Analysis report (UHG, 2012) identified the need for a 7-12 acre site, $7M to $15M capital costs and $300,000 to $550,000 annual operating costs. 41 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 4: Additional Alternatives 27 when new programs or major changes are implemented. Based on these targets, it appears that Boulder: Has adequate funding for its current residential programs (the City spent $45,000 in 2012 - 28 or just over $1/household). May need to increase expenditures to between $87,000 and $131,000 in the short-term as 29 the initiatives are implemented (shrinking back to current levels as the programs mature). Allocate some of the short-term increase to jointly develop, with its partners, a strong 30 brand and consistent recycling messaging. Needs to continue to focus separate (additional) dollars and programs on education and outreach for the commercial and construction sectors. 4.3.1 Two examples of effective waste diversion outreach programs are summarized below. 31 1.Halifax Regional Municipality, Nova Scotia - www.halifax.ca/wrms: Region includes Halifax, Halifax County and two other municipalities (about 160,000 households). Achieved 59 percent diversion across all sectors - based on every-other-week trash collection. Mandatory separation by all generators of recyclables and organics and mandatory CDD diversion. Annual $500,000 education and promotion budget (for all sectors); included staff dedicated to this program. Successfully used a consensus-based multi-stakeholder group to develop a new waste management strategy in the late 1990s (and continues its implementation today). Unlike Boulder, the Halifax Regional Municipality supports comprehensive waste disposal bans and an average waste disposal rate of only 1.7 pounds/person-day (Boulder's disposal rate was about 4.3 pounds/person-day in 2011). 27 Solid Waste Association of North America, "Manager of Recycling Systems Training Manual," (prepared by Kessler Consulting, 2009) - cites averages of $1 per household-year and recommendations of higher investments for new programming. 28 Includes the residential/MFU programs listed in Table 2.1 (excluding CRC sponsorships, Pearl Street Mall diversion and zero waste event rebates). 29 Based on assumed increase to $2-$3 per household. 30 Currently, internet searches for "City of Boulder recycling" and "City of Boulder zero waste" yield numerous partner links but limited access to City sites - countywide program options appear diverse and unconnected (and access to LEAD's zero waste information is not obvious). 31 HRM contact = Jim Bauld, Solid Waste Resources Manager, 902-490-6606, bauld@halifax.ca. 42 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report Attachment A 32 2.San Francisco, CA - www.sfenvironment.org/zero-waste: Achieved 80 percent diversion across all sectors - based in large part on the "Fantastic 3 three-bin, PAYT curbside collection system (have a single-hauler contract). Current annual budget is $5M for education and outreach for all sectors (120,000 single-family and 470,000 multi-family units plus over 60,000 businesses). Maintains a strong focus on MFU and business generators (approximately 80 percent of all businesses and all MFUs with less than 6 units divert recyclables and organics) based heavily on one-on-one consultations and social marketing, including onsite waste sorts, waste assessments, online compliance toolkit, performance audits, and regular reporting. Utilizes a multi-lingual staff assigned by city sector with specific expertise (i.e., CDD, commercial accounts, government collection, etc.) and bolsters outreach efforts with "green job traineesserved communities and provide strong advocacy in traditionally hard-to-reach areas of the city). California has state-level diversion mandates; however, San Francisco's environmental ethic and drive for zero waste is similar to Boulder. 4.3.2 Alameda County, CA has developed effective education materials and optimized use of printed and electronic media (see www.cityofalamedaca.org/Go-Green/Zero-Waste). Austin, TX's communications plan calls for a research-based approach to target specific 33 audiences - allocated two FTEs and $3.5M/year. http://austintexas.gov/department/austin-resource-recovery Castro Valley Sanitary District, CA has developed a strong brand used consistently in all communications and has an exemplary commercial assistance/audit/award program. www.cvsan.org/BizRecyclingandOrganics Champaign, IL (home of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) has an exceptional attention-grabbing brand and great marketing campaign and brand. See the "Feed the Thing Recycling Logo" from the City of Champaign below. http://ci.champaign.il.us/departments/public-works/residents/recycling Charlotte, NC used focus groups to target prominent community values and increased neighborhood diversion levels by 12 percent in a three-month period. http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/deao/outreach/recycling-education-campaigns Curbside Value Partnership provides example programs, best practices and numerous resources for outreach campaigns. www.recyclecurbside.org/index.cfm 32 San Francisco contact = Donald Oliveira, San Francisco Department of the Environment, 415-606-8039, donald.oliveira@sfgov.org. 33 Austin contact = Gena McKinley, Austin Resource Recovery, 512-974-1915, gena.mckinley@austintexas.org͘ 43 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report Attachment A Excellent resources on social marketing techniques (especially those by Canadian Doug McKenzie-Mohr, who has brought some of his classes to Boulder in the past on making 34 measurable outreach changes and validating budgets). In addition to increasing future public education and outreach funding for new zero waste policy and programs, Boulder's future strategies might include a project with University of Colorado graduate students to: Conduct City-specific research on a clearer call to action than "Zero Waste" (which doesn't relate directly to the individual homeowner or business). Example messages instead might be, "Do you really want to buy things that have to go in the garbage? "Over one ton of aluminum landed in the garbage today, was some of it from you? or "Four out of five people remove all their recyclables - Develop branding options based on City-specific barriers and motivators that captures attention and engenders a desire to be part of the solution. Evaluate how to use regular data reports of lower trash/higher diversion tons to keep waste diversion practices "real" and "alive" for Boulder's citizens (this would require more consistent and comprehensive data collection than is currently in place). 34 For example, "Social Marketing to Protect the Environment: What Works" by Mohr, et.al. (SAGE Publications, 2012) and "Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing, by Mohr and Smith (New Society Publishers, 1999). 44 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report Attachment A ͷ Based on the research, analysis and best management alternatives evaluated for Boulder's Zero Waste Evaluation Study, several program and policy recommendations have been formulated to support the City's continued efforts towards zero waste. Some of these recommendations will be challenging to put in place and implement at the aggressive levels needed to reach 85 to 90 percent diversion. While Boulder has made laudable progress to date with largely volunteer measures and an open-market collection system, future policy and program changes are expected to require more mandatory measures and changes in the status quo for customers, City partners and LEAD operations. Section 5.1 identifies recommended strategies that will produce measurable results by the end of the planning period; however, not all recommendations can be quantified in terms of their ability to achieve the City's diversion goal, minimize costs, maximize GHG emission reductions or and maintain existing partnerships. Therefore, Section 5.2 addresses additional strategies that, while not fully measurable, are expected to assist the City in achieving its zero waste goals. 5.1 The following recommendations can be measured in terms of one or more of the City's zero waste goals. The financial implications of these recommendations are described in Table 5.1. 1.Eliminate/Modify Existing Programs - Section 2.3 describes specific recommendations for changes to the City's zero waste programs. Specifically, they represent approximately $82,000 in annual savings and include elimination of the commercial recycling coupon, zero waste rebate and compost subsidy programs. It is expected that these incentives will not be necessary once mandatory commercial recycling and organics recovery policy is in place (phasing these programs out should be tied to the 2014-2016 period during which commercial service diversion mandates are put in place - see Bundle #1 implementation below). 2.Implement Bundle #1 Initiatives - Section 3.2.3 identifies Bundle #1 (greatest diversion/ greatest GHG reduction potential) as coming the closest to meeting the City's measurable zero waste goals of all the bundled scenarios (including a 79 percent diversion rate and reduction of 71,100 mtCOe of GHGs by 2027). As noted in Table 3.5, these initiatives are 2 expected to cost approximately $105,000 to develop. They were also estimated to have a payback period of less than three years and would yield net revenues following that period. These initiatives are presented in suggested order of implementation, according to a schedule that would allow all programs to be in place and by 2018 and fully mature over the rest of the planning period. This schedule acknowledges the time for City staff to conduct the necessary research; program testing; collaboration with haulers and other City departments; meetings with the public, Environmental Advisory Board (EAB) and Council; and promotion. Should the City delay implementation, its zero waste goal may not be achieved by the end of its 15-year planning period. 45 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 5: Recommendations 2014-2016 Every-other-week trash collection limitation for all single-family accounts (simultaneously increase organics collection to weekly) - will require a revision to existing ordinance BRC Chapter 6-12 (WDS has already described plans for conducting a pilot study in early 2014 that can be modified to a permanent program if the pilot is successful). Commercial recycling service mandate - will require a new ordinance (ideally in tandem with new organics recovery policy) that should apply to all City businesses and build 35 upon existing City incentives. Organics service mandate for food establishments - will require a new ordinance (ideally in tandem with new recycling policy) that should apply to all food 36 establishments in the City. 2017-2018 CDD refundable deposit program for new residential/commercial construction and demolition projects (residential projects are already targeted in Boulder's GBGP program) - will require revision to existing ordinance BRC Chapter 10-7.5 and additional research (possibly pilot testing) to: Verify ability of new commercial projects to meet diversion requirements. R Verify deposit basis and cap. R Verify administrative fee. R Revise current project tracking methods to include appropriate metrics for this R program. Mandatory homeowner curbside service (applicable to all single-family and owner- occupied multi-family properties, but expected to impact primarily single-family customers) - will require revision of existing ordinance BRC Chapter 6-3 with language similar to that in Chapter 6-3-3(b) and: May be phased in by sections of the City. R Will include trash service bundled with recycling and organics collection in accordance R with Chapter 6-12 as revised. As noted previously, successful implementation of these initiatives into fully mature programs will be challenging and require comprehensive policy development; high participation by waste generators, haulers, and City departments; and effective enforcement. Other factors will be beyond the City's control (e.g., recessionary economy would likely reduce the number of CDD projects and therefore potential revenue the City may earn from un-refunded deposits). 3.Education and Outreach - Section 4.3 described the potential need to increase 2012 spending by $42,000 to $86,000 per year for the first few years of implementing Bundle #1 initiatives. These estimates are based on limited research, however, and expenditures will 35 Ordinance should include exemption waiver for hardship conditions. 36 Includes food manufacturers, supermarkets/groceries, health care/social service cafeterias, full and limited service restaurants and food service contractors. 46 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 5: Recommendations vary depending on the City's ultimate implementation schedule and partner outreach efforts. 4.Existing Program Enforcement - The analysis described in Section 3.2.2 (see the Existing Policy Enforcement initiative) included an initiative dedicated to enforcement of existing programs that would cost $8,000 to develop (with high ongoing costs to cover the GBGP). Although this initiative was not selected for inclusion in any of the goal-driven bundled scenarios, its inclusion in future operations is important to safe-guarding the City's zero waste investments, maintaining its credibility in the industry, and building a platform for future programs. 5.2Ǧ The following recommendations are intended to improve the City's achievement of its zero waste goals, although metrics associated with their implementation cannot be reasonably measured. 1.Improve Data Collection - In order for the City's zero waste goals to be credible, the City needs access to good data on a regular basis to clearly track and review appropriate metrics for each waste generation sector. This includes: Hauler data - including working with haulers to develop consistent procedures for tracking customers (e.g., differentiating between multi-family and commercial accounts, and single-family versus multi-material service accounts) and tons. Metrics for programs run by the City - e.g., Pearl Street Mall collections and GBGP. Customer demographics - e.g., those for food waste establishments. Job creation from new and future programs. 2.More Clearly Define City versus Contractor Responsibilities - This should include improved contract relationships relative to the BCRC, WDS compost facility, future CDD processing and GBGP program, and Eco-Cycle's CHaRM facility. 3.Single-Hauler Collection System - This system option is not recommended initially, but should be undertaken immediately if and when the City is unable to obtain reasonably strong hauler support for development and implementation of each of the initiatives described above for Phase I of the planning period (2014 through 2018). Active and visible hauler support (especially from WDS and its majority customer base) will be critical to the timely and successful implementation of Bundle #1's mandatory initiatives - in terms of providing expanded collection services and in overall political backing. Hauler support for Phase I should be defined early, and should include productive input on policy components followed by appropriate outreach to customers, as well as the Environmental Advisory Board and City Council. The outcome of City, hauler and community collaboration should be successful policy development and program start-up at each step that builds public support and moves the City towards its zero waste goals. If the haulers cannot support these initiatives (or help the City develop alternative win- win options), a competitive procurement process to obtain a single-hauler contract 47 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 5: Recommendations should be initiated. Table 4.1 identified key components the City should consider in developing its contract. 4.Utilize the 6400 Arapahoe Road Property - This space may not directly lead to the diversion of significant tons, but could provide an additional level of engagement with immeasurable ripple effect throughout the community. Given the small acreage available (about 2 acres), this property could be used for: Centralized location for GBGP/CDD program implementation (especially if ReSource again plays a management role) including space for: Small meetings during initial program expansion. R Providing face-to-face compliance assistance to contractors and homeowners. R Providing public access to hard copies of relevant policies, guidance documents and R Boulder project examples. Training activities for related job skills (such as deconstruction practices). R Records maintenance and storage (the current GBGP program was observed to suffer R from incomplete recordkeeping). Temporary storage and staging for diverted CDD materials management by the County, WDS, ReSource or other future partners - it is noted that this site is probably not large enough for a full-scale transfer operation (such as that evaluated by Boulder County in its 2012 study). Expansion of Eco-Cycle operations - this may include a permanent, multi-function space for special interest and informal community group activities associated with education, reuse, repair, etc. including: Periodic "repair cafes" or "fixit clinics" such as those currently held by Eco-Cycle and R community to teach/assist the public in repair small appliances, electronics, tools or 37,38 other. Class or meeting room for school groups, scout troops or other groups whose R exposure to ReSource and Eco-Cycle operations would generally raise awareness about resource management. "Soft" skills training program for individuals needing job-readiness training to find/keep employment and develop productive work habits (may include mentally/physically challenged persons, at-risk youth, offenders in transition from a corrections system or even new workers) - would likely involve a multi-step curriculum conducted by qualified trainers (providing a new partnership opportunity for the City) and targeting 39 cognitive, social and emotional skill sets. Other small non-profit or social enterprise organizations whose mission and operations are consistent with ReSource and Eco-Cycle - these might include new City partners 37 General information on the repair cafe concept can be found at http://repaircafr.org/. 38 This activity has been considered by Eco-Cycle for their second phase of expansion at the 6400 Arapahoe site. 39 ReNew Salvage is a non-profit organization that until recently offered a similar program (as well as a used building material facility, retail store and deconstruction program). Due to financial difficulties during the recent recession, ReNew and its website is currently in transition http://rewewsalvage.org/. 48 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 5: Recommendations interested in collecting/managing materials not routinely collected in Boulder (such as mattresses and box springs). 5.Ongoing Zero Waste Program Implementation - This should include: Annual assessment of overall system progress against needs for improvement - this should include quality reporting by all service providers early in the calendar year. Review of annual commercial audits and overall enforcement records to identify need for additional outreach and/or compliance resources. Review of actual expenditures against Trash Tax revenues - to determine the adequacy of current funding and any future need for additional revenue streams. Audit of landfilled waste at least every-other-year - to verify additional diversion opportunities (ideally haulers and BCRC will provide ongoing reports of recyclables and organic stream quality so that outreach targeted at contamination can be bolstered if needed). Verify basis of estimations in future assessments - a key example is the estimation of future waste generation rates, which was based on the City's projected population growth in this study (tying waste quantities to population may not be an accurate 40 representation for Boulder over the full planning period). Program reevaluation at least every-other-year - to allow adjustments to implementation schedules, ordinance language and goals, as appropriate. 5.3 Table 5.1 provides a summary of potential net program costs and revenues should the City proceed with implementing the recommendations discussed above. The table considers existing Trash Tax revenues and programming. As shown, the City will likely have net costs of between $115,000 and $187,000 per year during the first three years of implementation (Phase I). These costs are due to the cost of developing new policy and reduced Trash Tax revenues as commercial diversion increases. In Phase II and throughout the rest of the planning period, however, net annual revenue approaching $500,000 may be realized as the initiatives mature and new homeowners become subject to the Trash Tax. If the City is able to implement the Homeowners Service Collection initiative earlier than Phase II, these revenues can be accrued sooner than noted in Table 5.1. However, the City should more closely evaluate these estimates prior to actual implementation and on an ongoing basis over the planning period as: Cost estimations are based on sparse actual data and many assumptions. Actual implementation time frames are unknown. 40 The USEPA recently observed that the national MSW generation rate declined slightly between 2007 and 2011 despite an increasing census numbers ("Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2011 Facts and Figures," May 2013). 49 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report City of Boulder, CO Attachment A Zero Waste Evaluation Study, Final Report Section 5: Recommendations Actual rate of CDD deposit refunds are unknown (while it was assumed that only 2.5 percent of total deposits would not be refunded, this value could vary significantly from year to year). Implementation of other programs is unknown. Trash Tax revenues are subject to variables outside the scope of this study. If excess revenues are available for zero waste programming at any point in the future, additional resources could be allocated to update zero waste plan metrics, assumptions and programming in Phase I, and invest more aggressively in both the BCRC and public outreach and education (especially for multi-family and commercial generators) in Phase II. a Table 5.1: Existing Versus Future City Zero Waste Expenditures (annual costs unless otherwise noted) COSTS (REVENUES) IN 2012$ PROGRAMS bb 2012 Phase I (2014-2018) Phase II (2019-2027) Revenues ($1,711,000) - ($2,131,000) - c Trash Tax $1,776,000 ($1,739,000) ($2,222,000) Bundle #1 Initiatives (see Appendix E) NA ($200,000) ($142,000) ($1,911,000) - ($2,273,000) - ZĞǀĞŶƵĞ^ƵďƚŽƚĂů$1,776,000 ($1,939,000) ($2,364,000) Costs Existing Trash Tax Expenditures d Programs Evaluated in Study (Table $657,000 $575,000 $575,000 2.2 Programs) e LEAD General Services Activities $543,000 $543,000 $543,000 f Recycle Row Loan/Bond $576,000 $576,000 $576,000 Bundle #1 Initiatives (Table 3.5) g Development NA $105,000 NA Ongoing Operations (net revenues - gg NA $155,000 $68,000 see above) h Education and Outreach $45,000 $87,000 - $131,00 $45,000 Existing Policy Enforcement Development NA $8,000 NA Ongoing Operations (net revenues - some $ included in $5,000 $5,000 see above) Table 2.2 programs ŽƐƚƐ^ƵďƚŽƚĂů$1776,000 $2,054,000 - $2,098,000 $1,812,000 $115,000 - $187,000 ($461,000) - ($552,000) TOTAL NET COSTS/REVENUES $0 net costs net revenues a Does not include non-measurable implementation strategies for which costs/revenues are not available - most are assumed to be included under LEAD General Service activities. b Based on projected 2027 tons. c Considers loss of commercial tax revenues in Phase I/II (19,500-34,300 more tons of commercial/construction waste diverted instead of landfilled at $0.85/cubic yard, assumed 900 pounds/cubic yard) and gain of residential revenues in Phase II (10,000- 11,500 new subscribers at $3.50/month) (see Appendix D for initiative estimates). d Assumes recycling coupon, zero waste rebate, commercial organics subsidy eliminated ($82,000 total savings/year). e Based on the City's FY2012 budget (still uses 2011 numbers). f County loan of $136,000/year paid off in 2013. g Costs/revenues consider requirement for 1 to 2 new staff during development; 2 staff for ongoing operations. h Based on $2-$3 per household and current expenditure of $45,000. 50 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report APPENDIX A Attachment A a DIVERTED AND DISCARDED MSW COMPOSITION DATA RESIDENTIAL MSWCOMMERCIAL MSWMIXED MSW MSW MATERIAL Waste Composition % by Waste Composition % by Waste Composition % by ccc WeightWeightWeight PAPER OCC1.2%8.1%5.6% ONP0.8%0.8%0.8% High Gradenot measure1.7%1.1% d Mixed Papernot measure7.4%4.7% d Paperboardnot measure2.1%1.3% d Magazines/Junk Mailnot measure1.1%0.7% d Shrednot measure0.1%0.1% d Other Recyclable Paper7.8%not measure2.8% d ubtotal9.8%21.3%17.2% s PLASTIC PET #1 Clear0.8%2.0% PET #1 Pigmented0.1%0.1% HDPE #2 Natural0.4%0.3% HDPE #2 Color0.4%0.3% PVC #30.6%0.4% 4.0% LDPE #40.7%0.4% PP #50.9%0.6% PS #61.1%0.7% Other #70.3%0.2% Film Plastic3.5%2.2% Juice/Milk Cartons0.3%not measure0.1% d ubtotal4.3%8.8%7.2% s GLASS Glass1.3%2.4%2.0% ubtotal1.3%2.4%2.0% s METALS METALS Ferrous Metal1.0%0.9%0.9% Aluminu0.3%0.4%0.4% m Aluminum Foi0.0%0.2%0.1% l Aluminum Foi2.1%not measure0.8% ld Appliances/Mixed Metalsnot measure1.5%1.0% d ubtotal3.4%3.0%3.1% s ORGANICS Yard Waste6.0%8.8%7.8% Food16.1%14.9%15.3% Painted/Treated Woodnot measure4.1%2.6% d C&D/Clean Wood1.5%4.1%3.2% ubtotal23.6%31.9%28.9% s OTHER DIVERTED MATERIALS E-Waste0.0%1.5%1.0% Textiles3.6%4.0%3.9% Hazardous Waste0.0%0.6%0.4% ubtotal3.6%6.1%5.2% s REMAINING MSW ubtotal54.0%0.0%36.4% s d TOTAL 100.0%73.5%100.0% a Includes MSW only (CDD excluded) Based on multiple waste composition studies in City/County of Boulder (WDS' "Summary of Waste Sort Results", b March 2013) c Based on City's 2011 Annual Waste Inventory, MSW trash compositio n residential =36%y weigh bt commercial =64%y weigh bt Attachment A APPENDIX H HAULER FINANCIAL INCENTIVES Typically, waste haulers are paid based on the number of households serviced or the cubic yard capacity of commercial containers serviced. Many communities across the country have experimented with altering this system of payment to allow haulers to make more money from diverting waste rather than from disposal. A commonality between all incentive programs reviewed for this study is that some form of contractual or franchise relationship exists between the local government and the haulers, with the hauler bearing any financial burden or reward. These communities most commonly utilize a contract or franchise strategy. Although Boulder currently uses neither approach, examples of innovative hauler incentives aimed at increasing diversion are provided for consideration as the City evaluates its ability to achieve zero waste: 1.San Jose, CA - San Jose contracts with a single hauler for residential and commercial waste collection. The hauler must reach a 75 percent diversion goal. If the hauler falls short, it is charged liquidated damages of $25,000 for every percentage point below 75 percent. The hauler must tally tonnage information and calculate the diversion rate on a monthly basis and report to the city quarterly. The diversion goal is set to increase to 80 percent on January 1, 2014. 2.Seattle, WA - Seattle retroactively rewards its contracted waste haulers for successful recycling and waste prevention efforts. Baseline tons are initially established during the first contract year. In subsequent years, haulers are rewarded $10 per ton of reduced residential and commercial garbage tons compared to the initial contract year, and $5 per ton of reduced residential recycling or compostable tons. This incentive phases out after the first five years of the contract unless both parties agree to renew it. 3.Monrovia, CA - Monrovia has a non-exclusive commercial franchise system. Haulers must provide their service rates when applying for a franchise and are only allowed to change these rates annually based on a consumer price index. The city charges haulers a franchise fee based on whether the materials they collect are disposed or recovered. Each month, haulers complete an online form to report tons disposed and diverted, and service fees. Based on what they report, haulers are charged a franchise fee of $28/ton for material landfilled and $5/ton for material that is diverted. Residuals that go to disposal are charged $28/ton (if the residuals go on to a waste-to-energy facility, they are only charged $5/ton). The city will audit the haulers annually for compliance. 4.Santa Clara, CA - Santa Clara also has a non-exclusive franchise system for collecting waste in the industrial area of the city. To encourage more recycling, the city uses a tiered franchise fee system that charges 3 percent of gross billings for recycling services (if less than 5 percent contamination), 16 percent of gross billings for garbage collection, and 10 percent of gross billings for mixed loads that contains 30 to 90 percent garbage. The city conducts an audit every three years. The KCI Team considered various approaches to applying these incentives within the City collection system, including the following: H-1 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report Attachment A 1.Tiered or Tonnage-Based Trash Tax - The Trash Tax could potentially be re-structured to create an incentive to haulers to increase waste diversion. For example, a tiered Trash Tax could provide discounts to haulers for achieving diversion rates of 50 percent, 60 percent, 70 percent, etc. Alternatively, a tonnage-based Trash Tax could be based on tons of waste disposed or recovered, similar to Monrovia, CA, rather than on households serviced or commercial cubic yards. Neither approach appears feasible in Boulder because service fees are not currently established or controlled, and haulers would simply pass this cost on to the customer. Additional impediments include the fact that the City needs all Trash Tax revenues it currently receives to support ongoing programs and increasing the Trash Tax amount or structure would require voter approval. 2.Waste Diversion Fee - Also considered was the establishment of a new hauler fee, separate from the Trash Tax. The fee could be based on the tons of waste disposed or success in meeting defined diversion goals. As noted above, however, this is not likely to be effective in Boulder as haulers could simply pass this fee on to their customers. 3.Program-Specific Incentive - The City could consider a financial incentive program established on an initiative-specific basis where haulers would receive a rebate for each ton diverted. The rebate would need to be large enough to provide an incentive to haulers. At the same time, the City would need to identify a funding source for this program. Based on the evaluations summarized in Section 3, the voluntary multi-family composting initiative would likely be the most suitable for an incentive component as it is expected to initially be a voluntary program that is dependent on hauler collection. As this initiative is expected to divert fairly low tonnages, however, it may be more effective to invest in education and outreach - perhaps targeting existing obstacles to multi-family composting (such as enclosures, use of parking space, signage) and 1 paving the way for its maturation into a mandatory program. 1 Even if a hauler incentive for MFU composting increased participation to 80 percent of all MFU accounts and paid haulers $10/diverted ton, the available rewards would be less than $20,000/year for all collections. H-2 LBA Associates City of Boulder, CO\Final Report AttachmentB:20132014WasteTaskForceParticipants NameEmployer/Organization KateBaileyEcoCycle JeffCallahanBoulderCounty JackDeBellUniversityofColorado ErinDodgeBoulderCounty AllynFeinbergEcoCycleBoard LisaFriendBoulderCounty SheilaHortonBoulderAreaRentalHousingAssociation BryceIsaacsonWesternDisposal ShawnLaBarreCenterforReSourceConservation EricLombardiEcoCycle MartiMatschEcoCycle HillaryCollinsBoulderCounty ErinDodgeBoulderCountyPublicHealth SarahVanPeltWesternDisposal DarlaAriansBoulderCounty FrankBrunoWesternDisposal MichelleBarnesCenterforReSourceConservation DanStellarCenterforReSourceConservation PamMilmoeBoulderCountyPublicHealth ChoenVogtBoulderCountyPublicHealth AttachmentC:ZeroWasteCommunicationsandOutreachPlan MarchDec.2014 Objectives Engage community members through an awareness and education campaign that tells the story of zero waste in Boulder: what we’ve accomplished, where we are now, where we want to go, and the role of community members in helping us get there. This campaign will incorporate opportunities for community members to provide ideas and feedback regarding how to achieve the goals laid out in the Zero Waste Strategic Plan (ZWSP). Goals Expand community participation in programs and services that propel Boulder toward its next big goal (85 percent diversion) Collaborate with internal and external partners to achieve mutually beneficial efficiencies in all research, development and outreach initiatives Design and implement a community awareness campaign regarding expansion of the curbside compost pickup service to include meat and dairy Provide clear and detailed direction to Eco-Cycle regarding their provision of educational and outreach services Communicate clear waste diversion goals and actions for specific segments of the community (e.g. residents, tenants of multi-family units, businesses) and for the community as a whole Test new communications and outreach tactics that can integrate awareness, convenience, simplicity, and fun Decrease contamination of recycling and composting and increase waste diversion by at least five percent in five multi-family units (MFUs) through the Boulder Zero Waste Project in collaboration with Eco-Cycle and Western Disposal Create comprehensive zero waste web resource page for property managers/owners and tenants of apartment buildings Host well-attended zero waste community celebration at 6400 Arapahoe facilities to bring awareness to the diverse recycling services and opportunities offered by those facilities, draw attention to community driven zero waste entrepreneurship and art, and to begin to engage residents in the zero waste boulder envisioning process Communications Infrastructure and Capacity Colette Crouse, sustainability communications specialist, will manage and assist in the development of all external communications materials for research, educational and outreach purposes, with most heavy involvement between March and Aug., 2014. She will be directly in charge of creating the educational outreach strategy for expansion of the residential compost pickup program. Colette will assist in the development of any future pilot programs, as capacity allows, and in communications to council The residential and business sustainability staff will assist in the development of external communications materials and will be responsible for communications to council Jamie Harkins, zero waste project manager, will assist in the development of an RFP for design/marketing work, proposal evaluation, and discussions between the selected firm and the city regarding deliverables and external communications 1 AttachmentC:ZeroWasteCommunicationsandOutreachPlan MarchDec.2014 Interns will primarily assist staff in implementing outreach initiatives. Intern responsibilities will likely also include collecting, analyzing and presenting feedback from community members regarding the ZWSP strategies and zero waste Boulder envisioning process Matt Chasansky, the library art director, will collaborate and advise any communications strategies involving public art Projects/Programs and Project Managers/Teams Projects/Programs Project Manager(s) ZWSP update (and sub projects) Jamie, Kara Curbside compost pickup expansion Kelle 6400 Arapahoe community waste celebration Kelle CU recycling green teams Colette, Kelle Brought It Boulder rewards Kelle Boulder zero waste project (MFU recycling) Juliet Review of Eco-Cycle outreach contract Colette Commercial recycling and composting regulations? Kara Outreach intern supervision Kelle, Colette w/ help from Jamie, Kara, Juliet Audiences Primary audiences: residents, business owners and managers, and employees in Boulder, and subgroups of those audiences. Big focuses on the following subgroups: Commercial property owners, managers and tenants o Single-Family residents (targeted through Eco-Cycle outreach) o University students (targeted through CU Recycling Green Team outreach) o MFU residents o Children and families o Participants of current city sustainability initiatives (e.g. Community Power Partnership) o Secondary audiences: people who live outside of Boulder but who shop and play in Boulder (e.g. outdoor adventurers) Key Messages/Sample Messaging What does Zero Waste Boulder look like? Why waste time? Help Boulder become a zero waste community by 2019 Some say “trash.” We say “treasure.” Find out what actions you can take to invest in Boulder’s zero waste economy More of our trash goes to landfill than you might think. But it doesn’t have to Whoever said, “Don’t mess with Texas” clearly hadn’t been to Boulder Waste diversion generates economic value. Help strengthen the local economy by choosing to reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost Waste is a product of inefficiency. Zero waste efforts seek to maximize efficiencies and make Boulder a cleaner, healthier and stronger community Keep Boulder a hub of clean innovation by supporting zero waste 2 AttachmentC:ZeroWasteCommunicationsandOutreachPlan MarchDec.2014 No bones about it—meat and dairy scraps can now go into your curbside compost! Brought It – Bring yours, earn rewards; reward customers, reduce waste, save money Boulder’s diversion rate is 40%. We want it to be 90%. What can you do to help us get there? We send 60% of our waste to landfill. We could send only 10%. How can you help us get there? It’s just the way we do things here/‘Cause that’s just how we do Strategies Utilize several complimentary Community Based Social Marketing (CBSM) principles and techniques, including social norming; direct personal contact with community members; concrete, vivid, and personalized information In communications, emphasize Boulder’s zero waste story (what we’ve accomplished/where we are/ where we want to go) and link Boulder’s climate commitment and waste diversion efforts Create paths for people to easily engage with zero waste programs and services, and make the update to the ZWSP a highly visible community conversation Leverage existing partnerships and coordinate outreach efforts with external (Western Disposal, Eco-Cycle, ReSource, CU) and internal partners (Water Conservation Program) Use community engagement techniques that are fun, meaningful and interactive and that ideally involve a tangible or visible component Possible Outreach Tactics Develop dynamic narrative of waste diversion in Boulder that communicates past successes as well as goals and roles for individual community members. Community members—not the city— should be positioned as the authors of this narrative. Communicate how waste reduction contributes to social, economic and environmental health and involve a process for “envisioning a zero waste Boulder” Include results and recommendations from current consultant zero waste evaluation study o Use interactive multimedia and public art installations when possible to maximize awareness and community engagement and to reinforce sustainable behaviors Involve residents in hands-on activities that tangibly illustrate the benefits of zero waste actions and support services, such as the “Recycle Row” facilities and curbside compost pickup Interface with Western’s Diversion Challenge app and/or Eco-Cycle’s “My zero waste” app Perhaps collaborate to tailor mobile app to city residents. Would include Boulder’s zero o waste narrative and information on how to get involved Engage the public at large community events that draw attendance from primary audiences (e.g. farmers market, Green Streets, etc.) Zero waste pledge: challenge residents to a single day “no waste” challenge (i.e. participating individuals attempt to create no landfill waste for an entire day) “Waste Watchers” (slim your waste): small-scale waste challenges and/or competitions in commercial buildings, such as between floors in an office building or between similar small businesses, and in neighborhoods. Participation in program may be incentivized with cross- promotion in city materials or raffle prize Coordinate with Eco-Cycle school waste reduction competitions o Link to Boulder Brought It Rewards program o 3 AttachmentC:ZeroWasteCommunicationsandOutreachPlan MarchDec.2014 Measurements Number of participants in “waste watchers” competitions/challenges and zero waste pledge Waste diversion percentages by sector in 2014 (zero waste campaign) in comparison to past years and eventually to 2015 (post zero waste campaign) Number of visits (and other commonly used website metrics ) to revamped zero waste web pages Waste diversion and participation at 6400 Arapahoe facilities as compared to past Number of attendees at zero waste community events, such the zero waste community celebration Number of businesses and consumers participating in Brought It Rewards Comparative analysis of pre- and post-MFU recycling/composting outreach program. MFU recycling, composting and contamination rates as reported by Eco-Cycle’s audits and evaluation. Timeline Q1—March Draft outreach plan and communications for curbside compost pickup expansion of allowable items (press release, letter from the city to curbside compost subscribers) Draft brief communications and outreach plan for 6400 Arapahoe zero waste community event Finalize ZWSP communications plan Release informal RFP for design/marketing support on ZWSP Determine outreach presence at downtown farmers market (coordinate with OSMP) Begin work on graphics and other collateral in preparation for 6400 Arapahoe event Q2—April-June Pre June 3: Draft messaging around update to Zero Waste Strategic Plan and potential short-term and long- term strategies Finalize messaging for 6400 Arapahoe zero waste community event o Engage community members in first stages empathetic and solutions-oriented conversations, based on guiding principles of community based social marketing and design thinking 6400 Arapahoe zero waste community event: solicit public feedback on priorities and o values around potential waste reduction strategies Inspire Boulder content for soliciting public feedback on ZWSP in advance of Council o meeting Public meeting for ZWSP input in advance of Council meeting on June 3 o Initiate and complete work on ZWSP graphic and additional collateral as soon as possible Review and update zero waste web pages: content and include embedded links Outreach at farmers market when appropriate May 10 : 6400 Arapahoe zero waste event, 3 p.m.-6 p.m. June 3 : Present updated zero waste strategic plan and community feedback to council; public hearing Post June 3: 4 AttachmentC:ZeroWasteCommunicationsandOutreachPlan MarchDec.2014 Stakeholder meetings to craft potential regulations Update Inspire Boulder as a way to solicit community feedback on potential regulations Public meetings to solicit feedback on specific srategies Q3—July-Sept. Outreach at Green Streets/Ciclovia event Community meetings on potential ZW regulations Develop recommendations for commercial recycling regulation Q4—Oct.-Dec. Present recommendations for commercial recycling regulation to council Integration of ZWSP and BoulderUp campaigns (TBD) 5