HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/17/2013 - RESOLUTION 2013-111 ESTABLISHING A WASTE DIVERSIONAgenda Item 28
Item # 28 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY December 17, 2013
City Council
STAFF
Susie Gordon, Senior Environmental Planner
SUBJECT
Resolution 2013-111 Establishing a Waste Diversion Policy.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is for Council to consider passing new waste reduction goals:
1. Zero Waste by 2030, achieving interim levels of 75% by 2020 and 90% by 2025
2. Per capita waste generation levels of 2.8 pounds/day by 2025
Now that the Fort Collins community has reached a 50% waste diversion level (based on 2012 data),
“next steps” to be taken must systematically and deliberately aim at new ways to manage the
community’s discards. Six months of extensive community involvement produced a significant amount of
public input and evidenced strong support for a goal of Zero Waste. A “The Road to Zero Waste Plan”
was prepared that calls for a departure from traditional thinking and landfill technology.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The roadmap for Fort Collins to follow in pursuit of higher levels of waste diversion calls for significant
“culture change” and new operational (community, regional and private sector) investments. By adopting
new, far-sighted goals, Fort Collins will signal commitment and support for Zero Waste, a message
businesses need to hear in order to make long-term investments in new facilities. Four types of facilities
are needed to fill gaps in the local/regional system and capture more discards; commercial composting
for organics, including food scraps; construction and demolition (C&D) sorting yard; glass sorting facility;
and re-use warehouse. The combined cost of $12-17M in community and regionally-shared investments
will help avoid the need for building new landfills in the future, estimated at $20-80M.
The City’s share in implementing the Plan over the next 10 years would be through a mix of ordinances
that set higher standards - and create a level “playing field” - and new programs that: establish Zero
Waste grant/loans; carry out robust education and outreach; and, create a re-use warehouse. One option
for funding new programs is through the biannual Budgeting for Outcomes process; another option is a
proposed new "Recycling Education and Reinvestment” fee.
The Road to Zero Waste Plan describes community values to best guide future decisions, with an
emphasis on choice and diversity. Fort Collins seeks to: implement mutually beneficial actions to support
multiple principles and policies; look for diverse solutions to optimize recovery of discards; and, build on
our open competitive, market economy to foster more entrepreneurial investments in new programs,
facilities and services. In addition, opportunities to recycle should be universally available to citizens and
businesses.
The Plan shows that the City’s primary role lies in helping to improve conditions for recycling and waste
Agenda Item 28
Item # 28 Page 2
reduction activities by adopting clear goals. The City can also show direction by facilitating, supporting
market activities by acting as a convener and catalyst, and educating (about) and enforcing codes that
are adopted, building on the successful approach applied over the past 20 years with Fort Collins’ Pay-
as-you-throw (PAYT) ordinance.
In Colorado, Boulder and Summit Counties and the town of Telluride have adopted Zero Waste goals.
Other U.S. communities that have adopted this approach include Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, Seattle,
Chicago, Los Angeles, San Jose, Sacramento, Burbank, Glendale, Oceanside, Santa Monica, Alameda
City, Culver City, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Oakland, San Francisco, Berkeley, San Diego, and Palo
Alto.
Anticipated 2014 Actions
A starting point for the Plan is to bring forward an ordinance that limits the use of disposable shopping
bags. Amendments to the Universal Building Code in 2014 to expand recycling requirements for
construction sites, remodeling jobs, and demolition work will be supported by the Plan.
The schedule for 2014 also calls for evaluation of a possible monthly fee on households and businesses.
Revenue may alternatively come through the Budgeting for Outcomes process. The initial focus for the
education and reinvestment fund would be to create a Zero Waste grants and loans program.
The City will seek opportunities to collaborate and cooperate with neighboring agencies, including the City
of Loveland and Larimer County, in creating a regional Zero Waste Plan.
Anticipated 2015-16 Actions
The City will look at a variety of new actions to implement the Road to Zero Waste Plan in 2015-16,
including planning for how to expand the new integrated recycling facility to better serve as Resource
Recovery Park. The City’s own policies for reducing waste through purchasing decisions will be
evaluated, and a policy framework for the “highest and best use” of materials will be developed to give
specific guidance for the use of waste conversion technology in managing the community’s discards.
Amendments to the PAYT ordinance will be brought forward to give single-family customers the
opportunity to request the optional service of curbside composting (yard/garden organics) from their
trash/recycling company, and to extend recycling for all multi-family residents. New bans will be brought
forward to prohibit materials from landfill disposal, starting with source-separated construction and
demolition materials, and followed by yard trimmings.
Work on creating composting facilities in close proximity (20 miles from Fort Collins) will be initiated, with
special attention on helping to develop the infrastructure to allow food scraps to also be collected for
composting and/or digestion facilities. Development of a re-use warehouse will also be considered during
the 2015-16 timeframe, along with a regional glass sorting facility.
FINANCIAL / ECONOMIC IMPACT
At the November 26, 2013 Work Session, staff was asked to provide a detailed implementation plan and
a financial pro forma to illustrate how specific decisions about funding could be made over the next five
years. An analysis has been developed (Attachment 3) that shows incremental costs and revenues for
new City programs as well general/directional information about costs and revenues that will result from
new private sector programs, and the sequence in which actions are recommended to be taken.
For subscribers of curbside collection services, service options would expand over a period of 5-6 years,
from today's recycling + trash collection, to a combination of recycling + trash + organics (compostables)
collection; as result, subscription rates would change. The Plan emphasizes the need for giving hauling
companies more flexibility to design their rates beyond the linear rate structure prescribed in the Pay-as-
you-throw Ordinance so that they are able to adjust their rates to accommodate new services. The City is
Agenda Item 28
Item # 28 Page 3
only able to estimate what changes may occur. From a very general perspective, we may anticipate that
for the largest-level households (those with 95-gallon trash carts collected weekly), costs for the new
triple-stream service could increase by an estimated 20%; the same customer could elect to down-size to
a 64-gallon trash cart and save 16% on their current costs. Among customers already at low-volume
trash levels, costs could increase by an estimated 26% (from about $11/month to $13.83) by adding
compost collection. The Plan recommends that the decision whether to add compost service would
remain the choice of the customer, who could choose to opt-out. Both small and large businesses would
also have the prerogative to subscribe to composting services.
The recommendation in the Plan for bringing trash/recycling haulers' business customers under the Pay-
as-you-throw Ordinance represents a major new direction in how commercial services are provided and
changes would occur to these customers' rates. Charging for the volume of trash, as prescribed by
PAYT, would increase businesses' trash bills. It also motivates businesses to look for more waste
reduction and recycling measures to apply, along the lines of what local business leaders like New
Belgium Brewery, Hewlett-Packard, Woodward Governor, Anheuser-Busch, and Intel have done. These
Zero Waste businesses are able to demonstrate savings to their bottom line that accrue by reducing
waste and down-sizing on their trash removal services.
The Road to Zero Waste Plan categorizes - as commodities - materials that routinely “flow” into local
landfills from Fort Collins (140,000 tons of trash in 2012), establishing that nearly $6.5 M in value could
potentially be recovered annually. New revenues from sales of recovered commodities will stimulate the
economy and additional jobs will be created that provide local employment.
Zero Waste initiatives for new businesses and for reinvestment in the local economy are linked to the
Economic Health Strategic Plan and support for the Innovation Ecosystem. As start-up companies enter
the market and as existing recycling/reuse/composting businesses expand in response to Zero Waste
policies set by the City, an estimated 400 jobs will eventually be developed. As an example of how
markets respond to local goals, three composting companies started up business in Austin after the
community adopted a Zero Waste plan.
Constructing new recycling facilities to fill the gaps in the local infrastructure for composting, C&D sorting,
glass sorting, and a re-use warehouse is estimated to cost a total of $12-$17M. Investments made by the
private sector would be repaid through fees for services in the rates charged for services. Investments in
new ways to divert material from landfill disposal will help postpone or avoid substantial costs to the
community of replacement. The overall net costs for implementing new Road to Zero Waste initiatives
cost more than implementing no plan; however, over the long term, these costs are going to be lower
than the costs for constructing a new landfill.
Funding for new City programs could come from the General Fund as a Budgeting for Outcomes
decision, or as a proposed monthly fee projected to be approximately $0.65 per household and business
per month ($7.80 annually).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Diverting waste materials from landfill disposal and putting them to beneficial secondary uses provides a
number of environmental benefits to which the City’s strong recycling policies and programs directly
contribute. The ability to recover forest products, plastics, metals, and manufactured goods and put them
to beneficial use dramatically reduces “upstream” impacts caused by destructive mining and logging
practices; drilling and resource extraction; and, industrial production activities such as chemical treatment
and smelting. Less energy and water is necessary when remanufacturing occurs compared to using
virgin materials, and less air and water pollution occurs. Scarce forest and jungle ecosystems can be
conserved when minerals and elemental metals that have already been removed from the ground are
introduced back into manufacturing. By creating a local system for recycling organics such as food
scraps, yard trimmings, and wet or soiled paper, compost becomes more widely used as a soil
supplement; landscaping and gardening efforts are rewarded by increased water retention and lower
irrigation needs, healthier plants, and less reliance on chemical fertilizers. Of great significance to the
Agenda Item 28
Item # 28 Page 4
Fort Collins community's concerns regarding climate change, greenhouse gas emissions are avoided by
taking a Zero Waste approach; it reduces future landfill methane emissions, and reduces “embedded”
carbon dioxide by saving energy compared to using virgin materials for manufacturing purposes.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its November 20, 2013 meeting, the Natural Resources Advisory Board unanimously passed a motion
recommending Council adopt Zero Waste goals (Attachment 4). The Energy Board, Economic Advisory
Board, and Air Quality Advisory Board also reviewed the Road to Zero Waste and provided comments in
support of taking a Zero Waste approach.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
City staff applied a comprehensive six-month process to involve the public in discussions about new
goals for the Fort Collins community and obtain public input (Attachment 5). Five open house events
were held and more than 250 people attended at least one of these “Community Conversations” to
engage in discussion. A website <http://www.fcgov.com/zerowaste> (www.fcgov.com/zerowaste) was
installed where information about the planning process and updates were posted, Community
Conversation videotapes were linked, and online comment forms were available to fill out.
City staff and the consulting team met with key boards to discuss the Road to Zero Waste project, as well
as the Council Futures Committee. Numerous interviews with stakeholders and site visits were
conducted, and as part of the project, a workshop was held for ClimateWise partners to discuss
innovations in the business sector for reducing waste. Finally, a small, informal Working Group was
invited to participate as a “sounding board” for the staff and consulting team throughout the six-month
process. The group, representing a cross-section of different stakeholders, provided knowledgeable input
as the Road to Zero Waste Plan developed.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Citizen Comments (PDF)
2. Road to Zero Waste Plan (DOC)
3. Pro Forma (PDF)
4. Board & Commission input (DOCX)
5. Public Involvement Process (PDF)
6. Road to Zero Waste follow-up memo (PDF)
7. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
Road to Zero Waste; Citizen Comments
1
June 11, 2013 Community Conversation – Reduce, Reuse– comment from cards at meeting
John Anderson The economic model is what got us into this environmental mess – that is the problem.
Stacey
Baumgarn
Perhaps we should just be collecting questions, comments, feedback, and not try to answer/respond
to each on the spot. It seems more defensive and less than a “listening” session. To the degree we
are responding, we are NOT listening and planning. Not sure how to do this – Diversion/Reuse
idea/suggestion:
CSU residence halls and surplus do an annual “leave it behind” project/program. Can the City help or
create a “leave it behind” for off‐campus students or any community member? Isn’t August 1 a huge
fruit basket upset of leases and moving, etc. Ask me for more information. Thanks. CSU Center for
Public Deliberation (as facilitators).
How does reuse create so many jobs? As recycling industry creates new jobs, does it drive all costs
(or products) up? If so, does this create some resistance?
Caitlan May City requires waste companies to provide free recycling to all residential properties but doesn’t for
apartment/condo/commercial businesses. The reason I have been told is due to lack of responsibility
to recycle proper items. How does the City plan to address the issue and to get these organizations
and groups engaged in recycling? If this truly is the reason, what studies have been done that show
the increase of waste in recycling containers in apartment/condos and businesses?
I would like to see the City require waste companies to provide recycling services as a free or
mandatory program to all residential and commercial businesses.
Public usage areas should have a recycling container next to all trash bins and the signage needs to
be clear and precise so it is easy to know what to recycle.
Becca
Walkinshaw
Community‐wide signage (haulers, schools, city, county) same guidelines ‐ look, symbols, etc. This
helps people to better understand. Also, yard waste is low‐hanging fruit to look at ‐ very minimal
portion of our community recycles yard waste. They say they don't create enough for a cart or don't
want to pay additional costs. In Fort Collins we have tipping fees for wood ‐ about the same cost or
more to recycle.
Since Fort Collins implemented green building codes, higher contamination happening with wood, so
contamination fees are frustrating customers.
Education ‐ in schools at early age on 3 R's super important ‐ Start at early age so recycling becomes
second nature for kids and they expect such systems in the future.
Kurt Buss – City
of Loveland
Thanks for keeping the conversation going. Great gathering.
Nancy Agnew Need to help people think out of the box to repurpose ‐ have more drop off points.
Kendal
Gustafson
Deconstruction plan needs to be mandated for all construction jobs. If they have to make a plan they
will realize that diverting material will save them money.
Jack Herrick Renew Hughes Stadium ‐ Great meeting ‐ Look forward to future sessions.
Kelsey Carkeek Have you considered having a forum run through the Center of Public Deliberation (CPD) run by
Martin Carcasson at CSU? I am a part of the CPD and we are always looking to help out with forums
in the community. I also think banning plastic bags would be VERY easy to do in this community. As
a student seeing the perspectives of CSU and Fort Collins as a whole, there are so many people who
would work with the City to ban plastic bags. The biggest way to get this all done is communication
and marketing. Americans want to do go and care BUT they are too LAZY to drop trash off at three
Road to Zero Waste; Citizen Comments
2
locations instead of one. If there were people offering to pick up things that don't belong in the
landfill, people would jump on board.
Tony Cooper Ban particle board ‐ Big problem is planned obsolescence and consumerist society.
Vara Vissa Governmental problems ‐ traffic to landfill ‐ too many trucks ‐ top soil being dug up to cover trash
(50% of which is divertible ‐ This should be stopped.
Michael
Abramovich
Many aged in our senior apartments have difficulties walking to a collection facility.
Anika Consider 100% resource recovery
June 11, 2013 – on line comments
Sally Dowiatt Through composting, recycling and reusing plastic bags, our family of 4 (and now 2) doesn’t have
trash service because we have so little trash (about 6 small barrels a year). It would be nice to have
an option for a trash service that just picks up recycling once a month, or a neighborhood dumpster
or recycling bin.
Brian Maltais The biggest single factor to producing less waste is simply to consume less. Though residents
consuming less may be contradictory to a municipality's desire for constant economic growth, the
idea of "don't buy it if you don't need it" should be encouraged. The strategy of living lean and
efficient should be glorified in lieu of "keeping up with the Jones'" and amassing a garage full of toys.
Also, perhaps some kind of partnership between the City of Fort Collins and the Habitat for Humanity
Resource Centers could raise awareness of the option to donate refuse building materials instead of
disposal in landfills, while also encouraging people to use re‐purposed materials instead of
purchasing new materials from hardware stores. Furthermore, tons of branches and woody yard
waste needlessly ends up in landfills, when they can be recycled into mulch and wood chips.
Awareness could be raised for recycling options such as Hageman's earth Cycle.
Coleen
Barricklow
Let me start by saying I am the owner of Green Logic which focuses exclusively on education and
access to products that reduce environmental footprint of daily living and I commend the city on
undertaking an effort to go zero waste. I am in a position of seeing, hearing and knowing too much
when it comes to this subject and have many ideas and inputs that might be valuable here. For
example last year I spent weeks putting together pricing structure and tracking down biodegradable
and recyclable food service options for New West Fest vendors only to be told in the end that it was
too much effort and that vendors were complaining about pricing of products in comparison to the
dirt cheap Styrofoam goods that they are used to using. That was particularly frustrating
Because most of the vendors and many visitors to NWF come from out of town but the huge volume
of waste produced remains in our landfill forever. This is just one of many events that the city in part
hosts.
In my opinion one of the biggest obstacles to a zero waste program is the use of disposable
Styrofoam products that is so prevalent here. Being a business owner I fully understand and
appreciate the bottom line but when we step back and look at the larger picture the cost of building
a new landfill and the appreciate the bottom line but when we step back and look at the larger
picture the cost of building a new landfill and the environmental impact Styrofoam has, its cost is
much greater. Disposable Styrofoam to go containers and cups often have a very short life span
before heading to the landfill, where by volume they account for a tremendous amount space used.
It also is a toxic material that takes hundreds of years to break down and is a huge problem for
contamination of water, soil and animal diets.
Over 180 cities across the country have implemented Styrofoam to‐go ware bans some as far back as
the 1980's. Even fast food chains have been aware of the environmental impact of Styrofoam for
Road to Zero Waste; Citizen Comments
3
decades and utilize cardboard and paper instead, which at least will biodegrade in landfills. Banning
Styrofoam in Fort Collins should be one of the first things you guys are looking at. Although I am sure
businesses will grumble and complain, I think the vast number of their customers will appreciate the
effort, as well as not having to eat food from toxic containers. Businesses that we have worked with
in the past have had excellent success by explaining to the customers why they are switching and
implementing minimal charges for to go containers to cover the added cost. This has a secondary
effect of discouraging mindless use of to‐go ware in general.
Over the years we have worked with many of the cities different departments to switch to
biodegradable options for events and everyday use. It has always been frustrating to me that the city
doesn't have a way to mandate all departments to use environmentally friendly options and then
bulk buy for them. If the city were to bulk buy and distribute to the various departments under its
management the pricing on this stuff comes way down. A cooperative for businesses to bulk buy
together could be an excellent way to reduce cost as well. Unfortunately that is usually the driving
factor for most. Some food
June 17, 2013 – on line comments
Kathy The recycling center on Riverside is busy night and day. It is a great convenience that this facility is
accessible at all hours. I would like to see this facility expanded to have extra bins that could accept
more pre‐landfill waste ‐ maybe wood or metals for example. Based on the traffic at this location it is
obvious to me that people generally want to do their part in our goal of zero waste. The easier and
more convenient you can make it for them to do their part the better chance we will all have of
achieving this goal.
More frequent e‐waste collections around town would also be very helpful. Again, people want to do
the right thing but it has to be easy and convenient ‐ at least to get started. Once started, it becomes
painful for them to do anything else but recycle what they know they can!
Leslie Aaeng As a fifth grade teacher, I am interested to know if your group is planning educational programs or
compiling leveled materials for kids in PSD to help with you efforts. As a huge recycler, I know how
important it has been to start at the "bottom" as we have instilled this in our own kids. (and yes, I
would help!)
Pat Young Any business that sells water bottles/soda cans should be required to recycle them. Also, businesses
and people who are moving pay big bucks for packing materials and residents throw them away.
Maybe the city could sponsor a once‐a‐month trading event.
Lynne Barnes I’m curious about the Coloradoan article that says we can't put glass into curbside bins?? or shredded
paper? This is the first I’ve heard of this rule....the city and garbage collectors need to do a much
better job of correctly informing the public...we all want to help but need information!! We've been
told for several years now to throw it all.....bottles, plastic, newspaper, recyclable paper...into the
same container. Help!
June 22, 2013 – on line comments
Lauren Ogden I was out of town during your community presentations/meetings June 11 and 12. So I hope you
don't mind me taking the liberty of emailing you because I want to have a bit of input. I am all in
favor of aiming high, and if zero waste is possible, we should go for it. However at this point Fort
Collins is still way behind with the yard waste situation. Many towns and cities have free municipal
composting centers. I have to haul my yard waste to Hageman’s or Weitzel’s and pay, and fill my
truck to make it worth the trip.
I have half an acre of gardens and found that composting on site did not work here, due to several
factors: the large size of the garden, proximity of neighbors, the amount of waste it creates at certain
Road to Zero Waste; Citizen Comments
4
times of the year, and problems with raccoons and skunks. My trash collector, Gallegos, offers a $10
per month bin during the growing season for yard waste. The bin is way too small to serve my
purposes, and most of my waste is created in Feb and March when they don't offer this service at all
and I am cutting the old season's growth back to prepare the garden for spring.
I wind up putting mainly yard waste into my 90 gal trash can many weeks of the year when I'm not
making enough to fill my truck, this is not ideal but right now it's my best option. I have a 90 gal
recycling bin that I use religiously, and I create very little household waste and could easily go to the
smallest trash bin size, but it is not efficient at this point to give up the flexibility of putting extra yard
waste into the trash because my other options require filling a truck, and cost me extra time and
money (and create pollution by my having to drive). I am sure there are some ways to solve this as
you move forward with plans for zero waste. I just wanted the voice of gardeners to be heard.
Serious gardeners can't fit all their waste into a compost tumbler by the side of the garage, that's a
joke. This waste could stay out of the landfill and make great compost for people to use if we had a
community place for such a thing.
July 15, 2013 – on‐line comment
Patty Watson Please keep in mind that not ALL people are zealous recyclers. Some choose not to recycle at all.
Personal choice, as it should be. STOP making so darn many laws about everything that controls our
lives.
July 16, 2013 – Community Conversations – Composting – comments from cards at meeting
Janice
Oldemeyer
As we develop outlets and solutions working towards zero waste, we should ensure we consider
where things are recycled and how (in an environmentally sustainable manner). While some things
may need to go to China, what can and should be kept local? Implemented market development
programs ease permitting, create local jobs.
Mike Pruznick Why is Economic Office/Board not here? Education of chemistry of landfill vs. compost (all types of
technologies in both processes) – TBL not a balance 3‐leg stool – Murphy center ‐ “is it fiscally
viable”; type 4 recycle, ‐ “only those economically viable”, Hendee Energy Board July TBL and
Maslow’s should be priority. – Does it honor human rights? If no, stop. Does it honor environmental
protection? If no, stop. Is it economically viable? If yes, ?? If no, government does it directly or via
business assistance package.
Addy Elliott Please consider compostable plastics as a source and/or contaminant.
Liz Pruessner We don’t have existing composting services. Existing waste/trash haulers pricing structure does not
incentivize composting or reducing waste stream enough. People want to do what is easiest – mostly
– except for those who are already incentivized.
I think the City needs to keep pushing on the throttle to keep this issue working. More education
and outreach and work to provide opportunities or pilot projects to help demonstrate that this can
work in Fort Collins.
Michael Baute I’m interested in partnering with composting initiatives as a CSA pickup/drop‐off location.
Erin Nuckols Encourage 1:1:1 ratio (compost, recycling, trash) containers; cost – to encourage diversion;
community‐based social marketing; end‐user education and engagement.
Anonymous Recently I drove by the landfill after the 4th of July and was horrified by the line of trucks packed up
along Taft Hill Road with furniture, perfectly good mattresses and other items that could be reused.
We need to disincentivize at the landfill and infuse education into the businesses and citizenry so
that composting/recycling is done correctly. Climate Wise can help with connections, too. Need to
change composting regulation and look at close community composting for the region.
Bob Mann Possibility of City partnering with Hageman’s, even if just a transfer facility, to create a local/regional
Road to Zero Waste; Citizen Comments
5
composting facility? Whether or not a Class 1 facility.
Tim Warfield need more detail
July 16, 2013 – Conversation at Chamber of Commerce – Comments on Cards at meeting
Sean Dougherty I think good info came out, but cost is still a big piece to this. Also, we should set a goal that is
attainable, not 100%.
Greg Woods Upfront costs to businesses (and residences) for change in policy and implementation;
Regional solution for recycling facility? And who pays for it?
Bob Yost Help us create an efficient transfer option in Fort Collins to collect clean food waste to compost or
digest. Digestive project will need a large volume.
July 17, 2013 – Community Conversations – Waste to Energy – Comments on Cards at meeting
Stacy Baumgarn Perhaps we should just be collecting questions, comments, feedback, and not try to answer/respond
to each on the spot. It seems more defensive and less a “listening” session. To the degree we are
responding, we are NOT listening and planning. Not sure how to do this.
Diversion/reuse idea/suggestion: CSU residence halls and surplus do an annual “Leave it behind”
project/program. Can the City help or create a “Leave it Behind” for off‐campus students or any
community member. Isn’t August 1, a huge fruit basket upset of leases and moving, etc. Ask me for
more information.
How do we help citizens understand the COSTS? I live in a building where I pay an HOA fee. I do not
get an electric bill so I am not considered a “customer.” I do not pay a trash/recycle bill, so I am not
considered a “customer”. But I am a citizen and you need me to be engaged (to help, participate,
contribute, etc.) – Highest and best use – needs to be location (Fort Collins) specific. Given our
“waste” stream, given our weather, our availability of water, etc. “best practices” must be “localized”
– Why don’t we call it a resource recovery plan instead of a zero waste plan – Change it to focus from
waste to resource.
Caitlan May City requires waste companies to provide free recycling to all residential properties, but don’t’ for
apartment/condo/commercial businesses. The reason I have been told is due to lack of responsibility
to recycle proper items. How does the City plan to address the issue and to get these organizations
and groups engaged in recycling? If this truly is the reason, what studies have been done that show
the increase of waste in recycling containers in apartment/condos/businesses.
I would like to see the city require waste companies provide recycling services as a free or mandatory
program to all residential and commercial businesses.
Public usage areas should have a recycling container next to all trash bins and the signage needs to
be clear and precise so it is easy to know what to recycle.
Jenny Duer One thing I would like to see is more of a community outcry for reuse. I feel as though there needs
to be some discussion with the health department to allow restaurants and such to accept reuse
containers for leftovers, take out, etc. brought from home.
Phil Friedman The discussion and comments show both the challenges and opportunities to increase recycling
rates. Major issues I think I see: education; contamination; options and availability in public places;
bringing recycling to more businesses; creating a cradle‐to‐grave local model.
Dan Garvin Almost 600 tons of metal at landfill is way off! – Probably more like 100 tons or less. Until tip fees
are raised, recycling rates won’t go up. Exporting recyclables is good for the economy.
Jenny Geiger Great forum. Seems like we as a community need to walk before we run. People don’t even know
what is recyclable and that there is residential pay‐as‐you‐throw service available. So it’s a big jump
to zero waste. But keep moving in that direction.
Road to Zero Waste; Citizen Comments
6
Mark
Houdashelt
Has any polling been done to try to determine why people do or do not recycle and what might
change their behavior?
Maureen
McCarthy,
Larimer County
I would like to be involved in some way and kept in the loop ‐ Thanks
Mike Preznick Better advance notice – Sample plans should be on line – good opportunities for further public input
– Bag fee that was prepared gave money to business, not a fee – Interested in working group.
Jeff Schmid I feel there is a lack of education as to the effect of dull blades in kitchen processing equipment on
food wastes. We have done a number of formal and informal studies in this area and would love an
opportunity to share with you our findings and to help educate the general public as well as
restaurateurs about these effects. Always Sharp services kitchens state wide and has a number of
examples of reduction in food waste, but probably the most profound comes from CSU (we service
all their kitchens) where in just one of their kitchens we were able to reduce the amount of
compostable waste that went into the trash from around 60 gallons a day to around 10! I don’t
know what percentage of food waste in the landfills comes from restaurants and commercial
kitchens, but my guess it is significant. We are proud of the amount of food we have kept out of the
landfills to date, but know a lot more could be done and we want to help. Obviously, reusing and
recycling are extremely important, but as stated in the forum, reduction is even better.
With the City striving for “zero waste” there is obviously going to be the need for significant
education to the public and the area of food waste is one piece of the pie that we would love stay in
the conversation and help with that education. Thank you so much for your efforts and dedication to
our wonderful city.
Becca
Walkinshaw
Big thinking. PSD implements a zero waste curriculum in all schools with real life experiences;
thoughtful lessons; a variety of speakers. This can be funded by city or school? RFP for education
provide3r – involve students at all school levels on purchasing decisions for district. District sets zero
waste goals as well. Community drives for 12 sort/sites that come to community, like an E‐waste
drive. 12 sorts are set up and community pays nominal fee or gets rebate to drop off. City staff acts
as liaison for such a program. Increase organics recycling in the City, which residents highly demand.
Need local market to sell back 100 pickups – City/schools/municipal, etc.
August 12, 2013 – on line comment
Lois Winegarner Lived here since 1979 and have witnessed the developers gobbling up the area with out of control
growth which has caused the immense amounts of trash of all kinds filling our landfill ‐ we pay 20 a
month for Clean Air to come and pick up our yard waste and food waste too bad the city does not
provide this service and make compost for city home owners to use on their gardens. As well as
community gardens. More and more cities across the country are gathering household food waste
and yard waste let's get with the future before we have no future for our grandchildren's
grandchildren!
August 19, 2013 – on line comments
Arlene Archer I would to see the city provide dumpsters for yard waste, like they already do for other types of
recycling. This would allow us to drop off our own waste. My yard waste currently goes into the trash
for the landfill because that is normally all of the trash I have so I am not willing to pay more for
curbside waste pickup. Thank you.
Mark Creery Creating a commercial compost facility for all food waste and compostable materials and providing
residents with compost drop‐off points would be a great step forward in reducing landfill waste and
provide a valuable resource for residents' gardening needs.
October 14, 2013 – on line comments
Mike Anderson In your report, under Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, you say reduce annual emissions 60,000 by
Road to Zero Waste; Citizen Comments
7
2020; then you say reduce 120,000 by 2020? Which is it?
On page 17 you say costs per household and businesses were estimated in another document. I
can’t locate that document on your website. All your goals are quire desirable, but we need to know
if we can afford them. It would have been nice if you had included the costs in the report.
October 15, 2013 – Community Conversation – Core Concepts – Comments from cards
Ana Arias What about including mobile home parks along with multi‐family under the Universal Recycling
Ordinance with 2 years, with full Pay‐as‐You‐Throw benefits and recycling opportunities?
Randy Van
Winkle
What about CHARM center – Porcelain, EPS, etc. Explore all opportunities for education – get a
listing of recycle/reuse business models that are successful and promote to entrepreneurs
Ariana
Friedlander
I didn’t hear much from people that are opposed to this effort. I’m curious what their concerns are
and how we’ll address them. I still think that the message around this is too complicated. We need a
succinct explanation as to why this is a worthwhile effort and that needs to be shared at the intro
and conclusion.
Also, awareness/education efforts should be engaging and target specific customer segments. A
one‐size‐fits‐all approach won’t get us there. I agree that the relationship of private industry needs to
be managed closely and with consideration for win‐win‐solutions. I think we need to look at how we
manage these conversations.
Taylor Ramos Fort Collins is full of people who care for the environment and for future generations. However, a lot
of people are not concerned for the future. Need incentives.
Also, I think it would help to make a management plan for each individual goal. Simplify the plan and
don’t clump a bunch of goals together with one big management plan. It seems unrealistic. It may
also be helpful to make your core concepts (objectives) measurable and make this plan adaptable.
Maureen
McCarthy
My comments already been recorded but would like to say again that I’d love to be involved. Thanks.
Stacey
Baumgarn
Are job estimates realistic given our estimated volumes available?
Will the plan have numerous appendices? I would like to see the comparative cost of trash and
recycling in the neighboring communities and comparisons of area/neighboring landfills.
When Fort Collins went to single stream recycling and Pay‐as‐You‐Throw, did recycling rates
(diversion) go up? Do we know how much? And do we have any data on contamination rates? How
are we doing? Are we recycling more or is there more contamination as more un‐informed
participants are at play? When we make a change (in the past or future changes in this plan); can we
measure and verify our results?
Mike Pruznick
Include a statement that City should look into how to include fracking waste products in net zero.
Prohibit too strong, phase in prohibition at 10% per year. 20 mile limit – 50% ‐ Loveland 75%; within
city 100%, discourage driving. Remove development from flood plains. Phase in composting.
Measure CSU move in/out waste. Phone in “events” – 1,000 = 50% compliance; 5,000 = 75%; 10,000
= 100%. Include residential gas emissions as waste and enable economic tools to better fund
residential solar/wind. Careful with single use, many people have found ways to recycle that you are
not measuring. What is energy cost of driving 150,000 reuse bags in my car 24/7 vs. just to or from
store?
Watch the fees “my expense sheet” – can only handle so much overhead. Roman Empire and Soviet
Road to Zero Waste; Citizen Comments
8
Union fell apart because infrastructure couldn’t be supported by tax base. Overhead killed US Steel
industry and caused California to suffer greatly during the “Great Recession” – Need lower overhead
solutions.
Reorder core concepts – Put culture change @ #1; reduce/reuse @ #2; Product stewardship #3, Econ
last. Page 17 – TBL – reorder social (constant with culture change at top), Environmental, Economic.
Consider options to “store” non‐recyclables for future recycling since mining landfill difficult. People
who opt‐out should not pay for service they don’t need (clippings with gardener). Don’t stifle the
innovator. Don’t force A to a B for 100% compliance.
October 22 – on line comments
Bill Shattuck We moved here from Thousand Oaks, CA, 6 years ago and FC trash service is still behind from where
we moved from. We used to have trash, recycling and green waste pick up. Here there is no regular
green waste, plastic bags dot the street and many in my neighborhood don’t set any trash out. How
can you get to zero waste when you allow people to not recycle and not have a green waste pickup?
FC is behind the times.
Don Tiller The EPA report on municipal solid waste generation, recycling and disposal in the US – Facts and
Figures for (see table 5 on page 12) shows the benefit of recycling in terms of # of cars taken off the
road. Expanding your table 1 listing the tons and value of materials discarded – here's an update
showing the # cars that recycling represents. I only included those categories that were listed on in
the EPA table, in order of impact:
Paper 34,800 tons = same as 21,230 cars removed from roads per year
Putrescibles 19,500 tons = same as 3,200 cars removed from roads per year
Metals 5,600 tons = same as 3,130 cars removed from roads per year
Wood 7,000 tons = same as 2,940 cars removed from roads per year
Textiles 5,600 tons = same as 2,800 cars removed from roads per year
Plant debris 22,200 tons = same as 195 cars removed from roads per year
Glass 2,800 tons = same as 185 cars removed from roads per year
This totals to over 33,000 cars per year. Seems like a large number. You should check my figures,
but if this is correct it provides a meaningful way to evaluate the opportunity to reduce impact on
our environment for the various categories. I was surprised to learn that US wide, the current textile
recycling volumes represents the equivalent of 1 million fewer cars on the road each year. Assuming
the estimate that only 15% of textiles are recycled in the US, the 85% that is not recovered
represents an opportunity to remove the equivalent of another 11 million cars each year.
Below is some feedback on the plan. It's a mix of personal opinion and things I see in the thrift/re‐
use industry.
Section 2. Prohibited Materials section: I understand the reasoning behind adding to the prohibited
materials list and I know other municipalities have used this approach to reduce landfill waste. My
preference is to use this approach for hazardous materials (protect the public) but to look for other
options rather than regulation for the non‐hazardous waste diversion. Find ways to encourage
recycling businesses to create offerings that consumers would want to take advantage of. For
example, I didn't realize that cardboard was a prohibited item. Given how convenient it is to recycle
the cardboard through Waste Management's recycling container, the convenience, not the
prohibition, is why I don't put cardboard in our trash container. As an option to prohibitions on the
consumer, create incentives for the trash haulers.
Road to Zero Waste; Citizen Comments
9
5. Reduce & Reuse. I don't believe a Reuse Warehouse allowing thrifts to have equal access to
incoming products and providing bulk sales to the public is feasible. I think collection and reuse is
better left to private industry. Each thrift has their own collection process. Trying to centralize that
for a city would be a massive undertaking and would require significant city staffing to operate and
properly administrate. If the city wanted to promote a program similar to the local food bank (or
even expand the food bank to include clothing) that could be a beneficial service to those in need. I
fully support eliminating liability for donation of food for disaster responses. I volunteered at
Timberline Church as part of the flood relief and was frustrated that we had to turn away food that I
know was edible and usable. I also support efforts by the city to prevent illegal dumping from
occurring at donation collection sites such as thrift stores and non‐profits like the Habitat ReStore.
7. Culture Change. I like the idea of the city placing recycling containers next to trash containers,
particularly for compostable organics. While you might not collect a significant % of the compostable
organics, I think the containers will serve as great educational and awareness tools. Including
recycling at community events is a great way to increase awareness. I like educational materials on
recycling containers, I'm not as supportive of the city creating brochures for the trash haulers to hand
out. I don't know about you but I get so many brochures, door hangers, junk mail etc. that it all goes
directly to the landfill through my trash collector. The cost is also a factor.
9. Product Stewardship. I really oppose the fee approach. I don't have a problem with fee based
systems to mitigate cost impacts (e.g., tax on cars to reflect cost to maintain roads) but this would
feel more like a punitive tax. There must be better ways to accomplish the same end result.
10. Funding. This is a tough one. On one hand to launch a program like this funding is required. On
the other hand, I don't like the idea of raising taxes before examining the current funding available to
determine where this fits relative to the other city initiatives.
Two other ideas specific to the used clothing I'd suggest:
Add a requirement in the land use code to require multifamily developments to include a facility
for recycling items that are not good candidates for single stream curbside recycling. I think you
could also extend this requirement to neighborhood community centers (e.g., HOA pools). Two
examples of items are used clothing and books, which would be contaminated if included in
curbside recycling and probably wouldn't represent sufficient volume to put curbside containers
in place to prevent the contamination.
Adopt a used clothing collection bin ordinance to protect the community from unscrupulous
collection bin companies that (1) don't service their bins to prevent the bins from becoming an
nuisance, (2) don't request permission from the property owner prior to placing a bin, (3) don't
clearly identify who is benefitting from clothing left in the bin, and (4) place their bins in areas
creating public safety issues (intersection visibility, parking spaces, public sidewalks, etc.). I think
the draft ordinance that I gave you would be a great starting point.
John Burgeson Please drop references to "pseud‐o‐science" e.g., GHG, climate change, etc. I am not a "denier"/"flat
earther"/etc. A question: what earth temperature are you shooting for? The Plan is in many respects,
just restatement of old/earlier MSW management hierarchies from EPA. I see no economics/full cost
accounting of any plan alternatives, same for existing commercial composting operations and the
existing county landfill separation/landfilling. (residential/dairies/cattle feeders/etc.).
Road to Zero Waste; Citizen Comments
10
No linkage of MSW waste stream (County) and sludge (City); most viable compost system (if any)
would be undigested sludges with shredded MSW. Many people/studies indicate that food waste is
due largely to portion sizes served; how to manage/control?
Overall, the Plan is short on substance (particularly costs/revenues/subsidies), full cost accounting. It
represents another regulated/controlled government (tax payer) funded program with little else to
claim, except to say "it can be done".
Errin Henggeler Currently Drake Water Reclamation Facility flares methane gas that it is generated, as we are unable
to use all of it now, so why I like this idea it would need to include some capital improvements at the
plant to achieve a plant that can use all the methane that is produced.
I am also reading a lot of references to increase composting – as an area we need to get better at
regional cooperation – we cannot do this without Larimer County’s help.
October 28, 2013 – on line comments
Barbara
Nordstrom
I recently moved to Fort Collins. I broke down my boxes and took them to the Riverside recycling
drop‐off. I was disappointed to find I could not put my boxes in the bin as one must climb stairs while
carrying the boxes. I am disabled and was not able to climb the stairs and deposit my boxes. No one
was in the vicinity to help. I suggest the recycle drop‐off be more handicap accessible. A bin that can
be accessed from the ground or a helpful person at the site could be low‐cost and effective solutions
to this problem. Recycling should be handicap accessible.
John Crystal Very disappointed in the Zero Waste "study". It starts with a conclusion and provides no discussion of
alternatives nor cost/benefit analysis. Basically it's a "Sales brochure". A few random points:
- Landfill, recycle/reuse, incineration are all options used in this country and in other countries.
Where's the quantitative assessment what mix of alternatives would be best for FC? After all we
want to try to keep this city an affordable place to live don't we?
- Not so many years ago there were horror stories in the local paper that insufficient quantities of
materials were going to the landfill ‐ layoffs were imminent. At the same time, the bottom had
dropped out of the recycling market and materials were "piling up". What's the contingency plan
should those conditions recur?
- ‐ As pointed out in the Coloradoan, there is rarely a "free lunch" in this world. As is, this brochure
is at least deceiving, at most, deceitful.
Patrick Question about the 2 truck system with alternating weekly pickup of for yard waste & recycling and a
2nd truck picking up food/organic waste weekly. Why can't the food/organic be picked up with the
yard waste since they both be composted. This would cut the number of trucks needed in half.
Additional
comments by
John Haudashelt
Overall, the “On the Road to Zero Waste” draft core concepts report is a very comprehensive and
ambitious plan which I fully support. However, I have some questions/comments about the report:
What is the expected rate of leakage if the zero waste plan is enacted? (i.e., how much waste
will avoid the city collection system?) Is this a significant amount?
Why are there three quantitative goals? Is the ultimate objective to reduce landfill waste to a
specific percentage of overall waste, to a specific tonnage of waste, or to an amount per capita?
The first and last are goals relatively independent of population growth, but they are not
consistent with one another. Moving from a 58% diversion rate in 2012 to a 90% rate in 2025
implies going from 5.12 tons per capita to 0.88 tons per capita, but the per capita goal for 2025 is
only 2.2 tons. On the other hand, the overall tonnage goal is population‐dependent in that it
becomes more difficult to achieve as population grows, so it can only be made consistent with
the other two goals if population growth is known. Still, if Fort Collins achieves exactly 2.2 tons
Road to Zero Waste; Citizen Comments
11
of landfill waste per capita in 2025, it will only meet the total landfill waste goal (55000 tons) if
the population for Fort Collins is lower in 2025 than it was in 2012. This is highly unlikely, so the
tonnage goal also appears to be inconsistent with the other two for any reasonable scenario for
population growth in Fort Collins.
How is a household’s waste diversion rate determined? (This is more for my own curiosity but
could affect the ability of the city to achieve its waste goaIs.) Is waste that goes through the
garbage disposal, etc. included?
Why should low disposal fees (as at Larimer County landfill) be a goal? In the section on
“Benefits of More Waste Diversion,” there is an implication that one of the benefits of extending
the life of the Larimer County landfill is lower tipping fees. My impression is that lower fees
would encourage more waste going to the landfill, so I’m not sure this is a benefit.
The second GHG goal should be for 2025 (typo).
Do the potential GHG reductions (87,389 MTCO2e/yr.) for waste diversion represent GHG
reductions for waste diversion beyond the current level, or are the GHG reductions from current
waste diversion included in this number?
What kinds of penalties for non‐compliance are being considered? Who would be responsible
for compliance in multifamily units – owners or residents?
Why only a 50% reuse/recycling goal for C&D materials? What is the current rate? It appears
to be higher than 50% because C&D is part of the industrial waste with a 70% diversion rate
today. Is this waste diverted without being reused/recycled? This diversion rate also appears to
be inconsistent with the C&D diversion potential in Table 2. Is the Table 2 tonnage based upon
the 50% reuse/recycle goal or a higher level of ambition?
Why is a composting opt‐out allowed? (This was discussed extensively during the community
meeting. I interpreted this as an opt‐out of diverting food from the landfill, but the consultants
explained that the opt‐out was meant for yard waste only (not food waste) and that
citizens/businesses can only opt out of the commercial waste pick‐up system, not the overall
waste diversion effort. This needs to be clarified in the report.)
What degree of mixed waste is acceptable to not contaminate an entire waste parcel? (i.e., the
waste diversion would be seriously compromised by putting more than x% of waste in the wrong
bin)? Can this degree of contamination be reasonably achieved?
What is the current plan for the Integrated Recycling Facility? This information is needed to
evaluate the extent to which it would need to be changed to become a Resource Recovery Park.
Finance/costs:
o Will lower landfill revenue affect the viability of the Larimer County landfill (pre‐ and
post‐closure) or otherwise adversely impact Larimer County revenue streams?
o Is there a way to structure the fees so that “good actors” pay less than others?
o Cost information would help determine which of Table 2 programs should be included in
the city’s plan. For example:
The public waste diversion program is great but the cost and effort involved are
potentially high.
Product stewardship produces relatively little diversion, so if its cost is high, it
may not be worth pursuing.
Road to Zero Waste; Citizen Comments
12
Recommended additions to the plan:
o Explicitly include requirements for acquisition and reporting of waste data.
o If it doesn’t already exist, work with CSU to set up a program in deconstruction (a la the
Center on Sustainable Communities at Iowa Central Community College).
o Front Range Community College recently acquired funds to be used to train students in
industrial manufacturing disciplines – part of these funds should be devoted to training
students in manufacturing related to waste reuse/recycling to establish and work in
these industries in the city.
o A private company has contracted with the Larimer County landfill to collect its landfill
gas and use it to produce electricity. However, after constructing the collection system,
it was discovered that the quantity of LFG was much less than expected and made the
original plan for generating electricity economically unattractive. Thus, the LFG is
currently collected and flared. The zero waste plan should either include a beneficial use
for this gas (e.g., biofuel for local buses, small scale electricity production), or some
organics need to continue to be sent to the landfill to increase the quantity of LFG
produced to make the original power project viable (adding moisture to the landfill
and/or stirring the leachate to accelerate LFG production may be other options).
o Establish a WasteWise program (similar to ClimateWise) for early movers in waste
diversion.
Other potential additions to the plan:
o a specific tire disposal program
o a cellulosic ethanol plant (this is a really provocative and aggressive suggestion and may
not be feasible, but a plant recently began operation in Florida, and a similar plant in Fort
Collins would put this region at the forefront of the biofuels industry)
o a producer responsibility program for packaging and for recycling goods at the end of
their useful lifetimes.
Susan Kelly,
Food Bank
On behalf of everyone at the Food Bank, I wanted to express our thanks at being invited to join in the
City’s zero waste plan conversation last week. We are impressed with the City’s commitment to
bringing Fort Collins to zero waste and we know that we can be an important partner in realizing this
goal. These are the three areas that the Food Bank could play a significant role as a partner with the
city in achieving our community’s zero‐waste goals:
Increasing City‐wide Food Rescue – In Fort Collins, the Food Bank currently operates 3 food rescue
trucks and 3 food rescue drivers focusing our time primarily on grocery retail, farms, processors,
food service operations, distributors and manufacturers. The Food Bank could assist our
community in diverting a higher percentage of its existing food waste from the landfill with the
addition of another truck and driver who could provide timely and regular donation pickup for
new donors, especially increasing our capacity to rescue food from lower‐volume donors more
often, which is currently cost prohibitive for us. Potential sites to grow our existing food rescue
program are farms, restaurants, manufacturers, and minimal processing facilities. Besides a
truck, associated fleet management costs and Driver at 1.0 FTE, other costs involved with adding
new food rescue locations include food‐safe tins and lids and staff time for donor
relations. Another option would be a double duty truck that did mobile food pantry distributions
twice a week, the other 3 days it could join the Food Rescue program, presumably providing the
opportunity to seek more diverse funding options. A truck can run anywhere between $140,000
Road to Zero Waste; Citizen Comments
13
‐ $250,000 depending on the size and type. Additional costs (driver, supplies) would run approx.
$40,000/yr.
Decreasing Food Bank Food Waste – Due to the nature and perishability of the donated food we
receive, we have a need to divert our own food waste. Right now we are paying a private
company for an 8 yard dumpster to be picked up 6 days/week. We are also paying A1 Organics
$168/month to pick up 3 compost bins/week. In order to divert more of our own waste from the
landfill, we would like to see an 8 yard compost bin picked up 6 days/week that we could put all
soiled cardboard and organics in. An affordable, local composting option is needed. Partnering
with another organization with a large composter would be another option.
Food Bank/Incubator Farm – In addition to rescue, another avenue for the City and the food Bank to
partner is on the use of city open space for gardening, farming and composting. Currently CSU is
partnering on a feasibility study. A food bank farm/ incubator farm could provide opportunities
for large scale community composting and utilizing that waste to ultimately feed people again by
growing vegetables.
New Belgian
Brewing staff
comments
Current Waste Diversion
Benefits of More Waste Diversion
o The first paragraph of page 4 talks about the potential of the Larimer county landfill
closing. I think this could be expanded more with more dire explanation of the
pitfalls of the landfill closing. More explanation can be given about the fact a new
landfill will be far away from town, resulting in much higher tipping fees, increasing
residential trash costs. A quick explanation of tipping fees across the state and across
the nation. Environmental impact of closing down a landfill and taking land to create
a new one.
o Lower down the page, there is text saying ‘eliminating wasteful practices’. This is
always the cornerstone of zero waste plans, and I am not sure it is hit on enough on
exactly how we can eliminate these practices. Further in the document on page 11,
reduce and reuse is touched on, but not to a great enough extent.
The end note on page 3 gives a good definition of zero waste that I think
should be included in full text. This is at the core of the program and should
be clearly presented to people so they can get a handle on what’s trying to
be accomplished.
Goals and Objectives
Reduce tons to landfill
o The amount of trash going to landfill looks ambitious given the increased population
trends for northern Colorado. But, after looking through the document and seeing
where these gains can be made, it does seem possible. Great goal.
Add value to local economy
o How are the jobs being paid for, just through the city. There is a statement later on
about a recycling fee the hauler will collect and give to the city to support jobs, but
how else are the jobs being funded.
o Overall, what is the cost to the tax payer/city resident for this zero waste program?
Values and Principles
Universal Opportunities
o ‘More comprehensive and convenient access to reuse, recycling and composting
services will provide these services more universally to all sectors, including those
who self‐haul materials’. This statement is huge, and very glad it is called out, maybe
even bold it. The commitment of the city to increase these services will be a huge
indicator of how successful the plan will be. Recycling all items needs to be easy. The
Road to Zero Waste; Citizen Comments
14
more options and locations to do this the better.
Recommendations
Universal recycling
o I love the idea of ‘Universal Recycling Ordinance’. It focuses on recycling as the main
aspect, not trash. Very nice.
o I love the idea of having compostable yard trimming service freely available to
residents (currently charged, so not many people use it) and the option for a
compost service. However, it sounds like the trash hauler is burdened with a lot of
new requirements. I can see all services relating to trash hauling increase because of
these new requirements. Is this the case, and should this be stated?
Prohibited Materials
o ‘Haulers may offer a premium service and charge an additional fee to cover the costs
of collecting glass of higher quality’. I don’t see many people opting for this higher
premium service to pay more to recycle glass. However, what it hopefully does is
opens people eyes to the fact that glass needs to be separated and recycled
separately. Again, more containers need to be situated around the city to collect
glass to make it easier on people.
o Under conventional recyclables, does this include glass bottles only or plastic as well?
C&D
o ‘Qualified recycling facility’ – is there a list of the qualified recycling facilities? If so,
there should be a link in this section to this list of all the facilities and what they
accept.
o ‘head of the line in permit review’ – this needs to be spelled out in much more detail.
I work a lot in the permitting realm, and just saying the permit review will be
expedited isn’t enough. There needs to be hard dates provided. Something along the
lines of, ‘If the building permit is submitted with material going to a certified
qualified recycling facility, permit will be reviewed within 15 days of submission.’
o I like the idea of the companies putting down a deposit to meet the City’s
requirement that may be refunded when the goals are met.
Composting organic materials
o ‘support the development of one or more composting facilities’ – what does
‘support’ entail. Tax incentives/breaks, quick permit review? Will tax money be used
for support? Will this development be a private facility or a city ran facility?
o Facility within 20 miles can still be quite the distance, which again leads to increase in
transportation costs by the hauler, which leads to increase cost on the resident.
o What is the incentive for residents to start composting? If they are getting charged to
have it picked up every week, I don’t see why many people wouldn’t opt out to
receiving this service. It would become a commodity if everyone participated, but
would residents receive any of this revenue?
Waste to Clean Energy
o New technology, very good. Investigating new technology, all good items.
Cultural Change
o All good items listed under this section
o ‘Require all venues and events with over 1,000 attendees to meet Zero Waste
standards’. I think this could be dropped to even 500 attendees. The items listed in
this section do not appear to be that difficult for an event to fulfill, and are all items
that the event can promote.
o I think the addition of some type of public forum to occur monthly would be
Road to Zero Waste; Citizen Comments
15
beneficial. This would allow the city to get feedback on their practices, gain new
ideas, and allow the public to feel more involved in this movement, which in turn
would result in willing compliance from the community.
o Documents should also be emailed and posted online to update residents on how
the city is doing. Seeing that the program is making a difference will be
reinforcement in itself.
Product Stewardship
o Fee for takeout containers, ban plastic containers on campus, both great ideas.
Would like to see more of these items enacted.
Funding
o Big question for his entire document is where the funding is coming from. ‘haulers
collect a city recycling education and investment fee’ – how much will this fee be?
How will the hauler recoup some of its cost? Will they implement a recycling fee
also?
Diversion Potential
o Zero Waste Associates is called out for the first time. I think this company should be
called out earlier in the document so people know that all these changes are not just
coming from the city, but that they are supported through this third party company.
Triple Bottom Line Impacts
Economic Impacts
o It is stated ‘The estimate costs for the programs were developed in another
document’. There needs to be a reference to this document so everyone knows
where the money is coming from.
Vara Vissa Monstrous electric poles have been erected; county land has been annexed for new developments,
all in a few years’ time. We had no power. I meant that we (community) didn't have any power in
these dealings and decisions. The City went ahead with their plans; the community discussions
seemed to be just that (a formality), not really a place where any of input would be taken.
I) The working relationship between the City's zero waste plan and the county landfill(s) is not clear.
2) Clearly the waste, whatever it is has to go somewhere: in any of the landfills that currently exist.
In this regard, what are the zero waste plans for the landfills: is there any more authority, interest or
will to sort /prevent recoverable waste from going up the hill?
3) The time lines of landfill life has shifted and this is disconcerting.
4) The destruction of the landscape, the top soil, the tall and wide and far blowing dust storms that
are now a regular feature. The steady stream of vehicles on the western horizon is continuously and
perhaps for many years to come continue this visually, environmentally destructive process.
For what? Is there now going to be more innovative, more aggressive, more careful separation and
acceptance of waste for burial? Will zero waste rules apply to the landfill?
5) Schools are teaching children recycling and composting: they have no real education about this: it
is a successful campaign: fabulous nutritious, white house recommended lunches get dumped
uneaten, unnecessary use of paper cartons and juice boxes. I have intimate view of several school
cafeterias.
6) new schools are attract students: choice schools that don't have school buses (e.g. Kinard), but
don't provide parking lots or drive ways, make parents come 15 to 20 minutes early in
the morning and late in the evening so as to avoid traffic: countless man hours and gallons of fuel are
being spent in pick‐up lines at nearby neighborhoods. I am a parent that sends a kid to one of these:
our options were based on carpooling and school opening time. Clearly one mission, trumps another;
parents and students have limited choices, the costs of retro‐fitting become high, the options are
Road to Zero Waste; Citizen Comments
16
few, habits get ingrained. Things are harder to change. What is the city's role in zero waste of time,
and energy in planning transit centers, walking lanes, park and ride, small golf car or van based
shuttles, etc. in areas where multiple schools are located and siblings /parents attend? All you see is
any open land is used for residential housing, adding to these burdens. There are no progressive
citizen or city based plans to alleviate these. Everybody wants individual freedom of choices.
Hope to see some changes in our behaviors and resources. Looking forward to a waste free way of
living.
Mark Creery I strongly believe the City needs to ban leaves from the waste stream and provide city‐wide leaf pick‐
up and free drop‐off areas using tax money. At the moment there is no incentive for people to pay
money to dispose of leaves responsibly so by forcing people to pay through taxes it will lead to better
behavior. The City could then compost the leaves and use or sell the compost back to the public at a
discounted rate. Seeing leaves go in the garbage seems very wrong and garden waste should be one
of the first problems you fix to get to your goal of zero waste.
1
Attachment 2
ROAD TO ZERO WASTE PLAN
December 2013 Draft
Prepared by:
Zero Waste Associates
916-652-7850; gary@garyliss.com
858-272-2950; ricanthony@aol.com
www.zerowasteassociates.com
with special assistance from Ruth Abbe, HDR Inc. and Eric Lombardi, Zero Waste Strategies
Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ 1
Current Waste Diversion ........................................................................................................ 5
Benefits of More Waste Diversion ........................................................................................... 6
Values and Principles ............................................................................................................. 8
Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................. 9
Goal: Zero Waste ................................................................................................................ 9
Goal: Reduce Per Capita Waste Disposal Rate .................................................................. 9
Objective: Add Value to Local Economy ............................................................................10
Objective: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................11
Recommendations.................................................................................................................12
1. Culture Change ...........................................................................................................12
2. Reinvest Resources in Local Economy .......................................................................13
3. Universal Recycling ....................................................................................................15
4. Prohibited Materials ....................................................................................................17
5. Construction, Deconstruction and Demolition (C&D) ...................................................18
6. Composting Organic Materials ....................................................................................20
7. Reduce & Reuse .........................................................................................................21
8. Product Stewardship ...................................................................................................22
9. Waste to Clean Energy ...............................................................................................23
10. Funding ...................................................................................................................24
11. Regional Cooperation ..............................................................................................25
Diversion Potential.................................................................................................................25
Triple Bottom Line Impacts ....................................................................................................27
Economic Impacts ..............................................................................................................27
Environmental Impact ........................................................................................................27
Social Impacts ...................................................................................................................28
Implementation ......................................................................................................................31
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 1
Executive Summary
This is a report about a long-term strategic proposal for the $6.5 million worth of valuable
resources that are thrown away every year in Fort Collins. In 1995, the Council adopted a
dramatic new direction for the City to take to provide incentives to get away from the throwaway
society and back to the values of American thriftiness and efficiency. A Pay-as-you-throw
Ordinance (PAYT) was added to the Municipal Code whereby trash haulers in Fort Collins must
charge customers based on the volume of waste generated as well as provide curbside
recycling at no extra charge. The system created a way for households to save money by
reducing their trash bills, and proved to be a good fit for Fort Collins. Those incentives were
improved a number of times through the past 18 years and the Council adopted a strategic goal
in 1999 to divert 50% of all discarded resources from landfills by 2010.
The City has now achieved that 50% goal, or close to it (depending on what is counted)1. It is
time for the City to decide what the new goal will be to guide its efforts and those of the
community over the next 10 to 20 years.
From May through October, 2013, an extensive planning process was conducted that included
direct outreach to stakeholders, meetings with six of the City’s Boards and Commissions, five
“Community Conversations” with more than 250 residents and businesses, input from a Working
Group representing a cross-section of community interests, and tours of many of the existing
reuse, recycling, composting, digesting, and landfill facilities in the Fort Collins area.
Through this planning process, it became clear that:
Fort Collins has made a significant culture change, particularly in the last five years. The
idea of recycling is now embraced by most residents and businesses. When there are
discussions between service providers and citizens now, the questions are not about
whether they should recycle, but how to do it.
Most residents and businesses participating in the planning process either strongly
supported the next goal for Fort Collins to be a Zero Waste community, or accepted that
as a worthy goal.
There are many benefits that will result from pursuing Zero Waste, including:
Reducing greenhouse gases that will address the urgency of climate change2
Providing local jobs, income and wealth creation from conserving and using
resources locally rather than landfilling them
Helping businesses and residents be more sustainable and efficient
1 By 2012, the City of Fort Collins had calculated that the level of waste diversion was 42% for all residential and commercially
generated waste. And, when the City includes the so-called industrial wastes (concrete and asphalt, aggregates and wood waste
from construction and demolition (C&D) projects, organics from breweries, biosolids, and waste from City operations), a “Community
Diversion rate” of 58% can be calculated for 2012.
2 “Rising global temperatures have been accompanied by changes in weather and climate including changes in rainfall, more
floods, droughts, or intensity of rain, as well as more frequent and severe heat waves. 2012 was the hottest year on record for the
contiguous United States and 2012 ranks as the warmest calendar year in the 124-year record for the Fort Collins, CO weather
station at CSU. Health care costs associated with extreme weather events in the U.S. between 2006 and 2009 exceeded $14 billion.
In the U.S., 2012 alone saw 11 weather disasters that cost a billion dollars or more. (NOAA).” Source: Fort Collins Climate Status
Report 2012, page 5, http://www.fcgov.com/airquality/pdf/FC2012ClimateStatusReportLowRes.pdf.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 2
Promoting local food cultivation and consumption by putting valuable nutrients back
into the soil
Saving energy and producing local clean energy
Providing “green” marketing edge for local businesses and Colorado State University
Protecting health of residents
Decreasing irrigation water use by applying compost to soils
Improving air quality and reducing mobile-source emissions by local use of resources
Reducing use of toxic products
Protecting and restoring habitat, biodiversity and open space through increased use
of compost products and reducing the need for mining.
There are many City policies that already point the City in the direction of Zero Waste.
The City and its Boards and Commissions are already working to implement City Plan’s
vision of a truly sustainable city that values the Triple Bottom Line and would be
significantly supported by adopting the goal of Zero Waste.
This Plan provides a road map for the City, residents, businesses and visitors to get to Zero
Waste. These services will be implemented primarily through collaboration and partnerships,
encouraging innovations in the community much like the ClimateWise Program that focuses on
education, partnerships and working together. The City’s role is that of convener, catalyst and
developing partnerships, particularly with haulers and processors who have already invested in
this future. It highlights the priorities that need to be implemented to get there:
Culture Change – providing new rules and more incentives, using Community Based
Social Marketing, social media, innovative technologies and software, and harnessing
creative talents in art, music, advertising and social change to reinforce and expand the
change that has already occurred.
Reduce and Reuse – concentrating on helping residents and businesses to live and
operate more efficiently and sustainably, creating more than 400 jobs in the process and
helping those in need to get quality food and goods donated or at very low prices.
Compostable Organics Out of Landfills – eliminating many of the fast-acting, climate
changing gases that are emitted when organics rot in landfills, and returning those as
nutrients to the soil for raising more food locally (after first donating all edible food to
people in need).
Construction, Deconstruction and Demolition – implementing new rules of the
International Building Code developed by the City’s Building Department.
There are three key types of facilities that will be needed in the Fort Collins area to fully meet
the proposed goals:
Commercial composting facility – to process food scraps, food-soiled paper and all
putrescibles and organic materials
Construction and demolition (C&D) materials recycling plant – to process mixed
materials from building and demolition projects
Reuse warehouse – to support the collection of a wide range of reusable products from
a variety of sources, and enable different businesses and nonprofit organizations to
obtain high quality materials to sell at very reasonable prices to residents and
businesses in Fort Collins.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 3
All of these could be located in a single location as a Resource Recovery Park, or they could be
developed individually in different locations. These would be owned and operated by different
entrepreneurs, or the City could help develop one or more of these facilities as a public/private
partnership if needed.
The best locations for these facilities could be considered as part of the development of a
regional Zero Waste Plan that at least includes Larimer County and the City of Loveland, and
ideally includes all those jurisdictions that ship wastes into Larimer County and those
jurisdictions that receive wastes from Larimer County.
The capital costs for these facilities are estimated to be:
Composting - $7-9 million
C&D - $5-7 million
Reuse - $500,000
TOTAL $12.5 - $16.5 million
These investments, along with the rest of the policies and programs recommended in this Plan,
would contribute significantly to recovering the $6.5 million value of materials from the Fort
Collins community that gets buried in regional landfills every year.
The alternative to these investments would be spending $20-$80 million on a new landfill once
the Larimer County landfill closes in approximately 12 to 15 years.
Initial costs for the first several years after adopting the Zero Waste goal would likely be about
$1.00 per household and business per month. The majority of this funding would be for
programs to be conducted by the City to assist in culture change and reinvesting resources in
the local economy. Additional costs would be incurred over the following 10 years through new
rates charged for additional services (e.g., curbside composting) by service providers in the
open competitive marketplace, in response to new rules and incentives adopted by the City,
designed to provide clear direction and a level playing field for investments. The competitive
marketplace will result in the most efficient implementation of programs.
For the City’s future involvement in taking the new path to Zero Waste, new proposals will be
developed through bi-annual City budget processes. The “budgeting for outcomes” system
provides the framework for evaluating the costs and benefits of specific policies and proposals
as opportunities to introduce new measures become feasible and timely.
By investing in three key facilities to support Zero Waste, adopting new policies and
implementing innovative, culture changing programs, the City will dramatically decrease the
need for its own landfill, shifting from today’s focus on waste management to a system that
optimizes the use of discarded materials as resources to help the local economy. Key policies
and programs that are included in the Plan are:
Policies
Provide recycling universally to all residents and businesses
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 4
Prohibit recyclable and hazardous materials from landfilling (like was done for electronic
equipment and recyclable cardboard)
Get compostable organics out of landfills
Reuse and recycle construction, remodeling & demolition debris
Programs
Promote, incentivize and reinforce a Zero Waste culture by making reuse, recycling and
composting convenient at home, work or play and providing clear signs and instructions
that make it easy to participate
Reinvest resources in local economy with technical assistance, grants and loans to
entrepreneurs and service providers
Encourage manufacturers to takeback difficult-to-recycle products and packaging or add
fees to incentivize more sustainable products (e.g., fees on plastic bags)
Promote “Reduce and Reuse” as a priority
Provide multi-family dwellings the same recycling services as single-family
Collect yard trimmings from all residents
Collect food scraps from all residents and businesses once composting facility available
Evaluate and pilot clean waste to energy systems for targeted waste streams
Cooperate regionally to develop programs and facilities
As a road map, this Plan highlights that there are many ways to achieve Zero Waste. The
purpose of this road map is to show that there IS a way to build on our success. Over time, the
City will partner with service providers, residents and businesses to determine the most
desirable and effective ways to get to its destination.
Entrepreneurs and service providers will be assisted in moving down this road to Zero Waste
with the Council’s adoption of a new clear goal for the community, and by the establishment of
priorities to pursue for achieving Zero Waste.
This Plan recommends that Council adopt:
1. A new goal of Zero Waste by 2030, with interim goals:
75% diversion by 2020
90% diversion by 2025.
2. A new goal for achieving per capita waste generation levels of 2.8 pounds/day by 2025
The Plan also proposes that Fort Collins pursue the priorities for actions that address:
Culture Change
Reduce and Reuse
Compostable Organics Out of Landfills; and
Construction, Deconstruction and Demolition
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 5
Current Waste Diversion
One of the major purposes for preparing this Plan is to set new goals for the future of waste
reduction and recycling in Fort Collins. In 1999, the City Council adopted a community waste
diversion goal of 50% by 2010.
By 2012, the City of Fort Collins had calculated that the level of waste diversion was 42% for all
residential and commercially generated waste. And, when the City includes the so-called
industrial wastes (concrete and asphalt, aggregates and wood waste from construction and
demolition (C&D) projects, organics from breweries, biosolids, and waste from City operations),
a “Community Diversion rate” of 58% can be calculated for 2012.3
Of the total materials recycled by residential and commercial recycling programs, residential
programs (both curbside and all drop-off materials) recovered about 23% of the total amount of
recyclables. Commercial programs recycled the
remaining 77% of these materials.
Some major businesses in Fort Collins have
reported that they have diverted over 90% of
their discarded materials from landfills and
incinerators, including:
New Belgium Brewery
Hewlett-Packard
Woodward
Anheuser-Busch
Intel
The City’s 1999 50% goal has been
achieved, or close to it (depending on what is
counted).4 The City should celebrate this
important accomplishment and the city’s
residents, businesses and service providers
should all be commended for this achievement.
However, there is still plenty of room for
improvement.
3 Source: Fort Collins Climate Action Plan 2011, page 18-19.
http://www.fcgov.com/airquality/pdf/2011_CAPStatusReport_FINAL.pdf
4 The quality of data that is collected continues to improve from year to year, as well as the analysis of that data. However, as a
result, it is difficult to get a clear trend of some of the detailed information from year to year. Data is now collected from a variety of
required sources (e.g., all waste haulers) and many voluntary sources (e.g., collectors of scrap metals, yard trimmings, concrete,
asphalt, e-waste and textiles). Additional reporting from haulers (e.g., separating multi-family residential from commercial) and other
aspects of community waste diversion (e.g., reuse operations) is needed to track this information better.
Businesses that divert over 90% of their
wastes from landfills, incinerators and
the environment are considered Zero
Waste Businesses, according to the
principles of the Zero Waste
International Alliance (ZWIA) at
www.zwia.org/standards. There are
thousands of businesses that have
achieved Zero Waste all over the world,
and hundreds of communities have
adopted a Zero Waste goal. The
remaining 10% of discarded material
highlights that more work is still to be
done, and ZWIA calls for businesses to
continue to reduce wasting through a
minimum of 1% or better per year of
continuous improvement.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 6
Benefits of More Waste Diversion
It’s clear that there is still much more that could be done to reduce wastefulness and increase
reuse, recycling and composting. Large businesses are leading the way to higher waste
diversion and “Zero Waste” in Fort Collins. Of particular significance is that the industrial
diversion rate was 70%, which contributes significantly to this overall higher community
diversion rate. The industrial diversion rate may be as high as it is because Zero Waste
businesses are able to show that they save money, reduce their liabilities, reduce their
greenhouse gases, and increase their efficiency and productivity. These are key drivers for
large businesses to have embraced Zero Waste in recent years.
Of particular significance is that the largest percentage decrease of all climate change
emissions between 2005 and 2012 in Fort Collins occurred in the waste sector, which reported
a 66.7% drop.5
Another benefit is extending the life of the Larimer County Landfill. Larimer County recently
reported that there are only 12 to 15 years of remaining life at the landfill, at current rates of use.
And each time there are major natural disasters in the area, such as catastrophic flooding that
occurred in September 2013, more materials are placed in the County landfill. The more
aggressive the waste reduction goals adopted by the City, the more the City and County will be
5 2012 Climate Status Report, page 8. http://www.fcgov.com/common/images/spotlight_image.php?id=1609&type=3
There are many other benefits to the community that could come from pursuing
higher waste diversion goals and helping both businesses and residents be
more sustainable and efficient, including:
Local jobs and economic development from conserving and using
resources locally rather than landfilling them
Promoting local food and nutrients back to soil
Protecting health of residents
Saving energy and producing clean energy – reducing, reusing and
recycling materials and products conserves 3-5 times the amount of
energy that could be produced by burning those materials. Once all
materials are reduced or recovered, there are different technologies
that could produce energy from remaining materials
Decreasing local water use by using compost
Improving local air quality and reducing mobile emissions through
more local use of resources
Reducing the use of toxic products
Protecting and restoring habitat, biodiversity and open space through
increased use of compost products and reducing the need for mining
Providing “green” marketing edge for local businesses and Colorado
State University
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 7
Zero Waste refers to taking a systems
approach to eliminating wasteful
practices, setting up reuse systems,
recycling and composting to
maximize the highest and best use of
resources that can then be reinvested
in the local economy to create more
income, wealth and jobs for residents.
able to extend the life of this landfill. A primary benefit is postponing the significant costs of
building a new landfill in the future, which could cost up to $80 million.6
Much more could be done by residents and smaller businesses to achieve higher waste
diversion. The success of major businesses shows what can be done when a significant
commitment is made. By applying “Triple Bottom Line” principles to develop and prioritize
implementation strategies, this Plan provides a road map to obtaining these benefits.
Throughout the course of the outreach for this plan, a “Road to Zero Waste” theme emerged. In
each of the Community Conversations, the following was highlighted as the only peer reviewed,
internationally accepted definition of Zero
Waste: “Zero Waste is a goal that is
ethical, economical, efficient and visionary,
to guide people in changing their lifestyles
and practices to emulate sustainable
natural cycles, where all discarded
materials are designed to become
resources for others to use. Zero Waste
means designing and managing products
and processes to systematically avoid and
eliminate the volume and toxicity of waste
and materials, conserve and recover all
resources, and not burn or bury them.
Implementing Zero Waste will eliminate all
discharges to land, water or air that are a threat to planetary, human, animal or plant health.”7
The goal of Zero Waste is to focus on new initiatives for eliminating wasteful practices and
economic inefficiencies and setting up expanded reuse systems, then recycling, composting,
digesting and redesigning remaining discarded materials. Many residents and businesses in
Fort Collins attending Community Conversations meetings or City Boards, Commissions and
stakeholder meetings expressed support for the idea of Zero Waste. What also became clear
through extensive outreach for this Plan is that there are many goals, objectives, values and
principles that should be adopted to achieve the many benefits from more waste reduction and
recycling that are reflected in this Plan.
6 For 180-acre site (same size of current operations) at $450,000 per acre.
7 Source: Zero Waste International Alliance, Standards, www.zwia.org/standards
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 8
Values and Principles
The following values and principles will contribute to achieving a Zero Waste economy. These
will help guide the community’s adoption and implementation of new policies, programs and
facilities that are needed.
Choice and Diversity - Fort Collins’ City Plan calls for identifying mutually beneficial actions to
support multiple principles and policies, foster new relationships, leverage funding and
maximize resources.8 The diversity of materials that are found in Fort Collins’ waste stream call
for diverse solutions - there isn’t only one solution for everything that is discarded. Instead, Fort
Collins will build upon its open competitive, market economy to foster more entrepreneurial
investments in new programs, facilities and services that help the City meet its goals. This will
also continue to provide residents and businesses with choices of how they discard or manage
materials.
Universal Opportunities – A key goal requested by different stakeholders was that the City
ensure equal opportunities are provided for all sectors to reduce waste and recycle more,
including residents who live in multi-family dwellings, industries, commercial
businesses, institutions, as well as visitors. More comprehensive and convenient access to
reuse, recycling and composting services will provide these services more universally to all
sectors, including those who self-haul materials. These services will be implemented primarily
through collaboration and partnerships, encouraging innovations in the community much like the
ClimateWise Program, focusing on education, partnerships and working together.
New Rules and Incentives – The City’s primary role in improving the local landscape for
recycling and waste reduction activities is to adopt clear goals and to facilitate, educate and
enforce the codes that are adopted. Updating the codes and incentives in the City’s Ordinances
will encourage more waste reduction and foster the collection of clean, source separated
materials, and optimize the quality of materials recovered so that they could be invested in the
local economy. These regulations can continue to build on the policies, incentives and approach
that the City has adopted over the past 20 years.
8See: http://www.fcgov.com/planfortcollins/
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 9
Goals and Objectives
The following goals and objectives are recommended for the Fort Collins community to adopt as
targets for the next 5 to 20 years (and beyond) in renewing its commitment to waste diversion
and resource optimization. The resulting benefits are directly in keeping with the goals listed in
Fort Collins’ comprehensive City Plan, including: reducing overall solid waste volumes;
increasing waste diversion from landfills; developing greater economic value and uses for
discarded materials; managing hazardous materials; and investing to meet the goals of the
climate action plan and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.9 These goals are proposed to serve
as primary performance measures for tracking how well the plan is implemented over the
course of time.
Goal: Zero Waste
The City increased its waste diversion rate from 24% in 1999 to 42-58% in 2012. Given the
urgency of climate change10 and the significant opportunity for job and local wealth creation,
which is detailed in following pages of this report, the City should adopt a new goal of
Zero Waste by 2030, with interim goals being:
75% diversion by 2020
90% diversion by 2025.
Goal: Reduce Per Capita Waste Disposal Rate
Establishing a goal for waste generation per Fort Collins citizen can be used to measure
progress as the City grows in population and industrial activities at the same time. This is
particularly important because of the amount of growth and new development projects currently
underway in the community. This metric also provides a good way to see how Fort Collins is
performing compared to other communities around the country (more and more communities
are adopting this metric). The per capita waste metric was included as part of the Urban
Environmental Accords11, which call for communities to reduce their per capita waste disposal to
landfills and incinerators by 20% from current levels within seven years of adoption. The current
per capita waste disposal rate in Fort Collins is 5.12 pounds per capita per day, based on
2012’s population of 148,700. New goals (even higher than those advocated by the Urban
Environmental Accords) are recommended to:
Reduce waste landfilled to 3.5 pounds per capita per day by 2020 (32% below 2012)
Reduce waste landfilled to 2.8 pounds per capita per day by 2025 (57% below 2012).
9 http://www.fcgov.com/planfortcollins/
10 ”Rising global temperatures have been accompanied by changes in weather and climate including changes in rainfall, more
floods, droughts, or intensity of rain, as well as more frequent and severe heat waves. 2012 was the hottest year on record for the
contiguous United States and 2012 ranks as the warmest calendar year in the 124 year record for063w the Fort Collins, CO weather
station on CSU campus. Health care costs associated with extreme weather events in the US between 2006 and 2009 exceeded
$14 Billion. In the U.S., 2012 alone saw eleven weather disasters that cost a billion dollars or more (NOAA). Source: Fort Collins
Climate Status Report 2012, page 5, http://www.fcgov.com/airquality/pdf/FC2012ClimateStatusReportLowRes.pdf.
11 The United Nations Urban Environmental Accords are a series of goals adopted by over 100 cities around the world to achieve
urban sustainability, promote healthy economies, advance social equity and protect the world’s ecosystems. Source:
http://greencitiescalifornia.org/pages/urban-environmental-accords.html
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 10
Objective: Add Value to Local Economy
Part of the message of Zero Waste is that many of the benefits that accrue are due to the value
of the materials recovered. The Commodities Analysis (see Table 1) shows the value of
materials being discarded in Fort Collins based on 2013 markets. Over a third of the value is in
reusables, from just 4% of the tons discarded and the value of recyclables increasing by 300%
since 1992.12 This highlights why it’s important to track more than just tons diverted from
landfill. By adopting new rules and incentives such as those proposed in this Plan, the
community will recover value from materials that are currently being discarded. A key indicator
will be the number of jobs created in new waste reduction and recycling services and
infrastructure, primarily in the private sector and nonprofit organizations.
To evaluate how strong waste reduction and recycling policies and programs will add value to
the local economy and the Triple Bottom Line, the Plan proposes that the City document the
number of jobs reported to the City by all aspects of the reuse, recycling, composting and
Table 1 – Commodities Analysis: Tons & Value of Materials Discarded in Fort Collins13
Estimated Annual Lost Value of 139,060 tons of Fort Collins Discards Buried in Landfills
Categories % Annual Tons $/ton
Annual
Revenues Lost
1. Reusables 4% 5,600 $400 $ 2,240,000
2. Textiles 6% 8,300 $80 $ 664,000
3. Polymers 14% 19,500 $100 $ 1,950,000
4. Metals 4% 5,600 $80 $ 448,000
5. Glass 2% 2,800 $20 $ 56,000
6. Paper 25% 34,800 $20 $ 696,000
7. Putrescibles 14% 19,500 $7 $ 136,500
8. Plant Debris 16% 22,200 $7 $ 155,400
9. Wood 5% 7,000 $8 $ 56,000
10. Soils 3% 4,200 $7 $ 29,400
11. Ceramics 6% 8,300 $4 $ 33,200
12. Chemicals 1% 1,400 $1 $ 1,400
100% 139,100 $ 6,465,900
waste hauling, processing and manufacturing industries. In addition, the City could qualitatively
identify the benefits to residents and businesses (e.g., providing lower cost, high quality
products to enable them to be more sustainable).14 This will be particularly important for reuse
12 Source: Jeffrey Morris, Sound Resource Management, http://www.zerowaste.com/pages/Recycling-Markets.htm and 10/31/13
email clarifications that $33 per ton were the prices in 1992-93, compared to recent prices in the $103-$110 per ton range. These
are all current dollars, not adjusted for inflation.
13 Sources: Composition Studies: Sloan Vasquez/Clements Environmental, January 2012 for Fort Collins, and Cascadia for Boulder
March 2012; Market Estimates by Richard Anthony Associates June 2013.
14 This would be a pioneering effort. This has only been done on a very limited basis by other communities. In California, the
Recycling Market Development Zones report to the State on the number of jobs created from their direct efforts (loans and technical
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 11
and recycled product manufacturing, as they generate far more jobs than recycling collection,
composting and landfilling. The CSU Regional Economics Institute should be engaged to help
develop the best way to obtain this data, which could then be integrated into the Institute’s
projections of future employment in Fort Collins. It is estimated more than 434 direct jobs could
potentially be created if 100% of the City’s discarded materials were recovered and used to
make new products.15 Proposed goals based on actual tons landfilled are:
Add 150 new jobs by 202016
Add 300 new jobs by 2025.
Objective: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Waste reduction and recycling contribute to the city’s Climate Action Plan and Colorado’s
statewide goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (80% below 2005 levels by 2050). Current
estimates of greenhouse gas production from the existing system (using the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency WARM Model17) show that the community could reduce greenhouse gases
by 187,389 MTCO2e per year if it were to achieve a new Zero Waste goal - the equivalent of
removing emissions of 39,071 cars from Fort Collins roadways each year. Proposed goals
based on actual tons of landfilled waste are:
Reduce annual emissions 60,000 MTCO2e by 2020
Reduce annual emissions 120,000 MTCO2e by 2025.
Because many of these greenhouse gas savings are from embodied energy in materials which
are not reported as part of the community’s GHG inventory according to new national reporting
protocols implemented in Fort Collins, the full reduction benefit will not be recognized in the
community’s GHG inventory. .
assistance). Ventura County is an example where those numbers are reported locally in management and budget documents (to be
confirmed).
15 See Table 4 on page 20 for calculation.
16 Assumes that 1/3 of total 434 jobs would be generated by 2020 and 2/3 by 2025
17 Source: http://www.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/tools/warm/Warm_Form.html
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 12
Recommendations
Each of the recommendations is followed by language excerpted from City Plan, to highlight
how these recommendations are consistent with policy already adopted by the City.
1. Culture Change
Accomplishing a new culture and awareness of Zero Waste will require a change in the
culture of the community, not unlike the dramatic reversal of social norms for tobacco
smoking that has occurred in recent decades. That change has already begun. For
example, the 2012 Climate Status Report reported that 64% of people polled indicated that
they know about the connection among methane, composting and climate change
To reinforce this change that is underway, residents and businesses will expect the City to
lead by example. A good way to provide leadership is to place recycling bins in tandem with
all City-serviced public trash bins and ensure that comprehensive signage is posted about
what to recycle. Once “all compostable” organics recycling services are readily available,
the City should add composting bins in public areas where food is sold. The City could also
assist venues and events with developing on-site composting or digestion systems until city-
wide collection services are available.
The City should continue to provide strong, enhanced programs to educate residents,
businesses and visitors about how and where to reduce, reuse and recycle in Fort Collins.
The City should also expand its efforts to work with schools to convey information and
education about Zero Waste, such as the City’s new recycling poster, which has clear
pictures of what’s accepted for recycling and what is not. Expand staffing or interns to
contact all businesses to assist them in complying with new rules regarding recycling as they
are adopted, as well as to work with Poudre School District to educate school children about
waste reduction and Zero Waste. City staff should develop educational materials for all
haulers to distribute to all their customers on a regular basis to ensure consistent messages
about how and what to recycle in Fort Collins (rather than putting responsibility on the
haulers to create high-quality educational materials).The City should also develop decals
that can be placed on containers throughout the City to provide clear, consistent messages
about what can be recycled, using both graphics and multiple languages (especially for
larger decals).
Work with ClimateWise and the City’s Waste Reduction and Recycling Assistance Program
(WRAP) to conduct outreach to businesses and multi-family complexes about how to reduce
wasting and eliminate wasteful practices.
To accomplish culture change, the City needs a comprehensive, community-based social
marketing program that will address:
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 13
Awareness – making sure everyone knows that Zero Waste is a priority in Fort
Collins
Education – making sure residents, businesses and visitors know how to participate
in local Zero Waste programs
Training – teaching employees in Zero Waste businesses and nonprofits how to work
with residents, businesses and visitors to gain their support for local Zero Waste
programs
Reinforcement and Compliance – continuously meeting with residents and
businesses to highlight how Zero Waste policies and programs work, and helping
them comply with adopted City ordinances that guide the implementation of
programs. This approach elicits more positive responses than a heavy-handed
enforcement program.
The City should work with nonprofit organizations and students to help event organizers to
obtain volunteers on a regular basis; volunteers can assist in educating the public about
where to discard different materials/products at venues and special events. For events at all
City park venues with more than 1,000 attendees, the City should adopt requirements to
meet Zero Waste standards such as:18
Only allow exhibitors/vendors to give out products that are reusable, recyclable or
compostable
Require use of durable serving-ware (and dishwashing machines for the serving-
ware) if food services are in one central location where deposits can be charged for
durables to be returned
Require recycling bins next to all trash bins and composting bins in areas where food
is sold
Use prominent and comprehensive signage above bins with graphics and narrative
Encourage use of volunteers stationed at bins to assist attendees in making right
choices in discarding their resources.
The City should issue a challenge to residents, businesses and institutions to join as
partners in working towards Zero Waste, and recognize those who are leading the way to
Zero Waste.
2. Reinvest Resources in Local Economy
18 See Vancouver for examples of good green event guidelines.
City Plan Consistency – Principle ENV 13: The City will provide Fort Collins
residents and the business community with information and education about
waste management including waste reduction, diversion, and proper disposal.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 14
Part of the message of Zero Waste is that many of the benefits that accrue are due to the
value of the materials recovered. The Commodities Analysis in Table 1 shows the value of
materials being discarded in Fort Collins based on 2013 market prices. By adopting new
rules and incentives such as those proposed in this Plan, the community will recover much
of the value that is being discarded. A key indicator of that will be the number of jobs
created in Zero Waste services and infrastructure.
The City should better identify the sources, and the potential highest and best uses of
discarded materials, as well as the importance of creating demand for some of those uses.
The City should take a more proactive approach to using these resources for improving the
City’s economic health, and reducing barriers to implementation of innovative projects.
Engage the City’s economic health staff in using financial tools to help local value-added
reuse, recycling and composting businesses that come forward to help the City meet its
goals. Examples could include reuse and manufacturing activities that create jobs using
locally “sourced” materials while at the same time reducing transportation costs and
reducing greenhouse gases associated with long-distance transportation, such as:
Wood – A mini-sawmill for manufacturing of wood flooring, cabinets and architectural
details from deconstructed lumber.
Food – Help for food donations infrastructure for nutritious, good quality foods and
produce, and, local composting and digestion facilities for expired food products.
Plastics – A local manufacturer that can use some or all of #3-7 plastic containers
and other currently non-recyclable plastics, including take-back programs or efforts
to redesign most difficult products.
Newspapers – A facility to make insulation from old newspapers.
Glass – Regional processing capacity to clean for glass collected in single-stream
recycling programs for reuse in making new glass containers, and a use for non-
container glass such as windows.
Construction and demolition debris – A local recycling facility for sorting and
recycling mixed “C&D”.
Durable goods, mattresses, carpet, batteries and paint – Take-back programs for
these and other hard to recycle materials.
Soils and gypsum – Use by local nurseries and/or blending soils targeted to different
soil conditions and plant needs.
Consider adding more services to the future Integrated Recycling Facility (scheduled for
construction in 2014) to collect more of the 12 Market Categories of materials in Fort Collins
that need additional convenient drop-off opportunities and which are not otherwise provided
by the private sector and local non-profits. Consider renaming it as the City’s first Resource
Recovery Park.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 15
Work with Colorado State University and other local academic institutions to research and
develop innovative technologies for reuse, recycling, and composting, behavioral science
research, and unique local markets or uses for recycled products. Work with the Business
Alliance for Local Living Economies (http://bealocalist.org/) and Institute for Local Self-
Reliance (www.ilsr.org) to help local manufacturers with examples and resources.
The City should increase its commitment to purchase locally manufactured products that
contain reused, recycled, or composted materials. Assist local manufacturers in being listed
as suppliers with the Purchasing Department, especially for public works and urban
redevelopment projects.
Work with social service organizations to train and refer individuals as prospective
employees in reuse, recycling or composting operations. Pursue funding from U.S.
Department of Labor to assist with this and work with community colleges to implement.
3. Universal Recycling
Update, expand, educate and effectively implement the City’s Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT)
Ordinance, and consider renaming it the “Universal Recycling Ordinance”.
Residential
Phase in a requirement over the next two years for all haulers to collect compostable yard
trimmings and trash on a weekly basis from all customers.
Initially, weekly compostables collection will solely be for the collection of yard trimmings, for
no less than six months of the year, starting by March or April 1. The City should encourage
existing processors to work with local haulers to process materials collected.
Allow haulers to charge an additional fee to cover the costs of collecting glass of higher
quality from curbside and/or through a system of drop-off containers around the City.
City Plan Consistency - Principle ENV 15: The City will recognize that
discarded materials, such as recyclable commodities, reusable products, and
organics, can be economic resources for the community.
Policy ENV 15.3 – Establish Incentives for Waste Processors. Support the use
of incentives (e.g., tax increment financing system or enterprise zones for
resource recovery industries) to create sustainable means of repurposing,
recycling, or composting as an economic alternative to Colorado’s low-cost
landfills.
Policy ENV 15.4 – Enhance the Economy. Consider potential and existing
recycling and waste recovery activities as opportunities to enhance local
revenue generation and create jobs.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 16
Require all haulers to offer every other week non-putrescible trash service - at a lower cost
than weekly service – as an option once weekly compostables collection systems are in
place and being utilized that include food scraps and food soiled paper. The universal
collection of compostables is likely to double the amount of materials that will be able to be
diverted from the residential sector.
Once this system is implemented, haulers will be able to provide more Zero Waste services
with the same number of trucks as they use today. One truck could collect all compostables
(including yard trimmings, food scraps and food soiled paper) on a weekly basis, and a
second truck could alternate collection of rubbish one week, and recyclables the next
week.19
Require haulers to deliver educational materials developed by the City to all their customers,
in order to implement changes smoothly and provide a more consistent message to
residents and businesses regarding what can be included in each collection container.
Multi-Family
Include all multi-family dwellings20 under the Universal Recycling Ordinance within two
years. Require haulers to provide in-apartment recyclables and compostables collection
containers (could be reusable bags or rigid containers) and educational programs (including
distribution of educational materials developed by the City). Multi-family dwellings that meet
recycling standards detailed by the City should be publicly recognized annually by the City
and provided some type of financial incentive by their hauler (financial incentives could be a
donation to a homeowners association for a celebration or charity of their choice, or some
reduction in fees charged for services the following year).
Commercial
Include all businesses under the Universal Recycling Ordinance within three years.
Haulers must provide at least an equal amount of recycling services as the amount of trash
services they provide to their business and commercial customers. Haulers must provide at
least one container for composting services for each business that generates more than five
gallons per week of compostable materials (e.g., food scraps, food soiled paper, and/or yard
trimmings).
Allow haulers to offer shared locking recycling and composting containers for businesses to
share where space is limited in designated locations. Allow haulers to place additional
recycling and composting containers in no more than two parking spaces, if needed, with
agreement of property owner, and amend land use codes if necessary to allow use of a
parking space for extra recycling. Allow haulers more flexibility in setting rates to
accommodate additional services proposed.
19This approach was highlighted as an opportunity in a report funded by USEPA Region 9, Beyond Recycling, Composting Food
Scraps and Soiled Paper, Peter Anderson and Gary Liss, 2009. www.beyondrecycling.org.
20 Including long-term care facilities, mobile home parks and any other residential facility that is not currently classified as a single-
family dwelling
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 17
4. Prohibited Materials
Section 15-414 of Article XV of Chapter 15 of the City Municipal Code identifies materials
that are prohibited from being placed in the community’s waste stream. In addition to the
materials currently prohibited (electronic equipment, recyclable cardboard and household
hazardous materials), the City should phase out of landfilling the following materials as soon
as markets or uses for the materials are available within 20 miles of Fort Collins’ City Hall
with capacity for the full residential sector:
a. Conventional types of recyclables (e.g., paper, glass and plastic bottles, and metal
cans)
b. Yard trimmings
c. Construction debris
d. Demolition debris
e. White goods (large household appliances)
f. Food scraps and food soiled paper
Disposal prohibitions for a new list of materials build on the successful implementation of
prohibitions already adopted in Fort Collins for recyclable cardboard and electronic
equipment. (This approach could follow the lead of the State of Massachusetts, which has
used prohibitions from disposal and/or transfer for disposal for a large variety of materials,
including: asphalt pavement, brick & concrete; clean gypsum wallboard, ferrous & non-
ferrous metals; leaves & yard waste; treated & untreated wood; and whole tires.21)
21 Source: http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/recycle/solid/massachusetts-waste-disposal-bans.html
City Plan Consistency – Principle ENV 17: The City will act as a steward of the
environment and public health by using its regulatory authority.
Policy ENV 17.1 – Update Regulations. Regularly update codes to include effective
environmental and resource conservation provisions to promote waste reduction,
efficient resource use, and recycling.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 18
5. Construction, Deconstruction and Demolition (C&D)
Expand International Building Code recycling requirements in Fort Collins from construction-
only to also include remodeling, deconstruction, and demolition projects in all sectors that
measure more than 2,500 square feet. For new buildings, additions and remodels, require a
construction waste management plan acceptable to the Building Official that includes
recycling of concrete and masonry, wood, metals and cardboard. The construction waste
management plan should be required to be submitted at the time of application for a building
permit. The construction waste management plan should be implemented and
conspicuously posted on the construction site. Compliance should be certified by the hauler
through receipts and signed affidavits. Substantive changes to the plan should be subject to
prior approval by the City’s Chief Building Official.
As additional recycling services are developed for mixed construction and demolition debris
(C&D) recycling, expand Building Code recycling requirements to add more types of
materials, and require the reuse or recycling of all mixed C&D materials.
Require contractors and builders to provide a deposit to the City to ensure that they will
meet the City recycling goals at the outset of a project.22 The City should define what a
“qualified recycling facility” for C&D processing entails, to enable deposits to be refunded in
full. The City then could allow contractors to use the established “recycling rate” for certified
qualified recycling facilities rather than having to track every load individually through the
facility to determine its residue rate. If the building permit is submitted with material going to
a certified qualified recycling facility, permit will be reviewed within a specified number of
days of submission, going to the “head of the line” in permit reviews.
22 In other communities that do this, the deposit is usually charged at the rate of the current tipping fee x the number of tons of C&D
debris that are estimated in their plans to be generated. The current tipping fee in Fort Collins is $18/ton.
City Plan Consistency – Principle ENV 17: The City will act as a steward of the
environment and public health by using its regulatory authority.
Policy ENV 17.1 – Update Regulations. Regularly update codes to include effective
environmental and resource conservation provisions to promote waste reduction,
efficient resource use, and recycling. Policy ENV 17.2 – Manage Hazardous
Materials and Waste Promote pollution prevention-based management (and practice
these measures in municipal operations) and commit to acting as a resource to assist
the community in preventing pollution and minimizing hazardous chemical usage,
motivating citizens to practice appropriate disposal techniques, and enforcing
environmental regulations, including the City’s ban of electronics in the waste stream.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 19
The City should develop training programs for contractors, builders, and service providers
on requirements, and opportunities for reuse, recycling, composting and deconstruction.
On-line resources should be developed for builders and small businesses who may not be
able to attend training programs.
The City should adopt new Building Code deconstruction goals that require a “soft strip” for
deconstruction of all projects (to take out all items that are portable and detachable for which
there are markets or uses within 20 miles of Fort Collins City Hall). Buildings or portions of
buildings that are removed should be processed first to safely remove all asbestos and lead
paint contaminants. Then all remaining products should be reused (such as doors, windows,
cabinets, and fixtures). After all reusables are taken out, all remaining materials should be
recycled from the building shell, including: concrete and masonry, wood, metals, and
cardboard. Compliance should be certified by the hauler through receipts and signed
affidavits.
At the time of application for a building permit, contractors should provide information to the
Chief Building Official to publicly notify interested deconstruction firms electronically and/or
through the local newspaper of all buildings slated to be demolished, to enable such
deconstruction firms to pursue salvaging whatever they can while final permits are being
authorized. The City should promote existing deconstruction services and used building
materials stores, and assist deconstruction companies and nonprofits to store and grade
materials from deconstruction projects.
Another recommendation would be to support the City requiring fire sprinklers in all multi-
family dwellings to prevent as much damage to such facilities as possible. Sprinklered
properties have about 10% of the damage as those without sprinklers.23
Also, the City could assist industry to develop recycling facilities for construction,
deconstruction and demolition materials locally that can meet City recycling goals, possibly
through public/private partnerships and/or economic development assistance.
City staff should also work with the City’s Emergency Manager to create Disaster
Preparedness Plans for Fort Collins and articulate strategies for how to recycle as much
debris that results from disasters as possible and sign memorandum of understandings with
disaster response agencies. In addition, the City could work with neighboring communities
affected by flooding in 2013 to obtain financial support from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) to develop mixed C&D recycling facilities in the Front Range
to recycle as much of the disaster debris as possible.
23 Source: Michael Gebo, Fort Collins Chief Building Official
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 20
6. Composting Organic Materials
Adopt a City goal to phase out the disposal of compostable organic materials in landfills by
2018.
Require all waste haulers to collect and compost yard trimmings weekly for at least six
months per year from residents, businesses and institutions requesting that service. A
negative check-off system should be used to verify if/when a hauler’s customer specifically
requests not to receive composting services (e.g., if they don’t generate any yard trimmings
because they xeriscape and/or have their own backyard composting).
Support the development of one or more composting facilities for all compostable organics
(including food scraps and food-soiled paper), using windrow, in-vessel, and/or anaerobic
digestion technology that meet the U.S. Composting Council’s Seal of Assurance for quality
compost. Work with others interested in composting to help develop facilities, such as
Colorado State University, Poudre School District, City of Loveland and Larimer County.
Encourage larger generators of compostables to consider developing small-scale
composters on their own sites or nearby sites for multiple generators to share (like Earth
Tub currently serving some downtown restaurants).
Assist private businesses to develop a composting facility or compost transfer station within
20 miles of Fort Collins’ City Hall using economic development tools; identify potential public
and private sites, and facilitate commitment for the supply of organic materials necessary to
operate a facility. If private businesses are not successful in this effort within two years (by
2016), consider developing a publicly sponsored facility.
Once a composting facility or transfer station that is permitted to collect or process all
compostable organics is available within 20 miles of Fort Collins, require all waste haulers to
collect and compost all compostable organics weekly year-round from all residents,
businesses and institutions.
Until city-wide composting services are available for all compostables, develop more pilot
programs to compost or digest all compostable organics, particularly with schools and
institutions. For example, work with the Larimer County Food Bank to develop a composter
on their site or nearby together with other local food scrap generators, with “curing” of the
compost done off-site in partnership with a larger composting operation. Also, provide use of
city open space for gardening, farming and composting, partnering with the Food Bank, to
City Plan Consistency – Policy ENV 17.4: Construction Waste Reduction.
Encourage activities that help divert debris from construction-related activities.
Explore the feasibility of requiring any City-subsidized projects to employ reduction
and solid waste diversion practices that reduce the volume of material sent from city
construction sites to landfills for disposal.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 21
provide opportunities for large scale community composting and utilizing that waste to
ultimately feed people again by growing vegetables.
Explore the possibility of digesting discarded food scraps separately from wastewater solids
at wastewater treatment plant. Encourage haulers to offer low-cost backyard and on-site
composting bin sales to foster backyard and on-site composting as a way to keep materials
from even becoming waste.
7. Reduce & Reuse
In the hierarchy of waste diversion actions, the City should promote “reduce and reuse” as
first-line actions, followed by “recycle, compost or redesign the rest”. Encourage residents,
businesses and institutions to eliminate wastefulness, to obtain the largest economic
benefits of Zero Waste. Work with ClimateWise and the City’s Waste Reduction and
Recycling Assistance Program (WRAP) to use City financial incentives and technical
assistance for businesses and multi-family complexes to reduce wasting and eliminate
wasteful practices. The City organization should lead by example by evaluating its
purchasing practices and develop guidelines that will highlight opportunities for all City
departments to reduce wastes. Encourage major institutional and corporate buyers to follow
City source reduction purchasing practices.
Promote reusable shipping containers and returnable pallets as a top priority for businesses.
Work with Colorado State University and apartments that have high turnover rates to
provide a more robust program for reuse and recycling of furniture, appliances, floor
coverings and equipment during move-ins and move-outs. Help develop a reuse
warehouse, like a food bank system, working with local thrift stores (a central place that all
thrift stores would have equal access to for sorting through incoming products and for bulk
sales to public). Promote reducing the wasting of food in cafeterias through trayless
City Plan Consistency – Policy ENV 14.2: Lower Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Recognize the critical role of successful solid waste diversion and recycling in
significantly lowering greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and place priority on
employing strategies that will enable the community to meet its adopted goals for
reducing GHG emissions and the risks of climate change.
Policy ENV 15.1 – Encourage Composting Divert organic material from landfill
disposal and put it to a beneficial secondary use as compost, which increases
water conservation, adds nutritional value, and provides carbon dioxide storage
capacity (carbon sink) when applied to soil, or for generating alternative sources of
energy. Principle SW 3: The City will encourage and support local food production
to improve the availability and accessibility of healthy foods, and to provide other
educational, economic, and social benefits.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 22
cafeterias and portion controls. Promote Federal Good Samaritan Law that eliminates
liability for donation of food and address similar liability for thrift stores with “as is” waivers.
Help local thrift stores prevent illegal dumping from occurring on their property through
increased penalties and code enforcement.
Assist the Larimer County Food Bank in diverting a higher percentage of its existing food
waste from the landfill with the addition of another truck and driver, food-safe tins and lids
and staff time for donor relations. This would enable them to provide timely and regular
donation pickup for new donors, especially from lower-volume donors such as farms,
restaurants, manufacturers, and minimal processing facilities, Another way to help reduce
wasting of food would be providing a truck to the Food Bank for mobile food pantry
distributions twice a week and the other 3 days a week to help the Food Rescue program.
Require multifamily developments and neighborhood community centers to include a secure
location for reusable items to be easily accessed for move-ins and move-outs, including
used furniture, appliances, clothing and books. Promote “leave it behind” system for
reusables for off-campus students and the community. Adopt a used clothing collection bin
ordinance to ensure quality services are provided and bins don’t become a nuisance or
create a public safety issue.
Support “adaptive reuse” in International Building Code for residential and commercial
construction, which encourages the remodeling or repurposing of buildings that are still
functional.
8. Product Stewardship
Adopt fees on products or packaging sold in Fort Collins that are hard to reuse, recycle or
compost. For example, enact a litter fee on single-use paper or plastic bags and fee or ban
on expanded polystyrene take-out containers. Fees could be invested in a Recycling
Education and Investment Fund (see recommendation #10 below).
Ask businesses that sell products in glass bottles in the Front Range and local governments
in the area to help develop a commingled glass recycling sorting system to remove debris
from single-stream glass so it can be made into new glass products. Explore options for
City Plan Consistency – Principle ENV 14: The City will apply the US Environmental
Protection Agency’s integrated “hierarchy” of waste management to help protect all
environmental resources including air, soil, and water using source reduction as the
primary approach, followed in order by reuse, recycling/composting energy recovery
using emerging pollution-free technology, and landfill disposal (where methane gas
capture is employed) as a final resort.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 23
more collection of glass separately for reuse and/or recycling into glass bottles. Work with
CSU to ban plastic bottled water on campus. Before any products are banned, develop a
plan to ensure the public has clear options that are convenient for them. Work with larger
“fast food” restaurants to use reusable plates, bowls, cups and flatware for dine-in
customers instead of single-use products. Provide info on takeback programs on City’s
website and set up a notification group like the Leaf Exchange for takebacks.
9. Waste to Clean Energy
Develop and adopt a Hierarchy of Highest and Best Use to assist in evaluation of
technology proposals and use of particular feedstocks that would otherwise be sent to
landfills for disposal. Prioritize what energy technologies and feedstocks the City would like
to focus on in the next five years after adoption of a Hierarchy of Highest and Best Use.
Encourage Colorado State University to research and pilot innovative technologies for
different applications.
In 2013, the City started a pilot program of waste to energy working with Colorado State
University; pulped food scraps from the university’s cafeterias are taken to be “digested” at
the Drake Water Reclamation Facility (DWRF). The digested food scraps generate methane
gas in a controlled environment, which is then burned to generate energy that heats the
plant during cold weather. The City should continue to work on new programs to digest food
scraps from residents, businesses, and/or institutions, delivered via truck or sewers to the
DWRF.
The City should continue to investigate diverse solutions for converting materials that
contain embedded energy, with the recognition that it could be imprudent to commit
resources (feedstocks) on a long-term basis to one single technology before more options
can be pursued.
City Plan Consistency – Policy ENV 17.3 – Encourage Producer Responsibility.
Support state and federal efforts to establish producer responsibility systems,
which encourage manufacturers to invest in ways to reduce the lifecycle impacts of
their products or to create options for “taking back” items such as electronics, paint,
and household cleaning items that impact public health and the environment.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 24
10. Funding
Adopt recycling investment fees on waste hauling services or waste shipped for landfilling to
generate revenue needed to fund new City initiatives. Initially require haulers to collect a
City Recycling Education and Investment Fee of $1.00 per household or business per
month. Part of the proceeds would go to the City for outreach and education materials and
staffing, support for expanding the Integrated Recycling Facility into a Resource Recovery
Park, as well as economic development grants and loans for reuse, recycling and
composting investments.
Other proceeds could be used by haulers to help implement their programs. Over time, look
at whether to increase the fee to generate revenue to fund other economic/business
development for Zero Waste related projects. Focus investments on one-time costs, not
operating expenses, as a waste-based fee will decrease over time and should only be used
to assist in the transition to a Zero Waste economy, and not continue once the basic
infrastructure has been established.
City Plan Consistency – Policy ENV 15.2 – Generate Energy. After recyclable,
compostable, and reusable marketable materials have been removed, utilize
the remainder of the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream as a feedstock for
energy production using newly emerging, ultra-low polluting transformation
technology.
Policy ENV 15.5 – Systems-Based Approach. Apply a systems-based approach
to managing materials that flow into the community (e.g., inventories, tracking
systems), as well as their post-consumer destinations, in order to analyze
opportunities for alternatives to landfill disposal.
City Plan Consistency – Policy ENV 15.3: Establish Incentives for Waste Processors.
Support the use of incentives (e.g., tax increment financing system or enterprise zones
for resource recovery industries) to create sustainable means of repurposing,
recycling, or composting as an economic alternative to Colorado’s low-cost landfills.
Policy ENV 16.2 – Consider Financial Investment. Consider investments in energy
generation or other kinds of facilities that are designed to collect and process materials
that cannot be recycled or reused.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 25
11. Regional Cooperation
Develop public/private and intergovernmental partnerships (Larimer County, City of
Loveland, Colorado State University and Poudre School District) to help identify locations
and develop needed facilities (e.g., composting, C&D debris recycling, and possibly
additional Resource Recovery Parks). Encourage collaboration and not duplication of
infrastructure. Identify what services are best done locally and what initiatives could
leverage economies of scale on a larger regional basis.
Work with Larimer County and City of Loveland to work on regional options. Before a new
landfill is built by the public, it will be critical to identify where materials will come from.
C&D facilities require an economy of scale and more collaboration on a larger regional basis
than historically has been done. The City should explore which other communities in the
Front Range are interested in developing this capacity (e.g., Boulder), and how to pursue it
further, working through organizations like the Colorado Association for Recycling (CAFR).
The best locations for facilities identified in this Plan could be considered as part of the
development of a regional Zero Waste Plan that at least includes Larimer County and the
City of Loveland, and ideally includes all those jurisdictions that ship wastes into Larimer
County and those jurisdictions that receive wastes from Larimer County. Develop
comparative cost of trash and recycling in neighboring communities and landfills.
Diversion Potential
Diversion estimates were prepared to identify the waste reduction potential of each policy and
program identified in this Plan. The diversion estimates are based on comparable policies and
programs implemented in other jurisdictions, research, and educated estimates by Zero Waste
Associates, the consulting firm for this Plan. Table 2 below shows the projected diversion rate,
and summarizes the diversion potential for new proposed Zero Waste policies and programs.
City Plan Consistency – Principle ENV 16: The City will collaborate with other
organizations to develop infrastructure that will accommodate larger quantities of
discarded materials, such as recyclable commodities, organics, and hazardous
waste, for appropriate processing and that will reduce shipping distances.
Policy ENV 16.1 – Coordinate with Others Coordinate with private businesses, non-
profit groups, CSU, Poudre School District, and other government agencies to
increase local infrastructure and improve market conditions for recycling, composting
and reuse industries and educate the public about source reduction and recycling.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 26
Based on this analysis, it is estimated the City can divert an additional 90 percent of materials
currently going to landfills in 2013. The City is projected to achieve a total of 96 percent
diversion, through continuation of existing programs and implementation of new policies and
programs.
Table 3 - Existing Landfill Waste Generation and Projected Diversion
Current (2012) New Programs Total Projected
Diverted Tons 190,000 125,000 315,000
Disposal Tons 139,000 14,000
Total Tons Generated 329,000 329,000
Diversion Rate 58% 96%
The diversion rates are presented as a snapshot in time, assuming full implementation of all
initiatives. More realistically, policies and programs will be developed over time accompanied by
additional research, testing, and pilot programs before all new programs are fully implemented.
Several initiatives will require new ordinances and regulations which will require City Council
action and time to implement. Other initiatives will require investment in new infrastructure.
Zero Waste is a design framework for reducing generation of waste and maximizing diversion,
not a strict tonnage goal. By implementing the proposed policies and programs, the City will be
striving towards Zero Waste, even though there will still be some residual wastes that will be
disposed.
Table 2 - Estimated Diversion Potential for Recommended Initiatives
Options Diversion Tons
Diversion Percentage (of
Existing Tons Landfilled)
1. Universal Recycling 35,000 25%
2. Designated Materials 9,000 6%
3. Construction & Demolition Debris 18,000 13%
4. Composting Organics 13,000 9%
5. Reduce & Reuse 5,000 4%
6. Waste to Energy - -
7. Culture Change 45,000 32%
8. Reinvest Resources in Local Economy - -
9. Product Stewardship 1,000 1%
10. Funding - -
11. Regional Cooperation - -
Total 125,000 90%
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 27
Triple Bottom Line Impacts
Economic Impacts
To carry out this Plan, new staff or contractor resources will be needed to provide a variety of
support functions and activities including: Zero Waste outreach; technical assistance to
residential and commercial generators and City departments; technical assistance for creating
composting infrastructure; and, development of new Zero Waste policy initiatives and programs.
Development of new programs will also require investment in new processing capacity for
reuse, organics and C&D debris. The capital costs for these facilities are estimated to be:
Composting - $7-9 million
C&D - $5-7 million
Reuse - $500,000
TOTAL $12.5 - $16.5 million
These investments, along with the rest of the policies and programs recommended in this Plan,
would contribute significantly to recovering the $6.5 million value of materials from the Fort
Collins community that gets buried in regional landfills every year.
The alternative to these investments would be spending $20-$80 million on a new landfill once
the Larimer County landfill closes in approximately 12-15 years.
Initial costs for the first several years after adopting the Zero Waste goal would likely be about
$1.00 per household and business per month for the Recycling Education and Reinvestment
Fee. The majority of this funding would be for programs to be conducted by the City to assist in
culture change and reinvesting resources in the local economy. Additional costs would be
incurred over the following 10 years through new rates charged for additional services (e.g.,
curbside composting) by service providers in the open competitive marketplace, in response to
new rules and incentives adopted by the City, designed to provide clear direction and a level
playing field for investments. The competitive marketplace will result in the most efficient
implementation of programs.
For the City’s future involvement in taking the new path to Zero Waste, new proposals will be
developed through bi-annual City budget processes. The “budgeting for outcomes” system
provides the framework for evaluating the costs and benefits of specific policies and proposals
as opportunities to introduce new measures become feasible and timely.
Environmental Impact
Using data for tons of materials from Fort Collins that are taken to landfills for disposal in Table
1, the following highlights the amount of greenhouse gases (GHG) that are either emitted or
eliminated by landfilling and/or recycling. The results are derived from the U.S. Environmental
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 28
Protection Agency’s Waste Reduction Model (WARM), which is the standard in the industry for
evaluating such impacts.24 This analysis uses the assumption that the city will ultimately achieve
Zero Waste, whereby 96% or more of the materials that are currently landfilled will be diverted
through reduction strategies, reuse, recycling, composting, or waste conversion (to energy).
According to its website, EPA created WARM to help solid waste planners and organizations
track and voluntarily report GHG emissions reductions from several different waste
management practices. WARM calculates and totals GHG emissions for baseline and
alternative waste management practices - source reduction, recycling, combustion, composting,
and landfilling. The model calculates emissions in metric tons of carbon equivalent (MTCE),
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTC02e), and energy units (million BTU) across a wide
range of material types commonly found in municipal solid waste. WARM now recognizes 40
material types, and their emission factors are available for viewing in units of MTC02e and MTCe.
The WARM Model shows that by diverting nearly all of its waste (96% or more) from landfilling,
Fort Collins could reduce greenhouse gases by 187,389 MTCO2e per year, the equivalent of
removing emissions from 39,071 cars from Fort Collins roadways each year.
Implementing this Plan will result in reductions in annual greenhouse gas emissions that are
equivalent to:
Eliminating 39,071 passenger vehicles from the road;
Eliminating the consumption of 436,137 barrels of oil;
Eliminating the CO2 emissions from the electricity use of 28,075 houses per year; or
Eliminating the CO2 emissions from the burning of coal from 806 rail cars per year.
Because many of these greenhouse gas savings are from embodied energy in materials which
are not reported as part of the community’s GHG inventory according to new national reporting
protocols implemented in Fort Collins, the full reduction benefit will not be recognized in the
community’s GHG inventory.
Social Impacts
Reuse, recycling, composting, and source reduction offer direct, and substantial, development
opportunities for communities. Discarded materials are a resource that can increase local
revenues, create jobs, lead to the formation of new business, and stimulate the overall local
economic base. On a per-ton basis, sorting and processing recyclables alone sustains eleven
times more jobs than landfilling or incineration. However, reuse of products and making new
products out of the old offer the largest economic pay-offs in the recycling loop. New recycling-
based manufacturers and reuse of high value products employs more people at higher wages
than sorting recyclables does. In order to compare jobs created through recycling with disposal-
related jobs, the Institute for Local Self Reliance (ILSR) developed job-to-ton ratios for specific
material streams based on direct interviews with operating facilities.25
24 WARM Model online: http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_home.html
25 ILSR, “Salvaging the Future: Waste-Based Production”, www.ilsr.org
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 29
Applying the ILSR job-to-ton ratios to Fort Collins’ current volume and type of discards26
indicates that 434 direct jobs could potentially be created if 100% of the City’s discarded
materials were recovered and used to make new products (see Table 4). The potential could be
higher depending on actual businesses recruited.
Table 4 - Job Potential in Fort Collins Based on Near-100% Recovery Rate of 139,000
Annual Tons of Reusables/Recyclables Currently taken to Landfills for Disposal
Categories of Recyclable Materials Number of Potential Jobs
Reuse 42
Paper 96
Organics 4
Wood 8
Ceramics 2
Metals 38
Glass 16
Polymers 194
Textiles 34
Chemicals N/A
Total 434
In addition to these economic health benefits, there are other social benefits that accrue from
pursuing a Zero Waste approach. Many reduce and reuse programs in particular benefit those
who are having a rough time making ends meet. Reuse programs can offer high quality goods
at low prices that help peoples’ finances. Waste reduction programs such as donating food to
people is an important example of how these efforts contribute to those who need it.
The Larimer County Food Bank distributed 6.5 million meals and 8 million pounds of donated
food and other products to the community in 2011.Their direct service pantry program, Food
Share, was a source of food for nearly 80 Larimer County non-profit member agencies that
serve the hungry, which saved these agencies nearly $2.2 million on food expenses in 2012.
The Food Bank supports food pantries, kitchens, shelters and snack programs that serve low-
income populations such as single-parent families, the working poor, older adults, youth,
individuals in crises, childcare and residential programs, centers for the disabled, and homeless
shelters.27
26 Plant debris, putrescibles and soils combined as organics.
27 Source: Fact Sheet 2013, Food Bank for Larimer County,
http://www.foodbanklarimer.org/AboutUs/~/media/COFtCollins137/Files/Fact%20Sheets/2013%20FACT%20SHEET_LONG%20FIN
AL.ashx
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 30
The latest “Map the Meal Gap Study” of Feeding America28, found that 14% of residents in
Larimer County (1 in 7) were food insecure – they did not know where they will find their next
meal.29 Nationally, the rate is even higher – 16.1% (almost 1 in 6 people) that are food insecure
– nearly 49 million people.
This clearly is a challenge and an opportunity for a community that embraces Zero Waste.
Recent reports highlight that over 40% of all food in America is wasted:
“Food is simply too good to waste. Even the most sustainably farmed food does us
no good if the food is never eaten. Getting food to our tables eats up 10 percent of
the total U.S. energy budget, uses 50 percent of U.S. land, and swallows 80 percent
of freshwater consumed in the United States. Yet, 40 percent of food in the United
States today goes uneaten. That is more than 20 pounds of food per person every
month. Not only does this mean that Americans are throwing out the equivalent of
$165 billion each year, but also 25 percent of all freshwater and huge amounts of
unnecessary chemicals, energy, and land. Moreover, almost all of that uneaten food
ends up rotting in landfills where it accounts for almost 25 percent of U.S. methane
emissions.”30
Very similar opportunities exist for other areas of reuse, from used building materials, to
appliances, to clothes and books. As Fort Collins fulfills its commitment to the Triple
Bottom Line, placing a higher priority on reducing and reusing will lead to many social
benefits. Services provided should also be handicapped accessible.
28 Feeding America is the largest hunger-relief organization in America. http://feedingamerica.org/
29 Source: ‘Food Insecurity’ remains an issue in Larimer County, April 27, 2012, Northern Colorado Business Report,
http://www.ncbr.com/article/20120427/NEWS/120429869
30 Source: “Wasted: How America Is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill,” Natural Resources
Defense Council, http://www.nrdc.org/food/wasted-food.asp
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 31
Implementation
This Plan provides a road map for the City, residents, businesses and visitors to get to Zero
Waste. It highlights the priorities that need to be adopted to get there:
Culture Change – providing new rules and more incentives, using Community Based
Social Marketing, social media, innovative technologies and software, and harnessing
creative talents in art, music, advertising and social change to reinforce and expand the
change that has already occurred.
Reduce and Reuse – concentrating on helping residents and businesses to live and
operate more efficiently and sustainably, creating over 400 jobs in the process and
helping those in need to get quality food and goods donated or at very low prices.
Compostable Organics Out of Landfills – eliminating many of the fast-acting, climate
changing gases that are emitted when organics rot in landfills, and returning those as
nutrients to the soil for raising more food locally (after first donating all edible food to
people in need).
Construction, Deconstruction and Demolition – implementing new rules of the
International Building Code developed concurrently with this Plan by the City’s Building
Department.
Three key types of facilities that will be needed in the Fort Collins area to fully implement this
plan are:
Commercial composting facility – to process food scraps, food-soiled paper and all
putrescibles and organic materials
Construction and demolition (C&D) recycling plant – to process mixed materials
from building and demolition projects
Reuse warehouse – to support the collection of a wide range of reusable products from
a variety of sources, and enable different businesses and nonprofit organizations to
obtain high quality materials to sell at very reasonable prices to residents and
businesses in Fort Collins.
All of these could be located in a single location as a Resource Recovery Park, or they could be
developed individually in different locations. These could be owned and operated by different
entrepreneurs, and the City could help develop one or more of these facilities as a public/private
partnership if needed.
Priorities and general timelines for implementing policies, programs and facilities are
summarized here and in the table below.
1. Culture change
a. Adopt education & reinvestment fund (2014)
b. Place more recycling bins in public areas over the next three years
c. Apply community based social marketing starting in 2015
d. Develop public events guidelines, brochures for haulers customers (2015)
2. Reinvest resources
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 32
a. Establish Zero Waste grants and loans program (2014)
b. Expand integrated recycling facility to serve as Resource Recovery Park (2015)
3. Universal recycling ordinance
a. Add yard trimmings collection for single-family residents (2015)
b. Provide recycling to all multi-family residents (2016)
c. Provide recycling to all businesses (2019)
4. Prohibit materials from landfill disposal
a. Source separated C&D materials (2015)
b. Yard trimmings (2016)
c. Food scraps and food-soiled paper (2018)
5. Construction and demolition recycling
a. Universal Building code amendments (2014)
b. Help develop mixed C&D sorting facility in region (2017)
6. Compost organics
a. Help develop food scraps composting and digestion facilities (2016)
7. Reduce and re-use
a. City purchasing policies to reduce waste (2015)
b. Reuse warehouse (2016)
8. Product stewardship
a. Adopt restrictions on disposable shopping bags (2014)
b. Develop glass sorting facility in region (2016)
9. Waste to clean energy
a. Develop hierarchy of highest & best use (2015)
b. Develop pilot programs for priority technologies (2017)
10. Regional cooperation
a. Pursue alternatives through regional Zero Waste Plan (2014-15)
Many partnerships will be required to implement this Plan. Sustainability staff will need to work
with:
Economic health and social sustainability staff, entrepreneurs and nonprofit
organizations to reinvest reusables, recyclables and compostables in the local economy
and create jobs, income and wealth from these discarded materials and help those in
need obtain high quality goods at low costs.
Planning and Building staff, contractors and developers to implement the C&D
recommendations.
A wide range of public and private interests to implement the organics
recommendations.
By investing in the three key Zero Waste facilities, adopting new policies and implementing
innovative, culture changing programs, the community will dramatically decrease the need for its
own landfill, shifting from today’s focus on waste management to a system that optimizes the
use of discarded materials as resources to help the local economy.
Draft Road to Zero Waste Plan, December 2013 – Page 33
Road to Zero Waste Pro-Forma
Overview
Status-Quo Scenario
year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Overall Sum
landfill tons (increasing 1.9% per year to
reflect population increase) 142,660 145,371 148,133 150,947 153,815 156,738 159,716 162,750 165,842 168,993 172,204 175,476 178,810
landfill tip fee only $18 $18 $18 $18 $25 $25 $25 $35 $35 $35 $35 $50 $50
costs to consumer -- rough estimation of costs
per ton to collect, dispose of trash +
recyclables (includes tip fee) $162 $162 $162 $162 $225 $225 $225 $315 $315 $315 $315 $450 $450
overall costs $23,110,920 $23,550,027 $23,997,478 $24,453,430 $34,608,396 $35,265,956 $35,936,009 $51,266,310 $52,240,370 $53,232,937 $54,244,363 $78,964,294 $80,464,616 $548,224,187
Net Effects of Zero Waste Scenario (Public and Private combined)
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
GRAND TOTAL NEW PROGRAM EXPENSES (Public + Private) $563,838 $584,298 $5,349,938 $6,771,850 $6,900,254 $6,991,868 $7,085,224 $7,180,353 $7,277,290 $7,376,068 $7,476,723 $7,579,291 $71,136,994
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES OVER EXPENSES $24,500 $26,610 $491,323 ($718,565) ($627,040) ($490,523) ($347,233) ($196,881) ($39,166) $126,224 $299,614 $481,343 ($969,793)
Diversion Tons 2,000 13,000 34,000 47,000 57,500 70,500 81,000 93,000 101,000 109,000 117,000 121,000
(Growth Weighted) 2,038 13,499 35,975 50,675 63,174 78,929 92,407 108,113 119,643 131,573 143,914 151,662
Percentage of Total Diversion 1% 4% 10% 14% 17% 21% 25% 28% 31% 33% 36% 37%
Percentage of Existing (58%) plus New Diversion 59% 62% 68% 72% 75% 79% 83% 86% 89% 91% 94% 95%
Assumptions
Population Growth Rate 1.9% 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.14 1.16 1.18 1.21 1.23 1.25
Interest Rate (Real) (capital costs only) 3.0% 1.03 1.06 1.09 1.13 1.16 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.43
Total Population Growth Each Year
Detailed analysis of Zero Waste Scenario
City Program Costs and Revenues Notes 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Carry Over From previous year - 24,500 51,110 106,125 189,998 247,043 315,978 397,030 490,427 596,405 715,203 847,064
NEW REVENUE
Households (Single Family) 41,142 42,720 43,532 44,359 45,202 46,061 46,936 47,828 48,736 49,662 50,606 51,567
Households (Multi-Family) 19,361 20,104 20,486 20,875 21,271 21,676 22,087 22,507 22,935 23,371 23,815 24,267
Businesses 14,925 15,498 15,792 16,092 16,398 16,709 17,027 17,350 17,680 18,016 18,358 18,707
Amount per household and business per month $0.65 $0.65 $0.65 $0.65 $0.65 $0.65 $0.65 $0.65 $0.65 $0.65 $0.65 $0.65
Recycling Education and Reinvestment Fund from above fee $588,338 $610,908 $622,515 $634,343 $646,395 $658,677 $671,192 $683,944 $696,939 $710,181 $723,674 $737,424 $7,984,530
NEW PROGRAM EXPENSES
1. Culture change: Apply community-based
social marketing and other outreach/education $50,000 $100,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $2,650,000
Diversion Tons 2,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 42,000 239,000
(Growth Weighted) 2,038 5,192 5,290 10,782 10,987 16,793 22,817 29,063 35,538 42,248 49,201 52,643 282,591
Percentage of Total Diversion 1% 2% 2% 3% 3% 5% 6% 8% 9% 11% 12% 13%
2a. Reinvest resources: Establish Zero Waste
grants and loans program (2014)
Diversion tons
attributed in Culture $200,000 $200,000 $250,000 $250,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $3,300,000
2b. Reinvest resources: Funding support for a
Resource Recovery Park
Diversion tons
attributed in Culture $225,000 $200,000 $425,000
3a. Universal recycling ordinance: Add yard
trimmings collection for single-family residents
Implementation in
2016 consistent
with capital,
operating and $29,419 $29,419
3b. Universal recycling ordinance: Provide
recycling to all multi-family residents starting
Year 3, then to all businesses in Year 5 $30,548 $18,750 $31,719 $20,600 $20,992 $21,390 $21,797 $22,211 $22,633 $23,063 $23,501 $257,205
Diversion Tons 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000 18,000 21,000 24,000 27,000 30,000 32,000 197,000
(Growth Weighted) 3,115 6,349 9,704 13,184 16,793 20,535 24,413 28,430 32,592 36,901 40,109 232,124
Percentage of Total Diversion 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%
This budget is presented in two major categories: City Program Costs and Revenues and Private Sector Program Costs and Revenues. Funding for new City programs could come from the General
Fund as a Budgeting for Outcomes decision, or as a new
“Recycling Education and Reinvestment” fee of $0.65 per household and business per month ($7.80 annually). Outside of BFO, costs and benefits would be provided for any ordinances being
considered by City Council. Private initiatives will be funded by
fees for services provided. The overall costs for full implementation of this program by private initiatives phased in over 12 years is estimated to be $5.15 per household and per business
per month. This is a conservative estimate, as businesses may
already have invested in trucks and other equipment needed to provide these services, so the actual fees charged are expected to be less. The combined cost of $12-17M in community and
regionally-shared investments will help avoid the need for building
new landfills in the future, estimated at $20-80M. Calculations are based on 2012 population of 148,612, 41,142 single-family households, 19,361 multi-family households and 14,925 businesses
(from U.S. Census).
4a. Prohibit materials from landfill disposal:
Source-separated construction and demolition $29,419 $29,419
4b. Prohibit materials from landfill disposal:
Yard trimmings, food scraps and food-soiled $20,216 $20,600 $20,992 $21,390 $21,797 $22,211 $22,633 $23,063 $23,501 $196,404
Diversion Tons 4,000 4,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 80,000
(Growth Weighted) 4,232 4,313 9,888 10,076 10,267 10,463 10,661 10,864 11,070 11,281 93,115
Percentage of Total Diversion 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
5. Construction and demolition recycling:
Universal Building code amendments $29,419 $18,750 $18,750 $18,750 $18,750 $18,750 $18,750 $18,750 $18,750 $18,750 $18,750 $18,750 $235,669
Diversion Tons 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 17,500 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 $162,500
(Growth Weighted) 5,192 7,936 10,782 13,733 16,793 19,964 22,088 22,507 22,935 23,371 23,815
Percentage of Total Diversion 2% 2% 3% 4% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
7a. Reduce and re-use: Expand City Diversion tons 5,000 20,000 - - - - - - - - -
7b(1). Re-use warehouse amortized cost 500,000 $58,615 $58,615 $58,615 $58,615 $58,615 $58,615 $58,615 $58,615 $58,615 $58,615 $586,153
7b(2). Re-use warehouse operating expense $266,000 $266,000 $266,000 $266,000 $266,000 $266,000 $266,000 $266,000 $266,000 $266,000 $2,660,000
7b. Reduce and re-use: Re-use warehouse
Total of amortized
payment and $324,615 $324,615 $324,615 $324,615 $324,615 $324,615 $324,615 $324,615 $324,615 $324,615 $3,246,153
Diversion Tons 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 20,000
(Growth Weighted) 2,116 2,156 2,197 2,239 2,282 2,325 2,369 2,414 2,460 2,507 23,066
Percentage of Total Diversion 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
8. Product stewardship: Adopt restrictions on
paper and plastic bags
Diversion tons
attributed in Culture $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000
9. Waste to clean energy: Develop hierarchy
of highest & best use $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000
10. Regional cooperation: Pursue alternatives
through regional Zero Waste Plan (2014-15) $25,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL NEW PROGRAM EXPENSES $563,838 $584,298 $567,500 $550,469 $589,350 $589,742 $590,140 $590,547 $590,961 $591,383 $591,813 $592,251 $6,992,293
Diversion Tons 2,000 13,000 22,500 33,000 43,500 54,000 64,500 74,000 82,000 90,000 98,000 102,000 678,500
(Growth Weighted) 2,038 13,499 23,807 35,580 47,793 60,456 73,583 86,025 97,136 108,639 120,543 127,847 796,946
Percentage EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) of Total Diversion OF REVENUES 1% 4% 7% 10% 13% 16% 20% 22% 25% 27% 30% 31%
OVER EXPENSES $24,500 $26,610 $55,015 $83,873 $57,045 $68,935 $81,051 $93,397 $105,978 $118,798 $131,861 $145,173 $992,237
ENDING BALANCE - PUBLIC $24,500 $51,110 $106,125 $189,998 $247,043 $315,978 $397,030 $490,427 $596,405 $715,203 $847,064 $992,237
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
BEGINNING BALANCE $0 ($2,193,432) ($2,264,479) ($2,217,172) ($2,045,238) ($1,742,131) ($1,301,017) ($714,770) $24,047 $923,191
NEW REVENUE
average cost for new services
(revenue to private sector) $5.15/hh or biz / mo $2,178,700 $5,418,942 $5,626,819 $5,842,669 $6,066,800 $6,299,528 $6,541,184 $6,792,111 $7,052,663 $7,323,210 $59,142,625
5. Construction and demolition recycling:
Help develop mixed C&D sorting facility in
region
Based on $100
($82 net) per ton
tipping fee/includes
capital and
operating costs.
Diversion tons $722,390 $736,115 $750,101 $764,353 $778,876 $793,675 $808,754 $824,121 $839,779 $7,018,164
5a. Site Construction
(50% of capital costs for a regional facility) $2,500,000 $321,085 $321,085 $321,085 $321,085 $321,085 $321,085 $321,085 $321,085 $321,085 $2,889,762
6. Compost organics: Help develop food
scraps composting and digestion facilities
Includes $55 ($37
net) per ton tipping
fee (for capital,
operating and $3,914,932 $3,989,316 $4,065,113 $4,142,350 $4,221,055 $4,301,255 $4,382,979 $4,466,256 $4,551,114 $4,637,586 $42,671,957
6a. Site Construction
(50% of costs for a regional facility) $3,500,000 $410,307 $410,307 $410,307 $410,307 $410,307 $410,307 $410,307 $410,307 $410,307 $410,307 $4,103,068
Diversion Tons 7,500 10,000 10,000 12,500 12,500 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 127,500
(Growth Weighted) 7,936 10,782 10,987 13,994 14,260 17,438 17,769 18,106 18,450 18,801 148,523
Percentage of Total Diversion 2% 3% 3% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
8. Product stewardship: Help develop glass
sorting facility in region
$400,000 capital
added to existing
recyclables $46,892 $46,892 $46,892 $46,892 $46,892 $46,892 $46,892 $46,892 $46,892 $46,892 $468,922
Diversion Tons 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 40,000
(Growth Weighted) 4,232 4,313 4,395 4,478 4,563 4,650 4,738 4,828 4,920 5,014 46,132
Percentage of Total Diversion 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
9. Waste to clean energy: Develop pilot
programs for priority technologies
$15 million to $20
million is estimate - - - - - - - - - -
TOTAL NEW PROGRAM EXPENSES $4,372,131 $5,489,990 $5,579,512 $5,670,735 $5,763,692 $5,858,415 $5,954,937 $6,053,293 $6,153,519 $6,255,648 $57,151,872
Diversion Tons - - 11,500 14,000 14,000 16,500 16,500 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 167,500
(Growth Weighted) 12,168 15,095 15,382 18,473 18,824 22,088 22,507 22,935 23,371 23,815 194,655
Percentage of Total Diversion 3% 4% 4% 5% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUES
OVER EXPENSES ($2,193,432) ($71,047) $47,307 $171,934 $303,108 $441,113 $586,247 $738,817 $899,144 $1,067,562 $1,990,753
ENDING BALANCE - PRIVATE ($2,193,432) ($2,264,479) ($2,217,172) ($2,045,238) ($1,742,131) ($1,301,017) ($714,770) $24,047 $923,191 $1,990,753
Private Sector Program Costs and Revenues
NEW PROGRAM EXPENSES
Attachment 4
1
ADVISORY BOARDS AND COUNCIL’S FUTURES COMMITTEE
INPUT ON ROAD TO ZERO WASTE
Attachment includes:
1. November 20 Recommendation to Council from Natural Resources Advisory Board
2. June 10 Council Futures Committee meeting minutes excerpt
3. July 15 Air Quality Advisory Board meeting minutes excerpt
4. July 17 Natural Resources Advisory Board meeting minutes excerpt
5. October 16 Natural Resources Advisory Board meeting minutes excerpt
6. November 7 Energy Board meeting minutes excerpt (unapproved)
1. Natural Resources Advisory Board, November 20, Recommendation to Council
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
DATE: Nov 20, 2013
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Joseph Piesman on behalf of the Natural Resources Advisory Board
SUBJECT: Road to Zero Waste Plan
The NRAB received several briefings from staff and consultants on the Road to Zero Waste Plan. The
NRAB passed the following motion:
The Natural Resources Advisory Board (NRAB) applauds City staff and the consulting team for pro-
actively engaging the community in the development of the Road to Zero Waste Plan. This process included
five well attended three-hour sessions eliciting public input, the designation of an active citizen advisory
group which included representatives from the service providers and effected industries as well as key
regional governments and organizations. The team additionally met with four City advisory boards and in
individual sessions with businesses/organizations that provide reuse, recycling, collection and hauling
services in the city and county.
Zero waste is a goal that emphasizes the importance of conserving the resources that are already at work in
the community, whether human, manufactured or natural. It facilitates local job creation and a movement
toward a strong local living economy. It does however, require a basic culture change that moves
increasingly away from waste to seeing all discards as potential resources for others to use, perhaps in a
new way as another process or product. In short it emulates natural systems. This culture change will take
time, a great deal of community education, committed models and leadership. The principles of Zero Waste
and the work of the consultants, staff and community members are consistent with City Plan as well as the
Climate Action Plan.
Attachment 4
2
The NRAB recommends the City Council’s adoption of the principles of zero waste and the proposed goals
of 75% waste reduction by 2020 and 90% or more by 2025. It is also our recommendation that the NRAB
be charged with the role of working closely with staff and other City advisory boards to create a strategy for
moving the city forward on the Road to Zero Waste with an initial emphasis on strengthening the
opportunities for reuse of resources and for composting currently discarded organic materials and
addressing additional options for collection of yard trimmings.
The motion passed on a unanimous vote of 8-0 in favor.
Please feel free to contact me regarding this recommendation.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joseph Piesman
Chair, Natural Resources Advisory Board
691-6697, j.piesman@comcast.net
cc: Darin Atteberry
Susie Gordon
2. Council Futures Committee, June 10, 2013 Meeting Minutes Excerpt
Background of Project:
Update to Council in November will be what we have learned from Community.
The City put out an RFP, and then contracted with Zero Waste Associates to help us talk about what may lie
beyond once we’ve reached our goal for 50% reduction, which was adopted in 1999.
The Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan for the City of Fort Collins began in May with a working group
meeting. Today is the first visit from the Consultants and they will be touring existing facilities over the next
two days.
They have begun by looking at existing reports, facilities, web site, and meeting with service providers. It is
being built off of the City Plan pages 35-37) provides the Waste Resources linkages, this is included in the
Plan. They have added other types of linkages that were not in City Plan, and coming up with actions that
might arise and are looking how to move forward.
They will be holding public meetings:
Reduce & Reuse and Recycling: June 11 and 12 meetings
July 15-17 – focus on waste-to-clean-energy, and composting
Looking at economics in August
43-57% waste diversion levels, looking at residential and commercial
Landfills are one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas – methane gas – it produces around 71 tons
upstream for every 1 ton of municipal discards.
Benefits:
Increase in jobs – between landfill, compost, recycle and reuse can add from 1 – 250 jobs.
Attachment 4
3
80% is exported – need to reinvest resources to local businesses.
Benefits to businesses: saves money, reduces liability, increases efficiency, emissions, marketing,
clean energy and saves energy.
Benefits in communities:
Nature: did nature create it? This question that can be used as a guideline.
Not about the destination, look at journey – do not get hung up on zero.
When zero is your goal everything is on the table.
Businesses leading the way: HP, Avago, New Belgium, Miller/Coors, Intel, Woodward
Adding new jobs and business opportunities
Upstream – prevention
Clean production, product redesign, product stewardship
Downstream – recovery
Reduce and reuse, recycle, compost, clean energy, resource recovery parks
Diagram of basic concept – shows as a system in how the entire process works
Chart of different categories for a Fort Collins draft commodity analysis
Assumption in zero waste approach is that people will sort it for you.
Is this more valuable – create a blend, yard and soil together –
Examples:
2 curbside sorts – reusables come to door to pick up, chemicals – special pick up, recycle (bottle,
cans, paper) one every other week
Council can help in the following ways:
Reaching out to all of our local companies during visits
Any cost to waste and recycling is the haul cost: if you can do on site it saves money
DO 2: Next Steps
Need to have energy meetings,
Liked flow analysis – needs more that become community benefits
More meetings to follow: this was the first trip of several, will focus on different topics per trip.
3. Air Quality Advisory Board, July 15, 2013 Meeting Minutes Excerpt
Susie Gordon, Senior Environmental Planner, Environmental Services Department introduced consultants
Richard (Rick) Anthony, Gary Liss and Ruth Abbe who presented information on the Road to Zero Waste
project.
Discussion/Q&A:
Dave Dietrich asked about statistics on local landfills. Susie said that numbers include all landfills
used by Fort Collins residents and businesses in both Larimer and Weld County.
Scott Groen asked about #2 plastics and why Fort Collins hasn’t gone after them yet. He can’t
currently recycle oil and dirty antifreeze containers. He wants to know where the plastics are being
shipped. He said there is a plant in Oregon that takes dirty oil containers and retrieves the plastic and
the oil in the recycling process. He is thinking about every shop across the country that is throwing
Attachment 4
4
away these plastics. He says it is impossible to really go bulk on these items because there are
different specifications for each car. All of these items are currently going into the landfill.
Rick talked about industry responsibility. He said the worst are the oil companies. Gary sees that this
is a gap that needs to be looked at.
Scott said that oil is a commodity, but oil companies won’t take responsibility. He mentioned
Valvoline’s packaging. Now mechanics get paid for waste oil. Greg McMaster asked about the 12
market categories of waste. He wonders if in our efforts to recycle, is the single-stream practice
counter-productive? Does that need to be looked at? Gary said that this is being looked at. He gave an
example of curbside sorting in Europe. The reason for single-stream is to divert more tonnage, but
there is a contamination issue. Fort Collins has only 6% contamination, so we’re currently doing a
good job with single-stream.
Greg said that the recovery rate of glass in single-stream is less than if you take it to the recycle center
and sort it. Rick said our issue is that our glass recycling plants are too far apart, so there is additional
cost compared to landfilling it. Rick suggested one way to respond to this would be to have a recycle
deposit on glass bottles. Gary suggested another way is to invest in higher quality sorting of glass
like they do in Boulder. Gary and Rick agreed that this issue will be addressed in the draft plan.
John wanted to know if the consultants’ analysis will look at other pollutants that are precursors to
greenhouse gasses such as ozone. Gary showed a slide showing various pollutants that are reduced
when recycling. Using the WARM analysis tool they can focus on the current system vs. the proposed
system.
Tom talked about how we have large beer producers here that may be zero waste in production, but
he wonders about the waste value of the commodity, such as packaging. Rick mentioned refillable
containers as an option. Tom wants to see the outgoing product having less packaging. He wonders
about incentives. Gary talked about incentives they are using elsewhere, including a point system to
be recognized as Zero Waste Businesses being developed by the U.S. Zero Waste Business Council
(USZWBC), including addressing not making “waste-able” products, the triple bottom line,
environmental best practices and giving points for those who follow them. The USZWBC is creating
a rating system for the companies that adhere to the guidelines. One incentive idea that could be
developed and piloted could be around EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility), possibly with New
Belgium Brewing.
Dave asked if the waste reduction/recycling plan is just for Fort Collins and whether there would be
mandates. Gary said we are trying to create a system with rules, not mandates, which work toward the
triple bottom line. We are looking for win-win ideas. Community brainstorming is important in
creating the right plan for Fort Collins. Gary talked about how the City has banned electronics from
landfills, and about core charges for car batteries. Rick noted that we have ended smoking in bars and
have gotten people to wear seatbelts as a result of people working in the interest of their health. Ruth
Abbe talked about the plan being City-specific, but that there could be items that recommend actions
by the county or state-wide.
Tom asked about the oil and gas industry’s rapid growth in Colorado and how our consumption
impacts oil and gas elsewhere.
Melissa Hovey wanted to know in what format the consultants want feedback from this board. Gary
said they are urging people to come to the public meetings, as Council will be provided detailed input
from those community meetings. He also requested comments by August 1. At fcgov.com/zerowaste/
there is a form people can fill out to submit personal comments.
Attachment 4
5
4. Natural Resources Advisory Board, July 17, 2013 Meeting Minutes Excerpt
Gary Liss, Zero Waste Associates, provided preliminary findings and observations from the consulting firm’s
perspective about developing new goal(s) for the community’s waste reduction and recycling program.
Discussion/Q&A:
Joe Piesman asked who was on the Working Group. Susie Gordon explained that the group is
stakeholders: citizens, business owners, etc. They are to function as a sounding board as a cross
section from the community. Bob Mann added that the group is more free form, back and forth, and
about clarifying information than an advisory board would be.
Phil Friedman asked about keeping hazards out the composting process, like pathogens. Gary Liss
explained that the materials are sterilized when a complete composting process is done. The most
problematic items to deal with are diapers and pet feces.
Harry Edwards asked if this plan would be integrated with the County or just City. Gary explained
that this is a City plan, but there are discussions to work cooperatively with the County and with the
city of Loveland. There are regional dynamics at play. Harry asked if there would be a City facility.
Gary said they haven’t yet determined this. They know they need facilities, but they could be public,
private, City, County, etc.
Harry asked whether the work would look at the cost effectiveness of recycling these items. Gary said
that once the recycling method and facility options are identified, the cost analysis would be done. He
said that in Austin they divided programs into voluntary initiatives, mandated initiatives, and city
programs that the city would build and run itself. He noted that initiatives cost significantly less than
building facilities.
Phil asked about plastics #3-7 and why they are problematic at this time. Susie gave the examples of
buckets, children’s’ toys, and items of heavier plastic. Gary explained that the plastic codes are not as
helpful as they should be. It is hard to communicate to the public the differences in the plastics.
Harry asked if they have considered bringing in the private sector for this task. Gary explained that
they have met with all of the current haulers, the Chamber of Commerce, reuse businesses (i.e., thrift
stores), Colorado Iron and Metal, A1 Organics, and others. They are meeting with private sector and
have heard the message that this community prefers a competitive free market.
Joe Piesman saw in the paper that there is an issue with glass bottles in curbside recycling. He read
that what happens is that most of the glass that goes into curbside recycling bins ends up getting
ground up and used as landfill cover, whereas the separated recycling at Rivendell has a great
recovery rate. Susie explained that on a good day 20-30% of glass in single-stream was getting
recycled. The plant manager at some point abandoned efforts to recover the glass and it is all used for
a secondary purpose. such as lining trenches and other non-recycling uses.
Bob Mann said that when you go to single-stream you up the contamination of all the recyclables.
The single-stream increases the volume that we are recycling. This is happening all over the country,
especially with glass. An option is to remove glass from the single-stream.
Gary said that our contract has check and balances. We only have 6.7% overall contamination rate of
the single-stream, which is very good nationally. He mentioned that glass is a problem material from
this perspective but that it is a healthier product than plastic for food / beverage containers. Joe
mentioned perhaps having a direct drop-off for glass so it can be recycled. Gary said Susie is bringing
stakeholders together to look at potential solutions. He talked about the possibility of a cleanup
Attachment 4
6
facility to clean up the glass to meet the market standard to recycle it. Another option is more
collection centers like the Rivendell center. Glass that cannot be recycled is currently being used to
serve an engineering function, such as lining trenches, liners, and drainage, but this is not the highest
and best use of this material. Gary said that our bottle-making plants are bringing in glass from
“bottle-bill” states like Iowa to get the clean glass they need while we are stockpiling used glass that
we cannot recycle.
Paul Nastu asked about household products that are hard to recycle. Gary talked about priority
materials that are hard to recycle or toxic. He noted our ban on e-waste in the landfill addresses both
hard to recycle and toxic products. Susie and Gary talked about having more companies become
involved in Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) programs and take back their products when
used, like CFC bulbs and car batteries.
Bob talked about two years ago when he served on an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
packaging council; they looked at how companies could take more responsibility for their packaging
materials that end up in landfills (EPR).
Gary said there are EPR successes happening state to state. British Columbia is about to implement a
take back program so that producers have to take back their paper and packaging, and manage it
themselves. So far it is not going well and has had a lot of pushback. The focus on toxics and hard to
recycle materials is a great place to focus EPR tools. Companies are coming to the table to discuss the
options with EPA. A plastic bag fee initiative has been on the table in Fort Collins. There could be
bans on things going into the landfill, and things from being sold (like mercury thermometers).
Colorado has a Colorado Product Stewardship Council. The average rate of return on auto batteries is
97%, but the average household hazardous waste return rate is only 1-10%. That means that 90%+ is
going down drain, into the dump, or dumped illegally. EPR and Product Stewardship tools are
working to develop a system that works.
Phil asked about exploring getting glass out of the single-stream. He wonders if then we’d need some
other material that may be less benign for its secondary use in trench lining, etc. Gary said we may
want to keep glass in the single-stream, but also offer more recycle centers. He suggested the
possibility of cooperating with a larger region to build a cleanup center for the glass. He said it may
be optimal to have multiple ways for people to choose how they want to recycle.
Joe Piesman would like to see more information from Gary in October.
5. Natural Resources Advisory Board, October 16, 2013 Meeting Minutes Excerpt
Susie Gordon, Sr. Environmental Planner, reviewed initial recommendations from the draft Waste Reduction
and Recycling Master Plan. The consultants Gary Liss and Rick Anthony (Zero Waste Associates) for the
project received input from the Board.
Discussion/Q&A:
Phil asked how you determine the value for reusable materials. Susie said all numbers have been
ground tested. Rick said these values were higher originally when he performed the market analysis
for materials in the waste stream. A lot of this is being landfilled currently because Colorado doesn’t
have any laws about reusables.
Harry asked if when we talk about CO2 in the plan, are we talking about stationary combustion or
vehicles. Susie said it is about emissions from the landfill, and from manufacturing and production of
Attachment 4
7
new goods. Nearly 50% of the City’s reduction of GHG emissions has been attributable to waste
diversion/recycling activities.
Harry said when you consider the broad range of emissions and what happens before and after the
waste is managed, the number is substantially more important. Susie added that this is why it is a
main strategy in the Climate Action Plan.
Joe Piesman asked how much harder it is to do zero waste when you have free market haulers. Gary
said from a municipality’s perspective, if you do hauling/collection through one provider, it is easier.
But in analyses done in the ‘90s, the EPA concluded that the free market system works just as well,
and sometimes better than a contracted system using a single hauler. It is dependent on how willing a
single franchisee or municipality is to change, and how well the free market was doing beforehand.
Rick added that in Fresno and Los Angeles, there was competitive hauling. The haulers are looking
for profit, so if there is a level playing field, they will figure out how to adjust rates.
Liz asked about pet waste. Gary said that this and diapers are the most difficult to deal with. Joe said
if that goes with the rubbish instead of the compostables, it will begin to stink. Gary said that if you
can compost pet waste, you change the whole situation. But most people put pet waste in plastic bags,
which are not compostable.
Phil asked about kitty litter. He said it is clay mixed with organic matter. Gary said it hasn’t been a
problem so far. Rick said the clay is compatible with compostables, but the plastic packaging is not.
Harry asked if this program would be capable of paying for itself. Susie said the haulers need some
flexibility to make this work. We can’t expect them to absorb the costs. However, can they look at the
pay-as-you throw (PAYT ordinance) structure to see how to make this work for the haulers?
Joe Piesman said he is with the one company that does yard waste. Susie said what they are talking
about in the recommendation for weekly service to collect compost/food scraps is not an additional
charge, but universal. Joe said the haulers will have to charge more. Rick said that it will be important
for the hauler to not have to move the materials very far and that the cost comes from the educational
programs and culture change. Susie said that adding the curbside yard waste recycling will reduce
what goes into the landfill, not how much the hauler is picking up at the house.
Harry asked if the program was successful, could the City stop its subsidizing program. Susie said the
City is doing education and managing a drop off site, but not subsidizing.
Joe asked how optimizing the use of food waste is determined. Susie said it is about grocery stores
pulling items from their shelves that are near expiration date and giving them to the Food Bank. Rick
talked about how there could be trucks to pick up prepared food from restaurants to get to hungry
persons as well.
Bob Mann said they are going to ask Council to adopt Zero Waste goals, not the specifics of the plan.
They don’t necessarily want the Council going through the strategies and trying to predict what will
and won’t work. We aren’t in a position to implement these strategies now anyway.
Susie added that these are relational. For example, we have to wait for a composting facility to be
built in order to begin composting. They will not give Council an 80-page plan, but a summary, with
the intent of coming back to Council in the BFO process with specific proposals in the future.
John Bartholow said it’s a chicken and egg thing. He would be on board with the goals, but if they
aren’t achievable with what we have now, maybe we need to change our goals. Susie said the 50%
reduction goal seemed impossible when it was implemented, but it has been attained.
Joe Piesman said the closest thing is the Climate Action Plan, that is a mandate to staff and the
community to be thinking always about what can be done.
Attachment 4
8
Rick added that the entire state of California made a goal of 75% waste reduction. If you go with a
zero waste approach, everything is on the table.
Liz said she is very excited about this. We talk about being leaders and incorporating the triple
bottom line and this is a way to do this with waste. It gets people thinking and next thing you know
we have a composting facility in the community.
Joe Piesman asked how the board can be involved. Bob Mann asked if the recommendation would be
appropriate to make before the work session. Joe Piesman suggests a board member draft a
recommendation and the board vote on it in the November meeting.
Bob Mann said this is a natural area of interest for the NRAB, to take a proactive role in choosing the
strategies and supporting the staff. There are other boards we can work with as well. He would like to
see Council tell us to do that.
Liz asked if there was a citizen advisory group. Susie described the informal advisory group; 10
members attended 8 meetings over the last six months including haulers, city of Loveland, Larimer
County, recyclers, etc.
Joe Piesman added that he didn’t expect the haulers to be the most forward thinking group, but they
seem to be with the program and in favor of moving toward zero waste.
Susie added that they had a meeting with a hauler yesterday who said that in 2006-07 there was a
switch in people’s mentality about recycling in Fort Collins, that it became an assumption from their
customers that they would engage in curbside recycling, rather than just an option.
Joe said there seems to be a separation between residential and commercial. He foresees residential
changes attracting the most controversy, but the commercial may be the biggest bang for the buck in
changes in the way waste is handled. Gary said that of each of the types of material that are found in
Fort Collins’ waste stream, composting provides the biggest bang; the next biggest is demolition and
C&D because of the investment that is coming over the next decade in development and
redevelopment.
6. Energy Board, November 7, 2013 Meeting Unapproved Minutes Excerpt
Summary of Recommendations Listed in Waste Reduction and Recycling Master Plan (“Road to
Zero Waste”)
(Attachment available upon request).
Senior Environmental Planner Susie Gordon presented information on this item.
Background
City Council asked for ideas on future directions to take now that the 1999 goal to divert 50
percent of waste from landfilling has been reached.
Public meetings were held from June through October. Information from these meetings will be
presented at a Council Work Session on November 26, 2013.
Zero Waste: Reduce/Reuse then Recycle, Compost, Redesign
Ms. Gordon presented a chart showing Fort Collins Commodity Analysis. Approximately 140,000 tons of
materials are thrown into the landfill each year. These include commodities such as textiles, metals, glass,
and paper. The chart also showed the annual revenues lost from these commodities.
Attachment 4
9
Goals and Objectives
Zero Waste Goal by 2035
75 percent waste diversion by 2020
90 percent waste diversion by 2025
Reduce per capita waste disposal
From 5.12 lbs per person per day to 2.2 lbs by 2025
Values and Principles
Choice and Diversity (diverse solutions, support open, free market)
Universal opportunities for recycling
New rules and incentives
City’s role: adopt clear goals, help educate, facilitate and enforce rules
Recommendations
Universal recycling
Prohibit materials from landfilling
Construction, deconstruction, and demolition
Composting organic materials
Promote reduce and reuse
Waste to Clean Energy
Partner with Colorado State University (CSU) to research innovative technologies
(Current pilot using CSU cafeteria food-pulp in Drake Water Reclamation Facility)
Adopt hierarchy of highest and best use for conversion technologies suitable for Fort
Collins
Culture Change (enhance educational programs)
Reinvest Resources in Local Economy
Product Stewardship (fees on products, packaging)
Funding
Regional Cooperation (partnerships to establish infrastructure for waste diversion)
Highlights from the discussion:
A board member inquired about burning waste versus recycling waste and the public perception
regarding this. Ms. Gordon stated yes, there is concern about incinerators, especially in this
region.
A board member inquired about the anaerobic bio-digestion process. Ms. Gordon stated after the
methane is captured, there is organic material that still needs to go through the composting
process. The material from the wastewater treatment plants in Fort Collins goes to Meadow
Springs Ranch for land application. This is a carefully monitored process. The board member also
inquired about the pyrolysis process, which converts organic waste into carbon or “char.” Some
individuals believe there may be an application process for this.
A board member inquired about educational outreach opportunities regarding recycling. Ms.
Gordon feels there should be better communication regarding this topic. There have also been
challenges regarding educational outreach in the schools.
Environmental Services Director Lucinda Smith expressed her appreciation to the board members that
attended the Community Conversation (“Open House”) events. Five of these events have been conducted
over the last six months. Each one was devoted to a specific topic and included a cross-section of
individuals including local waste haulers and representatives from the Larimer County landfill, CSU, and
the City of Loveland.
1
Public Involvement in Development of a Road to Zero Waste Plan
The consulting firm Zero Waste Associates
(ZWA) was contracted in 2013 to help
develop new goals for Fort Collins and a
plan for how to reach them. Drawing on
experience from working with other U.S.
cities as well as international clients, ZWA
followed a “Road to Zero Waste” theme that
helped inspire and stimulate thinking
“outside the box.”
City staff applied a comprehensive process
to involve the public in discussions about
new goals for the Fort Collins community,
and to obtain public input.
Community Conversations
Five open house events were held on focus
areas of the plan that featured presentations
by ZWA, which were then followed by
vigorous discussions with the audience.
1. Reduce and Reuse (June 11)
2. Recycling (June 12)
3. Composting (July 16)
4. Waste to Clean Energy (July 27)
5. Core Concepts - Road to Zero Waste Plan
(October 15)
More than 250 people attended at least one
Community Conversation over the six-month
outreach and involvement period. Extensive
flip-chart notes were transcribed from each of
the meetings to document comments; attendees
were also invited to fill out comment cards.
Each of the five Community Conversations were
videotaped and frequently rebroadcast on the
City’s cable television channel 14 throughout
the summer and fall of 2013.
Staff posted invitations to Twitter and Facebook for the Community Conversations
(2,300 views on Facebook), distributed posters, and placed ads in the Coloradoan,
Northern Colorado Business Report, CSU Life and the Collegian. Articles in CityNews
and press releases to the media kept the community informed about the planning process.
The Fort Collins Coloradoan wrote two articles about the Road to Zero Waste project.
2
Dedicated Website
The City created a website (www.fcgov.com/zerowaste) where information was available
about the planning process and updates were posted as ideas began to take shape for new
approaches for the City to apply to waste reduction and recycling. The website provided
links to the Community Conversations videotapes as well as online comment forms.
Presentations to City Boards and Commissions
City staff and consultants met with key boards to discuss the Road to Zero Waste project,
including the Natural Resources Advisory Board (twice), Air Quality Advisory Board,
Energy Board, Economic Advisory Commission, and the Council Futures Committee.
Stakeholder Meetings
Numerous interviews with stakeholders and site visits were conducted, including: Fort
Collins’ licensed residential waste haulers; Clean Air Composting; ClimateWise Partners;
Chamber of Commerce Legislative Affairs and Environmental Committees; Northern
Colorado Rental Housing Association; Larimer County Food Bank; Fort Collins
Sustainability Group; Fort Collins Sustainable Living Association; Colorado State
University, including student Eco Leaders, the Live Green Team, and the Sustainability,
Energy and Environmental Advisory Committee; the Fort Collins Board of Realtors;
North College Business Association; Poudre School District; Larimer County Public
Works staff; City of Loveland staff; Drake Wastewater Treatment Plant staff; the City’s
Chief Building Official; and City Sustainability Services staff.
As a special training opportunity, ZWA held a workshop in October for ClimateWise
partners to discuss innovations in the business sector for reducing waste.
The consulting team also toured many reuse, recycling, composting, waste-to-energy and
landfill facilities in the area, including: Larimer County Landfill and Material Recovery
Facility and Household Hazardous Waste Facility; Waste Management of Northern
Colorado Landfill; Drake Water Reclamation Facility; the CSU Earth Flow composting
operation, CSU’s surplus property reuse operation, and several “tray-less” cafeterias on
the campus; the City Earth Tub composting pilot project; A-1 Organics Composting in
Eaton; Hageman’s Earth Cycle Composting; Rocky Mountain Battery and Recycling;
Fort Collins ReSource store (architectural salvage and reuse); Waste-Not Recycling;
Uncle Benny’s Building Supplies; Habitat for Humanity; Colorado Iron and Metal;
Loveland’s recycling drop-off center; the City’s Recycling Drop-off Center at Rivendell
School; and the Streets Department’s Hoffman Mill Road Crushing Facility.
Road to Zero Waste Working Group
The City invited an informal Working Group to provide input throughout the process.
The group, representing a cross-section of different stakeholders, invested many hours in
thoughtful discussion to help familiarize the consultants with conditions that are unique
to Colorado’s landfill and recycling infrastructure along the Northern Front Range, and
other local issues to consider when recommending new directions and strategies. The
City of Fort Collins is very grateful for the knowledgeable input contributed by the
3
following colleagues, business associates, and citizens who participated on the Working
Group:
Marty Garvin, Colorado Iron and Metal
Art Gallegos and Matt Gallegos, Gallegos Sanitation, Inc.
Dean Hoag, Rocky Mt. Battery and Recycling
Robert Mann, Natural Resources Advisory Board
Tyler Bandemer, City of Loveland
Stephen Gillette, Larimer County Solid Waste Department
Stacey Baumgarn, CSU Facilities Management
Mary Smith, interested member of the community
ATTACHMENT 7
2
Now that our 1999 goal to
divert 50% of waste from
landfilling has been
reached, what should
be next?
June – Oct.: public meetings, site visits, interviews
Aug. – Sept.: Analysis, draft (Zero Waste Plan)
Nov. 26 – Worksession
Dec. 17 – Council Hearing
3
Proposed Goals and Objectives
Zero Waste Goal by 2030
– 75% waste diversion by 2020
– 90% by 2025
Reduce Per Capita Waste
Disposal
– from 5.12 lbs/person/day to
2.8 pounds by 2025
4
Reduce/reuse then recycle, compost, and redesign
the rest.
Highest and best use of resources to:
• reduce greenhouse gases and conserve
resources
• protect the environment, extend landfill lifespans
• reinvest in local economy, create jobs, help local
businesses operate at reduced costs & liabilities
Zero Waste = Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
5
Recyclables
• Paper
• Metals
• Glass
• Plastics
Other
• Re-usables
• Textiles
• Rock
Compostable
• Food-soiled paper
• Plant debris
• Food scraps
• Soil
What’s In Fort Collins’ Trash?
6
Fort Collins Commodity Analysis
Categories
Annual
Tons
Annual Revenue
Lost ($)
1. Reuse 5,600 2,240,000
2. Textiles 8,300 664,000
3. Plastics 19,500 1,950,000
4. Metals 5,600 448,000
5. Glass 2,800 556,000
6. Paper 34,800 696,000
7. Organics (food, etc.) 19,500 136,500
8. Plant Debris 22,200 155,400
9. Wood 7,000 56,000
10. Soils 4,200 29,400
11. Ceramics 8,300 33,200
12. Chemicals 1,400 1,400
139,100 $6,465,900
7
Road to Zero Waste Plan
Strategies
1. Culture Change
2. Reinvest Resources in Local Economy
3. Universal Recycling
4. Prohibit Materials from Landfilling
5. Construction & Demolition
8
Strategies, cont.
6. Composting Organic Materials
7. Promote Reduce and Reuse
8. Product Stewardship
9. Waste-to-Clean-Energy
10. Funding
11. Regional Cooperation
9
Costs to City
Possible new Zero Waste programs (up to $564K
per year over time)
• Ramped up education & outreach
• Loans to recycling businesses
• Resource Recovery Park
• Later: sponsor re-use warehouse
• Funding options:
– submit to Budgeting for Outcomes process
– $0.65/month fee for households & businesses
– Grants
10
Costs For Rate Payers
Proposed curbside organics (composting) collection
• Starting 2015, phased in over 5-6 years
• Customers may opt-out
• Allow haulers greater flexibility setting rates that
cover new services
Other new services:
• Users of future composting facility pay estimated
$37/ton compared to $18 for using landfill
• C&D facility; “tipping fee” estimated $55/ton
11
Investment Considerations: New
Zero Waste Facilities
1. composting facility
• $7-9M
• Preferably private investment, ownership
2. construction & demolition recycling facility
• $5-7M
• Assumes private investment, ownership
3. glass sorting facility
• $400,000
• Complementary to existing recycling facility
12
Financial Issues
Lost commodity values $6.5M / year, fewer jobs in
recycling because commodities are sent to landfills
Landfills charge $18 per ton (very low compared to
rest of the country) but certain to rise over time
Larimer County landfill ~12 years lifespan
– New landfill construction costs between $20M
(start-up on existing County property) and
$85M (full replacement value)
13
Redirect to using new
management systems
• Costs to build new
facilities $12-17M
• Follow emerging
opportunities,
markets, technology
– Be positioned to
implement innovations
Redirect to using new
management systems
• Costs to build new
facilities $12-17M
• Follow emerging
opportunities,
markets, technology
– Be positioned to
implement innovations
Future of Waste Expenditures
Stay with traditional
systems, technology
• construction for new
landfill $20-80M
Redirect to using new
management systems
• Costs to build new
facilities $12-17M
• Follow emerging
opportunities,
markets, technology
– Be positioned to
implement innovations
versus
14
If you’re not for Zero
Waste, how much waste
are you for?
15
• Susie Gordon, Sr. Environmental Planner
970-221-6265, sgordon@fcgov.com
• Caroline Mitchell, Environmental Planner
970-221-6288, cmitchell@fcgov.com
• Gary Liss, Zero Waste Associates
• 916-652-7850, gary@garyliss.com
More information:
http://www.fcgov.com/zerowaste/
16
Proposal: New Goals for Consideration
1. Zero Waste by 2030 and per capita waste
reductions (2.8 lbs./person/day by 2025)
2. Interim targets of 75% waste diversion by
2020, and 90% by 2025
- 1 -
RESOLUTION 2013-111
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
ESTABLISHING A WASTE DIVERSION POLICY
WHEREAS, in 1985, the City first began to investigate programs to educate the public
about recycling and solid waste reduction; and
WHEREAS, in November 1994, staff presented to the City Council an integrated,
comprehensive approach to solid waste management entitled the Integrated Municipal Solid
Waste Program, which included targets for waste reduction and recycling; and
WHEREAS, in May 1995, the Council adopted Resolution 1995-063, which identified
specific objectives to be accomplished in relation to waste stream reduction, including the goals
of reducing Fort Collins’ total waste stream by 20% between 1993 and 2000, and reducing
landfilled waste by 20% to 30% during that period; and
WHEREAS, in June 1995, the Council enacted Ordinance No. 58, 1995, requiring
residential trash haulers in Fort Collins to apply variable rates (“pay-as-you-throw”) and provide
curbside recycling services at no extra charge, in order to encourage the reduction and diversion
of solid waste in residential households; and
WHEREAS, in August 1999, staff presented to Council an Interim Solid Waste Plan, a
copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection, which
Plan included an analysis of the overall waste diversion rate for the community’s municipal solid
waste that was based on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Characterization of Municipal
Solid Waste in the United States (1996), and used data submitted to the City by local trash
hauling companies pursuant to the requirements of their trash hauling licenses in calculating the
total volume of municipal solid waste generated in Fort Collins; and
WHEREAS, based on its analysis, staff concluded that 24% of solid waste in Fort Collins
was being diverted from landfill disposal, as of February, 1999; and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 1999, the Council adopted Resolution 1999-139,
establishing waste diversion goals of 35% by 2004, and 50% by 2010; and
WHEREAS, data from 2012 submitted to the City by local trash hauling companies and
other entities in Fort Collins have been analyzed and show that the community-wide waste
diversion rate for households, businesses and industry has now reached a level of 58%
(representing 5.12 pounds of material disposed of in landfills per capita per day); and
WHEREAS, 75-91% of respondents to the City’s 2011 Air Quality and Recycling Survey
agreed that businesses, multi-family homes and single-family homes should be required to
recycle and that yard waste collection service should be offered to single-family homes; and
- 2 -
WHEREAS, public involvement was conducted during 2013 at the request of the City
Council, to establish the new levels of waste reduction and recycling that should be sought in the
future; and
WHEREAS, comments from citizens and other stakeholders throughout 2013 were
received expressing support for adopting a goal of diversion of 100% of the community’s waste
stream, referred to as “Zero Waste,” and a per capita goal to reduce waste, setting a course for
Fort Collins to join the ranks of leading Zero Waste businesses and dozens of communities
around the world and America in striving for new ways of managing the discards that are
generated from households, businesses, and industry and diverting more material from landfill
disposal; and
WHEREAS, a plan referred to as “the Road to Zero Waste” has been written that outlines
principles and values for how the community will go about striving for new waste reduction
goals, and identifies which actions the City should take in the next ten to twenty years that will
most strategically deliver results; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the importance of prolonging the life span of
the Larimer County Landfill through waste diversion measures to further delay its closure; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further recognizes that increased and sustained waste
reduction and recycling have direct economic and environmental benefits to the local and global
community; and
WHEREAS, goals for achieving Zero Waste build on key principles for Environmental
Health adopted in the City’s master plan (“City Plan”) that call for sustainable waste resources
management; and
WHEREAS, goals for achieving Zero Waste support climate protection strategies
adopted in Fort Collins’ Climate Action Plan that identify the need to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from landfills and from manufacturing activities that use virgin materials instead of
recycled commodities; and
WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, it is the City Council’s desire to adopt updated
waste diversion and reduction goals, with the goal of achieving “Zero Waste” by the year 2030,
as set forth below.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That it shall be the policy of the City to work toward the goal of diverting
100% of the Fort Collins community solid waste stream from disposal to reuse or recycling by
2030, with interim goals of 75% diversion by 2020 and 90% diversion by 2025.
- 3 -
Section 2. That, in addition, it shall be the policy of the City to work toward the goal
of reducing per capita waste generation in Fort Collins to an average of 2.8 pounds per day by
2025.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this
17th day of December, A.D. 2013.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk