HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/14/2012 - REPORT ON INTEGRATED RECYCLING FACILITY (FEASIBILIDATE: February 14, 2012
STAFF: Susie Gordon
Bruce Hendee
Pre-taped staff presentation: available
at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php
WORK SESSION ITEM
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Report on Integrated Recycling Facility (Feasibility Analysis).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To help reach the community’s goal of diverting 50% of the waste stream, the City examined drop-
off systems which would facilitate materials diversion for residents. A consulting firm was hired
in 2011 to do the work using Keep Fort Collins Great funds. This work session will review a final
draft of an Integrated Recycling Facility (IRF) report that evaluates three types of expanded drop-off
facilities, including analyses of each option’s financial structure and waste diversion potential.
Geographic siting information and property costs were evaluated for 23 properties in Fort Collins
as part of the IRF study. Because the sites represent potential real estate transactions they will not
be discussed in the work session. However, it would be useful to gather Council perspective on
general location considerations within the City.
A second consulting project currently underway, called the Waste Stream Study and Waste Stream
Conversion Technologies Review, will not be discussed until a later work session.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
• Which, if any, of the options in the IRF report would the Council consider the best fit for the
community?
Staff would like direction from Council on whether an Integrated Recycling Facility should be
brought forward as an Offer in the upcoming Budgeting for Outcomes process.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
The City Council directed staff to examine how to create infrastructure necessary to divert more of
the recyclables in Fort Collins’ waste stream from being sent to landfills for disposal. The City
Recycling Drop-off Center, co-located with the Rivendell School on Riverside, was built in 2002.
It continues to be a popular destination for citizens to take conventional recyclables such as
cardboard, paper, and commingled containers. Citizens make an average of 400 trips per day. In the
2011 Air Quality and Recycling Survey, many respondents provided comments suggesting the City
take a role in providing a broader range of recycling opportunities for citizens (Attachment 2).
February 14, 2012 Page 2
About a dozen business places in Fort Collins allow the public to drop off a single material in the
harder-to-recycle category, such as metal goods and appliances, electronics, scrap wood and yard
debris, and concrete and asphalt. These drop-off sites are less well known and not always
convenient for public use. Customers must source-separate each type of debris for drop-off at
different locations as opposed to going to a single recycling destination.
Three options for expanded community drop-off facilities were developed in the IRF study:
Option 1: New Recycling Center
• Build a new, free-standing recycling center at a location to-be-determined in Fort Collins,
which could be expanded over time in four stages to collect a broader variety of recyclables
• the initial target materials include ferrous (steel) and non-ferrous (aluminum, copper) metal
goods, concrete/tiles/brick, electronics, clothing/rags (“textiles”), and cardboard.
N Green waste (dimensional lumber, yard debris) would be added at a fourth phase
• this composition is often found in mixed (non-segregated) loads generated at construction
sites, and by remodelers and handy-man/repair businesses referred to in the report as landfill
“self-haul” customers.
Option 2: New Bins at Existing Facility
• Add several new bins at City’s drop-off facility on Riverside to collect more types of
recyclables such as:
N metals
N possibly, heavy-duty plastics such as outdoor toys and buckets
Option 3: New Facility on City-owned property
• Build a combined-purpose IRF on property owned by the City for comprehensive recycling
activities, starting with green waste, which could be expanded over time in two stages.
• the target materials include lawn clippings, leaves, tree and garden debris
• the targeted users include residents and several City departments (Forestry, Parks, and
Utilities)
The IRF Report does not provide recommendations on how any of these options would enable the
City to develop a drop-off system for household hazardous wastes (HHW) such as old gasoline,
solvents, or paint. The consultants were unable to show how this type of service, which is extremely
costly, could be built into a financial pro-forma. Staff will continue researching ways that the City
could incorporate some type of year-round HHW services into a new recycling facility. For
instance, with proper design considerations, it may be feasible to accept some less-hazardous
materials such as batteries, compact fluorescent bulbs, or latex paint for recycling.
February 14, 2012 Page 3
Environmental Impacts
Recycling and waste reduction contribute to a variety of environmental benefits, including lower
greenhouse gas emissions, both from avoided landfill methane and from “up-stream” energy usage
when new products are manufactured from virgin materials; water conservation and reduced
pollution associated with re-manufacturing; fewer raw materials mined and therefore natural habitat
and ecosystems conserved; and longer lifespans for landfills that also result in savings to taxpayers.
In 2010, the community reached a 43% diversion rate, according to data collected by the City.
Nearly 77,000 tons of discarded materials were composted or recycled. An additional 20,000 tons
were calculated to have been source-reduced in Fort Collins. At the same time, 130,000 tons were
sent to landfills which still contained significant amounts of material that could have been recycled.
For instance, 30% of Larimer County’s landfill intake was comprised of organic discards and
another 25% was paper (Figure 4-1, Larimer County Landfill Waste Characterization, at
http://www.larimer.org/solidwaste/publications/WasteSort.pdf.).
Estimates were made in the IRF report on the amount of additional material that could potentially
be diverted from landfills by each of the three recommended approaches to expanding Fort Collins’
drop-off recycling capabilities.
Tons of materials (new recovery) for four drop-off recycling scenarios:
Diversion Potential
Low Medium High
Option 1: Phase 1 7,719
Option 1: Phase 2 15,438
Option 1: Phase 3 19,500
Option 1: Phase 4 36,563
Option 2: Current Facility
additions
300
Option 3: Phase 1 7,410
Option 3: Phase 2 22,230
With a new Integrated Recycling Facility in Fort Collins, changes to the City’s diversion rate would
be anticipated to occur, ranging from an increase of less than 1% at the low end of the spectrum
(additions to the current Recycling Center), to an increase of 13.5% for a fully built-out Option 1
facility.
Financial Impacts
The aggregated financial value of materials that would be collected at an IRF is fairly low. It is
assumed by the consultants that private entities would not invest in the capital costs and operational
costs for an IRF because of lack of profitability. If the Fort Collins community is interested in
having a facility, the report concludes that the City would need to pay for the land and construction
costs and be responsible for ensuring funds are available for ongoing operations. While this
wouldn’t preclude the possibility of partnering with one or more local businesses at some level to
provide services to the public at the site, the costs would need to be largely born by taxpayers, and/or
paid through some level of user fees.
February 14, 2012 Page 4
The study enumerates the new jobs associated with the construction of expanded recycling drop-
offs. New research shows 10-20 times the number of jobs are produced by the recovery/recycling
industry, on a per ton basis, than are produced by the landfill industry. The level of attention given
to the job-creation potential of recycling activities is evidenced by a recent television interview
given by Lisa Jackson, head of the Environmental Protection Agency
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMyj_FoHLXY), when Ms. Jackson stated that if the US were
to reach an 80-90% waste diversion rate, it would create millions of “homegrown” jobs. Fort
Collins would be likely to create financial benefits to the community from an Integrated Recycling
Facility.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Integrated Recycling Facility; Feasibility Analysis – Final Draft Report (January, 2012) with
Real Estate details redacted
2. Excerpts from Fort Collins 2011 Air Quality/Recycling Survey: Recycling questions, report
of results
3. Powerpoint presentation
Attachment 1
February 14, 2012
Worksession
Integrated Recycling Facility
Feasibility Analysis
FINAL DRAFT REPORT Ver. 4
Real Estate Information for Sites Not Included in this Version
Prepared for
Prepared by:
SloanVAZQUEZLLC
Municipal Solid Waste & Recycling Advisors
18006 Skypark Circle, Suite 205
Irvine, CA 92614
Office: 866.241.4533
Fax: 714.276.0625
info@sloanvazquez.com
and
15230 Burbank Blvd, Suite 103
Sherman Oaks, CA 91411
Office: 818.267.511
cclements@clementsenvironmental.com
January 2012
18006 Skypark Circle • Suite 205 • Irvine, CA 92614
Office: 866.241.4533 • FAX: 714.276.0625 • info@sloanvazquez.com
SloanVAZQUEZLLC
Municipal Solid Waste Management & Recycling Advisors
January 2012
Susan Gordon
Project Manager, Natural Resources
City of Fort Collins
215 North Mason St., 2nd Floor
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: Project No. 7249 – Integrated Recycling Facility Analysis – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted)
Dear Ms. Gordon:
Sloan Vazquez, LLC and Clements Environmental are pleased to submit this Final Draft of the Integrated
Recycling Facility (IRF) Feasibility Analysis to the City of Fort Collins.
Our hope is that this report will provide the City with findings and recommendations that will allow the
City to make an informed and sound decision regarding how to increase diversion levels in the City of
Fort Collins and how to proceed with the development of the IRF, if the decision is made to do so.
We would like to express our sincere appreciation to all those who participated and assisted in our
efforts to conduct this assessment, which would not have been possible without the guidance and
support of City staff.
If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this assessment, please call me or
Enrique Vazquez at (866) 241-4533. We look forward to future opportunities to continue assisting the
City with solid waste management and recycling issues.
Cordially,
Joe Sloan
President
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
i
This page left intentionally blank.
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background .....................................................................................................................1
1.2 Report Structure..............................................................................................................1
2.0 INTEGRATED RECYCLING FACILITY OPTIONS .......................................................... 2
2.1 OPTION 1: Stand-Alone IRF..............................................................................................4
2.1.1 PHASE 1 – Small Volume Start-Up Operation (Up to 250 Cubic Yards per Day) ...................... 5
2.1.2 PHASE 2 – Medium Volume Operation (250-500 Cubic Yards per Day).................................. 7
2.1.3 PHASE 3 – Large Volume Operation (500-750 Cubic Yards per Day)....................................... 8
2.1.4 PHASE 4 – Large Volume IRF (500-1,450 Cubic Yards per Day, Plus Organic Materials
and/or C&D Processing Operations) .................................................................. 11
2.2 OPTION 2: Expansion of Rivendell School Drop-Off Operation.........................................16
2.3 OPTION 3: Stand-Alone Green Waste Recovery Operation .............................................18
2.3.1 PHASE 1 – 25 Tons of Green Waste..................................................................................... 18
2.3.2 PHASE 2 – 75 Tons of Green Waste..................................................................................... 19
2.4 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS...............................................................................................19
3.0 PROPERTY INVENTORIES..................................................................................... 22
3.1 Screening-Level Site Evaluations.....................................................................................22
3.2 Detailed Evaluation Criteria............................................................................................22
3.3 Compilation of Data.......................................................................................................22
3.4 Analysis of Sites.............................................................................................................23
4.0 FINANCIAL MODELS ............................................................................................ 26
4.1 Option 1 – Financial Model.............................................................................................26
4.2 Option 2 – Financial Model.............................................................................................30
4.3 Option 3 – Financial Model.............................................................................................30
5.0 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................... 32
6.0 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... 34
6.1 Appendix A – Conceptual Site Plan
6.2 Appendix B – Site Evaluation Worksheets
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
iii
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1 – Option 1-Stand Alone IRF Summary.......................................................................................... 4
Table 2 – Option 1-Phase 1 Equipment Requirements ............................................................................. 6
Table 3 – Option 1-Phase 1 Recovery....................................................................................................... 7
Table 4 – Option 1-Phase 2 Recovery....................................................................................................... 8
Table 5 – Option 1-Phase 3 Equipment Requirements ........................................................................... 11
Table 6 – Option 1-Phase 3 Recovery..................................................................................................... 11
Table 7 – Option 1-Phase 4 Equipment Requirements ........................................................................... 14
Table 8 – Option 1-Phase 4 Recovery..................................................................................................... 14
Table 9 – Option 2 Equipment Requirements......................................................................................... 17
Table 10 – Option 3 Equipment Requirements....................................................................................... 18
Table 11 – Site Evaluation Criteria ......................................................................................................... 24
Table 12 – Siting Analysis Summary Table.............................................................................................. 25
Table 13 – Option 1 Waste Characterization & Revenue/Ton................................................................. 26
Table 14 – Option 1 Capital Requirements............................................................................................. 28
Table 15 – Option 1 Stand-Alone IRF Proforma...................................................................................... 29
Table 16 – Option 2 Expanded Rivendell Proforma ................................................................................ 30
Table 17 – Option 3 Green Waste Drop-Off Proforma............................................................................ 31
Table 18 – Option 1 – Recovery Summary.............................................................................................. 32
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Option 1-Phase 1 & 2 Facility Layout ....................................................................................... 5
Figure 2 – Option 1-Phase 1 Site Operations............................................................................................ 6
Figure 3 – Option 1-Phase 2 Site Operations............................................................................................ 8
Figure 4 – Option 1-Phase 3 Facility Layout.............................................................................................. 9
Figure 5 – Option 1-Phase 3 Site Operations.......................................................................................... 10
Figure 6 – Option 1-Phase 4 Facility Layout............................................................................................ 12
Figure 7 – Option 1-Phase 4 Site Operations.......................................................................................... 13
TABLE OF PICTURES
Picture 1 – C&D Sorting System............................................................................................................. 15
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
iv
This page left intentionally blank.
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The City of Fort Collins (City) engaged the services of Sloan Vazquez and Clements Environmental
(Project Team) to develop a feasibility analysis for an Integrated Recycling Facility (IRF) that will accept a
variety of discarded materials such as electronic waste; household hazardous waste; compostable
organics, including yard waste; construction and demolition debris; and, other types of recyclable
commodities.
The City’s goal to divert 50% of the waste stream from landfill disposal has not been met. The City
currently operates a community recycling center that accepts a variety of recyclable materials. However,
achieving additional diversion is constrained by the limited availability of local/regional infrastructure.
This feasibility analysis is intended to assist the City in determining the viability for developing an IRF to
increase waste diversion.
The purpose of the analysis is to evaluate the feasibility of such a facility including:
• Identifying Potential Sites and Siting Issues,
• IRF Conceptual Design,
• Target Recyclables,
• Capital and Operating Costs,
• Market Considerations, and
• Ownership Models.
1.2 REPORT STRUCTURE
This Report is organized as follows:
1. Introduction
2. Integrated Recycling Facility Options
3. Property Inventories (redacted)
4. Financial Models
5. Conclusions
Section 1 provides an introduction to the report with a brief background and purpose. In Section 2, the
most feasible alternatives for developing additional recycling/diversion infrastructure are presented as
three Options along with a general description of each facility and operational requirements. In Section
3, potential properties for siting a facility are examined and assessed along with recommendations for
the most viable locations. Section 4 provides the financial models for each alternative including a
summary of costs related to each operation. And finally, Section 5 provides a summary of the Project
Team’s conclusions.
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
2
2.0 INTEGRATED RECYCLING FACILITY OPTIONS
The Project Team developed three options for the City’s consideration. The operational and
management requirements will vary depending upon the Option and Phases of operations. These
options are described in detail in this Section and are listed for ease of reference below.
• OPTION 1: Development of a Stand-Alone IRF
o 40 hour per week operation (days and operating hours to be determined)
o Targets “Self-Haulers” and lower value recyclables
PHASE 1 – Small Volume Start-Up Operation (Up to 250 Cubic Yards per Day)
− $500,000 municipal capital investment for land and improvements
− $237,000 municipal capital investment for IRF equipment
− Requires less than 1 acre operating site
− Projected annual diversion from landfill: 7,719 tons
− Creation of 3 new jobs
PHASE 2 – Medium Volume Operation (250-500 Cubic Yards per Day)
− No added municipal capital investment for land and improvements
− No added municipal capital investment for IRF equipment
− Requires less than 1 acre operating site
− Projected annual diversion from landfill: 15,437.5 tons
− Creation of a total of 6 new jobs
PHASE 3 – Large Volume Operation (500-750 Cubic Yards per Day)
− $1,000,000 municipal capital investment for land and improvements
− $442,500 municipal capital investment for IRF equipment
− Requires less than 1.2 acre operating site
− Projected annual diversion from landfill: 19,500 tons
− Creation of a total of 10 new jobs
PHASE 4 – Large Volume IRF (500-1,450 Cubic Yards per Day, Plus Organic Materials
and/or C&D Processing Operations)
− $1,250,000 municipal capital investment for land and improvements
− $1,492,500 municipal capital investment for IRF equipment
− Requires less than 1.5 acre operating site
− Projected annual diversion from landfill: 36,562 tons
− Creation of a total of 21 new jobs
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
3
• OPTION 2: Expansion of Rivendell School Drop-Off Operation
o Targets ferrous scrap, non-ferrous scrap and heavy-duty HDPE items
o $21,600 municipal capital investment for additional storage containers
o Projected annual diversion from landfill: 300 tons
• OPTION 3: Development of a Stand-Alone Green Waste Recovery Operation
o Targets lawn clippings, leaves, tree timmings and garden prunings
o Assumes six day per week operation
o Assumes use of City owned site of approximately 1 acre and no required improvements
o $500,000 municipal capital investment for wheel-loader, tub-grinder and trommel screen
PHASE 1 – 25 Tons per Day
− Creation of 1 new job
− Projected annual diversion from landfill: 7,410 tons
PHASE 2 – 75 Tons per Day
− Creation of 3 new jobs
− Projected annual diversion from landfill: 22,230 tons
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
4
2.1 OPTION 1: STAND-ALONE IRF
Option 1 is the development of a full-service, stand-alone IRF that can be implemented in up to four
phases. The phases may be implemented one phase at a time or concurrently as deemed appropriate.
Each phase is more fully described in the following subsections. Conceptual IRF site-use plans for each
option are included in the following sections. A conceptual IRF site-use plan of the fully developed,
Phase 4 option is included in Section 6, Appendix A – Conceptual Site Plan.
TARGETED MATERIALS FOR RECOVERY/DIVERSION
Each of the four phases targets the “self-haulers” and lower-value recyclables such as rock, brick,
concrete, mixed salvage metals, green waste, wood, electronic waste (e-waste), and textiles. Though
most of these materials have a low or negative value, they present excellent opportunities for increasing
the amount of material that is recovered and diverted from landfill disposal.
The following materials are targeted for recovery under Option 1:
• Ferrous Scrap
− Iron/Steel, Rebar, Cookware, Car & Truck Wheels, Canisters, Drums, etc.
• Non-Ferrous Scrap
− Window/Door Frames, Lawn Chair Frames, Siding, Copper/Brass Fixtures, Electrical Wiring
• Concrete/Rock
• Brick/Tile
• Porcelain/Ceramic – Toilets & Insulators
• Asphalt – Paving & Shingles
• Wood – Dimensional lumber, Plywood
• Green Waste – Yard Waste, Tree Trimmings
• E-Waste – Monitors, Televisions, Computers, CRT’s, etc.
• Corrugated Cardboard (OCC)
• Textiles
• Wet dirt from City Water Crews
The following table provides a summary of the four phases:
Table 1 – Option 1-Stand Alone IRF Summary
Volume Employees Operations Area Remarks
Phase I 250 cy 3 30,000 sq. ft. Primarily self unloading
Phase 2 500 cy 6 30,000 sq. ft. Staff assisted unloading
Phase 3 750 cy 10 50,000 sq. ft. Add wheel loader and deck sorting
of material
Phase 4 1500 cy 21 70,000 sq. ft. Add C&D sort line and green waste
chipping and grinding
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
5
2.1.1 PHASE 1 – SMALL VOLUME START-UP OPERATION (UP TO 250 CUBIC YARDS PER DAY)
Phase 1 consists of developing a small volume operation that can receive up to 250 cubic yards per day
or 65,000 cubic yards per year. Based on a 250 lbs/cubic yard factor, the facility will be capable of
receiving up to 8,125 tons per year.
SITE OPERATIONS
Self-haulers (residents and commercial customers) enter the facility and are directed to the area for
unloading their recyclable materials into designated salvage bins (see Figure 1 – salvage bins are
designated with a number 7). When full, the material-specific salvage bins are emptied into the larger
roll-off boxes (designated with numbers 1 through 6 in Figure 1) by an equipment operator. The full roll-
off boxes are delivered to local buyers/end-users.
Figure 1 – Option 1-Phase 1 & 2 Facility Layout
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
6
Figure 2 – Option 1-Phase 1 Site Operations
STAFF REQUIREMENTS
Phase 1 operations require the following full-time personnel:
• 1 – Site Manager
• 2 – Equipment Operators (Forklift, Roll-Off Truck)
Phase 1 operations require the acquisition of equipment as identified in Table 2.
Table 2 – Option 1-Phase 1 Equipment Requirements
Equipment Quantity
Salvage Bins (3-Yard) 15
Roll-Off Boxes
50-Yard Boxes 6
12-Yard Boxes 6
Forklift (with rotator & attachments) 1
Roll-Off Truck 1
OCC Compactor 1
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
7
MATERIAL RECOVERY & DIVERSION
Based on the materials targeted and the operational configuration of Phase 1, it is projected that 95% of
the materials received will be recovered and diverted from landfilling.
Table 3 – Option 1-Phase 1 Recovery
Annual Tonnage 8,125
Recovered 95.0% 7,719
Landfilled 5.0% 406
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES REQUIREMENT
Implementation of Phase 1 requires approximately $737,000 in capital expenditures as itemized below:
• $500,000 – Land and Improvements
• $57,000 – Roll-Off Boxes and Salvage Bins
• $140,000 – Forklift and Roll-Off Truck
• $40,000 – OCC Compactor
2.1.2 PHASE 2 – MEDIUM VOLUME OPERATION (250-500 CUBIC YARDS PER DAY)
Phase 2 consists of increasing the quantity of material that can be received at the facility to 500 cubic
yards per day or 130,000 cubic yards per year. Based on a 250 lbs/cubic yard factor, the facility will be
capable of receiving up to 16,250 tons per year.
SITE OPERATIONS
Site operations in Phase 2 are identical with those of Phase 1 with the exception that under Phase 1,
customers unload and deposit their materials into the designated salvage bins while in Phase 2, the
unloading of materials is expedited with the assistance of IRF staff.
Implementation of Phase 2 requires three additional full-time sorter/unloaders for a total of six
personnel to manage the anticipated additional tonnage/material. The personnel required for Phase 2 is
as follows;
• 1 – Site Manager
• 2 – Equipment Operators (Forklift, Roll-Off Truck)
• 3 – Sorters/Unloaders
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
8
Figure 3 – Option 1-Phase 2 Site Operations
MATERIAL RECOVERY & DIVERSION
Recovery and diversion from landfilling in Phase 2 is projected at 95%.
Table 4 – Option 1-Phase 2 Recovery
Annual Tonnage 16,250.0
Recovered 95.0% 15,437.5
Landfilled 5.0% 812.5
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES REQUIREMENT
Phase 2 does not require additional capital expenditures other than the $737,000 identified for Phase 1.
2.1.3 PHASE 3 – LARGE VOLUME OPERATION (500-750 CUBIC YARDS PER DAY)
Phase 3 expands the capacity of the facility to receive up to 750 cubic yards per day or 195,000 cubic
yards per year by targeting the same self-haul customers and materials but also accepting loads that
may require additional sorting at the site. Based on a 250 lbs/cubic yard factor, the facility will be
capable of receiving up to 24,375 tons per year. As the IRF operation matures, if the City charges a fee
that is equal to, or less than the amount charged at the Larimer County Landfill, the 750 cubic yards per
day, or 15, 50 cubic yard roll off containers daily, should be readily attainable.
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
9
SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Implementation of Phase 3 requires the construction of a below-ground ramp for loading the residue
resulting from the sorting process into roll-off boxes. This area is depicted at the bottom of Figure 4.
SITE OPERATIONS
Site operations during Phase 3 are similar to those in Phase 2; however, to accommodate the larger
volume of materials, a wheel-loader spreads materials on the tipping floor to facilitate the identification
and recovery of targeted materials by the sorters. The wheel-loader also removes residue (unrecyclable
trash) from the floor-sorting process and deposits it into roll-off boxes designated for that purpose. Roll-
off boxes for the accumulation of residue are shown at the bottom of Figure 4 and indicated with a
number 10.
Figure 4 – Option 1-Phase 3 Facility Layout
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
10
STAFF REQUIREMENTS
Implementation of Phase 3 requires four additional full-time personnel for a total of ten (10) to manage
the anticipated additional tonnage/material. The personnel required for Phase 3 is as follows;
• 1 – Site Manager
• 4 – Equipment Operators
• 5 – Floor-Sorters
Figure 5 – Option 1-Phase 3 Site Operations
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
11
EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
In addition to the equipment acquired in Phase 1, Phase 3 operations require the acquisition of the
equipment identified in Table 5.
Table 5 – Option 1-Phase 3 Equipment Requirements
Equipment Quantity
Wheel Loader 1
Roll-Off Boxes – (50-Yard) 6
Pup Trailer (to pull double roll-offs) 1
MATERIAL RECOVERY & DIVERSION
Recovery and diversion from landfilling in Phase 3 is projected at 80%.
Table 6 – Option 1-Phase 3 Recovery
Annual Tonnage 24,375
Recovered 80.0% 19,500
Landfilled 20.0% 4,875
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES REQUIREMENT
The implementation of Phase 3 requires an additional capital investment of approximately $705,500 as
follows:
• $500,000 – Building & Site Improvements
• $180,000 – Wheel-loader and Roll-Off Pup-Trailer
• $25,500 – Additional Roll-Off Boxes
2.1.4 PHASE 4 – LARGE VOLUME IRF (500-1,450 CUBIC YARDS PER DAY, PLUS ORGANIC
MATERIALS AND/OR C&D PROCESSING OPERATIONS)
In Phase 4, the IRF is expanded to become a full-service processing facility for self-haulers to bring green
waste and construction and demolition materials with a capacity to receive and process up to 377,000
cubic yards of the various materials annually. Based on a 250 lbs/cubic yard factor for the self-hauler
waste, 300 lbs/cubic yard for the yard waste and 400 lbs/cubic yard for the C&D debris, the facility will
be capable of receiving up to 47,125 tons per year. Changes in local market conditions will facilitate the
development of Phase 4. Changes that may stimulate a growth in IRF tonnage include; a significant
increase in landfill disposal costs, a significant increase in the value of recyclable commodities, or
regulation requiring the segregation, collection and processing of green waste and legislation to ban the
landfill disposal of green waste.
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
12
SITE OPERATIONS
In addition to all the functions performed in Phase 3, site operations during Phase 4 include the addition
of green waste and C&D processing capacity with the addition of a tub grinder, trommel screen, and a
C&D sortline. The trommel screen can be used to screen both chipped wood, green waste, and the dirt
from the City water utility. The additional equipment can be placed in the area designated as “Future
Green Waste Chip & Grind Operation and C&D Sorting Area” in Figure 6.
Figure 6 – Option 1-Phase 4 Facility Layout
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
13
STAFF REQUIREMENTS
When fully implemented, Phase 4 requires a staff of 21 employees; one site manager, one supervisor,
one clerk, six equipment operators, and twelve sorters.
• 1 – Site Manager
• 1 - Supervisor
• 1 - Clerk
• 6 – Equipment Operators
-Forklift
-Wheel-Loader (Floor Sort)
-Wheel-Loader (Organics/C&D)
-Roll-Off Truck
-Tub-Grinder
• 12 – Sorter/Unloaders
-5 – Floor Sorters
-7 – C&D/Organics Sorters
Figure 7 – Option 1-Phase 4 Site Operations
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
14
EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
In addition to the equipment acquired in prior Phases, Phase 4 operations require the acquisition of the
equipment identified in Table 7.
Table 7 – Option 1-Phase 4 Equipment Requirements
Equipment Quantity
Tub Grinder 1
Trommel Screen 1
C&D Sortline 1
MATERIAL RECOVERY & DIVERSION
Phase 4 continues the recovery and diversion achieved in the previous phases with the addition of
recovery achieved from the green waste and C&D processing operation. The recovery rates achieved by
the three processes are provided in Table 8.
Table 8 – Option 1-Phase 4 Recovery
Floor Sorting
Green Waste
Processing C&D Processing Total
Annual Tonnage 24,375 9,750 13,000 47,125
Recovered 80.0% 19,500 95.0% 9,263 60.0% 7,800 77.6% 36,563
Landfilled 20.0% 4,875 5.0% 487 40.0% 5,200 22.4% 10,562
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES REQUIREMENT
Growth from Phase 3 to Phase 4 requires an additional capital investment of approximately $1,300,000,
as follows:
• $250,000 – Site Improvements
• $700,000 – C&D Sorting System
• $300,000 – Tub Grinder
• $50,000 – Trommel Screen
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
15
Picture 1 – C&D Sorting System
C&D Sorting System including a steel-pan in-feed conveyor, a debris-roll screen for the removal of “fines”, and a sortline for the
removal of wood, rock, concrete, steel, cardboard, etc.
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
16
2.2 OPTION 2: EXPANSION OF RIVENDELL SCHOOL DROP-OFF OPERATION
Option 2 is the expansion of operations at the Rivendell School Drop-Off Center to include up to three
additional materials.
TARGETED MATERIALS FOR RECOVERY/DIVERSION
Option 2 adds to the items accepted at the site, as follows:
• Ferrous Scrap
− Iron/Steel, Rebar, Cookware, Car & Truck Wheels, Canisters, Drums, Bicycle Frames,
Shelving, etc.
• Non-Ferrous Scrap
− Window/Door Frames, Lawn Chair Frames, Siding, Copper/Brass Fixtures, Electrical Wiring
• Heavy-duty HDPE items such as big-wheel toys, garden hoses, 5 –gal buckets, etc.
It is important to note that only small ferrous scrap that is compatible with the current unattended
drop-off operation will be accepted. Large ferrous scrap such as large appliances or equipment with
combustible engines or lubricants such as lawnmowers, or large construction equipment will not be
accepted. High value commodities (such as ferrous metals) at an unattended site are susceptible to
theft. Two obvious solutions present themselves; first, to provide an attendant for the operation, and
second, to reduce the opportunity for theft by locking the ferrous metal container during the hours in
which the facility is not open. Finally, it should be noted that even though the materials may be pilfered,
they will be recycled which is the primary IRF objective.
It is estimated that this option will divert approximately 300 tons per year, a very small amount in terms
of overall diversion.
SITE OPERATIONS
The selected additional materials would be simply added to those currently accepted at Rivendell. The
site can be rearranged to accommodate the delivery of ferrous and non-ferrous metals, as well as
heavy-duty HDPE items or other items designated for recycling.
STAFF REQUIREMENTS
As currently operated, the Rivendell facility is not staffed. The addition of the three target materials will
not necessarily require direct staffing of the site.
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
17
EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
Option 2 requires the acquisition of the equipment identified in Table 9.
Table 9 – Option 2 Equipment Requirements
Equipment Quantity
Roll-Off Boxes
50-Yard Boxes 4
12-Yard Boxes 4
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Additional expenditures for the site will include the acquisition of additional roll-off and storage boxes at
an approximate cost of $22,000, and an ongoing annual expense of approximately $15,000 to haul
material loads to market. Ferrous and non-ferrous metals are estimated at 80 loads per year at an
estimated cost of $100 per load. Heavy-duty HDPE loads are estimated at 24 loads per year at an
estimated cost of $300 per load.
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
18
2.3 OPTION 3: STAND-ALONE GREEN WASTE RECOVERY OPERATION
Option 3 consists of the development of a six-day per week, stand-alone green waste recovery
operation that can be implemented in two phases. In Phase 1, the operation is configured to receive up
to 25 tons per day or 7,800 tons per year of green waste and increasing to 75 tons per day or 23,400
tons per year in Phase 2. Currently, private companies provide green waste processing services to the
City’s residents and businesses for a fee.
TARGETED MATERIALS FOR RECOVERY/DIVERSION
Materials targeted for recovery at the green waste drop-off site include:
• Lawn Clippings
• Leaves
• Tree Trimmings
• Garden Prunings
SITE OPERATIONS
Resident and/or commercial green waste generators deliver source-separated green wastes including
lawn clippings, garden prunings, tree trimmings, leaves, and other designated organic materials to a
designated unloading area. The materials, unloaded by the generator, are pushed into a stockpile by the
loader operator and held until they are processed through a grinder. The ground (size-reduced) organic
materials are extruded from the grinder and stockpiled. The size-reduced materials may be used as
mulch for erosion control, weed abatement, or seed bed material some of which could be used for
landscaping projects by citizens and by City crews, and or as a future source of energy using low-
emission conversion technology. It could also be further processed via composting for use as an organic
solid amendment if it could be transported to an appropriately permitted composting facility
(transportation costs are not included in this evaluation). Otherwise, it is possible that a surplus of
mulch could develop for which a current market is not identified.
2.3.1 PHASE 1 – 25 TONS OF GREEN WASTE
When the site receives less than 25 tons per day, only one staff person is required to receive the
incoming material and perform the functions of loader operator and grinder operator. As use of the site
increases, additional personnel are needed to direct traffic on the site and operate machinery.
EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
Option 3, Phase 1 requires the acquisition of the equipment identified in Table 10.
Table 10 – Option 3 Equipment Requirements
Equipment Quantity
Wheel Loader 1
Trommel Screen 1
Tub Grinder 1
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
19
CAPITAL COSTS REQUIREMENTS
The implementation of Option 3 requires a capital investment of approximately $500,000, as follows;
• $300,000 – Tub Grinder
• $150,000 – Wheel-Loader
• $50,000 – Trommel Screen
2.3.2 PHASE 2 – 75 TONS OF GREEN WASTE
In Phase 2, when the tonnage received at the site increases to 75 tons per day, a total of three (3) staff
will be needed. As long as the site is used strictly as a chip and grind operation, where the size-reduced
materials are loaded and shipped offsite, the operation should not require more than three full-time
staff: a loader operator, a grinder operator, and a person to provide traffic management and customer
service, as well as act as load spotter and sorter.
No additional capital is required for Phase 2.
2.4 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
TOTAL ACREAGE & BUILDINGS
Option 1, Phases 1 & 2 requires an area of not less than 30,000 square feet. Phase 3 requires an area of
not less than 50,000 square feet. In order to host the Phase 4 operations, approximately 1.5 acres (220”
x 290”) are needed, as seen in Section 6, Appendix A – Conceptual Site Plan.
The simplest and least expensive option is an open-air facility. A small office is optional and can be a
modular structure. The office will need to be equipped with a cash register, a safe, a computer, and
billing software. The City may determine to install a scale and track the IRF material by weight instead of
by volume. An enhanced version can include a building of approximately 10,000 square feet to 20,000
square feet to enclose the vehicle unloading area, providing shelter from the elements and reducing
potential impacts of noise, dust, odor, and litter. Storage can be provided by bunkers, roll-off containers,
and bins. It is not necessary to cover these storage areas or containers.
Both phases of Option 3 may be implemented as an open-air operation on a stand-alone 20,000 to
30,000 square foot parcel.
TRANSPORTATION CONSIDERATIONS
The simplest configuration is to load materials in roll-off containers. They can then be picked up by roll-
off trucks and hauled to processing plants. E-waste and other special materials can be loaded in
specially constructed boxes or shrink-wrapped on pallets and loaded by the forklift onto flat bed trucks
and hauled to processing facilities.
ZONING CHARACTERIZATION
Industrial zoning and adjacent land uses are preferred.
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
20
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM REQUIREMENT
Stormwater will be controlled at the site by a series of bioswales, catchment basins, and/or retention
ponds that will control and treat runoff before release offsite.
PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS
Construction and operation of a recycling drop-off facility does not require a formal solid waste permit.
Wolfgang Kray at the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment’s Solid Waste Division
stated that under new regulations materials collected must be contained in a proper manner so as not
to cause a nuisance. Expansion of the IRF to include material sorting/processing (Phase 2) requires the
facility to register with the Colorado Department of Health and the Environment and report tonnages.
Additionally, an Application for Stormwater Discharges must be submitted in order to obtain a Recycling
Industrial General Permit for stormwater. As part of the stormwater permitting process, a Stormwater
Management Plan must be prepared and certified.
Lastly, the type of air permit required depends on the levels of criteria pollutants anticipated for the
project. For the IRF, particulates are the primary source of emissions. If the facility produces greater
than two tons of particulates annually, an Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) must be filed. A
Construction Permit is required for emission of more than five tons of particulates annually.
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ACCESS PLAN
The traffic circulation plan depends on the specific site, its driveway locations, and layout. In general,
vehicles delivering material access the site off an “arterial” grade street. They pull into the site and
optimally follow a counterclockwise pattern to the tipping area and then head back out to the scales or
directly off-site. Trucks picking up material follow a similar pattern. Sufficient space must be provided
so that vehicles do not need to queue on the street.
INFRASTRUCTURE
Depending on location, the site may require modifications to the road and driveways to accommodate
public vehicles and truck traffic. The site will require electricity for site lighting, fencing and gates,
signage, and paved surfaces. If an office is included, then water, sewer, and gas connections would
most likely be needed.
PUBLIC VS PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OPTIONS
If the IRF facility is to be provided as a public service, free to residents of Fort Collins, then it makes the
most sense for the City to own the real estate. The operation of the facility and the provision of the
equipment could be done by the City, or contracted out to a private company. In this scenario, the City
would subsidize the entire cost of the operation.
If, however, the operation is to be self-supporting and charge a fee for the service, it is possible that the
private sector could own and operate the IRF. It is unlikely that a venture of this sort would be
profitable. The value of the material to be collected at the IRF is either low or negative. Landfill fees in
Colorado are very low. If a fee is charged at the IRF that is higher than local landfills’ fees
(approximately $20 per ton), it creates an economic “disincentive” for residents to deliver material to
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
21
the IRF. One way this disparity in pricing could work is if the County and other landfill operators heavily
penalized self-haul loads at the landfill, or banned them outright.
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
22
3.0 PROPERTY INVENTORIES
For this siting analysis, the Project Team evaluated potential sites in and around the City for an IRF. The
City began as a hub for agricultural production but more recently, it has shifted its focus from an
agriculture-based economy to a high-tech economy. Additionally, the City is the home to several
breweries and a major university. There are several potential sites which may qualify for the IRF. Due to
current economic conditions, a number of the sites initially identified are either abandoned or listed for
sale.
3.1 SCREENING-LEVEL SITE EVALUATIONS
Rather than perform an exhaustive survey of all possible properties, representatives of the Project Team
identified an initial 23 potential sites for the IRF. In order to identify these sites, the Project Team met
with City representatives, including Lindsay Kuntz, a Real Estate Specialist for the City. Also, the Project
Team made two trips to Fort Collins to tour the city and view potential sites first-hand. The sites fell
within a broad spectrum of zoning and locations, including Industrial (I), Employment (E), River
Downtown Redevelopment (RDR), Community Commercial North College (CCN), Transition (T), Harmony
Corridor (HC), Commercial (C), and Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN).
The Project Team ranked each site on the initial list with a priority from high to low. Table 11 shows the
initial site list with site priority and availability. A map with the locations of all 23 sites is shown in Figure
8. Sixteen of these sites were ranked low due to ownership issues or other problems that were
considered significant, and these sites were eliminated from further analysis. The seven high priority
sites are highlighted in Table 11 and were further evaluated using the established site evaluation
criteria.
3.2 DETAILED EVALUATION CRITERIA
The seven high priority sites were analyzed using a matrix of site evaluation criteria that was developed
by Clements Environmental. The criteria, listed in Table 12, represent a mixture of information
regarding specific site development, environmental issues, land use compatibility, traffic issues,
proximity to service areas, and availability.
3.3 COMPILATION OF DATA
Data required for the site analysis was obtained through:
• The City Zoning Department (zoning, assessor’s maps, general plan, etc.)
• Site Tours
• Existing information and knowledge provided by City officials and staff
• City Real Estate Specialist, Lindsay Kuntz
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
23
3.4 ANALYSIS OF SITES
A matrix was developed to assist in evaluating the information for each site according to the site
evaluation criteria. Each site was scored in each criterion, ranging from zero (0) to a high of five (5). A
score of five (5) represents the best score for that criterion. Low scores indicate a weakness that will
need to be addressed if the site is to be further considered. One low score was not grounds for
elimination of a site because the weakness could perhaps be mitigated, and it is the relationship and
totality of the various characteristics of a site that ultimately determine suitability. The scores for each
criterion were then added to obtain an overall score for each site. The summary scores are shown on
Table 13.
Site Evaluation Worksheets for each of the seven high priority sites can be found in Appendix B – Site
Evaluation Worksheets.
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
24
Table 11 – Site Evaluation Criteria
SITE EVALUATION CRITERIA
Site Development Issues (minimize difficulty, maximize flexibility):
• Relative Cost/Difficulty: Presence of major design constraints
(parcel shape, slope, soils, rock, flooding, etc)
• Useable Acreage: Facility expansion potential
Natural Environment Issues (minimize possible impacts):
• Potential for Biological Impacts (presence of sensitive habitats)
• Potential for Cultural Resources (known historic/archaeological sites)
• Water Quality: Would the IRF impact either surface or ground waters?
Land Use Issues (minimize possible conflicts):
• Noise (site proximity to sensitive receptors such as homes, hospitals)
• Visual Issues ( anticipated site visibility from homes, parks, scenic hwys)
• Zoning: Is IRF permissible with current zoning, or is change required?
Is IRF compatible with zoning of adjacent parcels?
• Existing land Use: Would IRF displace a current use important to Fort Collins?
Would IRF be compatible with adjacent land uses?
Traffic Issues (minimize congestion / dangers / air quality impacts):
• Capacity of access routes (incl. number of lanes, left turn pockets, and arrows)
• Traffic Safety Issues (if any)
• Avoid access through or adjacent to residential areas
• Availability of two or more site access points for circulation
Site Proximity to Service Areas (minimize travel distance)
• Fort Collins (road distance to geographic center of the City)
• I-25 Freeway (road distance to freeway for commodity trucks)
Availability for Acquisition (minimize uncertainty and cost)
City-Owned (best situation if space available for IRF use)
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012- Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
25
Table 12 – Siting Analysis Summary Table
Site
Site Evaluation Criteria 2 6 7 12 15 17 21
Site Development Issues (minimize difficulty, maximize flexibility):
• Relative Cost/Difficulty: resence of major design constraints 5 3 5 5 4 5 5
(parcel shape, slope, soils, rock, flooding, etc.)
• Useable Acreage: Facility Expansion Potential 4 4 4 5 5 4 4
Natural Environment Issues (minimize possible impacts):
• Potential for Biological Impacts (presence of sensitive habitats) 4 5 5 4 4 5 5
• Potential for Cultural Resources (known historic/archaeologic sites) 5 5 5 4 4 5 5
• Water Quality: Would the IRF impact either surface or ground waters? 4 5 5 4 4 5 5
Land Use Issues (minimize possible conflicts):
• Noise (site proximity to sensitive receptors such as homes, hospitals) 2 4 5 1 5 3 1
• Visual Issues (anticipated site visibility from homes, parks, scenic hwys) 3 4 5 1 5 4 1
• Zoning: Is IRF permissible with current zoning, or is change required? 3 4 5 2 5 5 3
Is IRF compatible with zoning of adjacent parcels? 3 5 5 2 5 5 2
• Existing land Use:
Would IRF displace a current use more important to Fort Collins? 5 5 5 5 4 5 5
Would IRF be compatible with adjacent land uses? 3 5 5 2 4 3 2
Traffic Issues (minimize congestion / safety / air quality impacts
• Capacity of access routes (incl. number of lanes, left turn bays, and arrows) 3 4 4 5 5 5 5
• Traffic Safety Issues (if any) 4 4 4 3 4 4 3
• Avoid access through or adjacent to residential areas 3 5 5 5 5 5 3
• Availability of two or more site access points for circulation 4 4 5 5 2 5 3
Site Proximity to Service Areas (minimize travel distance)
• Fort Collins (road distance to geographic center of the City) 5 4 4 3 4 4 1
• I-25 Freeway (road distance to freeway for commodity trucks) 3 4 3 4 3 4 2
Availability for Acquisition (minimize uncertainty and cost) 3 2 2 2 5 4 2
City-Owned 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
TOTAL POINTS 66 76 81 62 83 80 57
Recommended No No Yes No Yes Yes No
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
26
4.0 FINANCIAL MODELS
Each Option/Phase presented in this report contains capital and operating costs considerations. The
financial projections range from the minimal requirements of Option 2 with only $22,000 in capital
expenditures, $15,000 in annual operating costs and no labor costs, to the large requirement of Option
1, Phase 4 with approximately $2,700,000 in capital expenditures and $1,360,000 in operating costs, and
a full-time staff of 21.
In the sections that follow, financial models are presented for each of the Options and Phases proposed,
together with the assumptions and costs projections used to develop each model.
4.1 OPTION 1 – FINANCIAL MODEL
The financial models for Option 1, Phases 1 through 4 are presented in Table 16. The financial models
assume that materials will be received free of charge and therefore only revenue from the sale of
recyclable materials is anticipated. However, considering that the materials targeted are currently being
landfilled at a cost of $5.50 per cubic yard in addition to the time and hauling costs incurred by self-
haulers, it is likely that a fee of up to $5.50 per cubic yard (approximately $44/ton) is attainable.
Provided that the assumed operating factors are achieved, the costs per cubic yard calculated for Option
1 (Table 16) indicate that each of the phases could be operated at a lower cost than current landfill fees.
The revenues for all four phases were projected based on the waste characterization and commodity
prices provided in Table 14. In addition to the percentage distribution of each commodity, the market
value of each commodity is provided in column “$/Ton”. The “Revenue/Ton” represents the
proportionate amount of revenue that each commodity will generate per ton of material received.
Based on this waste characterization and commodity prices, each ton of materials is projected to
generate $10.59 per ton.
Table 13 – Option 1
Waste Characterization & Revenue/Ton
Commodity % $/Ton Revenue/Ton
Ferrous Scrap 6.5% $160.00 $10.40
Non-Ferrous Scrap 1.5% $500.00 $7.50
Concrete/Rock 12.5% $0.00 $0.00
Brick/Tile 12.5% $0.00 $0.00
Porcelain/Ceramic 3.0% $0.00 $0.00
Asphalt 6.0% $0.00 $0.00
Wood 25.0% ($31.25) ($7.81)
Green Waste 15.0% ($33.33) ($5.00)
E-Waste 5.0% ($50.00) ($2.50)
OCC 8.0% $100.00 $8.00
Textiles 5.0% $0.00 $0.00
Revenue/Ton $10.59
Note: The prices listed in the “$/ton” column are derived from conversations with local
and regional buyers and brokers of the subject commodities (December 2011).
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
27
For Option 1, Phases 1 and 2, total capital expenditures were projected at $737,000 consisting of
$500,000 for land and $237,000 for the acquisition of rolling stock and waste handling equipment (see
Table 15 for a detail projection of capital outlays).
In all options, land and improvement costs are amortized over a 30 year term at 3% interest.
In Option 1, Phase 1, up to 8,125 annual tons, or 65,000 cubic yards are projected. The net cost, after
crediting the projected value of recovered recyclables, is $29.83 per ton, or approximately $3.73 per
cubic yard (see Table 16). By charging a fee of $3.73 per cubic yard, the City can expect to break even
under Phase 1.
In Option 1, Phase 2, additional capital expenditures are not incurred. However, added staff are required
to handle the extra material that is expected – up to 16,250 tons per year, or 130,000 cubic yards are
projected. With the added tonnage and no additional capital requirement, the IRF operating costs drop
to $17.08 per ton, or $2.14 per cubic yard (see Table 16). By charging a fee of $2.14 per cubic yard, the
City can expect to break even under Phase 2.
For Option 1, Phase 3, total capital expenditures of 1,442,500 were projected consisting of $1,000,000
for land and improvements and $442,500 for rolling stock and waste handling equipment (see Table 15).
An additional three sorters are included in the full-time staff and disposal costs escalate due to the
anticipated receipt of mixed loads that will likely contain more hard-to-recycle materials. Even with the
expected annual tonnage increase to 24,375 for Phase 3, the added capital, labor and disposal costs
render a per ton operating cost of $25.33 per ton, or $3.17 per cubic yard (see Table 16). By charging a
fee of $3.17 per cubic yard, the City can expect to break even under Phase 3.
With the implementation of Option 1, Phase 4, the City will move into a full-service waste processing
operation. Total capital expenditures of $2,742,500 are projected consisting of $1,250,000 for land and
improvements and $1,492,500 in rolling stock and waste handling equipment, including $700,000 for a
C&D sorting system, $300,000 for a tub-grinder, and $50,000 for a trommel (see Table 15). The IRF will
operate the original self-haul recovery operation (Phases 1 through 3), plus full-scale C&D and green
waste processing operations. The operating costs will be approximately $35.02 per ton with a cost per
cubic yard of $4.38 (see Table 15). By charging a fee of $4.38 per cubic yard, the City can expect to break
even under Phase 4.
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
28
Table 14 – Option 1 Capital Requirements
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
Price Qty Amount Qty Amount Qty Amount Qty Amount
Land $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000
Building $250,000 $250,000 $750,000 $1,000,000
Compactor $40,000 1 $40,000 1 $40,000 1 $40,000 1 $40,000
Tub-Grinder $300,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $300,000
Trommel $50,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $50,000
C&D Sortline $700,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $700,000
Wheel Loader $150,000 0 $0 0 $0 1 150,000 1 $150,000
Forklift $40,000 1 $40,000 1 $40,000 1 $40,000 1 $40,000
Roll-Off Truck $100,000 1 $100,00 1 $100,000 1 $100,00 1 $100,000
Pup Trailer $30,000 0 $0 0 $0 1 $30,000 1 $30,000
3-Yard Salvage Bins $400 15 $6,000 15 $6,000 15 $6,000 15 $6,000
50-Yard Roll-Off Boxes $5,000 6 $30,000 6 $30,000 9 $45,000 9 $45,000
12-Yard Roll-Off Boxes $3,500 6 $21,000 6 $21,000 9 $31,500 9 $31,500
TOTAL $747,000 $747,000 $1,442,500 $2,742,500
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
29
Table 15 – Option 1 Stand-Alone IRF Proforma
Revenue tons $/ton Annual
tons $/ton Annual tons $/ton
Annual tons $/ton Annual
Gate Fees 8,125 $0.00 $0 16,250 $0.00 $0 24,375 $0.00
$0 47,125 $0.00 $0
Commodity Sales $10.06 $81,723 $10.06 $163,441
$8.47 $206,437 $0.27 $12,870
Total Revenue $10.06 $81,723 $10.06 $163,441
$8.47 $206,437 $0.27 $12,870
Operational Costs
Labor $22.19 $180,331 $17.67 $287,179 $18.97
$462,302 $19.89 $937,113
Equip Maint & Ops $7.15 $58,128 $3.58 $58,128
$3.83 $93,420 $3.44 $162,129
Disposal 406 $25.00 $10,156 813 $25.00 $20,313
4,875 $25.00 $121,875 10,563 $25.00 $264,063
Sub-Total Operational Costs $30.60 $248,615 $22.50 $365,620
$27.80 $677,597 $28.93 $1,363,305
G&A Costs $1.65 $13,400 $0.82 $13,400
$0.71 $17,420 $0.43 $20,100
Interest & Depreciation
Interest Expense $2.65 $21,568 $1.33 $21,568 $1.73
$42,224 $1.70 $79,903
Depreciation $4.98 $40,476 $2.49 $40,476 $3.55
$86,500 $4.24 $199,833
Sub-Total Interest & Depreciation $7.64 $62,045 $3.82 $62,045
$5.28 $128,724 $5.94 $279,736
Total Costs $39.88 $324,060 $27.14 $441,064
$33.79 $823,742 $35.29 $1,663,141
Surplus/Deficit ($29.83) ($242,337) ($17.08) ($277,624)
($25.33) ($617,305) ($35.02) ($1,650,271)
Tons 8,125 16,250 24,375 47,125
Cu Yds @ 250 lbs 65,000 130,000 195,000 377,000
Cost/Cu Yd ($3.73) ($2.14) ($3.17) ($4.38)
Phase4 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
30
4.2 OPTION 2 – FINANCIAL MODEL
Option 2 calls only for the expansion of materials that are accepted at the City’s Rivendell School Drop-
Off Operation. It assumes the City’s current contract for hauling full bins to recycling processors would
be renegotiated to add trucking services for new materials. As such, only the addition of four roll-off
boxes and four salvage bins is anticipated. The financial model for Option 2 is presented in Table 17.
If mixed metals are recovered in the projected quantities, it is estimated that Option 2 will produce
annual revenue of approximately $58,000 after deducting costs related to transportation and interest
and depreciation for the purchase of roll-off boxes and salvage bins.
Table 16 – Option 2 Expanded Rivendell Proforma
Revenue tons $/ton Amount
Gate Fees 333 $0.00 $0
Commodity Sales $229.31 $76,360
Total Revenue $229.31 $76,360
Operational Costs
Labor $0.00 $0
Equip Maint & Ops $44.82 $14,925
Disposal - $0.00 $0
Sub-Total Operational Costs $44.82 $14,925
G&A Costs $0.00 $0
Interest & Depreciation
Interest Expense $1.83 $609
Depreciation $9.27 $3,086
Sub-Total Interest & Depreciation $11.10 $3,695
Total Costs $55.92 $18,620
Surplus/Deficit $173.39 $57,740
It is important to note that at a capacity to handle 333 tons per year, Option 2 will accomplish little in
terms of added annual diversion. In comparison, Phase 1 of Option 1 will operate at 8,125 tons capacity
per year.
4.3 OPTION 3 – FINANCIAL MODEL
Option 3 presents a full-service green waste drop-off operation. The operation is presented in two
phases; Phase 1 will receive and process up to 25 tons of green waste per day, Phase 2 will ramp up to
75 tons per day.
It is anticipated that the green waste drop-off center will be located on the City’s Timberline Road
property. A capital investment of approximately $500,000 will be required; $300,000 for a green waste
grinder, $150,000 for a wheel-loader, and $50,000 for a trommel screen.
An operating cost of $75 per ton was used for the grinding operation.
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
31
In Phase 1, only one staff person is required. When the tonnage is ramped-up to 75 tons per day in
Phase 2, three staff are required; one spotter/sorter, and two equipment operators.
Table 17 – Option 3 Green Waste Drop-Off Proforma
Revenue tons $/ton Amount
tons $/ton Annual
Gate Fees 7,800 $0.00 $0 23,400 $0.00 $0
Commodity Sales $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0
Total Revenue $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0
Operational Costs
Labor $6.66 $51,946 $5.96 $139,507
Equip Maint & Ops $7.27 $56,700 $5.54 $129,600
Disposal - $0.00 $0 - $0.00 $0
Sub-Total Operational Costs $13.93 $108,646 $11.50 $269,107
G&A Costs $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0
Interest & Depreciation
Interest Expense $1.84 $14,316 $0.61 $14,316
Depreciation $7.23 $56,429 $2.41 $56,429
Sub-Total Interest & Depreciation $9.07 $70,744 $3.02
$70,744
Total Costs $23.00 $179,390 $14.52 $339,852
Surplus/Deficit ($23.00) ($179,390) ($14.52)
($339,852)
Phase I Phase II
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
32
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Each of the Options presented in this report accomplish important aspects of the City’s objectives in
commissioning the IRF Study. A household hazardous waste component for the IRF was considered
impracticable because of the extraordinary costs of permitting, receiving, handling, manifesting,
transporting, processing, recycling and disposing of the material. The financial models for each option
demonstrate that the cost per cubic yard can be lower than the cost of landfilling. It is important to note
that the bottom-line costs in each model are driven by a projected volume of incoming material and a
projected value of the recovered commodities. We have used conservative projections for the volume
and value in the financial models for each assumption.
Option 1, presented in four Phases, is designed to accomplish all of the City’s stated objectives
immediately upon implementation of Phase 1. With Option 1, Phase 1, the City will be able to offer a
service to residential and commercial “self-haulers” that will target materials that are currently being
landfilled. With Phases 2, 3 and 4, the City will be able to expand local services to receive and process
larger volumes of materials, if needed. The quantities of materials projected to be processed, recovered
and landfilled under each phase of Option 1 are summarized in Table 19.
Table 18 – Option 1 – Recovery Summary
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
Annual Tonnage 8,125 16,250 24,375 47,125
New Recovery 95.0% 7,719 95.0% 15,437.5 80.0% 19,500 77.6% 36,563
Landfill Disposal 5.0% 406 5.0% 812.5 20.0% 4,875 22.4% 10,562
Under Option 1, the singular difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2 is the addition of personnel in
Phase 2 to handle an increased volume of materials. Phases 3 and 4 require considerable additional
capital investment and increased staffing, up to 21 personnel. If implemented, Phases 3 and 4 will
become a major component of the Northern Colorado solid waste/recycling infrastructure.
Option 2 offers an opportunity to expand the targeted commodities that Fort Collins residents may
recycle. With this Option, the City would simply expand the items accepted at the Rivendell Drop-Off
site. This option will require a small capital investment and, depending upon commodity sales revenue,
may produce a net positive financial result. With the projection of approximately 300 tons per year of
additional diversion, this option will accomplish very little toward the City’s goal of reducing landfill
disposal.
Though Option 3 targets only green waste, with its implementation, the City will be able to offer a full-
scale opportunity for all residents to dispose of their lawn, garden, and tree trimmings in a program that
will divert those organic materials from landfill disposal. It projected that up to 7,410 tons will of green
waste material will be divereted in Phase 1 and up to 22,230 tons in Phase 2 of Option 3.
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
33
The City is fortuate to have numerous sites that could be appropriate for hosting the operation of an IRF.
Because the (redacted) site (see Section 3.5.5 and 3.6.1) is already owned by the City and is ideally
located, we believe that this site presents the fewest obstacles for successfully implementing Options 1
and 3.
Finally, during the preparation of this report, we were pleased to find that the local area is well served
by various public, private and non-profit organizations that offer opportunities to recycle and reuse
concrete, rock, brick, tile, organic materials, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, furniture and fixtures, in
additional to the traditional newspaper, bottles, and cans.
Highly motivated residents and businesses already have multiple options for recycling. The primary
benefit of developing an IRF operation would be to provide a convenient lower-cost option for the self-
haulers that currently use the landfill. While an IRF could serve as catalyst for a new wave of recyclers
and recycling in the commmity, it is likely that the success of such a facility will require sustained
operational and financial support from the City.
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
34
6.0 APPENDICES
6.1 APPENDIX A – CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
6.2 APPENDIX B – SITE EVALUATION WORKSHEETS
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
6.1 APPENDIX A – CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
SloanVAZQUEZ,LLC
Prepared for the City of Fort Collins Integrated Recycling Facility
January 2012 – Final Draft Report Ver. 4 (redacted) Feasibility Analysis
6.2 APPENDIX B – SITE EVALUATION WORKSHEETS
Attachment 2
February 14, 2012
Work Session
Air Quality & Recycling Survey
Report of Results
2011
Page 25 - excerpts
Support for recycling in Fort Collins was strong. Most residents in Fort Collins
(about 80%) somewhat or strongly agreed that businesses and residents in both
single and multi-family dwellings should be required to recycle. About 90% of
respondents would like to see yard waste recycling options for single-family
residences. Most do not think that smaller businesses should be exempt from
recycling requirements.
Figure 1: To Help Increase Recycling I Think: (2011)
Attachment 2
February 14, 2012
Work Session
Page 54
Question 26
I recycle at the following level: 2011 2007
Number Percent Number Percent
Can’t, it is not available 43 10% 49 9%
Never, but it is available 18 4% 79 14%
Less than once a month 3 1% 0 0%
Once a month 19 4% 90 16%
Twice a month or more 326 75% 345 61%
Don’t know 23 5% 0 0%
Curbside recycling program
Total 432 100% 564 100%
Can’t, it is not available 79 20% 106 19%
Never, but it is available 85 22% 98 18%
Less than once a month 58 15% 0 0%
Once a month 20 5% 150 27%
Twice a month or more 62 16% 196 36%
Don’t know 90 23% 0 0%
Yard trimmings
Total 393 100% 549 100%
Can’t, it is not available 62 15% 106 19%
Never, but it is available 71 18% 81 15%
Less than once a month 142 35% 0 0%
Once a month 7 2% 121 22%
Twice a month or more 9 2% 239 44%
Don’t know 110 27% 0 0%
Electronic waste
Total 400 100% 547 100%
Can’t, it is not available 18 4% NA NA
Never, but it is available 140 35% NA NA
Less than once a month 97 24% NA NA
Once a month 29 7% NA NA
Twice a month or more 17 4% NA NA
Don’t know 103 25% NA NA
Drop-off site at Rivendell
School, NE corner of Riverside
and E. Prospect*
Total 405 100% NA NA
2007 had different response categories they matched to 2011 data as follows: "Always"= "Twice a
month or more, "Sometimes"="Once a month", "Never"="Never", "Can't/Don't know"="Can't, it is not
available
Attachment 2
February 14, 2012
Work Session
Page 54
Question 27 (2011 only)
To help increase recycling I think: Number Percent
Strongly agree 256 57%
Somewhat agree 95 21%
Somewhat
disagree
46 10%
Strongly disagree 44 10%
Don’t know 6 1%
All businesses should be required to recycle
Total 447 100%
Strongly agree 54 13%
Somewhat agree 75 17%
Somewhat
disagree
116 27%
Strongly disagree 161 37%
Don’t know 24 6%
Only businesses of 15 or more employees should be required
to recycle
Total 430 100%
Strongly agree 258 58%
Somewhat agree 98 22%
Somewhat
disagree
34 8%
Strongly disagree 46 10%
Don’t know 10 2%
Multi-family apartments should be required to recycle
Total 445 100%
Strongly agree 230 52%
Somewhat agree 111 25%
Somewhat
disagree
41 9%
Strongly disagree 53 12%
Don’t know 10 2%
Single-family residents should be required to recycle
Total 445 100%
Strongly agree 273 62%
Somewhat agree 129 29%
Single-family residents should have options for yard-waste
recycling
Somewhat
disagree
9 2%
Attachment 2
February 14, 2012
Work Session
Strongly disagree 19 4%
Don’t know 13 3%
Total 443 100%
Attachment 2
February 14, 2012
Work Session
Appendix VI
Page 5
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc.
Appendix III: Verbatim Responses to Openended Survey
Questions
Following are verbatim responses to open-ended questions as written on the
survey in the respondents’ own words, which have not been edited for spelling
or grammar. Within each question, the responses are in alphabetical order.
Question 28: Please tell us if there are any parts of the recycling system in Fort
Collins that don’t work for you or that you would like to see changed.
Comments related to cost
City should provide low-cost drop-off recycling of E-waste, Incl. Batteries, 2. City
should provide free drop-off recycling of scrap metal.
Curb side free service good.
Free curbside.
Free yard waste & other house hold recycling.
I like the free recycling program with Gallegos sanitation. If yard waste has free as well
that would be great.
I take my recycling to work and deposit in their bins. I think FTC should have a free
location to drop off.
I think it's great! The only thing that may not work for some people is the cost. I feel
really good filling my recycle bin full every 2 WKS!
If you make the recycle program voluntary and no cost. People will use it I believe
Need to have our company offer more pickups at curbside recycle without charging.
Recycling, including yard waste should be free. Curbside City should pick up leaves
raked into street in fall for compost (free).
The Taft hill land fill requires residents to pay too electronic and non-paper waste. Bad
Bad policy!!
Too expensive.
Too many containers for amount of storage area at residence - also too expensive.
We need a higher return like California or Michigan, than people will recycle, & it’s all
about money.
We recycle as long as it is free of charge. It currently is free through our waste removal
company.
Would like to see no charge for electronic waste recycle. For you can trough/piece into
the dump at a time.
Comments related to single or multi stream
1. Attract markets to purchase recycled water, 2. Reduce contamination in single.
Attachment 2
February 14, 2012
Work Session
Appendix VI
Page 6
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc.
Curbside recycling is co-mingled. Rivendell has too many separated bins - makes it a
pain to have 5! Bins at my house. Rivendell should have one co-mingled at least.
Looks like a very inefficient process to co-mingle all recyclables only to have to
separate them later.
Paper should probably be separated rather than dumped in with everything else as it
used to be.
Separate bins for plastics & glass composting bins would be good too.
Single-stream trash/recycle should be implemented.
The curbside recycle program should require better sorting - it seems that most of the
material is being contaminated by broken glass & errant additions.
The drop-off site near riverside should be single-stream!
Comments related to item type
A definitive list of every item that can be recycle, i.e. TV dinner cartons & plastic
containers in them-cups (Wendy's) etc.
Add Styrofoam recycling; allow recycling of plastic food containers if washed.
Better pet waste recycling easier/better household chemical/hazardous waste
recycling.
Broader scope of curbside recycling (I.E. Styrofoam, electronics) composing should be
more encouraged/taught.
Can't recycle certain plastics, milk & juice cantons covered with plastic coating.
Electronic recycling is needed, I read the paper and inserts but never see anything.
Expand plastic recycling to include all types. Add green/composting recycling to single
homes.
For a city this size not to have yard waste drop-off should be felonious!! Idiots!!
I think it should be easier / encouraged to recycle household batteries.
I was not aware of the programs how do I recycle office paper all newspapers.
I was used to separating recyclables & recycling Polystyrene foam that should be
available.
I would like to know where old appliances, old computers, can be recycled.
I would like to see curbside glass recycle separated from the remaining co-mingled
material.
I would like to see more plastic recycling. Also, I would like a bottle/can deposit to
encourage recycling.
I'd love to know more about electronic waste recycling - I'm not aware of such a
program, & we need one!
I'm perpetually confused by what is recyclable and what is not. Jar lids? Clam shell
containers? A good, clear pouch that doesn't change would be great!
Improve explanation of acceptable items. Put sticker on recycling bins/boxes.
Is there a better way to recycle clothes paper clips, pencils etc.
I've heard rumors (from breweries) that the city does not actually recycle glass.
Attachment 2
February 14, 2012
Work Session
Appendix VI
Page 7
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc.
Knowing how clean items need to be in order to be recycled.
Milk cartons and the like should be recycled.
More accessible or better advertised electronics recycling.
More signs available in stores as to what containers & numbers are accepted in Ft
Collins.
Need info on electronic waste.
Need option for Styrofoam.
Need to have recycling available for Styrofoam and yard waste.
Plastics are confusing; push for less packaging.
Please ban Telephone Company from issuing phone books unless requested by
customers.
Styrofoam collection. Reduction in trash cost for recycling implemented. Weekly pickup
please.
Styrofoam recycling should be added.
Take Styrofoam.
The descriptions on the Corr. Cardboard & paper board containers at the Rivendell site
need better details.
We should be able to recycle more types of plastic; electronics recycling should be
easier to access; should be able to recycle grocery bags in curbside recycle bins.
We use a lot of waxed cartons & aseptic packages (for tofu & soy milk). I'd like to be
able to recycle those. More frequent hazardous or pharmaceutical waste days. (Seems
like they happen when I'm out of town).
What is accepted for recycling can be confusing; would like to drop
batteries/electronics somewhere other than landfill.
Where can we take old TVs and computers for free disposal?
Would like to recycle Styrofoam.
Comments related to yard waste
Cheaper, year-long availability of the yard waste cars.
Drop off for electronic recycling, leaf recycling at parks, branches at parks, used oil at
more places, having more drop off days for paint etc.
Fort Collins should adopt the city of Loveland’s yard waste & recycling program.
Garbage companies provide yard waste pick up as part of package w/o high additional
cost.
Green waste (yard trimming) recycling should be easier.
I don't know but the yard trimmings program.
I have no obvious direction to go with yard waste.
I have to pay for yard trimmings at Hageman’s about 3 or 4 times a year - I wish our
neighbor would have a method of doing this.
I would like to see more yard waste recycling options since we don't compost.
Attachment 2
February 14, 2012
Work Session
Appendix VI
Page 8
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc.
In spring & fall, the city of Ft. Collins should have some type of tax break for private
waste trash services to pick up residential yard trimmings & leaves at no cost to
residents.
Love the curbside recycling. Curbside - or at least easy - yard waste would be helpful.
Need year-round curbside recycling for yard waste.
No yard waste available in F.C.
Offer free yard waste recycling - possibly once per month.
Only small amount yard waste - would not deliver container for it pick up.
Please please please add a free yard waste/recycle program it would help everyone and
make for the city.
Residential curbside yard waste recycling would be great. We even had that in
Kentucky. Also, I don't think anyone should be required to recycle. But there should be
incentives.
The yard waste (above) would be great - Also a composting option!
What about composting or the programs in Boulder for compost in public buildings?
Would like to have a yard waste site to dispose of tree branches etc. available.
Yard trimming recycle sites are avail. But, for a cost. I don't mind recycling yard
trimmings, but I will not pay for it.
Yard trimmings - I'm not sure how/where to recycle my yard debris.
Yard waste recycling is good, saves Lar. Co money and improves land fill life and
quality. Make it free, it'll get used more.
Yard waste recycling would be good if it was a reasonable cost.
Comments related to increasing service (pickup, hours or locations)
Either extended hours or one extra Saturday per month to drop off electronics
recycling the WM facility.
Have to drive several miles to recycle oil, antifreeze or pay extra for yard trimmings.
I fill up my recycle more than my trash, but it only comes every other week. It should
be switched with trash pick-up.
I use Gallegos sanitation & they only pick up recycle cars every other week. Recycle
cars should be picked up every week.
I would recycle but unaware of location at City Park & Elizabeth St. Convenient enough
to walk trash too. It breaks my heart, really.
Instead of every two weeks pick up make it every week because it fills up too fast.
Larger recycling containers, our 95-gellon overflows at each every-other-week pickup.
More drop-off site for E-waste. No change on yard training.
More drop-offs for e-waste & household hazardous waste (Batteries, CFLS, etc.).
More electronic waste (ex. Batteries) drop-off sites.
More info & options on how to dispose of odd things I.E. Paint, Batteries.
More recycling.
Our bin gets too full and not everyone uses it properly.
Attachment 2
February 14, 2012
Work Session
Appendix VI
Page 9
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc.
Pick up once a week instead of every other week.
Plastic bag recycling needs to increase & be easier to access & do recycling pickups
should be more frequent in "non-home" areas (i.e. apartments, condos).
Recycling seems limited and not well known, provide better labels for what is
recyclable & build more infrastructures to support additional types of recycling.
See that everybody has access to a recycling system.
Some areas in Fort Collins don't supply recycle bins to use.
The number of trucks that come down the street.
The public parks & Downtown should have recycling bins attached to or next to
(important that they are next to each other) the trash.
There could be more recycling bins in public areas / the biggest problem in this town
is traffic congestion and noise from traffic.
They cut down recycling pick up to every other week instead of weekly. So it gets too
full.
We as a sustainable city need! need! Recycle cans/bins in the old town area. I'm always
looking but they are not there.
We fill our recycling every two weeks - if it was provided every week we would recycle
almost everything.
We need more "drop off" dates for hazardous waste so people will use it - many won't
drive to landfill.
We would like to see weekly recycling return & the opportunity to recycle electronics &
yard waste at least.
Weekend hours for hazardous waste drop extended more electronic recycle resources.
Would like weekly pickup.
Comments related to multi-family dwellings
Awareness of recycling locations for those of us in apt. Complexes with no recycling.
Condo recycling by contractor.
Don't have enough room in the can provided at my S-apartment building.
Feel strongly about recycling not being available in condo/apartment units. It should
be available.
HOAs and condo associations should be required to offer recycling services.
I would like a recycling bin at our complex.
If you use a dumpster at a residence, GSI won't pick up recycling.
Many apartment complexes & do not have recycling bins - OR - the bins provided are
too few or in a very poor location.
Many apt complexes do not make recycling available to tenants.
More bias at my apartment complex (New Colony).
Multi-family apartments should be required to offer recycling.
My condo only provides for newspaper recycling, but everyone puts their cardboard in
there anyway. I would like it included.
Attachment 2
February 14, 2012
Work Session
Appendix VI
Page 10
Prepared by National Research Center, Inc.
My Prop. Management does not provide recycling. It is frustrating!
Recycle bins at apts. get filled quickly; it would be nice if more bins were provided.
There is no recycling option at my apartment complex, a separate GM for recycling
would most likely increase expending here.
General (uncategorized) comments
Container too small - need more frequent pick up.
Don't know.
Eliminate vehicle listing cost exclude benefits.
Fort Collins is great @ recycling!
I think that people & Business should have the requirement to recycle, but some
people can’t afford it, they should be able to get assistance for the program.
Investing in a local recycling plant would cut down on recycle transport costs & provide
community jobs.
I've only lived in Ft. Collins since Sept. 2010 - Thus, I am less knowledgeable than
many residents!
Just moved here from Dallas, TX and compared to there, Y'all's recycling program is
outstanding!
Periodic info re recycling included in utility bills.
Recycling bins are constantly stolen by drunken college students, but not much can be
done about this.
Recycling mandates similar to the SF Bay area world be great.
So far, the current recycling system is working great.
The recycle Karts - Totters are too big we like the smaller 18 gal baskets better.
Trees in alleys need to be pruned regularly - city worst at it!
We are satisfied.
You can't make businesses & families; recycle - We need to continue to educate people
through schools & possibly when applying for small business.
Comments expressing disagreement
City has no business telling/forcing people to recycle.
I do not like government intervention in every aspect of our lives.
I don't believe it should cost extra $ and I don't support taxpayer subsidies on this
program. If it works economically it must stand on its own.
Keep it voluntary and keep Government out of my business and my home!! This survey
is very slanted!
Roads & efficient stop lights are much more important to me than this. Personal efforts
are important, but government should not spend trying to stop charges in climate. It's
a futile waste of money!
1
1
Feasibility Report:
Integrated Recycling Facility
City Council Work Session
February 14, 2012
Bruce Hendee, Director, Office of Sustainability
Susie Gordon, Sr. Environmental Planner
2
Background
• Community goal set for 50% waste diversion by 2010
• 43% level documented, below goal
• Information requested in 2011 on systems-wide
examination of facilitating recycling, landfill diversion,
and management of waste.
– February 14 Work Session is an update on three
new types of drop-offs we evaluated for Fort Collins
– April/May: Waste Stream Study is underway,
including feasibility of recovering energy from debris
ATTACHMENT 3
2
3
Tonight’s Discussion:
• New materials for recycling
• Financial structure, funding for an IRF
• General area of locations that qualify for IRF but
not details for privately owned properties
– Section on ownership, prices, mapping was
removed from the report
4
Integrated Recycling Facility
Feasibility Analysis
FINAL DRAFT REPORT Ver. 4
Real Estate Information for Sites Not Included in this Version
Prepared for
Prepared by:
SloanVAZQUEZLLC
Municipal Solid Waste & Recycling Advisors
18006 Skypark Circle, Suite 205
Irvine, CA 92614
Office: 866.241.4533
Fax: 714.276.0625
info@sloanvazquez.com
3
5
Materials to Add to Recycling
• Focus on discards that offer greatest opportunity to make
significant progress at meeting landfill diversion goal
• A single site could provide drop-off for all/some of these:
– Metal goods and small appliances
– Large pieces/loads of cardboard
– Scrap wood and yard debris
– Concrete, asphalt, bricks, etc.
– Electronics
– “Textiles” including clothing and rags
• Not recycling for conventional commodities (bottles/cans,
newspaper, cardboard) already available through curbside
program and City recycling center
6
Targeted Materials Generated By:
• Construction sites and remodelers
• Handyman clean-up projects
• Homeowners
These materials are generally:
•Bulky
• Found in loads of mixed waste
• Delivered to landfills by “self haulers”
• Can be cumbersome to source-separate at job sites
• Perceived to have little value and “hard-to-recycle”
4
7
3 Concepts for Expanded Drop-off Facility
Option 1: New Recycling Center
Build a new, free-standing recycling center
– Expand the facility in four stages
– Extended list of materials
• Steel, aluminum, copper scrap metal
• Concrete, asphalt, bricks
• Dimensional lumber
• Electronics
• Textiles
• Cardboard
• Green waste (tree and yard debris)
8
Option 1 Site Plan
5
9
Option 2: New Bins at Existing Facility
Add several new bins at current facility on Riverside
collect more types of recyclables
• Metals
• Heavy-duty plastics (large toys and buckets)
Option 3: New Facility on City-owned property
Build an IRF for comprehensive recycling activities
• Expand in two stages
• Lawn clippings, leaves, tree and garden debris
• Use by residents, commercial sector, and City
departments (Forestry, Parks, and Utilities)
• Potentially move current Recycling Center to same site
10
Tons of materials for Three Drop-off Facility Options
Option 3: Phase 2 22,230
Option 3: Phase 1 7,410
Option 2: Current Facility 300
additions
Option 1: Phase 4 36,563
Option 1: Phase 3 19,500
Option 1: Phase 2 15,438
Option 1: Phase 1 7,719
Low Medium High
Waste Diversion Potential (tons)
6
11
Financing for Drop-off Facilities
• Many identified materials have low or zero financial value
• Private enterprises’ role:
– Unlikely to combine collection for multiple materials and
built a “one-stop shop” for citizens’ use
– Receives cleaned materials for marketing or further
processing
– May be contracted to operate site
• Could help pay capital and operating costs with user fees
– Incentivize IRF use by charging less than landfills, which
charge $20/ton for C&D, $40/ton for green waste
– Pro-forma statements in Tables 15 & 17 of report
12
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
• Which, if any, options in the IRF report would the
Council consider the best fit for the community?
• Does an Integrated Recycling Facility have merit
as a potential Offer in the upcoming Budgeting for
Outcomes process?
7
13
User Fee Possibilities
• Option 1 New IRF: break-even pricing
– Phase 1 $3.73/yard
– Phase 2 $2.14/yard
– Phase 3 $3.17/yard
– Phase 4 $4.38/yard
• Option 2 Riverside Recycling Center No fee
• Option 3 Green Waste Site: break-even price
– Phase 1 $23.00/ton
– Phase 2 $14.52/ton
14
Other activities in the community that are
supported by the City include:
- Rivendell Recycling Center
– On-line Leaf Exchange & Worm Exchange
(for vermiculture composting)
– Green Building Code requirements for
construction site recycling, effective 2012
– Household hazardous waste collections
– Prescription drug take-back events
– Electronic recycling collection events
– Christmas tree recycling