TO: City Manager for the City of Arvada
FROM: Brandon Figliolino, Arvada Park Advisory Committee Member
SUBJECT: The City of Arvada’s Commitment to Sustainability
DATE: 07/05/2017
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This memorandum proposes three policy solutions to mitigate the capacity issues the City of Arvada experienced last month with their hard-to-recycle event. Ineffective data analysis and planning for the event caused it to end prematurely, and left residents angry and unable to recycle their items. This failure also left the city unable to follow through on the commitments of a citizen survey and their own goal of becoming more sustainable.
Outlined in this memorandum are three suggestions for moving forward: (1) cancel future programs, replacing them with resources on the city website; (2) collaborate with more partners to eliminate capacity issues; and (3) accept materials year-round to spread the demand over a longer period of time. Each option provides benefits and drawbacks to the city, although all appear to be feasible. The third option is recommended as the best solution for this issue.
Introduction
As detailed herein, the problem is that the City of Arvada was unprepared to meet the demand for hard-to-recycle items event. This memo first reviews the background to this issue and consequences. This is followed by an exploration of alternatives and a recommendation.
Background and Problem Articulation
According to the City of Arvada’s website, city staff and elected leadership “are committed to conservation, sustainability, and resiliency,” as are many other municipalities in this age of climate uncertainty. In 2012, the City Council adopted the Sustainable Community Plan, which outlined different initiatives for making Arvada a more environmentally-conscious municipality. In one section of the document, it is noted that “programs and policies that encourage recycling will decrease the amount of trash going into landfills.” According to the City Manager’s Office website, residents want the city to offer more recycling opportunities, but do not want a single hauler/recycler for the city. While the city explores alternatives to a single hauler, the hard-to-recycle event held last month was intended to meet that goal for the short-term.
An advisory committee dedicated to researching and proposing sustainability policies was approved by City Council. According to meeting minutes from January 2017, the Sustainability Committee is in the process of recommending potential waste diversion programs to the city for implementation. In the May meeting minutes, the failure of the recycling event was only mentioned in two sentences, and did not identify a possible course of action for future programs.
Arvada has made progress on implementing the Sustainable Community Plan since its inception. They have promoted community agriculture, offered energy efficient rebate programs, and have even held several Sustain Arvada festivals. Yet, in terms of opportunities for residents to recycle difficult items, there has been little action.
Previous Policy: The Spring Clean-Up Program
For years, Arvada partnered with waste haulers to offer curbside large-item pickup, called the Spring Clean-Up Program. The haulers did not recycle the materials they retrieved. However, hundreds of community members would trade, or take, the unwanted items left on the curb before the haulers would come to remove them. Due to the nature of the program, no statistics are available to illustrate how many tons of items were taken from the curb and refurbished or used, instead of being tossed, making this an inefficient policy.
The inefficiencies of the program did not lead to its end. The Spring Clean-Up Program ceased after the 2016 campaign when no waste hauler bid for the event. This gave city staff the chance to test an alternative program for helping residents remove unwanted items from their homes.
The Hard-to-Recycle Event
In May of 2017, the City of Arvada, in collaboration with SustainAbility, offered residents a two-week window in which they could dispose of hard-to-recycle materials in an environmentally sensitive way. Intended to replace the Spring Clean-Up Program, the recycling event encouraged residents to not only drop off mattresses and furniture, but also paint, hazardous materials, and electronics. It was promoted on social media sites, such as Facebook, Nextdoor, the city website, the local newspaper, and the city newsletter.
While the intentions behind the recycling event were good, the demand for such services greatly exceeded capacity. Newspapers and media outlets reported that residents waited hours to drop off materials. Many were refused altogether, even after waiting in line. According to a letter published by the City Manager’s Office, SustainAbility (i.e., the program partner) reached capacity quickly. The downstream recyclers SustainAbility partners with were also unprepared for the demand, and reached capacity, too. The city attempted to mitigate the capacity issues early on by palletizing electronics to store in their warehouses. According to the letter from the City Manager’s Office, 200 pallets of electronics were brought to city facilities.
Arvada residents dropped off so much recyclable material, the event closed after five days.
Implications of Initial Policy Failure
City staff did not invest enough time in determining how many residents would use the recycling service. The lack of planning created chaos for residents and staff as they attempted to expand capacity, but were unable to do so. Shutting down the program was the only option available.
Cancelling the recycling event had three negative implications for the City of Arvada. First, the city was unable to reach their highest potential for recycling materials. Second, the capacity issues hindered city staff from achieving the recycling goal in the Sustainable Community Plan. Third, negative press and embarrassment for the city resulted from the lack of preparation.
Residents’ opportunities to act in a sustainable fashion were hindered by the abrupt halt to the program. Those who were committed to recycling their items could drive outside the city limits to do so, but those who did not have the time or patience most likely would not. This had negative effects on the environment, since fewer items were recycled.
The lack of preparation and insight into the popularity of the program also made city officials look ill-prepared and foolish. Assuming the program would not be as popular as the Spring Clean-Up Program encouraged city staff to pay less attention to the recycling event than was needed to pull off a successful event. When the capacity issues arose, there was not enough time to assess the situation and resolve it. Instead, city and SustainAbility staff were left overwhelmed, and unable to follow-through on their commitments to residents.
People’s interest in sustainable practices, including recycling and waste diversion, is growing. More cities, counties, and states are declaring their commitment to sustainable practices, as evident by the formation of the Mayors National Climate Action Agenda, and other governmental coalitions. Arvada is no exception. For instance, 84% of Arvada residents who took the 2015 Arvada Citizen Survey indicated they “strongly agree” that recycling programs are important for the city to undertake, which is a steady incline over previous surveys.
The City of Arvada tried to promote sustainability, but failed because of inadequate preparation and capacity to deliver on their commitments. The City Manager’s Office argues that thousands of tons of recyclables were diverted from landfills during the event, but more can be done in the future to ensure the supply of recycling opportunities meets residents’ demands.
Policy Options
The City of Arvada’s recycling event failed because of poor planning and awareness of the demand for recycling services. City staff did not take into consideration the huge popularity of the Spring Clean-Up Program, nor did they engage with citizens to determine a baseline percentage of who might use the recycling event to dispose of items. To eliminate these issues moving forward, a policy has been created for possible implementation. The policy is weighed on the following criteria:
- Effectiveness: This is measured by the amount of recyclable material that is diverted from landfills because of this policy.
- Efficiency: The policies are rated based on how efficient they are at meeting city and resident sustainability goals for waste diversion.
- Costs: This measure takes into account the costs of implementing the policy recommendation.
It is with these three levels of measures that policy option has been assessed. The cost-benefit analysis is listed in the following sections.
Policy Option: Accept hard-to-recycle materials year-round, while continuing the partnership with SustainAbility
The city can maximize their ability to meet sustainability and recycling goals by offering recycling drop-off services multiple times a year. Arvadans could dispose of their items at SustainAbility, the city’s local recycler, during specific times throughout the year. Instead of a two-week window, the city and SustainAbility would offer multiple days throughout the year, and add or subtract them based on demand. This policy has the most positive effects out of the three options, but does come with a cost limitation.
- Effectiveness: Accepting materials year-round eliminates the capacity issue by spreading the demand for service over a long period of time. Residents will not be restricted to a small window of time in which they can recycle; they have greater flexibility to recycle items when it is most convenient to them. Capacity issues will be reduced with this option, and will most likely result in increased participation and higher diversion rates.
- Efficiency: This policy has the greatest impact on city and resident goals, in particular for recycling. The year-round program meets residents’ demand for recycling and adheres to the Sustainable Community Plan recommendation for implementing recycling programming. As a bonus, it highlights Arvada’s commitment to sustainability and makes them leaders and experts in such practices, which other municipalities can use as resources for their own programs.
- Costs: The overhead and staffing costs for partnering with SustainAbility year-round could be higher, due to the greater amount of time being spent and resources being used to offer the service. It is possible city staff could negotiate a lower fee, based on the volume of recyclables. Using the $70 per ton baseline, and 500 tons of trash per month, the city could pay over $420,000 per year on recycler fees. If residents do not take to the year-round model, costs could exceed the benefit of the program altogether.
Policy Recommendation
With increasing demand for sustainable programming, it is recommended that the City of Arvada adopt policy option three, which is to implement a year-round recycling program, in conjunction with SustainAbility. This option is perfect for addressing the issue of capacity at the previous recycling events because of three main reasons.
First, it offers more opportunities for residents to recycle than just two weeks. This would result in greater waste diversion output, since it would make recycling more convenient for residents. Collecting the materials within the city limits also allows staff to better track how many tons of items are being diverted from landfills.
Second, this policy option also aligns best with resident and city goals for sustainability, by providing a long-term solution to removing unwanted items. The Sustainable Community Plan includes recommendations for city-wide recycling efforts, and the Sustainability Committee has been working to recommend recycling programming, too. This option reiterates the city’s commitment to those goals.
Higher costs are a consideration for this policy option. However, costs can be reduced by implementing some strategies. Offering the hard-to-recycle item drop-off during times where SustainAbility is already open, will reduce overhead building heating and electric costs, as well as minimize the need for employee overtime. The liaison for the Sustainability Committee could be the point-of-contact for this position, instead of hiring another coordinator. Because the demand will be lower, additional staff will not be necessary.
This policy not only meets two of the three recommendation criteria, and has options in place to alleviate the higher costs, it also increases the satisfaction of residents, through meeting their demands for such programming. A successful year-round program could also make the community a more desirable place to live, work, and recreate, attracting environmentally-friendly businesses and families. If the policy succeeds, it also gives city leaders and staff notoriety and status as sustainability pioneers. Attached to this memo are outlines that can assist with implementing and measuring the success of this policy option.
Conclusion
The demand for sustainable programming in the City of Arvada is increasing, yet the previous attempt at providing such a service failed because city staff did not adequately understand the demand for such programming. The best way forward is to restructure the program to improve the capacity. Doing so will help the city achieve its goals, increase the amount of items being recycled, and reduce the bad publicity that results from poor planning.
Sincerely,
~Brandon Figliolino
No comments:
Post a Comment