Achieving Sustainable Solid Waste Management for the City of Denver

UNIVERSITY OF DENVER

Achieving Sustainable Solid Waste Management for the City of Denver

An Exploration of Volume-Based Pricing

Policy Memorandum

Institute for Public Policy

Megan R. Marshall

Faculty Advisor: Dr. Lapo Salucci

Spring Quarter, 2014

Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver

1

1 Marshall

Table Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

Problem Definition ........................................................................................................................................................ 4

The Threat Landfills Pose to Colorado’s Environment ............................................................................................. 4

The Flaw of the City of Denver’s Policy Solution .................................................................................................... 6

Methods ....................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Issue Analysis .............................................................................................................................................................. 16

City of Denver: Current Solid Waste Management Policy 101 .............................................................................. 17

Policy Incentives to Increase Residential Solid Waste Diversion Rates ................................................................. 21

Case Study Ontario, Canada: Efficient Incentive Practices ..................................................................................... 24

Oregon’s State Government & Portland Oregon: Effective municipal & state diversion policies .......................... 25

Boulder County: Zero Waste Action Plan ............................................................................................................... 27

Require construction and demolition project recycling and reuse: ..................................................................... 29

Volume-based collection and embedded recycling Pay-As-You-Throw: ........................................................... 29

Recycling Expansion: ......................................................................................................................................... 29

Composting Expansion: ...................................................................................................................................... 29

Policy Stakeholders ................................................................................................................................................. 30

1) The City of Denver- ................................................................................................................................... 30

a. Environment- ............................................................................................................................................. 30

2) Solid Waste Disposal Providers- ................................................................................................................ 30

3) Single-family Unit Residents of Denver- ................................................................................................... 31

4) Multi-Family Residents of Denver- ........................................................................................................... 31

5) Property Owners/Landlords- ...................................................................................................................... 31

Proposed Solutions ...................................................................................................................................................... 31

Status Quo ............................................................................................................................................................... 32

Alternative 1A: Mandatory PAYT Single-family Residential Recycling and Composting Policy ......................... 33

Alternative 1B: Mandatory PAYT Single & Multi- Family Recycling and Composting Policy ............................ 35

Alternative 2: Denver Recycling and Composting Educational Outreach .............................................................. 36

Cost Benefit Analysis .................................................................................................................................................. 38

Status Quo Policy Alternative ................................................................................................................................. 39

Costs: .................................................................................................................................................................. 39

Benefits ............................................................................................................................................................... 41


Costs: .................................................................................................................................................................. 42

Benefits: .............................................................................................................................................................. 44


2 Marshall

2


Costs: .................................................................................................................................................................. 45

Benefits: .............................................................................................................................................................. 46

Alternative 2: Recycling Educational Outreach for Single-family Units ................................................................ 46

Costs ................................................................................................................................................................... 46

Benefits ............................................................................................................................................................... 47

Further Analysis of Alternative 1A ......................................................................................................................... 47

Diversion Rate Projections 2016-2030 ............................................................................................................... 47

Sensitivity Analysis of Diversion Rates .............................................................................................................. 48

Sensitivity Analysis of the Effect of Population Growth .................................................................................... 49

Strategic Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ 49

Weekly Curbside Pick-up ........................................................................................................................................ 50

Mandatory Recycling .............................................................................................................................................. 51

Comprehensive Organic Collection ........................................................................................................................ 51

Pay-As-You-Throw Fee Structure........................................................................................................................... 52

Weaknesses and Limitations........................................................................................................................................ 52

Conclusion: .................................................................................................................................................................. 55

Works Cited or Consulted ........................................................................................................................................... 57

Appendix I: Cost Benefit Analysis Matrix .................................................................................................................. 60

Appendix II: Cost Benefit Analysis Breakdown ......................................................................................................... 65

Status Quo ............................................................................................................................................................... 65




Appendix III: Cost Benefit Analysis with Consumer Cost Index Adjustment ............................................................ 73

Status Quo ............................................................................................................................................................... 73




Appendix IV: Net Present Value ................................................................................................................................. 85

Appendix V: CBA Diversion Rate Progression Alternative 1A .................................................................................. 87

Appendix VI: Sensitivity Analysis Varying Diversion Rates for 2030 ....................................................................... 91

Appendix VII: Sensitivity Analysis Population Growth .............................................................................................. 95


3

3 Marshall

Executive Summary

The state of Colorado currently disposes of most of its municipal solid waste in landfills across

the state. As of 2008, Colorado disposes of 88% of its waste in landfills placing Colorado at the lowest

20% of states in terms of diversion, along with states like Mississippi, Alabama, and South Dakota (Lisa

A. Skumatz & Freeman, 2008). While cities across the state of Colorado have implemented successful

recycling and composting programs boasting diversion rates of 40% and higher, Denver has quickly

fallen behind the other municipalities across the state of Colorado. The national average for recycling sits

at 34% while the city of Denver dropped to a 14% recycling rate in 2013 (Vidal, 2010).

The City of Denver is currently the only city in Colorado to provide a waste collection service as

part of the city’s services without an additional fee. Denver’s residents currently do not have any

incentive to participate in diversion rate practices. In order to increase Denver’s overall diversion rate this

memorandum explores different incentives and policy structures that alter peoples’ behavior to participate

in diversion rate practices such as recycling and composting. In this piece, Denver is presented with three

different policy options to address the city’s program deficit and low recycling and composting

penetration among residents.

The first policy option, and the least cost prohibitive, would be for the city to boost its education

and outreach program to increase recycling rates. The second option would expand both recycling and

composting programs to single family units through a Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) incentive structure

will be defined later in this paper. The third option, which may be the most cost prohibitive, but would

increase both recycling and composting rates across the city the more drastically, would expand recycling

and composting programs to all residents in the city limits including large multi-family homes. According

to the cost benefit analysis, Mandatory PAYT Recycling and Composting Collection for single family

units is the best option for the city to both increase its cost effectiveness and environmental efficiency.


4 Marshall

4

The State of Colorado disposes of the majority of its waste into landfills, which pose a health risk

to the state’s residents through toxic chemical emissions and leaching into ground water supplies.

The City of Denver currently houses the largest concentration of residents in the state and

therefore has the most promise to divert large amounts of waste from landfills. However, the

City’s current policy is cost ineffective and still sends the majority of its municipal solid waste to

landfills.

Problem Definition

The Threat Landfills Pose to Colorado’s Environment

The State of Colorado utilizes landfills for the primary disposal of solid waste across the state.

The State of Colorado provides no diversion rate goals, tools, incentives, guidelines, or regulatory

measures in terms of diverting municipal solid waste (MSW) away from landfills to recycling or

composting facilities. In 2012, the State of Colorado sent 6,190,799 cubic tons of waste to the landfill

(CDPHE 2012). Landfills are incredibly harmful to the environment (degrading soil, water, and air

qualities through leaching, pollution, et cetera). While landfills must comply with air quality and safety

regulations, rural waste disposal areas are notorious for dodging safety procedures. Regulations state that

landfills need to have a liner, a low permeable barrier that retards migration of leachate into the

underlying aquifers and nearby water sources, but in Colorado and in rural areas especially, solid waste

providers do not follow such landfill safety procedures. Failure to do so causes leaching of toxic

compounds into both the solid and ground water supplies (Wolfgang 2013). Landfills are notorious for

producing pollution that permeates ground water stores and the atmosphere (El-Fadel, Findikakis, &

Leckie, 1997). They are also known for creating odor problems, killing surface vegetation, and

contributing to global climate change.

As refuse in landfills decomposes it breaks down to form what are called landfill gases (LFGs),

including Methane (CH4), Carbon Dioxide (CO2), and non-methane organic compounds (NMOC)

(CDPHE2012). Landfills also create “smog causing volatile organic compounds (VOCs)” and air toxin

pollutants that are linked to cancer and other serious health ailments (El-Fadel, Findikakis, & Leckie,

1997). Solid Waste haulers are also known for creating Particulate Matter (PM) emissions that are


5

5 Marshall

generated by fugitive dust traveling on paved and, especially, unpaved roads. Solid waste disposal in

landfills, old or new, poses significant long-term risks to the environment and the health of the people of

Colorado. Due to microbial decomposition, items in landfills cause gas and leachate migration away from

landfills to the surrounding environments and water systems. Gases wafting from landfills contain toxic

pollutants that are known to cause cancer, asthma, and other respiratory diseases. People who reside close

to landfills are vulnerable to these emissions on a regular basis. Overall, the various negative externalities

from landfill disposal practices impart a social cost of $9 for every ton of waste deposited in landfills

(Acuff 2013).

Landfill gas production originates from the chemical and microbial reactions during the

decomposition process, emitting methane (CH4) into the atmosphere. Methane comprises 60 percent of

landfill emissions while carbon dioxide makes up the remaining gases, which are emitted from food and

yard waste sent to the landfills. Landfills are the largest producers of anthropogenic methane emissions in

the United States. While methane’s lifespan in the atmosphere is shorter than that of CO2, methane more

efficiently traps radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, methane is 20 times more potent to the atmosphere

(El-Fadel, Findikakis, & Leckie, 1997). When landfills are not managed properly, they can develop

landfill gas migration— explosions caused by the building pressures of a variety of chemical compounds

disposed of in landfills.

Not only are landfills the most expensive kind of waste management service, but it perpetuates a

cycle of using virgin resources to be extracted from the earth, processed, and in the end buried in local

communities. In 2012 the State of Colorado disposed of 88% of its municipal solid waste in the landfill

(CDPHE). During the same year, simply hauling the state’s waste to be dumped in a landfill cost

Colorado residents $6,069,189.34. In order to avoid depleting our landfill capacity over the next 50 years

and incurring unmanageable costs and to help reduce the negative impacts landfills create, policies around

waste minimization and waste diversion need to be examined. Since Colorado adopted the Climate

Protection Plan under Governor Bill Ritter in 2007, a viable solid waste disposal plan will be a necessary.


6 Marshall

6

Some communities have found sustainable solid waste programs are relatively quick and cost-effective

methods of achieving carbon reduction goals (Skumatz 2008).

The Financial Barriers to Constructing New Landfills

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) estimates that Colorado’s

current landfills have a 50-year lifespan remaining. Colorado currently has 186 landfills operating across

the state with over 27 million cubic yards of MSW generated in Colorado in 2002. The state’s per capita

daily waste production currently exceeds the national average (Infrastructure Report Card). If Colorado

continues to dispose of 88 percent of its MSW in landfills it will lead to quicker landfill depletion

especially as the state’s population grows. Landfills have limited space therefore can only hold a limited

amount of waste, when landfills are full they need to be replaced by new disposal sites, which can be a

large expense to local municipalities. These new landfills are typically even more costly to construct,

operate, and maintain compared to older disposal sites.

According to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment the average cost to

simply construct new landfills is $30 million dollars (Kray, Waste Diversion Update, 2013). This cost

however does not reflect the additional process of getting a permit through the State of Colorado to build

the new landfill disposal site. The prospective site needs to be vetted for the proper landfill area needed;

the composition of the underlying composition of the soil, the flow of surface water over the site, and the

impact the proposed landfill will have on the area’s wildlife and environment. There is also an additional

cost to close the landfill that has reached its capacity before beginning construction on the new landfill

site to cover the waste, capture excessive emissions, and plant mandated surface vegetation, closing a

landfill can cost an additional $30 million dollars. The state needs to preemptively develop MSW policies

in order to minimize the total waste management cost for years to come. Colorado currently ranks 47th in

the nation for diverting the solid waste from the landfill (Colorado Department of Public Health &

Environment, 2012). However, if recycling and composting rates around the state increase, it is possible

to increase the lifespan of the state’s landfills and postpone building new dumpsites.


7

7 Marshall

The Denver Arapahoe Disposal Site for the City of Denver for example is one of the top ten

largest landfills in the country in terms of tons disposed on a daily basis. The City of Denver has a vested

interest in decreasing the amount of waste sent to the landfill to increase the landfill life of Denver

Arapahoe Disposal Site. In recognition of the loss of natural resources, the environmental & health

hazards of landfills, and limited City owned landfill space has led to the City of Denver developing a

recycling collection program.

The Flaw of the City of Denver’s Policy Solution

The City of Denver is one urban center that has sought to address landfill disposal rates within the

state. Other Colorado municipalities working toward higher diversion rates include, but are not limited to:

Boulder, Broomfield, Loveland, and Fort Collins. While the City of Denver began its recycling program

almost twenty years ago, the city’s diversion rates are considerably lower than other municipally-

managed programs. Denver averages a 20 percent diversion rate annually while Boulder has achieved 47

percent, Fort Collins 43 percent, Loveland 25 percent, and Lafayette diverts 66% of its waste (Denver

Solid Waste Management, 2014). Denver currently contracts the processing of recyclables by requiring its

processor, Waste Management, to offer recyclable revenue per ton to be payable to the city. The

processor gives the city a share in revenues exceeding the base amount; this is known as the “up market

share” (EPA). The City of Denver and Waste Management calculate the rate based on an agreed upon

percentage distribution of commodities processed by the first of January each year, based on recycling

markets. They find the base market value in the January issues of “Official Board Markets: The Yellow

Sheet and Recycling Markets” and calculate the current market value monthly (Vidal, 2010). The

processor is able to propose what percentage of its additional revenue the city will receive, computed on a

per ton basis. Denver is one of the few cities in Colorado to provide a trash service as part of city services

without an extra fee.

While the city seeks to achieve a 30 percent diversion rate, it currently has only 40 percent of

residents participating in the program, with a meager average 19 percent diversion rate in 2012 (Vidal,


8 Marshall

8

2010). Denver Recycles just published a report declaring that Denver’s recycling rate has dropped from

19 percent to14 percent in the last year (Meyer J. , 2011). The city continues to struggle to entice residents

benefitting from DSWM’s collection program to full participate through recycling. The current recycling

rate of 14 percent is 12 percentage points below the state’s most recent diversion numbers and lags

significantly behind the national average of 34 percent (Denver Recycles 2014). Currently, 75 percent of

the waste Denver residents send to the landfill can be recycled or composted (Vidal, 2010). In 2012,

Denver residents tossed $1,800,000 of recyclables alone in the landfill, which represents a significant loss

of potential revenue for the city (Vidal, 2010).

Presently, the City of Denver provides recycling collection services through the city’s General

Fund. Denver’s recycling program is facing a $30 million per year budget gap (Meyer 2011). The current

trash and recycling program costs roughly $10 per month for the 172,000 homes that receive this service

(Vidal, 2010). All administrative costs and operating expenses cost the city $20.53 million in 2011,

34%

21%

14%

46% 43%

66%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

United States State ofColorado

Denver Boulder Fort Collins Lafayette

Diversion Rate Comparison

Figure 1: Diversion rates of different areas compared to Denver (Vidal 2010, CDPHE 2012, Skumatz 2008, Boulder County 2010)


9

9 Marshall

0 5 10 15 20 25

Landfilling

Composting

Recycling Processing

Recycling-Based Manufacturing

Processor Jobs created(per 10,000 tons per year)

Different Waste Streams’ Average Job Creation

which, divided by the number of homes Denver services, puts the cost of the recycling program at $120

annually per household. Denver residents currently have no incentive to increase their overall

participation in waste minimization programs. The service is free whether they dispose of the majority of

their waste into recycling or not. Programs that do not increase the cost from residents that dispose of the

majority of their waste in the landfill are notoriously ineffective, while recycling programs that offer a

cost incentive to recycle are proven to be much more effective (Lisa A. Skumatz & Freeman, 2008).

Recycling and composting do take more effort on the client’s part to sort the waste properly, while

landfilling items is simple. Because of this, a cost incentive would be an effective way to motivate

residents to make the extra effort.

In 2008, Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA) conducted research around the

possibility of increasing overall recycling rates across the State of Colorado. The study concluded that in

order for the state to increase diversion rates, current gaps across the state needed to be amended: curbside

recycling collection, curbside

pick-up for food waste and yard

waste, Pay-As-You-Throw

penetration, large value

commercial recycling, and

education on diversion (Skumatz

2008). Curbside collection refers

to waste diversion programs that

provide a service through which

trucks pick-up the waste at individual residences, rather than having residents commute to drop-off

locations. Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) penetration refers to municipalities requiring companies to embed

the cost of recycling and/or composting into the cost of waste collection. PAYT also known as volume-

Figure 2 (Institute for Local Self Reliance)


10 Marshall

10

Colorado Diversion Rate Trends

based collection requires greater levels of waste diversion through recycling/composting, but will charge

customers extra for generating more than the allotted landfill waste. Once municipalities and states have

created successful diversion programs, like the County of Boulder, they invest in end markets for

recyclables to strengthen the recycling structure within the state. These types of investments lead to

recyclables being processed locally, creating jobs within the state instead of elsewhere. It has been

proven that recycling and composting programs create more jobs than landfilling (See Figure 2). One

particular study found that composting creates 4 jobs per 10,000 tons of waste composted and 25 jobs per

10,000 tons of waste recycled, while landfilling only creates 1 job per 10,000 tons (Institute for Local Self

Reliance).

The City of Denver’s program has failed to significantly increase diversion rates over the last 20

years of its implementation (See Figure 3). The city’s diversion program has become costly and does not

show a return on investment. The city does not utilize the policy interventions that have been proven to

dramatically increase diversion participation among residents within municipalities around the country. In

Colorado, the municipalities with successful diversion programs utilize PAYT, curbside weekly pick-up

programs, and composting expansion and have seen 30 percent diversion rate increases over a five-year

period (Ferrara &

Missios, 2005). This

policy memorandum

explores the various

policy options that

would allow the City

of Denver to increase

its overall diversion

rates while creating a

return on the city’s investment in the program. The policy options include: developing an education and Figure 3 (Lisa A. Skumatz & Freeman, 2008)


11

11 Marshall

outreach program around recycling, creating an incentive system for single-family homes, and expanding

the program to citizens who reside in apartments.

Methods

For this memorandum, I collected reports, news articles, and plans from a variety of recycling

programs to compare different policy solutions. Policies around reducing waste sent to the landfills focus

on both waste minimization and waste diversion. Waste minimization describes policies and practices that

seek to reduce or eliminate waste produced, while waste diversion policy combines efforts around waste

prevention, reuse, and recycling practices. In order to understand the complex barriers that Colorado faces

in terms of waste diversion, I needed to find research about the current state of municipal solid waste

(MSW) collection in Colorado and the costs of various policy approaches to MSW. I worked with the

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) to obtain documents explaining the

state’s current MSW regulations at the state level and outlining the state’s infrastructure to handle waste.

State legislation and annual reports show that Colorado has increased its diversion rate each year since the

late 1990s, but that it is still 4th in the nation in terms of tonnage of waste sent to landfills.

Reading these government documents allowed me to compare the different policy alternatives to

address Colorado’s low diversion rate. It is also important to analyze a list of a few municipal solid waste

providers the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has compiled, from average

diversion rates to the number of MSW providers that exist in the State of Colorado. Examining

documents regarding Colorado’s diversion rates, helped provide support to my claim that the government

need to intervene in order for recycling rates to increase.

The CDPHE hired Skumatz Economic Research Associates (SERA) to perform an analysis of

Colorado’s potential to increase waste sent to recycling and composting facilities. The report outlines

various strategies, recommendations, and implications that a diversion plan would have on the state’s

economy. The final report compares the State of Colorado to four other states that have stronger diversion

legislation and have similar economic compositions to Colorado to better convey the implications that


12 Marshall

12

diversion would have for the state. The study explains that Colorado’s large expanses of empty land and

small townships make it less cost effective for each ton of waste to be diverted, simply because the

population density is too low in these areas (Lisa A. Skumatz & Freeman, 2008). Colorado’s cheap

tipping fees for landfill waste in conjunction with a void of state leadership on the issue leaves diversion

to the local municipalities, which do not always have the resources and capital to develop waste diversion

programs. Tipping fees are solid waste disposal rates assigned when refuse collection trucks empty or

“tip” their loads at a landfill, transfer station, or incinerator. In order to determine a recycling/composting

program’s overall effectiveness, it is essential to track the pounds diverted from the landfill and captured

by the facilities. This report outlined clear deliverables for successful waste diversion programs: curbside

recycling, collection frequency, Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) penetration, ensuring basic, large-value

commercial recycling, recycling end markets in the state, and education on diversion. I identified

successful waste diversion potential policies for the city by examining the seven principal programs and

procedures and then completing a cost benefit analysis.

I also worked with Denver Solid Waste Management to obtain the city’s strategic plan to increase

overall recycling and composting rates for the next year. Denver’s “Master Plan for Managing Solid

Waste in the Mile High City” clearly outlines its strategic planning for the next three years to improve the

city’s overall diversion rate participation on the behalf of Denver residents. The main avenue of Denver’s

plan to increase recycling and composting participation will involve education and outreach campaigning,

which has been shown to only increase diversion rates by a few percentage points (Lisa A. Skumatz &

Freeman, 2008). While this policy approach is not cost prohibitive, it tends to have a low return on

investment in terms of an increase in diversion rates. In the master plan, the city explores the current costs

of the program and costs of alternative programs to increase participation. Denver is currently caught

between trying to provide a cost effective program while trying to still provide good customer service to

the residents of Denver. Since Denver’s is the only program in the state without an additional fee to

participate, the city is trying to not implement a Pay-As-You-Throw system, which most city residents


13

13 Marshall

oppose. Using the city’s master plan greatly helped me analyze and critique the city’s current policy

approach (the status-quo in this paper) and the cost effectiveness of the program in my cost benefit

analysis section.

To expand beyond the report SERA provided to the State of Colorado and the City of Denver’s

Master Plan, I researched the effectiveness of various recycling policy options by collecting research from

different academic journals. For example, I found an article called “Recycling and Waste Diversion

Effectiveness: Evidence from Canada” from the Springer Academic Journal on Environmental &

Resource Economics. Journals like this analyze the relationship between recycling policy options and

recycling behavior in order to identify the most effective systems to divert post-consumer waste from

landfills. Academic journals offer insight into current waste diversion policy programs while measuring

the social, economic, and environmental benefits of the various political approaches. In order to identify

the best-suited waste diversion and waste minimization policy for the State of Colorado, it is essential to

understand human behavior in relation to recycling policy.

In order to understand the public’s perception of waste diversion programs, I utilized Denver Post

News articles about Denver’s diversion program and articles from an agency called BioCycle that

publishes pieces about various waste management programs around the country. News agencies can

provide an opportunity to see how residents perceive the current policies and how it affects them. By

developing an understanding of the public’s opinion of their waste collection helps analysts predict how

well the public will receive new solid waste management policies. Ideally, policies will be able to address

any program inefficiencies while maintaining quality customer service for the residents of Denver.

Recycling interest groups and non-profits can also be good sources of information. Ironically,

some of these webpages can communicate the stories behind policy options and how effective they really

are. For example, the California state government does not have much information about its recycling

program in terms of the economic benefits of this program; however, internet sources such as BioCycle,

the leading magazine on recycling and composting information, and the non-profit organization


14 Marshall

14

Californians Against Waste provide an insight into some of the social, environmental, and economic

benefits of CalRecycle that the state government’s page does not express.

Since municipalities like Fort Collins and Boulder developed city-run MSW diversion programs,

I found it beneficial to analyze their current policies, reports, and infrastructure as well. Both

municipalities have 40 percent higher diversion rates than Denver, between both residents and the

cooperate sector and use a very different infrastructure model from the City of Denver. Both Boulder and

Fort Collins drafted Zero Waste master plans to divert a minimum of 90 percent of waste from landfills to

recycling or composting facilities within the next decade (Boulder County, 2010). Their aggressive and

proactive approach to waste minimization and waste diversion has made their programs some of the most

innovative in the nation. Learning more about recycling and composting in these programs in terms of

cost savings and diversion rates helped inform the various policy options for this policy proposal.

For this analysis I examined the different effects various policy intervention programs have on

landfill rates in the City of Denver. For the purpose of my research, the status quo will be the City of

Denver’s current recycling program. I assume that without new policy interventions the amount of the

waste sent to the landfill will not significantly decrease. After establishing a baseline for Denver, I look at

the effects of each policy alternative in the city and the ability of each alternative to reduce the amount of

waste sent to the landfill. This study primarily focuses on single-family to multi-family homes of seven or

fewer residential units. In 2004, Denver sent 254,489 tons of waste to the landfill (Vidal). Currently,

Denver only diverts an average of 20 percent (this number recently dropped to 14 percent) of generated

residential waste but seeks to increase its diversion rate to 30 percent (CDPHE).

The cost of the recycling program will incorporate the costs of building the expanded recycling

infrastructure to handle an increased diversion rate. I will calculate the upfront costs of each alternative

for the city and calculate the benefits of each benefit to the City of Denver as well. The benefits will

measure both fiscal and environmental gains from these policy alternatives. The problem can be measured

through pounds of waste diverted or sent to the landfill and dollars saved/extra capital generated through


15

15 Marshall

the program. There are environmental benefits which can be quantified, for example Greenhouse Gas

Emission (GHG) reduction can be quantified. In terms of emissions saved and dollars saved, creating

products out of already recycled materials can also be quantified. Figure 3 displays the Greenhouse Gas

Emissions in terms of production between virgin and recycled materials (Acuff & Kaffine, 2011).

Recycling by far is the most economical approach to divert waste from the landfills in Colorado. On

average, a recycling collection hauler will charge a household $3-$5/month while a landfill hauler will

charger around $8-$12/month (or more) to collect trash (Colorado Association for Recycling). Unlike

trash, once collected recycling is sold as a commodity unlike other trash haulers that have to dispose of

their waste in the landfills.

Figure 4: (Acuff & Kaffine, 2011)

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Virgin vs. Recycle Materials


16 Marshall

16

Issue Analysis

To increase my understanding of the state’s hurdles to decreases the amount of waste sent to the

landfill, I met with both the recycling and compost experts from CDPHE. Wolfgang Kray, the

Environmental Protection Specialist under the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,

explained the various points of opposition the Department has experienced from the state legislature.

Since tax increases have to be put to a vote by the residents of Colorado, any legislation passed by the

state in terms of meeting diversion rate goals would involve unfunded mandates which are not politically

popular among members of the legislature. He also discussed how CDPHE mainly regulates the safety of

MSW facilities and does not have much enforcement power in terms of helping municipalities send more

waste to recycling and composting facilities. Colorado’s current waste disposal infrastructure is not only

pollutant and cost ineffective; it also faces increasing pressures from the state’s population growth. The

fact that less than 20 percent of the municipal waste stream was recycled or composted in Colorado in

2009 shows that governments need to take a proactive role to decrease the waste sent to the landfill

(CDPHE). The City of Denver can serve as a catalyst to help diffuse effective diversion rate policies

across the Denver Metro Area. Denver is home to 10 percent of the state’s population and is one of the

most densely populated municipalities in the state; an improved diversion rate policy could be the most

cost effective here (Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, 2012). In order to reduce

overall waste produced and waste disposed of in the landfill there are a number of effective policy

approaches available, such as diversion rate goals, pay-as-you-throw, and increased curbside diversion

pick-ups.

In terms of population density, the Denver Metro Area houses 50.9 percent of the state’s

population, 2,645,209 residents (Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, 2012). The

various policy options that will be explored should focus on the most densely populated parts of the state

providing the most potential in terms of recycling collections. More densely populated municipalities

offer two opportunities. First, the cost of recycling becomes increasingly more economical in terms of


17

17 Marshall

curbside pick-ups in cities. Also the Denver Metro Arena produces over half of the state’s overall waste.

In terms of making an investment, the program could be much more cost effective and divert the most

waste if these areas were the focus of a waste diversion and waste minimization policy. In less densely

populated areas in Colorado, the cost of recycling would double or triple in some cases in order to

transport recyclables to the necessary facilities around the state (Jenkins, Martinez, Palmer, & Podolsky,

2003). In more densely populated municipalities like Denver, the distance between “waste pick-up points

is smaller,” which leads to more efficient waste collection in terms of resources and costs (De Jaeger,

Eyckmans, Rogge, & Van Puyenbroeck, 2011). Due to the ease of recycling in cities, an increase of

population density by 1000 people per square mile creates a 1.3 percent increase in the probability a

typical household will recycle (Ferrara & Missios, 2005). Denver has a population of 634,265 and covers

44.7 square miles in Denver, roughly 14,189 people inhabit each square mile. This should increase the

chances of the typical household recycling by over 18.2 percent compared to less densely populated

municipalities. Due to Denver’s population density, it has the greatest probability of convincing its

residents to participate in recycling programs.

City of Denver: Current Solid Waste Management Policy 101

Denver Solid Waste Management (DSWM) said it set out to meet four guiding principles, “good

customer service, worker safety, environmental stewardship, and efficiency/cost containment,” when it

started the Denver Recycles program in 1991 (Denver Public Works 2010). However, the current program

has proven to not only fail to meet its environmental mission, but to also be cost ineffective. In 2006,

Mayor John Hickenlooper established an action agenda titled, Greenprint Denver to promote sustainable

development throughout the City of Denver in hopes it would become one of the most sustainable cities

in the country. Spending $22 million, Greenprint Denver set a 30 percent diversion rate target for DSWM

to reach by 2011—which the program failed to meet (Vidal, 2010). The target tried to encourage

successful resource conversion through waste minimization and waste diversion practices. While the

program set rigorous standards, it did not have any real accountability to encourage residents to


18 Marshall

18

Figure 5(CDPHE 2010)

participate in diversion practices. Not only does the city’s solid municipal waste collection program need

to be environmentally salient, it should also produce revenue for the city.

The current system utilizes capital allocated from the city’s general fund to pay for residential

solid waste collection and disposal. This funding primarily comes from sales taxes from commercial

establishments and some funding from property taxes for both single and multi-family homes. While both

single-family and multi-family properties fund DSWM, only single-family homes and small multi-family

homes of fewer

than 7 units receive

the service.

According to data

from the Colorado

State Demography

Office in 2009,

there are 144,000

single-family units

in Denver and

95,000 multi-family units (Kray, Waste Diversion Update, 2013). Only 26,000 of these multi-family units

have seven units or less, which means the remaining 69,200 large multi-family units are not serviced by

Denver Solid Waste Management (DSWM). DSWM pays a tipping fee for waste disposed of in the

Denver Arapahoe Disposal Site’s landfill. Denver also receives a rebate from the contracted landfill

operator. However, the tipping fee is still a net cost item in Denver’s budget while DSWM is not charged

a tipping fee for recycling or composting disposal. Denver also receives payments for a percentage of the

recycled materials from Waste Management.

Currently, DSWM services 170,000 households and collects 220,000 tons of landfill waste each

year. Under DSWM, Denver Recycles does not mandate recycling under the current city’s model, so only

144,000 26,000

69,200

Denver Resident Housing Composition

Single Family Units Small Multi-Family Units Large Multi-Family Units


19

19 Marshall

32,000 tons of waste is typically recycled each year. DSWM also manages Denver Composts pilot

program, which is a pay to participate program with only 2,200 participants across the city. It is estimated

that residents would reduce their landfill waste production by 50 percent if all residents composted their

food and yard waste (Vidal, 2010). While Greenprint Denver and DSWM set a goal of a 30 percent

diversion rate by 2011, three years later the city is still struggling to increase its recycling rates, with the

most recent report showing a drop in recycling from 19 percent to 14 percent (Denver Solid Waste

Management, 2014). After 23 years of service, it is becoming increasingly clear the City of Denver needs

to find a new approach to increase diversion participation among residents.

Denver’s voluntary residential recycling program utilizes 65-gallon rolling totes with a collection

service provided every other week. The recycling program is currently comprised of both mixed pick-up

of 43 percent ally collection and 57 percent household service collection. Unlike other cities in Colorado,

Denver currently contracts with Waste Management’s recycling program to process and market

recyclables. As part of the contract, Denver receives revenues for the sale of these materials— a flat rate

based on the weight of the recyclables brought to the facility and market revenue, which Waste

Figure 6 Denver Arapahoe Disposal Site (Marshall)


20 Marshall

20

Management pays when commodity markets are above the benchmark in the contract. The processor

gives the city a share in revenues exceeding the base amount; this is known as the “up market share”

(EPA). The Waste Management proposes the percentage of its revenue from recycling profits Denver will

receive on a per ton basis. Denver is one of the few cities in Colorado to provide a trash service as part of

the city services without an extra fee.

In an attempt to gauge public opinion on improving the waste management program, DSWM

surveyed 3,000 households in Denver (See Figure 4). Out of those surveyed, 72 percent of respondents

felt recycling should be mandatory for DSWM customers and 84 percent of residents believed the

program should be expanded and made mandatory for large multi-family units to recycle as well (Vidal,

2010). Another 18 percent of Denver residents surveyed were supportive of a PAYT user fee system over

the current tax subsidized program (Vidal, 2010). While Denver Recycles boasts about its city provided

services, it may be time to look into a user fee structure to promote higher rates of recycling amongst

resident participants. Denver residents currently do not have any sort of disincentive to throw the majority

of their waste into the landfill or any incentive to increase their diversion participation.

Figure 7 (Vidal 2010)

Recycling Points % of Respondents

Endorse Increased Recycling 88

Reducing environmental impact

Important to reduce environmental impact of personal lives 70

Important for Denver to reduce citizen's impact 73

Most important solid waste system component to public health 58

Priorities in waste services:

After refuse collection, recycling collection was a top priority 78

Mandatory Recycling:

Recycling should be mandatory for DSWM customers 72

Recycling should be mandatory in large residences 84

How to Pay for Waste Services:

All services through taxes 57

Some services pay through user fees 25

All services by user fees 18

Willingness to pay for services to offset DSWM costs:

Reducing LIP collection to 4 times per year 31

Adding yard waste diversion 30

PAYT refuse pricing 19

Add drop-sites for recyclables 18

Results from Denver Solid Waste Management Survey


21

21 Marshall

If the City of Denver continues to send over 86 percent of its residential waste to landfills, the

program will continue to be cost ineffective. Landfills are the most costly means to dispose of waste due

to tipping fees, while the city can collect revenue off of recyclables collected and sold to various end

markets (Acuff & Kaffine, 2011). Other local governments both in the United States and Canada have

proven the cost effectiveness of waste diversion programs. States with economic and geographical

landscapes to Colorado, like Oregon, have also passed successful statewide initiatives to improve overall

diversion rates from the landfills (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality). Even local

municipalities in Colorado have implemented highly successful diversion programs in areas such as

Boulder, Loveland, and Fort Collins. While Ontario has implemented province-wide effective waste

collection practices, Boulder has now passed Zero Waste resolutions for its municipalities. Zero Waste is

defined by the EPA as diverting 90 percent of your waste from the landfill to composting or recycling

facilities.

Policy Incentives to Increase Residential Solid Waste Diversion Rates

Over the last several years, consultants from groups like Skumatz Economic Research Associates,

Inc. (SERA) have studied the various recycling policy incentives available to municipalities to increase

diversion rates. While some policy options spare cities from making heavy investments in new policies,

some of these programs have a small return on their investments. Other policies however have a larger

upfront cost but can increase diversion rates by 17 percent or more when they are successfully combined

with one another. In order to understand how the varying success of these various policy incentives from

the state to local levels, it is important to first discuss the various mechanisms of each policy option.

Volume-based Pricing: Pay-As-You-Throw

Pay-As-You-Throw systems exhibit a volume-based pricing model that charges residents for the

collection of municipal solid waste based on the amount of waste they generate. Similar to water bills,

users are charged a higher user fee for increased consumption and save money when they send less waste

to the landfill. Landfill is the costliest form of waste disposal; high landfill rates can cause municipalities


22 Marshall

22

like the City of Denver to lose money disposing of recyclable and compostable items in city landfills.

PAYT systems typically charge additional fees for excess landfill waste generation while embedding

recycling and composting disposal costs in the fee. While residents are charged for larger landfill disposal

carts, residents can always request larger compost or recycle carts free of any additional cost. When

residents are charged for landfill waste generated, it creates a direct economic incentive to recycle and

compost more and also to generate less waste. Residents become more mindful of their waste generation

and even the types of disposable products they purchase. The less individuals throw away the less they

will have to pay.

Using a volume-based system, households sign up for a specific size and number of containers for

landfill collection service and receive a bill that is higher or lower depending on the volume of waste

disposed. In most cities with this type of program, disposal decreases 16 to 17 percent (EPA 2009). One

of the important advantages of a volume-based program is its equity. According to the EPA (2009),

“When the cost of managing trash is hidden in taxes or charged at a flat rate, residents who recycle and

prevent waste subsidize their neighbors' wastefulness.”

Weekly Curbside Collection

At present, the City of Denver utilizes a weekly dumpster system for residential landfill

collection. Dumpsters encourage residents to dispose of the majority of their waste in the landfill and

encourage illegal dumping among residents since several different households dispose of waste in the

same container. When each household has a personal cart in which to dispose their waste, they feel more

personal responsibility to dispose of waste properly (Jenkins, Martinez, Palmer, & Podolsky, 2003).

When there are communal dumpsters, residents dispose of large items into them, but cart collection limits

they can dispose of for landfill pick-up. The recycling program is also only collected every other week.

When landfill waste is collected weekly and recycling is only twice a month, it incentivizes residents to

dispose of most of their waste in the landfill, especially if their recycling bins fill up. Weekly curbside

collection of all waste, recycling, organics, and landfill products incentivizes residents to dispose of their


23

23 Marshall

waste in the proper bins when the city collects them each week. SERA shows that curbside recycling and

composting collection can increase diversion by 20 percent or more. Curbside collection is also a

necessary component of volume-based pricing. Individualized cart collection allows the city to adequately

track the waste disposal of each household while communal dumpsters make it impossible to track an

individual’s disposal (Lisa A. Skumatz & Freeman, 2008). Weekly collection of all MSW streams also

makes it easier to track disposal patterns since people are less likely to have their compost and recycle

bins overflow between collections.

Mandatory Recycling and Composting Participation

Denver’s current recycling program is an optional subscription only system. There is no

compulsory diversion program with the City of Denver. When recyclables and compostables are banned

from the landfill with the penalty of a fine, residents will become more conscious about their waste

disposal practices. When it is estimated 86 percent of the waste sent to the landfill can be diverted through

composting or recycling, governments need to pass a ban on landfilling organic and recyclable items

(Lisa A. Skumatz & Freeman, 2008). In the United States, 22 state governments have banned the disposal

of yard debris in landfills due to the high levels of methane emissions (EPA 2009). The City and County

of Boulder implemented mandatory composting and recycling in an attempt to reach a 70 percent

diversion rate for the municipality (Boulder County, 2010).

Education and Outreach

Education outreach through the use of pamphlets and move-in packets can increase diversion

rates. Expanded education and promotion of both recycling and composting helps notify residents of the

proper waste disposal for various items and encourages source separation. Residents rarely understand the

difference between recycling and composting and dispose of items improperly into each stream.

Oftentimes, people think plastics are also compostable or food contaminated paper (pizza boxes for

example) are recyclable when these items are actually contaminants when disposed of in the wrong

streams. The utilization of mailers, web-based campaigns, move-in packets, and diversion education in


24 Marshall

24

schools can be effective in disseminating information on how, what, and where to recycle (CalRecycle).

Education can also tell residents the benefits of composting and recycling in terms of energy savings

along with the economic benefits. Not only does education lead to lower contamination rates but it can

also help increase residential participation in a recycling and composting program, education can increase

diversion rates between 1-3 percent (Ferrara & Missios, 2005). Education promoting recycling and

composting can also create lifelong habits for diversion. Producing pamphlets and other educational

materials are also the least cost prohibitive of the available recycling policy options, costing

approximately $1 per resident annually.

Case Study Ontario, Canada: Efficient Incentive Practices

In Ontario, Canada Springer studied the relationship

between diversion behaviors and various incentive structures to

determine which combinations of policies are most effective.

Micro-data sets were collected from households and communities

across Ontario, Canada. The study analyzed the relationships

between “commonly recycled materials, house holder

characteristics, recycling attributes, and garbage collection

methods” to determine what increased diversion rate participation

among residents. User fees on garbage collection have a significant

impact on recycling levels and mandatory recycling programs for

particular items also increased the recycling rate of all other materials (Ferrara & Missios, 2005).

Weekly curbside recycling pick-up has a positive effect, especially on glass, aluminum, and toxic

chemicals. On average, weekly pick-up is shown to increase recycling rates 4.3 percent for glass, 4.4

percent for aluminum, and 11.6 percent for toxic chemicals (De Jaeger, Eyckmans, Rogge, & Van

Puyenbroeck, 2011). Recycling is more appealing when it is collected at the same frequency as landfill

waste, which results in a higher recycling intensity. Weekly collection limits the level of recyclables that a

Figure 8 (Young 2013 Toronto)


25

25 Marshall

residence needs to store week to week. When recyclables are collected each week, people are more likely

to dispose of recyclables properly instead of simply throwing them into the landfill. Mandatory recycling

also has a positive effect on increasing recycling rates. Curbside recycling across a municipality also

increases non-curbside recycling, such as people taking toxic chemicals to drop-off locations to recycle

them properly. Home ownership is also found to have a positive effect on recycling participation,

suggesting that homeowners, when compared to renters, are more attached to the community and want to

participate in recycling practices.

The study also found that municipalities that mandate residents to recycle see higher participation

rates. Moving from optional participation to a mandatory recycling program increases the likelihood of

recycling 100 percent between 6.4 percent and 29.7 percent and lowers the probability of recycling

nothing by 3.4 percent to 29.6 percent (Ferrara 2005). Mandatory recycling policies create penalties, in

the form of steep fees, for people who throw prohibited items in the landfill. When city residents are

required to dispose of their recyclables, they are more conscious of their waste disposal practices in order

to avoid additional costs and fees on their waste disposal bills. While some townships have a designated

fee structure for violations, many others use the mandate as a symbolic gesture. Even without a fee

penalty, residents still increase their overall recycling density. Pay-As-You-Throw (volume-based

pricing) payment structures are shown to increase diversion on the order of 6 percent-17 percent (Ferrara

& Missios, 2005). Boulder, Fort Collins, Loveland, and Broomfield all use PAYT systems and require

recycling from their residents, which has increased their overall recycling rates over the last five years.

Oregon’s State Government & Portland Oregon: Effective municipal & state diversion policies

Oregon has developed a successful diversion program over the last several years and can

demonstrate a good economic, population, and waste model for this memorandum. As Colorado and

Oregon have similar geographic and demographic characteristics, they are good states to compare. Both

states’ populations are comparable; while Colorado has 4.81 million residents Oregon has 3.5 million

residents (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality). The average community size in Colorado is


26 Marshall

26

12,900 people while Oregon’s average community size is 10,100 (Oregon Department of Environmental

Quality). Both states have a similar makeup in terms of the industries that comprise the major economies

including health and social services, accommodation and food, construction, and retail and trade (Lisa A.

Skumatz & Freeman, 2008).

Like Colorado, Oregon had a number of barriers to implement a recycling program; however, the

state government has crafted ways to overcome both the physical and perceived barriers facing the state.

Similar to Colorado, Oregon has large expanses of land with low population densities and remote rural

areas, while the majority of the state’s population is clustered along the coast. The Portland area

resembles the Front Range of Colorado due it’s the high population density. When Oregon passed the

Opportunity to Recycle Act, the legislation led to new curbside residential collection programs and the

Oregon Recycling Act of 1991, which strengthened recycling requirements and encouraged recycling end

market development (SERA 2008).

Through assistance from the state, Oregonian municipalities effectively implemented new

garbage collection practices and improved recycling and composting collection. Through a volume-based

Pay-As-You-Throw system, Oregon has significantly decreased the amount of waste sent to the landfills.

The rates charged to residents for waste collection are charged on a monthly basis, depending on the size

of landfill that can be utilized (30 gallon can=$10-21; 60 gallon can=$13-30; 90 gallon can=$13-35)

(Oregon Department of Environmental Quality). The municipalities now all provide curbside recycling

services and yard waste curbside collection to help improve diversion rates as well. Most municipalities

also participated in a mandatory and single stream recycling program to increase accessibility to diversion

practices and to further incentivize participation. By 2006, Oregon generated 4.3 million tons of

municipal solid waste (MSW), sent 2.2 million tons to landfills, 1.6 tons was recycled, and 431,000 tons

were composted, reading an overall diversion rate of 46 percent (Oregon Department of Environmental

Quality). In 2011, Oregon recovered 2,302,794 tons out of the 4,740,561 tons generated within that year,

achieving a 52.3 percent diversion rate for the entire state (Oregon Department of Environmental


27

27 Marshall

Quality). Compared to Colorado’s 6,190,799 tons landfilled in 2012 (about 88 percent of the state’s waste

produced), Oregon is diverting nearly 50 percent of the entire state’s generated waste (Colorado

Department of Public Health & Environment, 2012).

In 2006, Portland developed a prevention and recycling plan called the Portland Recycles plan,

which aimed to increase the city’s recycling and composting rates in concordance with the state’s

recycling policy. The plan has four main goals: 1) to have a recycling rate of 75 percent by 2015; 2)

reduce toxins and greenhouse

gases; 3) to have zero growth in

the waste stream as population

rises; 4) to make the system as a

whole more sustainable (Portland

Recycles Plan 2006). In Portland,

all residents have separate

containers for landfill, recycling,

and composting disposal. All three

of these streams are collected on a weekly basis, although residents can choose to limit their landfill

collection to as little as one time each month. The city also promotes Fix-It Fairs to help promote repair

and reuse of products instead of disposing them in the landfill (Oregon Department of Environmental

Quality). As of 2011, Portland has already reached a 59.3 percent recycling rate.

Boulder County: Zero Waste Action Plan

Unlike Denver, Boulder does not have a single solid waste provider. Instead, it requires that the

MSW companies provide recycling programs embedded in the waste collection fee (Boulder County,

2010). Boulder passed the “2005 Zero Waste Resolution to attaining Zero Waste by 2025” throughout all

of Boulder County, along with the unincorporated municipalities in the area. The county created an action

plan to lead to a comprehensive approach to sustainability in order to generate more recycling jobs for the

Figure 9 (City of Portland, 2012)


28 Marshall

28

county, limit greenhouse gas emissions, and promote healthier soils (Boulder 2010). The Zero Waste

approach will use a design principle to target “manufacturing, purchasing, reuse, recycling, and

composting all of the materials” used with a safe closed-loop disposal system as a last resort (Boulder

County, 2010). The county decided to use a Zero Waste approach to both improve its current waste

diversion approach while creating an economic development plan for the people of Boulder County.

Boulder County disposes of 250,000 tons of garbage each year, including 5,200 tons of paper and

cardboard, 5,100 tons of building materials, and 25,000 tons of food and yard debris that create methane

(Boulder County, 2010). All of these materials represent value that is simply wasted when disposed of in

the landfill. In addition to saving resources, Zero Waste can have the following economic benefits as well:

encourage “smart purchasing choices, repair and reuse, reduced use of harmful products protects

community health and safety, conserving resources contributes to long-term economic stability in

Colorado, local economies are stronger when recycling, composting, reuse, and repair jobs are created

and sustained, and when recycled and composted materials are use locally, everyone benefits from lower

transportation and purchase costs” (Boulder 2010).

After reaching a 50 percent diversion rate, the Boulder County wanted to create a more

comprehensive waste disposal program (Boulder County, 2010). To date Boulder’s Pay-As-You-Throw

collection programs in Boulder, Lafayette, Longmont, and Superior, along with parts of unincorporated

Boulder County, has proven to be the most successful waste diversion plan in the state and one of the

most effective programs in the nation (Boulder County, 2010). The residential recycling and composting

program has reached a 60 percent diversion rate, and has reduced the government’s garbage cost by 25

percent (Boulder 2010). While the municipality invests in the infrastructure to recycle and compost, both

streams are actually less expensive to the city than sending items to the landfill. In order to increase the

diversion rate across all the various municipalities, the resolution utilizes intermediary goals and

strategies. The county designed a plan with a four-pronged approach to target: 1) the amount that could be

recycled; 2) the amount that could be composted; 3) construction debris that could be diverted; 4) to


29

29 Marshall

address the remaining waste (Boulder County, 2010). Some of the main and most influential expansions

include complete at-home curbside compostable materials, construction and demolition project recycling

and reuse, Pay-as-You-Throw, and the banning of food scraps and recyclables going to the landfill

(Boulder County, 2010). Below is an explanation of each section of Boulder’s diversion plan and the

deliverables for each.

Require construction and demolition project recycling and reuse: Boulder County has established

centralized drop-off locations for Construction and Development (C&D) waste in each city. This is

expected to divert 150,000 tons of C&D waste across Boulder County annually, increasing the overall

diversion rate by 3.6 percent (Boulder County, 2010).

Volume-based collection and embedded recycling Pay-As-You-Throw: In 2007, Boulder County

implemented volume-based disposal to single-family homes. The cost of recycling is embedded into the

fee customers pay for waste collection, but they are charged more for producing excess waste for the

landfill. Residents pay $13.38 per month for recycling, composting, and landfill services, and, if residents

create excess landfill, they are charged more (Boulder County, 2010). This system is currently being

expanded to businesses within the county as well.

Recycling Expansion: Residents living in multi-family apartment buildings will soon have access to

single stream recycling at their apartments. Boulder County estimates 13.4 percent of materials currently

disposed of in the County landfills could be recycled through the existing markets (Boulder County,

2010). The county is also banning the disposal of recyclables in the landfill, making it mandatory to

participate in recycling programs. This initiative alone is expected to increase diversion rates across the

county by 10.6 percent (Boulder County, 2010).

Composting Expansion: Boulder has begun expanding its composting to the residents throughout the

County. The County plans on expanding the curbside compost pick-up program to its municipalities.

Multi-family units will also soon have access to commercial composting pick-up. This will give people

residing in apartments the ability to participate in food waste composting, while also making it mandatory


30 Marshall

30

for citizens to participate in composting programs, whether it is commercial or backyard composting by

banning yard waste and food waste disposal into landfills. Between both of these expansions, it is

estimated to increase diversion by another 10 percent.

Boulder has developed the most successful approach to composting and recycling n the state,

while Denver lags behind most other large municipalities in the state. Denver Solid Waste Management

needs to consider the successful participation incentives executed by other local and state governments

throughout the country. Currently, the city is losing money to the inefficiency of Denver’s city-run

diversion collection program. While DSWM has a greatest financial stake in any new city recycling and

composting policy, there are other stakeholders who will also be affected by the new approach the city

takes to collect residential municipal solid waste.

Policy Stakeholders

In order to identify the most suitable diversion rate policy model for the City of Denver, it is

important to identify the key stakeholders who will bear the costs and benefits of the policy proposed.

1) The City of Denver- The city government will be greatly impacted by the policy the city decides

to use. The city ultimately has to foot the upfront cost of the current waste management program.

The City of Denver will be in charge of creating a diversion rate plan, choosing the solid waste

provider for their residents. DSWM will have the responsibility and the authority to decide what

new programs are the most cost effective and politically viable within the City of Denver.

a. Environment- DSWM needs balance the financial costs and benefits of each alternative

with the environmental costs and benefits of each option. While there is a cost savings to

recycling programs, the main reason to improve the city’s diversion rate is to protect the

environment. The less waste is sent to the landfill, the less methane will be emitted into

the atmosphere, the fewer toxic chemicals percolate into the soil, and the less natural

space would be used for new landfill space.

2) Solid Waste Disposal Providers- These providers will have to analyze their waste capacity and

find a means to expand their facilities to include recycling. Both Waste Management, which

processes Denver residents’ recycling and landfill waste, and A-1 Organics, which processes

Denver residents’ compost waste, have a stake in any increased diversion rates, as it would lead

to more business and greater profits for them from selling the raw compost and recyclable

materials.


31

31 Marshall

3) Single-family Unit Residents of Denver- There are 240,000 residents (172,000 homes)

participating in single stream city provided program (Vidal, 2010). The success of the program

depends on the rate at which Denver residents dispose of their waste through waste diversion

programs and improve their overall waste reduction. It will be their buy-in and knowledge of

proper waste disposal that determines whether or not the program succeeds. Of the 166,000

households served, 140,000 are single-family units (SFUs) and the remaining 26,000 are multi-

family units (MFUs). DSWM only serves multi-family units that contain seven units or fewer.

4) Multi-Family Residents of Denver- There are 360,000, (69,200 large multi-family units) are not

serviced by Denver Solid Waste Management program (Vidal, 2010). Denver residents that reside

in multi-family apartments of eight units or more currently do not receive any benefits from

Denver Recycles. Each landlord selects the apartment complex’s waste provider. More often than

not, the companies only provide landfill collection. These tenants do not have the option to

participate in any diversion program and are forced to either dispose of their divertible waste in

the landfill or illegally dump recyclables in private bins, which the City identifies as one of their

greatest priorities.

5) Property Owners/Landlords- If DSWM decides to expand collection to large multi-family homes,

the primary costs will be billed to the landlords. It will then be up to the landlords to encourage

their tenants to recycle and compost. It is also up to the property owners to decide how to pass on

the cost to their residents.

Success or failure can be measured by the weight of total waste diverted or sent to the landfill and

dollars saved/extra capital generated through the program. The problem is diagnostic in a sense because,

without an infrastructure for recycling and/or composting programs in the state, people do not have an

avenue/opportunity to increase the diversion rate. The current structure around MSW management limits

the diversion rates the state can achieve which, in turn, limit the capital that can be generated through

diversion programs. Policy intervention is needed in some capacity to reduce the tonnage of waste sent to

the landfill annually. When local governments set diversion rate goals for Municipal Solid Waste and

provide incentive structures around recycling and composting waste generated, diversion rates increase.

Proposed Solutions

The proposed solutions below discuss policy options to correct the externalities in household

waste production and to promote recycling or post-consumer waste products. The policies explored range


32 Marshall

32

from expanding educational outreach to expanding diversion services that the City of Denver provides to

multi-family homes. Each potential policy solution has costs and benefits to the Denver Solid Waste

Management, the residents of Denver, and the environment.

Status Quo

While the Colorado diversion rate is ranked 47th in the entire country, some policy analysts would

disapprove of local governments dictating what policies waste providers need to use (Lisa A. Skumatz &

Freeman, 2008). Currently DSWM provides recycling and, in some areas, composting to single and

multi-family homes with seven or fewer units, but it does not provide a trash service. When the city

proposed a trash service to its residents, many residents were displeased with the fact they would no

longer have the ability to choose their landfill hauler. The City of Denver program costs $68,620,000 and

DSWM currently suffers from a $30 million deficit annually from the program (Vidal, 2010).

Denver currently contracts the processing of recyclables by requiring Waste Management to offer

recyclable revenue per ton to be payable to the city. The processor gives the city a share in revenues

exceeding the base amount, this is known as the “up market share” (EPA). It is calculated based on an

agreed upon percentage distribution of commodities processed by the first of January each year based on

recycling markets (Vidal, 2010). Denver will continue its residential waste collection program through its

contract with Waste Management. Landfill waste will be picked up weekly while recycling will be picked

up biweekly to keep recycling collection costs low. Only single-family and multi-family units up to 7

residences will fall under Denver Solid Waste Management’s jurisdiction for waste collection while

multi-family units consisting of more than seven units are not provided this service (Vidal, 2010).

Denver’s current recycling program is a single stream recycling system that allows residents to throw all

recyclables (paper, cans, plastic, glass, and aluminum) into one bin to help increase recycling

participation by keeping the number of containers low. Denver’s program will also continue to be a free

service to the residents of Denver, it will be funded through city taxes, but customers will not be charged

extra for participating in the program (Vidal, 2010).


33

33 Marshall

Alternative 1A: Mandatory PAYT Single-family Residential Recycling and Composting Policy

PAYT for recycling and composting are the most successful policy interventions to increase

diversion rates (Environmental Protection Agency, 1999). These diversion options can be offered at no

additional cost to the city government and sometimes applied within a rate structure as a cost reduction

strategy to the consumer. PAYT has been implemented in the Colorado municipalities of Aspen, Boulder,

Fort Collins, Lafayette, and Loveland over the last decade (Meyer J. , 2011). It increased residential

diversion rates from 28 percent (Lafayette) to over 55 percent (Loveland) and city-wide waste diversion

rates from 14 percent (Aspen) to 27 percent (Fort Collins) (Meyer J. , 2011). For the City of Denver

PAYT would not only increase diversion rates, it would also help solve a growing $30 million deficit that

continues to grow annually (Kray, Waste Diversion Update, 2013). Residents in Denver would have to

opt in to the city’s waste management program. If residents only wanted to receive trash collection they

would pay $16 per month while a recycling and landfill package will cost $15 a month (Meyer).

Residents in Denver would only pay for the landfill waste they generate in order to encourage people to

lessen their trash load via recycling and composting. This program would provide free composting and

recycling pick-up but charge for trash pick-up based on weight. Mayor Hancock stated, "By weighing

trash, it pays for those services to be offered to those residents for free if they do the right thing.” This

collection model has been proven wildly successful in cities like Boulder, Portland, Fort Collins, and even

Loveland (EcoCycle 2008). These cities’ residents only pay for the amount of trash they produce. This

approach incentivizes residents to reduce their overall trash production and increase their diversion

disposal methods instead.

Pay-As-You-Throw creates a polluter payment principle in MSW management, the principle that

costs of collection and processing of waste are to be paid for by those who produce the waste. Each home

in Denver would receive a 64-gallon (or larger) recycling container and another 64-gallon compost

container while initiating a fee for the residents of Denver. However, the cost of the recycling should be

embedded into the sum trash fee and not charge extra for a recycling and composting program. A Pay-As-


34 Marshall

34

You-Throw (PAYT) rate would be placed on Denver residents and would charge higher fees for the

collection of larger volumes of trash per household. Variable rates refer to a fee structure for waste

generation that charges the generators based on how much waste they create. This structure would

resemble Denver Water utilities where users pay only for the volume of water they consume. A PAYT

structure is a more equitable service fee for users, which incentivizes waste diversion by giving

Denverites the opportunity to reduce their cost of service for MSW collection by minimizing their landfill

waste generation and disposal. Incentives will be further increased if Denver uses PAYT requirements to

include collection for recycling and organics composting. Both recycling and composting should be

offered at no additional cost. Disposing of waste in the landfill is by far the most expensive stream for the

city to pay for so not charging extra to give residents recycling and composting services will help

incentivize residents to dispose of their waste properly in both recycling and composting containers

instead of landfill containers. The PAYT system should be implemented at the same time that composting

is expanded in Denver. If residents view the fee structure as paying for a new service, it should be better

received.

The city would make it mandatory for residents to participate in recycling and composting

programs by outlawing food waste and recyclable waste disposal in landfills. When mandatory

participation is coupled with PAYT policies, it can increase diversion rates between 12 and 26 percent

over a five-year period (Lisa A. Skumatz & Freeman, 2008). Also, a composting expansion with curbside

pick-up can also increase diversion rates 20 percent-35 percent (Ferrara & Missios, 2005). Tools such as

volume-based pricing (PAYT), mandatory recycling and composting, and weekly curbside pick-up would

increase the diversion rate by 35 percent or more among single-family units (Ferrara & Missios, 2005).

Expanding the composting program will create an additional cost for the city; it would be up to the city to

provide a container for industrial composting or tools for at-home composting and improve the current

composting facility to handle a greater volume of compost disposed. While the up-front costs for

composting and logistics may be significant, organics comprise 59 percent of all residential waste


35

35 Marshall

generated and, if Denver is ever going to increase diversion rates above 30 percent, commercial

composting will be a necessity (Vidal, 2010).

Alternative 1B: Mandatory PAYT Single & Multi- Family Recycling and Composting Policy

In the majority of municipalities, recycling programs are usually geared toward single-family

homes, where curbside pick-up is feasible which has resulted in increased waste diversion rates

(CalRecycle). Unfortunately, cities neglect multi-family recycling programs, resulting in low waste

diversion rates from multi-family housing (CalRecycle 2010). In order to increase diversion rates as much

as possible, increasing recycling rates in multi-family homes is imperative because these units generate

large volumes of waste due to their high population densities. This landfilled waste material is a cost to

society and the environment. In fact, 90 percent of the waste landfilled can be converted into profitable

materials that benefit society, “have great energy savings, conserve our natural resources, and limit the

amount of land dedicated to disposal of waste materials” (Environmental Protection Agency 2010).

In order to increase the city’s overall participation in the diversion program, DSWM could

expand recycling and compost collection to multi-family residences in Denver. Due to the cost constraints

placed upon the City and the ordinances around commercial (private) property contracting (MSW),

Denver should use a franchise model for multi-family units within the city. The SERA Report for the

State of Colorado explained that single stream, weekly curbside recycling programs can increase

diversion rates to 20 percent (Ferrara & Missios, 2005). While there are drop-off locations available to

residents residing in multi-family units, the majority of residents do not participate. It is difficult for

residents to find information about drop-off locations and drop-off locations can actually discourage

participation because it places the primary disposal responsibility on tenants, as it requires them to

transport recycling loads to a drop-off location. It is much easier for tenants to dispose of their waste in

the apartment complex’s provided landfill containers (Environmental Protection Agency, 2001).

Under the system, every large MFU contracts with the MSW provider of their choosing, as long

as the hauler meets the new regulations dictated by the city. All buildings would have to provide recycling


36 Marshall

36

collection to their residents by January 2016, along with landfill collection. By 2017, all large multi-

family units must also provide organic waste collection to all residents. The private haulers are also

mandated to implement a Pay-As-You-Throw structure to penalize the complexes for generating excess

landfill waste. While property owners can pass these costs on to their residents, it is in their best interests

to incentivize recycling and composting to their tenants through financial incentives. In other

municipalities, building managers pass reduced waste disposal fees on to tenants in the form of decreased

rent and fees (Environmental Protection Agency, 1999). The city would help provide support to property

owners to develop incentive structures throughout the rollout of the integration of MFUs in diversion

practices for the City.

While landlords are mandated to provide recycling and composting, residents do not have an

incentive to produce less trash unless landlords pass the costs to them. A Pay-As-You-Throw system is

harder to implement as landlords would have to provide bag tags to residents in order to track what waste

is coming from particular units or apply cost increases and savings to all tenants uniformly in the

building. Yet, if Denver prohibits the landfill disposal of recyclable goods, compostable diversion rates

will increase in these housing units because the landlords will be incentivized to make sure their residents

are participating. In other cities, landlords have passed on the costs to their residents, at an average of $2

per tenant (Environmental Protection Agency, 2001). Building managers would also be required to submit

annual reports of diversion rates to the City and provide proof that both recycling and composting

services are, in fact, provided to all residents. In other municipalities, waste providers submit these results

directly to the city governments on behalf of the building managers. This model would help reduce the

costs placed on Denver’s government while ensuring that all residents are provided a more uniform solid

waste collection structure.

Alternative 2: Denver Recycling and Composting Educational Outreach

This policy option would seek increased recycling participation through public outreach efforts

from the City of Denver government. While all homes with fewer than seven units qualify for the Denver


37

37 Marshall

recycling program, only about 40 percent of citizens participate in the program they qualify for (Vidal,

2010). Even then, the people who participate in the program still dispose of compostable and recyclable

products into the landfill. If the city seeks to divert 76,347 tons of waste to recycling and/or composting

facilities, DSWM needs to show the public the importance of increased waste diversion.

The city could invest in educational tools such as print media including newspapers, handbooks,

billboards, and direct mail. Print media are found to be much more effective at changing public awareness

and behavior than electronic media since direct mailers and flyers are sent to residents directly (Lisa A.

Skumatz & Freeman, 2008). However, that is not to say the City of Denver should not also invest in

electronic media such as television, radio, and Internet adds since the City of Denver is home to over

600,000 residents. The goal of this policy option would be to educate and reach out to the residents of

Denver to teach them the value and importance of the waste diversion program they are provided.

However, since Denver does not charge residents for the landfill waste they produce, there is no financial

incentive with this policy to encourage residents to divert more of their waste from the landfill.

Educational outreach is shown to increase overall diversion rates and participation by 3 percent over a

five-year period of time (SERA 2008).

This alternative would be the least cost prohibitive option presented to Denver Solid Waste

Management. Education and outreach is a politically popular option because the City provides the

materials to educate residents about proper disposal. Educating and reaching out to citizens is viewed as

an additional benefit/service provided by the city government in contrast to a penalty of an additional

“tax” or user fee. Education is a politically popular means of increasing recycling because it does not have

incentives or economic costs that mandates and volume-based pricing do. While education does not

provide incentive structures both Alternative 1A and Alternative 1B do, this education policy utilizes

targeted outreach to decrease contamination rates and increase diversion rates.

Education is an inexpensive means through which the city can keep the costs of the solid waste

collection program low. Education campaigns are also flexible, as they can be implemented in phases and


38 Marshall

38

evolved with the addition of new technology and changing media. Beyond pamphlets and social media,

Denver can also use schools as an educational avenue. By working with schools and teaching students

about recyclables, the city can also teach families about proper waste disposal techniques and practices.

Cost Benefit Analysis

For this analysis I examined the different effects the various policy intervention programs have on

landfill rates in the City of Denver. It is important to note the total waste currently collected by the City of

Denver is 253,600 tons; 220,000 tons are currently sent to the landfill and 32,000 tons are sent to

recycling facility (Vidal, 2010). I will assume that without a new policy intervention, the amount of the

waste sent to the landfill will not significantly decrease. After establishing a baseline for Denver, I looked

at the effects of each policy alternative in the city and the ability of each alternative to reduce the amount

of waste sent to the landfill. The policy options include implementing a PAYT system and expanding

composting program for single-family homes, implementing PAYT and expanding the composting

program to also include multi-family residences in Denver, and a comprehensive proper waste disposal

campaign for the city. I calculated the upfront costs of each alternative for the city and calculate the

benefits of each policy to the City of Denver as well. The benefits will be measured in both fiscal and

environmental gains from these policy alternatives. The problem can be measured through pounds of

waste diverted or sent to the landfill and in dollars saved/extra capital generated through the program.

There are environmental benefits, which can be quantified. For example, Greenhouse Gas Emission

(GHG) reduction can be quantified. In terms of emissions saved and dollars saved, creating products out

of already recycled materials can also be quantified.

Cost Benefit Analysis of Denver Solid Waste Options for Denver

ALTERNATIVES

Status Quo Alternative 1A Alternative 1B Alternative 2

Costs $ 49,530,549.00 $ 34,813,747.20 $65,692,140.98 $49,067,048.24

Benefits $27,074,030.51 $65,072,682.40 $71,926,091.80 $27,756,684.68

NET PRESENT VALUE ($22,456,518.49) $30,258,935.20 $6,233,950.82 ($21,310,363.56)

Figure 10 Net Present Value for the policy alternatives for the City of Denver (Vidal, 2010), (Environmental Protection Agency)


39

39 Marshall

Cost Benefit Analysis of Denver Solid Waste Options

CO

STS

ALTERNATIVES


City & County of Denver $ 49,530,549.00 $ 21,524,844.20 $65,692,140.98 $49,067,048.24

Waste Management $ 7,079,600.00 $ 3,744,061.20 $15,034,486.80 $6,836,705.36

A-1 Organics $ 74,880.00 $ 2,393,010.00 $3,559,410.00 $72,000

Single Family Units $ 257,400.00 $ 30,960,000.00 $30,960,000.00

Multi-Family Units $8,640,000

Property Owners $272,371,200

TOTAL COSTS $ 56,942,429.00 $ 58,621,915.40 $396,257,237.78 $55,975,753.60

BEN

EFITS

ALTERNATIVES


City & County of Denver $27,074,030.51 $65,072,682.40 $71,926,091.80 $27,756,684.68

Waste Management

A-1 Organics $24,960 $638,136 $638,136 $ 24,960.00

Single Family Units

Multi-Family Units

Property Owners

TOTAL BENEFITS $27,098,990.51 $65,710,818.40 $72,564,227.80 $27,781,644.68

NET PRESENT VALUE ($29,843,438.49) $7,088,903.00 ($323,693,009.98) ($28,194,108.92) Figure 11 Net Present Value for all policy alternatives (Environmental Protection Agency), (Lisa A. Skumatz & Freeman, 2008), (Vidal, 2010)

Status Quo Policy Alternative

Costs:

The current waste collection program uses 2.5 percent of the city’s general fund (Vaccarelli J. ,

Denver gearing up to get rid of alley trash bins, 2014). To analyze the areas that will be directly affected

by any policy changes to the City’s solid waste program, I calculated the main costs and benefits to each

stakeholder under the current program. I would like to note that my calculations primarily focus on the

costs and benefits from the City’s perspective and I do not delve as deeply into the individual costs of the

contracted waste provider Waste Management because their production should not affect their contract

with the City of Denver. The current structure of the program costs the city $23,936,308 annually (Vidal,


40 Marshall

40

2010). While Waste Management disposes of both recyclables and landfill item, the city has a fleet that

collects the waste and maintains the bins given to residents. It costs $3,318,080 to collect recyclables and

$14,984,200 to collect the landfill from single-family units and small multi-family units across the city

(Vidal, 2010). It is also important to note that at roughly $16 per ton, tipping fees add an additional cost to

the city’s landfill collection at $3,645,400 (Vidal, 2010). The city also collects compost for 2,200 Denver

residents and currently pays A-1 Organics to properly compost the waste, although there is not an

exclusive contract as of yet with the city (Vidal, 2010). Due to the mileage to take loads to the A-1

transfer station and the tipping fees the 1,600 tons collected by the city, the compost program currently

costs the City $44,928 annually ($28.08 dollars per ton) (Vidal, 2010). It is also important to note that

because Denver residents send so much of their recyclable waste to the landfill, it is estimated that

residents are throwing $1,943,700 of recyclables alone in the landfill, which represents a loss of potential

revenue for the city itself (Vidal, 2010). According to the EPA for each MT/CO2 created, there is a social

cost of $137 per metric ton. Currently, 75 percent of the waste Denver residents send to the landfill can be

recycled or composted (Vidal, 2010). Every 1.2 tons of landfill waste generates an average of one metric

ton of carbon dioxide (1 MT/CO2) (EPA 2009). Denver generates 220,000 tons of landfill waste and

produces 183,333 metric tons of carbon each year So Denver’s landfill waste alone produces an annual

social cost of $25,801,621. The overall cost of the program for all of the stakeholders is a total of

$56,942.429 annually. Overall the program costs Denver $49,530,549 annually.

For the 220,000 tons of waste sent to the landfill in 2013, Waste Management spent $7,097,600 at

$32.18 a ton for the City’s landfill disposal (Vidal, 2010). While the CBA does not reflect WMRA cost

for recycling, the company does make up those costs by selling the raw recyclable materials for

manufacturing. It costs A-1 Organics $46.80 per ton to process the 1,600 tons Denver currently produces,

A-1 pays $74,800 to process the current compost levels each year (Vidal, 2010). All 240,000 residents

that are allowed to participate in the recycling program do not have to pay any additional fees. Denver

residents pay property tax and sales tax that go toward funding the services as they are today through


41

41 Marshall

Denver Solid Waste Management. It is important to note residents in large multi-family units do have to

pay for the program via taxes, about 360,000 Denver residents residing in the 69,200 units that are not

serviced by the city is not calculated. While these residents pay sales taxes to the city, they do not reap the

full benefits of their taxes since they are excluded from the DSWM diversion program.

Benefits

The city reaps benefits from the contracted recycling processing agreement made with Waste

Management. The city is paid $35.40 for each ton of recyclables turned over to WMRA for 95 percent of

recyclables delivered. 32,000 tons of recyclables are currently generated each year (Vidal, 2010). 95

percent of that total represents 30,400 tons. Therefore, the city receives $1,076,160 annually from

WMRA. The city also receives $5,578,240.35 in landfill royalties from Waste Management. However, it

is important to note that while the total revenue from landfill royalties is more than the recyclable

revenue, as Waste Management pays more for each ton of recyclables. For each ton of trash, the royalties

are only $25.36, while WMRA pays $35.40 for each ton of recyclables sent to them (Vidal, 2010). Within

the current program Waste Management is currently the sole provider for single-family homes in the

Denver area and benefits from that monopoly, and currently does not post their revenue sold just from the

City of Denver recyclables. The residents do not suffer from any cost; it is a service provided from the

general fund for the City of Denver so the main benefit is that the program is free to them. By recycling

32,000 tons, 26,666 MT/CO2 are prevented from being emitted into the atmosphere. This prevents a

social cost of $3,653,242 each year.


42 Marshall

42

Estimated Impacts from Key Diversion Programs

Activity %

Increase

Notes

PAYT 9 - 17 PAYT dramatically improves capture from curbside composting

and recycling programs. It leads to source reduction. Generation

avoidance.

Mandatory Recycling

& Composting

6 - 29 Mandatory recycling and composting through bans of sending

divertible items to the landfill and fine penalties increase the

likelihood of recycling 100 percent by between 6.4 percent & 29.7

percent. Decreases the chances of recycling 0 percent by 3.4

percent to 29.6 percent

Curbside recycling 10 - 20 Curbside collection coupled with weekly collection increases the

chances participants will divert more of their divertible items

compared to pick-up every two weeks. Recycling needs to be

collected when the landfill is collected.

Composting

Expansion

10 -15 Especially critical for single-family homes, collect 31 pounds of

compost a week due to the yard waste from summer months and 12

pounds a week during the winter per unit.

Multi-Family

Recycling

2 - 4 Ensuring large multi-family unit residents have access to diversion

collection through recycling and composting

Education 1 - 3 Increasing expenditures on education and public outreach effects

diversion Figure 10 Range of Impact for each Policy Alternative (Lisa A. Skumatz & Freeman, 2008) (Ferrara & Missios, 2005) (Boulder County, 2010)


The combination of PAYT, mandatory diversion of both recyclable and compostable products,

and curbside weekly pick-up of recycling and composting is expected to increase the city’s diversion rate

to 51 percent by 2030.

Costs:

Assuming the City of Denver implements a mandatory Pay-As-You-Throw system, utilizing

curbside collection, and expands compost collection to all single-family residences, Denver could expect

to see an increase of an additional 32 percent over the next fifteen years. Out of the total 253,600 tons

disposed of annually, 134,756 tons would be diverted from the landfill to recycling and composting

facilities. The cost to collect recyclables will increase to $8,458,822.82 at $103.69 per ton 81,578 tons

annually. To collect landfill waste, it would cost DSMW $7,958,244.84 at $68.11 per ton, with an

expected decrease in landfill waste to 116,844 tons produced annually. Denver’s costs for tipping fees

have also decreased to $1,936,105.08 at $16.57 per ton for 116,844 tons each year. Due to the increase in


43

43 Marshall

diversion rates I predict the residential recyclables sent to the landfill will nearly disappear. The value of

recyclables sent to the landfill will be negligible. The increased compost rates will increase the compost

tip fees with A-1 Organics to $1,545,884.46 each year for $29.07 per ton for 53,178 tons each year, unless

Denver Recycles is able to lower the costs to the city with A-1 Organics due to the increased

volume/business from 1,600 tons.

Over a five-year period, DSWM will need to invest in infrastructural updates to implement the

PAYT program over a three-year period. In order to use a volume-based system, the City needs to

develop a billing function within DSWM to develop a utility pricing system similar to Denver Water uses

to raise revenues from one or more sources to cover the utility costs, Denver residents will be charged for

the amount of waste they generate. It is estimated to cost $200,000 to implement the payment structure.

To pay for new systems DSWM will need to purchase hauler trucks that can lift cans and record the waste

from each household it is estimated to cost $500,000 for the City’s system. The City will need to transfer

over to a cart system for recycling and landfill collection in order to switch to curbside pick-up, which is

estimated to cost another $500,000 to get them to all 172,000 households (Vidal, 2010). Expanding the

composting program to all residents with green compost carts will cost $375,000. The new PAYT updates

are estimated to cost an additional to the City of Denver $1,575,000. All together, the program will cost

$21,474,057.20 for DSWM.

The landfill disposal costs for Waste Management will decrease due to the 104,000 decrease in

landfill waste produced, at a cost of $32.30 per ton for 116,844 tons for a total of $3,774,061.20. A-1

Organics on the other hand will see an increase in their processing costs for the city at $45 per ton for

53,178 tons for a total cost of $2,393,010 annually. The single-family units will see the greatest cost

increase as a whole, seeing as that the city has been providing the service as part of property and sales

taxes. At minimum, residents will pay $180 annually for a minimum of $30,960,000 each year. For the

116,844 tons of waste sent to the landfill, it will produce 97,370 MT/CO2 for a social cost of $137,

producing a total social cost of $13,339,690. The total costs for all of the stakeholders are estimated to be


44 Marshall

44

$71,940,818.40.

Benefits:

The PAYT program will raise revenues for the City of Denver. The minimum revenue from

PAYT fees will be $30,960,000 from all single-family units and small multi-family units. DSMW is also

paid $35.40 per ton of recyclables, which will bring in $2,692,074 for 81,578 of recyclables. The city will

also receive $2,761,023 for landfill royalties for $23.63 per ton 116,844 tons produced. There is also an

avoided cost of $1,650,496 in tipping fees due to the high diversion rates from the landfill. The city will

divert 53 percent of its residential waste from the landfill in 2030 with 81,578 being sent to recycling and

53,178 sent to a composting facility. The City will receive the equivalent of $38,063,593.72 in revenue

and cost savings annually. A-1 Organics will see increased revenues of $638,136 annually due to the

53,178 organics sent to them annually. Residents will also see increased services in terms of organics

collection, even though they are paying for waste collection. In terms of environmental benefits the social

cost savings will be $9,313,397.


In addition to the funding structure and policy recommendations in Alternative 1A, Alternative

1B expands the mandatory diversion policies from the City to Denver residents residing in large multi-

family units. While the original proposal examined the possibility of the city expanding its collection

services to MFUs, the variability in size and scope from building to building made it difficult to calculate

the precise costs for Denver. The startup costs also would have also been difficult for the City to

rationalize with the other proposed expansions due to even more investments in three new dumpsters for

every MFU in the city, new trucks, and the cost of working with Waste Management to create another

recycling transfer facility. This approach does prevent the City of Denver from reaping the profits from

compost and recycling end markets, but it also protects the City from the costs of such a program. It is

important to note, that as of now, no municipality in the country offers a city-provided compost,

recycling, and landfill collection to large MFUs. Instead, cities implement this private, regulated franchise


45

45 Marshall

diversion model instead. Due to expanding diversion practices, MFUs will increase their diversion rate by

4 percent (Environmental Protection Agency, 1999). The PAYT system and composting/recycling

collection is estimated to increase diversion rates by 15 percent when combined (Environmental

Protection Agency, 2001). Including the large multi-family units in the City’s diversion rate increases the

total tons collected from 253,600 tons to 683,600 tons. The city is currently neglecting 432,000 tons from

the MFU facilities. It is anticipated that by 2030, 349,920 tons will be sent to the landfill, 60,480 tons to

recycling, and 21,600 tons for composting.

Costs:

This program would expand upon the recommendations made in Alternative 1B by including

multi-family units. To ensure that property owners are cooperating with the program, the city will spend

$24,800 to create a verification program for MFUs. Also, the city will spend $10,000 on audits of 16

apartment buildings each year to ensure apartment diversion participation. The city will need to pay

$21,456,210.98 as an upfront cost for the new policy recommendations. After upfront costs, it will cost

the City $19,881,210.98. It is expected that the expansion will cost haulers $11, 260,425.60 to include the

extra tonnage. The processing cost for compost will also increase by $1,166,400, just for the MFU

organics collection. It is expected that property owners will pass the increased fees for collection on to

their residents at about $2 per resident with 360,000 residents, which adds up to a total of $8,640,000

each year. In terms of how much collection will cost landowners, I made estimates in terms of the average

volume for apartment buildings. Assuming buildings will need five cubic yard containers for landfill, two

cubic yard containers for compost, and four cubic yard containers for recycling, the annual cost of weekly

pick-up for the all MFUs will be $272,371,200 (Figure 13). It is important to note that these numbers

come from price quotes of one provider, Alpine Waste & Recycling, but that property owners would have

the option to choose from any licensed providers approved by the City of Denver.

Waste Type Size of Container (Cubic Yards) Charge Per Month Total Annual Cost

Landfill 5 $95 per MFU $ 78,888,000.00

Compost 2 $81 per MFU $ 67,262,400.00

Recycling 4 $71 per MFU $ 58,958,400.00

Multi-Family Units Average Container Size and Costs

Figure 11 Alpine Waste and Recycling Price Quote (Bengeri, 2014)


46 Marshall

46

The social costs of the waste landfilled will still cost $137 per ton and MFUs will produce

349,920 tons 291,600 MT/CO2 while SFUs will produce 116,844 tons 97,370 MT/CO2. This will produce

a total social cost of $44,235,930. It is important to note the number is larger than in Alternative A, the

Status Quo, and Alternative 2 because those policies do not currently measure MFU waste production.

Benefits:

In terms of emissions reductions, this is the policy that has the greatest impact. For every 1.2 tons

generated, 1 MT/CO2 is created. For 81,578 ton 67,981 MT/CO2 is saved for SFUs and for 60,480 tons,

50,400 MT/CO2 are saved from MFUs. All together, the generated savings is $16,218,197.

Alternative 2: Recycling Educational Outreach for Single-family Units

Costs

In order to create an education and outreach campaign to improve recycling diversion rates,

Denver would spend $1,279,641.76 in 2014 dollars (Vidal, 2010). The money would go toward creating

and distributing educational brochures, move-in packets, and educational programming targeted for

single-family homes. According to both the City of Denver and the SERA Colorado report, educational

outreach is predicted to increase diversion rates between 1-3 percent over a five-year period (Lisa A.

Skumatz & Freeman, 2008). If there is a three percent diversion rate, this increases recycling rates to

37,548 tons per year. Therefore it would only cost the city $3,795,054 to collect recycling and

$14,470,105.72 to collect landfill refuse annually at $68.11 per ton with 212,452 tons produced annually.

The tipping fees would also decrease to $3,520,329.64 annually and while composting tipping fees would

remain the same since the education campaign would mainly target recycling diversion rates. The lost

value of recyclables landfilled would decrease (assuming that 30 percent landfill composition is currently

recyclable material) at $27 per ton— with 59,400 tons of recyclables landfilled, there would be a lost

value of $1,603,800 annually. The tipping fee for compost at A-1 Organics has remained consistent from

the status quo policy to this policy since this recommendation will not expand the compost program. The

compost collection will still collect 1,600 tons annually with a tipping fee of $28.08 per ton Denver is

charged $44,928 annually. The total cost to the City of Denver is expected to be $24,812,157.24 annually.


47

47 Marshall

Waste Management’s landfill disposal costs will also decrease since 7,548 fewer tons will be

disposed of in the landfill. 212,452 tons of landfill as a cost of $32.18 per ton would cost WMRA

$6,836,705.36 annually. I am assuming the processing costs for A-1 Organics will remain the same since

the educational campaign is not targeting compost diversion rates, which is a cost of $72,000 a year for

A-1 Organics. In terms of costs to the environment, the 212,452 tons of landfilled waste will produce

177,043 MT/CO2 annually, with a social cost of $24,254,891 (EPA). The total estimated costs are

$56,233,153.60 for all of the stakeholders each year.

Benefits

The City will receive $1,262,753 annually for 95 percent of recyclables sent to Waste

Management, which is estimated to be 35,671 tons each year at a price of $35.40 per ton. Denver is also

projected to receive $5,020,240.76 for landfill royalties at $23.63 per ton for the 212,452 tons sent to the

landfill annually. The policy also decreased the level of emissions from the status quo. Annually, 31,290

MT/CO2 are saved from being emitted into the atmosphere with a social savings of $4,286,730. In total

the educational outreach policy is projected to have $10,715,452.16 in benefits annually.

Further Analysis of Alternative 1A

Since the net present value shows that Alternative 1A has the most financial benefits for the City

of Denver I wanted to include further analysis of what fiscal implications the policy will have on DSWM.

The first table shows the projected diversion rate increase from year to year until 2030. The second table

shows the fiscal impact different diversion rates will have on Denver’s costs and benefits. The third and

last table shows how population growth will affect the costs and benefits.

Diversion Rate Projections 2016-2030

Projected Diversion Rates 2016-2030

Annual Diversion Projection by Year

2016 (20%)

2018 (25%)

2020 (30%)

2022 (35%)

2024 (40%)

2026 (45%)

2028 (50%)

2030 (53%)

Costs $ 46,423,316 $

43,235,727 $41,445,137 $39,518,073 $37,930,762 $36,206,703 $34,504,918 $33,428,805

Benefits $61,144,533 $61,144,533 $61,144,533 $61,144,533 $62,123,840 $63,143,438 $64,163,036 $64,995,871

NET PRESENT VALUE

$14,721,217 $17,908,806 $19,699,396 $21,626,460 $24,193,077 $26,936,735 $29,658,118 $31,567,066

Figure 12 Project Diversion Rates over Time Alternative 1A


48 Marshall

48

This table shows how the PAYT policy would help increase diversion rates from 2016-2030 to

achieve the projected 53% overall diversion rate for Denver’s residential single family unit waste. The

first year the financial benefits are not as great to DSMW since they have to make an initial investment

into the new policy. The initial investment includes new carts, trucks, new PAYT tracking program, and

to expand the composting program will cost the City of Denver $1,575,000 to get the program up and

running. From that point on the city will no longer have to pay that $1.5 million. The table shows as the

diversion rates increase, the costs decrease since landfill disposal is so expensive. Between landfill

collection costs and tipping fees each tons costs DSMW $84.68 a ton. As diversion rates also increase the

cost of recyclables landfills decreases and the social cost of landfill emissions also declines. The benefits

increase as the diversion rate increases over two years. By 2030 with a 53% diversion rate the City is

projected to have a benefit of $31,567,066 annually. The caveat of the benefits projection is even in 2016

each household only pays $15 a month even though many residents will have to pay more due to their

high landfill rates when the program first starts.

Sensitivity Analysis of Diversion Rates

Projections for Different Diversion Rates in 2030

Alternative Diversion Rates

53% Diversion 50% Diversion 45% Diversion 40% Diversion 35% Diversion

Costs $ 33,438,747 $ 34,578,058 $ 36,279,843 $ 38,003,903 $ 39,664,353

Benefits $ 65,072,682 $ 64,234,742 $ 63,207,973 $ 62,181,205 $ 61,196,162

NET PRESENT VALUE $31,633,935 $29,656,684 $26,928,130 $24,177,302 $21,531,808 Figure 13 Possible Diversion Rates 2030

This table demonstrates the greater diversion rates will have a greater return on investment in

terms of net present value than lower diversion rates. The range displayed in the table 53% to 35% which

demonstrates the range of predicted outcomes from the policy interventions outlined in Alternative 1A.

TA 35% diversion rate would give the city a net present value of $21,531,808 while 53% would give the

city a greater return of $31,633,935.


49

49 Marshall

Sensitivity Analysis of the Effect of Population Growth

Effects of Population Growth on the Costs and Benefits of Alternative 1A

Annual Diversion Projection

2015 (14%) 2016 (20%) 2020 (30%) 2025 (42%) 2030 (53%)

Costs $ 51,105,549 $ 48,160,218 $ 41,090,586 $ 39,757,678 $ 42,222,679

Benefits $ 58,360,623 $ 64,290,410 $ 69,436,870 $ 76,356,657 $ 84,421,907

NET PRESENT VALUE $7,255,074 $16,130,191 $28,346,283 $36,598,979 $42,199,228

Figure 14 Projected NPV of Program with Population Growth

The first two tables analyze diversion rate assuming Denver’s population will not growth between

2015 and 2030. I referred to the Colorado government’s projected population growth rate for the City of

Denver with about a 1% growth rate annually after 2020. Using the population growth rate I assumed that

roughly 75% of city residents will continue to live in single family homes or small multi-family units as

the population increases. Then using DSMW’s data, households generate 1.45 tons I then applied the

projected diversion rates to total tonnage created to get the numbers above. With population growth this

table demonstrates by 2030 the net present value will be over $11,000,000 greater than my first projection

that did not take population growth into account. The increasing return on investment due to population

growth projections suggest that the Denver should revise their policy to incorporate large multi-family

units to continue to see both greater profits and increased diversion rates for the City and County of

Denver.

Strategic Recommendations

Considering the different policy options the City of Denver is faced with, I recommend the city

implements Alternative 1A: Mandatory Pay-As-You-Throw for Single-family Units for recycling and

composting collection. This alternative best address the weaknesses of Denver’s current solid waste

collection program in the most cost effective way possible. Instead of generating a deficit through a

DSWM collection program, the CBA demonstrates that Denver will reap benefits within the first year of

the policy expansion and see growing returns on its investment each successive year.


50 Marshall

50

Weekly Curbside Pick-up

DSWM currently collects an unrestricted amount of refuse each week (for the landfill). The

current alley dumpster system that most single-family homes have at their disposal

actually encourages residents to dispose more of their waste into the city provided

landfill dumpsters. It also encourages illegal dumping among residences. Since the

dumpsters do not belong to any one person, some residents feel justified disposing of

their waste in dumpsters that are not their own. Dumpsters allow residents to enjoy

some level of anonymity; they represent a communal disposal system and, because of

this, people feel less guilty about the amount of landfill waste they produce and the

illegal dumping of items into other landfill containers. The city needs to swap out

dumpsters for a landfill container system to decrease the overall landfill waste

generated by residents. Not only will a smaller container discourage residents from

landfilling divertible items, it will also help make residents more accountable to how

they dispose of their waste. Dumpsters account for more tons per household than

landfill containers do, with dumpsters accounting for 48 percent of total waste by

weight (Vidal, 2010).

In order for residents to also participate in recycling and composting

effectively, both streams also need to be picked up weekly by the city when the landfill

containers are also collected. With the exception that compost, all waste will be collected every week.

During the winter months DSMW will collect compost for everyone other week due to decreased

production of organic waste December through March. A fully automated cart system compared to a

dumpster system will help reduce costs for the city. It will eliminate the need for special side-loader

trucks used for dumpsters in the alleys which cost 17¢ more per mile in terms of fleet maintenance

charges over the course of a truck’s lifetime (Vidal, 2010). It will also reduce the staff needed to manage

Figure 15: Carts for Denver curbside collection (DSWM 2014)


51

51 Marshall

illegal dumping and to oversee dumpster maintenance.

Mandatory Recycling

Mandatory recycling usually combined with unit pricing has a positive impact on recycling rates

when they are also combined with user fees (Ferrara 2005). User fees actually boost customer

participation in diversion collection programs because they increase their stake in the program when

coupled with mandatory programs. In terms of curbside recycling services, the frequency of recyclable

collection matters; weekly recycling results in higher recycling intensity (Ferrara 2005). Weekly recycling

increases buy-in because it reduces

the necessary storage capacity for

recycling (Ferrara 2005). The City

needs to ban the disposal of

recyclable and compostable products

in city landfills. If citizens are

obligated to recycle they will be

more likely to be conscious of what items they dispose of and how.

Comprehensive Organic Collection

Since organics are estimated to comprise 60 percent of Denver’s residential waste stream, DSWM

must develop a city-wide organics recovery program. Capturing yard and food waste holds the greatest

diversion rate potential for Denver.

Similar to Denver’s organic collection

pilot program, compost would be

collected weekly from April through

November but only biweekly December

through March due to the decrease in

organic waste produced during the Figure 17 A-1 Organics Compost Facility Rattler Ridge (Marshall, 2014)

Figure 16 Waste Management Recycling Facility Denver (Marshall 2014)


52 Marshall

52

winter months. The city would expand the current contract with A-1 Organics as a contractor to collect

the organic waste since Waste Management does not have a composting facility. Eventually, the city may

need to consider working in a partnership with a private sector processor to develop a compost facility

closer to Denver. DSWM is expected to avoid costs related to tipping recyclable and organic tons as

refuse in the landfill (Vidal, 2010).

Pay-As-You-Throw Fee Structure

Residents are permitted to fill their landfill containers and then bag any overflow waste to set it

next to their bin. The current funding structure comes from both sales and property taxes. The volume of

landfill waste that households generate is not tied to the overall the monthly cost for collection even

though the tipping fees for haulers are calculated based on volume.

Like other cities, Denver needs to hold residents accountable for the waste they produce because

the excess landfill waste creates a direct cost for the city (Vidal, 2010). Denver should tie a fee to the

volume of refuse residents discard. A Pay-As-You-Throw system would not only help cover the deficits

the city faces annually, but it would also hold Denver residents accountable for the amount of waste they

generate on a weekly basis. A PAYT structure would assess user fees for refuse service so that when

residents receive their bills, they will also be reminded of ways to reduce costs. It is estimated that the

potential diversion rate increase is second only to the single and multi-family household recycling and

composting collection programs (Vidal, 2010). The city should strongly consider coordinating the

implementation of a PAYT system with the new household organics program and the weekly curbside

pick-up programs. This will not only increase the overall participation and success of the new programs,

but it will also ease the “establishment of new fees by tying them to the addition of new services” (Vidal,

2010).

Weaknesses and Limitations

Unlike many of the governments that implemented successful MSW diversion policies such as

New Jersey, Oregon, California, and Ontario, the City of Denver is presented with a unique set of


53

53 Marshall

challenges the governments in these other areas did not face. Unlike densely populated states like New

Jersey on the East Coast, Colorado has ample space to be used for disposing of MSW in landfills without

negatively affecting its residents. Many recycling policies stem from the expensive consequences waste

exportation would pose to state governments; Colorado currently does not face a limited space pressure.

The state’s relatively inexpensive tipping fees do not create nearly the incentive as those in other states

with limited space and which are faced with the exportation of landfill waste to other states. While

recycling and composting are still more cost effective than sending waste to the landfill in terms of

transportation, emissions, and item production, landfill royalties could create a barrier to increased

diversion rate policies for some municipalities.

Denver is one of the only cities in Colorado to provide a trash service as part of the city services

for no extra fee. The city has also provided the current diversion rate policy for decades, and the residents

of Denver are wary of and even adamantly opposed to being charged for curbside pick-up. While the

program does generate $800,000 in revenue, the city currently has a 30 million dollar deficit due to

running the program solely on taxpayer dollars (Meyer J. , 2011). The city faces a decision between

generating enough revenue from the Municipal Solid Waste collection service or maintaining positive

political capital by sustaining the existing tax-based funding structure. The strategic recommendations do

not necessarily take the political unpopularity of PAYT systems or mandatory recycling into account.

While the recommendations are projected to increase diversion rates it is possible residents may not want

to live in a municipality that forces them to participate in waste diversion practices.

While recycling generates revenue and economic development for the state governments that

institute them, statewide recycling commitments require hefty investments on the part of both state and

local governments. Waste providers will have to make the initial investment in recycling technologies and

in expanding their recycling capacities. In this proposal I was not able to accurately portray the costs that

increased diversion would have on Waste Management. It is possible that the higher recycling and

composting rates would require the company to build new facilities to handle the increased volume.


54 Marshall

54

However, this building infrastructure could actually stimulate economic activity (Acuff & Kaffine, 2011).

The cost benefit analysis does not take such costs into account.

The policy proposal also makes an assumption that diversion rates will increase by incorporating

into Denver’s residential compost and recycling program. While under Alternative 1B DSWM would

provide a weekly, mandatory, and a PAYT collection to large apartment buildings, there is sparing data

around multi-family home waste practices. The study in Ontario actually showed that property ownership

was the most important variable determining a person’s participation level in recycling and composting

programs. People who rented in multi-family homes were slightly less likely to participate in diversion

programs. It is also important to note that multi-family units are not included in the city’s overall

diversion rate. An increased diversion rate by incorporating the apartment buildings are based on

assumptions from other municipalities that MFU residents will participate.

The policy proposals also neglect using drop-off recycling and composting as an incentive to

increase Denver’s diversion rates. Drop-off recycling can increase diversion rates between 3-10% over a

15 year period (Vidal, 2010). They are cost effective especially since these sights can service thousands of

people when they are placed at popular places like grocery store parking lots. It would also give residents

from large apartment residences in Denver the opportunity to participate in recycling and compost

diversion if their apartment buildings do not provide it to them. Drop-off centers also allow residents to

dispose of larger recyclable items like plastic lawn chairs that would not be collected easily with the

curbside cart recycling collection program. Drop-off sites require less manpower to collect the recyclables

each week since drives do not need to collect waste from each house individually. This proposal did not

analyze drop-offs as a new policy option since drop-offs are not as effective as curbside collection. This

proposal tried to consider the most cost effective options that also had the highest return on investment.

Drop-off sites would require a larger investment to construct the sites from scratch and to pay for new

trucks to collect the large one site volumes of waste. Due to the limited resources for this proposal drop-

off sites were ignored as a policy option.


55

55 Marshall

Conclusion:

Denver’s solid waste management program languishes at a low 14% diversion rate, lagging

behind Colorado’s 21% average diversion rate, and even further behind the national average of 34%. In

terms of other large municipalities in Colorado Denver lags behind Boulder, Fort Collins, Longmont,

Loveland, and Lafayette to name a few. Denver is the only municipality in Colorado other than

Commerce City to provide municipal solid waste collection without charging a collection fee of some

kind. Denver and Columbus Ohio are also the only two known municipalities in the country to use a

landfill dumpster collection service for single family homes instead of a cart or bin based system.

Denver’s service not only fosters embarrassingly low diversion rates it is also cost ineffective, with a $30

million dollar deficit Denver Solid Waste Management is providing Denver Residents with a cost

ineffective waste collection service.

In order for Denver to help ameliorate the economic and environmental costs of their high landfill

producing program DSMW needs to take a new policy approach in order to progress. This memorandum

examined a new volume based price system for single family homes, an expansion to multifamily homes,

and an diversion education campaign. Alternative 1A: Mandatory PAYT for Single Family homes by far

produces the greatest return on investment for DSMW and fosters higher diversion rates reaching 53%

diversion by 2030. Volume based pricing holds residents accountable to the amount of waste they

generate on a weekly basis by charging them a fee based on how much landfill they produce, while

providing both recycling and composting as an embedded charge in the fee structure. Similar to Denver

Water’s program, volume based pricing would implement a fee to charge residents based upon

consumption. Not only does PAYT incentivize residents to recycle and compost more it also provides a

more equitable payment structure that rewards residents who participate in diversion practices.

While it is cost prohibitive to consider Alternative 1B at the present due to space constraints of

multi-family units the cost benefit analysis shows that as Denver’s population density increases

mandating large multi-family unit diversion rates will become increasingly more cost effective. If


56 Marshall

56

population growth increases at a 1% increase per year as predicted DSMW should strongly consider

targeting all residents to participate in recycling and composting waste diversion.


57

57 Marshall

Works Cited or Consulted

Solid Waste and Materials Management Program. (2012). Municipal Service Type and Curbside

Recycling Availability. Denver: Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment.

Acuff, K., & Kaffine, D. (2011). Greenhouse gas emissions,waste and recycling policy. Journal of

Environmental Economics and Management 65, 74-86.

Bengeri, A. (2014, July). Alpine Waste and Recycling Cost Estimates Commercial Solid Waste

Mangement. Denver, Colorado: Alpine Waste and Recycling.

Boulder County. (2010). Boulder County Zero Waste Action Plan. Boulder.

CalRecycle. (n.d.). History of California Solid Waste Law. Retrieved September 23, 2013, from

Legislation and Regulations:

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Laws/Legislation/CalHist/2010to2014.htm

City of Fort Collins. (2013). Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan.

Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment. (2012). Solid Waste User Fee and Volume Report

. Denver: Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment.

De Jaeger, S., Eyckmans, J., Rogge, N., & Van Puyenbroeck, T. (2011). Wasteful waste-reducing

policies? The impact of waste reduction policy instruments on collection and processing costs of

municipal solid waste. Waste Management, 1429–1440.

Denver Solid Waste Management. (2014, 1 January ). Denver Recycles Needs Your Help. Retrieved

January 15, 2014, from Waste Wise Newsletter:

https://www.denvergov.org/Portals/709/documents/WasteWise2014_reduced.pdf

EcoCycle. (2005). Why Recycle? Boulder.

El-Fadel, M., Findikakis, A., & Leckie, J. (1997). Environmental Impacts of Solid Waste Landfilling.

Journal of Environmental Management, 1–25.

Environmental Protection Agency. (1999). Multifamily Recycling: A Golden Opportunity for Solid Waste

Reduction.

Environmental Protection Agency. (2001). Multifamily Recycling: A National Study.

Environmental Protection Agency. (2003, March). Pay-As-You-Throw:A Cooling Effect on Climate

Change. Program Snapshot.

Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Waste Generation Calculations Appendix C.

Ferrara, I., & Missios, P. (2005). Recycling and Waste Diversion Effectiveness:Evidence from Canada.


58 Marshall

58

Springer: Environmental & Resource Economics, 221–238.

HARRISON, E. Z., & RICHARD, T. (1992). Municipal Solid Waste Composting: Policy and Regulation.

Pergamon Press, 127-143,.

Huffington Post. (2011, September 26). Denver City Council Considering Trash Collection Fee, 'Pay As

You Throw' Model (UPDATE). Huffington Post.

Jenkins, R., Martinez, S., Palmer, K., & Podolsky, M. (2003). The determinants of household recycling: a

material-specific analysis of recycling program features and unit pricing. Journal of

Environmental Economics and Management, 294–318.

Kray, W. (2012). Annual Solid Waste Diversion Totals 2007-2011. Denver: Colorado Department of

Public Health and Environment.

Kray, W. (2012). Registered Recycling Facilities in Colorado . Denver: Colorado Department of Public

Health and Environment.

Kray, W. (2013). Waste Diversion Update. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment.

Lease, K. (2001). Recycling in Multifamily Dwellings:A Model for Local Government Recycling and

Waste Reduction. CalRecycles.

Lisa A. Skumatz, P., & Freeman, D. (2008). Roadmap for Moving Recycling and Diversion Forward in

Colorado: Strategies, Recommendations, and Implications. Superior: SKUMATZ ECONOMIC

RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.

Meyer, J. (2011, September 28). Denver’s residential trash and recycling program costs homes about $10

a month. Denver Post.

Meyer, J. (2013, August 2). Denver looks to expand curbside composting to 2,300 more homes by Jan.

Denver Post.

Meyer, J. P. (2011, September 22). Denver Mayor Hancock to consider charging residents for garbage

pickup. Denver Post.

Meyer, J. P. (2011, September 23). Denver ponders "pay as you throw" trash-collection charge. Denver

Post.

Mueller, W. (2012). The effectiveness of recycling policy options: Waste diversion or just diversions?

Waste Management, 508-518.

Murray, M. (n.d.). Recycling Means Business in California. Retrieved September 28, 2013, from

Californians Against Waste: Conserving Resources. Preventing Pollution:

http://www.cawrecycles.org/facts_and_stats/recycling_means_business


59

59 Marshall

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (n.d.). Oregon Recycling Laws. Retrieved September 28,

2013, from Land Quality: Solid Waste: http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/sw/recyclinglaws.htm

Otegbeye, M., Abdel-Malek, L., Hsieh, H., & Meegoda, J. (2009). On achieving the state’s household

recycling target: A case study of Northern New Jersey, USA. Waste Management, 647-654.

Path to 75 Percent: Next Frontier of Organics Recycling in California. (2013). BioCycle, 29-32.

Pay-As-You-Throw. (2009). Get Smart with Pay-As-You-Throw. Pay as you Throw Bulletin .

Perry, M. L. (2010). Solid Waste Policy and Program Development: Land Quality Division. Portland:

State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.

Skumatz, L., & Freeman, D. (2006). PAY AS YOU THROW (PAYT) IN THE US: 2006 UPDATE AND

ANALYSES. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc, 1-28.

Solid Waste and Materials Management Program. (2011). Registered Recycling Facilities. Denver:

Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment.

Solid Waste and Materials Management Program. (2012). Access to Recycling in Colorado. Denver:


Solid Waste and Materials Management Program. (2012). Colorado Solid Waste Diversion. Denver:


Subramanian, P. (2000). Plastics recycling and waste management in the US. Resources, Conservation

and Recycling, 253-263.

Vaccarelli, B. J. (2014, January 2). Denver expands composting program. Denver Post.

Vaccarelli, J. (2014, March 12). Denver gearing up to get rid of alley trash bins. Denver Post.

Vaccarelli, J. (2014, March 12). Denver gearing up to get rid of alley trash bins. Denver Post.

Vidal, B. (2010). A Master Plan for Managing Solid Waste in the Mile High City. Denver: Denver Public

Works.


60 Marshall

60

Appendix I: Cost Benefit Analysis Matrix

Status Quo City Provided

Service

Alt. 1A: PAYT Single

Family

Alt. 1B: PAYT Multi Family Alt. 2 Education Outreach

Stakeholder Costs

City of Denver DSWM $3,318,080 to collect

recyclables annually (Vidal).

Landfill Waste collection costs

14,984,200 and pay $3,645,400

for tipping fees. Toss $1,943,700

value worth of recyclables in

landfill assuming 30% of landfill

composition is made up of

recyclables-loss of potential

revenue for Denver (Vidal). The

tip fee organics at A1 Organics’

Stapleton transfer station is

$28.08 a ton for 1,600 tons cost

$44,928. Currently 75% of the

waste Denver residents send to the

landfill can be recycled or

composted. For every 1.2 tons of

landfill waste an average of 1

MT/CO2 is generated. Denver

generates 220,000 tons landfill

annually, produces 183,333 metric

tons of carbon annually. There is a

metric ton of $137 per metric ton,

according to the EPA this

producing an annual social cost of

$25,801,621 annually. Total cost

to the city is $49,530,549.

DSWM it will cost

$8,458,822.82 and it will cost

$7,958,244.84 to collect the

landfill and $1,936,105.08 in

tipping fees. By 2030, it is

predicted there will not be any

lost recyclables sent to the

landfill, or it will be

negligible. The tipping fees

for compost cost the city

$1,545,884.46. There is a

metric ton of $137 per metric

ton, according to the EPA this

producing an annual social

cost of $50,787.00 annually.

New trucks and carts will cost

the $1,000,000 as a start-up

fee. It will cost $200,000 to

implement the PAYT system.

It will also cost the city

$375,000 to start the

composting program. The

total cost to the city will be

$21,524,844.20 annually.

DSWM it will cost $8,458,822.82

and it will cost $7,958,244.84 to

collect the landfill and

$1,936,105.08 in tipping fees. By

2030, it is predicted there will not

be any lost recyclables sent to the

landfill, or it will be negligible.

The tipping fees for compost cost

the city $1,545,884.46. Since the

City will be accounting for the

MFU emissions which it currently

is not, there will be 349,920 tons

disposed of in the landfill with a

cost of 291,600 MT/CO2. There is

a metric ton of $137 per metric

ton; according to the EPA has a

social cost of $44,235,930. New

trucks and carts will cost the

$1,000,000 as a start-up fee. It will

cost $200,000 to implement the

PAYT system. It will also cost the

city $375,000 to start the

composting program. The City will

also have to invest in multi-family

unit recycling regulation

infrastructure. A verification

program will cost $24,800 and

audits of the apartment buildings

will cost $10,000.

DSWM it will cost

$3,893,352.12 to collect

recyclables and it will cost

$14,470,105.72 to collect the

landfill and $3,520,329.64 in

tipping fees. There will be

$1,603,800 cost for recyclables

landfilled for 59,400 tons

recyclables landfilled. The

tipping fees for compost cost the

city $44,928. There is a metric

ton of $137 per metric ton,

according to the EPA this

producing an annual social cost

of $24,254,891annually.

Education campaign will cost

1,279,641.76 annually.


61

61 Marshall

Waste

Management

Recycle

American

The contractor assumes the risk of

market prices dipping below the

proposed base market value.

Some of the waster provider’s

costs for the program is

represented in the city of Denver’s

costs, but the data has not been

obtained. These estimates yield

an average transportation and

disposal cost of $32.18 per

ton=$7,079,600 annually for

220,000 tons of landfill waste

disposed.

WMRA may have to invest in

larger recycling facilities with

an increased diversion rate

over a five year period.

Landfill collection will cost

WMRA $3,774,061.20

annually.

WMRA may have to invest in

larger recycling facilities with both

the increased customer base and

diversion rate over a five year

period. It will Waste Management

$15,034,486.80 to dispose of waste

in the landfill for both MFUs and

SFUs.

The contractor assumes the risk

of market prices dipping below

the proposed base market value.

Some of the waster provider’s

costs for the program is

represented in the city of

Denver’s costs, but the data has

not been obtained. These

estimates yield an average

transportation and disposal cost

of $32.18 per ton=$6,836,705

annually for 212,452 tons of

landfill waste disposed.

A-1 Organics Work with the City of Denver for

2,200 residents still participating

in the compost program. It has

dropped off since pilot because it

is pay to participate service.

$46.80 per ton to process the

compost. There are 1,600 tons

currently produced by

participants. It costs A-1 $74,880.

It will cost A-1 Organics

$2,393,010.00 annually to

process all of the compost

from the City.

It will cost $3,559,410.00 to

dispose of 25,920 tons of compost

for both SFU and MFU.

Work with the City of Denver

for 2,200 residents still

participating in the compost

program. It has dropped off since

pilot because it is pay to

participate service. $46.80 per

ton to process the compost.

There are 1,600 tons currently

produced by participants. It costs

A-1 $74,880.

Single Family

Unit Residents

240,000 residents (172,000

homes) participating in single

stream city provided program.

There are 2,200 residents


program, costs $117 annually total

$257,400

240,000 residents (172,000



The rates charged to residents

for waste collection are

charged on a month basis

depending on the size landfill

can utilized (30 gallon

can=$21, 60 gallon can=$30,

and 90 gallon can=$35).

Recycling and composting

service would be embedded

into the cost. It will cost all

single family units together $

30,960,000.00 annually.

240,000 residents (172,000 homes)

participating in single stream city

provided program. The rates

charged to residents for waste

collection are charged on a month

basis depending on the size landfill

can utilized (30 gallon can=$21, 60

gallon can=$30, and 90 gallon

can=$35). Recycling and

composting service would be

embedded into the cost. It will cost

all single family units together $

30,960,000.00 annually.

240,000 residents (172,000



There are 2,200 residents


program, costs $117 annually

total $257,400


62 Marshall

62

Multi-Family

Unit Residents

Pay property and sales taxes, but

do not get to participate in the

Denver Recycles Program.

Pay property and sales taxes,

but do not get to participate in

the Denver Recycles

Program.

Tenants can expect a $2-$5 waste

collection fee tacked onto their rent

each month. 360,000 residents live

in large multi-family units. On the

lower end $2 x 12= $24 a year per

tenant. 24 x 360,000 a total of

$8,640,000




Property

Owners/Land

Lords

Choose their own waste providers

independent of any city programs

or regulations

Choose their own waste

providers independent of any

city programs or regulations

Will be forced to participate in the

city wide composting, recycling,

and landfill collection program.

They will also have a PAYT

applied to them. If they can

encourage their tenants to recycle

and compost their overall bills will

decrease. It is estimated in total it

will cost $272,371,200 in total to

all property owners across the city

for weekly pick up of all three

streams.




Stakeholder Benefits

City of Denver Paid $35.40per ton of recyclables

by WMRA for 95% of recyclables

delivered. 32,000 tons of

recyclables are currently

generated 95% of that is 28,500

tons $1,076,160 total ($35.40 per

ton). The city also receives

$5,578,240.35 in landfill royalties

from waste management ($25).

25,000 MTCO2 are saved

annually from the 32,000 tons of

recycling that is collected. The

City also receives $17,061,890.16

from tax revenue.

City paid $33 ($35.40) per ton

of recyclables by WMRA for

95% of recyclables delivered;

$2,743,464.60 for the 95% of

tonnage is 48,355 tons. The

royalties from landfill will be

$2,761,023.72. With a tax

revenue of $17,061,890.16.

The Environmental Social

cost savings are $9,313,397.

The avoided cost of tipping

fees is $2,232,906.92.The

minimum revenue from

PAYT is $30,960,000. A total

cost to the city

$65,072,682.40.

City paid $33 ($35.40) per ton of

recyclables by WMRA for 95% of

recyclables delivered; $2,743,464.60 for

the 95% of tonnage is 48,355 tons. The

royalties from landfill will be

$2,761,023.72. With a tax revenue of

$17,061,890.16. The Environmental

Social cost savings are $16,218,197. The

avoided cost of tipping fees is

$2,232,906.92.The minimum revenue

from PAYT is $30,960,000. A total cost

to the city $65,072,682.40.

Paid $35.40per ton of

recyclables by WMRA for

95% of recyclables

delivered. 37,548 37- 95%-

35,671 tons $1,262,753.40

total ($35.40 per ton). The

city also receives

$5,020,240.76 in landfill

royalties from waste

management ($25). The

avoided tipping fee will

save the city $125,070.36.

37,548 tons 31,290

MT/CO2 Every 1.2 tons

creates 1 MT/CO2 will cost

$4,286,730. The City also

receives $17,061,890.16

from tax revenue.


63

63 Marshall

Waste

Management

Recycle

American

Waste Management is currently

the sole provider for single family

homes in the Denver area and

benefits from that monopoly.

Increase overall recycling

revenues and reduce tipping

fees to account for

Increase overall recycling revenues and

reduce percentage tipping fees to

account for

If the program is effective

they can use less of their

employee's time for sorting

out contamination.

A-1 Organics Work with the City of Denver for

2,200 residents still participating

in the compost program. It has

dropped off since pilot because it

is pay to participate service.

There are 1,600 tons certainly

produced by participants. 1 ton=

1.3 cubic yards which is what the

completed compost is sold in

units of. Each cubic yard can be

sold for $12. They make $24,960

just off of the current waste sent

to them from the 2,200 residents.

To expand A-1 Organics it

will cost $638,136.

To expand A-1 Organics it will cost

$638,136.

Work with the City of

Denver for 2,200 residents

still participating in the

compost program. It has

dropped off since pilot

because it is pay to

participate service. There

are 1,600 tons certainly

produced by participants. 1

ton= 1.3 cubic yards which

is what the completed

compost is sold in units of.

Each cubic yard can be

sold for $12. They make

$24,960 just off of the

current waste sent to them

from the 2,200 residents.

Single Family

Unit Residents

The residents do not suffer from

any cost, it is a service provided

from the general fund for the City

of Denver. However residents is

housing of seven or more units do

not reap the benefits of the

program that they pay for through

sales taxes.

The program would institute a

penalty system for residents

that do not participate in the

program, so those residents

that work toward waste

minimization will see their

bills decrease. If residents

increase their recycling and

composting and use the

smallest can available they

will only be charged $15 a

month.

The program would institute a penalty

system for residents that do not

participate in the program, so those

residents that work toward waste

minimization will see their bills

decrease. If residents increase their

recycling and composting and use the

smallest can available they will only be

charged $15 a month.

This policy would not add

to the costs of residents. It

would seek to teach them

how to properly dispose of

waste.


64 Marshall

64

Multi-Family

Unit Residents




Pay property and sales taxes,

but do not get to participate in

the Denver Recycles

Program.

Tenants can expect a $2-$5 waste

collection fee tacked onto their rent each

month. 360,000 residents live in large

multi-family units. They will be

receiving both recycling and composting

while most do not now.

Pay property and sales

taxes, but do not get to

participate in the Denver

Recycles Program.

Property

Owners/Land

Lords

Choose their own waste providers

independent of any city programs

or regulations





providers independent of

any city programs or

regulations


65

65 Marshall

Appendix II: Cost Benefit Analysis Breakdown

Status Quo

STATUS QUO: Costs and Benefits for the City of Denver

Stakeholder Types of Costs

City of Denver

Collect Recyclables Annually $ 2,811,840.00 32,000 tons $87.87 per ton

Collect Landfill Refuse Annually $ 12,665,400.00 220,000 tons landfill $57.57 per ton

Tipping Fees $ 3,520,000.00 220,000 tons $16 per ton

Lost Value of Recyclables Landfilled $ 1,782,000.00 66,000 tons 30% of waste landfill $27 per ton

Tip fee organics at A1 Organics’ Stapleton transfer station $ 43,200.00 $27 per ton- 1,600 tons

Each metric ton from landfills cost $137 $ 25,801,621.00 Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2 75% of waste sent to landfill

TOTAL

$ 46,624,061.00 Landfills 220,000 tons of landfill EPA

188,333 MT/CO2

Waste Management

Landfill disposal $30 per ton $ 6,600,000.00 220,000 tons landfill

TOTAL $ 6,600,000.00

A-1 Organics

Processing Cost per ton $ 72,000.00

TOTAL $ 72,000.00 $45 per ton- 1,600 tons

Single Family Units Residents

Charged through sales/property taxes 240,000 currently - 172,000 homes

Compost Monthly Payment $ 257,400.00 $29.25 quarterly - $ 9.75 monthly

TOTAL $ 257,400.00 2,200 households- $117 annually

Multi-Family Unit Residents

Property Owners

Annual Total $ 53,553,461.00

Stakeholder Types of Benefits


66 Marshall

66

City of Denver

Paid $33 per ton of per ton of recyclables by WMRA for 95% of recyclables delivered

$ 1,003,200.00

32,000 tons- 95%- 30,400 tons

Revenues from the General Fund for Waste Collection & Disposal $ 16,000,000.00

Landfill Royalties from Waste Management $ 5,198,600.00 $ 22,139,100.00 $23.63 per ton

Social Cost savings: 32,000 tons 26,666 MTCO2 are

saved from emitting into the atmosphere $ 3,653,242.00

Social Cost savings: 32,000 tons

26,666 MTCO2 are saved from

emitting into the atmosphere

TOTAL $ 25,855,042.00

Waste Management

Maintains Monopoly $ - $ -

A-1 Organics 2,200 households- $117 annually

$ 24,960.00 1 ton= 1.3 cubic yards 2,080 cubic yards

TOTAL $ 24,960.00

Single Family Unit Residents

Do not pay for service directly $ - $ -


$ -

Property Owners

$ -

Annual Total $ 25,880,002.00


Costs and Benefits for the City of Denver


City of Denver


67

67 Marshall

Collect Recyclables Annually $ 7,168,258.86 $87.87 per ton- Total of 81,578

Collect Landfill Refuse Annually $ 6,726,709.08 $57.57 per ton- Total 116,844 tons

Tipping Fees $ 1,869,504.00 $16 per ton 116,844 landfill tons

Lost Value of Recyclables Landfilled

$27.27 ton-(30% of waste composition recyclable)

Tip fee organics at A1 Organics’ Stapleton transfer station $ 1,435,806.00 $17,200,277.94 $27 per ton- 53,178 tons

Each metric ton from landfills cost $137 $ 13,339,690.00

Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2 Landfills 116,844 tons of landfill 97,370 MT/CO2

Initial Investment (new trucks/carts/reporting)

New Trucks

$ 500,000.00 one time

New Carts

$ 500,000.00 one time

Implement Mandatory PAYT system $ 1,200,000.00 startup fee

Implement curbside pick up

Expand Composting Program $ 375,000.00

TOTAL $ 33,114,967.94

Waste Management

Landfill disposal $30 per ton $ 3,505,320.00 116,844 tons landfill $30 per ton

TOTAL $ 3,505,320.00

A-1 Organics

Processing Cost per ton $ 2,393,010.00

TOTAL $ 2,393,010.00 $45 per ton- 53178 tons



Compost Monthly Payment $15 monthly - $180 annually

PAYT composting, recycling, landfill $ 30,960,000.00

TOTAL

$ 30,960,000.00


68 Marshall

68


Property Owners

Annual Total $ 69,973,297.94


City of Denver


$ 2,557,467.00 81,578- 95%- 77499 tons

Landfill Royalties from Waste Management $ 2,761,023.72 $23.63 per ton 116,844


Environmental Social Cost savings: $ 9,313,397.00 81578 tons 67,981 MT/CO2 Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2

PAYT Minimum Revenue $ 30,960,000.00

Avoided cost of tipping fees $ 1,650,496.00 103,156 tons diverted

$ 61,591,887.72

Waste Management

Maintains Monopoly Increased Revenues from Recyclables $ -

$ -

A-1 Organics 240,000 currently - 172,000 homes

$ 638,136.00

1 ton= 1.3 cubic yards 2,080 cubic yards

$ 638,136.00


Receive compost collection included in fee $ -

$ -


$ -

Property Owners


69

69 Marshall

Annual Total $ 63,880,519.72




City of Denver

Collect Recyclables Annually SFU $ 7,168,258.86 $87.87 per ton- Total of 81,578

Collect Landfill Refuse Annually SFU $ 6,726,709.08 $57.57 per ton- Total 116,844 tons

Tipping Fees SFU $ 1,869,504.00 $16 per ton 116,844 landfill tons

Lost Value of Recyclables Landfilled SFU and MFU


Tip fee organics at A1 Organics’ Stapleton transfer station $ 1,435,806.00 $27 per ton- 53,178 tons

Each metric ton from landfills cost $137 $ 44,235,930.00 349,920 tons 291,600 MT/CO2


New Trucks $ 500,000.00 one time

New Carts $ 500,000.00 one time

Implement Mandatory PAYT system $ 1,200,000.00 startup fee



Verification Program $ 24,800.00 staffing and inspections

Audits $ 10,000.00

TOTAL $ 64,046,007.94

Waste Management/Hauler

Landfill disposal $30 per ton SFU Denver $ 3,505,320.00 116,844 tons landfill $30 per ton

Landfill disposal $30 per ton MFU $ 10,497,600.00 349,920 tons- 19% increase $30 per ton

TOTAL $ 14,002,920.00

A-1 Organics

Processing Cost per ton SFU $ 2,393,010.00 $45 per ton- 53178 tons


70 Marshall

70

Processing Cost per ton MFU $ 1,166,400.00 25,920 tons of compost (6%) - $45 per ton

TOTAL $ 3,559,410.00



Compost Monthly Payment $15 monthly - $180 annually

PAYT composting, recycling, landfill $ 30,960,000.00

TOTAL $ 30,960,000.00


Monthly charge per resident in fees/rent $ 8,640,000.00 Charge average of $2 per resident

TOTAL $ 8,640,000.00 360,000 residents

Property Owners

Cost of Landfill $ 78,888,000.00 Reduce to 5 cubic yard container

Cost of Compost $ 67,262,400.00 Expand to 2 cubic yard container

Cost of Recycling $ 58,958,400.00 Expand to 4 cubic yard container

TOTAL $ 272,371,200.00 weekly pick up

Annual Total $ 326,317,137.94


City of Denver


$ 2,692,074.00 37,548 37- 95%- 35,671 tons



Social Cost savings: $ 12,983,490.00 53,178 tons 44,370 MT/CO2 & 60480 tons 50,400 MT/CO2 Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2


$ 65,396,587.72

Waste Management


71

71 Marshall

Maintains Monopoly Increased Revenues from Recyclables

$ -

$ -



$ 638,136.00



Can reduce the fee if waste production is reduced $ -



Property Owners

Can reduce the fee if waste production is reduced

$ -

Annual Total $ 66,034,723.72




City of Denver

Collect Recyclables Annually $ 3,299,342.76 $87.87 per ton- Total of 37,548 tons (3% of 253,600= 7,548 tons)

Collect Landfill Refuse Annually $ 12,230,861.64 $57.57 per ton- Total 212,452 tons (220,000-7,548)

Tipping Fees $ 3,399,232.00 $16 per ton 212,452 landfill tons

Lost Value of Recyclables Landfilled $ 1,603,800.00 $27 ton- 59,400 tons recyclables landfilled (27% of waste composition recyclable)

Tip fee organics at A1 Organics’ Stapleton transfer station

$ 43,200.00 $27 per ton- 1,600 tons


72 Marshall

72


Education and Outreach $ 1,200,000.00

$ 46,031,327.40

Waste Management

Landfill disposal $30 per ton $ 6,373,560.00 212,452 tons landfill $30 per ton

$ 6,373,560.00

A-1 Organics


$ 72,000.00 $45 per ton- 1,600 tons



Compost Monthly Payment $ 257,400.00 $29.25 quarterly - $ 9.75 monthly

2,200 households- $117 annually

$ 257,400.00


$ -

Property Owners

$ -

Annual Total $ 52,734,287.40


City of Denver


$ 1,177,143.00 37,548 37- 95%- 35,671 tons


Avoided cost of tipping fees $ 120,768.00 7,548 tons diverted


Environmental Social Cost savings: $ 4,286,730.00

$ 26,604,881.76

Waste Management


73

73 Marshall

Maintains Monopoly $ -



$ 24,960.00


Do not pay for service directly $ -

$ -


$ -

Property Owners

$ -

Annual Total $ 26,629,841.76

Appendix III: Cost Benefit Analysis with Consumer Cost Index Adjustment

Status Quo

Costs and Benefits for the City of Denver with CPI Adjustment


City of Denver

Collect Recyclables Annually $ 3,318,080.00 32,000 tons-$103.69 per

ton

Collect Landfill Refuse Annually $ 14,984,200.00 220,000 tons - $68.11 per ton

Tipping Fees $ 3,645,400.00 220,000 tons- $16.57


74 Marshall

74

Lost Value of Recyclables Landfilled $ 1,943,700.00 66,000 tons - $29.45 per ton

Tip fee organics at A1 Organics’ Stapleton transfer station $ 44,928.00 $ 23,728,928.00 28.08 per ton- 1,600 tons

Each metric/CO2 ton from landfills cost $137 $ 25,801,621.00 Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2

TOTAL

$ 49,737,929.00

Landfills 220,000 tons of landfill EPA Source

188,333 MT/CO2

Waste Management

Landfill disposal $32.18 per ton $ 7,079,600.00 220,000 tons landfill

TOTAL $ 7,079,600.00

A-1 Organics

Processing Cost per ton $ 74,880.00 $46.80 per ton- 1,600 tons

TOTAL $ 74,880.00


Charged through sales/property taxes $ - 240,000 currently - 172,000 homes

Compost Annual Payment Total $ 257,400.00

$29.25 quarterly - $ 9.75 monthly - 2,200 participants

TOTAL $ 257,400.00 2,200 households- $117 annually


Property Owners

Annual Total $ 57,149,809.00


City of Denver

Paid $35.40 per ton of recyclables by WMRA for 95% of

recyclables delivered $ 1,076,160.00 32,000 tons- 95%- 30,400

tons


75

75 Marshall

Landfill Royalties from Waste Management $ 5,578,240.35 $25 per ton


Social Cost savings: 25,000 MTCO2 are saved from emitting

into the atmosphere $ 3,653,242.00 Social Cost savings: 32,000 tons

26,666 MTCO2 are saved from

emitting into the atmosphere

TOTAL $ 27,369,532.51

Waste Management



TOTAL $ 24,960.00

Single Family Unit Residents


Property Owners $ -

Annual Total $ 27,394,492.51




City of Denver


76 Marshall

76

Collect Recyclables Annually $ 8,458,822.82

$103.69 per ton- Total of 81,578

Collect Landfill Refuse Annually $ 7,958,244.84

$68.11 per ton- Total 116,844 tons

Tipping Fees $ 1,936,105.08

$16.57 per ton 116,844 landfill tons




$ 1,545,884.46 $29.07per ton- 53,178 tons

Each metric ton from landfills cost $137 $ 50,787.00



New Trucks

$ 500,000.00 one time

New Carts

$ 500,000.00 one time

Implement Mandatory PAYT system $ 200,000.00 startup fee



$ 1,575,000.00

$ 21,524,844.20

$37,481,685.20

Waste Management

Landfill disposal $32.30 per ton $ 3,774,061.20

116,844 tons landfill $32.30 per ton

$ 3,774,061.20

$3,744,061.20

A-1 Organics



77

77 Marshall

$ 2,393,010.00

$2,393,010 $45 per ton- 53178 tons



PAYT compost, recycling, and landfill minimum payment

$15 monthly - $180 annually

$ 30,960,000 $30,960,000

$ 30,960,000.00


$ -

Property Owners

$ -

Annual Total $ 58,651,915.40

This projection indicated that between 37,300 and 56,000 tons/year of food

and yard waste could be diverted through an established citywide program. T

Types of Benefits

City of Denver

Paid $35.40 per ton of recyclables by WMRA for 95% of recyclables delivered

$ 2,743,464.60 81,578- 95%- 77499 tons

Landfill Royalties from Waste Management

$ 2,761,023.72 $23.63 per ton 116,844


Environmental Social Cost savings: $ 9,313,397.00 81578 tons 67,981 MT/CO2 Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2



78 Marshall

78

Avoided cost of tipping fees $ 2,232,906.92 134,756 tons diverted

$ 65,072,682.40

Waste Management

Use less of employee time to sort contamination

$ -

$ -


$ 638,136.00


$ 638,136.00

$638,136


$ -


$ -

Property Owners

$ -

Annual Total $ 65,710,818.40




City of Denver


79

79 Marshall

Collect Recyclables Annually $ 8,458,822.82 $103.69 per ton- Total of 81,578

Collect Landfill Refuse Annually $ 7,958,244.84 $68.11 per ton- Total 116,844 tons

Tipping Fees $ 1,936,105.08 $16.57 per ton 116,844 landfill tons



Tip fee organics at A1 Organics’ Stapleton transfer station $ 1,493,238.24

$28.08 per ton- 53,178 tons

Each metric ton from landfills cost $137 $ 44,235,930 349,920 tons 291,600 MT/CO2


New Trucks $ 500,000 one time

New Carts $ 500,000 one time

Implement Mandatory PAYT system $ 200,000 Start-up fee


Expand Composting Program $ 375,000

Verification Program $ 24,800 staffing and inspections

Audits $ 10,000

$ 64,117,140.98 cost annually after investments

TOTAL

$ 65,692,140.98

$65,692,140.98

Waste Management



Landfill disposal $32.18 per ton MFU $ 11,260,425.60

349,920 tons- 19% increase $30 per ton

TOTAL

$ 15,034,486.80

$15,034,486.80

A-1 Organics



80 Marshall

80

Processing Cost per ton MFU $ 1,166,400.00

25,920 tons of compost (6%) - $45 per ton

TOTAL

$ 3,559,410.00

$3,559,410.00



PAYT compost, recycling, and landfill minimum payment

$15 monthly - $180 annually

$ 30,960,000.00

TOTAL

$ 30,960,000.00

$30,960,000.00


Monthly charge per resident in fees/rent

$ 8,640,000.00

Charge average of $2 per resident

TOTAL $ 8,640,000.00 $8,640,000 360,000 residents

Property Owners

Cost of Landfill $ 78,888,000.00

Reduce to 5 cubic yard container

Cost of Compost $ 67,262,400.00

Expand to 2 cubic yard container

Cost of Recycling $ 58,958,400.00

Expand to 4 cubic yard container

TOTAL $ 272,371,200.00 $272,371,200 weekly pick up

Annual Total $ 328,994,837.78

Types of Benefits

City of Denver


81

81 Marshall


$ 2,692,074.00

37,548 37- 95%- 35,671 tons

Landfill Royalties from Waste Management $ 2,761,023.72

$23.63 per ton 212,452

Revenues from the General Fund for Waste Collection & Disposal

$ 17,061,890.16

Social Cost savings: $ 16,218,197.00

53,178 tons 44,370 MT/CO2 & 60480 tons 50,400 MT/CO2 Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2

PAYT Minimum Revenue

$ 30,960,000.00

116,844 tons of landfill

Avoided cost of tipping fees

$ 2,232,906.92

37,548 tons 31,290 MT/CO2

$ 71,926,091.80

$54,787,390.72

Waste Management

Use less of employee time to sort contamination $ -

$ -


$ 638,136.00


$ 638,136.00

$638,136






82 Marshall

82


$ -

Property Owners


$ -

Annual Total $ 72,564,227.80




City of Denver

Collect Recyclables Annually $ 3,893,352.12

$103.69 per ton- Total of Total of 37,548 tons (3% of 253,600= 7,548 tons)

Collect Landfill Refuse Annually $ 14,470,105.72

$68.11 per ton- Total 212,452 tons (220,000-7,548)

Tipping Fees $ 3,520,329.64


Lost Value of Recyclables Landfilled $ 1,603,800.00

$27 ton- 59,400 tons recyclables landfilled (27% of waste composition recyclable)


$ 44,928.00

$28.08 per ton- 1,600 tons


Landfills 212,452 tons of landfill-212,452 177,043 MT/CO2 Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2

Education and Outreach $ 1,279,641.76


83

83 Marshall

$ 49,067,048.24

$49,067,048.24 $24,812,157.24

Waste Management


$ 6,836,705.36


$ 6,836,705.36

$6,836,705.36

A-1 Organics


$ 72,000.00

$72,000 $45 per ton- 1,600 tons



Compost Monthly Payment $ 257,400.00

$29.25 quarterly - $ 9.75 monthly

2,200 households- $117 annually

$ 257,400.00

$257,400


$ -

Property Owners

$ -

Annual Total $ 56,233,153.60


84 Marshall

84

This projection indicated that between 37,300 and 56,000 tons/year of food

and yard waste could be diverted through an established citywide program. T

Types of Benefits

City of Denver


$ 1,262,753.40

37,548 37- 95%- 35,671 tons

Landfill Royalties from Waste Management $ 5,020,240.76

$23.63 per ton Landfills 212,452 tons

Avoided cost of tipping fees

$ 125,070.36 7,548 tons diverted


$ 17,061,890.16

Environmental Social Cost savings: $ 4,286,730.00

37,548 tons 31,290 MT/CO2 Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2

$ 27,756,684.68

Waste Management

Use less of employee time to sort contamination $ -

$ -


$ 24,960.00


$ 24,960.00

$ 24,960.00



85

85 Marshall

$ -


$ -

Property Owners

$ -

Annual Total $ 27,781,644.68

Appendix IV: Net Present Value

Cost Benefit Analysis for Sustainable Waste Management City of Denver

Cost Benefit Analysis of Denver Solid Waste Options

CO

STS

ALTERNATIVES


City & County of Denver $ 49,737,929.00 $ 21,524,844.20 $65,692,140.98 $49,067,048.24

Waste Management $ 7,079,600.00 $ 3,744,061.20 $15,034,486.80 $6,836,705.36

A-1 Organics $ 74,880.00 $ 2,393,010.00 $3,559,410.00 $72,000

Single Family Units $ 257,400.00 $ 30,960,000.00 $30,960,000.00

Multi-Family Units

$8,640,000

Property Owners

$272,371,200

TOTAL COSTS $ 57,149,809.00 $ 58,621,915.40 $396,257,237.78 $55,975,753.60

BE

NE

FIT S

ALTERNATIVES


86 Marshall

86


City & County of Denver $27,369,532.51 $65,072,682.40 $71,926,091.80 $27,756,684.68

Waste Management

A-1 Organics $24,960 $638,136 $638,136 $ 24,960.00

Single Family Units

Multi-Family Units

Property Owners

TOTAL BENEFITS $27,394,492.51 $65,710,818.40 $72,564,227.80 $27,781,644.68

NET PRESENT VALUE ($29,755,316.49) $7,088,903.00 ($323,693,009.98) ($28,194,108.92)

Cost Benefit Analysis for Sustainable Waste Management City of Denver

Cost Benefit Analysis of Denver Solid Waste Options for Denver

ALTERNATIVES


Costs $ 49,737,929.00 $ 34,813,747.20 $65,692,140.98 $49,067,048.24

Benefits $27,369,532.51 $65,072,682.40 $71,926,091.80 $27,756,684.68

NET PRESENT VALUE ($22,368,396.49) $30,258,935.20 $6,233,950.82 ($21,310,363.56)


87

87 Marshall

Appendix V: CBA Diversion Rate Progression Alternative 1A

2016 20% 2018-25% 2020-30% 2022-35% 2024- 40% 2026- 45% 2028- 50% 2030- 53%

City of Denver: Types of Costs

Collect Recyclables Annually

$103.69 per ton- Total of 30192 (12%)

$ 3,130,608.48

$103.69 per ton- Total of 37740 (15%)

$ 3,913,260.60

$103.69 per ton- Total of 45288 (18%)

$ 4,695,912.72

$103.69 per ton- Total of 52836 (21%)

$ 5,478,564.84

$103.69 per ton- Total of 60384 (24%)

$ 6,261,216.96

$103.69 per ton- Total of 67,932 (27%)

$ 7,043,869.08

$103.69 per ton- Total of 75,480 tons (30%)

$ 7,826,521.20

$103.69 per ton- Total of 81,578 (32%)

$ 8,458,822.82

Collect Landfill Refuse Annually

$68.11 per ton- Total 201280 tons (80%)

$ 13,709,180.80

$68.11 per ton- 188700 Total tons (75%)

$ 12,852,357.00


$ 11,995,533.20


$ 11,138,709.40


$ 10,281,885.60


$ 9,425,061.80

$68.11 per ton- Total 125,800 tons (50%)

$ 8,568,238.00


$ 7,958,244.84

Tipping Fees

$16.57 per ton Total 201280 tons (80%)

$ 3,335,209.60


$ 3,126,759.00


$ 2,918,308.40


$ 2,709,857.80

$16.57 per ton Total Total 150960 tons (60%)

$ 2,501,407.20


$ 2,292,956.60

$16.57 per ton Total 125,800 tons (50%)

$ 2,084,506.00

$16.57 per ton 116,844 landfill tons

$ 1,936,105.08


$29.36 ton- 40,256tons(20% of waste composition recyclable)

$ 1,181,916.16

$29.36 ton- 32,079 tons(17% of waste composition recyclable)

$ 941,839.44

$29.36 ton- 12580 tons(14% of waste composition recyclable)

$ 723,900.16


$ 369,348.80


$ 354,551.36


$ 203,141.84

$29.36 ton-2516 tons of recyclables (2% of waste composition recyclable)

$ 73,869.76



$29.07 per ton- 17,612 tons (7%)

$ 511,980.84

$29.07 per ton- 22644 tons (9%)

$ 658,261.08

$29.07 per ton- 27676 tons (11%)

$ 804,541.32

$29.07 per ton- 32708 tons (13%)

$ 950,821.56

$29.07 per ton- 37740 tons (15%)

$ 1,097,101.80

$29.07 per ton- 42772 tons (17%)

$ 1,243,382.04

$29.07per ton- 47804 tons (19%)

$ 1,389,662.28

$29.07per ton- 52836 tons (21%)

$ 1,535,942.52


88 Marshall

88

Each metric ton from landfills cost $137

Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2 Landfills Total 201280 tons (55%) 167733 MT/CO2

$ 22,979,421.00

Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2 Landfills Total 188700 tons (55%) 157,250 MT/CO2

$ 21,543,250.00


$ 20,106,942.00


$ 18,670,771.00


$ 17,234,600.00


$ 15,798,292.00

Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2 Landfills 125,800 tons 104,833MT/CO2

$ 14,362,121.00


$ 13,339,690.00


New Trucks

$ 500,000.00

New Carts

$ 500,000.00

Implement Mandatory PAYT system

$ 200,000.00

$ 200,000.00

$ 200,000.00

$ 200,000.00

$ 200,000.00

$ 200,000.00

$ 200,000.00

$ 200,000.00


Expand Composting Program

$ 375,000.00

Total

$ 46,423,316.88

Total $ 43,235,727.12

Total $ 41,445,137.80

Total $ 39,518,073.40

Total $ 37,930,762.92

Total $ 36,206,703.36

Total $ 34,504,918.24

Total $ 33,428,805.26


89

89 Marshall

City of Denver: Types of Benefits


52836 - 95%- 50194 tons

$ 1,776,867.60

52836 - 95%- 50194 tons

$ 1,776,867.60

52836 - 95%- 50194 tons

$ 1,776,867.60

52836 - 95%- 50194 tons

$ 1,776,867.60

60384 - 95%- 57364 tons

$ 2,030,685.60

67,932- 95%- 64535 tons

$ 2,284,539.00

75,480 - 95%- 71706 tons

$ 2,538,392.40

81,578- 95%- 77499 tons

$ 2,743,464.60


$23.63 per ton 163540

$ 3,864,450.20

$23.63 per ton 163540

$ 3,864,450.20

$23.63 per ton 163540

$ 3,864,450.20

$23.63 per ton 163540

$ 3,864,450.20

$23.63 per ton 150960

$ 3,567,184.80

$23.63 per ton 138380

$ 3,269,919.40

$23.63 per ton 125,800

$ 2,972,654.00

$23.63 per ton 116,844

$ 2,761,023.72


Taxes $ 17,061,890.16

Taxes $ 17,061,890.16

Taxes $ 17,061,890.16

Taxes $ 17,061,890.16

Taxes $ 17,061,890.16

Taxes $ 17,061,890.16

Taxes $ 17,061,890.16

Taxes $ 17,061,890.16

Environmental Social Cost savings:

52836 tons- 44030 MT/CO2 Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2

$ 6,032,110.00


$ 6,032,110.00


$ 6,032,110.00


$ 6,032,110.00

60384 tons-50320 MT/CO2 Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2

$ 6,893,840.00

67,932 tons- 56610 MT/CO2 Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2

$ 7,755,570.00

75,480 tons- 62,900 MT/CO2 Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2

$ 8,617,300.00

81578 tons- 67,981 MT/CO2 Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2

$ 9,313,397.00

PAYT Minimum Revenue $15

$ 30,960,000.00

$ 30,960,000.00

$ 30,960,000.00

$ 30,960,000.00

$ 30,960,000.00

$ 30,960,000.00

$ 30,960,000.00

$ 30,960,000.00


90 Marshall

90

Avoided cost of tipping fees $16.57

$16.57 90576 tons diverted

$ 1,500,844.32


$ 1,500,844.32


$ 1,500,844.32


$ 1,500,844.32


$ 1,667,604.80


$ 1,876,055.40


$ 2,084,506.00

$16.57 134,756 tons diverted

$ 2,232,906.92

Total

$ 61,196,162.28

Total $ 61,196,162.28

Total $ 61,196,162.28

Total $ 61,196,162.28

Total $ 62,181,205.36

Total $ 63,207,973.96

Total $ 64,234,742.56

Total $ 65,072,682.40

Projections for Different Diversion Rates

Annual Diversion Projection

2016 20% 2018-25% 2020-30% 2022-35% 2024- 40% 2026- 45% 2028- 50% 2030- 53%

Costs $ 46,423,316.88 $ 43,235,727.12 $ 41,445,137.80 $ 39,518,073.40 $ 37,930,762.92 $ 36,206,703.36 $ 34,504,918.24 $ 33,428,805.26

Benefits $ 61,144,533.96 $ 61,144,533.96 $ 61,144,533.96 $ 61,144,533.96 $ 62,123,840.56 $ 63,143,438.56 $ 64,163,036.56 $ 64,995,871.48

NET PRESENT VALUE $14,721,217.08 $17,908,806.84 $19,699,396.16 $21,626,460.56 $24,193,077.64 $26,936,735.20 $29,658,118.32 $31,567,066.22


91

91 Marshall

Appendix VI: Sensitivity Analysis Varying Diversion Rates for 2030

Diversion Rate Options for the Year 2030

Single Units

240,000 residents (172,000 homes)

40% served 53%

50% (125,800 tons diverted)

45% 40% 35%


Collect Recyclables Annually $103.69 per ton- Total of 81,578 (32%)

$ 8,458,822.82

$103.69 per ton- Total of 75,480 tons (30%)

$ 7,826,521.20

$103.69 per ton- Total of 67,932 (27%)

$ 7,043,869.08

$103.69 per ton- Total of 60384 (24%)

$ 6,261,216.96

$103.69 per ton- Total of 52836 (21%)

$ 5,478,564.84

Collect Landfill Refuse Annually $68.11 per ton- Total 116,844 tons (21%)

$ 7,958,244.84

$68.11 per ton- Total 125,800 tons (50%)

$ 8,568,238.00


$ 9,425,061.80


$ 10,281,885.60


$ 11,138,709.40

Tipping Fees $16.57 per ton 116,844 landfill tons

$ 1,936,105.08


$ 2,084,506.00


$ 2,292,956.60

$16.57 per ton Total Total 150960 tons (60%)

$ 2,501,407.20


$ 2,709,857.80

Lost Value of Recyclables Landfilled $29.36 ton-(0% of waste composition recyclable)

$29.36 ton-2516 tons of recyclables (2% of waste composition recyclable)

$ 73,869.76


$ 203,141.84


$ 354,551.36


$ 369,348.80


92 Marshall

92


$29.07per ton- 53,178 tons (21%)

$ 1,545,884.46

$29.07per ton- 50,320 tons (20%)

$ 1,462,802.40

$29.07 per ton- 45288 tons (18%)

$ 1,316,522.16

$29.07 per ton- 40256 tons (16%)

$ 1,170,241.92

$29.07 per ton- 37740 tons (15%)

$ 1,097,101.80



$ 13,339,690.00

Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2 Landfills 125,800 tons 104,833MT/CO2

$ 14,362,121.00


$ 15,798,292.00


$ 17,234,600.00


$ 18,670,771.00


New Trucks

New Carts

Implement Mandatory PAYT system $ 200,000.00

$ 200,000.00

$ 200,000.00

$ 200,000.00

$ 200,000.00



Total $ 33,438,747.20

Total $ 34,578,058.36

Total $ 36,279,843.48

Total $ 38,003,903.04

Total $ 39,664,353.64


93

93 Marshall

53% 50% 45% 40% 35%



81,578- 95%- 77499 tons

$ 2,743,464.60

75,480 - 95%- 71706 tons

$ 2,538,392.40

67,932- 95%- 64535 tons

$ 2,284,539.00

60384 - 95%- 57364 tons

$ 2,030,685.60

52836 - 95%- 50194 tons

$ 1,776,867.60


$23.63 per ton 116,844

$ 2,761,023.72

$23.63 per ton 125,800

$ 2,972,654.00

$23.63 per ton 138380

$ 3,269,919.40

$23.63 per ton 150960

$ 3,567,184.80

$23.63 per ton 163540

$ 3,864,450.20


Taxes $ 17,061,890.16

Taxes $ 17,061,890.16

Taxes $ 17,061,890.16

Taxes $ 17,061,890.16

Taxes $ 17,061,890.16


81578 tons- 67,981 MT/CO2 Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2

$ 9,313,397.00

75,480 tons- 62,900 MT/CO2 Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2

$ 8,617,300.00

67,932 tons- 56610 MT/CO2 Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2

$ 7,755,570.00

60384 tons-50320 MT/CO2 Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2

$ 6,893,840.00


$ 6,032,110.00

PAYT Minimum Revenue $15 $ 30,960,000.00

$ 30,960,000.00

$ 30,960,000.00

$ 30,960,000.00

$ 30,960,000.00



$ 2,232,906.92


$ 2,084,506.00


$ 1,876,055.40


$ 1,667,604.80


$ 1,500,844.32

Total $ 65,072,682.40

Total $ 64,234,742.56

Total $ 63,207,973.96

Total $ 62,181,205.36

Total $ 61,196,162.28


94 Marshall

94

Projections for Different Diversion Rates

ALTERNATIVES

53% Diversion 50% Diversion 45% Diversion 40% Diversion 35% Diversion

Costs $ 33,438,747.20 $ 34,578,058.36 $ 36,279,843.48 $ 38,003,903.04 $ 39,664,353.64

Benefits $ 65,072,682.40 $ 64,234,742.56 $ 63,207,973.96 $ 62,181,205.36 $ 61,196,162.28

NET PRESENT VALUE

$31,633,935.20 $29,656,684.20 $26,928,130.48 $24,177,302.32 $21,531,808.64


95

95 Marshall

Appendix VII: Sensitivity Analysis Population Growth


Single Units 2015-14% 2016- 20% 2020-30% 2025-42 2030-53

1.395348 residents per household

240,000 residents (172,000 homes) 40% served- 20% diversion

276,082 total tons generated annually- 1.46 tons per household

260,292 residents (186,542 homes) 40% served




(286,843 residents 205,379 homes) 40% served



Collect Recyclables Annually

32,000

tons-

$103.69

per ton

$

3,318,080

$103.69 per ton- Total of 33,129 (12%)

$ 3,435,146.01

$103.69 per ton- Total of 52544 (18%)

$ 5,448,287.36

$103.69 per ton- Total of 77961 (26%)

$ 8,083,776.09

$103.69 per ton- Total of 101,303 (32%)

$ 10,504,108.07

Collect Landfill Refuse Annually

220,000 tons - $68.11 per ton

$ 14,984,200.00

$68.11 per ton- Total tons 220,865 (80%)

$ 15,043,115.15


$ 13,917,665.51


$ 11,028,371.20

$68.11 per ton-148,788 (54%)

$ 10,133,950.68

Tipping Fees 220,000 tons- $16.57

$ 3,645,400.00


$ 3,659,733.05


$ 3,385,930.37


$ 2,683,014.40

$16.57 per ton 148788 landfill tons (54%)

$ 2,465,417.16


66,000 tons - $29.45 per ton

$ 1,943,700.00

$29.36 ton- tons(20% of waste composition recyclable)

$ 1,296,919.28


$ 369,348.80


$ 369,348.80



28.08 per ton- 1,600 tons

$ 44,928.00

$29.07 per ton- 17,612 tons (7%)

$ 1,545,884.46

$29.07 per ton- 27676 tons (11%)

$ 804,541.32

$29.07 per ton- 47976 tons (16%)

$ 1,394,662.32

$29.07per ton- Total 66,480 tons (21%)

$ 1,932,573.60


96 Marshall

96



$ 25,801,621.00

Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2 Landfills Total 220,865 tons (55%) 184054 MT/CO2

$ 22,979,421.00

Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2 Landfills Total 204341 tons 170284 MT/CO2

$ 23,328,908.00

Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2 Landfills Total 161920 tons 134933 MT/CO2

$ 18,485,821.00

Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2 Landfills 167783 tons of landfill 139819 MT/CO2

$ 19,155,203.00


New Trucks

$ 500,000.00

New Carts

$ 500,000.00

Implement Mandatory PAYT system

$ 200,000.00

$ 200,000.00

$ 200,000.00

$ 200,000.00

$ 200,000.00



$ 375,000.00

Total Cost 2014

$ 51,105,549.00

Total Cost 2016

$ 48,160,218.95

Total Cost 2020

$ 47,454,681.36

Total Cost 2025

$ 42,244,993.81

Total Cost 2030

$ 44,391,252.51


97

97 Marshall



32,000 tons- 95%-

30,400 tons

$

1,076,160.

00

33,129 - 95%- 31472 tons

$ 1,114,108.80

52544 - 95%- 49917 tons

$ 1,776,867.60

77961- 95%- 74062 tons $35.40

$ 2,621,794.80

101,303 - 95%- 96237 tons $35.40

$ 3,406,789.80


$23.63 per ton 220000

$ 5,198,600.00

$23.63 per ton 220,865

$ 5,219,039.95

$23.63 per ton 204341

$ 4,828,577.83

$23.63 per ton 161920

$ 3,826,169.60

$23.63 per ton 148788

$ 3,515,860.44


Taxes

$ 17,061,890.16

Taxes

$ 17,061,890.16

Taxes

$ 17,061,890.16

Taxes

$ 17,061,890.16

Taxes $ 17,061,890.16


Social Cost

savings: 32,000

tons 26,666

MTCO2 are saved

from emitting into

the atmosphere

$

3,653,242.

00


$ 5,792,908.00


$ 9,158,450.00


$ 14,377,739.00

148,788 tons-123990 MT/CO2 Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2

$ 19,155,203.00

PAYT Minimum Revenue $15 $15 per household

$ 30,960,000.00

$15 per household

$ 33,577,560.00

$ 35,503,380.00

$15

$ 36,968,220.00

213900 $15

$ 38,502,000.00



$ 523,612.00


$ 1,524,903.96


$ 1,107,704.50


$ 1,500,844.32


$ 2,780,164.31

Total

$ 58,360,623.16

Total $ 64,290,410.87

Total

$ 69,436,870.09

Total $ 76,356,657.88

Total $ 84,421,907.71


98 Marshall

98

Projected Population Growth’s Effect on Costs and Benefits

Cost Benefit Analysis and Annual Diversion Projection

2015-14% 2016-20% 2020-30% 2025- 42% 2030- 53%

Costs $51,312,929.00

$ 48,160,218.95 $ 41,090,586.44 $ 39,757,678.09 $ 42,222,679.51

Benefits $58,473,504.16

$ 64,290,410.87 $ 69,436,870.09 $ 76,356,657.88 $ 84,421,907.71

NET PRESENT VALUE

$7,160,575.16 $16,130,191.92 $28,346,283.65 $36,598,979.79 $42,199,228.20

Date post:	11-Sep-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Achieving Sustainable Solid Waste Management for the City of Denver

Documents