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
Marshall
1
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
Alternative 1A: Mandatory PAYT Single-family Residential Recycling and Composting Policy ......................... 42
Costs: .................................................................................................................................................................. 42
Benefits: .............................................................................................................................................................. 44
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
1
2
Marshall
Alternative 1B: Mandatory PAYT Single & Multi- Family Recycling and Composting Policy ............................ 44
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
Alternative 1A: Mandatory PAYT Single-family Residential Recycling and Composting Policy ......................... 66
Alternative 1B: Mandatory PAYT Single & Multi- Family Recycling and Composting Policy ............................ 69
Alternative 2: Denver Recycling and Composting Educational Outreach .............................................................. 71
Appendix III: Cost Benefit Analysis with Consumer Cost Index Adjustment ............................................................ 73
Status Quo ............................................................................................................................................................... 73
Alternative 1A: Mandatory PAYT Single-family Residential Recycling and Composting Policy ......................... 75
Alternative 1B: Mandatory PAYT Single & Multi- Family Recycling and Composting Policy ............................ 78
Alternative 2: Denver Recycling and Composting Educational Outreach .............................................................. 82
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
2
Marshall
3
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.
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
3
4
Marshall
Problem Definition
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.
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
4
Marshall
5
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.
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
5
6
Marshall
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.
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
6
Marshall
7
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 municipallymanaged 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,
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
7
8
Marshall
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).
Diversion Rate Comparison
70%
66%
60%
50%
40%
46%
43%
34%
30%
21%
20%
14%
10%
0%
United States
State of
Colorado
Denver
Boulder
Fort Collins
Lafayette
Figure 1: Diversion rates of different areas compared to Denver (Vidal 2010, CDPHE 2012, Skumatz 2008, Boulder County
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,
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
8
Marshall
9
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
Different Waste Streams’ Average Job Creation
Jobs created(per 10,000 tons per year)
Processor
Recycling-Based Manufacturing
penetration, large value
commercial recycling, and
education on diversion (Skumatz
Recycling Processing
Composting
2008). Curbside collection refers
to waste diversion programs that
Landfilling
provide a service through which
0
5
10
15
20
25
Figure 2 (Institute for Local Self Reliance)
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-
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
9
10
Marshall
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 &
Colorado Diversion Rate Trends
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
Figure 3 (Lisa A. Skumatz & Freeman, 2008)
return on the city’s investment in the program. The policy options include: developing an education and
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
10
Marshall
11
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
11
12
Marshall
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
12
Marshall
13
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
13
14
Marshall
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
14
Marshall
15
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.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Virgin vs. Recycle Materials
Figure 4: (Acuff & Kaffine, 2011)
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
15
16
Marshall
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
16
Marshall
17
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
17
18
Marshall
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
Denver Resident Housing Composition
the service.
According to data
69,200
from the Colorado
26,000
144,000
State Demography
Office in 2009,
there are 144,000
single-family units
Single Family Units
Small Multi-Family Units
in Denver and
Large Multi-Family Units
Figure 5(CDPHE 2010)
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
18
Marshall
19
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)
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
19
20
Marshall
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.
Results from Denver Solid Waste Management Survey
Recycling Points
Endorse Increased Recycling
Reducing environmental impact
Important to reduce environmental impact of personal lives
Important for Denver to reduce citizen's impact
Most important solid waste system component to public health
Priorities in waste services:
After refuse collection, recycling collection was a top priority
Mandatory Recycling:
Recycling should be mandatory for DSWM customers
Recycling should be mandatory in large residences
How to Pay for Waste Services:
All services through taxes
Some services pay through user fees
All services by user fees
Willingness to pay for services to offset DSWM costs:
Reducing LIP collection to 4 times per year
Adding yard waste diversion
PAYT refuse pricing
Add drop-sites for recyclables
% of Respondents
88
70
73
58
78
72
84
57
25
18
31
30
19
18
Figure 7 (Vidal 2010)
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
20
Marshall
21
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
21
22
Marshall
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
22
Marshall
23
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
23
24
Marshall
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
Figure 8 (Young 2013 Toronto)
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
24
Marshall
25
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
25
26
Marshall
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
26
Marshall
27
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
Figure 9 (City of Portland, 2012)
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
27
28
Marshall
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
28
Marshall
29
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
29
30
Marshall
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.
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
30
Marshall
31
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 multifamily 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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
31
32
Marshall
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).
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
32
Marshall
33
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-
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
33
34
Marshall
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
34
Marshall
35
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
35
36
Marshall
collection to their residents by January 2016, along with landfill collection. By 2017, all large multifamily 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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
36
Marshall
37
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
37
38
Marshall
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
Status Quo
Costs
$ 49,530,549.00
Benefits
$27,074,030.51
($22,456,518.49)
NET PRESENT VALUE
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1A
Alternative 1B
$ 34,813,747.20
$65,692,140.98
$65,072,682.40
$30,258,935.20
$71,926,091.80
$6,233,950.82
Alternative 2
$49,067,048.24
$27,756,684.68
($21,310,363.56)
Figure 10 Net Present Value for the policy alternatives for the City of Denver (Vidal, 2010), (Environmental Protection
Agency)
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
38
Marshall
39
Cost Benefit Analysis of Denver Solid Waste Options
ALTERNATIVES
COSTS
Status Quo
Alternative 1A
Alternative 1B
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
TOTAL COSTS
Alternative 2
$272,371,200
$ 56,942,429.00
$ 58,621,915.40
$396,257,237.78
$55,975,753.60
ALTERNATIVES
Status Quo
City & County of Denver
Alternative 1A
Alternative 1B
Alternative 2
BENEFITS
$27,074,030.51
$65,072,682.40
$71,926,091.80
$27,756,684.68
$24,960
$638,136
$638,136
$27,098,990.51
$65,710,818.40
$72,564,227.80
$27,781,644.68
($29,843,438.49)
$7,088,903.00
($323,693,009.98)
($28,194,108.92)
Waste Management
A-1 Organics
$
24,960.00
Single Family Units
Multi-Family Units
Property Owners
TOTAL BENEFITS
NET PRESENT VALUE
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,
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
39
40
Marshall
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
40
Marshall
41
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.
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
41
42
Marshall
Estimated Impacts from Key Diversion Programs
Activity
PAYT
%
Increase
9 - 17
Mandatory Recycling
& Composting
6 - 29
Curbside recycling
10 - 20
Composting
Expansion
10 -15
Multi-Family
Recycling
Education
2-4
1-3
Notes
PAYT dramatically improves capture from curbside composting
and recycling programs. It leads to source reduction. Generation
avoidance.
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 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.
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.
Ensuring large multi-family unit residents have access to diversion
collection through recycling and composting
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)
Alternative 1A: Mandatory PAYT Single-family Residential Recycling and Composting Policy
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
42
Marshall
43
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
43
44
Marshall
$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.
Alternative 1B: Mandatory PAYT Single & Multi- Family Recycling and Composting Policy
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 multifamily 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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
44
Marshall
45
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.
Multi-Family Units Average Container Size and Costs
Waste Type
Landfill
Compost
Recycling
Size of Container (Cubic Yards)
5
2
4
Charge Per Month
$95 per MFU
$81 per MFU
$71 per MFU
Total Annual Cost
$ 78,888,000.00
$ 67,262,400.00
$ 58,958,400.00
Figure 11 Alpine Waste and Recycling Price Quote (Bengeri, 2014)
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
45
46
Marshall
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.
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
46
Marshall
47
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
NET PRESENT
VALUE
$61,144,533
$61,144,533
$61,144,533
$61,144,533
$62,123,840
$63,143,438
$64,163,036
$64,995,871
$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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
47
48
Marshall
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
$29,656,684
$26,928,130
$24,177,302
$21,531,808
NET PRESENT VALUE
$31,633,935
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.
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
48
Marshall
49
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.
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
49
50
Marshall
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
Figure 15: Carts for
Denver curbside
collection (DSWM
2014)
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
50
Marshall
51
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
Figure 16 Waste Management Recycling Facility Denver (Marshall 2014)
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)
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
51
52
Marshall
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
52
Marshall
53
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.
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
53
54
Marshall
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 dropoff sites were ignored as a policy option.
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
54
Marshall
55
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
55
56
Marshall
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.
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
56
Marshall
57
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.
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
57
58
Marshall
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
58
Marshall
59
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:
Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment.
Solid Waste and Materials Management Program. (2012). Colorado Solid Waste Diversion. Denver:
Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment.
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.
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
59
60
Marshall
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
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.
Stakeholder Costs
City of Denver
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
60
Marshall
61
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.
Single Family
Unit Residents
240,000 residents (172,000
homes) participating in single
stream city provided program.
There are 2,200 residents
participating in the compost
program, costs $117 annually total
$257,400
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 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.
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.
240,000 residents (172,000
homes) participating in single
stream city provided program.
There are 2,200 residents
participating in the compost
program, costs $117 annually
total $257,400
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
61
62
Marshall
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.
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
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
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.
Pay property and sales taxes, but
do not get to participate in the
Denver Recycles Program.
Choose their own waste
providers independent of any
city programs or regulations
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.
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
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.
62
Marshall
63
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.
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.
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.
This policy would not add
to the costs of residents. It
would seek to teach them
how to properly dispose of
waste.
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
63
64
Marshall
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.
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
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.
Choose their own waste
providers independent of
any city programs or
regulations
64
Marshall
65
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
Collect Landfill Refuse Annually
$ 2,811,840.00
$ 12,665,400.00
32,000 tons $87.87 per ton
220,000 tons landfill $57.57 per ton
Tipping Fees
$
3,520,000.00
Lost Value of Recyclables Landfilled
Tip fee organics at A1 Organics’ Stapleton transfer
station
$
1,782,000.00
220,000 tons $16 per ton
66,000 tons 30% of waste landfill
$27 per ton
$
43,200.00
Each metric ton from landfills cost $137
$ 25,801,621.00
$ 46,624,061.00
TOTAL
$27 per ton- 1,600 tons
Every 1.2 tons creates 1 MT/CO2
75% of waste sent to landfill
Landfills 220,000 tons of landfill
EPA
188,333 MT/CO2
Waste Management
Landfill disposal $30 per ton
$
6,600,000.00
TOTAL
220,000 tons landfill
$
6,600,000.00
$
72,000.00
A-1 Organics
Processing Cost per ton
$
72,000.00
TOTAL
Single Family Units Residents
Charged through sales/property taxes
Compost Monthly Payment
$
240,000 currently - 172,000 homes
$29.25 quarterly - $ 9.75 monthly
257,400.00
TOTAL
$45 per ton- 1,600 tons
$
257,400.00
2,200 households- $117 annually
Multi-Family Unit Residents
Property Owners
Annual Total
Stakeholder
$ 53,553,461.00
Types of Benefits
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
65
66
Marshall
City of Denver
$
1,003,200.00
Paid $33 per ton of per ton of recyclables by WMRA for
95% of recyclables delivered
Revenues from the General Fund for Waste Collection &
Disposal
$ 16,000,000.00
Landfill Royalties from Waste Management
$
5,198,600.00
Social Cost savings: 32,000 tons 26,666 MTCO2 are
saved from emitting into the atmosphere
$
3,653,242.00
32,000 tons- 95%- 30,400 tons
$ 22,139,100.00
$23.63 per ton
Social Cost savings: 32,000 tons
26,666 MTCO2 are saved from
emitting into the atmosphere
$ 25,855,042.00
TOTAL
Waste Management
Maintains Monopoly
$
-
$
-
A-1 Organics
$
2,200 households- $117 annually
1 ton= 1.3 cubic yards 2,080 cubic
yards
24,960.00
$
TOTAL
24,960.00
Single Family Unit Residents
Do not pay for service directly
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
Multi-Family Unit Residents
Property Owners
Annual Total
$ 25,880,002.00
Alternative 1A: Mandatory PAYT Single-family Residential Recycling and Composting Policy
Costs and Benefits for the City of Denver
Stakeholder
Types of Costs
City of Denver
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
66
Marshall
67
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
$27.27 ton-(30% of waste composition
recyclable)
Lost Value of Recyclables Landfilled
Tip fee organics at A1 Organics’ Stapleton transfer station
$
1,435,806.00
Each metric ton from landfills cost $137
$ 13,339,690.00
$17,200,277.94
$27 per ton- 53,178 tons
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
New Carts
Implement Mandatory PAYT system
$
500,000.00
$
500,000.00
$
1,200,000.00
one time
one time
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
TOTAL
116,844 tons landfill $30 per ton
$ 3,505,320.00
A-1 Organics
Processing Cost per ton
$
2,393,010.00
TOTAL
$ 2,393,010.00
Single Family Units Residents
Charged through sales/property taxes
240,000 currently - 172,000 homes
Compost Monthly Payment
PAYT composting, recycling, landfill
$15 monthly - $180 annually
$ 30,960,000.00
TOTAL
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
$45 per ton- 53178 tons
$
30,960,000.00
67
68
Marshall
Multi-Family Unit Residents
Property Owners
Annual Total
Stakeholder
$ 69,973,297.94
Types of Benefits
City of Denver
Paid $33 per ton of per ton of recyclables by WMRA for
95% of recyclables delivered
Landfill Royalties from Waste Management
$
2,557,467.00
81,578- 95%- 77499 tons
$
2,761,023.72
$23.63 per ton 116,844
Revenues from the General Fund for Waste Collection &
Disposal
$ 16,000,000.00
Environmental Social Cost savings:
$
PAYT Minimum Revenue
$ 30,960,000.00
Avoided cost of tipping fees
$
81578 tons 67,981 MT/CO2 Every 1.2
tons creates 1 MT/CO2
9,313,397.00
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
1 ton= 1.3 cubic yards 2,080 cubic
yards
$
638,136.00
Single Family Units Residents
Receive compost collection included in fee
$
$
638,136.00
$
-
$
-
-
Multi-Family Unit Residents
Property Owners
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
68
Marshall
69
Annual Total
$ 63,880,519.72
Alternative 1B: Mandatory PAYT Single & Multi- Family Recycling and Composting Policy
Costs and Benefits for the City of Denver
Stakeholder
Types of Costs
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
$27.27 ton-(30% of waste composition
recyclable)
Lost Value of Recyclables Landfilled SFU and MFU
Tip fee organics at A1 Organics’ Stapleton transfer
station
Each metric ton from landfills cost $137
$
$
1,435,806.00
44,235,930.00
$27 per ton- 53,178 tons
349,920 tons 291,600 MT/CO2
New Trucks
$
500,000.00
one time
New Carts
$
500,000.00
one time
$
1,200,000.00
Expand Composting Program
$
375,000.00
Verification Program
$
24,800.00
Audits
$
10,000.00
Initial Investment (new trucks/carts/reporting)
Implement Mandatory PAYT system
startup fee
Implement curbside pick up
TOTAL
staffing and inspections
$
64,046,007.94
Waste Management/Hauler
Landfill disposal $30 per ton SFU Denver
$
3,505,320.00
Landfill disposal $30 per ton MFU
$
10,497,600.00
116,844 tons landfill $30 per ton
349,920 tons- 19% increase $30 per
ton
$
TOTAL
14,002,920.00
A-1 Organics
Processing Cost per ton SFU
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
$
2,393,010.00
$45 per ton- 53178 tons
69
70
Marshall
Processing Cost per ton MFU
$
25,920 tons of compost (6%) - $45 per
ton
1,166,400.00
$
TOTAL
3,559,410.00
Single Family Units Residents
Charged through sales/property taxes
240,000 currently - 172,000 homes
Compost Monthly Payment
$15 monthly - $180 annually
PAYT composting, recycling, landfill
$
30,960,000.00
$
TOTAL
Multi-Family Unit Residents
Monthly charge per resident in fees/rent
$
30,960,000.00
8,640,000.00
TOTAL
Charge average of $2 per resident
$
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
Annual Total
Stakeholder
TOTAL
$ 326,317,137.94
$
272,371,200.00
weekly pick up
Types of Benefits
City of Denver
Paid $33 per ton of per ton of recyclables by WMRA
for 95% of recyclables delivered
Landfill Royalties from Waste Management
$
2,692,074.00
37,548 37- 95%- 35,671 tons
$
2,761,023.72
$23.63 per ton 212,452
Revenues from the General Fund for Waste
Collection & Disposal
$
16,000,000.00
Social Cost savings:
$
12,983,490.00
PAYT Minimum Revenue
$
30,960,000.00
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
70
Marshall
71
Maintains Monopoly Increased Revenues from
Recyclables
$
$
-
A-1 Organics
$
Single Family Units Residents
Receive compost collection included in fee
240,000 currently - 172,000 homes
1 ton= 1.3 cubic yards 2,080 cubic
yards
638,136.00
$
$
638,136.00
$
-
$
-
$
-
-
Can reduce the fee if waste production is reduced
Multi-Family Unit Residents
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
Alternative 2: Denver Recycling and Composting Educational Outreach
Costs and Benefits for the City of Denver
Stakeholder
Types of Costs
City of Denver
Collect Recyclables Annually
$
Collect Landfill Refuse Annually
$ 12,230,861.64
Tipping Fees
$
3,399,232.00
Lost Value of Recyclables Landfilled
$
1,603,800.00
Tip fee organics at A1 Organics’ Stapleton transfer
station
$
43,200.00
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
3,299,342.76
$87.87 per ton- Total of 37,548 tons
(3% of 253,600= 7,548 tons)
$57.57 per ton- Total 212,452 tons
(220,000-7,548)
$16 per ton 212,452 landfill tons
$27 ton- 59,400 tons recyclables
landfilled (27% of waste composition
recyclable)
$27 per ton- 1,600 tons
71
72
Marshall
Each metric ton from landfills cost $137
Education and Outreach
$ 24,254,891.00
$ 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
$
72,000.00
A-1 Organics
Processing Cost per ton
$
72,000.00
Single Family Units Residents
Charged through sales/property taxes
$45 per ton- 1,600 tons
240,000 currently - 172,000 homes
Compost Monthly Payment
$
257,400.00
$29.25 quarterly - $ 9.75 monthly
2,200 households- $117 annually
$
257,400.00
Multi-Family Unit Residents
$
-
$
-
Property Owners
Annual Total
Stakeholder
$ 52,734,287.40
Types of Benefits
City of Denver
Paid $33 per ton of per ton of recyclables by WMRA for
95% of recyclables delivered
Landfill Royalties from Waste Management
$
1,177,143.00
37,548 37- 95%- 35,671 tons
$
5,020,240.76
$23.63 per ton 212,452
Avoided cost of tipping fees
$
120,768.00
Revenues from the General Fund for Waste Collection &
Disposal
Environmental Social Cost savings:
$ 16,000,000.00
$ 4,286,730.00
7,548 tons diverted
$ 26,604,881.76
Waste Management
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
72
Marshall
73
Maintains Monopoly
$
-
A-1 Organics
$
2,200 households- $117 annually
1 ton= 1.3 cubic yards 2,080 cubic
yards
24,960.00
$
Single Family Units Residents
Do not pay for service directly
$
24,960.00
$
-
$
-
$
-
Multi-Family Unit Residents
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
Stakeholder
Types of Costs
City of Denver
Collect Recyclables Annually
$
Collect Landfill Refuse Annually
$ 14,984,200.00
32,000 tons-$103.69 per
ton
220,000 tons - $68.11 per
ton
Tipping Fees
$
220,000 tons- $16.57
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
3,318,080.00
3,645,400.00
73
74
Marshall
Lost Value of Recyclables Landfilled
$
1,943,700.00
Tip fee organics at A1 Organics’ Stapleton transfer station
$
44,928.00
Each metric/CO2 ton from landfills cost $137
$ 25,801,621.00
66,000 tons - $29.45 per ton
$ 23,728,928.00
$ 49,737,929.00
TOTAL
28.08 per ton- 1,600 tons
Every 1.2 tons creates 1
MT/CO2
Landfills 220,000 tons of
landfill EPA Source
188,333 MT/CO2
Waste Management
Landfill disposal $32.18 per ton
$
7,079,600.00
TOTAL
220,000 tons landfill
$
7,079,600.00
A-1 Organics
Processing Cost per ton
$
74,880.00
TOTAL
$46.80 per ton- 1,600 tons
$
74,880.00
Single Family Units Residents
Charged through sales/property taxes
$
Compost Annual Payment Total
$
-
257,400.00
TOTAL
$
257,400.00
240,000 currently - 172,000
homes
$29.25 quarterly - $ 9.75
monthly - 2,200
participants
2,200 households- $117
annually
Multi-Family Unit Residents
Property Owners
Annual Total
Stakeholder
$ 57,149,809.00
Types of Benefits
City of Denver
Paid $35.40 per ton of recyclables by WMRA for 95% of
recyclables delivered
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
$
1,076,160.00
32,000 tons- 95%- 30,400
tons
74
Marshall
75
Landfill Royalties from Waste Management
Revenues from the General Fund for Waste Collection &
Disposal
Social Cost savings: 25,000 MTCO2 are saved from emitting
into the atmosphere
$
5,578,240.35
$25 per ton
$ 17,061,890.16
$
Social Cost savings: 32,000 tons
26,666 MTCO2 are saved from
emitting into the atmosphere
3,653,242.00
TOTAL
$ 27,369,532.51
Waste Management
2,200 households- $117
annually
1 ton= 1.3 cubic yards
2,080 cubic yards
A-1 Organics
$
24,960.00
TOTAL
$
24,960.00
Single Family
Unit Residents
Multi-Family
Unit Residents
Property
Owners
$
Annual Total
-
$ 27,394,492.51
Alternative 1A: Mandatory PAYT Single-family Residential Recycling and Composting Policy
Costs and Benefits for the City of Denver with CPI
Adjustment
Stakeholder Types of Costs
City of Denver
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
75
76
Marshall
Collect Recyclables Annually
Collect Landfill Refuse Annually
Tipping Fees
$
8,458,822.82
$
7,958,244.84
$
1,936,105.08
$103.69 per ton- Total of 81,578
$68.11 per ton- Total 116,844 tons
$16.57 per ton 116,844 landfill tons
$29.36 ton-(30% of waste composition
recyclable)
Lost Value of Recyclables Landfilled
Tip fee organics at A1 Organics’ Stapleton
transfer station
$
1,545,884.46
$29.07per ton- 53,178 tons
Each metric ton from landfills cost $137
$
50,787.00
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
New Carts
Implement Mandatory PAYT system
$
500,000.00
$
500,000.00
$
200,000.00
one time
one time
startup fee
Implement curbside pick up
Expand Composting Program
$
375,000.00
$
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
Processing Cost per ton
$
2,393,010.00
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
76
Marshall
77
$
2,393,010.00
$2,393,010
Single Family Units Residents
Charged through sales/property taxes
PAYT compost, recycling, and landfill
minimum payment
$45 per ton- 53178 tons
240,000 currently - 172,000 homes
$15 monthly - $180 annually
$ 30,960,000
$30,960,000
$
30,960,000.00
Multi-Family
Unit
Residents
$
Property
Owners
$
Annual Total
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
$ 58,651,915.40
City of Denver
Paid $35.40 per ton of recyclables by
WMRA for 95% of recyclables delivered
Landfill Royalties from Waste
Management
Revenues from the General Fund for
Waste Collection & Disposal
$
2,743,464.60
81,578- 95%- 77499 tons
$
2,761,023.72
$23.63 per ton 116,844
$ 17,061,890.16
Environmental Social Cost savings:
$
PAYT Minimum Revenue
$ 30,960,000.00
9,313,397.00
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
81578 tons 67,981 MT/CO2 Every 1.2 tons
creates 1 MT/CO2
77
78
Marshall
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
$
$
-
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
$638,136
Single
Family Units
Residents
$
Multi-Family
Unit
Residents
$
Property
Owners
$
Annual Total
$
65,710,818.40
Alternative 1B: Mandatory PAYT Single & Multi- Family Recycling and Composting Policy
Costs and Benefits for the City of Denver with CPI Adjustment
Stakeholder
Types of Costs
City of Denver
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
78
Marshall
79
$103.69 per ton- Total of
81,578
$68.11 per ton- Total
116,844 tons
$16.57 per ton 116,844
landfill tons
$29.45 ton-(30% of waste
composition recyclable)
$28.08 per ton- 53,178
tons
349,920 tons 291,600
MT/CO2
Collect Recyclables Annually
$
8,458,822.82
Collect Landfill Refuse Annually
$
7,958,244.84
Tipping Fees
$
1,936,105.08
Tip fee organics at A1 Organics’ Stapleton transfer
station
$
1,493,238.24
Each metric ton from landfills cost $137
$
44,235,930
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
Audits
$
10,000
Lost Value of Recyclables Landfilled
Initial Investment (new trucks/carts/reporting)
Implement curbside pick up
staffing and inspections
$
TOTAL
cost annually after
investments
64,117,140.98
$
65,692,140.98
$65,692,140.
98
Waste Management
Landfill disposal $32.18 per ton
Landfill disposal $32.18 per ton MFU
$
3,774,061.20
$
11,260,425.60
TOTAL
116,844 tons landfill
$32.30 per ton
349,920 tons- 19%
increase $30 per ton
$
15,034,486.80
$15,034,486.
80
A-1 Organics
Processing Cost per ton
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
$
2,393,010.00
79
80
Marshall
$
1,166,400.00
Processing Cost per ton MFU
TOTAL
25,920 tons of compost
(6%) - $45 per ton
$
3,559,410.00
$3,559,410.0
0
Single Family Units Residents
240,000 currently 172,000 homes
$15 monthly - $180
annually
Charged through sales/property taxes
PAYT compost, recycling, and landfill minimum
payment
$
30,960,000.00
TOTAL
$
30,960,000.00
$30,960,000.
00
MultiFamily Unit
Residents
$
8,640,000.00
Monthly charge per resident in fees/rent
TOTAL
Charge average of $2 per
resident
$
8,640,000.00
$8,640,000
360,000 residents
Property
Owners
$
78,888,000.00
$
67,262,400.00
$
58,958,400.00
Cost of Landfill
Cost of Compost
Cost of Recycling
Annual Total
TOTAL
$
328,994,837.78
Reduce to 5 cubic yard
container
Expand to 2 cubic yard
container
Expand to 4 cubic yard
container
$
272,371,200.00
$272,371,200
weekly pick up
Types of Benefits
City of Denver
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
80
Marshall
81
Paid $35.40 per ton of recyclables by WMRA for 95% of
recyclables delivered
Landfill Royalties from Waste Management
Revenues from the General Fund for Waste Collection
& Disposal
Social Cost savings:
PAYT Minimum Revenue
Avoided cost of tipping fees
$
2,692,074.00
$
2,761,023.72
$
17,061,890.16
37,548 37- 95%- 35,671
tons
$23.63 per ton 212,452
53,178 tons 44,370
MT/CO2 & 60480 tons
50,400 MT/CO2 Every 1.2
tons creates 1 MT/CO2
$
16,218,197.00
$
30,960,000.00
$
2,232,906.92
116,844 tons of landfill
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
$
$
240,000 currently 172,000 homes
1 ton= 1.3 cubic yards
2,080 cubic yards
A-1 Organics
$
638,136.00
$
638,136.00
$638,136
Single Family Units Residents
Receive compost collection included in fee
Can reduce the fee if waste production is reduced
$
$
-
Multi-Family Unit Residents
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
81
82
Marshall
$
-
Can reduce the fee if waste production is reduced
Property Owners
Can reduce the fee if waste production is reduced
$
Annual Total
$
72,564,227.80
Alternative 2: Denver Recycling and Composting Educational Outreach
Costs and Benefits for the City of Denver with CPI Adjustment
Stakeholder
Types of Costs
City of Denver
Collect Recyclables Annually
$
3,893,352.12
Collect Landfill Refuse Annually
$
14,470,105.72
Tipping Fees
$
3,520,329.64
Lost Value of Recyclables Landfilled
$
1,603,800.00
Tip fee organics at A1 Organics’ Stapleton transfer
station
$
44,928.00
Each metric ton from landfills cost $137
$
24,254,891.00
Education and Outreach
$
1,279,641.76
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
$103.69 per ton- Total of
Total of 37,548 tons (3% of
253,600= 7,548 tons)
$68.11 per ton- Total
212,452 tons (220,0007,548)
$16.57 per ton- Total
212,452 tons
$27 ton- 59,400 tons
recyclables landfilled (27%
of waste composition
recyclable)
$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
82
Marshall
83
$
49,067,048.24
$49,067,048.24
$24,812,157.24
Waste Management
$
6,836,705.36
Landfill disposal $32.18 per ton
$
6,836,705.36
$
6,836,705.36
212,452 tons landfill $32.18
per ton
$6,836,705.36
A-1 Organics
$
72,000.00
Processing Cost per ton
$
72,000.00
$72,000
Single Family Units Residents
Charged through sales/property taxes
$45 per ton- 1,600 tons
240,000 currently - 172,000 homes
$
257,400.00
Compost Monthly Payment
$29.25 quarterly - $ 9.75
monthly
2,200 households- $117
annually
$
257,400.00
$257,400
MultiFamily Unit
Residents
$
Property
Owners
$
Annual Total
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
$
56,233,153.60
83
84
Marshall
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
Landfill Royalties from Waste Management
Avoided cost of tipping fees
Revenues from the General Fund for Waste Collection
& Disposal
Environmental Social Cost savings:
$
1,262,753.40
$
5,020,240.76
$
125,070.36
$
17,061,890.16
37,548 37- 95%- 35,671 tons
$23.63 per ton Landfills
212,452 tons
7,548 tons diverted
37,548 tons 31,290 MT/CO2
Every 1.2 tons creates 1
MT/CO2
$
4,286,730.00
$
27,756,684.68
Waste Management
Use less of employee time to sort contamination
$
$
2,200 households- $117
annually
1 ton= 1.3 cubic yards
2,080 cubic yards
A-1 Organics
$
24,960.00
$
24,960.00
$
24,960.00
Single
Family Units
Residents
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
84
Marshall
85
$
MultiFamily Unit
Residents
$
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
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1A
Alternative 1B
Alternative 2
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
COSTS
Status Quo
Multi-Family Units
$8,640,000
Property Owners
$272,371,200
TOTAL COSTS
$ 57,149,809.00
$ 58,621,915.40
S
FIT
NE
BE
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
$396,257,237.78
$55,975,753.60
ALTERNATIVES
85
86
Marshall
City & County of Denver
Status Quo
Alternative 1A
Alternative 1B
Alternative 2
$27,369,532.51
$65,072,682.40
$71,926,091.80
$27,756,684.68
$24,960
$638,136
$638,136
$27,394,492.51
$65,710,818.40
$72,564,227.80
$27,781,644.68
($29,755,316.49)
$7,088,903.00
($323,693,009.98)
($28,194,108.92)
Waste Management
A-1 Organics
$
24,960.00
Single Family Units
Multi-Family Units
Property Owners
TOTAL BENEFITS
NET PRESENT VALUE
Cost Benefit Analysis for Sustainable Waste Management City of Denver
Cost Benefit Analysis of Denver Solid Waste Options for Denver
Status Quo
Costs
Benefits
NET PRESENT
VALUE
$ 49,737,929.00
$27,369,532.51
($22,368,396.49)
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1A
Alternative 1B
$ 34,813,747.20 $65,692,140.98
$65,072,682.40
$30,258,935.20
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
$71,926,091.80
Alternative 2
$49,067,048.24
$27,756,684.68
$6,233,950.82 ($21,310,363.56)
86
Marshall
87
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 tonTotal of
30192
(12%)
Collect
Landfill
Refuse
Annually
$68.11
per tonTotal
201280
tons
(80%)
Tipping Fees
$16.57
per ton
Total
201280
tons
(80%)
Lost Value of
Recyclables
Landfilled
$29.36
ton40,256to
ns(20%
of waste
composit
ion
recyclabl
e)
Tip fee
organics at
A1 Organics’
Stapleton
transfer
station
$29.07
per ton17,612
tons (7%)
$
3,130,6
08.48
$
13,709,
180.80
$
3,335,2
09.60
$
1,181,9
16.16
$
511,980
.84
$103.6
9 per
tonTotal
of
37740
(15%)
$68.11
per
ton18870
0 Total
tons
(75%)
$16.57
per ton
Total
18870
0 tons
(75%)
$29.36
ton32,079
tons(1
7% of
waste
compo
sition
recycla
ble)
$29.07
per
ton22644
tons
(9%)
$
3,913,2
60.60
$
12,852,
357.00
$
3,126,7
59.00
$
941,839
.44
$
658,261
.08
$103.6
9 per
tonTotal
of
45288
(18%)
$68.11
per
tonTotal
17612
0 tons
(70%)
$16.57
per ton
Total
17612
0 tons
(70%)
$29.36
ton12580
tons(1
4% of
waste
compo
sition
recycla
ble)
$29.07
per
ton27676
tons
(11%)
$
4,695,9
12.72
$
11,995,
533.20
$
2,918,3
08.40
$
723,900
.16
$
804,541
.32
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
$103.6
9 per
tonTotal
of
52836
(21%)
$68.11
per
tonTotal
16354
0 tons
(65%)
$16.57
per ton
Total
16354
0 tons
(65%)
$29.36
ton12580
tons(1
1% of
waste
compo
sition
recycla
ble)
$29.07
per
ton32708
tons
(13%)
$
5,478,5
64.84
$
11,138,
709.40
$
2,709,8
57.80
$
369,348
.80
$
950,821
.56
$103.6
9 per
tonTotal
of
60384
(24%)
$68.11
per
tonTotal
15096
0 tons
(60%)
$16.57
per ton
Total
Total
15096
0 tons
(60%)
$29.36
ton12076
tons(8
% of
waste
compo
sition
recycla
ble)
$29.07
per
ton37740
tons
(15%)
$
6,261,2
16.96
$
10,281,
885.60
$
2,501,4
07.20
$
354,551
.36
$
1,097,1
01.80
$103.6
9 per
tonTotal
of
67,932
(27%)
$68.11
per
tonTotal
13838
0 tons
(55%)
$16.57
per ton
Total
13838
0 tons
(55%)
$29.36
ton6919
tons(5
% of
waste
compo
sition
recycla
ble)
$29.07
per
ton42772
tons
(17%)
$
7,043,8
69.08
$103.69
per tonTotal of
75,480
tons
(30%)
$
9,425,0
61.80
$68.11
per tonTotal
125,800
tons
(50%)
$
2,292,9
56.60
$16.57
per ton
Total
125,800
tons
(50%)
$
203,141
.84
$29.36
ton-2516
tons of
recyclabl
es (2% of
waste
compositi
on
recyclabl
e)
$
1,243,3
82.04
$29.07pe
r ton47804
tons
(19%)
$
7,826,5
21.20
$103.6
9 per
tonTotal
of
81,578
(32%)
$
8,458,8
22.82
$
8,568,2
38.00
$68.11
per
tonTotal
116,84
4 tons
$
7,958,2
44.84
$
2,084,5
06.00
$16.57
per ton
116,84
4
landfill
tons
$
1,936,1
05.08
$
73,869.
76
$
1,389,6
62.28
$29.36
ton(0% of
waste
compo
sition
recycla
ble)
$29.07
per
ton52836
tons
(21%)
$
1,535,9
42.52
87
88
Marshall
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
create
s1
MT/CO
2
Landfil
ls Total
18870
0 tons
(55%)
157,25
0
MT/CO
2
$
21,543,
250.00
Every
1.2
tons
creates
1
MT/CO
2
Landfil
ls Total
17612
0 tons
(55%)
14676
6
MT/CO
2
$
20,106,
942.00
Every
1.2
tons
creates
1
MT/CO
2
Landfil
ls Total
16354
0 tons
(55%)
13628
3
MT/CO
2
$
18,670,
771.00
Every
1.2
tons
creates
1
MT/CO
2
Landfil
ls Total
15096
0 tons
(65%)
125,80
0
MT/CO
2
$
17,234,
600.00
Every
1.2
tons
creates
1
MT/CO
2
Landfil
ls Total
13838
0 tons
(55%)
115,31
6
MT/CO
2
$
15,798,
292.00
Every 1.2
tons
creates 1
MT/CO2
Landfills
125,800
tons
104,833
MT/CO2
$
14,362,
121.00
Every
1.2
tons
creates
1
MT/CO
2
Landfil
ls
116,84
4 tons
of
landfill
97,370
MT/CO
2
$
13,339,
690.00
Initial
Investment
(new
trucks/carts/
reporting)
$
500,000
.00
$
500,000
.00
$
200,000
.00
New Trucks
New Carts
Implement
Mandatory
PAYT system
Implement
curbside pick
up
Expand
Composting
Program
Total
$
375,000
.00
$
46,423,
316.88
$
200,000
.00
Total
$
43,235,
727.12
$
200,000
.00
Total
$
41,445,
137.80
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
$
200,000
.00
Total
$
39,518,
073.40
$
200,000
.00
Total
$
37,930,
762.92
$
200,000
.00
Total
$
36,206,
703.36
$
200,000
.00
Total
$
34,504,
918.24
$
200,000
.00
Total
$
33,428,
805.26
88
Marshall
89
City of Denver: Types of Benefits
Paid
$35.40
per ton of
recyclable
s by
WMRA for
95% of
recyclable
s
delivered
Landfill
Royalties
from
Waste
Managem
ent
Revenues
from the
General
Fund for
Waste
Collection
& Disposal
Environm
ental
Social Cost
savings:
PAYT
Minimum
Revenue
$15
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
67,93
295%64535
tons
$
2,284,539.
00
75,48
095%71706
tons
$
2,538,392.
40
81,57
895%77499
tons
$
2,743,464.
60
$23.6
3 per
ton
16354
0
$
3,864,450.
20
$23.6
3 per
ton
16354
0
$
3,864,450.
20
$23.6
3 per
ton
16354
0
$
3,864,450.
20
$23.6
3 per
ton
16354
0
$
3,864,450.
20
$23.6
3 per
ton
15096
0
$
3,567,184.
80
$23.6
3 per
ton
13838
0
$
3,269,919.
40
$23.6
3 per
ton
125,8
00
$
2,972,654.
00
$23.6
3 per
ton
116,8
44
$
2,761,023.
72
Taxes
$
17,061,89
0.16
Taxes
$
17,061,89
0.16
Taxes
$
17,061,89
0.16
Taxes
$
17,061,89
0.16
Taxes
$
17,061,89
0.16
Taxes
$
17,061,89
0.16
Taxes
$
17,061,89
0.16
Taxes
$
17,061,89
0.16
$
6,032,110.
00
52836
tons44030
MT/C
O2
Every
1.2
tons
creat
es 1
MT/C
O2
$
6,032,110.
00
52836
tons44030
MT/C
O2
Every
1.2
tons
creat
es 1
MT/C
O2
$
6,032,110.
00
52836
tons44030
MT/C
O2
Every
1.2
tons
creat
es 1
MT/C
O2
$
6,032,110.
00
60384
tons50320
MT/C
O2
Every
1.2
tons
creat
es 1
MT/C
O2
$
6,893,840.
00
67,93
2
tons56610
MT/C
O2
Every
1.2
tons
creat
es 1
MT/C
O2
$
7,755,570.
00
75,48
0
tons62,90
0
MT/C
O2
Every
1.2
tons
creat
es 1
MT/C
O2
$
8,617,300.
00
81578
tons67,98
1
MT/C
O2
Every
1.2
tons
creat
es 1
MT/C
O2
$
9,313,397.
00
52836
tons44030
MT/C
O2
Every
1.2
tons
creat
es 1
MT/C
O2
$
30,960,00
0.00
$
30,960,00
0.00
$
30,960,00
0.00
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
$
30,960,00
0.00
$
30,960,00
0.00
$
30,960,00
0.00
$
30,960,00
0.00
$
30,960,00
0.00
89
90
Marshall
Avoided
cost of
tipping
fees
$16.57
$16.5
7
90576
tons
divert
ed
Total
$
1,500,844.
32
$16.5
7
90576
tons
divert
ed
$
61,196,16
2.28
Total
$
1,500,844.
32
$16.5
7
90576
tons
divert
ed
$
61,196,16
2.28
Total
$
1,500,844.
32
$16.5
7
90576
tons
divert
ed
$
61,196,16
2.28
Total
$
1,500,844.
32
$16.5
7
10064
0 tons
divert
ed
$
61,196,16
2.28
Total
$
1,667,604.
80
$16.5
7
11322
0 tons
divert
ed
$
62,181,20
5.36
Total
$
1,876,055.
40
$16.5
7
12580
0 tons
divert
ed
$
63,207,97
3.96
Total
$
2,084,506.
00
$16.5
7
134,7
56
tons
divert
ed
$
2,232,906.
92
$
64,234,74
2.56
Total
$
65,072,68
2.40
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
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
90
Marshall
91
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
50% (125,800 tons
diverted)
53%
45%
40%
35%
City of Denver: Types of Costs
Collect Recyclables Annually
Collect Landfill Refuse Annually
Tipping Fees
Lost Value of Recyclables Landfilled
$103.6
9 per
tonTotal
of
67,932
(27%)
$68.11
per
tonTotal
138380
tons
(55%)
$
8,458,822.
82
$103.69
per tonTotal of
75,480
tons
(30%)
$
7,826,521.
20
$68.11 per ton- Total
116,844 tons (21%)
$
7,958,244.
84
$68.11
per tonTotal
125,800
tons
(50%)
$
8,568,238.
00
$16.57 per ton 116,844
landfill tons
$
1,936,105.
08
$16.57
per ton
Total
125,800
tons
(50%)
$
2,084,506.
00
$16.57
per ton
Total
138380
tons
(55%)
$
73,869.76
$29.36
ton6919
tons(5
% of
waste
compo
sition
recycla
ble)
$103.69 per ton- Total of
81,578 (32%)
$29.36 ton-(0% of waste
composition recyclable)
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
$29.36
ton-2516
tons of
recyclable
s (2% of
waste
compositi
on
recyclable
)
$
7,043,869.
08
$
9,425,061.
80
$
2,292,956.
60
$
203,141.84
$103.6
9 per
tonTotal
of
60384
(24%)
$68.11
per
tonTotal
150960
tons
(60%)
$16.57
per ton
Total
Total
150960
tons
(60%)
$29.36
ton12076
tons(8
% of
waste
compo
sition
recycla
ble)
$
6,261,216.
96
$
10,281,885
.60
$103.6
9 per
tonTotal
of
52836
(21%)
$68.11
per
tonTotal
163540
tons
(65%)
$
5,478,564.
84
$
11,138,709
.40
$
2,501,407.
20
$16.57
per ton
Total
163540
tons
(55%)
$
2,709,857.
80
$
354,551.36
$29.36
ton12580
tons(11
% of
waste
compo
sition
recycla
ble)
$
369,348.80
91
92
Marshall
Tip fee organics at A1 Organics’
Stapleton transfer station
Each metric ton from landfills cost
$137
$29.07per ton- 53,178
tons (21%)
Every 1.2 tons creates 1
MT/CO2 Landfills
116,844 tons of landfill
97,370 MT/CO2
$
1,545,884.
46
$
13,339,690
.00
$29.07per
ton50,320
tons
(20%)
Every 1.2
tons
creates 1
MT/CO2
Landfills
125,800
tons
104,833M
T/CO2
$
1,462,802.
40
$
14,362,121
.00
$29.07
per
ton45288
tons
(18%)
Every
1.2
tons
creates
1
MT/CO
2
Landfill
s Total
138380
tons
(55%)
115,31
6
MT/CO
2
$
1,316,522.
16
$
15,798,292
.00
$29.07
per
ton40256
tons
(16%)
Every
1.2
tons
creates
1
MT/CO
2
Landfill
s Total
150960
tons
(65%)
125,80
0
MT/CO
2
$
1,170,241.
92
$29.07
per
ton37740
tons
(15%)
$
1,097,101.
80
$
17,234,600
.00
Every
1.2
tons
creates
1
MT/CO
2
Landfill
s Total
163540
tons
(55%)
136283
MT/CO
2
$
18,670,771
.00
Initial Investment (new
trucks/carts/reporting)
New Trucks
New Carts
$
200,000.00
Implement Mandatory PAYT system
$
200,000.00
$
200,000.00
$
200,000.00
$
200,000.00
Implement curbside pick up
Expand Composting Program
Total
$
33,438,747
.20
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
Total
$
34,578,058
.36
Total
$
36,279,843
.48
Total
$
38,003,903
.04
Total
$
39,664,353
.64
92
Marshall
93
53%
50%
45%
40%
35%
City of Denver: Types of Benefits
Paid $35.40 per ton of recyclables by WMRA for
95% of recyclables delivered
Landfill Royalties from Waste Management
81,57
895%77499
tons
$23.6
3 per
ton
116,8
44
Revenues from the General Fund for Waste
Collection & Disposal
Taxes
Environmental Social Cost savings:
81578
tons67,98
1
MT/C
O2
Every
1.2
tons
create
s1
MT/C
O2
$
2,761,023.72
$
17,061,890.16
Taxes
$
9,313,397.00
75,48
0
tons62,90
0
MT/C
O2
Every
1.2
tons
create
s1
MT/C
O2
$
30,960,000.00
PAYT Minimum Revenue $15
Avoided cost of tipping fees $16.57
$
2,743,464.60
75,48
095%71706
tons
$23.6
3 per
ton
125,8
00
$16.5
7
134,7
56
tons
divert
ed
Total
$
2,972,654.00
$
17,061,890.16
Taxes
$
8,617,300.00
67,93
2
tons56610
MT/C
O2
Every
1.2
tons
create
s1
MT/C
O2
$
30,960,000.00
$
2,232,906.92
$16.5
7
12580
0 tons
divert
ed
$
65,072,682.40
Total
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
$
2,538,392.40
67,93
295%64535
tons
$23.6
3 per
ton
13838
0
$
2,284,539.00
60384
- 95%57364
tons
$
2,030,685.60
52836
- 95%50194
tons
$
1,776,867.60
$
3,269,919.40
$23.6
3 per
ton
15096
0
$
3,567,184.80
$23.6
3 per
ton
16354
0
$
3,864,450.20
$
17,061,890.16
Taxes
$
17,061,890.16
Taxes
$
17,061,890.16
$
7,755,570.00
60384
tons50320
MT/C
O2
Every
1.2
tons
create
s1
MT/C
O2
$
6,893,840.00
52836
tons44030
MT/C
O2
Every
1.2
tons
create
s1
MT/C
O2
$
6,032,110.00
$
30,960,000.00
$
2,084,506.00
$16.5
7
11322
0 tons
divert
ed
$
64,234,742.56
Total
$
30,960,000.00
$
1,876,055.40
$16.5
7
10064
0 tons
divert
ed
$
63,207,973.96
Total
$
30,960,000.00
$
1,667,604.80
$16.5
7
90576
tons
divert
ed
$
1,500,844.32
$
62,181,205.36
Total
$
61,196,162.28
93
94
Marshall
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
NET PRESENT
VALUE
$ 65,072,682.40
$
64,234,742.56
$ 63,207,973.96
$ 62,181,205.36
$ 61,196,162.28
$26,928,130.48
$24,177,302.32
$21,531,808.64
$31,633,935.20
$29,656,684.20
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
94
Marshall
95
Appendix VII: Sensitivity Analysis Population Growth
City of Denver: Types of Costs
Single Units
2015-14%
1.395348
residents
per
househol
d
Collect Recyclables Annually
Collect Landfill Refuse
Annually
Tipping Fees
240,000
residents
(172,000
homes)
40%
served20%
diversion
32,000
tons$103.69
per ton
$
3,318,080
220,000
tons $68.11
per ton
$
14,984,2
00.00
220,000
tons$16.57
$
3,645,40
0.00
Lost Value of Recyclables
Landfilled
66,000
tons $29.45
per ton
$
1,943,70
0.00
Tip fee organics at A1
Organics’ Stapleton transfer
station
28.08 per
ton1,600
tons
$
44,928.0
0
2016- 20%
276,082
total
tons
generate
d
annually1.46 tons
per
househol
d
$103.69
per tonTotal of
33,129
(12%)
260,292
residents
(186,542
homes)
40% served
2020-30%
291,916
total
tons
generate
d
annually1.46 tons
per
househol
d
$
3,435,14
6.01
$103.69
per tonTotal of
52544
(18%)
$68.11 per
ton- Total
tons
220,865
(80%)
$
15,043,1
15.15
$16.57 per
ton Total
220,865
tons (80%)
$29.36
tontons(20%
of waste
compositi
on
recyclable)
$29.07 per
ton17,612
tons (7%)
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
275,221
residents
(197,241
homes) 40%
served
2025-42
299,853
total
tons
generate
d
annually1.46 tons
per
househol
d
$
5,448,287.
36
$103.69
per tonTotal of
77961
(26%)
$68.11 per
ton- Total
204341
tons (70%)
$
13,917,66
5.51
$
3,659,73
3.05
$16.57 per
ton Total
204341
tons (70%)
$
1,296,91
9.28
$29.36
ton- 12580
tons(14%
of waste
compositi
on
recyclable)
$
1,545,88
4.46
$29.07 per
ton27676
tons (11%)
(286,843
residents
205,379
homes)
40% served
2030-53
316,572
total
tons
generate
d
annually1.46
tons per
househol
d
298,466
residents
(213,900
homes) 40%
served
$
8,083,776
.09
$103.69
per tonTotal of
101,303
(32%)
$
10,504,10
8.07
$68.11 per
ton- Total
161920
tons (54%)
$
11,028,37
1.20
$68.11 per
ton148,788
(54%)
$
10,133,95
0.68
$
3,385,930.
37
$16.57 per
ton Total
161920
tons
(54%)
$
2,683,014
.40
$16.57 per
ton
148788
landfill
tons
(54%)
$
2,465,417.
16
$
369,348.8
0
$29.36
ton- 12580
tons(6% of
waste
compositi
on
recyclable)
$
369,348.8
0
$29.36
ton-(0% of
waste
compositi
on
recyclable)
$
804,541.3
2
$29.07 per
ton47976
tons (16%)
$
1,394,662
.32
$29.07per
ton- Total
66,480
tons
(21%)
$
1,932,573.
60
95
96
Marshall
Each metric ton from
landfills cost $137
Every 1.2
tons
creates 1
MT/CO2
Landfills
116,844
tons of
landfill
97,370
MT/CO2
$
25,801,6
21.00
Every 1.2
tons
creates 1
MT/CO2
Landfills
Total
220,865
tons (55%)
184054
MT/CO2
$
22,979,4
21.00
Every 1.2
tons
creates 1
MT/CO2
Landfills
Total
204341
tons
170284
MT/CO2
$
23,328,90
8.00
Every 1.2
tons
creates 1
MT/CO2
Landfills
Total
161920
tons
134933
MT/CO2
$
18,485,82
1.00
Every 1.2
tons
creates 1
MT/CO2
Landfills
167783
tons of
landfill
139819
MT/CO2
$
19,155,20
3.00
Initial Investment (new
trucks/carts/reporting)
$
500,000.
00
$
500,000.
00
$
200,000.
00
New Trucks
New Carts
Implement Mandatory PAYT
system
Implement curbside pick up
Expand Composting Program
Total
Cost
2014
$
375,000.
00
$
51,105,5
49.00
$
200,000.
00
Total
Cost
2016
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
$
48,160,2
18.95
$
200,000.0
0
Total
Cost
2020
$
47,454,68
1.36
$
200,000.0
0
Total
Cost
2025
$
42,244,99
3.81
$
200,000.0
0
Total
Cost
2030
$
44,391,25
2.51
96
Marshall
97
City of Denver: Types of Benefits
Paid $35.40 per ton of
recyclables by WMRA for 95%
of recyclables delivered
32,000 tons- 95%30,400 tons
$
1,076,160.
00
Landfill Royalties from Waste
Management
$23.63 per ton
220000
Revenues from the General Fund
for Waste Collection & Disposal
Taxes
Environmental Social Cost
savings:
PAYT Minimum Revenue $15
Avoided cost of tipping fees
$16.57
33,129 95%31472
tons
$
1,114,108
.80
52544
- 95%49917
tons
$
1,776,867.6
0
7796195%74062
tons
$35.40
$
2,621,79
4.80
101,303 95%96237
tons
$35.40
$
3,406,789.80
$
5,198,600.
00
$23.63
per ton
220,865
$
5,219,039
.95
$23.6
3 per
ton
20434
1
$
4,828,577.8
3
$23.63
per ton
161920
$
3,826,16
9.60
$23.63
per ton
148788
$
3,515,860.44
$
17,061,890.
16
Taxes
$
17,061,890
.16
Taxes
$
17,061,890.1
6
Taxes
$
17,061,8
90.16
Taxes
$
17,061,890.16
50741
tons42284
MT/CO2
Every
1.2 tons
creates
1
MT/CO2
$
5,792,908
.00
80220
tons66850
MT/C
O2
Every
1.2
tons
create
s1
MT/C
O2
$
9,158,450.0
0
125937
tons104947
MT/CO2
Every 1.2
tons
creates 1
MT/CO2
$
14,377,7
39.00
148,788
tons123990
MT/CO2
Every 1.2
tons
creates 1
MT/CO2
$
19,155,203.00
$
35,503,380.
00
$15
$
36,968,2
20.00
213900
$15
$
38,502,000.00
Social Cost
savings: 32,000
tons 26,666
MTCO2 are saved
from emitting into
the atmosphere
$
3,653,242.
00
$15 per household
$
30,960,00
0.00
$15 per
househo
ld
$
33,577,56
0.00
$16.57 31600
tons diverted
$
523,612.0
0
$16.57
42284
tons
diverted
$
1,524,903
.96
$16.5
7
90576
tons
divert
ed
$
1,107,704.5
0
$16.57
90576
tons
diverted
$
1,500,84
4.32
$16.57
167,783
tons
diverted
$
2,780,164.31
Total
$
58,360,62
3.16
Total
$
64,290,41
0.87
Tota
l
$
69,436,870.
09
Total
$
76,356,6
57.88
Total
$
84,421,907.71
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
97
98
Marshall
Projected Population Growth’s Effect on Costs and Benefits
Cost Benefit Analysis and Annual Diversion Projection
2015-14%
$51,312,929.00
Costs
$58,473,504.16
Benefits
NET PRESENT
VALUE
$7,160,575.16
2016-20%
2020-30%
2025- 42%
2030- 53%
$ 48,160,218.95
$ 41,090,586.44
$ 39,757,678.09
$ 42,222,679.51
$ 64,290,410.87
$ 69,436,870.09
$ 76,356,657.88
$ 84,421,907.71
$16,130,191.92
$28,346,283.65
$36,598,979.79
$42,199,228.20
Achieving Sustainable Waste Disposal for the City of Denver
98