Englewood city staff and outside consultants on Monday presented the draft South Metro waste diversion plan and asked the council to return it for nonbinding approval on Aug. 18 as a blueprint for the next 10 years of regional recycling and organics work. The plan, compiled for four South Metro cities (Englewood, Littleton, Centennial and Sheridan), is intended to support future grant applications and local implementation steps.

The plan’s baseline findings include a two-season waste-composition study and extensive outreach. The consultants reported that the region currently recycles about 15% of its waste, that a two-season sort processed “over 10,000 pounds” of material, and that roughly 78% of material now landfilled could be recovered through a mix of existing programs, expanded services and specialized collections. Consultants also said that nearly half of residential waste is organic material—food scraps and yard waste—presenting an opportunity for diversion if local processing capacity grows.

Why it matters: Colorado’s new producer-responsibility law (often called extended producer responsibility or EPR) will require producers to fund statewide recycling collection and, starting in 2026, the producer responsibility organization Circular Action Alliance (CAA) will reimburse service providers for the net cost to collect and recycle covered packaging and paper. Helen Lee, senior consultant with RRS and project lead for STEPS, told council that CAA is finalizing an implementation plan with the state and recommended the city “monitor and stay engaged” as municipalities access reimbursements.

Key regional recommendations in the draft plan include establishing regional recycling drop-off centers, expanding access to organics recycling and increasing recycling and composting in multifamily and commercial properties. The consultants recommended that Englewood and partner cities evaluate policy tools such as a hauler licensing requirement for tonnage reporting, pay-as-you-throw pricing, an “equal space” ordinance that mandates equivalent collection space for recycling in new multifamily buildings, and reconsideration of an organized (single-hauler) collection contract.

Consultants and staff emphasized the difference between the plan and implementation. “Prior to implementation, any strategies that we discussed today will need to come before council again,” Helen Lee said, noting code or ordinance changes would return to council with full proposed texts.

Council discussion and concerns: Council members asked for city-level disaggregated data from the regional outreach—Mel Engle, Englewood’s sustainability program manager, said the project website (southmetrowastediversion.com) includes city-level results and staff can pull Englewood-specific raw data for council. Several council members and consultants discussed practical issues for organics collection and compost quality: consultants said different processing facilities accept different feedstocks (some accept meat, dairy and bones; others accept only true organics or yard waste) and recommended that Englewood define acceptable inputs in any future curbside or drop-off program and consider regional processing capacity increases.

Extended producer responsibility and organized hauling: Consultants described two local delivery models that Englewood could consider to maximize the CAA reimbursements: (1) an organized-hauling contract that bundles garbage and recycling for the city and can leverage group rates, and (2) continuing the open-market model but adding licensing and data-reporting requirements and bundling or opt-out protections. Consultants noted Sheridan is currently the only South Metro city with an organized contract (with Republic Services) and that Sheridan residents pay about $11–$20 per month for trash and recycling; by contrast, Englewood residents in the open market currently pay roughly $20–$50 per month.

Not all council members supported organized collection. Council member Ward said he could not support a single-hauler organized collection based on earlier city experience, staff work on multiple RFPs and resident concerns about service levels and specialty options (for example, concierge pickup). Ward and other council members pressed that any organized system must match or lower costs and maintain service levels for residents who currently receive alley pickup or special services.

Construction-and-demolition (C&D) ordinance and deposit model: Consultants described a C&D ordinance approach, used in places such as Boulder, that ties a refundable deposit to diversion requirements for demolition permits. Boulder’s example requires a refundable “deconstruction deposit” of $1 per square foot with a $1,500 minimum, diversion of at least three building material types and 75% diversion by weight to receive a full refund. Consultants recommended the city consider a feasibility study and potential pilot, noting the approach is most effective when tied to permit processes and weight-ticket verification.

Outreach and equity: Consultants said they conducted more than 43,500 community engagements regionally (surveys in English and Spanish, focus groups with multifamily residents and disadvantaged communities, business outreach and social media) and recommended sustained community education and a peer-to-peer “recycling champions” training model. Council member Pray asked how the plan identified “disadvantaged communities;” Lee said the project used indicators such as participation in SNAP/WIC and households where a language other than English is spoken and that the team would provide the exact criteria to council.

Next steps and limits: Mel Engle told council staff will continue regional coordination, pursue grant opportunities and return the plan to council for nonbinding approval on Aug. 18. Consultants repeatedly cautioned that local ordinances, contracts or budget changes must return to council for formal action. They also warned that CAA reimbursements depend on the organization’s final implementation plan and on whether local haulers opt into the program.

Implementation risks: consultants and staff identified key contingencies: CAA’s final rules and timeline, whether local haulers participate in producer-responsibility reimbursements, the availability of local organics processing facilities that accept food waste (not only yard waste), and the need for additional budgets or grants to site and run regional drop-off or processing centers.

Council requested staff provide Englewood-specific outreach and composition data to inform any ordinance or contracting decisions, and several council members signaled support for further study of equity-focused access options, drop-off centers and expanded organics—but not unanimous support for an organized single-hauler contract without evidence it would reduce costs and preserve service levels.

Ending: City staff and consultants urged the council to treat the draft as a strategic blueprint rather than an immediate regulatory program. “This plan provides a prioritized list of activities and action items that can be focused on,” Helen Lee said; staff will return on Aug. 18 with the plan for the council’s nonbinding approval and additional detail on any proposed next steps.