Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waste Diversion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Arvada consultants recommend yard‑waste collection, pay‑as‑you‑throw and other steps to boost diversion
Summary
Consultants presented four main recommendations—boost municipal hauler participation, encourage pay‑as‑you‑throw pricing, add seasonal curbside yard waste collection, and expand multifamily/commercial recycling—claiming combined actions could raise diversion from an estimated 9% baseline; council asked for clearer local data and favored prioritizing yard waste and multifamily recycling.
Stephen Russell, the city’s senior sustainability coordinator, and consultants from Resource Recycling Systems and EcoCycle presented the Waste Diversion Action Plan on Oct. 28, 2025. The plan recommends four priority strategies to raise Arvada’s waste diversion: increase participation in the municipal single‑hauler program, encourage (or in time require) pay‑as‑you‑throw (tiered pricing) from all haulers, provide seasonal curbside yard waste collection, and expand multifamily and commercial recycling access through drop‑offs.
Consultants presented baseline figures and model results. They reported a roughly 17% diversion rate among single‑family households participating in the city’s organized hauling program and estimated a citywide baseline of about 9% diversion when multifamily and commercial streams are included. Modeling of individual strategies estimated modest to substantial impacts: supporting multifamily/commercial drop‑off modeled to increase diversion by about 1 percentage point, increasing municipal program participation by about 2 points (to ~11%), encouraging pay‑as‑you‑throw by about 6 points (to ~15%), and seasonal yard waste collection as the single highest‑impact measure modeled (up to ~16% diversion).
Several council members challenged the assumptions behind those estimates. Council member Marriott and others disputed the model’s implication that non‑city hauler customers recycle substantially less, saying many residents not in the city program already recycle. Marriott said, “I couldn't disagree more,” and argued the modeling could be “cherry‑picked” to favor a particular program model. Consultants responded that national and regional studies show pay‑as‑you‑throw often increases recycling rates and that local proxies were used where direct Arvada tonnage data are incomplete.
On costs and implementation, consultants said encouraging pay‑as‑you‑throw could be implemented with minimal city staffing impact (an estimated ~0.2 FTE tied to hauler licensing and outreach), while seasonal yard waste collection has higher capital and operating costs (modeled either with city crews and city vehicles or via third‑party contracts with tipping fees). A staffed drop‑off for multifamily and commercial recycling carried higher modeled capital and operating costs.
Council direction: members asked staff to provide clearer apples‑to‑apples historical comparisons (a 2018 presentation showing a 13% figure was cited in council discussion) and to return for further workshopping in early 2026. Several members urged prioritizing one or two strategies (many favored yard waste/organics and multifamily recycling) rather than pursuing an all‑at‑once approach.
