ZERO WASTE ADVISORY COMMISSION - CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION REFORM COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2026, AT 11:00 A.M. CEPEDA BRANCH LIBRARY 651 N PLEASANT VALLEY RD AUSTIN, TEXAS 78702 Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, contact Elizabeth Nelson, 512-974-6492, Elizabeth.Nelson@austintexas.gov. CURRENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Ian Steyaert, Chair; Gerard Acuna; and Seth Whaland CALL TO ORDER AGENDA PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Zero Waste Advisory Commission Construction and Demolition Reform Committee meeting on June 24, 2026. STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Staff briefing on proposed changes to City Code and the department’s Administrative Rules for the Construction and Demolition Recycling Ordinance and Qualified Processor program. Presentation by Elizabeth Nelson, Planner Principal and Cahill Ordones, Planner Senior Austin Resource Recovery. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. For assistance, please contact the Liaison or TTY users’ route through 711. A person may request language access accommodations no later than 48 hours before the scheduled meeting. Please call or email Elizabeth Nelson at Austin Resource Recovery Department, at 512-974-6492 or Elizabeth.Nelson@austintexas.gov, to request service or for additional information. For more information on the Zero Waste Advisory Commission, please contact Gustavo Valle at 512-974-4359 or Gustavo.Valle@austintexas.gov.
Construction and Demolition Ordinance Reform Committee Meeting 10.07.26 Updates to the Construction & Demolition Recycling Ordinance Executive Summary Staff engaged stakeholders over four Zero Waste Advisory Commission (ZWAC) Construction and Demolition (C&D) Committee meetings to identify challenges and gaps with the existing C&D Recycling Ordinance. Stakeholders raised concerns about transparency at processing facilities and how recycled materials are handled. The Qualified Processor (QP) program was designed to eliminate these uncertainties but has had low participation since inception, with only two facilities becoming qualified over the life of the program. This indicates that the voluntary program does not present adequate incentive to encourage processors to become qualified. In response, staff has prepared proposed amendments to the Ordinance that require projects to deliver mixed C&D material to a QP and update the QP program to improve transparency, increase material diversion, and reduce administrative burden. Background and Findings The Qualified Processor program is voluntary, and few processors choose to participate. The City currently has one qualified processor, Texas Disposal Systems. Facilities processing mixed C&D material that are not QPs are not required to report facility-wide diversion or have diversion rates verified. Stakeholders report that without auditing or verification, facilities can claim diversion rates to customers that have not been verified, reducing market trust. The “2020 Economic Impact Study on C&D Diversion Requirements,” mandated by the C&D Ordinance, confirmed that there is little to no verification of diversion rates at non-QP facilities and recommended stronger oversight over the facilities. Staff researched C&D recycling policies in other U.S. communities with processing facility requirements, interviewing staff from Chatham County in North Carolina, Portland, Oregon and Oregon Metro, Seattle and King County in Washington, and San Francisco, California. Through those meetings, staff heard that third-party verification of facility diversion rates, rather than self-reporting, was preferred, and, in some cases, required to remain licensed or authorized to accept waste. San Francisco moved to an independent audit model after finding that facilities' self-reported recovery rates did not match observed performance, and King County partners with a third-party consultant to conduct annual residuals sampling at its designated facilities. Both King County and Seattle staff noted that processors sometimes adjusted operations on audit days — adding staff to sorting lines or slowing belt speeds — which limited the accuracy of scheduled inspections. Staff in San Francisco and King County also emphasized that source separation at the job site, rather than reliance …
C&D Committee Meeting Austin Resource Recovery | 10.07.2026 Stakeholder concerns ▪ Reporting integrity. Some non-QP diversion reports show estimates of materials diverted in a load, based on visual inspection, rather than weight. ▪ No consistent standards for processing facilities. A lack of standards for facilities who process mixed C&D material. 2 Require Affected Projects to Use a QP Affected projects include: ▪ Commercial and multifamily projects that require a demolition permit ▪ Construction projects that exceed 5,000 square feet of new, added, or remodeled floor area Details: ▪ Projects may still use source-separated recyclers (who do not need to be QPs) ▪ Current project diversion rate of ≥ 50% and disposal rate of ≤ 2.5 lbs of material per sqft will remain Benefit: Ensures material goes to an audited facility with verified diversion rates. 3 QP Audits Must Be Done by a City Contractor Details: ▪ Replace the Registered Evaluator (RE) Program with audits performed exclusively by City-selected contractors ▪ Auditors will be assigned to facilities on a rotating basis to reduce potential bias ▪ Current REs may apply to become City contractors Benefits: ▪ Establishes consistent audit requirements and fees. ▪ Assurance that materials are diverted at the facility’s verified rate. 4 Update the Qualified Processor Program Details: ▪ QPs maintain registration if the facility continues meeting requirements (e.g., audits, weighing systems, TCEQ permits) ▪ City-contracted auditor performs diversion rate audit every six months ▪ City posts ADRs publicly on ARR’s website for public transparency ▪ QP doesn’t have to submit six-month reports (City will handle through Contractor) Benefits: Increases transparency and reduces administrative work for QPs. 5 Next Steps ▪ Review proposed language changes ▪ Give feedback on the changes ▪ Staff finalize language and develop timeline 6 Require Affected Projects to Use a QP 7 QP Audits Must Be Done by a City Contractor 8 QP Audits Must Be Done by a City Contractor 9 Update the Qualified Processor Program 10 Update the Qualified Processor Program 11
