2a. Master Plan Update — original pdf

Backup

Master Plan Update: Zero Waste Advisory Commission Meeting Meeting Agenda Overview & Progress Update Stakeholder Input Key Analysis and Research Zero Waste Goals & Metrics Questions & Next Steps 2 Overview & Progress Update 3 Planning Process Early Improvement Recommendations Feasibility Matrix Preferred Strategies Establish Plan Goals & Objectives Identify Alternatives Evaluate Options Benchmarking Research Key Definitions, Data/Technology & Policy Issues Analyze Multiple ARR Topics Research, Analysis & Recommendations Develop Strategies Multiple Strategy Master Plan & Options Workshops City/Stakeholder Engagement & Public Outreach Develop Timelines & Funding Plans Develop Outline & Write Multiple Drafts 4 Project Overview and Schedule Draft – Subject to updates (May 27, 2020) 5 Stakeholder Input 6 Task 3: Stakeholder Input ► Stakeholder engagement strategy updated in response to COVID-19 – allowing for safe, meaningful and timely input ► Methods to gather input from individual stakeholder groups and greater public: • Community and stakeholder surveys • Online and social media engagement • Focus group discussions at planned virtual meetings • Virtual community workshop 7 Key Analysis & Research 8 Task 1: Summary of Analysis Benchmarked 13 Zero Waste cities Zero Waste definitions Technology solutions Policy issues Key findings & recommendations to inform Master Plan update 9 Benchmarking Results Year when City Adopted Zero Waste Vision 2008 2008 2013 1998 2005 2015 2012 2010 N/A N/A 2014 2013 City Los Angeles Portland San Diego Seattle Austin Minneapolis Phoenix San Antonio Fort Worth Denver Boston Dallas 76% 70% 65% 57% 42% 37% 36% 36% 30% 23% 21% 21% San Francisco 2009 City does not use diversion rate Year 2011 2015 2018 2018 2015 2016 2019 2019 2018 2019 2019 2016 N/A Recently Published Diversion Rate Waste Generators Considered Percent Single-Family Commercial Multi-Family (C&D) Construction & Demolition                                  1 0 Task 1: Select Key Findings 1. Of 13 benchmark cities, Austin’s diversion rate only trails west coast cities (LA, Portland, San Diego, Seattle) 2. Cities with higher diversion rates share long-term commitment to Zero Waste principles and have mandates 3. Cities that consider multiple generator types in their diversion calculations generally have higher diversion rates 4. Programs with higher diversion rates require recycling mandates and/or enforcement, as well as material bans 5. Austin’s lack of detail on commercial waste generation is a common data gap 6. Austin’s framing of Zero Waste as a vision is consistent with other industry and municipal definitions 1 1 Task 1: Select Recommendations 1. Complementary measurement methods (e.g. disposal rate and capture rate) in Austin’s Zero Waste goals offers a more comprehensive measure of progress 2. Evaluate options to obtain data from haulers 3. Structure waste characterization methodology to provide ability to carry out capture rate analysis 4. Evaluate contents of residential setouts through cart audit data entry, and/or notices for contamination 1 2 Task 2: Evaluating Multiple Topics Rates, Fees & Affordability Curbside Recycling Collection Data & Continuous Improvement Capture Rate Reduction, Reuse & the Circular Economy Partnerships Recycling Markets, Economic Development Approach Program Prioritization & Effectiveness Risk Analysis & Disaster Debris Management (Risk Analysis) Recycling Processing Organics Messaging, Outreach, & Affecting Behavioral Change C&D Recycling URO Collection of Hard-to- Recycle Items 1 3 Task 4: Update Zero Waste Master Plan Chapters 1. 2. 3. 4. Introduction Executive Summary Zero Waste Sustainability 5. Departmental Structure 6. Waste Reduction 7. Reuse 8. Recycling 9. Materials Management 10. Composting Organics 11. Household Hazardous Waste Collection 12. Disposal Management 13. Other Core Services 14. Special Events Diversion Opportunities 15. Economic Development Opportunities 16. Resident Engagement and Community Partnerships 17. Private/Public Partnerships 18. City Department Partnerships 19. Educational Institutions Partnerships 20. Pilots and Demonstration Projects 21. Policies and Ordinances Incentives and Rewards 22. 23. Metrics and Measurement 24. Communications Plan 25. Financial Responsibility 1 4 Zero Waste Goals & Metrics 1 5 Key Zero Waste Concepts ► Zero Waste is not a static, defined benchmark of eliminating landfill disposal of waste, but is rather a vision or philosophy around which communities and society should develop and adapt their materials management systems and culture. ► Zero Waste is a vision of continuous improvement, progressively working toward maximizing use of resources, and minimizing adverse environmental impacts and material disposal. 1 6 2011 Master Plan Major Benchmark Goals for Achieving Zero Waste 2011 Master Plan Goals Reducing by 20 percent the per capita solid waste disposed to landfills by 2012 Diverting 75 percent of solid waste from landfills and incinerators by 2020 Diverting 90 percent of solid waste from landfills and incinerators by 2040 2020 Perspectives Current diversion rate of 42 percent only trails West coast cities. West coast cities have longer Zero Waste focus, mandates and/or higher landfill costs Critical to maintain long-term Zero Waste vision, but set achievable interim goals (5-year increments) Consider refining metrics as a part of the master plan update 1 7 Seattle’s History Provides a Potential Path Forward Seattle Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Organics Tonnage and Recycling Rate (1987-2018) Plan established a recycling rate goal of 70 percent. Program implementation decisions made incrementally based on financial, environmental and social considerations. Some programs not implemented. Target focused directly on reducing landfill tonnage: reduce 1 percent annually and do not exceed 438,000 tons annually Currently developing new performance metrics to track current baseline and progress 1 8 Consideration of Refined Metrics Consider setting goals utilizing alternative metrics that more comprehensively capture progress toward Zero Waste Goal Perspectives Continue focus on reducing landfill tonnage Reduce landfill tonnage by xx percent over the next five years Increase capture of program materials Increase access and participation Capture 90 percent of aluminum cans by 20xx or increase capture of food scraps by xx percent over the next five years Achieve a xx percent participation rate for the URO or have all designated city departments complete waste audits prior to 20xx Highlighted text to be developed during planning process. Assess and evaluate progress toward meeting metrics every five years. 1 9 Continued Zero Waste Progress for Austin Requires Consideration of Multiple Policy Decisions ► Enhance reporting requirements for the commercial sector: Explore mechanisms to focus on haulers and large generators ► Mandatory recycling participation: If Austin does not shift to citywide recycling enforcement for its waste generators, the City may not achieve as high of a recycling rate as peer west coast cities 2 0 Questions & Next Steps 2 1 Additional Questions? Scott Pasternak Burns & McDonnell 512-872-7141 spasternak@burnsmcd.com Jonathan Ghysels Burns & McDonnell 512-975-7865 jaghysels@burnsmcd.com 2 2