Loading...
08-15-11 Town Council Packets MEMORANDUM TO: SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL FROM: BARB PECKLER, SAAB LIAISON DATE: AUGUST 15 2011- CONTINUATION FROM AUGUST 1 2011 SUBJECT: REVIEW POSSIBLE LOCATIONS FOR THE "BLISSFUL HELIX" ART PIECE I. PURPOSE: At the suggestion of council, alternative sites have been looked at for the placement of the art piece "Blissful Helix II. BACKGROUND: Bland Hoke worked at Anderson Ranch several years ago and created a sculpture using the decommissioned Sheer Bliss lift cable. The project was proposed as a temporary installation on Snowmass Mountain, and was permitted by the forest service to stay for a couple of winters. However, now it needs to be moved to another location. Bland contacted the Snowmass Arts Advisory board to see if the town had any suggestions. The sculpture would be installed and donated to the Town of Snowmass Village and become a significant addition to the Art Walk Master Plan. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS SAAB approved the use of the art piece and if the proper location were to be found they would agree that it should be displayed in Snowmass. At the August 1 st Council Meeting it was recommended by the council to keep the art and look at all possible locations within Town Limits. Alternative locations are identified on the attached map IV. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL To review the suggestions and finalize which site would be acceptable to install "Blissful Helix". Attachment A: Previous memo Attachment B: Emails from Mike Tande and Steve Sewell Attachment C: Criteria for location and possible sites Attachment D: Photos of new locations with map, previous artist's renderings and diagram of "Blissful Helix Attachment A MEMORANDUM TO: SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL FROM: BARB PECKLER, SAAB LIAISON DATE: JULY 18 2011 AND CONTINUED ON AUGUST 1 2011 SUBJECT: REVIEW POSSIBLE LOCATIONS FOR THE "BLISSFUL HELIX" ART PIECE I. PURPOSE: Council review of artist's rendering of option Al and option A2 for possible site for the "Blissful Helix" art sculpture. II. BACKGROUND: Bland Hoke worked at Anderson Ranch several years ago and created a sculpture using the decommissioned Sheer Bliss lift cable. The project was proposed as a temporary installation on Snowmass Mountain, and it was permitted by the forest service to stay for a couple of winters. However, now it needs to be moved to another location. Bland contacted the Snowmass Arts Advisory board to see if the town had any suggestions. SAAB board members headed by Jim Kehoe have driven around town looking at possible locations for the art. Attached are four recommendations that were proposed. The sculpture would be installed and donated to the Town of Snowmass Village and become an significant addition to the Art Walk Master Plan. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS SAAB approved the use of the art piece and if the proper location were to be found they would agree that it should be displayed in Snowmass. The four options were sent to Public Works and Transportation for review (see attached comments). IV. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL To review the suggestions and determine if the "Blissful Helix" sculpture is something the council would like to see displayed on Town land and if so what location. Attachment A: Relocation proposals for "Blissful Helix" Attachment B: Recommendations from Public Works and Transportation Department Attachment C; Artist's rendering of option Al and A2 Attachment B Barb, Per our discussion last week I have been in contact with Mike Kaplan and we are researching suitable locations for the Sheer Bliss sculpture on ASC property. This is not a guarantee that we can find a home for it but we are investigating all options that are on non USFS lands. I will let you know if and when we find a spot. Thanks Steve Sewell General Manager, Snowmass Ski Area Aspen Skiing Company PO Box 1248 Aspen, CO 81612 970 923 -0502 Barb, we have discussed various opportunities that may exist for the Blissful Helix (art relocation) and have a few thoughts. It is difficult under the receivership to place the piece anywhere on BVO's property at this time. This is primarily due to us being the interim party managing the asset for both the lender's and RWP. Once there is a new ownership entity in place, that entity could make the decision to place it somewhere on the Base Village property. Hopefully that will be sometime late fall or early next year. As I thought about the piece (I have seen it on the mountain before) I thought that it wants to be somewhere that the community and guests can enjoy it without it being an attractant for children and youth to play on or skate over, etc. So, a few places that come to mind are as follows: It could be a center element at one of the roundabouts e.g. Brush and Owl Creek or the new roundabout at Wood Rood and Brush Creek sometime in the future It could land in the landscape planter in front and adjacent to the uphill bound bus stop in front of the rec center It could find a home at one of the local parks (although would lend as a jungle gym which may or may not work) it could be placed somewhere along one of the nature trails of bike path trails It could be placed at one of the Droste trail rest areas, etc I hope that this helps and please give me a call if you have any questions. Mike Michael S. Tande Senior Vice President Lowe Enterprises Real Estate Services, Inc. P.O. Box 5800 Snowmass Village, CO 81615 (970) 923 -8588 (970) 923 -8846 mtande@loweente!ptises.com Attachment C Blissful Helix art piece Criteria based on suggestions from the Town Council Is it visible from one of the major roads in Snowmass Village Does the Town own the land Is the grade acceptable for the artist to install the piece Does it interfere with sight of any vehicle or interfere with snowplowing operations Is the space large enough for the 48 ft piece Any possibility of private land use (Aspen Skiing Company) After reviewing the map of the town showing all town owned land the following sites were located: 1. The berm on Owl Creek in front of the Town Maintenance Facility 2. The two locations at Town Park 3. On Highline Rd around the Kathy Robinson Park 4. On Brush Creek on the point by Town Hall 5. On Brush Creek in front of the Mountain View Employee Housing I 3 't'- tY f= "''fir S�F,.� t ,�s•',x,r 1 ,��*'r` r:r 0 oC ��d' �r� 1 r rs may. lg; P 1 z. t t r Y 1 5 fI 't.. OQ� (f. r u 1 r �i '�*Q{� k I �L:. Y R q� t, r E.? �'j� `..•"'i {F.�;' O� ,r r y� gK c u y'a',., `�1 t .k�, t Fr j �f 'f'• y '3'` �i t 7� 'i'4 ^E'r JJJ '0 ✓1�'^$Es Lv i\G�� 1 2 �.1 4' G ��s.;s' p O ��S di 5 2 r `t±= `t r .i r A l i� f �'F ^�Y� I T, W- ,a-� +Ks���n �.`r i �y �4+ 'f•�`� �7 4� i �{�s,, ti� a h s� �^s y S y ��a'� d� j .z `'I L f r iT- �J ri I -}l V' y a Y.. .r ji \4 I lk r a:, of k_� "i:' sst. i �i� �tJN y L C9 s t .r Ef .2'�. j �t�:� 0 r t7 42 C 7F Sculpture Bland Hoke http: /www.bl andhoke.com/scuplture.php ?id =12 Attachment D Located adjacent to the bottom of the new Sheer Bliss lift at Aspen Snowmass, Snowmass Village CO. The sculpture will be exhibited for one year after which a new home will be found. Inquiries are encouraged for installing the sculpture permanently. Image 7 of 11 LOSE Iowa 2 oft stint ')ni 1 in.no AAA Sculpture Bland Hoke http:// www. blandhoke .com/scuplture.php ?id =12 u k frx s Sheer Bliss Cablelmage 10 of 11 LOSE tP 3 of xiai ?ni 1 10-04 AM GU D OESiGN Footer Schematic for Sheet Bliss SKIAWASS AFITADV WAY B D ROBOX 137 vL[tw'fir,e3014 Detail of St akes t3al@: Atfy 121h, 2311 �r��tple+�trt�t�r.�x�n die; dbsA1 LU iv hwxlii�icktrn 3BF- EEO -SrJ77 V fi r uj 1 I M r�� r 4 �t r f c [k L x 1 IfJ 1 CDf j r 'Z5 CD �,y�r 0 SAAB August 9, 2011 Maintenance Facility Area BLISSFUL HELIX RELOCATION t< -u. t mal z SAAB August 9, 2011 Mountain View Area BLISSFUL HELIX RELOCATION I 3 6a �i w, Y. p f n� m L A �L z ,4, f ,r`. x LOCATION A: Site options Al and A2 Snowmass Visitor Center/ Recreation Center Area: Location will have high visibility from Brush Creek Vehicular Traffic Sites will be visible by Public Transit users Sites are in non landscaped natural overgrowth areas Placing Blissful Helix in vicinity of Nancy Lovendahl's piece begins to establishes a 'grouping' of Public Art SITE OPTION Al REC.CENTER SITE OPTION A2 SAAB: RELOCATION PROPOSAL FOR BLISSFUL HELIX by blade hake June 30, 2011 1 b WJIA4� DESI N Sheer Bliss Site Locatio n A1b2 SWMSISP.16ATpDVLMAYBWAD a 1�J'Id HtriWfY_0XI �r dtuleC rna�. xn DWO: 141h, A11 !kJd�t i 7 tif�C�drJ! fie: 2l kl Aw i ll u' f i A f 3 k r 3 w r; Q a m W �J °v o to o o 3 3 o_ A (D r o a� 0 n N z p1 O cn m m D C D N N m N 0 O 1 Cf) O CID ii:ii I a g ilill O Loco,A-tof� D v ado c Sam W M o rn m 4 s� s N UK 0 N 3 z w o in m m n c a <n N co N 0 o 0 m 0 a 0 0 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Snowmass Village Town Council FROM: Joe Coffey, Housing Manager DATE: August 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Discussion: Joe Brown's requests for an extended leave of absence and approval to lease his condominium I. PURPOSE AND ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Council at the August 1, 2011 meeting requested further discussion with Joe Brown and staff to determine if the extended leave of absence request meets the Housing Guidelines and the intent of the Deed Restricted Housing program. II. BACKGROUND Attached to this memo is Joe Brown's request for an extended leave of absence and a request to lease his unit while he is away. The request does not identify the period of time requested. I recall Joe Brown requesting an 8 to 12 month leave of absence at the August 1, 2011 Council meeting. Listed below is the Permanent Moderate Housing Regulation governing the rental of deed restricted units. 17.7 Housing Unit Rental. 17.7.1 With the approval of the Housing Manager, an employee owner may rent the entire housing unit. The rental rate shall not exceed the rent for a comparable rental apartment owned by the Town. No short -term rentals will be allowed, and the total rental for a calendar year shall be limited to a maximum of six (6) months. The following regulation pertains to the required occupancy of deed restricted units. 17.8.1. The owner has been in physical residence in the housing unit for a minimum of eight (8) months each calendar year, is or is eligible to be a registered voter in the Town, possesses or is eligible to possess a valid Colorado drivers license; and files a Colorado income tax return; and I (P III. OPTIONS Council has several options to consider: 1. Determine the length of the leave request and grant this leave of absence. 2. Determine that a six month leave of absence is an acceptable amount of time. 3. Determine that a four month leave of absence is an acceptable amount of time. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff has been very restrictive in the past on allowing deed restricted homeowners to leave their units for more then four months a year. Only one request has been approved in the past few years and this was for six months and the individual's father had terminal cancer. Unless I had more specific information with estimated timelines I would not grant more then four months on this request. I always have concerns with renters in deed restricted properties because they do not always understand the association or housing rules. The guidelines purposefully keep these units occupied and this keeps our community supplied with employees. Joe Brown H44 Creekside Condominiums Snowmass Village, CO 81615 970- 948 -3995 August 4, 2011 Mr. Joe Coffey Housing Manager Snowmass Village, CO Re: Formal request for approval of temporary absence Dear Mr. Coffey, This letter is to follow up our conversation about my family emergency, and to follow your advice to address a letter of request to you for submission to the Council. own and reside permanently in H44 Creekside Condominiums, and am employed full time in Snowmass Village and Pitkin County, for over twenty five years. I intend to continue to reside permanently here. The purpose of this letter is to apprise the Council of an urgent family duress situation with my elderly parents, which requires me to be out of the valley for an indefinite absence. While my roommate will be continuously occupying my Creekside unit, and taking care of the place while I'm away, I want to assure that I, as the owner, remain in compliance and good standing with all applicable housing regulations, in the event that it takes more than four months to take care of my parents immediate needs. I have already been granted a leave of absence by both of my employers for this task, and am asking for the same latitude from the Council, with regard to the four month absence limitation, as I understand it. Briefly, this is the situation: My 85 year old step dad and mom, are both very frail and in ill health. They are committed to move into an assisted living facility in Minneapolis by this September 1. 1 am the responsible party in the family for medical and other emergency contacts and have been given the authority to facilitate their relocation to the assisted living facility, and listing their house for sale. Additionally, I need to move their personal property and coordinate the transfer of their medical, dental, insurance and financial records to the proper hands. The impending move date is the source of urgency. Frankly, they just figured out that this is too much for them to handle at their age and condition, and called me for help. I am the only single sibling, without children, who can possibly get the time off and be available to coordinate the move and assist them with this life changing event. Respectfully, Z oeBron MEMORANDUM TO: Snowmass Village Mayor and Town Council FROM: Katherine Dart CORE MEETING DATE: August 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Single -Use Disposable Shopping Bags Discussion REQUEST: The Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) requests that the Town Council provide feedback regarding a preferred approach to addressing the usage of single -use, disposable shopping bags in Snowmass Village. BACKGROUND: Due to environmental concern around issues such as litter and degradation of natural resources, the issues and opportunities concerning the usage of disposable shopping bags have been discussed at several recent meetings throughout the Roaring Fork Valley. In the U.S. alone, annual production of disposable grocery bags emits nearly 4 million tons of CO2- equivalent. An estimated 4 billion plastic bags worldwide end up as litter every year enough that, tied end to end, the bags could circle the Earth 63 times. Did you know... 1. That 500 billion to 1.2 trillion plastic bags are consumed globally each year. 2. Less than one -half of one percent of those bags are recycled. 3. Each disposable plastic shopping bag is only used for an average 12 -20 minutes before being disposed of. 4. Plastic bags do not biodegrade the photodegrade, meaning they break down into smaller and smaller toxic bits that contaminate soil, waterways, oceans, and enter the food web when ingested by animals. (source: www.nomorebaggage.org Over the last three years, the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) has organized a number of outreach campaigns encouraging the use of reusable shopping bags and raising awareness of the economic, environmental, and social impacts of single -use shopping bags. These initiatives have included participation in the CAST Reusable Bag Challenge, partnering with the Aspen High School Earth Club to create and offer reusable bags to local residents and hotel guests, and distributing free reusable bags at grocery stores. Building on the success of the 2008 Aspen Telluride Reusable Bag Challenge, 34 communities across the West took part in the 2009 CAST Reusable Bag Challenge. As the winner of that challenge, the Town of Basalt was able to help install a 7.2 kilowatt solar PV array at the Basalt Middle School last year. During the 6 -month contest, approximately 5.3 million single -use shopping bags were saved. i I W9 Over the last several months, the idea of regulating single -use shopping bags has been discussed extensively by the Aspen City Council, the Basalt Green Team, and the Carbondale E- Board. Community interest is growing around this issue in Snowmass Village and Glenwood Springs, as well. It is anticipated that Aspen, Basalt and Carbondale will be considering disposable bag fee ordinances in late August and early September 2011. In 2009, CORE prepared a comprehensive analysis for the City of Aspen regarding single -use, disposable shopping bags. (An electronic copy of that report has been provided to the Town Council, and the public may request an electronic copy by emailing katherine@aspencore.org The report is also on file in the office of the Town Clerk.) The report addresses the pros and cons of plastic and paper bags, and examines the resources used to produce, distribute and dispose of each type of bag. The report also discusses a variety of approaches that could be taken to reduce the usage of single -use bags. Ultimately, the report recommends imposing a fee on both plastic and paper bags. DISCUSSION: Waste -Free Roaring Fork More recently, representatives from Aspen, Snowmass, Basalt and Carbondale met to discuss opportunities for valley -wide collaboration around this issue. Representatives have grown interested in a valley -wide initiative under the name of "Waste -Free Roaring Fork It was envisioned that this brand could serve as an umbrella program, under which we could collaboratively pursue several waste reduction efforts (i.e., plastic bags, bottled water, energy consumption, water conservation, vehicle idling, etc...) over time. Representatives agreed that a collaborative approach, where all towns pass a similar or identical ordinance, would be very beneficial for regional consistency. In general, there is a high degree of consensus around pursuing an ordinance that charges a fee on disposable bags distributed by grocers. Paper or Plastic? Although plastic bags are traditionally targeted in the media, both plastic and paper bags are resource intensive, single -use items, and that argues for addressing both types of bags. Specific information on the resource consumption of each type of bag is available in Attachment A. As described in this attachment, the production of both paper and plastic bags puts considerable strain on our planet's natural resources due to production, extremely high volumes of consumption and inadequate waste management. In addition, targeting only one type of disposable bag may increase the chances of legal challenge and significant opposition funding. Stakeholder Involvement In order to understand the concerns on all sides of this issue, CORE recently convened a valley wide group of stakeholders, comprising representatives from local governments and the retail community, including ACE Hardware, City Market/King Soopers, Family Dollar, the Village Market, Clark's Market and the Rocky Mountain Food Industry Association. While the retail/grocer community generally seems to prefer the use of voluntary measures to encourage the use of reusable bags, the consensus was that if regulation was pursued, it would be preferable to have a regionally consistent approach, so as not to create competitive advantages and/or customer confusion throughout the valley. Several other comments were gathered during this meeting, and can be shared with Council during our discussion. Options for Town action: As described below, there are several options available to address disposable bag use. It is suggested that any action begin with a substantial education/public awareness component. It appears as though Option lb is emerging as the preferred approach, at least at the advisory level. Although it remains to be seen where communities across the valley will land on this matter. CORE is requesting direction as to which of these approaches, if any, should be brought forward for formal Council consideration. Option 1 Fee on all Disposable, Single -Use Shopping Bags Recognizing that both plastic and paper shopping bags are unsustainable, the Town can mandate that both types of bags be subject to a fee. Customers would be charged a set fee for every disposable bag, paper or plastic, taken at checkout. Fees would be itemized on the customer's receipt. Revenue from the fee would be collected in a special fund by the Town, not the general fund. This money could be used only to fund waste reduction programs in Snowmass Village. In addition, the money could be used to cover any training or set -up costs incurred by the participating retail stores and to provide free reusable bags to locals and visitors, with special cooperation with property management companies and hotels. This approach not only reduces disposable bag use in Snowmass Village, but also provides a funding source that can be used to provide resources to the community in order to offset costs associated with implementing the fee. This approach will allow the Town to provide citizens and visitors with alternatives to disposable bags. Supplying free reusable bags, signs, staff training, administration and community outreach will result in costs accrued to the Town and tax payers. Collecting a fee for each bag allows Snowmass Village to incentivize shoppers to make the right choice for the environment, while at the same time, ensuring funding for programs that minimize disposable bag use. Acknowledging that recycling, composting and waste reduction programs are costly, and that disposable items like paper and plastic bags are part of those programs, a fee on disposable bags would give the public a choice while at the same time, enabling the Town to provide alternatives to residents and visitors. A fee, as opposed to a ban, gives customers some choice, so that if they occasionally forget their reusable bags, they have greater ability to make choices. For that reason, a fee might be more acceptable to citizens. Key issues to be addressed under Option 1: 1) fee size and uses of revenue, 2) whether a fee should apply to all retailers or just retailers using the highest volume of disposable bags, and 3) how much the Town wants to ease the transition by providing training, signs, and reusable bags, etc... Option la Apply fee to paper and plastic shopping bags at all retail stores in Snowmass Village. Although the majority of paper and plastic bags are used at grocery stores, retail stores throughout Snowmass Village give away free disposable bags every day. These bags are disposable and intended for single use. The type of heavy plastic bag that is associated with higher -end retail stores is not recyclable. Nor is the glossy, wax coated paper bag that is also typical at clothing stores. In comparison, both the paper and plastic bags distributed at grocery stores are recyclable. It could be said that the non recyclable bags given out at retail stores are equally or possibly more impactful on the environment than the simpler versions from grocers. For this reason, Council could consider a fee on all bags in town. By encompassing all businesses in a bag ordinance, the Town avoids singling out one type of business (i.e., large retail) or one sector of the economy (i.e., groceries, hardware, etc...). If Council were to choose this option, a payment waiver for stores that collect less than $50 or $100 annually should be considered. Allowing these stores to keep the fees collected would keep administrative costs low for the retailers and the Town. (This suggestion is modeled on Washington DC's successful bag reduction program.) Option 1b Apply fee to stores that give away the highest quantities of paper and plastic bags. A large majority of the paper and plastic bags that are distributed in Snowmass Village come from our grocery store. The Town can choose to require that only grocery stores, or stores that distribute more than a high threshold of bags per year, charge a fee for disposable bags. Local shoppers are becoming more accustomed to bringing reusable bags to grocery stores, so a fee ordinance would only encourage the continuation of this behavior. Focusing only on specific stores allows the outreach and education process to be more focused. Conversely, a program of this nature would have a more limited impact than a retail -wide ordinance. Option 2 Ban on all Single -Use Shopping Bags (instead of a fee) Under a ban, customers would be responsible for bringing their own bags, as no paper or plastic bags would be available for free or for purchase. A ban could also be done with two different approaches: there could be a community -wide ban for all retailers, or a ban could apply just to those retailers who distribute many thousands of bags per year. A ban on bags would be the quickest and most effective way to eliminate disposable bags. However, there would still be costs associated with this program for the Town, businesses and shoppers. Snowmass Village's visitor population would be most affected by a ban on single -use shopping bags, possibly creating more waste. Visitors would have to get new reusable bags each time they vacationed in our town. The bags could go to the landfill after their departure, thus creating more waste and using more resources than the traditional plastic bag. To avoid that, the Town could work with lodges and hotels to reuse those bags. The Town could work with hotels, property managers and the community to give away reusable bags at many locations, but it would be a challenge to reach all the affected people. A ban, rather than a fee, would be more acceptable to those residents who want faster action in eliminating disposable bag use. Option 3 Status Ouo The Council can choose to maintain the status quo, with free paper and plastic bags available in retail establishments. However, should Snowmass Village choose to follow a business -as -usual path, the Town will not be relieved of any costs associated with the transport and clean up of littered bags and/or the environmental implications associated with their use and disposal. A note on biodegradable bags It should be noted that biodegradable bags are not currently a recommended alternative for paper or plastic bags for a variety of reasons: Most biodegradable products are made from food crops. Producing a disposable item from edible materials may increase food costs. The American corn industry (a common feedstock for biodegradable items) relies on petroleum to plant, harvest and fertilize its crops, making the manufacturing process for biodegradable bags energy intensive. Biodegradable bags will not break down in a backyard compost pile, nor can they be recycled. These bags must be composted in a commercial composting facility or thrown away. The Roaring Fork Valley does not currently have a compost facility capable of processing large amounts of compostable bags, nor has it been seen in other towns that these bags will truly breakdown and add nutrients to a compost mixture. If biodegradable bags were able to break down in the Pitkin County Landfill, the community would need to invest in the staff and infrastructure to properly sort the biodegradable bags from the rest of the trash and transport them to the Pitkin County Landfill for processing. It is challenging for most people to tell the difference between a regular plastic bag and a biodegradable bag. Other Options: There are numerous combinations of how disposable bag regulations can be applied. Attachment B details efforts made by several other cities, towns and countries to address this issue. 1 `7 FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: Disposable Bag Fee: A bag fee would generate revenue that could be used to supply free reusable bags to shoppers, cover initial set -up and training costs of local businesses, and fund community waste reduction programs. There would be administrative costs once or twice yearly to collect the fees from businesses and audit for compliance. There would be minimal cost to consumers (who are already paying the costs of disposable bags, lumped into the cost of their purchases). Some grocers are already accustomed to providing refunds for customers who bring their own bags. There would be some people who object to any regulations, but awareness about and support for this issue has increased in recent years. Disposable Bag Ban A ban on bags would likely have lower cost implications for the Town, although there will still be cost associated with developing community outreach materials and undertaking some level of enforcement. It would also be necessary to help shoppers by giving away some number of free reusable bags, which the Town would need to fund. One disadvantage of this approach is that no revenue stream would be created to recoup these costs. With both approaches, waste disposal and clean -up costs will decrease, as the amount of disposable bags in Snowmass Village will be fewer, thus requiring fewer recycling and collection services. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The environmental impacts of both paper and plastic bags are widespread and affect numerous areas. In particular, the industry has adverse effects on human health, climate change, resource consumption, terrestrial, riparian and marine ecosystems, and solid waste management. Both the plastic and paper bag industries are resource intensive from start to finish. Aside from actual raw materials manufactured, both types of bags require significant amounts of resources such as fossil fuels and water to transport, generate, and process materials. Recycling of the bags is also highly energy intensive. Refer to Attachment A for a detailed environmental analysis of each type of bag. RECOMMENDED ACTION: This request presents an opportunity for the Town to continue to take a progressive stance on environmental issues. Although bag use is just one of many environmental issues facing the community, it presents a straight- forward and tangible opportunity to address community -wide sustainability. Several other towns in the Roaring Fork Valley are currently considering legislation, and this is an excellent opportunity for regional cooperation and collaboration. Moreover, cities and countries across the globe have implemented legislation aimed at reducing bag consumption and associated waste. A fee, instead of a ban, is generally supported by other towns, allowing several Roaring Fork Valley communities to beneficially pass similar ordinances this year. As a valley -wide resource and liaison concerning cooperative sustainability initiatives, CORE is requesting direction about which path Council would like to take from here. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Comparison Chart of Paper and Plastic Attachment B: Other City and Country Examples Attachment A Paper or Plastic? PAPER PLASTIC Consumption Americans consume more than 10 The U.S. uses 100 billion plastic bags billion paper bags /yr. annually. Production 2,511 BTU's of energy for one paper 594 BTU "s of energy for one plastic bag. Transportation, processing, bag. Refining, heating, forming and cleaning, packaging and shipping of transporting plastic resin, a by- paper from trees. product of oil refining. Pollution Air and water pollutants are associated with both types of bags. Both bags are responsible for polluting our cities, towns and waterways. Recycling 1,444 BTU's of energy to recycle one 17 BTU's of energy to recycle one pound of paper. Ten to fifteen pound of plastic. Only 1 -3% of all percent of paper bags are recycled plastic bags are actually recycled. by consumers. A complete report follows. 17!? MORE THM 11IETS TES: EYE An oxasiona I feature that digs deeper into things you've been ondering about 4 j r �p Paper or Plastic x e hear the question almost every time we go grocery shopping. Some shoppers answer auWmatically: plastic convinced that they are making a better choice for the environment. Others ask for paper, believing the very same thing. The reality is that both paper and plastic bags gobble u p natural resources and cause significant pollution. When you weigh all the costa to the environment, you might F a just choose to reuse: Americans consume more than Worldwide, an estimated 4 billion 10 billion paper baps each year Wscoun In try are plastic. plastic bags and up as litter each ThrU S. uses104bdEian Some 14 minion trees are cut year. Tied and to end, the bags down annually for Paper ly P Pe 9 Could Circle the Earth 63 timm production. cstinated 32 mont�anelsof oil X 63 Paper, of course, comes Plastic is a by- product of oil pm from trees. Troes are grown or ktakes morethan four timesas refining. Plastic bags are made 041P— w found, then marked and felled. mull energi manufactin from polyethylene, which comes L Lo s are moved from the pa per bag as it does a plastic bag._ from oil refineries as small resin g forest to a mill, where there Es a ti produce Pellets. three- ear wait for the i r9y p y logs to dry 1. A machine heats the pellet to before they can be used. PlasNc�594$TUS* about 340 daees and puffs out r L Logs are stripped of bark and Paper from it a long, thin tube of chipped into one -inch squares. cooling plastic. The chips are "cooked" with 2.A hot bar is dropped on the tremendous heat and pressure. T Pn Miniacansdonot tube at intervals, melting a line. Igaorr ffiat plastids made 3 Then, they are "digested" with f etroleutnProdr►ets 3. Each melted line becomes the limestone and sulfurous acid until bottom of one bag and the top of prinarlryoB, accardirg ton the wood becomes pulp. another. recenCna#iomvideanline3tinKy. 4. The pulp is washed, requiring r! 4. The sections are cut out and a thousands of gallons of fresh hole for the bag's handles is water and bleach, then pressed stamped In each piece. into finished paper. S. Cutting, printing, packaging *sic Q*'A u'°'.MUnk and shipping to make paper bags require additional time, labor and energy. P011iPTPON The use of toxic chemicals Plastics production raquires toxic during, the production of paper "Theprciductiai ofP4W"hags. chemicals. In an EPA ranking of for bags contributes to air netates"74 percent more air and, chemicals that generate the most Pollution, such as acid rain, 'M tlrnes morewaterpo�tanis hazardous waste, five of the top and water pollution. .'.'than prodpcdon ofplasticbags.: six were commonly used by the plastics industry. bstic, Hundreds of thousands of marine mammals die every year after aD� eating discarded plastic bags. Mater poIltutants Turtles think the bags are jellyfish, their primary food PFastie source. Bags choke animals or pfs. block their intestines. RECYCtN6 Paper must be returned to pulp Recycling almost any kind of by using many chemicals to ktakes gay less energy to plastic involves remelting and bleach and disperse the fibers. cecydea pound "of plastiethan it re- forming it. Because bags Although paper bags have a takestomgoea pound ofpaper. must first be separated by the higher recycling rate than type of plastic they were made plastic, each new paper EneMY used to from, the process is grocery bag you use is made Plastic Ill BTUs time- consuming and expensive. from mostly virgin pulp for For example, it can cost $4,000 better strength and elasticity. Paper to process and recycle 1 ton of Bags that are recycled are gut veicY*9 rains ofd 413is plastic bags. This can then be often turned into corrugated oFbags are extrenigly 1oW sold on the commodities market cardboard, not new paper for about $32. More often than bags. Percentage Mbapsreegfe�ed. not, bags collected for recycling 14% 1015% never get recycled. A growing trend is to ship them to countries such as India and Plastic Papa China, where they are cheaply incinerated under more lax environmental laws. Paper is degradable, but it cannot Petroleum -basal plastics are completely break down in modern fvernthagghpetrcethased no t biodegradable, meaning landfills because of the lack of plastic wNinetreiblodegrade,;: they will not decompose over water, I oeaily.4 _Beltn plasffe. light, oxygen and other wRl b tine. But they do take Lip less neces lements. About 45 a s eery inlar�sorin pace than paper in a landfill: #heocean pendent of garbage is buried 2,000 plastic bags weigh 30 beneath layers of soil that make It pounds; 2,000 paper bags difficult for air and sunlightto weigh 280 pounds. reach it. SOURCES: Amar:can Chemistry Council American Forest and Paper Association: "Comparison of the Effects on the Environment of Palyethytene and Paper Carrier Sags." Federal Office of the Enwonment, .August 1988 institute for Lifecycle Environmental Assessment: Paper Industry Association Council, Resources and Environmental Profile Analysis of Polyethlyene and Unbleached Paper Grocery Sacks." Franklin Group. 19903 Reusablebags.com; Society of Plastics Industry, U.S_ Environmental Protection Agency; Alerldwatch institute, GRAPHIC: Erenna Ma €oney and Laura Stanton The '%h'a shin gton Past 2007 The Washington Post Company Attachment B Sample of Bag Ordinances Jurisdiction Date What is regulated? Who is affected? Funding use Results Washington D C Anacostia River Ban on non recyclable All retail Broad spectrum of 50% to 60 0 /6 i Clean Up and plastic bags. 5 cent establishments. environmental reduction in single Protection Act fee on all paper (min. Exemptions for programs: public use plastic bag Effective 1[1 /10 40 6 /o post- consumer certain types of education; distribution consumption recycled content) and vendor products. of reusable bags, within 1st 9 100% recyclable equipment purchase„ months. plastic disposable community clean up," bags. program administration. Telluride Waste Town -wide ban on All vendors affected 5 cents goes to local Just initiated. Reduction and plastic bags. 10 cent by plastic bag ban. gov't. 5 cents stays Reusable Carry- fee on paper bags for Only grocers with the merchant, Out Bag grocers only. affected by 10 -cent funds education Program fee on paper bags. campaign, distribution Effective 1 /1 /11 Similar exemptions of reusable bags and for Grocers, to DC program, as community clean ups. Effective 3/1/11 well. for all other Retailers. San Francisco Plastic Bag Ban on non- All stores. No revenue generated. Proposal currently Reduction,' compostable plastic being considered Ordinance bags: Recyclable to institute 10- Effective paper bags, cent fee on 4/20/07 compostable plastic allowed "single -use: bags allowed only. checkout bags. Ireland PlasTax Plastic 33 -cent (US) fee on All merchants. Green fund for 90 %reduction in Bag Levy plastic bags, nation- environmental disposable bag Effective March wide. Raised from 15 initiatives. use form 1.2 2002. cents when initially billion to 230 adopted. million. $9.6m raised in first ear. r :'A i e y r i 0 A -e Leading h t e Way Toward a Cleanocean Communities Around the World Take Action Against Single -Use Plastic Bags Written by: Travis Madsen, Frontier Group Julia Ritchie, Environment California Research Policy Center July 2011 Acknowledgments Environment California Research Policy Center would like to thank Kirsten James at Heal the Bay and Leslie Tamminen at Seventh Generation Advisors for their review and insightful comments on drafts of this report. Additional thanks to Cameron Harris for research assistance and to Tony Dutzik and Rob Kerth at Frontier Group for editorial assistance. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or those who provided review. Any factual errors are strictly the responsibility of the authors. Copyright 2011 Environment California Research Policy Center Environment California Research Policy Center is a 501(c)(3) organization. We are dedicated to protecting California's air, water and open spaces. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate the public and decision makers, and help Californians make their voices heard in local, state and national debates over the quality of our environment and our lives. For more information about Environment California Research Policy Center, please visit our Web site at www.environmentcalifornia.org/center. Frontier Group conducts independent research and policy analysis to support a cleaner, healthier and more democratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate information and compelling ideas into public policy debates at the local, state and federal levels. For more information about Frontier Group, please visit our Web site at www.fron- tiergroup.org. Cover Photo: Shutterstock, idreamphoto Layout: To the Point Publications, wwwtothepointpublications.com Table of Contents Executive Summary ..............................4 Introduction ..............................6 Plastic Bags Pollute California's Beaches and Ocean .................8 Communities Across the World Have Taken Action to Reduce Plastic Bag Pollution .............................11 Bans on Plastic Bags 11 Fee Programs and Taxes 13 Policy Recommendations .............................16 Notes....................... .............................17 Executive Summary 0 ur oceans are polluted with mil- Plastic bags contribute to the pollution lions of tons of plastic trash. In of California's ocean and beaches. the Pacific Ocean, plastic debris churns in a soup called the Great Pacific •Californians use approximately 16 Garbage Patch an area twice the size billion plastic bags per year —more of Texas where plastic bits outweigh than 400 annually per person. plankton. Plastic pollution persists for Less than 5 percent of plastic bags hundreds of years, and can kill turtles, are recycled. Instead, they end up seabirds and other marine animals. sitting in landfills, littering streets, Throw -away plastic bags are a sig- clogging streams, fouling beaches, or nificant part of the problem. To reduce floating out to sea. ocean pollution and protect the en- vironment, more than 80 national Plastic trash threatens ocean ecosys- and local governments across the tems. Sea turtles and other marine planet have taken official action to ban animals often mistake plastic bags throw -away plastic bags or to establish for jellyfish and eat them, causing fees or taxes on such bags. injury or death. In parts of the Pacific State, county, and city governments in Ocean, including the Great Pacific California should follow their lead and Garbage Patch, plastic outweighs ban the use of plastic grocery bags. plankton by up to six times. 4 Leading the Way Toward a Clean Ocean The city of San Francisco estimated bags distributed by food retailers that the taxpayer cost to subsidize fell from 22.5 million per month to the recycling, collection, and dispos- 3.3 million per month. And the year al of plastic and paper bags amounts after banning plastic bags at pharma- to as much as 17 cents per bag. cies and supermarkets in 2007, San Applied to California as a whole, that Francisco businesses distributed 127 adds up to more than $1 billion per million fewer plastic bags, and cut year. overall bag waste reaching the city landfill by up to 10 percent. More than 80 national and local governments around the world have Eleven city and county governments in taken action to protect the ocean by California have taken successful action reducing the use of plastic bags. to reduce plastic bag pollution. At least 20 nations and 47 local Eleven California cities and counties governments have passed bans on have bans on plastic bags in effect, distributing specific kinds of throw- including Long Beach, Santa away plastic bags, including the Monica, San Jose, San Francisco, and nations of Italy, Kenya, Mongolia, unincorporated Marin and unincor- Macedonia, and Bangladesh; the porated Los Angeles counties. Five states of Maharashtra, India and of these communities, including Buenos Aires, Argentina; and the Marin County and San Jose, have cities of Karachi, Pakistan and Tellu- also authorized mandatory charges ride, Colorado. on paper bags to encourage citizens Approximately 26 nations and local to use reusable bags. communities have established fee Two additional communities, programs to reduce plastic bag use Oakland and Manhattan Beach, and /or increase the use of reusable passed bans that were later struck alternatives, including Botswana, down after legal challenges by plastic China, Hong Kong, Wales, Ireland, bag manufacturers. Israel, Canada's Northwest Terri- tories, Toronto, Mexico City, and Much more progress can be made to Washington, D.C. reduce plastic pollution in the ocean and transform our throw -away culture. Bans and meaningful fee programs Education and recycling cannot effectively reduce plastic bag pollution. keep pace with the generation of Bans and fee programs quickly plastic bag pollution. Despite a reduce plastic bag distribution. 2006 law requiring retailers to place Ireland, which in 2002 established bag recycling bins in front of their a fee roughly equivalent to 28 U.S. stores, less than 5 percent of bags are cents per bag, saw plastic bag use recycled. drop by 90 percent within the first To make a real impact, all California year. After Washington, D.C., cities and counties should restrict the implemented a much smaller 5 cent use of plastic bags, and advocate for tax on plastic bags, the number of similar action at the state level. Executive Summary 5 Introduction 0 ur oceans are an irreplaceable warming, habitat damage, and pol- treasure. The Pacific Ocean, for lution are putting important marine example, is central to California's ecosystems at risk. Many critical wildlife culture and our livelihood. Off the rocky populations are in serious decline. coast of Big Sur, sea otters frolic and sea The problems facing our oceans are turtles feed on jellyfish. The largest mam- varied and complex, from our over mals on earth, blue whales, migrate up dependence on fossil fuels to our care and down our shores. Pods of thousands less use of natural resources. However, of dolphins play in the wakes of ships. many of these problems can be traced Seabirds congregate on beaches and har- back toward an unreasonable expecta- bors, belting out their familiar cries. And tion that our oceans will be endlessly beneath the waves, the seafloor is covered productive even as we use them as a with corals as old as redwoods. trash receptacle. Our oceans are also an incredibly To protect and preserve California's valuable part of our economy. The Pa- treasured ocean ecosystems for the long cific Ocean contributes an estimated haul, we need to stop using ocean waters $43 billion and more than 400,000 jobs as a landfill. The most important way to California's economy, particularly in to accomplish this is to generate less tourism and recreation.' trash. Unfortunately, our oceans are also in Plastic bags the throw -away kind trouble. Destructive overfishing, global you can pickup at many grocery stores 6 Leading the Way Toward a Clean Ocean pboto: Sbutterstock, idreampboto �t Our oceans are an irreplaceable treasure and an important part of our economy. To protect ocean ecosystems for the long haul, we need to stop using ocean waters as a landfill and generate less trash. are a good place to start. These bags help us move groceries for a few minutes, but By joining these global the pollute our environment for hun- dreds of years. They represent awaste- co mmunities i n banning pla st ic ful use of limited fossil fuel resources. Switching to reusable bags can cut down bags, California has an opportunity on the amount of plastic trash ending up in the ocean, and begin to raise public to build on its reputation for consciousness about the need to make It our civilization more sustainable. environmental leadership. Banning plastic bags is an idea whose time has come. As this report shows, nations from Tanzania to Italy, and com- munities from Buenos Aires to Santa By joining these global communities Monica, have taken action to reduce in banning plastic bags, California has plastic bag pollution. While the list of an opportunity to build on its reputation policies covered in this report is not for environmental leadership. Each new necessarily exhaustive, it does show the county, city or town that takes action wide scope of action across the planet to to reduce plastic bag pollution builds protect our oceans, reduce litter, and use momentum towards a cleaner ocean for our natural resources more wiselyy, current and future generations. Introduction 7 Plastic Bags Pollute California's Beaches and Ocean iflions of tons of plastic trash pol- of carrying groceries, the bags have the lute our oceans, everywhere from potential to contaminate the ocean envi- the poles to the equator.' Accord- ronment for hundreds of years. ing to the United Nations Environment Every year, Californians throw away Programme, every square mile of ocean approximately 16 billion plastic bags.' contains 46,000 pieces of floating plastic, That adds up to more than 400 bags per on average.' person per year.' In 2007, Los Angeles For example, one thousand miles County estimated that county residents off the California coast, more than 100 used about 600 bags per year. Less than million tons of plastic garbage has con- 5 percent of these plastic bags end up centrated in an area known as the Great recycled, despite the efforts of retailers Pacific Garbage Patch .4 Churned by to collect used bags in storefront bins, ocean currents, this plastic trash spans which are required by state law. Instead, an area twice the size of Texas.' Within the bags end up sitting in landfills, lit this area, plastic outweighs plankton by tering streets, clogging streams, fouling up to six times.' beaches, or floating out to sea. Accord Too much of this trash comes from ing to beach cleanup volunteers working items that we use for a short time and with the Ocean Conservancy, plastic bags then discard. Throw -away plastic bags were the sixth -most common item found are a prime and visible example. Plas- on beaches worldwide over 25 years of tic bags are convenient, but they are also clean up events, accounting for 5 percent durable and buoyant. For a few minutes of all trash items." 8 Leading the Way Toward a Clean Ocean photo: Flickr user pantagrapher rr Throw -away plastic bags are a visible example of the trash contaminating our beaches and ocean. Although used for only a short while, a plastic bag can last for hundreds of years in the environment. Plastic Trash Threatens a particularly visible example of a marine Ocean Ecosystems animal threatened by plastic pollution. Sea turtles often mistake plastic bags for jellyfish Plastic trash harms the health of ocean and eat them. The bags can get trapped in ecosystems. More than 260 marine spe- the turtle's digestive system, causing great cies have been found with plastic in their harm. All seven species of sea turtle are in stomachs or tangled around their bodies urgent danger of extinction. interfering with feeding, movement In March, 2011, a group of sea turtle and reproduction, and causing injury scientists gathered in Hawaii to discuss the and death. 12 "ocean emergency" of plastic pollution.' 6 In In June 2011, researchers at UC San a press release, Dr. Wallace Nichols of the Diego's Scripps Institute of Oceanog- California Academy of Sciences wrote:" raphy published a study finding that nearly one in ten small fish collected "Last year I counted 76 plastic bags in the middle of the Pacific Ocean had in the ocean in just one minute while plastic in their bodies. The researchers standing in the bow of our sea turtle estimated that fish are eating as much as research boat at sea in Indonesia. Sea 24,000 tons of plastic each year, and that turtles have spent the past 100 million the plastic enters the food chain through years roaming seas free of plastic pol- small fish. lution, and are now sadly the poster Plastic pollution kills turtles, seabirds animal for impacts of our throw -away and other marine animals. Sea turtles are society on endangered species." Plastic Bags Pollute California's Beaches and Ocean 9 One study by Australian scientists, used to make plastic bags. including Dr. Kathryn Townsend, To protect the sea turtle and the found that nearly 30 percent of turtle broader ocean ecosystem, many com- mortality in the eastern Moreton Bay munities around the world have taken region was due to plastic debris con- action to reduce or eliminate plastic bag sumption. Half of the plastic in turtle pollution. stomachs was thin plastic, like the kind p boto on Prendergast, Melbourne Zoo a M ry Sea turtles often mistake plastic bags for jellyfish and eat them, suffering harm. Plastic Pollution Costs Our Economy, Too Plasticpollution costs.deyelop rig,and industrialized nations up to $1.3 billion annually, by threateiung fishing, hipping and tourism industries. i9 In the United States; governments spend at least; $11.5 bll6n "annually on litter collection; disposal and`enforcement: Businesses „bear almost, 80 percent 6f this burden. The city.of San Francisco estimated thatthe:cost to taxpayers of sub sidizingthe recycling, collection; and disposal of plastic aiid =paper bags amounts to as much as 1=7 cents per bag:?i;Applied across California as a whole, that likely> addsupto more than 1 billon; dollars per year. Retailers spend hundreds of millions of; dollars `amivally to provide single use bags to eust6iners Supermarkets spend up to $1;;500 to $6,000 a:m6nth” to provide "single -use bags to their customers at the check -out Stores typically pay",, to S cents::per plastic se costs ar bag, thee:e edded,m food ib prices which are ten passed onto consumers 10 Leading the Way Toward a Clean Ocean Communities Across the World Have Taken Action to Reduce Plastic Bag Pollution ore than 80 national and local Bans on Plastic Bags governments across the world At least 20 nations and 46 local gov- have taken official action to ernments have implemented bans on protect the ocean by reducing the use distributing specific kinds of throw -away of plastic bags. In their place, retailers plastic bags. are selling reusable bags, or bags made Governments have had a variety of from compostable material. reasons to implement bag bans. Some Nations from Kenya to Mongolia, communities enacted bag bans spe- and local governments from Maha- cifically to reduce ocean pollution a rashtra, India to Rio de Janiero, Brazil, rationale particularly common in com- have taken action to ban throw -away munities whose economies depend upon plastic bags. Dozens more, from Hong whale watching and other forms of ocean Kong to Ireland, have established fee tourism. Others chose to enact the policy programs to reduce plastic bag use or to reduce litter. For example, the state of support more sustainable alternatives. Maharashtra in India, where Bombay is Other nations and communities have located, banned plastic bags to prevent established taxes on businesses that them from clogging storm drains and distribute plastic bags. contributing to floods." Communities Across the World Have Taken Action to Reduce Plastic Bag Pollution 11 Policies that ban the distribution Local Governments Abroad of plastic bags are the most effective at reducing plastic bag pollution. For Additionally, more than 20 local gov- example, the year after banning plastic ernments outside of the United States have bags at pharmacies and supermarkets passed plastic bag bans, including:" in 2007, San Francisco businesses dis- tributed 127 million fewer plastic bags, Dahka, Bangladesh (2002) and cut overall bag waste reaching the South Australia (2008) city landfill by up to 10 percent. And Northern Territory; Australia (2011) four months after Huntingdon, Canada, Loddon Shire, Victoria, Australia (2005) banned plastic bags, the owner of a gro- cery store reported that 82 percent of his Corsica, France (1999) customers brought their own bags, while Paris, France (2007) the remainder chose paper. Rio de Janiero, Brazil (2009) Governments at the national, state and Buenos Aires, Argentina (2008) local level have created various types of Leaf Rapids; Manitoba, Canada (2007) plastic bag bans. Eriksdale, Manitoba, Canada (2008) Coldwell, Manitoba, Canada (2008) Nations Huntingdon, Quebec, Canada (2008) At least 20 nations have passed bans to Hurghada Red Sea Province, (2009) reduce bag pollution, including:27 Egypt Delhi, India (2009) Bangladesh (2002) Maharashtra,. in a (2005) Himachal Pradesh India 2009 37 Bhutan (2005) Botswana (2007)28 Chandigarh, India (2,008) China (2008) Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan (2006) Eritrea (2005) Zanzibar Tanzania (2006) Ethiopia (2008) Llandysilio, Wales (2007) France' (2010) photo: Istockphotoxonz, userMclninch Kenya (2008) Italy. (2007) India (2002) Macedonia (2011) Mongolia (2009) x Papua New Guinea (2009) Rwanda (2005) Somaliland (2005) `x.. South Africa (2003) Taiwan (2003) Tanzania (2006) Policies that ban the distribution of plastic Uganda (2007) bags or establish fees or taxes on such bags are effective at reducing plastic bag pollution, United Arab Emirates (2011) and encouraging the use of reusable bags. 12 Leading the Way Toward a Clean Ocean photo: Environment California staff Local Governments in California Within California, 13 city and county governments have taken action to re- duce plastic bag pollution, including the citizens of Fairfax, in Marin County, who enacted a bag ban by popular vote through a ballot initiative in 2008. Legal challenges from plastic bag manufactur- ers ended up invalidating two of these laws in Oakland and Manhattan Beach. Eleven areas currently have bag ban poli- cies in effect, including sz v Unincorporated Marin County (2011) r y Fairfax (Marin County) (2008) Eleven city and county governments in Unincorporated L.A. County (2010):; California have plastic hag bans in effect. Calabasas (L.A. County) (2011) Malibu (LA. County) (2008) Long Beach (L.A. County) (2011) Local Governments in the United Santa Monica (L.A. County) (2011); States San Francisco (2007) Well over a dozen American commu- Unincorporated Santa.Clara (2011).' nities outside of California have acted County against plastic bags, including:40 Palo Alto (Santa Clara County) (20 09) American Samoa (2011) San Jose (Santa Clara County) (2010) Maui County, Hawaii (2008) These areas represent fully 10 percent Kauai County, Hawaii (2009) of the population of California." At least 30 coastal (2009) communities in Alaska, including Bethel Fee Programs and Taxes Telluride, Colorado (2011) Westport, Connecticut (2008)43 Approximately 25 nations and lo- cal communities have established fee Unincorporated Marshall (2008)44 programs to reduce plastic bag use or County, Iowa encourage reusable alternatives. Outer Banks, North (2009) Fee programs and taxes can have Carolina multiple purposes. First, by establishing Southampton Village, New (2011) a price on disposable bags, governments York can send a price signal to citizens to mo- Suffolk County, New York (1998) tivate different behaviors. For example, in Brownsville, Texas (2011) 2002 the Republic of Ireland established a South Padre Island, Texas (2011)4' 15 Euro cent tax on plastic bags (roughly 9 equivalent to about 28 U.S. cents per bag Edmonds, Washington (2009) today), applied to consumers at the point Communities Across the World Have Taken Action to Reduce Plastic Bag Pollution 13 of sale. In the first year of this policy, tain one of the more durable plastic bags, consumers used 90 percent fewer plastic encouraging reuse .51 bags. The tax grew relatively less effective Governments that have created fee over time, so the nation increased the tax programs or taxes applied to throw -away in 2007. Overall, plastic bags have gone bags include: from 5 percent to less than 0.25 percent of the waste stream .54 Washington, D.C. provides another Nations example. After the district implemented Belgium (2007) a much smaller 5 cent tax on plastic bags, Botswana (2007)60 the number of bags distributed by food retailers fell from 22.5 million per month Bulgaria (2011) to 3.3 million per month. 15 That is a de- China (2008)61 crease of more than 85 percent. This ac- Denmark (1994) 62 tion translated into an observed decrease Hon Kong in plastic pollution in area rivers and g g (2009) streams. According to the Alice Ferguson Germany (earlier than 2005)' Foundation, since implementation of the Ireland (2002) bag fee, river cleanup efforts have turned Israel (2008) up 66 percent fewer plastic bags.56 The Netherlands (2008)65 Fee policies can also reimburse shop owners for any added expense of policy South Africa (2003) compliance. For example, stores in un- Wales (2011) incorporated Los Angeles County must charge customers 10 cents for every pa- per bag provided. The store retains the revenue and can use it to cover the cost Local Gov Abroad of providing paper bags or the cost of educating customers about reusable bags. Northwest Territories, (2010) These types of features can help plastic Canada bag reduction policies win the support of Toronto, Ontario, Canada (2009) retail businesses. Amqui, Quebec, Canada (2008)67 Fee programs and taxes can also pro- vide funding for government programs. Mexico City, Mexico (2009) For example, Ireland uses the money Andalucia, Spain (2011) from its bag tax for recycling programs, enforcement of solid waste laws, and other environmental priorities .57 Some countries have both a ban on certain types of plastic bags, and fees on Local Governments in the others. For example, China has banned United States disposable bags that fail to meet the Washingto D.C. (2009) durability standards necessary to be considered reusable. China then requires Montgomery County, (2011) Maryland retailers to charge customers a fee to ob- 14 Leading the Way Toward a Clean Ocean photo: Shutterstock Local Governments in California In California, state law prohibits local governments from enacting fees applying to plastic bags (although outright bans are permissible). However, several commu- nities have established fees on alternative bags to direct consumer behavior. For example, after San Francisco's a plastic bag ban, critics noted that many people simply shifted to paper another type of disposable bag with its own set of environmental problems. In response, several California communities have established fees that apply to paper bags as a companion policy to a ban on plastic bags. These policies serve as a signal to encourage consumers to furnish and use their own reusable bags. These commu- nities include: Uninco rporated. L.A. Co unty (2010) Marin County (2011) Calabasas (L.A. County) (2011) Long Beach (L.A. County) (2011) Santa Monica (L.A. County) (2011) San lose (Santa Clara County) (2010) Telluride, Colorado enacted a similar By taking action to reduce the use of plastic bags, communities fee policy to complement its plastic bag across California are making a real difference in the problem ban in 2011." of ocean pollution. Communities Across the World Have Taken Action to Reduce Plastic Bag Pollution 15 Policy Recommendations othing we use for a few minutes ing a real difference in the problem of should end up polluting our oceans ocean pollution. for hundreds of years. Items meant But there is much more to be done. only for a single use provide dubious Education and recycling efforts simply convenience, and a great deal of hidden cannot keep pace with the generation cost. When we throw away something of plastic bag pollution. like a plastic bag, "away" may actually Every city and county government in mean our beaches, our treasured ocean, California should enact its own policy or the belly of a whale. to limit the use of throw -away plastic To protect our oceans and conserve bags. Not only can these individual precious natural resources, our culture policies have a meaningful impact on needs to shift away from its "throw away" their own, they will build momentum mentality. for other state and local governments Californians are leaders when it comes to take similar action. to protecting the environment. By taking Ultimately, California's actions can action to reduce the use of plastic bags, lead to a cleaner ocean for current and communities across California are mak- future generations. 16 Leading the Way Toward a Clean Ocean Notes 1. J. Kidlow et al. National Ocean Economics 8. Based on the 2010 population of California Program. California's Ocean Economy, Report to the of 37.254 million, per 2010 U.S. Census data. California Resources Agency, July 2005. 9. Los Angeles County Department of Public 2. Allsopp, Walters, Santillo and Johnston, Works, Environmental Programs Division, An Greenpeace, Plastic Debris in the World's Oceans, Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County: Staff 2006, available at www.unep.org/regionalseas/ Report to the Board of Supervisors, August 2007. marinelitter publications /does /plastic ocean_ 10. According to the EPA's 2009 Municipal report.pd£ Waste Characterization Study, the recycling rate for 3. United Nations Environment Programme, plastic HDPE films (plastic bags, sacks, wraps) Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Deep Waters and High was 6.1 percent. However, this statistic is likely Seas, UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. artificially high because it includes all wraps and 178, June 2006. packaging, like "industrial stretch films" used in 4. Kathy Marks and Daniel Howden, "The shipping, not just plastic bags. The recycling rate World's Rubbish Dump: A Tip that Stretches from for plastic bags alone is probably closer to 1 to 5 Hawaii to Japan," The Independent UK, 5 February percent, per note 9 and per U.S. Environmental 2008. Protection Agency, 2005 Characterization of 5. Lindsey Hoshaw, "Afloat in the Ocean, Municipal Solid Waste, Table 7. Moreover, years Expanding Islands of Trash," New York Times, 9 after the implementation of California's 2006 AB November 2009. The U.S. National Oceanic and 2449, a law requiring in -store plastic bag recycling, Atmospheric Administration notes that there the state still has not published data about the is uncertainty about the definition and size of effectiveness of the program. the Garbage Patch, but the bottom line is that 11. Ocean Conservancy, Tracking Trash: 25 Years "man -made debris does not belong in our oceans of Action for the Ocean, 2011. and waterways." National Atmospheric and 12. JGB Derraik, "The Pollution of the Oceanic Administration, De- Mystifying the "Great Marine Environment by Plastic Debris: a Review," Pacific Garbage Patch," 13 June 2011, available at Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 842 -852, 2002; D.W. marinedebris.noaa.gov /info /patch.html #5. Laist, "Impacts of Marine Debris: Entanglement 6. Algalita Marine Research Foundation, of Marine Life in Marine Debris Including a Research North Pacific Gyre Plankton Sample Analysis Comprehensive List of Species with Entanglement `07 -'08, undated, downloaded from www.algalita. and Ingestion Records," In: J.M. Coe D.B. org/ research /np_gyre_sample07- 08.htm1 on 7 June Rogers (Eds.), Marine Debris: Sources, Impacts, and 2011. Solutions, (Springer- Verlag, New York) 1997, pp. 99- 7. Calculated. In 2008, California's waste stream 140. contained 123,405 tons of plastic grocery and other 13. Tony Barboza, "Researchers Find Plastic in merchandise bags. (California Integrated Waste More Than 9% of Fish in Northern Pacific Ocean," Management Board, California 2008 Statewide Waste Los Angeles Times, 1 July 2011. Characterization Study, August 2009.) According to 14. Colette Wabnitz Wallace Nichols, the American Chemistry Council, cited by Heal "Editorial: Plastic Pollution: An Ocean Emergency," the Bay and ABC News, 2,000 plastic bags weigh Marine Turtle Newsletter 129, March 2010. roughly 30 pounds. "Paper or Plastic? Just the 15. Wallace Nichols, California Academy Facts," ABC News, 7 January 2006; Heal the Bay, of Sciences, Our Plastic Food Chain -or- The Turtle The True Cost of Single -Use Bags (factsheet), August Who Pooped Plastic (press release), 22 March 2011, 2010.) available at wwwseaturtle.org. Notes 17 16. See note 14. Policies, updated 28 January 2011, available at www. 17. See note 15. dep.state.fl.us/ waste /retailbags /pages /mapsandlists. 18. Lexi Metherell, "Third of Turtles Killed htm; and Jennie R. Romer, Esq., PlasticBagLaws. by Marine Rubbish," ABC News Australia, 7 org, Legislation, downloaded from plasticbaglaws. June 2011, available at www.abc.net.au /news/ org/legislation on 7 June 2011. stories /2011/06/07/3237485.htm. 28. Johane Dikgang and Martine Visser, 19. A. McIlgorm, HF Campbell, and MJ Rule Resources for the Future, "Behavioral Response to Understanding the Economic Benefits and Costs of Plastic Bag Legislation in Botswana," Environment Controlling Marine Debris in the APEC Region, A for Development Discussion Paper Series, EfD DP 10 -13, report to the Asia- Pacific Economic Cooperation May 2010. Marine Resource Conservation Working Group by 29. Free bags have been outlawed since 2009. the National Marine Science Centre (University of Now all plastic bags will be banned by 2013. See New England Southern Cross University), Coffs Richard Higgs, "Balkan Republic of Macedonia Harbour, NSW, Australia, December 2008. Bans Plastic Bags," Plastics and Rubber Weekly, 4 20. Mid- Atlantic Solid Waste Consultants for February 2011. Keep America Beautiful, Inc., National Visible 30. United Nations, Mongolia National Report Litter Survey and Litter Cost Study, 18 September on Sustainable Development for the 18th Session of 2009. the Commission on SD, February 2010, available 21. City of San Francisco Dept of the at www.un. org /esa /dsd /dsd_aofw_ni/ni_pdfs/ Environment, Bag Cost Analysis, 18 November NationalReports mongolia/Full_text.pdf 2004. 31. "PNG Government Bans Plastic Bags," 22. Estimates from bag manufacturers and Pacific Business Online, 3 October 2009. the Food Marketing Institute: J. Downing, "Free 32. See note 27. Grocery Bags Targeted for Extinction in California," 33.Rural Municipality of Eriksdale, By -Law 07- Sacramento Bee, 25 August 2008. 2008, 9 December 2008, available at www.eriksdale. 23. See note 9. com /data/ policies /MicrosoftWord- BL_07_2008_ 24. Ramola Talwar Badam, "Maharashtra Bans PLASTIC_SHOPPING_BAGS1.pdf Plastic Bags," Rediff.com, 24 August 2005. 34. Rural Municipality of Coldwell, Notices: 25. Joe Eskenazi, "Baggage: The City's Politicos Elimination of Single Use Plastic Shopping Bags in Made the Enviros Happy by Banning Plastic Bags, the RM of Coldwell and Lud of Lundar, 1 October but Left Us with More Pollution and Cost," SF 2008, available at www.lundar.ca /notices_detail. Weekly, 7 January 2009. asp ?ID =67. 26. The Canadian Press, "Anti Plastic Bag 35. "Hurghada Plastic Bag Ban -'One Bag at a Movement Growing as Residents Adapt to New Time'," www.blueotwo.com, 27 April 2009. Laws," CBC News Canada, 21 April 2008. 36. Ramola Talwar Badam, "Maharashtra Bans 27. These policies are not uniform. Some affect Plastic Bags," Rediff.com, 24 August 2005. bags of certain thicknesses, or from certain types 37. Government of Himachal Pradesh, Himachal and sizes of retail outlets. The purpose of this Poised to Become Polythene Free from 15th August (press report is to note the existence of bag ban policies release), 27 July 2009. in a variety of locations across the world, and not 38. "Chandigarh (India) Bag Ban," Plastic Free to compare the relative strengths and weaknesses of Times, undated, downloaded from plasticfreetimes. these policies. Unless otherwise noted, the sources com plasticf /chandigarh- india- bag -ban on 8 June for all bag ban policies and adoption dates are: 2011. State of Florida, Department of Environmental 39. Sindh Governor House, Islamic Republic Protection, The Retail Bags Report: List of Retail Bag of Pakistan, Manufacture, Sale and Use of Plastic 18 Leading the Way Toward a Clean Ocean Polyethylene Bags Banned, 3 February 2006, available 54. State of Florida, Department of at www.governorsindh .gov.pk /pressrelease /news. Environmental Protection, Retail Bags Report for asp ?id =1325 the Legislature, 1 February 2010; S. McDonnell, F. 40. See note 27. Convery S. Ferreira, The Irish Plastic Bag Levy A 41. According to the Florida DEP, at least 30 Review of Its Performance Five Years On, undated, coastal communities in Alaska have banned bags to available at xvww.webmeets.com /files /papers/ reduce litter and protect wildlife, including seals and EAERE/ 2008 294 /Plastic %20Bags %20 Irish %20 salmon. Bethel: City of Bethel, Alaska, Ordinance Levy %20- %20EAERE %20PAPER %202008.pdf #09.12, Passed 23 June 2009. 55. Lauren Markoe, NRDC, "How D.C. Beat 42. Karen James, "Telluride Is the First the Plastic Bag Lobby," On Earth, 11 November Community in Colorado to Ban Plastic Bags," The 2010. Watch, 7 October 2010. 56. As cited by: Surfrider Foundation, Ban the 43. Wendy Carlson, "Westport First in State Bag: Washington D.C., A Success Story, downloaded to Ban Plastic Bags," New York Times, 26 September from ww2 .surfrider.org/dc /plastics.html, 27 June 2008. 2011. 44. Associated Press, "Iowa County Joins San 57. See note 54. Francisco in Bag Ban," The Street.com, 8 April 2009. 58. Mary O'Loughlin, Fulbright Research 45. This policy is the only bag ban in the United Fellow, B.Y.O.B. (Bring Your Own Bag): A States to date that was created by a state legislature. It Comprehensive Assessment of China's Plastic Bag Policy, only applies to the Outer Banks of North Carolina, 17 February 2011, available at digitalcommons.law. so we grouped it with local government policies. umaryland .edu /cgi /viewcontent.cgi ?article 1019 &c 46. "Southampton Village Bans Plastic Bags," ontext= student_pubs CBS New York/ Associated Press, 28 April 2011. 59. These policies are not uniform. Some fees 47. Suffolk County, New York, Suffolk County and taxes apply to plastic bags. Others apply to Code, Chapter 301, Food Labeling and Packaging paper bags as an added price signal complementing Article II, Uniform Packaging Practices for Retail Food a ban on plastic bags. Some apply to consumers at Establishments, Adopted 29 March 1998, available at the point of sale. Others apply to retailers upstream in the supply chain. The purpose of this report is www.mindfully.org/Plastic /Suffolk Co-NY Ban.htm. to note the existence of these policies in a variety 48. Lynn Brezosky, "South Padre Bans Single -Use of locations across the world, and not to compare Plastic Bags," San Antonio Express -News, 19 January the relative strengths and weaknesses of these 2011. policies. Unless otherwise noted, the sources for all 49. Lynn Thompson, "Edmonds First In State to policies and adoption dates are: State of Florida, Ban Plastic Grocery Bags," The Seattle Times, 28 July Department of Environmental Protection, The 2009. Retail Bags Report: List of Retail Bag Policies, updated 50. Jennie R. Romer, Esq., PlasticBagl-aws.org, 28 January 2011, available at voxw.dep.state. State and Local Laws: California, downloaded from fl.us/ waste /retailbags /pages /mapsandlists.htm; plasticbaglaws.org/legislation /state laws /california -2/ and Jennie R. Romer, Esq., PlasticBagLaws.org, on 7 June 2011. Legislation, downloaded from plasticbaglaws.org/ 51. Ibid. legislation/ on 7 June 2011. 52. Ibid. 60. See note 28. 53. Kirsten James, Heal the Bay, Local Action 61. See note 58. Adds Up, Presentation at the 5` International Marine 62. Denmark also taxes wasteful packaging Debris Conference, Honolulu Hawaii, 20-25 March and waste delivered to landfills to encourage 2011. more sustainable use of resources by product manufacturers and retailers. Notes 19 63. City of Hong Kong, Product Eco- 67. The Canadian Press, "Anti- Plastic Bag Responsibility Ordinance, Ordinance Number 32 Movement Growing as Residents Adapt to New of 2008, July 2008, available at www.epd.gov.hk/ Laws," CBC News Canada, 21 April 2008. epd /psb /files /PER_Ordinance_Eng.pdf. 68. "Andalucia Announced 10 Cent Tax on 64. Dan Magestro, "Plastic Bag Obsession," Plastic Bags from Jan 1 TheReader.es, 30 October The Lantern: Ohio State Student Newspaper, 31 2010. October 2005. 69. State of California, Public Resources Code, 65. Heal the Bay, List of Countries with Plastic Section 42254, available at wwwleginfo.ca.gov. Bag Fees and Bans, 20 November 2009. 70. See note 25. 66. Johane Dikgang, Anthony Leiman and 71. See note 42. Martine Visser, University of Cape Town, Analysis of the Plastic Bag Levy in South Africa, Policy Paper 18, July 2010. 20 Leading the Way Toward a Clean Ocean Paper, Plastic or Reusable? A Study for the City of Aspen Regarding the Consumption of Single Use Shopping Bags 1 al 11h Community Office for Resource Efficiency Prepared By Katherine Dart February 2009 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides the City of Aspen with information regarding the use of disposable, single -use shopping bags. It concludes that the reduction of such bags will result in significant environmental, social, and economic benefits on a local, regional, national and global level. The conclusions are as follows: An item that is manufactured for one -time use is inherently unsustainable. Disposable shopping bags require resources (both natural and fiscal) to manufacture and contribute an unnecessary burden to municipal waste management. Both plastic and paper shopping bags are environmentally detrimental (Franklin Group 1990; Patel et al. 2003). Strategies to address the issue of disposable shopping bags should not discriminate between the two. The production and disposal of single -use shopping bags put an undue burden on wildlife. Both the plastic and paper industry use natural resources such as water, trees and fossil fuels in manufacturing processes, which inadvertently affect the habitats and health of various species. Furthermore, littered bags often end up as contaminants in our soil and water, where they can infiltrate the food chain. Any policy decision must incorporate an educational component. In order to change consumer behavior, it is important that the consumer is made aware of their ability to independently make a difference. This means that a policy should not only advocate for the reduction of disposable shopping bags, but it should also encourage consumers to reuse their reusable bags. *Past experience has shown that the Aspen community is amenable to municipal action on the issue of single -use shopping bags. The Community Office of Resource Efficiency (CORE) and the City of Aspen Department of Environmental Health have partnered on several successful initiatives to raise public awareness about the use of single -use shopping bags. Reduction of disposable shopping bags in Aspen will alleviate costs associated with the removal, transportation and landfill space needed to accommodate disposable shopping bags (Herrera 2008). Reduction of disposable shopping bags will alleviate hidden costs of the "free" shopping bag that are passed on to the consumer by retailers. This report recommends instating an Advance Recovery Fee (ARF) on all single -use shopping bags. An ARF provides the most economic and environmental benefits to consumers, retailers and the City of Aspen because of its ability to generate revenue, decrease municipal waste collection costs, and encourage customers to use a more sustainable product. Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Executive Summary ..............................2 2. Introduction ..............................5 3. Methods 6 4. History of A Disposable Shopping Bag ............................7 -9 4a. Paper ............................7 -8 4b. Plastic ..............................9 5. Environmental Issues................................................................... ..........................10 -14 5a. Resource Consumption ..........................10 -11 5b. Pollution /Climate Change ..............................1 l 5c. Wildlife ..........................11 -12 5d. Solid Waste ............................13 14 6. Considerations for Aspen .............................15 7. City Action ............................16 23 a. Status Quo .............................16 b. Voluntary Program ............................16 17 c. Labeling Requirements 17 18 d. Voluntary to Ordinance .............................18 e. Advanced Recovery Fee (ARF) on Plastic Single -Use Shopping Bags...... 18 -19 f. ARF on all disposable, single -use shopping bags 19 20 g. Ban on non- biodegradable plastic bags .............................20 h. Ban on plastic single -use shopping bags 20 21 i. Ban on all single -use shopping bags .............................21 j. Table of Options ..........................22 -23 Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 3 8. Benefits of a Citywide Reduction Program 24 26 a. Environmental .............................24 b. Cost Savings .............................24 c. Set an example .............................25 d. Community Engagement ..........................25 -26 9. Suggestions for Action .............................27 10. Conclusion .............................28 11. Appendices .............................29 Appendix A. Equation of Oil used per Plastic bag .............................29 Appendix B. List of Strategies adopted by other Jurisdictions .......................30 Appendix C. Works Cited ..........................31 -32 Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 4 INTRODUCTION There are few items as ubiquitous in our modern culture as the disposable shopping bag. Handed out by the billions every day in nearly every retail location around the world, disposable bags are everywhere a sort of global epidemic. With more than four trillion used every year worldwide, plastic bags are by far the preferred product compared to their paper counterparts (World Watch Institute 2004). The United States alone goes through 100 billion disposable plastic shopping bags per year. In several developing countries like Mexico, South Africa, and Kenya locals joke that the plastic grocery bag is so ever present it deserves to be renamed the "national flower." Such abundance has resulted in a considerable amount of natural resources, money and time being allocated to support the disposable bag industry (Herrera 2008). Environmental and economic concerns related to disposable bag production such as an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, use of non- renewable resources, destruction of terrestrial and marine ecosystems, hazards to human health, transportation costs and excess production of waste have given several municipalities reason to question the industry's sustainability. Is such a short -lived item really worth the headache? Are disposable shopping bags necessary and if not, what are the alternatives? As a national pioneer in environmental initiatives, it comes as no surprise that the Aspen community is interested in exploring a solution to the growing demand for disposable, single -use shopping bags. This report, prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE), was written in response to requests from government officials and community members asking that a comprehensive study of the disposable bag industry be put together for review. The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with an objective resource that analyzes both the plastic and paper shopping bag industry in terms of their environmental and economic effects on our local community. The report will also consider the implications of both industries on a global scale. CORE hopes to supply the City with a substantive argument to address the issue of disposable shopping bags in a manner that is effective and appropriately modeled to meet the needs of Aspen. Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 5 METHOD This report is divided into seven sections. The first section provides historical context for the use of disposable, single -use shopping bags in the United States by reviewing manufacturing procedures of plastic and paper shopping bags. The second section examines each industry's environmental liabilities, such as greenhouse gas emissions, natural resource consumption, hazards to wildlife and solid waste production. The following two sections review consumption of single -use shopping bags in Aspen and the benefits of running a citywide reduction program. The final sections provide a list of suggestions for action, examples of legislation and strategies adopted by other jurisdictions, and a final recommendation by CORE. Researchers relied on primary resources, such as interviews with local grocers and waste management officials, print media sources, government documents and statistical data. Reports prepared by other jurisdictions and non governmental organizations were also consulted. Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 6 HISTORY OF THE DISPOSABLE, SINGLE-USE SHOPPING Paper Charles Stillwell, a mechanical engineer from Ohio, designed the modern paper bag in 1883 —a self opening sack with a square bottom and pleated sides that made it easier to fold. His design dramatically improved the paper bag, making it into a common item in most American households by the turn of the 20` century. Today, the United States uses an estimated 10 billion paper grocery bags each year. The industry estimates fourteen million trees are harvested annually to meet demand in the U.S (Maloney and Stanton 2007). Bags are produced from trees that must be grown, felled, logged, dried, chopped, and then processed to make pulp for paper. In North America, softwoods are the most common source of timber for the paper industry. Trees are extracted from both natural forests and timber plantations. In the United States the majority of trees come from the Southeast where pines are plentiful and inexpensive. There is concern, however, that American producers are being priced out by competitors in South America, Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia where old growth forests are increasingly being replaced by timber plantations (Vanesselt 2001; Roberts 2007). The concern over paper bags is not that they will independently contribute to a rise in deforestation. However, it is that paper, and paper packaging, in general puts an unnecessary strain on the world's forests. Worldwide, forty percent of industrial wood harvest goes to supply the paper industry. Paper demand has more than doubled in the past fifteen years and analysts do not expect consumption to subside over the next few decades (Abramovitz 1999; World Resources Institute Earth Trends 2008). Figure 1 shows the projected increase by region in consumption between 2005 and 2015. 1 Many developing countries are still well below the standard paper consumption levels necessary to meet basic literacy and communication needs. Emerging economies, like China, India and Brazil, are also experiencing an increase in their consumption due to a rise in disposable income (and thus more opportunities for packaging of consumer items) and proliferation of more office -based industries (Vanasselt 2001). Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 7 Figure 1. Global increase in paper and paperboard consumption World paper and paperboard consumption by region, 2005 -2015 1 00,000` 80,000 60,000 United States O —Western Europe 40,000 china Japan 20,000 Latin America 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: RISI 2007 An even more telling statistic about paper consumption is that the United States, the largest user of paper products in the world, now uses more paper for packaging than for communication purposes (EPA Office of Solid Waste 2008). In 2007, Americans threw away 40 million tons of paper packaging materials (i.e. corrugated cardboard boxes, cartons, bags, and protective papers) and 27.4 million tons of communication papers (i.e. books, magazines, mail, phone books, and office papers). Approximately 62% of packaging paper and 47% of communication materials were recovered for recycling. Four hundred and twenty thousand tons of bags and sacks were recycled in 2007. Chemicals are used to disperse and bleach fibers so that they return to a pulp state. The pulp is then re- processed and most commonly used to produce corrugated cardboards. Pitikin County does not track paper bag recycling rates for the County but believes that they are in line with the national average (email communication with Jason Ferguson). Plastic Although paper bags have been a household item for over a century, the plastic shopping bag is an item of contemporary history. Retailers introduced the first single -use plastic bags in the United States in 1975. Supermarkets nationwide soon offered them as a more convenient alternative to the unwieldy Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 8 paper grocery bag; today more than 80% of all grocery bags are plastic (American Plastics Council). By 2008, four trillion plastic shopping bags were used globally and more than 100 billion in the United States alone (World Watch Institute 2004). The popularity of the plastic shopping bag is simple. It is lightweight, strong, inexpensive and convenient. Grocers appreciate the plastic bag because it is easy to transport, takes up less storage space and is much cheaper than paper (Roach 2003; Eskenazi 2009). Customers like that it is waterproof, has handles that make it easy to carry, is easily compactable, and has a double use as a trash can liner. Plastic bags are made from a resin by- product of petroleum refining called polyethylene. The resin, shaped like a small pellet, is heated to 340 degrees Farenheit and cooled in a long tube -like form. As the plastic cools a machine drops a hot bar at intervals to create the top and bottom of each bag. The bags are then separated from one another, stamped with handle holes, and sent to a labeling facility where they are branded and shipped to retailers. Bags come in a number of different sizes and thickness. The most common are made from high- density polyethylene (HDPE #2) or low- density polyethylene (LDPE #4). 2 LDPE #4 bags are thicker and are generally used by department stores and other commercial retailers. Conversely, HDPE #2 bags are used by high sales volume stores like supermarkets, pharmacies, convenience stores and restaurants because they are inexpensive and their thinness is ideal for one -time use activities. In 2007, plastic packaging and non durable containers added 13.6 tons of garbage to the American waste stream (OSW 2008). One and a half tons were recovered for recycling. However, that still leaves 12 million tons of plastic, or oil —one of the world's most precious, non renewable resources sitting in our landfills. Supplying the U.S plastic shopping bag industry alone requires 12 million barrels of oil a year, an amount equal to what this country imports in one day. Recycling programs, like the one in Aspen, do exist. However, the logistics of recycling lightweight plastic bags make the process widely inefficient and often not cost effective. Problems with sorting contaminated and low quality products and lack of interest from international markets s also prevent recycling programs from growing (Maloney and Stanton 2007). Most studies estimate only 1 -3% of plastic bags are recycled in the U.S. 2 The numbers #2 and #4 stand for the recycling symbol of the bag. 3 Emerging countries typically purchase recyclables from the United States because it is cheaper to import used products and remake them than invest in the production/extraction of new resources. Given the ever present nature of plastic shopping bags around the world, emerging countries have no use for our waste. Instead, some countries are buying the plastics for a cheap price and incinerating them under lax environmental laws. Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 9 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The environmental implications of the single -use shopping bag industry are vast. As a disposable and widely used item, single -use shopping bags are inherently destructive (Herrera 2008). In particular, the industry has adverse effects on human health, climate change, resource consumption, terrestrial and marine ecosystems, and solid waste management. The following section will provide quantifiable information on the environmental liabilities of both plastic and paper bags based on life -cycle analyses (LCA). An LCA should examine the entire life cycle of a product, including the extraction and processing of raw materials, manufacturing, transportation and distribution of the final product, and recycling and /or disposal of the product once it is no longer in use. CORE did not produce an independent LCA, but rather relied on studies done by others to analyze environmental impacts. Resource Consumption Both the plastic and paper bag industries are resource intensive. Aside from actual raw materials manufactured, both industries require significant amounts of resources such as fossil fuels and water to transport, generate, and process materials. �illi Each plastic shopping bag requires .005 gallons of oil to produce. 4 At a consumption rate of 100 per year, the United States uses 12 million barrels of oil each year to sustain its plastic bag habit. Even with the price of oil hovering around $40 a barrel, a five -year low, Americans will spend nearly half a billion dollars on plastic shopping bags this year. Fourteen million trees are cut down every year to support the demand for paper bags in the United States. Most timber comes from pine forests in the Southeast, home to some of the most biologically diverse forests in North America. However, the American paper and pulp industry is beginning to rely more on international producers, such as Brazil, where commodity prices are lower (WRI 2001; Roberts 2007). •It takes 594 BTUs (British Thermal Units) of energy to produce one plastic bag and 17 BTUs to recycle it (Federal Office of the Environment 1988). Each paper bag requires 2,511 BTUs to produce and more than 1,400 BTUs to recycle (ibid). Energy use associated with paper bag production is higher than plastic because the process is substantially more labor intensive. 5 The paper industry is the third largest industrial user of energy in the United States (US Department of Energy). In the United States, paper bag manufacturing uses enough water to fill 4,857 Olympic size pools every year (Ecobilan 2004). 4 See Appendix A to view calculations 5 A tree must be felled, taken to the mill (where it will sit for three years to dry) stripped of its bark and chipped into small squares, pressure cooked, treated with chemicals until it becomes a pulp, washed and pressed, all before it becomes a piece of paper. The paper then must be cut, packaged and shipped to its final destination —an exercise that uses more resources than plastic due to the weight and size of paper bags. Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 10 The U.S plastic bag industry requires more than 5.5 million cubic meters of water annually or enough to fill 2,210 Olympic size pools (ibid). Pollution /Climate Change Climate change is the result of an increase in greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, largely due to anthropogenic activities such as the extraction and combustion of fossil fuels for energy and land -use change. Life -cycle analyses of both a plastic and a paper shopping bag show that pollutants associated with each are considerable. In total, the disposable, single -use shopping bag industry in the United States emits 3.85 million tons of CO2- equivalent each year! (Maloney and Stanton 2007) For every 100 plastic bags manufactured, nearly seven pounds of CO2_equivalent is released into the atmosphere (ibid). Of the top six most toxic chemicals ranked by the U. S Environmental Protection Agency, five are commonly used by the plastics industry. These chemicals, such as phthalates, are often carcinogenic and end up as pollutants in our air, water and soil. The paper and pulp industry is the fourth largest industrial emitter of greenhouse gas emissions in the world (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007). For every 100 paper bags produced, 17 pounds of CO2- equivalent is released (Maloney and Stanton 2007). The paper and pulp industry is ranked the fifth largest emitter of toxic water pollutants by the EPA's Toxic Release Inventory. Primary pollutants include, but are not limited to, methanol, hyrdrochloric acid, ammonia, dioxins, lead, formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, mercury and arsenic. Other air pollutants include sulfur dioxides, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxides and particulates, all of which contribute to ozone depletion, acid rain and smog. (Toxic Release Inventory 2006) Burning fossil fuels also contributes to eutrophication, a condition that occurs when excessive amounts of nutrients (e.g nitrogen) are released into soil or surface water due to atmospheric emissions or industrial effluents. Eutrophication causes oxygen imbalance and can lead to die -offs in marine environments. Both the plastics and paper industry are responsible for eutrophication (Herrera 2008). 6 There are six greenhouse gas emissions considered to be contributing to global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They are carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, sulfur hexafluoride, PFCs and HFCs. 7 Phthalates are used as plastic softeners or as solvents. Tests show they can cause reproductive abnormalities, birth defects, and damage to the liver, kidneys and lungs. Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 11 Wildlife The environmental fall -out from the plastics industry on marine species is staggering. Up to 1 million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals die each year due to ingestion of and entanglement in plastic debris (Wallace 1985). When one considers that the average American throws out 15 tons of plastic packaging during their lifetime, it is not surprising how much ends up in our oceans. The light weight of plastic bags makes them one of the largest offenders of marine litter. Even when a plastic bag is properly disposed of in a landfill or recycling bin, wind can easily displace and dump it close to waterways or drains. Once at sea, birds, marine mammals, fish and sea turtles often eat pieces of the bags, mistaking them for food such as jellyfish or sponges. Scientists have found several marine birds with stomachs full of plastic particles. Several studies suggest that as much as 80% of all marine debris is plastic (California Coastal Commission 2006; NOAA 2008). In the Pacific Ocean there are two "floating islands called the Pacific Trash Gyres, of such debris that put together are larger than the entire United States (see Figure 2). Scientists recorded that within a 5 million square mile radius there is six times more plastic than plankton (Ingraham 2001). Figure 2. Computer Generated Images of the "Floating Islands of Trash" in the Pacific Ocean Paper bags are less of a litter problem than plastic bags due to a shorter lifetime and higher weight density. Unlike plastic, paper biodegrades after 1 -2 months in a natural environment. Furthermore, 8 Offshore surveys of marine debris in the North East Atlantic between 2003 and 2005 found plastic bags to be the most common litter item seen at sea. (Hebridean Whale and Dolphin Trust) Another survey in the South East Pacific found plastic bags represented 48% of all floating marine debris. (Thiel et al, 2003). Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 12 paper bags are heavy enough to remain in trashcans, recycling bins and landfills and therefore are less susceptible to wind litter. However, it is important to remember habitat destruction and erosion when considering the implications of paper bags on wildlife. The United States fells 14 million trees annually in order to produce enough paper bags to satisfy the American consumer. For every tree that comes down, several species lose their homes, a tract of land is disrupted, and a carbon sink source is destroyed. The paper industry is one of the worst offenders of deforestation in the world. As caretaker of the headwaters of the Roaring Fork River, the Aspen community should be conscience of the adverse effects of disposable bag litter on local ecosystems and riparian species. Solid Waste In 1960, plastic waste comprised less than 1 of total municipal waste in the United States. By 2007, plastics became the second largest waste product, generating more than 30 million tons of waste per year. Today, plastics represent roughly 12% of municipal waste (OSW 2008). Each American throws away an estimated 3.5 lbs of plastic bags each year. In 2007, 590,000 tons of plastic shopping bags were discarded (OSW 2008; American Chemistry Council 2008). The EPA estimates that it takes plastics roughly 1,000 years to photodegrade, a process that breaks the material into tiny particles. However, even broken into tiny pieces, plastics never fully biodegrade because they are petroleum- based. These pieces often end up as toxic particulates in our soil and aquifers. Littered plastic bags are a contaminant of storm water run -off and often end up clogging drains and sewer systems. Several Southeast Asian cities blame plastic bags for blocking floodwaters from draining during monsoon seasons. The country of Bangladesh went so far as to ban disposable shopping bags, claiming they were tragic barriers during the catastrophic floods of 1997 and 1998 (BBC 2002). Their lightweight also makes them a costly nuisance for trash collectors and recycling facilities because they can be windswept out of receptacles. The paper bag industry produces more waste in our landfills than plastic. More than one million tons of bags and sacks were thrown away in 2007 (OSW 2008). Although paper is biodegradable, the EPA contends that our modern landfills make biodegradation nearly impossible due to lack of water, light, and oxygen (EPA website). Pitkin County Landfill does not track the amount of plastic and paper bags delivered to their premises on an annual basis. However, employees attest that Aspen's numbers are similar to national averages. In 2008, the City recycled 8,6901bs of plastic shopping bags (email communication with Richard Ludwig). Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 13 Table 1. Plastic or Paper? Environmental Comparisons z Paper 'Plastic (Per mlllzon produced) (Perm lionwroduced) Energy To produce: 2.51 billion BTUs* To produce: 594 million BTUs To recycle: 1.44 billion BTUs To recycle: 17 million BTUs Resources •Water: 1,457 m3 Water .55 xr3. r •Trees 1400 •'Petroleu_rn 120 barr Pollution CO2- equivalent: 76 tons CO2- equivalent: 31 tons 50 x more water pollutants than plastic Wildlife Habitat`destruction !`Marine animals and seabirds. x adversely affected each year due to ingestion of'or entanglement in plastic bags Trash/Litter Time to biodegrade as litter: 1 -2 •'Time to biodegrade as litter: months Indefinite (Plastics break into small Time to biodegrade in a landfill: plastic pieces as they degrade, but Centuries never truly return to organic material) Space in the landfill: 63 tons Time to biodegrade in a landfill: Indefinite/Never •'Space' in the landfill: 7 tons An estimated 4 billion worldwide end up as litter every year —tied end to end the bags could circle the Earth 63 times *BTU= British Thermal Unit Due to lack of water, oxygen and light, paper does not biodegrade properly in modern landfills. Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 14 CONSIDERATIONS ASPEN Aspen has very few locations that rely heavily on disposable shopping bags. The major four are the two supermarkets Clark's and City Market and the two hardware stores Miner's and Ace Hardware. The supermarkets each average nearly 1,000 bags a day during season and around 750 a day during off- season (conversation with Clark's). Other stores that distribute disposable bags regularly are Carl's, the Grog Shop, and Grape and Grain. Restaurants, clothing and apparel shops, and gift stores also give out disposable bags to customers. However, the magnitude of high quantity sales volume in these places is significantly less than at a supermarket or hardware store. Restaurants and boutique also often distribute more durable bags (such as LDPE #4 bags) that are not meant for only single -use activities. Many customers use bags from high end stores multiple times before throwing them away. Should the City decide to take action against disposable bags, Council Members would need to decide whether to implement a program that is narrowly focused on stores with high quantity sales volume or one that takes a more broad action against all disposable shopping bags, regardless of type or origination. The advantage of targeting only stores with high bag distribution is that the City could address the largest offenders first. Supermarkets have both the staff and technical capacity to accommodate a recycling mandate, fee requirement, ban, or change of bag material. Furthermore, supermarkets are more accustomed to the culture of reusable bags given that many customers have already made a choice to switch. The disadvantage of not imposing regulations on all stores is that it establishes an "uneven playing field" amongst retailers. Supermarkets and hardware stores may feel as if they have been unjustly singled -out to deal with the issue while other stores are exempt from regulations. Moreover, if the idea is to change consumers' mindset towards automatic consumption of unneeded items, then developing a program that only partially addresses this issue could lead to failure. The final decision on this matter will largely depend on the logistics (i.e. whether the City supports voluntary or mandatory action) of the City's plan. The City should conduct citizen questionnaires and organize a community work session where voters can voice their opinions and suggestions on the issue. Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 15 CITY ACTION The following is a list of options that CORE has identified as strategies to address the issue of single -use shopping bags. Various municipalities around the world have implemented these strategies —some with little success, others with much fanfare (See Appendix A for full list). It is suggested that any strategy the City of Aspen decides to support should be modified to the needs of local retailers and consumers. It is also suggested that any action include a substantial education/public awareness component. Citizens must be reminded that a reusable bag campaign is only as effective as the sum of its parts. Reduction of environmental and economic inimts occurs if consumers are conscience of their actions and actually bring shopping bags to the store. If not, encouraging the use of reusable bags in place of disposable ones will not produce desired results. CORE is willing to assist the City in developing and executing an educational plan, if needed. 1. Status Quo The vast majority of towns in the United States have not passed an ordinance limiting the use of single use shopping bags. The City of Aspen would not suffer any political or legal consequences should it choose to do the same. However, should Aspen choose to follow a business -as -usual path, the City will not be relieved of any costs associated with the transport and clean up of littered bags and /or the environmental implications associated with their use and disposal. Costs: Continuation of status quo costs associated with labor, transport and landfill management. Benefits: N/A 2. Voluntary Program There is much to be said about the effectiveness of educational campaigns on voluntary compliance. During a three -month competition in 2008, Aspen and Telluride eliminated more than 140,000 plastic shopping bags from the environment. 10 The success of the program was due largely in part to community organizers such as CORE and the City's Environmental Health Department engaging with the public about the ills of disposable, single -use shopping bags. CORE was able to raise public awareness through local radio and television stations, newspaper articles, posters, flyers and free reusable bag give aways. However, grocers argue that the enthusiasm for reusable bags does not last for extended periods of time without government support (personal communication with City Market and Clark's). The advantage of 9 Nick Sterling of Natural Capitalism Solutions asserts that reusable bags are only effective in decreasing environmental and economic costs if they are used at least once a week. Otherwise, the resources used to produce reusable bags outweigh the savings. 10 This number is based on the reusable bags used in stores between May 24 and September 1, 2008. Telluride residents used 29,351 reusable bags, while Aspen residents used 26,793. Each reusable accounts for an estimated 2.5 plastic bags. Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 16 the Aspen Telluride challenge was that 1) it was a friendly competition between two rivaling ski towns and 2) it only lasted for three months. If the city chose to establish a long -term voluntary program, it would be difficult to replicate the success of the Aspen Telluride challenge given the time commitment. Studies have shown that although limiting the use of single -use shopping bags is an easy solution to a major environmental problem, changing everyday consumer habits is substantial (Gamerman 2008; Palmer and Weller 2002). Other towns, cities and countries have proven that relying on volunteerism to resolve the issue of disposable bags for the long -term is futile. Australia, Great Britain and Hong Kong have all attempted voluntary reduction programs with limited luck. Should the City choose to push a measure encouraging the voluntary use of reusable bags, it is imperative that substantial educational efforts compliment this measure. The City would need to establish an outreach campaign that is responsible for boosting public awareness about the environmental and economic costs of using disposable, single -use shopping bags. In order to make the education component more effective, the City would need to create a fund that subsidized reusable bag give -aways at local stores. During the Aspen Telluride Challenge, CORE noted that customers are more likely to voluntarily change their habits if the alternate option (i.e. a reusable bag) is readily available. Costs: Funds for educational programming, reusable bag give -aways and staff support. CORE would be willing to partner with the Canary Initiative and the Department of Environmental Health to coordinate educational events and raise public awareness in the community. Benefits: Potential reduction of single -use bags in groceries will result in a reduction of transport, labor and landfill management costs. 3. Labeling Requirement The City would mandate that all disposable shopping bags have a label describing their material content as traditional, recycled, or biodegradable. This gives customers the ability to understand what types of resources have been used to produce their shopping bag. Such transparency also provides an incentive for retailers to choose more environmentally friendly products in order to please customers. The disadvantage of labeling requirements is cost and complexity of changing bag production (Herrera 2008). Retailers would need to disrupt their manufacturing stream (i.e. finding a new bag distributor) in order to accommodate a City mandate. Furthermore, both biodegradable and recycled products are more expensive than traditional products. Estimates range between 8 to 10 cents a bag, whereas traditional plastic bags are between 2 to 3 cents per bag. The increase in price would certainly be passed on to consumers. Lastly, a labeling requirement may not be environmentally effective because Aspen does not have the capability to dispose of biodegradable bags. Most biodegradable bags must be processed in an industrial composting facility in order to degrade properly. If not, they are no different than traditional bags. At present, there are less than 100 such facilities in the United States (Barclay 2004). Costs: Labeling requirements are more costly for grocers. The City may also incur additional costs to accommodate biodegradable materials in separate recycling receptacles. Furthermore, the City would be responsible for the cost of an industrial composting facility, should one be necessary. Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 17 Benefits: If biodegradables are disposed of properly, a labeling requirement has the potential to reduce landfill management needs, and thus labor and transport costs. 4. Voluntary to Ordinance An ordinance (such as a ban or a levy) would be based on the success of the voluntary program. For example, if Aspen were able to reduce single -use shopping bags by a certain percent by January 1, 2010 (based on 2008 numbers), then the voluntary program would remain in effect. If not, the City Council would revise the program to apply a levy or ban on single -use shopping bags. Should the Voluntary Program continue past January 1, 2010, the City would review the program on a yearly basis barring that standard reduction levels were met. Local retailers could easily track voluntary compliance with a special key code that counts the amount of reusable bags used at check -out. Both Clark's and City Market already have key code counters in place. Costs: Management fees for monitoring voluntary compliance and, should it be needed, legislative action. Additional funds for educational support, free bag give aways, and staffing. If the voluntary program is not successful, the City would continue to incur business -as -usual costs. Benefits: Reduction of landfill management, labor and transport costs associated with the disposal of disposable shopping bags. Free green marketing if the program is a success. 5. Advanced Recovery Fee (ARF) on Plastic Single -Use Shopping Bags People respond to financial incentives. Several communities have realized this to be the case, and, perhaps, none more than Ireland. In 2002, Ireland passed a 15 euro- cent fee called the `PlasTax' on all HDPE #2 plastic shopping bags. The ordinance requires that all supermarkets charge customers a fee for each plastic bag they use. Retailers are fined if they pay the fee on behalf of the customer. Although bags were not outlawed outright, the fee, coupled with an enhanced educational campaign, made carrying them socially unacceptable. As New York Times reporter, Elisabeth Rosenthal, observed, "(carrying a plastic bag in Ireland) is on par with wearing a fur coat or not cleaning up after one's dog" (2008). Within five months of the fee mandate, the P1asTax resulted in a 90% decrease in plastic bag use. 11 More than six years later, Ireland still leads as one of the most successful levy programs in the world. The Ministry of the Environment raised the `P1asTax' to 22 euro -cent per bag in 2007, in order to combat a slight increase in single -bag usage in 2005 and 2006. The Swedish retailer, Ikea, has also initiated a hugely successful levy program that has reduced plastic bag use substantially in its stores worldwide (email communication with Ikea bag campaign contact Lisa Davis). The revenue generated from the Irish `P1asTax' is collected in a green fund managed by the Ministry of the Environment. The green fund supports both national and local sustainability initiatives, such as clean 11 Due to Ireland's overarching reliance on plastic bags, the Environmental Ministry did not pass a levy on paper bags as well. However, the ministry did promise to pass similar legislation on paper bags if stores made the switch from plastic to paper. Thus far, no legislation has been passed to tax paper bags. Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 18 up efforts, efficiency projects, solid waste reduction, and environmental educational campaigns. Funds were also used to provide customers with free reusable bags during the initial phase -in of the `P1asTax' (BBC 2002). The disadvantage of placing an ARF only on plastic bags is that it encourages customers to switch to paper bags. As described in the environmental section, the production of paper bags puts considerable strain on our planet's natural resources. Given the environmental impacts of paper production, it would be illogical to give paper the advantage of being the preferred option over plastic. Furthermore, paper is more expensive than plastic. If retailers are required to provide `free' bags, customers will bear the cost increase of this change in higher food prices. Costs: Management fees associated with monitoring the ARF program. Additional funds for educational support, free bag give aways, and staffing. Benefits: Reduction of landfill management, transport and labor costs associated with the disposal of single -use shopping bags. Revenue generated from the fee could support green initiatives like the ones adopted by the Irish Environmental Ministry, as well as more unique local projects such as efficiency updates to affordable housing units and feasibility studies for an enhanced transportation system. If needed, CORE would be willing to manage the greens funds by establishing a grant cycle similar to REMP. Free green marketing for the City of Aspen. 6. ARF on all Disposable, Single -Use Shopping Bags Recognizing that both plastic and paper shopping bags are unsustainable, the City could mandate that both types of bags be subject to an ARF. This would reduce confusion and bias towards one type of bag over another. Customers would be charged a $.10 to .20 fee for every disposable bag used at the register. Fees would be itemized on the customer's receipt. Revenue from the ARF could be collected by the city, by retailers or by both to fund green projects and events in Aspen. It could also be used to raise public awareness about the unsustainable nature of disposable, single -use items. In order for the ARF to be fair and effective, customers would need to be well educated by the City on why this initiative is both necessary and important. The City of Seattle passed a resolution in August 2008 mandating a .20 -cent ARF on all disposable shopping bags distributed by supermarkets, convenience and drug stores. According to the ordinance, retailers whose annual gross profits are less than US 1 million are permitted to use the ARF funds for in -store environmental projects, such as the more efficient energy use or the distribution of reusable bags. Those retailers with annual gross profits of $US 1 million or more are required to remit 75% of funds to the City of Seattle for use in solid waste mitigation and management projects. The ARF was scheduled to come into effect on January 1, 2009. According to polls and citizen activist groups, the majority of Seattle residents were in support of the ordinance. However, special interests such as the American Chemistry Council (ACC) 12 were successful in lobbying to overturn the law until 12 The American Chemistry Council, American Plastics Council and other industry groups have played an integral part in derailing other ordinances on disposable shopping bags. Oakland and San Francisco, Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 19 it was put to public vote (communication with Seattle environmental consultants). The ordinance has been sidelined until the City holds a referendum vote in August 2009. Costs: Management fees associated with monitoring the ARF program. Additional funds for educational support, free bag give aways, and staffing. Benefits: Reduction of landfill management, transport and labor costs associated with the disposal of single -use shopping bags. Revenue generated from the fee could support in -store green initiatives or community- based environmental projects. Free green marketing for the City of Aspen. 7. Ban on Non Biodegradable Plastic Bags In 2007, the City of San Francisco passed a ban on non biodegradable bags in all stores with annual profits of 2 million or more. Stores affected by the ban are responsible for providing biodegradable plastic or paper bags to the customer. They are also required to encourage clients to purchase reusable bags through signage and incentive programs. The ban has reduced some environmental impacts of single -use shopping bags in San Francisco, such as energy costs and landfill waste. Biodegradable plastics require less oil to produce because they are made from organic materials such as corn, potato, rice or cellulose. 13 A ban on non biodegradable bags could be difficult to implement in Aspen. Aside from the lack of composting capabilities, Aspen's retailers may be unwilling to cover upfront costs of purchasing biodegradable bags in order to comply with new legislation. In San Francisco, the ordinance affected retailers such as Wal -mart, Whole Foods, CVS and Sam's Club— sizeable stores that could disperse higher costs nationwide. Conversely, local Aspen retailers, such as Clark's and Miner's, would face the challenge of passing off the higher costs of biodegradables to a much smaller customer base. Costs: Installation of new recycling and disposal receptacles; potential installation of an industrial recycling facility. Increased costs to grocers (up to 4 times more than traditional products) and customers. Grocers will accrue additional costs due to interruption and alterations of operating budget. Benefits: If biodegradables are disposed of properly, the program will reduce landfill management, transport and labor associated with the disposal of traditional shopping bags. 8. Ban on Plastic Single -Use Shopping Bags Municipalities, states and countries all over the world have threatened to ban the plastic single -use shopping bag from large retail stores. The most notable, and successful, have been implemented in Bangladesh and South Australia, where both governments cited plastic shopping bags as a major culprit California and Maui, Hawaii have all faced opposition to their reduction plans from special interest groups (Progressive Bag Alliance website; Eskenazi 2009). 13 It should be noted that most biodegradable products are made from food crops. Producing a disposable item from edible materials may not only be detrimental to our food stream, but also to our non renewable resource stocks. The American corn industry (a common feedstock for biodegradable items) relies on petroleum to plant, harvest and fertilize its crops. Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 20 of clogging urban drains and destroying marine ecosystems. Other successful legislation passed in South Africa and several towns in Alaska where communities claimed plastic litter was unmanageable. In April 2008, the prominent "green" grocer Whole Foods also banned plastic bags from its stores. A ban on plastic shopping bags would reduce local environmental issues such as litter in the Roaring Fork Valley. However, if retailers replaced plastic with paper, the ban would not address the broader environmental impacts of the single -use shopping bag industry such as greenhouse gas emissions, resource consumption and adverse affects on health. Costs: Management fees associated with creating legislation and monitoring the ban in retail stores. Increase in costs for grocers /customers if paper bags are offered as a "free" replacement. Additional cost increase for grocers due to an interruption and alteration in the management of the operating budget. Benefits: Reduction of costs associated with labor, transport, recycling and landfill management required for the disposal of plastic shopping bags. 9. Ban on all Single -Use Shopping Bags A ban on all single -use shopping bags would be the most comprehensive legislation action the City could take to address all environmental and economic issues associated with disposable bags. Should such a ban pass, customers would be responsible for bringing their own bags to retail locations. Aspen would be the first municipality in the country to take such bold action against single -use shopping bags. Aside from standard opposition (e.g industry lobbyists and community activists) that might block legislation, Aspen's tourist population could prove to be the greatest barrier to passing a ban on single use shopping bags. In fact, a ban could create more waste because visitors would have to purchase new reusable bags each time they vacationed in Aspen. The bags would go to the landfill after their departure, thus creating more waste and using more resources than the traditional plastic bag. A possible remedy to this issue would be a recycling program established by the Chamber Resort Association. Hotels would be responsible for buying reusable bags to put in each guest's room. The guest would then have the ability to use the bag for the duration of their stay. After their departure, the bags would remain in the rooms to be used by the next customer. The initial costs of the bags would be passed off to the guest as a green tax .10 per bag. Costs: Management fees associated with creating legislation and monitoring of the ban in retail locations. Support funds for a reusable bag program in local hotels. Potential increase in waste management costs due to increase of reusable bags in landfill. Benefits: Reduction of costs associated with labor, transport, and landfill management required for the disposal of single -use shopping bags. Free green- marketing potential due to Aspen being the first jurisdiction to pass such legislation. Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 21 Table 2. Advantages and Disadvantages of evaluated shopping bag strategies Option Advantages_ Disadvantages 1 Status Quo No legislation or action needed. *Environmental and economic costs continue 2 Voluntary Program •No legislation or enforcement ineeded I�To urgency Supported by public in the past No cleq gets •Least intrusive 1Vlinimal environmental and �Commuiuty engagement economic benefits 3 Labeling Requirement Raises community awareness about Potentially ineffective w/o environmentally friendly products appropriate disposal facilities •Reduces the use of non- renewable Cost increase to City, resources such as petroleum to produce retailer and customer plastics Biodegradable products use food sources and still require non- renewable energy resources to operate manufacturing facilities. 4 Voluntary to. Ordinance Puts responsibility on:pub ic's Complex legislative shoulders structure Potential for community activism •Delay of action if voluntary •`Reduction of environmental and', program is unsuccessful economic Impacts'' Potentialfor community co mp lamtsif voluntary; y compliance is low, 5 ARF on only Plastic Reduces environmental and economic Makes paper the preferred Disposable Shopping impacts from manufacturing, option, despite higher Bags transportation' and disposal of DPE #2 environmental and economic bags costs Gives citizens an incentive to take Administrative and responsibility for their actions management cost increase to Revenue stream created from ARF to City fund local green projects Cost increase to customer Free green marketing *If only applied to a subset of retailers, leads to an "uneven playing field" where customers are only partially encouraged to change behavior If universally applied, may present substantial costs to small retailers to administer fee due to bureaucratic' nature 6 ARF on all Disposable •Significant reduction of •Management cost increase to Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 22 Shoppuig Bags` environmental and econorruc impacts the;City to admuuster and from manufacturing; transportation =and= enforce the program disposal of bags •Cost increase to -the ives:citizens an incentive to change customer behavior could transfer to other If jo nl a lied to a subset of y PP activities retailers, leads to an "uneven Treats both plastic and paper equall y, playing field" where- gives customers a choice customers are only partially Reduces operating ,costs for grocer encouraged to change Revenue stream createdfrom ARF to behavior fund local green projects If universally applied, Free green marketing for City, present su s tanti A. osts to small retailers t,o administer fee due to bureaucratic nature 7 Ban on non- •`Reduction of environmental and Increase cost to consumer Biodegradable Bags economic impacts from manufacturing and retailer disposable bags Potentially ineffective w/o Raises public awareness about appropriate disposal facilities environmentally friendly products Biodegradable products •`Free green marketing for City often created from food sources. No change in non- renewable energy sources used for manufacturing. 8 Ban on all Single use .Total reduction of local •Increase cost `to consumer Disposable Bag`s environmental and economic impacts Po tentiallywidely unpopular from manufacturing, transportation °and Take's"'i choice from the disposal of bags customer Reduces costs to grocers, and City May increase waste Aspen; would=be first nationally to generation if reusables are take 966h acctiort —Free Green used minimally, 11!Iarketing Issue for tourist community 1Vlandatoryencour4gernent of environmental'responsibility —could transfer,to other activities Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 23 BENEFITS OF A CITYWIDE REDUCTION PROGRAM Environment The City of Aspen would reap considerable environmental benefits if it were to encourage its citizens to restrict or avoid the use of disposable, single -use shopping bags. Direct rewards would be a decline in litter, less transportation emissions due to reduced collection and delivery of disposable shopping bags, and less impact on local ecosystems such as the Roaring Fork River. Indirect environmental benefits stem from the decline in production of disposable shopping bags that would otherwise be used in Aspen if no municipal action had been taken. A decline in manufacturing results in fewer natural resources (i.e. timber, petroleum, natural gas, and coal) used, a decrease in pollutants (i.e. greenhouse gas emissions, industrial effluents, and other hazardous contaminants), and less adverse effects on ecosystems and wildlife. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, this effort would pave the way for the City and its citizens to address other important environmental issues. Both a voluntary and mandatory action by the City against disposable shopping bags would establish a platform from which other environmental programs could build. Examples include a campaign to phase -out incandescent light bulbs, decrease the sale of disposable water bottles, or develop mandatory recycling requirements. Cost Savings Assuming that a standard HDPE #2 plastic bag costs .03 cents and a paper bag costs .15 cents, American retailers spend an estimated $4.5 billion annually on providing their customers with "free" shopping bags. This overhead cost is then priced into the cost of food or goods and passed onto the consumer. The average American pays $15 a year to use a supposedly "free" item, an item that not only generates unnecessary waste but represents a considerable burden on our natural resources. Imagine if this money was spent instead on a durable item that did not need to be replaced every time we visited the grocery store. The $15 paid by consumers each year does not account for the additional costs covered by tax dollars to collect and dispose of shopping bags, run recycling programs, organize litter pick -ups, and, in the case of a tourist resort -town like Aspen, handle seasonal influxes of landfill waste. The City of Seattle (population 590,000) estimates that over a 30 -year period it will spend roughly $39.5 million to manage the disposal of single -use shopping bags (Herrera 2008). Should the City of Aspen decide to address the use of disposable shopping bags, a mandatory fee will provide the City with the most savings. Fees on disposable shopping bags will not only reduce the amount of garbage generated, but will also produce substantial revenue for the City. According to the same study in Seattle, a. 15-cent fee on both plastic and paper bags would raise $228.2 million over a 30 -year time period for the City of Seattle (Herrera 2008). Set an Example Today's environmental problems are immense. Climate change has shifted the entire paradigm of what gets labeled an environmental liability. We —as consumers —are all guilty for our planet's self destruction and must take note that our actions have environmental consequences. Even something as Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 24 insignificant as a disposable bag comes with exponential environmental baggage in our post industrial society. As a world- renowned resort whose main attraction depends on its natural resources, Aspen understands the importance of being a green community. The City has already established itself as an environmentally conscience entity with programs such as the Canary Initiative, the Renewable Energy Mitigation Program, and the Efficient Building Code. Why not set another conservation precedent and create a citywide plan to reduce disposable bag consumption? Aspen is in a unique position to modify this unnecessary and wasteful habit. Unlike most other small towns, the City has an international and notable voice. Thanks to thousands of visitors coming in to town every year, Aspen's efforts and good deeds do not go unnoticed. If Aspen were to establish a program, which reduced the amount of disposable bags in circulation, the City would set a formidable example for other resort towns to follow. Finally, City Council members should remember that nearly 25 years ago Aspen was at the crossroads of another historic public debate —the issue of smoking in restaurants. Aspen took the initiative to set an example and became the first American municipality to ban smoking in restaurants in 1985. Today, every major city in the country has adopted a similar law. Community Engagement One of the most important aspects of a campaign to reduce single -use shopping bags is its ability to rally community support. In stores across the country, people have overwhelmingly embraced using a reusable tote in place of its disposable plastic or paper counterpart (Gamerman 2008). Reusable bags make people feel like they are a part of a movement advocating for change. Here are two examples of Aspen citizens asserting their desire to make a difference: A) Last spring, CORE began working with the EARTH Club at Aspen High School to address the issue of single -use plastic shopping bags by the tourist population in Aspen. CORE employees have been meeting with a group of 20 high school students once a week to brainstorm ideas for a reusable bag campaign in Aspen. The students were responsible for designing a bag that could be distributed to hotels as an Aspen souvenir for guests. The EARTH Club applied for and received a grant from CORE to cover the initial cost of producing 5,000 bags. The bags will be distributed to five hotels in Aspen on March 1, where they will be placed in rooms for guests to purchase for $5. The hope is that guests will use the EARTH Club bag for the duration of their stay and then take it with them upon departure. For each bag sold, the Earth Club will profit $1.05, which will be placed in a green fund for future conservation projects. Thanks to CORE's support, the reusable bag program is self- sustaining and should become a permanent component of the Aspen High School's community outreach. B) Between May 24` and September 1, 2008, CORE and the Sheep Mountain Alliance of Telluride organized a reusable bag challenge between the towns of Aspen, Telluride and Mountain Village. The program was overwhelmingly successful. Not only did the three towns save more than 140,000 plastic bags from going to the landfill, they also engaged citizens in a local campaign with quantifiable results. Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 25 After last year's success, Aspen, Telluride and Mountain Village have decided once again to challenge each other to a friendly competition. However, this year, the stakes have expanded. More than 20 towns in Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) have signed on to participate in a six -month public awareness campaign about reducing the use of single -use shopping bags. Five towns from Wyoming, Utah and Idaho will also compete. Beginning March lst, participating towns will be responsible for keeping track of the amount of reusable bags used in their community at local groceries, pharmacies and convenience stores. The final numbers will be tallied on a per capita basis. Results will be finalized in mid September. Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 26 SUGGESTIONS FOR ACTION This report recommends that the City take action against the use of disposable, single -use bags in our community. Given the environmental and economic impacts of both plastic and paper bags, we strongly advise that any adopted program addresses both materials equally. A program limiting only the use of plastic shopping bags would create and encourage a bias to choose paper bags arguably the worst offender between the two. We believe that the best and most effective way to urge action is to implement an ARF on all disposable shopping bags. An ARF would create an incentive for citizens to modify their behavior in order to incorporate more environmentally friendly habits into their daily lives. The decision to opt for reusable bags over disposable ones is a nominal and relatively painless choice. However, even such a minimal change can deliver vast results on consumer behavior. By imposing an ARF on disposable shopping bags, the City is encouraging its' citizens to be conscience of their actions and aware of the unintended consequences of even the smallest, daily habits. The basic structure for imposing such a program is already in place in Aspen. For over a year, CORE programming staff has made the issue of disposable bags a priority. They have worked closely with the City Department of Environmental Health to raise public awareness, monitor bag consumption and increase the circulation of reusable bags in the community. Last spring, CORE established a partnership with the Aspen High School Earth Club to organize a campaign that encourages tourists to use reusable bags. The students designed a bag that is not only practical, but also a piece of art that represents our city's environmental ethic. The High School program is one of many ideas that could jumpstart this movement. Other ideas are inter -city competitions, such as the Telluride -Aspen Challenge and the upcoming CAST challenge, community -wide clean up days, informational videos, educational events at schools, bag give -aways and recycling programs. If the public is saturated with information about the environmental and economic impacts of disposable shopping bags, it is less likely there will be significant opposition to a mandatory ARF. Lastly, it should be noted that an ARF should be an incentive to choose and reuse a reusable bag, not a penalty for using a plastic or paper one. By this we mean an ARF does not need to be set at .20 or .25 a bag to change consumers' behavior. To start, Aspen could set a price tag of .5 or .10 per bag in order to familiarize shoppers to the fee. Such a small amount may not drastically curb consumer behavior, but it will likely make shoppers think twice about asking for a bag when it isn't necessary or using a separate bag for every item purchased at the grocery. If the .5 or .10 charge is ineffective, the City will have leverage to raise the fee in the future. Prepared by the Conrnunity Office for Resource Efficiency Page 27 I NCLUSl N The most important thing to remember about disposable shopping bags is that they are luxury —not like a new car or dress, but a luxury nonetheless. We do not need disposable shopping bags to make our lives better or be more productive, but rather rely on them because they are available for our use. However, it is this sort of mindless consumption that has put us in the precarious environmental state that we are in today. Objects require resources to be manufactured, transported, stored and finally discarded; if we do not realize that every consumptive action has an equal or negative reaction than we will never succeed in restoring balance to our Earth. The issue of disposable shopping bags should not be ignored. They wreak havoc on our natural ecosystems, utilize precious resources, reinforce wasteful behavior and require time and money to manage. Most importantly, action on this issue is a definitive first step towards becoming a more sustainable and environmentally responsible community. If consumers are reminded on a daily basis that their actions have consequences (i.e. an ARF would demonstrate that "free" bags do have costs), imagine the trickle effect such an initiative could have on other consumptive habits. We will not solve the world's problems with action only against disposable shopping bags. But, maybe, with legislation and education, we will keep one less toxin out of our waterways, our soil, our food chain or our children's hands. And perhaps set a standard for thoughtful living. That would be something for the history books. The time to act is now. Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 28 APPENDICES Appendix A. Calculation of Oil used per Plastic Bag 1 barrel of oil 42 gallons 42 gallons x 12 million barrels 504,000,000 gallons 504,000,000 100,000,000,000 .005 gallons of oil per plastic bag Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 29 Appendix B. Alternative Strategies of Jurisdictions Policy Option Description Jurisdiction 1 EducationNoluntary Purpose is to change behavior Los Angeles, Seattle; through educational Australia; Italy; campaigns that encourage various retail locations customers to choose reusable. Sometimes coupled with targets or incentives. 2' Li= store:recyclink Voluntary- or =mandatory New York City; regulations on in- store United Kingdom; recycling bins for disposable' California; various US' shopping bags: citie`s 3 Labeling Requirements Bags must be stamped with San Francisco, Seattle;' description of raw materials various other locations and/or recycling potential. Maiidator "y A dvanced `Recovery Fee. Y A fee levied on "free" Ireland, Seattle; disposable bags in order to- Germany; certain offset disposal; management retailerssuchas Ikea and environmental costs of dealing with disposable bags: Fees range between`07 .33= cents per bag: 5 Product Bans Ban on the sale of plastic or Bangladesh; South paper bags; ban on the Australia; China; distribution of free bags. Westport, CT; various jurisdictions in Alaska 6' Product IZe'stnctions Restrictions on product'based San: Francisco, South on size, material type:or Africa; Clina,�Kenya; thickness: Some jurisdictions Uganda; Taiwan; limit use based on retailer certam retailers such size. as` Whole Foods 7 Reusable bag credits, giveaways, or Credit given to customer by Multiple cities; most sale the retailer when reusable bag supermarkets is used for a purchase- including Clark's, usually .01 to .05- cents per City Market Whole bag; reusable bags offered for Foods; other large sale at checkout retailers such as Wal- Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 30 mart, Target Ikea Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 31 Appendix C. Citations Articles Barclay, Eliza. "Composting that Plastic." Metropolis Magazine. 01 March 2004 Eskenazi, Joe. "Baggage: The city's politicos made the enviros happy by banning plastic bags, but left us with more pollution and cost." San Francisco Weekly 07 January 2009 Halweil, Brian. "Good Stuff: Plastic Bags, A necessary Eye sore World Watch Institute. 2004. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1499 "Irish Bag Tax Hailed Success." BBC News 02 August 2002 Gamerman, Ellen. "An Inconvenient Bag." Wall Street Journal 26 September 2008 Maloney, B. and Laura Stanton. "More than meets the Eye: Paper or Plastic." Washington Post 03 October 2007 Owen, James. "Oceans awash with Microscopic Plastics." National Geographic News 06 May 2004 "Planet Earth's New Nemisis." BBC News 08 May 2002 Roach, John. "Are Plastic Grocery Bags Sacking the Environment National Geographic News 02 September 2003 Rosenthal, Elizabeth. "Motivated by a Tax, Irish Spurn Plastic Bags." The New York Times 02 February 2008 Vanesselt, Wendy. "No End to Paperwork." World Resources 1998, updated 2001. Earth Trends: Washington DC Websites "Plastics Division." American Chemistry Council. 2009. http://www.americanchemistry.com/s--plastics/index.asp "Questions about your Community: Shopping Bags: Paper or Plastic or....?" Environmental Protection Agency. www.epa.gov /regionl /communities /shopba sg html U.S Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste United States Office of Solid Waste Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures. Washington: 2007 NOAA Marine Debris Program. "Information and Common Questions on Marine Debris." 2009. http://marinedebris.noaa.gov/ "Learn More. Reusablebags.com. 2009. http:/ /www.reusablebags.conVfacts.phR "Paper and Pulp News." Risi 2007. http: /www.risiinfo.conV Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 32 "Forest Production: Paper and Paperboard Database." The Environmental Information Portal. Earth Trends: World Resources Institute. http: /earthtrends.wri.org /searchable db /results.php? ey ars 1 &variable ID=570 &theme= 9 &cID= &cclD=O Reports Abramovitz, J.N and A.T Mattoon. 1999. Paper Cuts: Recovering the Paper Landscape Washington, DC: World Watch Institute Ecoliban. 2004. Environmental Impact Assessment of Carrefour Bags France: Carrefour Franklin. 1990. Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Polyethylene and Unbleached Paper Grocery Sacks. Kansas: Franklin Associates Herrera Environmental Consultants. 2008. Alternatives to Disposable Shopping Bags and Food Service Items: Volume 1 and 2. Seattle: Seattle Public Utilities Kinsella, S., Gleason, G., Mills, V. Rycroft, N., Ford, J., Sheehan, K. Martin, J. 2007 The State of the Paper Industry: Monitoring the Indicators of Environmental Performance. Ed. Jennifer Roberts. The Environmental Paper Network Personal Communication Coughlan, Philip. Herrera Consultants Research Analyst. Telephone communication. February 2009. Davis, Lisa. Ikea Public Relations Manager. Email communication. January 2009. Harvey, Michelle. Environmental Defense Corporate Partnerships Project Manager. Email communication. January 2009. Ludwig, Richard. Pitkin County Landfill Outreach Coordinator. Email and telephone conversations January 2009. Prepared by the Community Office for Resource Efficiency Page 33 TO: SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL FROM: RUSS FORREST, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: MANAGER'S REPORT DATE: AUGUST 15, 2011 Bus Service for Wine Festival By David Peckler In September there are a number of special events scheduled over the course of two weekends (Sept 10 and Sept. 17 &18 where RFTA and Town bus service has been reduced for the shoulder season. During the Fall after the Labor Day Festival, we take over the RFTA contract and are extremely downsized on the weekends. The RFTA service in the off season on the weekends is one trip every hour instead of the two trips that people are accustomed to. We cut back our staffing levels on the weekends to match the RFTA service level and the projected demand on an average weekend with a combined demand of 500 -800 passenger trips /day. The weekend service is comprised of: the RFTA departures at :15 after the hour and the return around :40 minutes after the hour, the Route 3 service with departures twice an hour at :20 and :50 to the Club, and the RFTA driver providing demand responsive service from :47 to :13 after the hour. We do have some overlap of demand responsive service scheduled for the peak times around lunch and end of work/dinner. When there is a special event held on the weekend, such as the Balloon Festival and Wine Festival for example, the combined demand for service jumps to over 2,000 passenger trips /day. This level of demand is beyond the resources we have scheduled for the Wine Balloon Festival.. I am requesting that Council approve a donation of 6 -8 hours of bus service during off season weekends, as the need warrants, to support community oriented activities. 6 -8 hours of service equates to $660 to $880 in donations. This would provide supplemental bus service for both the weekend of October Fest on September 10 and Wine and Balloon Fest on Saturday 17 and 18 The Transportation budget can absorb this cost. However, Transportation is asking authorization to absorb this cost and staff understands that the Rotary Club will be requesting that they not pay for additional service since the wine festival is a community fund raiser. The alternative is to charge back the event for additional service. Amplified Music for JAS JAS is requesting to have amplified music in the Patrons tent from a DJ on Saturday, September 3, 2011 from 10:00 PM to 12:00 Midnight. The permit for this event has historically allowed music until 10:30 PM. JAS is requesting these extended hours to host a separate ticketed event for a maximum of 1,000 persons as an additional fund raiser. Staff's experience is that noise complaints become frequent with outdoor amplified music after 10:30 PM from adjacent property owners, however, Staff believes this particular event, given its location, can be managed effectively so that any impacts are minimized. Special Meeting on September 12 At the August 1 st, Town Council meeting regarding capital projects planning, the Council indicated an interest to meet on September 12 to prioritize capital projects. Staff just wants to confirm that the Council would like to schedule a special meeting on this date. Colorado Association of Ski Town The next meeting of CAST is in Grand Lake on August 25 -26 The following meeting is in Park City on October 27 and 28 Please contact Barb Peckler to make an RSVP for the Grand Lake CAST meeting. Items /Strategic Plan Updated on August 9, 2011 The following Table is a summary of the action plan from the various topics discussed at the retreat in January. Action Priority Timing Who Base Village Next Steps 1 When Foreclosure is Russ Forrest completed Economic /Fiscal Actions 1 STO Metrics -FAB meeting to review Susan Hamley STO metrics on July 13 Aug 10th Board Structure Sept. 19, 2011 Susan Hamley (ASC Position) Summer Events/ -March 21 (Complete) Marianne Marketing Rakowski Sales Tax Study -March 21, 2011 Marianne (Complete) Rakowski Financial Updates June 6, 2011 /July 5, M.R. 2011 /next one as part of 2012 Budget Ice Age Discovery 1 Long Term/Tusk August 15, 2011 Tusk Force Force /Complete Business Plan 2011 short term -On going TM Reports Russ Forrest actions Susan H. Housing Housing Policy for 1 (Complete) Chris Conrad Development Housing Projects 3 Guidelines completed Joe Coffey on June 20 Council gave authorization for final phase of Rodeo on July 5th Environment 2 EAC Structure EAB's first meeting on Lesley /EAC August 19th REOP Policy May 2, 2011 (approved Mark Kittle Discussion 2n Reading) Urban Renewal Authority 2 September 12th Russell Forrest Capital Improvement 3 August 1 September Hunt Walker, Process 12th Solid Waste Collection 3 Staff is recommending Hunt Walker EAB review and then review with Council in summer Pedestrian Crossing 3 September 6th Art Smythe, David Recommendations Peckler, Hunt Walker West Village Transportation 3 Will review with the CIP David Peckler Facilities on August 1 st and 15th Staff Development 3 Jul 5 (Complete) Russ Forrest Town Fiscal Sustainability 3 September 12 Marianne and Russ Forrest Other Pending Actions The following is a summary of actions that either the Council has requested or actions staff has proposed and is working on for the Town Council. Staff Action Status Date to follow -up Contact w/ Council Finance Marianne GID Advisory Once the foreclosure is complete, bring After Base Village Board back the discussion of the GID Foreclosure is Advisory Board to the GID Board. complete but before the budget process begins for 2012 budget Planning Chris Conrad Sign Code Planning will review current sign code Summer 2011 and discuss revisions with the Town Council Planning Discussion of Council would like to understand the September 2011 zoning change pros and con implications of zoning for undeveloped parcels open space in the Horse Horse Ranch Ranch pasture and in Two Creeks. tool Parcels, Parcel F and Two Creeks Town Clerk Rhonda Paperless The Town Clerk will prepare a September 2011 Coxon Packets for presentation for Council on Council implementing a paperless packet for Council meetings and include with that a demonstration of available technolo Public Works Public Works Creation of a Council requested that a discussion be September 2011 parking area scheduled in the future with input from across from staff on the costs and other design Public Work site implications for creating trail head for the Tom parking that historically was there. Blake Trail Rodeo /Public Improve the Investigate whether fencing is ripped RF has talked to Works appearance of and needs to be maintained by the Rodeo Board. the Intercept Lot Rodeo. Generally maintain the They will be appearance of this area, to the extent removing broken possible. fencing adjacent to playground after Aug 17th 2ND Draft SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE ITEMS COULD START EARLIER OR LATER THAN THE STATED TIME CALL TO ORDER AT 4:00 P.M. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL Item No. 2: PUBLIC NON AGENDA ITEMS (5- minute time limit) Item No. 3: COUNCIL UPDATES Item No. 4: INTERLUDE REOP WAIVER (Time: 30 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: -Mark Kittle Page (TAB Item No.5: INTERLUDE RE- PLATTING (GET LANGUAGE FROM JD) (Time: 30 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: -John Dresser ...........................Page (TAB Item No. 6: PEDESTRIAN CROSSING RECOMMENDATIONS (Time: 45 Minutes) Item No.7: URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY (Time: 120 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Receive presentation and provide input to staff. Russell Forrest Item No.8: MANAGER'S REPORT (Time: 10 minutes) Russell Forrest ...........................Page (TAB Item No. 9: AGENDA FOR NEXT TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Page (TAB Item No. 10: APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR: ...........................Page (TAB 09 -06 -11 TC Page 2 of 2 Item No. 11: COUNCIL COMMENTS /COMMITTEE REPORTS /CALENDARS ...........................Page (TAB) Item No. 12: ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Total time estimated for meeting: Approx 2 hours (excluding items 1 -3 and 8 —11) ALL ITEMS AND TIMES ARE TENTATIVE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. PLEASE CALL THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK AT 923 -3777 ON THE DAY OF THE MEETING FOR ANY AGENDA CHANGES. SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE ITEMS COULD START EARLIER OR LATER THAN THE STATED TIME CALL TO ORDER AT 4:00 P.M. Item No. 1: ROLL CALL Item No. 2: FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY OF THE TOWNS REVENUE SOURCES (Time: 45 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Receive presentation and provide input to staff. Marianne Rakowski Item No. 3: CONTINUATION OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS DISCUSSION (Time: 120 Minutes) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Receive presentation and provide input to staff. -Hunt Walker Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 Town Council Meeting 4:00 p.m. Rodeo Free Concert 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Rodeo Free Concert 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Town Council Meeting 4:00 p.m. Rodeo Free Concert 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Community Picnic!!! 28 29 30 31 1 i5 t Wt II r Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Labor Day Town Council Meeting 4:00 p.m. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Town Council Special Meeting 4:00 p.m. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Town Council Meeting 4:00 p.m. 25 26 27 28 29 30 9417