Laserfiche WebLink
Louisville Sustainability Advisory Board Meeting Minutes – December 21, 2011 Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br />Growing Gardens thought that approach was doable in 2012 given the time frame available. <br /> <br />Mary Ann proposed starting discussions with HFAB and OSAB since they are the stewards of lands <br />most likely to be used. The board agreed to that approach. Mary Ann will broach the subject during <br />her presentations on Livable City Concepts. <br /> <br />Dates for her Livable Cities presentations are: <br /> <br />HFAB – City Hall, Spruce Room January 5 th, 7 pm <br />YAB – Library, Board Room January 5 th, 7:30 pm? <br />Revitalization Board – Library, meeting room January 9 th, 7:30 am <br />Business Retention Development Committee – January 11 th, 8 am <br /> <br />Library, meeting room <br />OSAB ??? <br />Downtown Business Association – City Hall, February 15 th, 9 am <br /> <br />Spruce Room <br /> <br /> <br />VIII. BCRAB and CAFR Update - Mark <br />Mark provided an update on activities of the Boulder County Resource Conservation Advisory Board <br />(BCRAB) and the Colorado Association for Recycling (CAFR), a private association composed of <br />members who pay dues – either individuals or state, local, and county governments. <br /> <br />BCRAB is developing waste reduction literature – including actions that address plastic bags. Mark <br />will forward a synopsis of what approaches to single use bags have been taken in the US (if he <br />receives permission from the original author to distribute it), re: bans or fees, and the pros and cons <br />for each approach. Fees appear to be more palatable in most locations. CAFR fees as the best <br />approach. But they will not pursue state wide legislation for that. CAFR will support other entities <br />efforts to ban bags over the next 1-2 years. <br /> <br />BCRAB oversees the county recycling facility. They are exploring the possibility of a drop off site for <br />construction/demolition waste. A consultant recently presented the high/low bids for a covered <br />materials area and a retention pond. Most facilities who currently accept construction debris are not <br />in Boulder County. Contractors often need to go to multiple recycle sites to drop waste off. A one site <br />drop-off is preferred. It is more conducive to recycling this type of waste. $7M was the low end <br />estimate $15M was the high end estimate. <br /> <br />Operating costs come from tipping fees (generally less than a landfill). Fees would pay for <br />processing/shipping of material. Haulers would bring in materials already segregated. (There are <br />issues with that Mark said.) <br /> <br />Andy described a transfer station in Portland that eliminates the need to go to multiple sites in that <br />area. He will forward that information to Mark. <br /> <br />Boulder County wants to collect a much wider range of materials within the county so that people <br />would be more likely to recycle. There is a need to ensure there is a market for all the materials. <br />After identifying construction cost, facility needs, and contractor operation vs. city operated, etc. the <br />County will come to each city to help with cost as plan develops and gets finalized. Mark will forward <br />documents and additional information to board members. <br /> <br />Ted asked about the economics. Mark said the facility would be net zero; what the county makes <br />selling the materials is used to operate the facility. Current recycling facility has some profit – turned <br />