Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-9-11 CEPAC Packet 2025 Ashland Waste Characterization FINAL REPORT Produced by Eric Ahnmark Recology Ashland August 11, 2025 1 Acknowledgements The successful execution of this characterization is owed to the generous support of the volunteer CEPAC members who offered their time and waste sorting expertise, specifically Kip Barrett, Sidney Brown, Bob Kaplan, Mark Morrison, and Bryan Sohl. Background In 2024, Recology offered to facilitate municipal solid waste (MSW) stream. The intent of the assessment was to gather insightful and actionable data that should help inform future waste-related policies and targets as they apply to The characterization would be administered by Eric Ahnmark (Recology), with Climate and Environmental Policy Advisory Committee (CEPAC) members. Overview The characterization occurred June 16-20, 2025, at the Valley View Transfer Station (3000 N. Valley View Rd). A total of seven (7) samplings were characterized during four (4) sampling days. Of these, five (5) samplings were classified as residential material, with two (2) samplings classified as commercial material. This was intentional, as there was interest in assessing both residential and commercial material in a single sampling period. . While standard methodologies would be followed and resulting data considered accurate within a reasonable margin of error, a more earnest and in-depth characterization, which would yield more accurate data and include a greater sampling size, would require significant resources in personnel, time, and logistical coordination. Methodology Methodology was consistent with typical MSW waste characterizations. Target routes were identified prior to the characterization based on concentration of Ashland-originating MSW (some Recology routes are blended with MSW originating from Talent and rural Jackson County) and estimated timing of the Recology personnel coordinated with operations management and drivers to ensure a smooth assessment process. Targeted routes were intercepted at the transfer station, and 2 a randomized sample of approximately 200 lbs. was gathered from the target load. That sample was then transferred by loader bucket to the testing area. Samples were hand- sorted into 23 separate categories, with each category being weighed and photographed. Data was recorded on a printed datasheet and later transferred to an electronic version which is included in its entirety in the Appendix of this report. The more than 100 photos captured during the characterization were provided to CEPAC members via a cloud file. Sampling Categories Materials were sorted, weighed, and photographed according to the below categories: Recyclables - Cardboard - Mixed Paper - Rigid Plastics - Metal - Glass Compostables - Food - Green Debris Misc. - Household Hazardous Waste (HHW)/ Universal Waste - Packaged Food - Disposable Gloves (Commercial loads only) Trash Detail - Rigid Plastics (non-recyclable) - Film Plastics (non-recyclable) - Soiled Paper (non-recyclable) - Metal (non-recyclable) - Foam - Textiles - Diapers - Electronics - Pet Waste - Multi-layer Packaging 3 - Outer Bags - Fines Recoverability Definitions and Estimates Each sample was assessed and categorized under two criteria, both a current and future state of potential recoverability. Current Recoverable Material Potential: Materials were classified as (recyclable or compostable according to current curbside and drop-off programs)- Effectively, items that could have been recycled or composted under current programs had the customer placed them in the correct bin (assuming access to commingled recycling and subscription to optional green-waste service) and/or dropped the materials off at a designated drop-off location (Universal waste and HHW). It should be noted the category also includes materials recently added to the recycling list per the statewide Recycling Modernization Act (RMA). This category includes the following: , Plastics-film (non-recyc- Future Recoverable Material Potential: Note this definition is highly assumptive and theoretical and should not be taken as representative of a true and factual future state. It includes the base recoverable categories of the current state listed above, while also assuming the inclusion of a curbside food scrap collection program (that also allows food- soiled paper) and one that is made available to 100% of the customer base and achieves a 100% participation rate, meaning all food scraps including spoiled/packaged food are properly de-packaged and deposited in the available cart(s) for food scrap collection. This -film (non--soiled (non-recyclable), -35 Based on data characterizations nationally and globally, it is clear full participation does not occur at present. Still, these data are being presented, albeit theoretically, and it should be assumed the wide availability of a food scrap program will result in improved waste diversion performance and likely present somewhere between the noted 4 Fines Every waste characterization results in a category that includes small, residual materials that, based on available time and personnel, cannot be effectively sorted. It is acknowledged that recoverable materials are present in this category. Based on visual according to the following: 65% Trash 20% Paper-soiled (non-recyclable) 5% Mixed Paper 5% Plastics-film (non-recyclable) 5% Food Using the above classification, recoverable volumes were reassigned to the appropriate Photos and electronic photo library. Findings Residential Table 1 presents weight (in lbs) data summarizing the five (5) residential loads assessed during June 16-20, 2025. A similar classification for each individual load is included in the Appendix. Figure 1, on the following page, presents the same data in percentage form. Table 1 - Residential Samples by Material Category (Avg. in lbs) Recyclables Compostables Misc. Mixed Rigid Green Outer HHW / Packaged OCC Metal Glass Food Misc Paper Plastics Debris Bags Universal Food 0.6 19.0 5.2 4.6 7.7 36.7 0.6 5.0 0.1 26.0 0.2 Trash Detail Plastics - Paper - Plastics - Metal rigid soiled film (non-(non ElectroniMulti-layer (non-(non-Foam Textiles Diapers Pet waste Fines recyclablrecyclablcs Packaging recyclablrecyclabl e) e) e) e) 9.1 8.6 24.7 0.0 0.8 6.5 6.4 1.3 1.6 2.0 19.6 5 Figure 1-Residential Samples by Material Category (Avg. % of total) Current Recoverable Material Potential (ResidentialAvg.) When considering current programs, the five (5) residential samplesyielded an average of from an average sample weight of 186.1 lbs, resulting in 27% of thesample average being classified as recoverable material. Future Recoverable Material Potential (Residential Avg.) When consideringthe inclusion of a curbside food scrap program and full participation behaviorsas outlinedearlier in this report,the five (5) residential samples yielded an average of 137.6 resulting in 74% of the sample average being classified as theoretically recoverable material. 6 Findings Commercial Table 2 presents weight (in lbs) data summarizing the two (2) commercial loads assessed during June 16-20, 2025. A similar classification for each individual load is included in the Appendix. Figure 2, on the following page, presents the same data in percentage form. Table 2 Commercial Samples by Material Category (Avg. in lbs) Recyclables Compostables Misc. Mixed Rigid Green Outer HHW / Packaged OCC Metal Glass Food Gloves Paper Plastics Debris Bags Universal Food 4.8 16.0 6.5 6.4 3.1 35.3 1.3 5.8 3.1 24.6 2.5 Trash Detail Paper - Plastics - Plastics - Metal soiled rigid (non film (non-(non-ElectroniMulti-layer (non-Foam Textiles Diapers Pet waste Fines recyclablrecyclablrecyclablcs Packaging recyclabl e) e) e) e) 8.4 10.0 18.4 1.0 0.6 6.7 5.9 0.2 0.0 1.3 12.0 7 Figure 2 - Commercial Samples by Material Category (Avg. % of total) Current Recoverable Material Potential (Commercial Avg.) When considering current programs, the two (2) commercial samples yielded an average of 56.4 73.7 lbs, resulting in 32% of the sample average being classified as recoverable material. Future Recoverable Material Potential (Commercial Avg.) When considering the inclusion of a curbside food scrap program and full participation behaviors as outlined earlier in this report, the two (2) commercial samples yielded an average of 129.6 73.7 lbs, resulting in 74% of the sample average being classified as theoretically recoverable material. 8 Findings Summary Results were typical of MSW characterizations in the United States. As with all scientific studies, the limited sample size (7 loads, 1,278 lbs) likely resulted in a wider margin of error than would have been achieved with a more comprehensive and resource-intensive study. Still, the data presented in this report should be considered accurate with a reasonable margin of error and provide considerable insight to the City of Ashland as it pursues future waste-related programs and policies. Recommendations Ashland, Oregon, has built a reputation for environmental activism and regularly generates some of the cleanest commingled recycling in the state. That said, more than a quarter of the sample averages (27% residential and 32% commercial) were easily recoverable materials under current programs that were, for one reason or another, not placed in the proper collection cart/container by the generating customer. This suggests ongoing recycling education to both residential and commercial customers is needed, as are efforts to ensure all customers have ready access to recycling programs. The optional green waste subscription program should also be further promoted, as well as drop-off options for Electronic, Universal, and HHW materials. Regarding future state assumptions presented in this report, it should be noted the addition of programs including a food scrap collection program is based on full customer participation, meaning a food scrap receptacle (presumably one that also includes green waste materials) would need to become an included service, resulting in rate impacts. Additional costs and operational considerations, including the addition of new trucks, re-routing, and the construction of a roof at the transfer station, would need to be evaluated alongside the potential benefits of the program. 9 Waste Characterization Datasheet Project Name: ASHLAND WC Date: Mon 6/16/25 Time: 9:50 AM Material Stream: MSW Route/Sector: 250 (RESI) * all weights below have tares removed 215.1 Gross Weight (lbs): RecyclablesCompostablesMisc. HHW / Rigid PlasticsMetalGlassFood Green DebrisOuter BagsPackaged FoodWipes OCCMixed Paper Universal 20.27.95.96.952.40.03.80.031.00.1 0.0 Trash Detail Plastics - rigid Plastics - film Paper - soiled Metal (non Multi-layer TextilesDiapersElectronicsPet wasteFines Foam (non recyclable)(non recyclable)(non recyclable)recyclable)Packaging 11.18.314.60.00.88.47.80.00.22.833.3 NOTE:The figures presented below are estimates only based on limited sample size, and the projections are presumptive assuming 100% participation from residents. They should not be taken out of context nor understood to be entirely representative of the current nor future states of the waste stream. The assumptions also include recyclable materials that are now accepted under the RMA or will be in the near future. Current Recoverable Material Potential (based on active program offerings and green debris subscription) These are things people should/could have kept out of the trash, based on available curbside and dropoff programs *plus RMA acceptance list Sum of "Recyclables", "Green Debris", "HHW/Universal", "Plastics-film (non recyclable)", "Electronics", 50% of "Multi-layer packaging", and 10% of "Fines") Total (lbs)53.9 Total (%)25% Future Recoverable Material Potential Same criteria as above, with inclusion of food scrap/soiled paper program. Assumes full participation in food scrap composting + depackaging. Sum of "Recyclables", "Food", "Green Debris", "HHW/Universal", 80% of "Packaged Food", "Plastics-film (non recyclable)", "Paper-soiled (non recyclable), "Electronics", 50% of "Multi-layer packaging", and 35% of "Fines") Total (lbs)153.8 Total (%)72% Route 250 (Resi) Mon 6/16/25 OCC Multi-layer Packaging 0% 1% Rigid Plastics Pet waste 4% 0% Metal Mixed Paper 3% 9% Fines Glass 15% Electronics 3% 0% Diapers 4% Foam Textiles 0% 4% Metal (non recyclable) 0% Food Paper -soiled (non 24% recyclable) 7% Plastics -film (non recyclable) Packaged Food 4% 14% Plastics -rigid (non recyclable) Green Debris 5% Wipes 0% 0% HHW / UniversalOuter Bags 0%2% Waste Characterization Datasheet Project Name: ASHLAND WC Date: Mon 6/16/25 Time: 2:00 PM Material Stream: MSW Route/Sector: 230 (RESI) * all weights below have tares removed 212.3 Gross Weight (lbs): RecyclablesCompostablesMisc. HHW / Rigid PlasticsMetalGlassFood Green DebrisOuter BagsPackaged FoodWipes OCCMixed Paper Universal 27.66.46.74.335.60.05.80.027.60.0 0.0 Trash Detail Plastics - rigid (non Plastics - film Paper - soiled Metal (non Multi-layer TextilesDiapersElectronicsPet wasteFines Foam recyclable)(non recyclable)(non recyclable)recyclable)Packaging 7.29.134.60.00.41.112.60.00.02.131.5 NOTE:The figures presented below are estimates only based on limited sample size, and the projections are presumptive assuming 100% participation from residents. They should not be taken out of context nor understood to be entirely representative of the current nor future states of the waste stream. The assumptions also include recyclable materials that are now accepted under the RMA or will be in the near future. Current Recoverable Material Potential (based on active program offerings and green debris subscription) These are things people should/could have kept out of the trash, based on available curbside and dropoff programs *plus RMA acceptance list Sum of "Recyclables", "Green Debris", "HHW/Universal", "Plastics-film (non recyclable)", "Electronics", 50% of "Multi-layer packaging", and 10% of "Fines") Total (lbs)58.2 Total (%)27% Future Recoverable Material Potential Same criteria as above, with inclusion of food scrap/soiled paper program. Assumes full participation in food scrap composting + depackaging. Sum of "Recyclables", "Food", "Green Debris", "HHW/Universal", 80% of "Packaged Food", "Plastics-film (non recyclable)", "Paper-soiled (non recyclable), "Electronics", 50% of "Multi-layer packaging", and 35% of "Fines") Total (lbs)158.3 Total (%)75% Route 230 (Resi) Mon 6/16/25 OCC 0% Multi-layer Packaging 1% Pet Rigid Plastics waste Mixed Paper 3% Fines 0% Metal 13% 15% 3% Electronics 0% DiapersGlass Textiles 6%2% 0% Foam 0% Metal (non recyclable) 0% Food Paper -soiled (non 17% recyclable) 16% Packaged Food 13% Green Debris 0% Plastics -film (non HHW / Outer Bags recyclable) Universal Plastics -rigid 3% Wipes 4% 0% (non recyclable) 0% 3% Waste Characterization Datasheet Project Name: ASHLAND WC Date: Tues 6/17/25 Time: 9:00 AM Material Stream: MSW Route/Sector: 220 (COMM) * all weights below have tares removed 195.6 Gross Weight (lbs): RecyclablesCompostablesMisc. HHW / Rigid PlasticsMetalGlassFood Green DebrisOuter BagsPackaged FoodMisc. OCCMixed Paper Universal 10.98.75.00.753.32.66.56.019.13.9 2.8 Trash Detail Plastics - rigid Plastics - film Paper - soiled Metal (non Multi-layer TextilesDiapersElectronicsPet wasteFines Foam (non recyclable)(non recyclable)(non recyclable)recyclable)Packaging 9.011.824.50.00.13.910.70.50.01.314.9 NOTE:The figures presented below are estimates only based on limited sample size, and the projections are presumptive assuming 100% participation from residents. They should not be taken out of context nor understood to be entirely representative of the current nor future states of the waste stream. The assumptions also include recyclable materials that are now accepted under the RMA or will be in the near future. Current Recoverable Material Potential (based on active program offerings and green debris subscription) These are things people should/could have kept out of the trash, based on available curbside and dropoff programs *plus RMA acceptance list Sum of "Recyclables", "Green Debris", "HHW/Universal", "Plastics-film (non recyclable)", "Electronics", 50% of "Multi-layer packaging", and 10% of "Fines") Total (lbs)50.9 Total (%)26% Future Recoverable Material Potential Same criteria as above, with inclusion of food scrap/soiled paper program. Assumes full participation in food scrap composting + depackaging. Sum of "Recyclables", "Food", "Green Debris", "HHW/Universal", 80% of "Packaged Food", "Plastics-film (non recyclable)", "Paper-soiled (non recyclable), "Electronics", 50% of "Multi-layer packaging", and 35% of "Fines") Total (lbs)147.6 Total (%)75% Route 220 (Comm) Tues 6/17/25 Pet waste Multi-layer OCC 0% Packaging 1% Rigid Plastics 1% Electronics 4% 0% Mixed Metal Paper Fines FoamTextiles 3% 6% Glass 8% 0%2% Diapers 0% 5% Metal (non recyclable) 0% Paper -soiled (non recyclable) 13% Food 27% Plastics -film (non recyclable) 6% Packaged Food Plastics -rigid (non 10% recyclable) Gloves 5% Green Debris 2% 1% HHW / UniversalOuter Bags 3%3% Waste Characterization Datasheet Project Name: ASHLAND WC Date: Tues 6/17/25 Time: 12:45 PM Material Stream: MSW Route/Sector: 200 and 230 (approx. 50/50 split) Resi * all weights below have tares removed 204.6 Gross Weight (lbs): RecyclablesCompostablesMisc. HHW / Rigid PlasticsMetalGlassFood Green DebrisOuter BagsPackaged FoodMisc. OCCMixed Paper Universal 29.35.35.015.747.30.04.60.226.41.0 2.9 Trash Detail Plastics - rigid Plastics - film Paper - soiled Metal (non Multi-layer TextilesDiapersElectronicsPet wasteFines Foam (non recyclable)(non recyclable)(non recyclable)recyclable)Packaging 10.75.928.30.01.46.11.70.90.01.910.4 NOTE:The figures presented below are estimates only based on limited sample size, and the projections are presumptive assuming 100% participation from residents. They should not be taken out of context nor understood to be entirely representative of the current nor future states of the waste stream. The assumptions also include recyclable materials that are now accepted under the RMA or will be in the near future. Current Recoverable Material Potential (based on active program offerings and green debris subscription) These are things people should/could have kept out of the trash, based on available curbside and dropoff programs *plus RMA acceptance list Sum of "Recyclables", "Green Debris", "HHW/Universal", "Plastics-film (non recyclable)", "Electronics", 50% of "Multi-layer packaging", and 10% of "Fines") Total (lbs)67.1 Total (%)33% Future Recoverable Material Potential Same criteria as above, with inclusion of food scrap/soiled paper program. Assumes full participation in food scrap composting + depackaging. Sum of "Recyclables", "Food", "Green Debris", "HHW/Universal", 80% of "Packaged Food", "Plastics-film (non recyclable)", "Paper-soiled (non recyclable), "Electronics", 50% of "Multi-layer packaging", and 35% of "Fines") Total (lbs)166.3 Total (%)81% Electronics Route 200 & 230 (Resi) Tues 6/17/25 0% Multi-layer Packaging Diapers OCC 1% 1%Pet waste 1% 0% Textiles Fines 3% 5% Foam 1% Rigid Plastics 3% Mixed Paper Metal (non recyclable) 14% 0% Metal 2% Paper -soiled (non recyclable) 14% Plastics -film (non Glass recyclable) 8% 3% Plastics -rigid (non recyclable) Misc. Food 5% Packaged Food 0% 23% 13% HHW / Universal 0% Green Debris Outer Bags 0% 2% Waste Characterization Datasheet Project Name: ASHLAND WC Date: Tues 6/19/25 Time: 11:15 PM Material Stream: MSW Route/Sector: 500 (Commercial) * all weights below have tares removed 151.8 Gross Weight (lbs): RecyclablesCompostablesMisc. HHW / Rigid PlasticsMetalGlassFood Green DebrisOuter BagsPackaged FoodGloves OCCMixed Paper Universal 21.24.47.75.517.40.05.10.230.11.2 6.7 Trash Detail Plastics - rigid (non Plastics - film Paper - soiled Metal (non Multi-layer TextilesDiapersElectronicsPet wasteFines Foam recyclable)(non recyclable)(non recyclable)recyclable)Packaging 7.88.312.42.01.19.61.10.00.01.39.2 NOTE:The figures presented below are estimates only based on limited sample size, and the projections are presumptive assuming 100% participation from residents. They should not be taken out of context nor understood to be entirely representative of the current nor future states of the waste stream. The assumptions also include recyclable materials that are now accepted under the RMA or will be in the near future. Current Recoverable Material Potential (based on active program offerings and green debris subscription) These are things people should/could have kept out of the trash, based on available curbside and dropoff programs *plus RMA acceptance list Sum of "Recyclables", "Green Debris", "HHW/Universal", "Plastics-film (non recyclable)", "Electronics", 50% of "Multi-layer packaging", and 10% of "Fines") Total (lbs)55.4 Total (%)37% Future Recoverable Material Potential Same criteria as above, with inclusion of food scrap/soiled paper program. Assumes full participation in food scrap composting + depackaging. Sum of "Recyclables", "Food", "Green Debris", "HHW/Universal", 80% of "Packaged Food", "Plastics-film (non recyclable)", "Paper-soiled (non recyclable), "Electronics", 50% of "Multi-layer packaging", and 35% of "Fines") Total (lbs)111.5 Total (%)73% Route 500 (Comm) Thurs 6/19/25 Multi-layer Packaging Pet 1% waste Electronics 0% 0% Diapers OCC Fines 1% 4% 6% Foam Textiles 1% 6% Metal (non recyclable) Mixed Paper 1% Rigid Plastics 14% 3% Paper -soiled (non recyclable) Metal 8% 5% Plastics -film (non recyclable) Glass 5% 4% Food Plastics -rigid (non 11% recyclable) Packaged Food 5% 20% Green Debris Gloves 0% 1% Outer Bags HHW / Universal 3% 0% Waste Characterization Datasheet Project Name: ASHLAND WC Date: Tues 6/19/25 Time: 1:30 PM Material Stream: MSW Route/Sector: 250 (Residential) * all weights below have tares removed 160.9 Gross Weight (lbs): RecyclablesCompostablesMisc. HHW / Rigid PlasticsMetalGlassFood Green DebrisOuter BagsPackaged FoodMisc OCCMixed Paper Universal 7.23.42.45.626.20.08.00.027.20.0 0.0 Trash Detail Plastics - rigid Plastics - film Paper - soiled Metal (non Multi-layer TextilesDiapersElectronicsPet wasteFines Foam (non recyclable)(non recyclable)(non recyclable)recyclable)Packaging 7.97.725.60.00.512.88.95.93.21.07.8 NOTE:The figures presented below are estimates only based on limited sample size, and the projections are presumptive assuming 100% participation from residents. They should not be taken out of context nor understood to be entirely representative of the current nor future states of the waste stream. The assumptions also include recyclable materials that are now accepted under the RMA or will be in the near future. Current Recoverable Material Potential (based on active program offerings and green debris subscription) These are things people should/could have kept out of the trash, based on available curbside and dropoff programs *plus RMA acceptance list Sum of "Recyclables", "Green Debris", "HHW/Universal", "Plastics-film (non recyclable)", "Electronics", 50% of "Multi-layer packaging", and 10% of "Fines") Total (lbs)33.3 Total (%)21% Future Recoverable Material Potential Same criteria as above, with inclusion of food scrap/soiled paper program. Assumes full participation in food scrap composting + depackaging. Sum of "Recyclables", "Food", "Green Debris", "HHW/Universal", 80% of "Packaged Food", "Plastics-film (non recyclable)", "Paper-soiled (non recyclable), "Electronics", 50% of "Multi-layer packaging", and 35% of "Fines") Total (lbs)108.8 Total (%)68% Route 250 (Resi) Thurs 6/19/25 Multi-layer Packaging OCCMixed Paper Rigid Plastics 1% 0%4% 2% Pet wasteMetal Fines 2%1% Glass Electronics 5% 3% 4% Diapers 6% Foam 0% Food Textiles 16% 8% Metal (non recyclable) 0% Green Debris 0% Paper -soiled (non Outer Bags recyclable) 5% 16% Packaged Food HHW / Universal 17% 0% Plastics -film (non recyclable) Plastics -rigid (non 5% Misc recyclable) 0% 5% Waste Characterization Datasheet Project Name: ASHLAND WC Date: Tues 6/20/25 Time: 10:30 AM Material Stream: MSW Route/Sector: 250 (Residential) * all weights below have tares removed 137.8 Gross Weight (lbs): RecyclablesCompostablesMisc. HHW / Rigid PlasticsMetalGlassFood Green DebrisOuter BagsPackaged FoodMisc OCCMixed Paper Universal 10.93.12.96.022.12.83.10.517.80.0 0.0 Trash Detail Plastics - rigid Plastics - film Paper - soiled Metal (non Multi-layer TextilesDiapersElectronicsPet wasteFines Foam (non recyclable)(non recyclable)(non recyclable)recyclable)Packaging 8.611.920.40.00.84.20.90.04.82.215.1 NOTE:The figures presented below are estimates only based on limited sample size, and the projections are presumptive assuming 100% participation from residents. They should not be taken out of context nor understood to be entirely representative of the current nor future states of the waste stream. The assumptions also include recyclable materials that are now accepted under the RMA or will be in the near future. Current Recoverable Material Potential (based on active program offerings and green debris subscription) These are things people should/could have kept out of the trash, based on available curbside and dropoff programs *plus RMA acceptance list Sum of "Recyclables", "Green Debris", "HHW/Universal", "Plastics-film (non recyclable)", "Electronics", 50% of "Multi-layer packaging", and 10% of "Fines") Total (lbs)40.5 Total (%)29% Future Recoverable Material Potential Same criteria as above, with inclusion of food scrap/soiled paper program. Assumes full participation in food scrap composting + depackaging. Sum of "Recyclables", "Food", "Green Debris", "HHW/Universal", 80% of "Packaged Food", "Plastics-film (non recyclable)", "Paper-soiled (non recyclable), "Electronics", 50% of "Multi-layer packaging", and 35% of "Fines") Total (lbs)101.1 Total (%)73% Route 250 (Resi) Fri 6/20/25 OCC Multi-layer Packaging Rigid Plastics 0% 2% 2% Pet waste Metal 3% 2% Mixed Paper Electronics 8% Fines 0% Diapers 11% Glass 1% 4% Textiles 3% Foam 1% Metal (non recyclable) 0% Food 16% Paper -soiled (non recyclable) 15% Plastics -film (non Green Debris recyclable) Packaged Food 2% 9% Outer Bags 13% 2% HHW / Universal 0% Plastics -rigid Misc (non recyclable) 0% 6% Sorting station Route Load~200lb sample Recyclable MetalRecyclable Glass Food Film Plastic -Non recyclable Recyclable Plastic Textiles Packaged FoodRigid Plastic -Non recyclableFines Soiled Paper The "Fines" category is a combination of items that are considered trash (sponges, disposable wipes, tape, rubber, ceramic, etc)and small "granular" items that would take too much time to fully sort into separate categories. Intent is to redistribute this category accordingtothe following criteria based on visual estimates: 65% Trash 20% Paper-soiled (non-recyclable) 5% Mixed Paper 5% Plastics-film (non-recyclable) 5% Food Dear Mr. Woodward, Please forward to the Chairs of the Planning Commission and Transportation Advisory Committee, and their respective Staff Liaisons, and if appropriate their respective Council Liaisons. Sincerely, Bryan Sohl CEPAC Chair July 11, 2026 To: Lisa Verner - Chair, City of Ashland Planning Commission Linda Peterson Adams - Chair, City of Ashland Transportation Advisory Committee From: Bryan Sohl - Chair, City of Ashland Climate and Environment Policy Advisory Committee Dear Ms Verner and Ms Peterson Adams, On March 7, 2017 the Ashland City Council formally adopted the City of Ashland Climate and Energy Action Plan (CEAP). The CEAP was the product of a long (greater than one year) process of public engagement, and dedicated work by city staff and members of the ad-hoc CEAP committee. I was privileged to be one of the 13 ad-hoc committee members that worked to draft the CEAP with our consultant. The CEAP final draft enjoyed strong support by both the community and Council. In the process of the CEAP work city staff did a greenhouse gas survey for the City of Ashland in 2015. It was discovered that the biggest single contributor to our cities’ greenhouse gas footprint, at 17%, was residential on-road travel. The CEPAC is entrusted to work on behalf of the citizens of Ashland towards the implementation of CEAP goals, and educating of the public about how to meet those goals. Within the description of the work expected of the CEPAC by the city (as published on the City Website) are included: 1. Recommending CEAP implementation steps or improvements on behalf of the community and for City operations. 2. Providing information to staff and the City Council to ensure that benchmarks, targets or actions develop for, or by the City of Ashland, incorporate the best available science and practices to achieve the intended climate or environmental related goals and targets. 3. Providing recommendations to ensure the City of Ashland’s climate and environmental planning incorporates long-term social, economic and environmental goals, including social equity for low-income households, persons of color, the young and elderly, and those with disabilities. Furthermore, within the body of the CEAP document are the following guidelines: CC-3-1. Consider climate change in all City Council policy, budgetary, or legislative decisions. CC-3-2. Incorporate CEAP goals and actions in future updates of city plans. I, along with fellow CEPAC members, understand that the current plan for the development of the upcoming (and long delayed) Transportation Systems Plan (TSP) will be for the Planning Commission and the Transportation Advisory Committee, along with City Staff, and the consultant chosen by the city, to be responsible for the plan. And to incorporate the community via a robust public engagement process. I, along with CEPAC members, feel that CEPAC should be integral member of the TSP working team, on par with the Planning Commission (PC) and the Transportation Advisor Committee (TAC) and not just an “interested community member” showing up at TSP public engagement meetings and getting in line to testify such as might be seen by the Siskiyou Velo Club, or Helman School Parents, or Mountain Meadows Residents, or any such interested “party”. In the last TSP update of 2012 the Planning Commission and the Transportation Commission were intimately involved. At the time Ashland did not have a CEAP, nor a CEPAC. Given that road use transportation emissions account for 17% of our cities’ GHG emissions, we strongly feel that CEPAC should serve an important role in the upcoming TSP development regarding trying to insure that Ashland continues to strive towards meeting CEAP goals as part of the TSP plan. We feel that CEPAC has the expertise to guide this required aspect of the TSP. This is a charge of the CEPAC by the city. Of course we all need to recognize the myriad demands the city faces regarding prioritizing and funding all sorts of projects, especially in an environment that is severely fiscally constrained regarding transportation dollars. Since the formation of the CEPAC in March 2023 we feel the City of Ashland leadership has not yet incorporated the CEPAC into the “DNA’ of the city planning processes regarding seeking CEPAC input regarding CEAP and environmental goals and opportunities. Examples of this are that CEPAC was not asked to be involved early in the process of the recent Electric Plan update, Water Plan update, nor CFA development. We were only involved late in the process of these plan developments and updates via informational meetings about what the updates were to include. We wish to avoid this for the upcoming TSP process, and hope to be involved throughout the process. We feel CEPAC has much to offer. We have a direct ask of you, that you (or your committees), ask your staff liaisons and the City Manager to invite CEPAC to be a full partner with you in the TSP process. CEPAC has decided to go to you first with this ask in the spirit of collaboration as opposed to first going to the City Council, Mayor, or City manager. I had hoped to directly ask this of you in person but was informed that the “proper channels” are to send this letter directly to the CEPAC staff liaison (Chad Woodward) who will then forward this on to you via your staff liaisons. CEPAC very much looks forward to collaborating with you on the upcoming TSP. Sincerely, Bryan Sohl Chair - City of Ashland Climate and Environment Policy Advisory Committee (CEPAC)