HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 07/12/2022 - SPECIAL MEETING
City of Fort Collins Page 1
Jeni Arndt, Mayor
Emily Francis, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem
Susan Gutowsky, District 1
Julie Pignataro, District 2
Tricia Canonico, District 3
Shirley Peel, District 4
Kelly Ohlson, District 5
City Council Chambers
City Hall
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Cablecast on FCTV
Channel 14 on Connexion
Channel 14 and 881 on Comcast
Carrie Daggett Kelly DiMartino Anissa Hollingshead
City Attorney Interim City Manager City Clerk
Special Meeting
July 12, 2022
6:00 p.m.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OPTIONS
There will be four options for people who would like to participate in the meeting:
Live via the Zoom online meeting,
Live via the telephone,
Live in Council Chambers,
By submitting emails to Council at CityLeaders@fcgov.com.
All options will be available for those wishing to provide general public comment, as well as public comment
during individual discussion items.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (ONLINE VIA ZOOM):
Individuals who wish to address Council via remote public participation can do so through Zoom
at https://zoom.us/j/98241416497. (The link and instructions are also posted
at www.fcgov.com/councilcomments.) Individuals participating in the Zoom session should watch the
meeting through that site, and not via FCTV, due to the streaming delay and possible audio interference.
The Zoom meeting will be available beginning at 5:15 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Participants wanting
to ensure their equipment setup is working should join prior to 6:00 p.m. For public comments, the Mayor
will ask participants to click the “Raise Hand” button to indicate you would like to speak at that time. Staff
will moderate the Zoom session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address Council.
In order to participate, you must:
Have an internet-enabled smartphone, laptop or computer. Using earphones with a microphone will
greatly improve your audio experience.
Join the Zoom meeting using the link on the front page of the agenda or on the City’s home webpage
at www.fcgov.com.
If you use the City’s home page, simply click on the “Participate remotely in Council Meeting” link shown
near the top of the page.
City of Fort Collins Page 2
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (VIA PHONE):
Dial the public participation phone number, 1-346-248-7799, and then enter the Meeting ID 982 4141
6497 followed by the pound sign (#).
The meeting will be available beginning at 5:15 p.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 6:00 p.m., if
possible. For public comments, the Mayor will ask participants to indicate if you would like to speak at
that time – phone participants will need to press *9 to do this. Staff will be moderating the Zoom
session to ensure all participants have an opportunity to address Council.
When participating online or by phone, DO NOT Watch/stream FCTV at the same time due to streaming
delay and possible audio interference.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (IN PERSON):
To participate in person, individuals should be prepared to follow strict social distancing, sanitizer and facial
covering guidelines.
A limited number of individuals may be allowed in Council Chambers. Therefore, staging for individuals
who wish to speak will occur in the City Hall lobby and outside (weather permitting).
Individuals may be required to wear masks while inside City Hall and any other City buildings being
utilized.
Individuals who wish to speak will line up at one of the two podiums available in Council Chambers,
maintaining physical distancing.
Once a speaker has provided comments, they may be asked to leave Council Chambers to make room
for the next speaker.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (VIA EMAIL):
Individuals not comfortable or able to access the Zoom platform or participate by phone are encouraged to
participate by emailing general public comments to CityLeaders@fcgov.com. If you have specific
comments on any of the discussion items scheduled, please make that clear in the subject line of the email
and send prior to the meeting Tuesday evening.
WATCH THE MEETING
Anyone can view the Council meeting live on Channels 14 and 881 or online at www.fcgov.com/fctv.
Note: Only individuals who wish to address Council should use the Zoom link or call in by phone.
Anyone who wants to watch the meeting, but not address Council, should view the FCTV livestream.
Documents to Share: If residents wish to speak to a document or presentation, the City Clerk needs to
be emailed those materials by 4 p.m. the day of the meeting.
Persons wishing to display presentation materials using the City’s display equipment under the Public
Participation portion of a meeting or during discussion of any Council item must provide any such materials
to the City Clerk in a form or format readily usable on the City’s display technology no later than two (2)
hours prior to the beginning of the meeting at which the materials are to be presented.
NOTE: All presentation materials for appeals, addition of permitted use applications or protests related to
election matters must be provided to the City Clerk no later than noon on the day of the meeting at which
the item will be considered. See Council Rules of Conduct in Meetings for details.
Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English
proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and
activities. Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide 48 hours
advance notice when possible.
A solicitud, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no dominan el
idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discapacidad, para que puedan acceder a los
servicios, programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para
Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible.
City of Fort Collins Page 3
A) CALL MEETING TO ORDER
B) PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
C) ROLL CALL
D) Discussion Items
The method of debate for discussion items is as follows:
● Mayor introduces the item number, and subject; asks if formal presentation will be made by staff
● Staff presentation (optional)
● Mayor requests public comment on the item (three minute limit for each person)
● Council questions of staff on the item
● Council motion on the item
● Council discussion
● Final Council comments
● Council vote on the item
Note: Time limits for individual agenda items may be revised, at the discretion of the Mayor, to ensure
all have an opportunity to speak. If attending in person, please sign in at the table in the
back of the room. The timer will buzz when there are 30 seconds left and the light will turn
yellow. It will buzz again at the end of the speaker’s time.
1. Items Relating to the Appointment, Salary, Oath of Office and Employment Contract of the City
Manager.
A. Resolution 2022-071 Appointing Kelly DiMartino as City Manager, Approving the City Manager’s
Employment Agreement and Directing the City Clerk to Administer the Oath of Office.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2022, Amending Section 2-596 of the Code of the City of Fort
Collins and Setting the Salary of the City Manager.
The purpose of these agenda items is to appoint Kelly DiMartino as the new City Manager effective
upon the completion of the City Manager Employment Agreement and administration and delivery of
the oath of office, and to approve the employment agreement of the City Manager. Another purpose
is to direct the City Clerk to administer the City Manager oath of office to Kelly DiMartino on July 12,
2022. The Ordinance sets the salary of the City Manager effective July 1, 2022.
F) ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Item 1
Item # 1 Page 1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY July 12, 2022
City Council
STAFF
Teresa Roche, Human Resources Executive
Carrie M. Daggett, Legal
Jenny Lopez Filkins, Legal
SUBJECT
Items Relating to the Appointment, Salary, Oath of Office and Employment Contract of the City Manager.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2022-071 Appointing Kelly DiMartino as City Manager, Approving the City Manager’s
Employment Agreement and Directing the City Clerk to Administer the Oath of Office.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 086, 2022, Amending Section 2-596 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
and Setting the Salary of the City Manager.
The purpose of these agenda items is to appoint Kelly DiMartino as the new City Manager effective upon the
completion of the City Manager Employment Agreement and administration and delivery of the oath of office,
and to approve the employment agreement of the City Manager. Another purpose is to direct the City Clerk to
administer the City Manager oath of office to Kelly DiMartino on July 12, 2022. The Ordinance sets the salary
of the City Manager effective July 1, 2022.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
On January 24, 2022, Council reviewed all applicants' materials for City Manager, and Mark McDaniel from the
recruitment firm Strategic Government Resources invited the semi-finalists to complete the next stage of the
application process. On February 15, 2022, Council discussed the semi-finalists and invited six finalists to
advance to the final selection phase. One finalist withdrew from cons ideration prior to the completion of the
final materials required by each finalist. The interview process began virtually on March 7 and continued with
an onsite schedule from March 24 to March 26, including Council interviews.
On June 7, 2022, Council adopted Resolution 2022-038 authorizing Mayor Jeni Arndt and Mayor Pro Tem
Emily Francis to discuss with staff and the named candidate, Kelly DiMartino, the terms and conditions of an
employment agreement for the City Manager position, with such agreement t o be presented for Council
consideration at a future date.
This Resolution appoints Kelly DiMartino as the City Manager for the City upon completion of the City Manager
Employment Agreement and administration and delivery of the oath of office and authoriz es the Mayor to
execute an employment contract with Ms. DiMartino. Additionally, the Ordinance amends Section 2-596 of the
City Code to establish the initial base salary of the City Manager. The amount of the initial base salary is
proposed in the Employment Agreement and has been inserted in the salary ordinance.
D.1
Packet Pg. 4
-1-
RESOLUTION 2022-071
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
APPOINTING KELLY DIMARTINO AS CITY MANAGER,
APPROVING THE CITY MANAGER’S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AND DIRECTING
THE CITY CLERK TO ADMINISTER THE OATH OF OFFICE
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article III, Section 1 of the City Charter, the City Council is
responsible for appointing the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2022, the City Council passed Resolution No. 2022-038 and
appointed Mayor Jeni Arndt and Mayor Pro Tem Emily Francis to discuss with City staff or the
named finalist for the City Manager position the terms and conditions of an employment
agreement with Kelly DiMartino; and
WHEREAS, Mayor Jeni Arndt and Mayor Pro Tem Emily Francis, with the assistance of
City staff, have developed proposed terms and conditions of an employment agreement with Ms.
DiMartino, as set forth in the Employment Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and
incorporated herein by this reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Kelly DiMartino is appointed City Manager effective July 12, 2022,
upon administration and delivery of the oath of office.
Section 3. That the City Manager Employment Agreement, attached hereto as
Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby approved by the City Council,
and the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the City Manager’s Employment Agreement in
substantially the form shown on Exhibit “A”.
Section 4. That upon approval of a resolution appointing Kelly DiMartino as City
Manager and completion of the City Manager Employment Agreement, which is expected to
take place on July 12, 2022, the City Clerk is directed to administer the City Manager oath of
office to Kelly DiMartino, the new City Manager.
Packet Pg. 5
-2-
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this
12th day of July, A.D. 2022.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 6
CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
THIS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”), is made and entered into this
twelfth day of July, 2022 by and between the CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO, a
municipal corporation, hereinafter called the “City” KELLY DIMARTINO (“Employee”).
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article III of the Charter of the City of Fort Collins, the City
Council (“Council”) is required to appoint a City Manager and establish the compensation for the
City Manager; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to employ the services of the Employee as City Manager of
the City of Fort Collins as provided by the Charter of the City; and
WHEREAS, it is further the desire of the Council to provide certain benefits, establish
certain conditions of employment, set working conditions of employment, and set working
conditions of the Employee; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Council to: (1) secure and retain the services of the
Employee and to provide inducements for her to remain in such employment; (2) to make possible
full work productivity by assuring the Employee’s morale and peace of mind with respect to future
security; and (3) to provide a just means for terminating the Employee’s services at such time as
the Employee may be unable to fully discharge her duties due to disability or when either the
Employee or the City may otherwise desire to terminate her employment; and
WHEREAS, the Employee desires to accept employment as the City Manager of the City
upon the terms set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the
parties agree as follows:
SECTION I. DUTIES
The City hereby agrees to employ the Employee as the City Manager of the City to perform
the functions and duties specified in Article III of the City Charter and to perform such other legally
permissible and proper functions and duties as the Council may assign to the Employee in the
future. The Employee acknowledges that as City Manager she is an unclassified management City
employee.
SECTION II. TERM
A.As required by Section 4 of Article III of the City Charter, the term of this
Agreement shall be an "indefinite term". For purposes of this Agreement, "indefinite" shall be
deemed to mean "having no exact limits".
EXHIBIT A D.1
Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: Exhibit A (11794 : City Manager Appointment RESO)
2
B. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit, or otherwise interfere with the right
of the Council to remove the Employee from the position of City Manager and terminate her
employment with the City under this Agreement at any time pursuant to and in accordance with
the provisions of Section 4 of Article III of the City Charter. For purposes of this Agreement, the
words "remove", "removed" and "removal", when used in the context of the Employee being
removed from the position of City Manager by the Council under Section 4 of Article III of the
City Charter, shall be deemed to also mean termination of the Employee’s employment with the
City under this Agreement.
C. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit, or otherwise interfere with the right
of the Employee to resign at any time from her position as City Manager, provided that she gives
the City forty-five (45) days prior written notice of her intent to resign.
D. The Employee shall commence her employment with the City under this
Agreement as the City Manager effective upon completion of the oath of office and after execution
of this Agreement.
SECTION III. BASE SALARY, CAR ALLOWANCE AND EQUIPMENT
A. The City shall pay to the Employee for the Employee’s services as City Manager
an annual base salary in the amount of Two-Hundred-Ninety-Five-Thousand-Dollars
($295,000.00) established according to ordinance approved by the City Council payable at the
same time as other City employees are paid and subject to the customary tax deductions and
withholdings required by law and any withholdings authorized by the Employee. Any adjustments
to the Employee’s base salary shall be approved by ordinance based on annual performance
reviews upon the customary schedule for executive employees.
B. In addition to the base salary referenced in subsection III.A. above, the City shall
pay the Employee a car allowance in the amount of One-Thousand-Dollars ($1,000.00) per
calendar month. The Employee will acquire an environmentally-conscious vehicle in accordance
with the City’s environmental and sustainability goals when circumstances permit. To the extent
reasonably possible, the City will cooperate with the Employee in creating, maintaining, and
providing to the Employee or her designees any records or documentation that the Employee may
request in order to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code or related
regulations regarding the tax treatment of the car allowance.
C. In addition to the base salary referenced in subsection III.A. above, the City shall
pay the Employee a telephone service allowance of One-Hundred-Dollars ($100.00) per calendar
month. To the extent reasonably possible, the City will cooperate with the Employee in creating,
maintaining, and providing to the Employee or her designees any records or documentation that
the Employee may request in order to comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code
or related regulations regarding the tax treatment of the telephone service allowance.
D. In addition to the foregoing allowances, the Employee shall receive a City-issued
laptop or tablet computer for City business during her tenure as City Manager.
EXHIBIT A D.1
Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: Exhibit A (11794 : City Manager Appointment RESO)
3
SECTION IV. VACATION AND SICK LEAVE
A. The Employee shall accrue annual vacation leave at the maximum accrual rate
available to City employees with more than twenty years of service, retroactive to July 1, 2022,
and shall accrue throughout each calendar year and be pro-rated on a biweekly basis.
Notwithstanding any City policy to the contrary, vacation leave accrued and unused by the
Employee shall be subject to the following terms and conditions:
(1) In order to qualify for any cash conversion of unused vacation leave, the Employee
must use no less than the equivalent of three (3) weeks of vacation leave during
each full year of employment.
(2) At the end of each calendar year, the balance of the Employee's accrued, unused
vacation leave remaining shall be carried over to subsequent years, up to a
maximum carry-over accrual of 480 hours. With respect to accumulated carry-over
vacation leave, upon satisfaction of the minimum exercised vacation leave required
under sub-section (1) above, the Employee shall be entitled to receive the cash
equivalent of all or any portion of such accrued, unused vacation leave up to a
maximum of One-Hundred-Twenty (120) hours, based upon her most recent rate
of pay as City Manager for the City.
(3) Upon the cessation of the Employee's employment with the City for any reason, the
Employee shall be compensated by cash payment for the total amount of the
Employee’s accrued, unused vacation leave balance. The amount of said payment
shall be based upon the Employee's then current hourly equivalent rate of pay. Any
payment made to the Employee by the City under this provision shall be in addition
to any amounts previously paid for accrued, unused vacation leave under
subparagraph (2) above and any other amounts payable under this Agreement. To
the extent permitted by law, the Employee may elect to direct that any such payment
be deposited into the City’s 457 deferred compensation plan through the City’s
retirement recordkeeper.
B. The parties acknowledge that the Employee has been authorized to accrue more
than Four-Hundred-Eighty (480) hours of unused vacation leave during the term of her
employment with the City prior to the date effective date of this Agreement. With respect to prior-
accumulated vacation leave, the Employee shall be entitled to receive the cash equivalent of all or
any portion of such accrued, unused vacation leave up to a maximum of Three-Hundred (300)
hours, based upon her most recent rate of pay as Interim City Manager for the City. To the extent
permitted by law, the Employee may elect to have deposited into the City's 457 deferred
compensation plan through the City’s retirement recordkeeper or its 401A qualified retirement
plan, or such other qualified retirement plan as the Employee may designate, the cash equivalent
of any portion of her accrued, unused vacation leave that is not carried over to subsequent years
up to a maximum of Three-Hundred (300) hours, based upon her most recent salary as Interim
City Manager for the City.
EXHIBIT A D.1
Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: Exhibit A (11794 : City Manager Appointment RESO)
4
C. The Employee shall be credited for and be entitled to receive those sick leave
benefits provided to all full-time unclassified City employees. The Employee shall not be entitled
to be paid for any earned but unused sick leave upon resignation or termination from employment
under this Agreement.
SECTION V. DISABILITY
If the Employee is permanently disabled or is otherwise unable to perform her duties
because of sickness, accident, injury or mental incapacity or health for a period of four successive
weeks beyond any accrued sick leave, the City shall have the option to terminate this Agreement,
subject to the notice and severance pay requirements of Section XII below. However, the
Employee shall be compensated for any accrued and unused vacation or unused holiday leave, and
further compensated as a disabled employee pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of
the City’s Long Term Disability Insurance Plan.
SECTION VI. DISABILITY, HEALTH, LIFE INSURANCE AND OTHER BENEFITS
A. The City will provide and offer to the Employee and her qualified dependents the
same insurance benefit packages and plans it provides and offers to all its full -time unclassified
management employees, which benefit packages and plans currently include, without limitation,
group life, accidental death and dismemberment insurance; long-term disability insurance; dental
reimbursement plan; dental insurance; vision insurance; and major medical insurance.
B. All provisions of the City Charter and Code, and regulations and rules of the City
relating to other benefits and working conditions shall also apply to the Employee as she would to
service area directors of the City, unless said benefits and working condi tions are otherwise
specifically set forth in this Employment Agreement, in which case the terms of this Employment
Agreement shall prevail.
C. The City agrees to put into force and to make required premium payments for the
Employee for insurance policies for life, accidental death and dismemberment, disability income
benefits and medical health plan benefits covering the Employee and her dependents. These
benefits shall be the same as those for all City employees.
SECTION VII. PENSION AND DEFERRED COMPENSATION BENEFITS
The City agrees to execute all necessary agreements provided by the City’s retirement
recordkeeper for the Employee’s participation in a City-sponsored 401A qualified retirement plan,
and, in addition to the base salary paid by the City to Employee, the City agrees to pay on the
Employee’s behalf an amount equal to ten percent (10%) of the Employee’s base salary into such
qualified retirement plan, in equally proportioned amounts each pay period. Effective July 1, 2022,
the City agrees to make a matching contribution in the 401A plan equal to 100% of the Employee’s
elective deferrals that do not exceed 3% of the Employee’s annual base salary. The City further
agrees to roll over into another qualified retirement plan or to transfer the Employee’s ownership
EXHIBIT A D.1
Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: Exhibit A (11794 : City Manager Appointment RESO)
5
in the 401A plan to her succeeding employer’s qualified plan upon the Employee’s resignation or
termination, to the extent such a rollover or transfer is allowed by law and the terms of the City’s
plan. In addition, the Employee is eligible to participate in the City’s 457 deferred compensation
plan through its retirement recordkeeper.
SECTION VIII. DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS
The City agrees to budget and pay for the professional dues and subscriptions of the
Employee necessary for her continuation and full participation in national, regional, state, and local
associations or organizations necessary and desirable for her continued participation, growth, and
advancement, and for the good of the City.
SECTION IX. DEVELOPMENT
The City agrees to budget and pay for the reasonable travel and subsistence expenses of
the Employee for official travel, meetings, and occasions adequate to continue the development of
the Employee and to adequately pursue necessary official and other functions for the City,
including the annual conferences of the International City Management Association, the Colorado
Municipal League, and such other national, regional, state and local government-related groups
and committees thereof which the Employee serves as a member. The City also agrees to pay for
the reasonable travel and subsistence expenses of the Employee to attend continuing education
short courses, institutes, and seminars related to her service as City Manager for the City.
SECTION X. GENERAL EXPENSES
The City recognizes that there are expenses of a non-personal and generally job-related
nature that are incurred from time to time by the Employee. To the extent that the City's Chief
Financial Officer is authorized by applicable administrative procedures and policies of the City,
the Chief Financial Officer is authorized to pay directly or reimburse the Employee for such
expenses upon receipt of proper documentation submitted not more often than monthly.
SECTION XI. COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
The City recognizes the desirability of the Employee participating in service and charitable
organizations in the community and in the event the Employee becomes a member of such service
and charitable organizations, the City will pay all reasonable expenses and fees related to such
membership. If the Employee becomes a member of the board of directors of a community
organization based on her position as City Manager, her duties as such director is within the scope
of her duties as City Manager for purposes of the indemnification provision set forth in Section
XV of this Agreement.
SECTION XII. REMOVAL, TERMINATION AND SEVERANCE PAY
A. Pursuant to Section 4 of Article III of the City Charter, the Employee shall be
considered an at-will employee under this Agreement and, therefore, the Council may remove the
EXHIBIT A D.1
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Exhibit A (11794 : City Manager Appointment RESO)
6
Employee from her position as City Manager at any time with or without cause in accordance with
the method set forth in Section 4 of Article III of the City Charter.
B. If the Employee is removed from her position as City Manager by the Council for
"cause" [as defined in sub-sections (1) – (6) of this sub-section B] in accordance with the method
set forth in Section 4 of Article III of the City Charter, the Employee shall only be entitled to such
compensation as is required to be paid to her under Section 4 of Article III of the City Charter. As
used in this Section XI, the word "cause" shall mean: (1) failure of the Employee to carry out her
duties under this Agreement after written notice from the Council; (2) failure of the Employee to
desist from any act or omission believed by the Council to be contrary to the best interests of the
City after written notice to the Employee to desist; (3) conviction of a felony or a crime of moral
turpitude; (4) dishonesty towards, fraud upon, or deliberate injury or attempted injury to the City;
(5) the breach by the Employee of a term or condition of this Agreement; (6) any physical or
mental disability that substantially limits a major life function of the Employee and that results in
her inability to carry out any essential function of her job as City Manager, with or without
reasonable accommodations by the City, provided that the Employee’s removal shall not affect the
availability of any benefits for which the Employee is otherwise eligible under the City's disability
plan or, if the disability is the result of a work -related injury, under the Colorado workers'
compensation laws for being permanently and totally disabled.
C. If the Employee voluntarily resigns from her employment with the City under this
Agreement, the Employee shall not be entitled to receive any further compensation from the City
accruing after the effective date of her resignation. The Employee shall, however, be entitled to
receive from the City all compensation and benefits that have accrued to her under this Agreement
up to the effective date of her resignation.
D. If the Employee is removed from her position as City Manager by the Council in
accordance with the method set forth in Section 4 of Article III of the City Charter for any reason
other than for "cause" as defined in Section XI.B(1) – (6) above, the City shall continue to pay the
Employee bi-weekly her then-current salary as severance pay for a period of six (6) months,
payable in a single lump sum.
In addition to severance pay as provided herein, medical insurance shall be provided
through the end of the month in which the termination occurs. The Employee may elect to
thereafter continue coverage following her termination. In the event the Employee elects to
continue health insurance coverage, in addition to severance pay as provided in this sub-section
D, the Employee shall receive a monthly payment from the City in a gross amount equal to one
month of the then-current premium required for the Employee’s continued participation in the
City’s health insurance program under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
(COBRA) at the coverage level in effect as of the date of the Employee’s removal from
employment with the City. The payment for the COBRA premium shall terminate upon the
Employee becoming eligible for participation in another employer-sponsored health insurance
plan, but in no event shall the City’s COBRA premium contribution extend for more than six (6)
months following the Employee’s termination from employment by the City.
EXHIBIT A D.1
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Exhibit A (11794 : City Manager Appointment RESO)
7
E. In the event that the City at any time during the term of this Agreement reduces the
salary or other financial benefits of the Employee in a greater percentage than is applicable to an
across-the-board reduction for all employees of the City, or in the event that the City refuses,
following written notice, to comply with any other provision benefitting the Employee herein, or
the Employee resigns following written notice from the Council of removal other than for cause
as described in subparagraph B. above, then the Employee may, at her option, be deemed to have
been removed by the Council without cause for the purposes of this Section, in which event the
Employee shall be entitled to the severance pay and monthly payment for the COBRA premium
provided for above.
F. Whether the Employee resigns from her position as City Manager under this
Agreement or is removed from her position by the Council with or without cause, the Employee
shall retain all rights and benefits that may have accrued to her under any of the benefit, pension,
or deferred compensation plans provided to her under this Agreement and that she is entitled to
retain in accordance with the provisions of such plans and applicable law as any City employee
who has resigned or been terminated from employment with the City would be entitled to retain.
SECTION XIII. RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT
Pursuant to Section 1 of Article III of the City Charter, the Employee agrees to reside within
the City limits of the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, at all times during her employment under this
Agreement.
SECTION XIV. HOURS WORKED
A. The Council recognizes that the Employee is required to work and perform on
behalf of the City other than on an "eight-to-five" basis. As City Manager, she is subject to calls
at any time, is required to attend night meetings, and is required to participate in various other
activities that benefit the City, often working long hours and at times that are not considered normal
working hours. The Council expects the Employee to establish a schedule and working hours using
good judgment appropriate to the needs of the City and that assures the Employee will faithfully
perform her assigned duties and responsibilities.
B. The Employee’s service to the City under this Agreement shall be the Employee’s
primary employment. Recognizing that certain outside consulting or teaching opportunities
provide indirect benefits to the City and the community as a whole, the Employee may accept
limited teaching, speaking and pro-bono consulting opportunities with the understanding that any
such arrangement must neither interfere with nor create a conflict of i nterest with her
responsibilities under this Agreement. The Employee will be expected to use available leave hours
while engaged in teaching, speaking and consulting activities. Nothing herein shall prevent the
Employee from receiving third-party reimbursement of actual expenses incurred by the Employee
while engaged in teaching, speaking and consulting activities.
EXHIBIT A D.1
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Exhibit A (11794 : City Manager Appointment RESO)
8
SECTION XV. INDEMNIFICATION
The City shall defend, save harmless and indemnify the Employee against any tort, liability
claim or demand or other legal action, including attorney fees, expert witness fees and costs of
suit, whether groundless or otherwise, arising out of an alleged act or omission arising out of the
course and scope of the Employee’s duties as City Manager as provided in Article III, Section 2
of the City Charter. The City may compromise and settle any such claim or suit and pay the amount
of any settlement or judgment rendered thereon, provided that no judgment or admission of
wrongdoing shall be agreed to by the City without the Employee’s written consent.
SECTION XVI. BONDING
The City will bear the full cost of any fidelity or other bond required of the Employee under
any law or ordinance or as may be deemed desirable by the City.
SECTION XVII. ANNUAL APPROPRIATION
All financial obligations of the City under this Agreement shall be subject to the Council's
annual appropriation of the funds necessary to satisfy such obligations.
SECTION XVIII. NOTICES
Any notice or other communication required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing and
shall be deemed to have been given on the date of service if served personally, or three (3) days
after mailing if mailed by first-class mail, registered or certified, postage prepaid, return receipt
requested, and addressed as follows:
If to the City: City of Fort Collins
Mayor
P.O. Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
If to the Employee: Kelly DiMartino
5919 O’Leary Court
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525]
SECTION XIX. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. It is the intent of the parties that this Agreement and the appointment of the
Employee as City Manager be, in all aspects, in accordance with the requirements and provisions
of the City’s Charter relating to such position. If any provision of this Agreement is capable of two
(2) constructions, only one (1) of which complies with the Charter, the construction that complies
with the Charter shall control. If any provision of the Agreement conflicts with the Charter, the
Charter shall control, and the conflicting provision of this Agreement shall be of no effect. In the
EXHIBIT A D.1
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Exhibit A (11794 : City Manager Appointment RESO)
9
latter event, an invalid provision of this Agreement shall not affect the other provisions of the
Agreement, it being the intent of the parties that the provisions of this Agreement shall be
severable.
B. The text herein shall constitute the entire Agreement between the parties.
C. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs at law
and executors of the Employee.
SECTION XX. OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT.
A. The Council, in consultation with the Employee, shall establish any such other
terms and conditions of employment as it may determine from time to time, relating to the
performance of the Employee, provided that such terms and conditions are not inconsistent with
or in conflict with the provisions of this Agreement, the City Charter or any other law. The City
and the Employee specifically acknowledge the processes for performance evaluations as set forth
in City Council Resolution No. 2019-099, which may be amended from time to time by Council.
B. All provisions of the City Charter and Code, and regulations and rules of the City
relating to vacation and sick leave, retirement and pension system contributions, holidays and other
fringe benefits (including, without limitation, health and life insurance programs, social security,
and disability benefits, if any), working conditions as they now exist or hereafter may be amended
and provisions governing accrual and payment for vacation upon termination of employment, also
shall apply to the Employee as she would to department heads and service directors of the City,
unless said benefits are specifically provided for herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Agreement to be signed and executed
in its behalf by its Mayor and duly attested by its City Clerk, and the Employee has signed and
executed this Agreement, both in duplicate, the day and year first above written.
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO,
A Municipal Corporation
By: __________________________________
Jeni Arndt, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Anissa Hollingshead, City Clerk
_______________________________
Kelly DiMartino, Employee
EXHIBIT A D.1
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Exhibit A (11794 : City Manager Appointment RESO)
10
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
Ian D. McCargar, Special Counsel
Town Attorney
Town of Windsor, Colorado
EXHIBIT A D.1
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Exhibit A (11794 : City Manager Appointment RESO)
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 086, 2022
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING SECTION 2-596 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AND
SETTING THE SALARY OF THE CITY MANAGER
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article III, Section 1 of the City Charter, the City Council is
responsible for fixing the compensation of the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, the City is committed to compensating its employees in a manner which is
fair, competitive and understandable; and
WHEREAS, the City’s pay philosophy is based on total compensation, which includes
not only base salary but also deferred compensation payments, vacation and holiday leave, and
amounts paid by the City for medical, dental, life and long-term disability insurance; and
WHEREAS, members of the City Council, with the assistance of City staff, and the
presumed City Manager have discussed terms and conditions of the presumed City Manager’s
employment, including the base salary to be paid to the presumed City Manager; and
WHEREAS, the City Council supports a compensation philosophy of paying employees
a competitive salary and is setting the salary of the presumed City Manager based on established
market data; and
WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the base salary of the City Manager should be
established at the amount of Two Hundred Ninety-Five Thousand Dollars ($295,000) per annum.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FORT COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby makes and adopts the determinations and
findings contained in the recitals set forth above.
Section 2. That Section 2-596 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 2-596. - Salary of the City Manager.
The base salary to be paid to the City Manager shall be two hundred seventy-eight
thousand, four hundred seventy-five dollars ($278,475) two hundred ninety-five thousand
dollars ($295,000) per annum, payable in biweekly installments. Forty (40) percent of
such sum shall be charged to the city electric utility, twenty (20) percent to the city water
utility and forty (40) percent to general government expense.
Section 3. That the salary shall be effective as of July 1, 2022.
Packet Pg. 17
-2-
Introduced, considered favorably on first reading, and ordered published this 12th day of
July, A.D. 2022, and to be presented for final passage on the 16th day of August, A.D. 2022.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 16th day of August, A.D. 2022.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Packet Pg. 18
City of Fort Collins Page 1
Jeni Arndt, Mayor
Emily Francis, District 6, Mayor Pro Tem
Susan Gutowsky, District 1
Julie Pignataro, District 2
Tricia Canonico, District 3
Shirley Peel, District 4
Kelly Ohlson, District 5
Colorado River Community Room
222 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, Colorado
Cablecast on FCTV
Channel 14 on Connexion
Channel 14 and 881 on Comcast
Carrie Daggett Kelly DiMartino Anissa Hollingshead
City Attorney Interim City Manager City Clerk
Upon request, the City of Fort Collins will provide language access services for individuals who have limited English
proficiency, or auxiliary aids and services for individuals with disabilities, to access City services, programs and
activities. Contact 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Dial 711 for Relay Colorado) for assistance. Please provide 48 hours
advance notice when possible.
A petición, la Ciudad de Fort Collins proporcionará servicios de acceso a idiomas para personas que no dominan el
idioma inglés, o ayudas y servicios auxiliares para personas con discap acidad, para que puedan acceder a los
servicios, programas y actividades de la Ciudad. Para asistencia, llame al 970.221.6515 (V/TDD: Marque 711 para
Relay Colorado). Por favor proporcione 48 horas de aviso previo cuando sea posible.
City Council Work Session
July 12, 2022
6:00 PM
A) CALL TO ORDER.
B) ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
1. Contracting for Residential Trash and Recycling Service. (staff: Caroline Mitchell, Lindsay Ex; 15
minute presentation; 45 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to seek feedback on program elements to be included in a contracted
system for residential waste and recycling collection in preparation for a Resolution on the same
topic at the July 19 Regular Meeting.
2. Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage. (staff: Ginny Sawyer; 10 minute presentation; 45 minute
discussion)
The purpose of this item is to provide background and analysis on adoption of a local minimum wage
and to clarify next steps.
City of Fort Collins Page 2
3. Water Adequacy Determination Review Process. (staff: Jenny Axmacher; 15 minute presentation;
45 minute discussion)
The purpose of this item is to provide Council with an update on the creation of a water adequacy
determination review process. Staff is seeking input on specific aspects of the process creation,
including the approach for evaluating new water providers, impacts to existing water providers, and
identifying the decision maker for determining water adequacy.
Water is a crucial and constrained resource, and the City strives to ensure that development meets
the community’s vision and expectations for responsible resource management. City Plan includes
policies to ensure water is used wisely and our community is prepared for a changing climate.
Currently, development within the City only occurs within the boundaries of e xisting City (Fort Collins
Utilities) and Special District water providers, such as Fort Collins -Loveland Water District and East
Larimer County Water District. A project is determined to have an adequate water supply through the
issuance of a “will serve” letter from the established water provider at the time of development plan
or building permit approval.
The necessity for an updated water adequacy review program stems from the limited supply and
high cost of water resources, which have resulted in deve lopers pursuing more creative ways to
provide water to their proposed developments, particularly projects striving to provide affordable
housing or the denser development patterns called for in City Plan. To establish a more
comprehensive water adequacy review process, staff is considering the best practices from other
jurisdictions, authority/review by other agencies, and creating a city review process specifically for
new providers. The water adequacy determination review process for new providers will lo ok at
evaluation criteria, review timing and decision-making authority.
C) ANNOUNCEMENTS.
D) ADJOURNMENT.
DATE:
STAFF:
July 12, 2022
Caroline Mitchell, Environmental Sustainability Manager
Jackie Kozak-Thiel, Chief Sustainability Officer
Tyler Marr, Interim Deputy City Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Contracting for Residential Trash and Recycling Service.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to seek feedback on program elements to be included in a contracted system fo r
residential waste and recycling collection in preparation for a Resolution on the same topic at the July 19 Regular
Meeting.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Do Councilmembers have feedback about the recommendations to be included in a contracted system for
residential waste and recycling collection program, which will be included in a Request for Proposals (RFP)?
• Materials Collected and How
• System Design
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
One of the adopted Council Priorities is to explore a districted system for garbage, recycling and compost for
single family homes. Districting is a sub-type of a contracted trash and recycling system. To ensure the broadest
possible conversation in the community, this document utilizes the term “contracting.”
Council Feedback from April 12 Work Session
• Continue efforts to pursue contracting
• Continue to engage community members regarding this effort and ensure engagement includes the benefits
of trash contracting
• Engage community members to understand priorities related to contracting and service options and what
community concerns should be addressed via the process
• Refine peer community research to understand best practices in program and RFP development
• Present options for elements of a contracted system at the July 12 Council Work Session
Baseline Recommendations for Elements to Include in the Request for Proposals
The chart below outlines the recommendation for elements of a program for a contracted system that would be
included in a Request for Proposals for Fort Collins. (Attachment 2)
Materials to be Collected and How
Material Recommendation Why
Yard Trimmings
Service type:
Request two versions of
pricing for opt-out and
bundled pricing to find
optimal balance of highest
Requesting pricing for both service types allows for
understanding of pricing impacts for both options to
make informed decision
Opt-out service type allows choice for those who
B.1
Packet Pg. 3
July 12, 2022 Page 2
Materials to be Collected and How
Material Recommendation Why
diversion for lowest price
Service frequency:
Weekly collection from
April – Nov
don’t want / need the service
Bundled service type is generally lowest price for
service, but doesn’t allow households to opt out of
yard trimmings service
Bulky Waste
(Items too large to fit in
curbside cart)
Request two versions of
bulky waste pricing:
a-la-carte (not in base
trash charge) and 2 items /
year included in base trash
charge
Allows for understanding of pricing impacts for
different options to make informed decision
Balances diversion focus with equity
Provides options for people who don’t have
trucks/trailers
Trash
Volume-based pricing
(Price based on size of
cart, also known as Pay-
As-You-Throw (PAYT))
Current System
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-
recommended best practice for waste reduction
Include extra low trash generator rate (<32 gal / wk)
Recycling
Pricing model: Bundled
with trash service for no
additional charge
Service frequency:
Request pricing for weekly
and every-other-week
service
Current System
EPA-recommended best practice for increased
recycling
Can evaluate pricing to determine whether to keep
every other week or shift to weekly service (which
would likely increase recycling)
Food Scraps
Do not include in this
contract
Consider adding when infrastructure that can process
food scraps is within a reasonable haul distance from
Fort Collins (currently pursuing through regional
partnership)
System Design
Element Recommendation Why
Home Owner’s
Associations (HOAs)
with current contracts
for trash and
recycling service
Allow exemption from City
contract as long as
current contract meets
Pay-As-You-Throw
requirements
Allows existing contracts to remain in place since
these neighborhoods are already achieving the
goals of a contracted system
Carts
Purchase:
Hauler purchases carts,
which become City
property at the end of the
contract
Allows for cart purchase without the opportunity
cost of using City funds
Still allows for leveraging of grant funds to offset
cost to residents
Cost of carts (after grant offset) repaid to hauler
over contract via fee in monthly bills
Cart purchase and maintenance already part of
B.1
Packet Pg. 4
July 12, 2022 Page 3
System Design
Element Recommendation Why
Cart maintenance
Provided by hauler and
funded in trash rate on
resident bills
Ownership and logo:
City-owned carts with City
logo at households
service cost in current system
Cart maintenance already a proficiency of hauler
After initial purchase, maintenance fee funds
replacement of broken carts
Carts remain at residences when next contract
begins
Provides level playing field for next contract
process
Creates community ownership of program
Opt-Out Fee Equivalent to smallest
trash cart service cost
Opt-out option permitted by State law and required
to maximize benefits of a contracted system
This level of fee common among peer
communities
Discourages opt-outs, which erode the benefits of
the contracted system
Districts One district Results in lowest price
Leverage for most environmental benefits
See more details about multiple district scenario
considerations (Attachment 3)
Flow Control Direct trash to Larimer
County Landfill
Supports Regional Wasteshed goals and a public
landfill option
Provides level playing field for hauler proposals
Customer Service Conducted by hauler;
Require Fort Collins-
focused staff
Aligns with hauler conducted billing
Ensures most of calls answered by staff familiar
with Fort Collins
Allow roll-over to national customer service staff to
allow for more customer service hours
Admin Fee Include a fee to fund City
role in contract
management
Best practice among peer communities
City staff time investment will depend on final
contract elements; will be clarified prior to contract
adoption
Alley Service Included Haulers provide service in alleys where curbside
service is not an option
Haulers currently provide this service for no
charge
Valet Service Included Haulers take carts from home down to curb for
servicing and return the carts to the home for
B.1
Packet Pg. 5
July 12, 2022 Page 4
System Design
Element Recommendation Why
disabled residents
Haulers currently provide this service for no
charge
Billing Conducted by hauler City unable to conduct billing at this time
May consider City billing in next contract
Multi-family &
Commercial
Dumpster Pricing
Request pricing from
haulers
Would provide a fixed price for dumpster service
for multi-family or commercial customers who
would like to opt in to the program
Has been successful in peer communities
IMPACTS AND BENEFITS OF A CONTRACTED SYSTEM
Street Maintenance Savings
The City commissioned a study comparing the road maintenance impacts from an open market and a contracted
system. The analysis accounts for the fact th at 30% of Fort Collins households live in Homeowner’s Associations
with contracted single hauler collection systems.
Wear and tear on residential roads is directly related to the weight of a vehicle. Because they are so heavy, every
trash truck causes impact equivalent to 1,250 passenger vehicles on residential roads .
The study found that Fort Collins spends $603,000 more per year on street maintenance due to the impacts
of multiple haulers on residential and collector streets, and that $14 million of the unfunded street
maintenance backlog is due to the impacts of having had an open market system.
Three additional haulers have recently contacted City staff with interest in starting service in Fort Collins if the City
does not move forward with a contract. If there were seven haulers (the existing four plus three new companies)
operating in the community, the City would pay $1,251,000 more per year on street maintenance .
Further detail can be found in the Refuse Vehicle Street Maintenance Impact Study . (Attachment 4)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction
Hauling system:
• Shifting from the current system to a contracted system for residential trash and recycling collection would
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 1200 Metric Tons of CO2e. This is equivalent to
~150 homes’ annual electricity use.
Additional yard trimmings composted:
• The greenhouse gas emissions reductions from additional yard trimmings composting depend on the system
design and will be available to inform the final decision.
More Recycling and Composting
The recommended elements of a contracted system could provide additional recycling and yard trimmings
composting. Staff recommends getting pricing for these elements in hauler proposals so the potential diversion
can be compared with the additional cost for these services.
B.1
Packet Pg. 6
July 12, 2022 Page 5
Increased recycling and composting expected depend on system design and will be available to inform the final
program design.
Increased Equity and Lower Pricing
Homeowner’s Associations (HOAs) often contract with a single hauler for trash and recycling service and often
receive rates 50% less than those paid by open market customers due to the efficiencies of servicing every
household on the street.
Since lower income households are less likely to live in neighborhoods with HOAs, this means lower income
households often pay more for the same service from the same companies as higher income households
living in HOAs while experiencing three times the noise and pollution. A contracted system provid es a
predictable cost of service for all community members and may lower prices overall.
Vehicle Emissions Reduction
Reducing the number of miles driven is the primary method for reducing trash and recycling truck vehicle
emissions. Contracting for residential trash and recycling service reduces the miles driven. If shifting from four
haulers on residential streets to one hauler, vehicle miles traveled, and related emissions would reduce by 75%.
Electric vehicles in the future or trucks fueled by compressed natural gas (CNG) in the short term can also reduce
vehicle emissions. A contracted system would allow the City to request these trucks and would provide the
leverage for these technologies far sooner than if Fort Collins remains in an open market s ystem while also
reducing the upstream greenhouse gas emissions of materials for road repair.
Less Noise
Various elements of trash and recycling collection in neighborhoods generate noise: truck engine noise, backup
alarms, sounds of materials being em ptied into the truck and engine revving during collection. The more trucks
operating in a neighborhood, the more of this type of noise and greater the frequency. Reducing the number of
trucks servicing a neighborhood reduces the amount and frequency of noise in neighborhoods.
Improved Safety
Trash and recycling collection vehicles can pose safety risks due to their size. Having fewer trash and recycling
collection vehicles in neighborhoods on fewer days of the week supports safe neighborhoods .
Operating a trash or recycling truck can also be dangerous for employees. They are most at risk when outside the
cab of the vehicle. The recommended elements of a contracted system allow for collection to be fully automated,
which allows drivers to remain safe inside their vehicles.
Further details about vehicle emissions, noise and safety can be found in the Refuse Vehicle Emission Noise
Safety Analysis Study. (Attachment 5)
TRADEOFFS OF A CONTRACTED SYSTEM
Household Choice of Hauler
The primary benefit of an open market system is that each household can select the hauler they prefer to collect
their trash and recycling. In a contracted system, households can still select a hauler other than the contracted
hauler but must pay an opt-out fee. The opt-out fee is generally equivalent to the smallest trash cart service,
which is currently between $10-$20 per month for the 32-gallon cart but has potential to be lower in a contracted
system.
B.1
Packet Pg. 7
July 12, 2022 Page 6
Concerns About Competition
Many community members have shared concern that shifting to a contracted collection system would reduce the
competition for haulers in Fort Collins and result in higher prices for service. However, peer communities have
found long-term reduced rates in a contracted system when compared with an open ma rket and have found
haulers continue to operate in their communities.
Since a contracted system only applies to single-family and small multi-family complexes, haulers retain their
customers in other sectors and remain in the community. The single family open market sector accounts for ~20%
of the trash and recycling business in Fort Collins; HOAs with contracts are ~10%, construction and demolition
sites ~30% and commercial & multi-family locations ~40%. This means that ~80% of the trash and recycling
market in Fort Collins would not be impacted by the single-family contract.
PRICING IN OPEN MARKET AND CONTRACTED SYSTEMS
Variability in Current Pricing
In an open market system, each household negotiates their own price for service. Community members sh ared
their bills and City staff found significant disparities in pricing within the community. Some community members
are currently paying $10-$15 more (sometimes twice the price) than others for the same service. Prices are
even different from the same company in the same area of town.
Examples of Monthly Pricing in Open Market and Contracted Systems
The following table includes pricing found in peer communities with different collection systems. Knowing that
increased yard trimmings collection is a key step toward achieving zero waste goals, this peer community pricing
shows that the most affordable system for increased yard trimmings collection is a contract. It also shows that
Fort Collins HOAs currently receive a lower price for service than th e open market customers.
$13
(50%)
difference
$15
(48%)
difference
B.1
Packet Pg. 8
July 12, 2022 Page 7
Fort
Collins
Open
Market
Fort
Collins
HOAs w
contract
Boulder
Open
Market
Golden
Single District
Contract
Lafayette
Single District
Contract
Bundled services
(for no extra charge)
R R R, YT,
FS
R, YT, FS, BI R, YT, FS, BI
Services for extra charge YT, BI YT, BI BI All bundled All bundled
Smallest trash cart price $10-20 $6-11 $35 $11.50 $9.50
Yard trimmings price $13-18 Seeking
information
$0 $0 $9
Total cost for trash +
recycling + yard trimmings
$23-38 To be
determined
$35 $11.50 $20.50
Cost reduction when
compared with Fort Collins
open market pricing
n/a - $4 to - $9
(no YT)
40% to
45% less
+ $13 to
-$3
56%
more to
8% less
-$11.50 to
-$26.50
50% to 70%
less
-$2.50 to
-$17.50
11% to 46%
less
R = recycling; YT = yard trimmings; FS = food scraps; BI = bulky items
Community Engagement
Since the April 12 work session, engagement has focused on the details and tradeoffs within options of a
contracted trash and recycling collection system.
Engagement included connecting with the general community and targeted engagement to members of
historically underrepresented groups.
Engagement tools included a general survey, a targeted survey, two virtual community conversations, tabling at
community events and community facilities, and information in the utility bill insert and other newsletters.
The engagement built on the wide engagement conducted prior to April. It focused on deeper conversations and
tools that ensured only one response per participant. Staff connected with ~325 community members during this
phase of engagement. Themes heard from community engagement demonstrate different perspectives but are
not a statistically valid and are not considered to represent community-wide sentiments or opinions.
Priorities with the highest percentage of “extremely important” responses in surveys
All Responses Targeted Survey Responses
Reducing air pollution (60%) Reasonable cost (90%)
Reasonable costs (59%) Stable, uniform rates (86%)
Quality customer service (52%) Quality customer service (75%)
Consistent recycling education
Reducing illegal dumping (tied, 47%)
Reducing air pollution (67%)
Note: To explore community feedback in greater depth, please refer to the Curbside Contracting Engagement
Report. (Attachment 6)
Hauler Engagement
City staff also continued to engage with haulers servicing the community. The new hauler servicing the
community has not responded to staff requests to engage since the April 12 work session, but staff has met
regularly with the other three haulers about details of a contracted system.
B.1
Packet Pg. 9
July 12, 2022 Page 8
Perspectives from the haulers has not shifted since April: Republic / Gallegos Sanitation, Waste Connections /
Ram, and Waste Management all support exploring a contracted system. Mountain Hig h does not support a shift
to a contracted system.
NEXT STEPS
If consistent with feedback from Council at the July 12 Work Session, staff will:
• Draft a resolution with policy elements to be included in the Program and reflected in a resolution for
Councilmember consideration at the July 19 Regular Session
• Finalize a Request for Proposals incorporating the policy feedback from Councilmembers
• Issue the Request for Proposals in late July or early August and allow time for haulers to draft proposals
• Conduct a competitive purchasing process review of hauler proposals
• Return to Council to discuss elements of the final proposal to make remaining policy decisions
• In late 2022 or early 2023, schedule a Regular Session for Council to consider the ordinance change s
required to shift to a contracted system
Contracted service would be anticipated to start 12-18 months after contract is finalized to account for enough
time to purchase carts and trucks given global supply chain challenges and also allow preparation t ime for
community outreach, cart sign-up and cart distribution.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Chart of All Element Options in Contracted System (PDF)
2. Multiple District Considerations (PDF)
3. Refuse Vehicle Street Maintenance Impact Study (PDF)
4. Refuse Vehicle Emission Noise Safety Analysis (PDF)
5. Curbside Contracting Engagement Report (PDF)
6. Economic Advisory Board Recommendation (PDF)
7. Natural Resources Advisory Board Recommendation (PDF)
8. Economic Advisory Board Minutes (PDF)
9. Natural Resources Advisory Board Minutes (PDF)
10. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)
B.1
Packet Pg. 10
All Options for Elements of Contracted System
Page 1 of 5
Materials to be Collected and How
Material Recommendation All Options Notes
Yard Trimmings
Service type:
Request two versions of pricing
for opt-out and bundled pricing to
find optimal balance of highest
diversion for lowest price
Service frequency:
Weekly collection from April –
Nov
Opt-in, opt-out, or bundled
Weekly or bi-weekly; seasonal or year-
round
•Opt-in requires resident request service and pay a
separate fee for it
o Allows choice; highest cost for service; lowest
participation and lowest diversion
•Opt-out automatically enrolls households in the
service but they can choose to remove the service
and lower their monthly bill
o Allows choice; medium cost for service; medium
participation; medium diversion
•Bundled includes the service in every household’s
bill. Households don’t have to use the service but
refusing the service won’t decrease their bill.
o Lowest cost for service; highest participation;
highest diversion; some households pay for
service but don’t want it or use it
•Weekly increases amount composted, prevents
carts from getting to heavy, prevents odor, and is
higher cost than every other week service
•Haulers prefer weekly b/c grass trimmings get heavy
and stinky if in carts for two weeks
•Seasonal collection common for yard trimmings only
programs
Bulky Waste
(Items too large
to fit in curbside
cart)
Request two versions of bulky
waste pricing:
a-la-carte (not in base trash
charge) and
2 items / year included in base
trash charge
Collection by request:
•A-la-carte pricing (not in base
trash charge)
•Bundled pricing (2 items / year
included in base trash charge)
Collection event: one or two days / year
where all households place bulky items
out for collection
•Bulky item collection important for residents who don’t
have a truck / trailer to dispose of large items
•Bulky item collection price identified as a barrier to low-
income community members’ ability to dispose of
unwanted items
•Unlimited bulky item collection / collection events tend to
increase wasting of items that could be reused
•Goal is to balance collection options for resident needs
while not incentivizing wasting reusable items
ATTACHMENT 1 B.1.1
Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: Chart of All Element Options in Contracted System (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting
Page 2 of 5
Trash Volume-based pricing
(Price based on size of cart, also
known as Pay-As-You-Throw
(PAYT))
Volume-based or not volume-based
pricing • Is our current system
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-recommended
best practice for waste reduction
• Studies show volume-based pricing with 80%+ price
differential between cart sizes optimizes waste reduction
• Recommend including an extra-low trash generator rate
(<32 gal / wk)
Recycling Pricing model:
Bundled with trash service for no
additional charge
Service frequency:
Request pricing for weekly and
every-other-week service
Recycling bundled for no separate fee or
by request for a fee
Collection can take place every other
week or every week
• Bundled is our current system
• Bundled recycling is best practice for increased recycling
• Every other week collection
o Most common across the U.S.
o Balances service cost with diversion
• Weekly recycling
o Increase in cardboard from online shopping and more
working from home has increased recycling needs at
homes
o Under evaluation in more communities
Being considered now in Denver
Food Scraps Do not include in this contract
Consider when infrastructure that
can process food scraps is within
a reasonable haul distance from
Fort Collins
Food scraps collection an optional service
from a separate provider
Add food scraps in yard trimmings cart
• Two small companies currently provide curbside food
scraps collection for a separate fee
• When infrastructure to process food scraps is in
reasonable haul distance, many communities include food
scraps in yard trimmings cart and shift to year-round
collection
System Design
Element Recommendation All Options Notes
Home Owner’s
Associations
(HOAs)
with current
contracts for trash
and recycling
service
Allow exemption from City
contract as long as current
contract meets Pay-As-You-
Throw (PAYT) requirements
Allow HOAs with contracts
meeting PAYT requirements to
be exempt from City contract
(and can opt in if they desire)
Require HOAs with contracts to
join the City contract as of a set
date or pay an ongoing opt-out
fee
• HOAs with contracts meeting the City’s PAYT requirements already
achieve the goals of a contracted system
• HOA contracts with haulers often incur high fees to end contract
prematurely
• Requiring HOAs to join the City contract can create significant
resident dissent without adding significant additional benefit
• Approximately 30% of Fort Collins households are in HOAs with
contracts
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: Chart of All Element Options in Contracted System (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting
Page 3 of 5
Carts Purchase:
Hauler purchases carts, which
become City property at the end
of the contract
Cart maintenance and
replacement:
Provided by hauler, funded in
trash rate on resident bills
Carts:
City-owned carts with City logo at
households
Carts can be purchased by City
or by the hauler (and can
become City property at the
end of the contract either way)
In either scenario, staff has
secured one grant and
continues to seek additional
grant funding to offset part of
the cost
Cart cost repaid over length of
contract by fee on resident bills
Grant-funded portion would not
have to be repaid by residents
Cart maintenance provided by
hauler or City
Hauler-owned, hauler-logo
carts that must be delivered at
beginning of contract and
removed at end of contract
City-owned carts with City logo
that remain at households when
contracted hauler changes
• City purchased
o Likely lowest cost option for residents
o Would come at opportunity cost for City organization as those
funds could not be used for other purposes until repaid
• Hauler purchased
o City does not have to provide up front funding
o Hauler likely charges financing fee for carts, so is likely higher
cost to residents
o Is a “lease to purchase” where City owns carts at end of
contract
• Grant funding
o Would allow for grant funding to offset part of cart cost no
matter who purchases carts
o Have secured $750k grant for recycling carts from Recycling
Partnership
o Have applied for $3.75M grant for yard trimmings carts from
Front Range Waste Diversion (FRWD) grant
• Cart maintenance already a proficiency of hauler
• After initial purchase, maintenance fee funds replacement of broken
carts
o Generally assume 10% cart replacement / year
o Anticipated lifespan of carts is 10+ years
• Delivering carts to and picking carts up from homes is expensive –
decreasing the times this happens saves residents money
• If hauler-owned carts are at homes, that hauler would have a
significant advantage in next contract proposal round (as they
already own the carts and the carts are already delivered to homes)
• Hauler-logo carts affiliate program with hauler more than community
• City-owned, City-logo carts can remain at households when
contracts change over, which provides a level playing field for all
haulers submitting proposals in the next contract round
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: Chart of All Element Options in Contracted System (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting
Page 4 of 5
Opt-Out Fee Equivalent to smallest trash cart
service cost
Pricing determined by
community.
Peer communities have opt-out
rates as low as $4/mo; most set
fee equal to smallest trash cart
service cost
• Opt-out option permitted by State law and required to maximize
benefits of a contracted system
• Low opt-out fees results in high level of opt-outs, which can
undermine benefits of contract
o Community with $4 / mo opt-out fee has opt-out rate of 30%+ of
households
• Opt-out fee equal to smallest trash cart service incentivizes program
participation while not overly penalizing opt-out customers.
o Communities with this opt-out fee see 1-5% opt-out rate, which
retains benefits of contracted system
Districts One district Contract with one hauler per
district.
Can choose to have one or
more districts in the community.
• Multiple districts could result in different prices for same service in
different areas of community
• Single district optimizes environmental benefits and lowest prices
• All Colorado communities with contracts have a single district
• Colorado communities who have explored multiple districts have not
implemented contracts
• For more details, see Attachment 3: Multiple District Considerations
Flow Control Direct trash to Larimer County
Landfill
Can direct trash to Larimer
County landfill (enact flow
control)
or leave trash destination up to
hauler (no flow control)
• Directing trash to Larimer County landfill supports Regional
Wasteshed goals and a public landfill option by providing a
predictable and dedicated amount of material
• Directing trash to Larimer County provides level playing field for
hauler proposals because some haulers own landfills nearby Fort
Collins and can leverage lower landfill tip fees to impact price
offerings
Customer Service Conducted by hauler;
Require dedicated Fort Collins-
focused staff
Can be provided by the City
or the contracted hauler
or each entity provide distinct
customer service elements
• Hauler conducting customer service aligns with hauler conducting
billing
• Requesting Fort Collins-dedicated staff from hauler helps ensure
most of calls answered by staff familiar with Fort Collins; allow roll-
over to national customer service staff to allow for more customer
service hours
• City will need to accept complaints about service
• Cities often create dedicated phone number that remains consistent
no matter which company is providing service for education
consistency
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: Chart of All Element Options in Contracted System (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting
Page 5 of 5
Admin Fee Include a fee to fund City role in
contract management
City can fund City costs to
implement and manage
contract from City funds or from
a fee charged in the base trash
rate
• Peer communities fund City staff investments through fee in base
trash rate
• Amount of fee proportional to services provided by City (e.g., higher
if City were to provide billing)
• City staff time investment will depend on final contract elements; will
be clarified prior to contract adoption
Alley Service Included Can provide service in alleys for
homes with alleys (and where
curbside service is not an
option) for no extra charge or
for a separate fee
or require all households to
bring carts to the curb
regardless of alleys
• Alleys are a particular challenge for haulers as they are often more
narrow and less maintained than residential streets. Alley service
often requires specialized (smaller) trucks and servicing bins takes
longer, thus is a more expensive form of service.
• The more alley service in a community, the higher the cost of service
for all residents, unless alley residents pay a higher rate
• Fort Collins does not have a significant number of alleys compared
with other communities
Valet Service Included Can provide or not; can charge
a separate fee or not
(Valet service is when haulers
take carts from a home down to
curb for servicing and return the
carts to the home for disabled
residents)
• All haulers currently servicing Fort Collins provide valet service for
disabled residents upon request for no additional charge
• Valet service supports equitable access to services
• Providing the service for no charge prevents penalizing residents for
having a disability
Billing Conducted by hauler Can be provided by the City or
the contracted hauler
• City unable to conduct billing at in the near future
• May consider City billing in next contract
• Among peer communities, common for City to provide billing in Utility
bill
o Often less expensive for residents
o Makes it easier for City to determine if the hauler is meeting
the contract requirement and to enforce them
Multi-family &
Commercial
Dumpster Pricing
Request pricing from haulers Can choose to include this
option in hauler proposals or
not
• Would provide a fixed price for dumpster service for multi-family or
commercial customers who would like to opt in to the program
• Has been successful in peer communities
• Leverages the benefits of the contracted system for multi-family or
commercial customers if they choose to opt in
B.1.1
Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: Chart of All Element Options in Contracted System (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting
Multiple District Options in Contracted Systems
Many communities shifting from an open market to a contracted system explore a districted system as it often seems
like a "middle ground" between an open market with many haulers and a single hauler contract.
Multiple Colorado communities have explored districted systems: Lakewood, Westminster, Arvada and Fort Collins (in
2008). In each community other than Arvada, the contract didn't move forward. In Arvada, one hauler won every
district, and it now functions as a single district contracted community.
All Colorado communities with a contracted trash and recycling system have a single district.
Multiple Districts
•Often perceived as “middle ground” between
open market and single hauler
•No successful models in Colorado
•Dilutes the benefits of a contracted system
•Complications: different prices between
districts for the same service
•Would delay Request for Proposals (RFP)
release
Single District
•Lowest price
•Most environmental benefits
•Many successful models in Colorado
•Haulers remain in community – continue to
service other sectors in Fort Collins and
adjacent areas
•Continued low price, competitive proposals
from many haulers
If Councilmembers are interested in exploring a Multiple District scenario in Fort Collins, it would be important to be
clear about the goal to be accomplished via Multiple Districts. The following chart includes some potential goals of a
Multiple District scenario and potential considerations for each.
Potential Goal Likely #
of
districts
Considerations
Maintain a “backup”
hauler in the
community
2
•No matter the size of the district, haulers right-size staff and equipment to
service needs in the community; if an issue arose with one hauler, it would
still take time to increase capacity of another hauler to begin serving more
areas
•Could incentivize negotiating to a higher price proposal
Keep all haulers in
the community
active in the general
residential market
4
•Not possible to restrict competitive purchasing process to only existing
haulers
•All haulers currently operating in the community will stay in the community
as they continue to service their commercial, multi-family, construction and
demolition and Homeowners’ Association customers
Make at least one
district at a scale that
could be won by a
small hauler
2?
•Cannot guarantee district would be won by small hauler
•Smaller haulers are commonly purchased by large national haulers, so even
if a small hauler won a district, it may not be serviced by a small hauler for
the length of the contract
ATTACHMENT 2 B.1.2
Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: Multiple District Considerations (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
1512 Eureka Road, Suite 220, Roseville, CA 95661 | p 916.782.7821 | f 916.782.7824 | www.r3cgi.com
June 11, 2022
Ms. Kira Beckham
Lead Specialist
Environmental Sustainability
City of Fort Collins
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
submitted via email: kbeckham@fcgov.com
SUBJECT: Final Report - Trash Collection Street Maintenance Impact Analysis
Dear Ms. Beckham:
R3 Consulting Group, Inc. (R3) was engaged by the City of Fort Collins (City) to update our trash collection
street maintenance impact analysis that was prepared for the City in 2008. Specifically, to compare the
impacts of residential trash, recycling, and yard waste collection vehicles (Refuse Vehicles) on the City’s
residential streets and associated street maintenance costs for the City’s current open competition system
as compared to a contracted or districted collection system with a single hauler operating in any given area
of the City. This Letter Report provides the results of our analysis.
Project Objectives
To project the impact of the City’s licensed haulers’ Refuse Vehicles on the City’s residential and
collector streets, and determine the associated annual street maintenance cost for the current open
competition system.
To calculate the associated annual street maintenance cost savings that would result from a
contracted or districted collection system.
Limitations
Our analysis is based on a number of underlying assumptions for which reasonable ranges exist, including
the average number of vehicle trips per day per residential street, the percentage of those trips made by
various vehicle types, and the associated axle loadings of each vehicle type. Changes to those assumptions
can have a material impact on the resulting findings.
* * * * * * *
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City. Should you have any questions regarding our
letter report or need any additional information, please contact me by phone at (916) 947-4880 or by email
at wschoen@r3cgi.com.
Sincerely,
William Schoen | Senior Project Director
R3 Consulting Group, Inc.
916.947.4880 | wschoen@r3cgi.com
ATTACHMENT 3 B.1.3
Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Refuse Vehicle Street Maintenance Impact Study (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
Ms. Kira Beckham
June 11, 2022
Page 2 of 12
Summary Findings
Street Maintenance Budgeted Expenses
Under the current open competition system with an average of three and a half (3.5) licensed haulers
operating on each residential street, Refuse Vehicles are projected to be responsible for 24.4% of the
vehicle impacts (i.e., wear and tear) on those streets, and 10.9% of the vehicle impacts on collector streets.
The portion of the City’s annual residential and collector street maintenance budget attributed to Refuse
Vehicles currently operating within the City’s open competition system is projected at $889,000 annually.
Under a contracted or districted system, Refuse Vehicles are projected to be responsible for 8.0% of the
vehicle impacts on residential streets, and 3.3% of the vehicle impacts on collector streets. The portion of
the City’s annual residential and collector street maintenance budget attributed to Refuse Vehicles
operating under a contracted or districted system is projected to be $286,000 annually; $603,000 less than
under the current open competition system.
Street Maintenance Unfunded Backlog
The City’s current residential and collector street maintenance unfunded backlog expenses are $82 million
and $43 million, respectively. Based on the vehicle impacts reported above, and all other factors the same,
approximately $16 million of that current $82 million residential backlog expense can be attributed to
residential Refuse Vehicles, and approximately $5 million of the $43 million collector backlog attributed
to Refuse Vehicles. Had the City historically had in place a contracted or districted system, all other factors
the same, the total residential and collector street backlog would be $14 million less.
Refuse Hauler Vehicle Impact Fees
If the City’s costs to repair street pavement impacts caused by Refuse Vehicles where charged back to the
haulers in the form of a Refuse Hauler Vehicle Impact Fee, under the current open competition system the
monthly charge to the haulers would be $1.50 per month per residential account. Under a contracted or
districted system that charge falls to $0.50 per month; $1.00 less than under the current open competition
system. Those fees do not account for any recouping of the existing backlog attributed to Refuse Vehicles,
which if considered would increase those fees.
Contracted, Districted and Open Competition Systems Considerations
If effectively implemented, the City can move from an open competition residential collection system to a
contracted or districted system and likely realize a cost (customer rate) savings, and/or improved services.
This is due to the significant operational efficiencies and economies of scale that contracted and districted
collection provides versus an open competition system. A contracted system with a single contracted hauler
serving the entire City is the most operationally efficient and cost effective collection system.
There is currently a competitive market place in the region with the three largest national haulers competing
for regional market share. The regional market is likely to remain competitive regardless of what happens
with the City’s residential collection system. Under a contracted or districted system rates can be effectively
controlled and flow control can be maintained. Moving to a contracted or districted collection system will
not create a monopoly and likely will not significantly impact the three national haulers (Republic Services,
Waste Management and Waste Connections). It is not known what the impact would be on Mountain High
Disposal if it lost its residential market share.
As a condition of a contracted collection system, the City could require the selected hauler to hire all
qualified displaced drivers and mechanics as a condition of the award of the contract. The City could also
require the selected hauler to maintain displaced employee seniority, honor any scheduled vacations,
provide a matching 401K program, and/or other conditions it may wish to establish.
A contracted or districted collection system does not enable residents to select their hauler although
residents could opt-out of those services if they choose to. The City can however charge an opt-out fee for
doing so. To the extent that residents were to opt out of a contracted or districted collection system, the
benefits associated with contracted or districted collection would be negatively impacted. The City’s
regulatory oversight would also need to increase with an opt-out provision with multiple haulers to regulate.
B.1.3
Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Refuse Vehicle Street Maintenance Impact Study (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
Ms. Kira Beckham
June 11, 2022
Page 3 of 12
Background
In Fort Collins, residential trash, recycling, and yard waste services are provided by the following four (4)
licensed private trash haulers:
Mountain High Disposal
Republic Services
Ram Waste Systems (Waste Connections); and
Waste Management
Residents are free to subscribe to collection services from any of the licensed haulers, with trash haulers
competing for market share. Under this open competition system, multiple haulers provide service on each
residential street each week, with resulting street maintenance and other impacts.
In 2008, R3 assisted the City with a Trash Services Study to determine opportunities to reduce the impacts
of trash collection services in the City and increase diversion. That review included projecting the relative
impact of trash, recycling, and yard waste vehicles (Refuse Vehicles) on the City’s streets and associated
street maintenance costs for the City’s open competition residential collection system. The analysis also
projected Refuse Vehicle street maintenance impacts associated with a “districted” residential collection
system under which the City would be broken into service districts with a single hauler operating in each
district. Moving from an open competition collection system to a districted collection system would reduce
the number of Refuse Vehicle miles traveled on any given residential street with a corresponding decrease
in the associated street maintenance impacts.
All other factors the same, moving from an open competition residential collection system to a districted
collection system would reduce the number of Refuse Vehicle miles traveled on the City’s residential
streets. As a result, there would be a significant corresponding decrease in the associated vehicle street
maintenance, emission, and noise impacts, improved neighborhood aesthetics, and fewer Refuse Vehicle
accidents and related property damage.
Overview
Road maintenance is based on deterioration. While roads will deteriorate if simply left unused, most
deterioration is associated with use, and the damage caused by vehicles increases exponentially with size
and weight. Therefore, costs associated with maintenance are greater for trips made by heavy vehicles. A
single large truck can cause as much damage as thousands of automobiles, and the configuration of the
truck can affect the amount of damage as well. If the load is spread over more axles, there is less weight
on each wheel, and damage is reduced.1
Refuse Vehicles are typically the heaviest vehicles regularly operating on residential streets and are a
significant contributor to the wear-and-tear experienced by those streets. While Refuse Vehicles also
contribute to the wear-and-tear on commercial streets, those streets are designed to a higher standard
and experience significantly more vehicle trips and large truck trips than residential streets. As such, the
relative impact of a Refuse Vehicle on commercial streets is significantly less than that on residential
streets.
The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is a common unit of measure used to rate the condition of pavements.
The PCI rates pavements on a scale of 0 to 100, with a higher value indicating better pavement condition
(see Table 1 below). Rapid deterioration of pavement typically occurs after roadways drop to a PCI of 60
or lower, and studies have shown that every dollar spent performing preventative maintenance on a
roadway with a PCI of 70 or higher saves $4 in the future – it would otherwise cost about $5 to rehabilitate
the same roadway once rapid deterioration occurs2 (Figure 1). Assuring adequate funding for an effective
pavement management system is therefore critical to achieving a cost-effective pavement management
system.
1 A. Rufolo, Cost-Based Road Taxation, Cascade Policy Institute, November 1995.
2 J. Gerbracht, Bay Area Roads Close to “Tipping Point”, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Street Talk,
March 2006.
B.1.3
Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Refuse Vehicle Street Maintenance Impact Study (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
Ms. Kira Beckham
June 11, 2022
Page 4 of 12
Table 1 - PCI by General Street Condition Rating (Class)
Figure 1 - Pavement Life Cycle
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission
The goal of a pavement management program is to bring all roads up to “good” or “excellent” condition
where they can be maintained most cost-effectively.3 The strategy often recommended is referred to as the
“best first approach”, which concentrates spending initially on routine and preventative maintenance on
roads that are currently in fair to good condition. This extends the useful life of those roads, preventing rapid
deterioration. Spending money now on routine maintenance prevents additional spending in the future on
more expensive repairs.
The average PCI of the City’s streets is 74, which is in the “Satisfactory” range. Attachment A provides a
projection of the City’s PCI based on a number of funding scenarios. As shown, based on the assumptions
noted, the City’s PCI is projected to drop from 74 (Satisfactory) to 68 (Fair) by 2032; approaching the point
at which maintenance cost begin to escalate dramatically.
Relative Impact of Refuse Vehicles
The relationship between axle weight and inflicted pavement damage is not linear but exponential, and a
single Refuse Vehicles can have an impact on the City’s streets equivalent to more than 1,000 automobiles.
As part of the analysis of trash truck impacts we evaluated the impacts of trash trucks relative to other types
of vehicles, including delivery trucks and buses. Table 2 below provides a comparison of the average
PCI range Class
85-100 Good
70-85 Satisfactory
55-70 Fair
40-55 Poor
25-40 Very Poor
10-25 Serious
0-10 Failed
B.1.3
Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Refuse Vehicle Street Maintenance Impact Study (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
Ms. Kira Beckham
June 11, 2022
Page 5 of 12
equivalent single axle load (ESAL) factors for the various vehicle types noted4 to the estimated ESAL’s of
residential trash and recycling trucks operating in the City. The impacts are presented in Passenger Car
Equivalents.
Table 2 - Comparison of Refuse Vehicle Street Impacts with Other Vehicle Types
As shown, it is estimated that residential recycling vehicles exert an impact on the City’s streets of more
than 900 automobiles, while residential trash and yard waste trucks have an impact equivalent to 1,250
automobiles. The above analysis is based on a passenger car ESAL Factor of 0.0008. R3 is aware of
other analyses that use a passenger car ESAL Factor as low as 0.0004, which if used would double the
Passenger Car Equivalents for residential recycling and trash and yard waste trucks shown in Table 4.
Approach
Our approach to projecting Refuse Vehicle street maintenance impacts is based on common principals of
pavement design and vehicle loadings. The basic premise is that all vehicles, including Refuse Vehicles,
exert an impact on streets that can be quantified. That impact or “vehicle loading” can be expressed as an
ESAL, which is a function of the vehicle’s weight and the distribution of that weight over the vehicle’s axles.
By projecting the number and type of vehicles (i.e., cars, trucks, Refuse Vehicles) that travel on a street
over its design life, and the average ESAL associated with each vehicle type, the total ESALs that street
will experience can be calculated. The relative impact associated with a specific type of vehicle (e.g., Refuse
Vehicle) can then be determined based on the percentage of total ESALs attributed to that vehicle type.
Refuse Vehicle impacts, as determined above, were projected for the current open competition system
under a “base case” assumption that, on average 3.5 licensed haulers provide weekly residential refuse
and yard waste collection and every other week recycling collection services on each residential street,
making two passes down each residential street to provide each service. This equates to a total of five (5)
passes down each residential street each week for each, for an total of 17.5 total Refuse Vehicle passes
down each residential street each week. Under a districted system, with one hauler providing all three
services in a given geographic area of the City, the total number of weekly residential Refuse Vehicle
passes on a given residential street is five (5); two passes each for refuse and yard waste, and one (1) for
recycling service; approximately 30% of the vehicle passes under the open competition system.
4 Based on sample data reported by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
Guide for Design of Pavement Structures.
General Classification AASHTO Classification
Cars Passenger Cars 2 0.0008 1
Vans/Pickups Other 2-Axle/4-Tire Trucks 2 0.0052 7
Large Pickups / Delivery Vans Panel and Pickup Trucks 3 0.0122 15
Large Delivery Trucks 3 or More Axle Trucks 3 0.1303 163
Local Delivery Trucks 2-Axle/6-Tire Trucks 2 0.1890 236
Residential Recycling Trucks 2 0.7500 938
Buses Buses 2 or 3 0.6806 851
Residential Trash/Yard Waste Trucks 3 1.0000 1,250
Long Haul Semi-Trailers Various Classifications 3 - 5+ 1.1264 1,408
(1) AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures; Table D-21 with exception of Refuse Vehicles
Vehicle Type Passenger
Car
Equivalents
ESAL
Factor (1)
Number of
Axles
B.1.3
Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Refuse Vehicle Street Maintenance Impact Study (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
Ms. Kira Beckham
June 11, 2022
Page 6 of 12
Methodology
》 The City’s budgeted residential and collector street maintenance costs were assigned to Refuse
Vehicles in proportion to the projected impacts of Refuse Vehicles as a percentage of the vehicle
impacts on the City’s residential and collector streets.
》 The City’s existing residential and collector unfunded backlog costs were assigned to Refuse
Vehicles in the same proportions as for the current street maintenance budgets above.
Major Assumptions
Funding / Backlog Expense
》 The City’s current residential street maintenance annual budget is $5.5 million.
》 The City’s current collector street maintenance annual budget is $2.0 million.
》 The City’s current residential street maintenance backlog expense is $82.0 million.
》 The City’s current collector street maintenance backlog expense is $43.5 million.
Residential Street Impact and Budget Allocation Assumptions
》 Thirty percent (30%) of residential streets are in home owner associations that are serviced by one
(1) licensed hauler. It is assumed that 30% of the City’s residential street maintenance budget is
spent on those streets. Switching to a contracted or districted system would not change the impact
of Refuse Vehicles on those streets or impact that portion of the residential street maintenance
budget.
》 Twenty percent (20%) of residential streets have solid waste service provided in alleys, with those
residential streets not experiencing any Refuse Vehicle impacts. It is assumed that 20% of the City’s
residential street maintenance budget is spent on those streets. Switching to a contracted or districted
system would not change the impact of Refuse Vehicles on those streets or impact that portion of the
residential street maintenance budget.
》 Fifty percent (50%) of the City’s residential streets receive curbside service from an average of 3.5
licensed haulers operating on each of those streets each week. It is assumed that 50% of the City’s
residential street maintenance budget is spent on those streets. Switching to a contracted or districted
system would change the impact of Refuse Vehicles on those streets. This portion of the City’s
budget, which is impacted by Refuse Vehicles, is referred to as the “Impacted Residential Street
Maintenance Budget” in the analyses below, and equals $2.75 million annually.
Vehicle Loadings / Impacts
》 ESAL loadings for residential and commercial Refuse Vehicles, cars and other trucks are based
on data from various sources including the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
Residential Streets
》 There are an average of 1,000 vehicle trips per day on a typical residential street each day, with
3.0% of those trips made by heavy trucks, not including Refuse Vehicles.
》 Each licensed hauler’s vehicles make a total of five (5) passes down each residential street that
they provide services on each week, with refuse and yard waste service provided weekly, and
recycling provided every other week.
Collector Streets
》 There is an average of 2,500 vehicle trips per day on a typical collector street, with 3.0% of those
trips made by heavy trucks, not including Refuse Vehicles.
》 Each licensed hauler’s vehicles make a total of five (5) passes down a typical collector street each
week with refuse and yard waste service provided weekly, and recycling provided every other week.
》 All residential accounts on collector streets receive curbside service.
B.1.3
Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Refuse Vehicle Street Maintenance Impact Study (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
Ms. Kira Beckham
June 11, 2022
Page 7 of 12
Findings
Street Maintenance Budgeted Expenses
Our analysis considered the following two scenarios, each assumes an average of 1,000 vehicle trips per
day per residential street and 2,500 vehicle trips per day per collector street, with 3% of those trips made
by trucks other than Refuse Vehicles. For each scenario the annual street maintenance costs for the current
open competition system are compared to the costs for a contracted or districted collection system with a
single hauler providing service on each residential and collector street.
Scenario 1
An average of 3.5 licensed haulers operating on each residential and collector street, each making
a total of 5.0 weekly vehicle passes; 17.5 total weekly Refuse Vehicle passes residential and
collector street per week.
Scenario 2
An average of seven (7.0) licensed haulers operating on each residential street making a total of
5.0 weekly vehicle passes; 35 total weekly Refuse Vehicle passes per residential and collector
street per week.
Scenario 1 – 1,000 Vehicles per Day per Residential Street - 3.5 Haulers
Under this scenario, the projected annual street maintenance cost savings to the City for a contracted or
districted residential collection system, versus the current open competition system is $603,000, as shown
in Table 3 below.
Table 3 – Scenario 1 Analysis
Under the City’s current open competition collection system it is estimated that, on average, Refuse
Vehicles account for 24.4% of total vehicle impacts on the City’s residential streets. Under a districted
collection system with only one licensed hauler providing services on any given residential street that impact
is 8.0% (67% less). Refuse Vehicles have much lesser impacts on collector streets as they represent a
smaller percentage of all vehicle trips, and there is a larger percentage of other truck traffic on collector
streets.
Residential Street Assumptions Collector Street Assumptions
3.5 Licensed Haulers 3.5 Licensed Haulers
1,000 Vehicles per Day 2,500 Vehicles per Day
3.0%Truck Percentage 3.0%Truck Percentage
Annual
Impacted
Residential
Street
Maintenance
Budget
Refuse
Vehicle
Impact as
Percent of
Total Vehicle
Impacts
Portion
Attributed to
Residential
Refuse Vehicles
Annual
Collector
Street
Maintenance
Budget
Refuse
Vehicle
Impact as
Percent of
Total Vehicle
Impacts
Portion
Attributed to
Residential
Refuse
Vehicles
Open Competition 2,750,000$ 24.4%670,000$ 2,000,000$ 10.9%219,000$ 889,000$
Contracted or Districted 2,750,000$ 8.0%220,000$ 2,000,000$ 3.3%66,000$ 286,000$
Annual Savings with Contracted/Districted Collection = 450,000$ 153,000$ 603,000$
Residential Streets Collector Streets
Total
Annual
Cost
B.1.3
Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Refuse Vehicle Street Maintenance Impact Study (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
Ms. Kira Beckham
June 11, 2022
Page 8 of 12
Scenario 2 – 1,000 Vehicle Trips per Day per Residential Street – 7.0 Haulers
Under this scenario, the projected annual street maintenance cost savings to the City under a contracted
or districted residential collection system, versus the current open competition system is $1.251 million, as
shown in Table 4 below. That is roughly double the projected Refuse Vehicle cost impact for Scenario 1
above.
Table 4 – Scenario 2 Analysis
Sensitivity Analysis
Changes to the assumptions used for the above analyses can have a material impact on the results. To
provide a sense for the sensitivity of the resulting financial impacts to changes in the underlying
assumptions we considered the following changes to Scenario 1:
Scenario 1A
2,000 vehicles per day per residential street with 3.0% of those trips made by trucks other than
Refuse Vehicles.
Scenario 1B
1,000 vehicles per day per residential street with 5.0% of those trips made by trucks other than
Refuse Vehicles.
Table 5 provides the resulting financial impacts for each of the above sensitivity scenarios. As shown, as
the number of vehicle trips per day and the percentage of those trips made by trucks other than Refuse
Vehicles increases, the associated impact of Refuse Vehicles decreases, although is still significant.
Residential Street Assumptions Collector Street Assumptions
7.0 Licensed Haulers 7.0 Licensed Haulers
1,000 Vehicles per Day 2,500 Vehicles per Day
3.0%Truck Percentage 3.0%Truck Percentage
Annual
Impacted
Residential
Street
Maintenance
Budget
Refuse
Vehicle
Impact as
Percent of
Total Vehicle
Impacts
Portion
Attributed to
Residential
Refuse Vehicles
Annual
Collector
Street
Maintenance
Budget
Refuse
Vehicle
Impact as
Percent of
Total Vehicle
Impacts
Portion
Attributed to
Residential
Refuse
Vehicles
Open Competition 2,750,000$ 41.2%1,133,000$ 2,000,000$ 20.2%404,000$ 1,537,000$
Contracted or Districted 2,750,000$ 8.0%220,000$ 2,000,000$ 3.3%66,000$ 286,000$
Annual Savings with Contracted/Districted Collection = 913,000$ 338,000$ 1,251,000$
Residential Streets Collector Streets
Total
Annual
Cost
B.1.3
Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Refuse Vehicle Street Maintenance Impact Study (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
Ms. Kira Beckham
June 11, 2022
Page 9 of 12
Table 5 – Sensitivity Analyses
Street Maintenance Unfunded Backlog
The above cost projections do not account for the City’s current deferred (unfunded) street maintenance
backlog. That unfunded backlog consists of pavement maintenance that is needed but cannot be performed
due to lack of funding.. The City has a $82 million residential street unfunded backlog and a $43 million
collector street backlog. If it is assumed that Refuse Vehicles contributed to those backlogs in a similar
proportion to Refuse Vehicles current projected impact on residential and collector streets, it is reasonable
to assign an associated portion of those costs to Refuse Vehicles.
Table 6 provides that allocation for Scenario 1 (1,000 vehicle trips). As shown, it is projected that $20.7
million of the total residential and collector street unfunded backlog expense is attributed to Refuse
Vehicles. Had the City historically had in place a contracted or districted system, all other factors the same
the total residential and collector street backlog would be $14.0 million less.
Table 6 – Scenario 1 Backlog Allocation to Residential Refuse Vehicles
Alley Maintenance Costs
The above analyses are specific to the City’s residential and collector streets, and as noted assume that
20% of residents receive alley service. While information was not available that would allow us to perform
a specific analysis of the impact of Refuse Vehicles on the City’s alley repair costs, the City spends
approximately $60,000 annually on residential and commercial alley repair. It is reasonable to assume that
Current
Residential
Street
Maintenance
Backlog
Expense
Refuse
Vehicle
Impact as
Percent of
Total Vehicle
Impacts
Portion
Attributed to
Residential
Refuse Vehicles
Current
Collector Street
Maintenance
Backlog
Expense
Refuse
Vehicle
Impact as
Percent of
Total Vehicle
Impacts
Portion
Attributed to
Residential
Refuse
Vehicles
Open Competition 82,000,000$ 24.4%15,978,000$ 43,000,000$ 10.9%4,703,000$ 20,681,000$
Contracted or Districted 82,000,000$ 8.0%5,247,000$ 43,000,000$ 3.3%1,427,000$ 6,674,000$
10,731,000$ 3,276,000$ 14,007,000$
Total
Annual
Cost
Collector StreetsResidential Streets
Scenario 1 Scenario 1A Scenario 1B
Licensed Haulers 3.5 3.5 3.5
Vehicles per Day 1,000 2,000 1,000
Truck Percentage 3.0% 3.0% 5.0%
Open Competition 889,000$ 587,000$ 590,000$
Contracted or Districted 286,000$ 286,000$ 286,000$
Savings with Contracted/Districted Collection 603,000$ 301,000$ 304,000$
Residential Street Assumptions (1)
Total Annual Residential Refuse Vehicle Street
Maintenance Cost
B.1.3
Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Refuse Vehicle Street Maintenance Impact Study (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
Ms. Kira Beckham
June 11, 2022
Page 10 of 12
Refuse Vehicles are responsible for some, potentially significant portion of that expense specific to the
maintenance of residential alleys.
Refuse Vehicle Hauler Impact Fees
Regardless of whether or not the City decides to maintain its current open competition residential collection
system or move to a contracted or districted collection system, it may wish to consider charging licensed
haulers a fee to offset the street maintenance cost impacts of their residential Refuse Vehicles. While we
are not aware of any cities in Colorado that charge such a fee, “Refuse Vehicle impact fees” have been
applied in California for more than 15 years and in many cases the amount of those fees were based on
studies that used the same methodology R3 used for this analysis. Table 7 provides the projected monthly
and annual Refuse Vehicle Impact Fee charge per residential account for Scenario 1 (3.5 haulers)
As shown, under the current open competition system a monthly fee of $1.50 per residential account would
fund the portion of the City’s current street maintenance budget associated with Refuse Vehicle impacts.
Under a contracted or districted system that monthly fee would be $0.50 per residential account; $1.00 less
per month than for the open competition system.5
Table 7
Note: The calculated fees in Table 7 do not account for any recouping of the existing unfunded backlog
attributed to Refuse Vehicles, which if considered would increase those fees potentially
significantly depending on the period of time over which they were recouped.
Contracted, Districted, and Open Competition Systems Considerations
R3 is a consulting firm that has worked exclusively for municipal agencies for more than 15 years, we do
not work for private haulers. We do however have good working relationships with Waste Management,
Republic Services, and Waste Connections (National Haulers), as well as many other regional and local
haulers, and regularly interact with their local and regional staff on behalf of our clients. We have direct
experience with all types of residential and commercial solid waste collection system structures, and
specifically contracted, districted, and open competition services.
In support of the City’s consideration of contracted or districted solid waste collection services we offer the
following considerations, based on our experience:
1. Community Outreach and Education is Critical - Residents typically have a lot of questions
about how they would be impacted by a contracted or districted residential collection system. It is
important that they receive accurate information, that addresses the major issues and concerns so
that residents have an informed understanding of the associated impacts.
5 This analysis assumes the calculated cost impact is spread across all residential accounts evenly.
Monthly Refuse
Vehicle Street
Maintenance
Impact Fee per
Residential
Account
Annual Refuse
Vehicle Street
Maintenance
Impact Fee
per
Residential
Account
Open Competition 1.50$ 18.00$
Contracted or Districted 0.50$ 6.00$
Savings with Contracted/Districted Collection 1.00$ 12.00$
B.1.3
Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Refuse Vehicle Street Maintenance Impact Study (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
Ms. Kira Beckham
June 11, 2022
Page 11 of 12
2. Maintaining Flow Control - Flow control can be established as a condition of any contracted or
districted system. In either case, the City would contractually require the selected hauler(s) to use
City designated facilities (e.g., Larimer County landfill), or allow proposers to offer an alternative
site, which the City could allow at is sole discretion.
3. Benefits of Contracted or Districted System versus an Open Competition System -
In addition to reduced Refuse Vehicle impacts, which can be significant, a major advantage of
districted and contracted collection as compared to open competition are the significant operational
efficiencies to be realized. The operational efficiencies that are gained by collecting every account
on a street rather than only a portion are substantial. As collection operations comprise the majority
of costs (monthly rates), there is a potential for significant cost savings (and/or service
improvements) to be realized within a contracted or districted system.
4. Benefits of Contracted versus Districted Collection System - A single hauler contracted
system provides for economies of scale with respect to required management, administration and
operational resources when compared to a multiple hauler districted system, and there are potential
associated cost savings and/or service improvements that can be realized. City contract
management requirements are also significantly less with a single contracted hauler versus multiple
districted haulers.
5. Opt Out Provisions Undercut the Benefits of Contracted and Districted Collection –
If the City chooses to contract or district collection services, Colorado law preserves the right for
residents to choose their waste hauler, although residents could be charged an opt-out fee for doing
so. If the City contracts or districts collection services, to the extent that residents opted-out from
the City’s selected hauler the benefits associated with districted or contracted services would be
negatively impacted. Our experience has been that in those jurisdictions that have contracted
(franchised) collection the vast majority of residents would not support moving to an open
competition system with multiple haulers operating on their street. Under a contracted or districted
system the National Haulers’ operations while not interchangeable, are from the residents interface
generally similar, with programs and operational standards dictated by contractual requirements.
6. Meeting Zero Waste Goals – Many but not all of the City’s zero waste goals are achievable
under the current open competition system. The next step for the City on the path to zero waste is
to increase yard trimmings, and food scrap collection once infrastructure is available within a
reasonable haul distance. Yard trimmings and food scrap collection can take place under an open
market or contracted system but would be much more affordable under a contracted system. A
contracted system supports addressing zero waste goals and other community livability goals
through the same action.
7. National Haulers Routinely Win and Lose Contracts - The three National Haulers that
operate in the City routinely compete for franchised collection services. Winning and losing
contracts is part of the industry and should any National Hauler not be awarded a residential
collection system contract with the City going forward they would reassign their assets and move
on. The National Haulers are not going to be significantly impacted by losing their existing
residential market share should the City contract with an exclusive hauler. It is not known the extent
to which Mountain High Disposal would be impacted should it lose its residential market share.
Note: It is not uncommon for the winning hauler to reimburse a city for the cost of a competitive
procurement process.
8. There is a Competitive Local Marketplace - Districting for purposes of maintaining
competition in the City is not necessary. If the City enters into an exclusive contract with a hauler,
if and when that contract goes back out for a competitive procurement, all of the National Haulers
and other regional haulers will likely have a significant interest. The most significant step the City
can take to ensure ongoing competition for its residential collection system is for it to own the
corporation yard that its contracted hauler operates out of. Access to a local corporation yard
location is a major factor impacting a hauler’s interest/ability to compete for a collection franchise.
If the City owns the corporation yard any hauler in the State or nationally that wanted to compete
for the City’s contract would have the ability to effectively do so. They simply come in and set up
shop at the City’s refuse corporation yard and pay the City a monthly rent.
B.1.3
Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: Refuse Vehicle Street Maintenance Impact Study (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
Ms. Kira Beckham
June 11, 2022
Page 12 of 12
9. Contracted or Districted Services do not Create a Monopoly - Contract term lengths and
the annual rate adjustment mechanism need to be contractually established, and if you have a
strong performance-based franchise agreement that holds the hauler to objective safety, customer
service, public education and outreach, financial and operational standards, you have an effective
regulatory framework.
10. Rate can be Effectively Controlled - With contracted or districted services the competitive
marketplace establishes the reasonableness of the initial rates. An annual rate adjustment
mechanism needs to be defined and made known to the haulers at the time they prepare their
proposals. A Refuse Rate Index (RRI) is one method for annual adjustments that uses a number
of indices (e.g., labor, fuel, vehicle capital cost, vehicle maintenance cost, consumer price), and is
intended to model actual changes in major cost items. An option for an special rate adjustment can
also be provided to address extraordinary circumstances (e.g., change in law, force majeure, costs
beyond contactor’s control). Alternatively, costs can periodically be set to actual expenses, plus a
reasonable profit.
11. Street Maintenance Costs and Refuse Vehicles Contribution to those Costs are
Going to Increase Unless City is Able to Maintain its Current CPI - At current budgeted
levels the average PCI of the City’s streets is projected to decrease from “good” to “fair” by 2032.
The most significant step the City can do to maintain the quality of its residential streets and starve
off the significant street maintenance cost increases that begins as streets fall from good to fair to
poor quality is eliminate the current open competition residential collection system and not allow
for an opt-out provision.
12. City Can Require Winning Hauler to Hire All Displaced Drivers and Mechanics - There
is a shortage of qualified drivers and mechanics throughout the industry, and any hauler that wins
a contract in the City would likely look to hire as many of the drivers and mechanics from those
companies that did not win a contract as it could. Any Request for Proposals can require the winning
hauler to offer employment to all displaced qualified drivers and mechanics as a condition of the
award of the contract. Additional requirements can also be established including require the
selected hauler to maintain displaced employee seniority, honor any scheduled vacations, provide
matching 401K program, and/or any other conditions the City may wish to establish or encourage.
13. Municipal Operations Generally Cannot Compete with Private Sector Operations -
We are not aware of any jurisdiction that has moved from a collection system operated by private
haulers to a municipal operation. The price of entry alone may make this option a non-starter given
that fully automated solid waste vehicles can approach $400,000 each, and obtaining qualified
drivers, mechanics, and other staff is extremely difficult in the current employment market. Even if
the City could afford to implement a municipal collection system, it is very unlikely that it could
effectively compete with a private sector hauler operating under a well-designed performance
based franchise agreement. This is due to the fact that Municipal operations:
a) Do not have the economies of scale of regional or national haulers;
b) Do not have access to the significant corporate safety, customer service, vehicle
maintenance and other resources of regional or national haulers, and
c) Unlike private haulers, municipal collection managers do not have direct control over a
city’s safety, vehicle maintenance, or customer service functions, all of which are
fundamental to collection system performance. It is not uncommon for a city’s safety
resources to be inadequate for the safety management demands of solid waste collection
operations, and for fleet services to prioritize the maintenance of police and fire vehicles
above that of Refuse Vehicle. City customer service functions also commonly fill a broader
demand than just solid waste customer service needs, which can impact performance
versus an industry specific customer service function with objective contractual
performance standards.
Attachments:
A Pavement Condition Projections
B.1.3
Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: Refuse Vehicle Street Maintenance Impact Study (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
66.0
67.0
68.0
69.0
70.0
71.0
72.0
73.0
74.0
75.0
66.0
67.0
68.0
69.0
70.0
71.0
72.0
73.0
74.0
75.0
2022 2023 2024*2025 2026 2027*2028 2029 2030*2031 2032
Year
Pavement Condition Projections
3.5% Plus $1M in 2023 Plus 3.0% 2024 - 2032 Annual Budget Increase, PCI drops from 74.1 in 2022 to 72.0 in 2032
3.5% Increase in 2023 Plus 3.0% 2024 - 2032 Annual Budget Increase, PCI drops from 74.1 in 2022 to 70.6 in 2032
$16.471M Constant Current Annual Budget, PCI drops from 74.1 in 2022 to 68.2 in 2032
4.15.2022*Data Collection Years
Pavement Condition
Index (PCI)LOS B
LOS C
Attachment AB.1.3Packet Pg. 29Attachment: Refuse Vehicle Street Maintenance Impact Study (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
1512 Eureka Road, Suite 220, Roseville, CA 95661 | p 916.782.7821 | f 916.782.7824 | www.r3cgi.com
June 6, 2022
Ms. Kira Beckham
Lead Specialist
Environmental Sustainability
City of Fort Collins
300 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
submitted via email: kbeckham@fcgov.com
SUBJECT: Final Report - Trash Collection Vehicle Emission, Noise, and Safety Analysis
Dear Ms. Beckham,
R3 Consulting Group, Inc. (R3) was engaged by the City of Fort Collins (City) to update our trash collection
vehicle emission, noise, and safety analysis that was prepared for the City in 2008. This Letter Report
provides the results of our analysis.
Project Objective
To compare the vehicle emission, noise, and safety impacts of residential trash, recycling, and yard waste
collection vehicles (Refuse Vehicles) of the City’s current open competition system to a contracted or
districted collection system with a single hauler providing services in any given area of the City.
** * * * * *
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City. Should you have any questions regarding our
letter report or need any additional information, please contact me by phone at (916) 947-4880 or by email
at wschoen@r3cgi.com.
Sincerely,
William Schoen | Sr. Project Director
R3 Consulting Group, Inc
916.947.4880 | wschoen@r3cgi.com
ATTACHMENT 4 B.1.4
Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: Refuse Vehicle Emission Noise Safety Analysis (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
June 6, 2022
Page 2 of 9
Summary Findings
The vehicle emissions from the City’s licensed hauler Refuse Vehicles are in large part directly related to
the number of miles those vehicles drive on the City’s streets. As such, contracting or districting solid waste
collection services and limiting services in any given area of the City to one hauler and reducing the
associated miles driven by Refuse Vehicles, is the most significant immediate step the City can take to
reduce Refuse Vehicle emissions. If you assume that all four licensed haulers provide service on both sides
of every residential street in the City, switching from the open competition to a contracted or districted
system would reduce the number of haulers on any given residential street from four (4) to one (1); a 75%
reduction in the number of haulers and Refuse Vehicle miles driven, with a reduction in the associated
vehicle emissions. If we assume an average of three (3) haulers currently operating on each residential
street the vehicle miles driven would decrease by 67%. At two (2) haulers there would be a 50% reduction
in miles driven and associated vehicle emissions.1
It is estimated that under the current open competition system, and assuming an average of three and a
half (3.5) licensed haulers operating on each residential street, Refuse Vehicles emit approximately 830
carbon equivalent tons annually. Under a contracted or districted residential collection system that figure
would be reduced to approximately 300 carbon equivalent tons annually.
Vehicle emissions can also be reduced by expanded use of compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles, and/or
potentially electric vehicles at some point in the future. Similarly, both CNG and electric vehicles generate
less noise then diesel powered engines. Those and other emission and noise reduction technologies can
be required as part of the City’s hauler licenses or contracts. Requirements we recommend the City
consider include: limiting the age of Refuse Vehicles unless retrofitted with City required emission, noise
and/or safety technologies (e.g., operate-in-gear-at-idle, automatic engine shut off systems, LED headlights
and strobe lights, vehicle safety cameras, “smart” back-up alarms, on-board video event recorders (e.g.,
DriveCam)).
Whether or not the City maintains the current open competition residential collection system or switches to
a contracted or districted system, we recommend that it consider developing an (exclusive/non-exclusive)
Solid Waste Franchise Agreement (Agreement). That Agreement should provide detailed and objective
performance standards with respect to safety, customer service, public education and outreach, required
programs, diversion requirements (e.g., minimum required diversion rates), City fees, and other specifics.
If the City maintains its current open competition system, we recommend that all haulers be required to
agree to the City’s contract (franchise agreement) terms as a condition of doing business in the City. If the
City issues a request for proposals (RFP) for contracted or districted services, we recommend that the RFP
include a draft of the City’s Agreement. All proposers should be required to identify any terms of the
Agreement that they take exception to, and provide acceptable replacement language as part of their
proposals, with the understanding that the City will only consider negotiating those terms identified in the
haulers’ proposals.
Note: A copy of a recently executed franchise agreement between Waste Management and the City of
Beaumont, CA has been provided to the City under separate cover. That document provides an
example of the types of general terms and conditions that Waste Management, Republic and other
haulers have committed to under existing contracts. While the City may wish for a more abbreviated
agreement, we recommend that many of the provisions of that document be included in any
Agreement the City develops.
1 Vehicle emission reductions would be somewhat less than the associated reduction in vehicle miles driven since the
emissions associated with vehicles while they are physically dumping residential carts does not change regardless
of the number of haulers. Similarly, noise associated with vehicles traveling down residential streets would decrease
but the amount of noise generated at the point of collection would not change regardless of the number of haulers
operating on a given street.
B.1.4
Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Refuse Vehicle Emission Noise Safety Analysis (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
June 6, 2022
Page 3 of 9
Background
In Fort Collins, residential trash, recycling, and yard waste services are provided by the following four (4)
licensed private trash haulers:
Mountain High Disposal
Republic Services
Ram Waste Systems (Waste Connections); and
Waste Management
Residents are free to subscribe to collection services from any of the licensed haulers, with trash haulers
competing for market share. Under this open competition system, multiple haulers provide service on each
residential street each week, with resulting street maintenance and other impacts.
Under a contracted system, a single hauler would provide all residential services citywide. Under a
districted system, the City would be broken into multiple service areas (districts), with a single hauler
providing service in each district.
All other factors the same, moving from an open competition residential collection system to a contracted
or districted collection system would reduce the number of Refuse Vehicle miles traveled on the City’s
residential streets. As a result, there would be a significant corresponding decrease in the associated
vehicle street maintenance, emission, and noise impacts, and improved neighborhood aesthetics. All of
the factors the same, there would also be fewer Refuse Vehicle accidents and related property damage
corresponding to the decrease in the number of Refuse Vehicle miles driven in the City.
Refuse Vehicle Emissions
Background / Overview
The greatest contribution to human Greenhouse emissions comes from transportation, followed closely by
electricity generation and industry. There is a tremendous amount of pressure on the top 3 economic
sectors to reduce their GHG emissions, with most goals set for 2035 and 2050. Within the transportation
sector, municipalities deploy the highest GHG-emitting vehicles daily, including public transportation
vehicles and refuse trucks. On a per-mile basis, the refuse truck is the most egregious contributor,2 with an
average fuel efficiency of approximately 2.5 miles per gallon.3
Options for reducing Refuse Vehicle Emissions include the following, which are discussed in more detail
below:
Converting to CNG 4, liquefied natural gas (LNG), or electric engines;
Requiring operate-in-gear-at-idle systems; and
Requiring automatic engine shut off systems.
Natural Gas and Electric Vehicles
Natural Gas Vehicles
While the majority of refuse vehicle fleets are powered by diesel engines, that is changing. By the end of
2020, 53% of Waste Management’s collection fleet had been transitioned to CNG vehicles, comprising the
largest heavy-duty natural gas fleet of its kind in North America. Over half of Waste Management’s CNG
vehicles use dairy or landfill biogas, including gas captured from landfills. In California, Oregon and
Washington, 100% of Waste Management’s natural gas fleet runs on renewable natural gas (RNG).5 By
the end of 2019, Republic had more than 3,100 of its total vehicles running on alternative fuels; more than
2 Source: EPA: Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3 Source: US Dept. of Energy - Alternative Fuels Data Center
4 CNG is the more economical and accessible option for U.S.-based refuse fleets.
5 Source: Waste Management 2021 Sustainability Report
B.1.4
Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Refuse Vehicle Emission Noise Safety Analysis (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
June 6, 2022
Page 4 of 9
20% of the company’s fleet, and Waste Connections, has been running a fleet of around 1,100 CNG
vehicles; 11% of its fleet. According to NGV America, more than 17,000 refuse and recycling trucks in the
United States run on natural gas and about 60% of new collection trucks on order will be powered by natural
gas.
According to NGVAmerica,6 natural gas vehicles are 90% cleaner than the EPA’s current NOx7 standard
and emit up to 21% fewer GHG emissions than comparable gas and diesel vehicles. When fueling with
RNG, GHG emissions can be reduced up to 382%. While burning natural gas in vehicles emits less carbon
dioxide than burning diesel, the drilling and production of natural gas leaks methane, a potent greenhouse
gas, and those leaks offset some of natural gas' carbon dioxide (CO2) benefit.8
Burning natural gas for energy results in fewer emissions of nearly all types of air pollutants and CO2 than
burning coal or petroleum products to produce an equal amount of energy. About 117 pounds of CO 2 are
produced per million British thermal units (MMBtu) equivalent of natural gas compared with more than 200
pounds of CO2 per MMBtu of coal and more than 160 pounds per MMBtu of distillate fuel oil. The clean
burning properties of natural gas have contributed to increased natural gas use for electricity generation
and as a transportation fuel for fleet vehicles in the United States.9
Electric Vehicles
While natural gas-powered vehicles are the solid waste industries preferred form of alternative fuel, Waste
Management, Republic, and Waste Connections are all testing electric refuse vehicles, which do not directly
generate any vehicle emissions. In July 2020, 15 states, including Colorado, and Washington D.C, signed
a memorandum of understanding to work toward a goal of 100% of medium- and heavy-duty zero-
emissions vehicle sales by 2050. An added advantage of electric vehicles is that they generate significantly
less engine noise.
Eco-Cycle of Bolder recently unveiled what it claims to be the country’s first electric compost truck, and the
move toward electric vehicles is in line with Colorado’s draft Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction
Roadmap, which calls for an accelerated move to electric vehicles.
Operate-in-gear-at-idle Technology
Operate-in-gear-at-idle technology can also reduce emissions. Operate-in-gear-at-idle systems allow an
engine to run at much lower revolutions per minute (RPM) and thus conserve fuel when compared with
collection vehicles that do not have the technology. Operate-in-gear-at-idle systems save fuel by using a
larger hydraulic pump that produces the extra flow of fluid needed for a trash collection vehicle to load and
compact garbage at standard speeds while the engine remains at idle. Without the systems, truck operators
must shift the transmission and throttle the engine to power the hydraulic system every time they make a
route stop or want to pack the load. There is minimal effect on truck performance and fuel savings of as
much as 20% have been attributed to operate-in-gear-at-idle systems.10 Operate-in-gear-at-idle technology
is generally standard on new side loading equipment.
An added advantage of operate-in-gear-at-idle technology is that it significantly reduces engine noise. Most
of the loud engine noise associated with garbage trucks comes from revving the engine to pack the load.
With an operate-in-gear-at-idle trash truck the hydraulic system is capable of packing without revving the
engine and generating the associated engine noise.
6 Natural Gas Vehicles for America (NGVAmerica) is a national organization of roughly 200 companies and organizations
dedicated to the development of a growing, profitable, and sustainable market for vehicles, ships and carriers powered by
natural gas or biomethane.
7 Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are a collective term for toxic gas molecules that are chemical compounds between nitrogen
and oxygen and are an essential component of air pollution.
8 Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/13/natural-gas-leaks-methane-beyond-epa-
estimates/5452829/
9 Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration; https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/natural-gas-
and-the-environment.php
10 Ideal Idle Idea; K. Simpson, Waste Age, Sep 1, 2006 12:00 PM
B.1.4
Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Refuse Vehicle Emission Noise Safety Analysis (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
June 6, 2022
Page 5 of 9
Automatic Engine Shut-Off Systems
Idling engines can burn up to one (1) gallon of fuel per hour. A 2013 report from the Argonne National
Laboratory-Center for Transportation Research estimated that garbage trucks waste approximately 27.5
million gallons of fuel per year through idling, whether they’re waiting in line to drop off a load or providing
a comfortable place for a driver to take a break.
On-board engine controls can be installed that automatically cut off the engine after a set time period if a
driver leaves it idling. Waste Management, Republic, and Waste Connections all have installed automatic
engine shut off devices that shut the engine down after five minutes of idling on some of their vehicles. This
five-minute standard is consistent with the proposed time frame in EPA’s Model State Idling Law and in
accordance with the American Transportation Research Institutes Compendium of Idling Regulations.
Waste Management has mandated an idle shutdown policy, which means all of the company’s trucks with
electronic engines are programmed to shut down after five minutes of idling. Additionally, with the
installation of on-board computer GPS tracking technology, Waste Management can review how, when,
and where trucks idle, which will inform them as they develop new policies on the issue.11
Diesel Fuel Emissions12
A diesel engine, like other internal combustion engines, converts chemical energy contained in the fuel into
mechanical power. Diesel fuel is a mixture of hydrocarbons, which during an ideal combustion process
would produce only carbon dioxide (CO2), and water vapor (H20). Diesel emissions, however, also include
other pollutants, most of which originate from various non-ideal processed during combustion. Common
pollutants include unburned hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous oxides (NOx) or particulate
matter. Total concentration of pollutants in diesel exhaust gases typically amount to some tenths of one
percent, with much lower, “near zero” levels of pollutants emitted from modern diesel engines equipped
with emission after treatment devices such as NOx reduction catalysts and particulate filters. Given the
relatively low levels of those pollutants, our review of diesel emissions focused on the production carbon
dioxide, which is the major greenhouse gas produced by burning diesel fuel.
Contracted/Districted vs. Open Competition System Vehicle Emissions
Projections
Implementing a contracted or districted collection system would also reduce overall vehicle emissions as a
result of the reduction in the number of residential trash collection vehicle miles traveled. Table 1 provides
a comparison of projected Refuse Vehicle engine carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions for a contracted or
districted collection system, with one hauler per residential street, versus an open competition collection
system with an average of 3.5 and 7.0 haulers per residential street.
Table 1
11 Solving the truck-idling Problem; Laura Waldman 2013; Sustainable America.
12 Source: https://dieselnet.com/tech/emi_intro.php
B.1.4
Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Refuse Vehicle Emission Noise Safety Analysis (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
June 6, 2022
Page 6 of 9
As shown, one hauler operating in the City providing weekly solid waste and yard waste service, and
biweekly recycling, is estimated to generate approximately 300 tons of carbon equivalents annually.13,14
Assuming that on average 3.5 licensed haulers provide service on each residential street under the current
open competition system, a total of 828 carbon equivalent tons are generated by their Refuse Vehicles;
52715 more carbon equivalent tons annually.
Recommendations
Contract or district collection services to reduce Refuse Vehicle emissions.
Require all Refuse Vehicle engines be equipped with emission after treatment devices such
as NOx reduction catalysts and particulate filers.
Require all Refuse Vehicles to be equipped with operate-in-gear-at-idle technology, and
automatic engine shut-off systems.
Consider requiring the testing/use of at least one electric Refuse Vehicle should the City
contract Citywide services to a single hauler.
Refuse Vehicle Noise
Background / Overview
Noise from trash trucks can be related to a number of factors including:
Engine noise;
Backing alarms;
Noise at the point of collection (dumping material such as glass in curbside recycling systems);
Time of collection; and
Vehicle maintenance.
The specific strategies and options to reduce those noise impacts depend in large part on the source of the
noise. Some jurisdictions have established specific noise standards that haulers must comply with during
collection operations (e.g., decibel ratings within a specified distance from the vehicle).
Engine Noise
Engine noise associated with residential trash trucks is largely related to revving of the engine when the
vehicle is packing. Diesel garbage trucks can generate noise levels of up to 100 decibels. Two of the most
significant options available to reduce trash truck engine noise are:
Converting to CNG, LNG, or electric engines; and
Using “operate-in-gear-at-idle ” technology16.
In addition to the above options, a well-built, tight-fitting, well-maintained vehicle can also help reduce noise.
13 A CO₂ equivalent (CO₂e) is a unit of measurement that is used to standardize the climate effects of various
greenhouse gases.
14 This is for on-route miles driver only and does not account for miles driven back and forth from the route to the
corporation yard, landfill, and yard waste and recyclable material processing facilities.
15 The analysis assumes that 30 percent of the City’s residential streets are in home owners associations with a
single hauler providing service on those streets.
16 With non-operate-at-idle vehicles the engines need to rev when the body is packing. With an operate at idle vehicle
there is a hydraulic system on the body which is capable of providing the hydraulic pressures need to pack without
revving the engine, which creates noise.
B.1.4
Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Refuse Vehicle Emission Noise Safety Analysis (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
June 6, 2022
Page 7 of 9
A study in the Netherlands found there were noise reductions with natural gas vehicles of 90% inside the
truck, 98% beside the truck, and 50% behind the truck compared to diesel powered vehicles.17 Our
understanding is that Waste Management has its own natural gas fueling station and currently operates a
natural gas fleet in the city, while the other licensed haulers operate diesel vehicles. Electric vehicles offer
the potential for further significant vehicle noise reduction, although their technical viability within the solid
waste industry has yet to be proven.
In addition to fuel savings, operate-in-gear-at-idle technology also significantly reduces engine noise. Most
of the loud engine noise associated with garbage trucks comes from revving the engine to pack the load.
With an operate-in-gear-at-idle trash truck there is a separate hydraulic system on the truck body. This
separate hydraulic system provides the pressure needed to pack the load without revving the engine and
generating the associated engine noise. Many Refuse Vehicle manufacturers offer operate-in-gear-at-idle
technology standard on vehicle models, including Heil and McNeilus.
Backing Alarms (Beepers)
Vehicle backing and noise associated with vehicle backing alarms are most often associated with
commercial collection activities. Placing limits on the time of commercial collection activities near residential
neighborhoods can help address related noise issues. “Smart” back-up alarms can also be used. These
alarms sense the level of ambient noise and adjust accordingly. In quiet conditions the alarm beeps at a
much quieter level. Smart Alarms are also available that sound at a minimum decibel level only when radar
detects an object and makes a sound only as long as the danger exists.18
Noise at Point of Collection
Noise at the point of collection (i.e., emptying containers) can be reduced by taking various actions to
reduce engine noise, as discussed above. In addition, efforts to reduce noise associated with the dumping
of materials, particularly glass recovered through the curbside program can also be taken. These include
commingling of glass with other recyclable materials, reducing dump heights and potentially eliminating
glass from the curbside program, although we are not recommending the City consider doing so.
Overall noise associated with residential collection operations at the point of collection would not be reduced
under a districted collection system since it does not reduce the number of pickups, only the number of
vehicles making those pickups. The noise produced in transit from point-to-point would be reduced however
due to fewer vehicles. The noise associated with collection operations would also be limited to a specific
day in each neighborhood.
Time of Collection
Section 15.423 of the City’s Municipal Code [Hours of Operation] states that, “No collector shall operate
any vehicle for the purpose of collection of solid waste, recyclables, food scraps, or yard trimmings on any
non-arterial street as designated by the City’s Master Street Plan between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00
a.m.” Time restrictions placed on residential collection activities are common. Some jurisdictions also limit
the time of commercial collection activities, which by their nature are noisy, within a specified distance of
residential neighborhoods (e.g., not before 7:00 a.m. within 200 feet of a residential area). The City’s
municipal code does not place any limits on the time of commercial collection other than as specified above.
Vehicle Maintenance
Effective vehicle maintenance can also reduce noise. Assuring that vehicles are well built, tight-fitting and
well maintained will help reduce vehicle noise.
Recommendations
Contract or district collection services to reduce Refuse Vehicle noise.
Require all Refuse Vehicles to be equipped with operate-in-gear-at-idle technology.
17 Ahhhh…the Peaceful Sounds of Garbage Trucks; N. Stiles; MSW Management May/June 2007.
18 Note: Any vehicle specification requirements need to consider applicable local, state and federal requirements.
B.1.4
Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Refuse Vehicle Emission Noise Safety Analysis (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
June 6, 2022
Page 8 of 9
Consider requiring the testing/use of at least one electric Refuse Vehicle should the City
contract Citywide services to a single hauler.
Refuse Vehicle Safety
Background / Overview
Solid waste operations can pose safety risks to employees and the general public. The consideration of
“Safety First” is central to an effective solid waste management operation as safe operations enhance
productivity and profitability.
According to the Department of Labor Statistics, Refuse and Recyclable Material Collectors have the one
of the most dangerous jobs in the country with a fatality rate approximately 10 times the national average.
A University of Miami study found that the leading cause of on-the-job fatalities for refuse and recyclable
material collectors is impatient motorists who try to pass the garbage truck and hit the collector.
Trash collection activities also result in interaction with the general public and as such generate the potential
for public safety issues. Efforts to reduce those interactions (e.g., contracted or districted collection), make
the public more aware of collection vehicles and drivers (e.g., signage, lights), and providing drivers with
additional training and tools to provide for safer collection operations (e.g., video recorders) all contribute
to increasing public safety as it relates to trash collection services.
Waste Management, Republic Services, and Waste Connections all have reported safety records that
compare favorably to the industry average. Waste Management Inc., the largest solid waste services
provider in the country, has a model “Mission to Zero” plan and has significantly reduced worker injuries
since the model was implemented. Republic, the second largest solid waste provider in the country, has
paid particular attention to vehicle safety, including adding or replacing all incandescent lights with LED’s
and additional LED strobe lights on each side and the front of the vehicles.
Many of the vehicle specifications, and other best practice industry safety initiatives have been embraced
by the National Haulers to varying degrees. Best practice vehicle safety systems include:19
Collision Avoidance Systems and Advance Driver Assistance Systems - Smart vision sensors
can detect possible collisions with other vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, and fixed objects and alter
the driver visually and audibly to take proper measures to avoid collisions. The addition of smart
sensors to the sides of large trucks addresses the blind zones and obstacles experienced by the
operators.
In-Cab Recording Systems - Automotive recording systems have become a staple for many
companies. In-cab recorders typically have two cameras, one facing inside the cab and the other
showing the view outside of the windshield. Most systems allow for extra cameras that can offer
supporting views including backup views, side views and extra interior views. Recorders serve
multiple purposes for both the operator and fleet manager. For the driver, most recorders also
incorporate an event alert system that will chime when an event such as speeding or harsh braking
occurs. The chime reminds the driver to take action to correct or avoid another event. Many are
used as a “what happened” tool after an accident and can provide irrefutable evidence to exonerate
drivers if they are the subject of a false liability claim. In-cab recorders can also offer live tracking
and streaming via 4G LTE allowing managers to track vehicles throughout the route.
Multi-Camera Systems - Camera and monitor kits can act as extra eyes and ears for drivers. The
most commonly used camera is the backup camera used to show the otherwise “blind area” behind
a vehicle during reversal. This may be sufficient for standard cars, but larger vehicles have many
more blind zones to cover around the vehicle. New surround view camera systems provide a 360°
aerial view of the vehicle and cover the immediate perimeter around the vehicle. This is achieved
by “stitching” together the image from multiple cameras—typically four. This is a game changer for
19 Source: https://wasteadvantagemag.com/how-to-maximize-the-safety-for-waste-trucks-and-operators/
B.1.4
Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Refuse Vehicle Emission Noise Safety Analysis (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
June 6, 2022
Page 9 of 9
waste truck operators. With the use of a surround view system, immediate blind zones around the
vehicle are visible to the truck operator.
The City may also wish to require haulers to report overweight vehicles periodically (e.g., monthly or
quarterly) and potentially establish fines for overloaded vehicles. Overloaded vehicles present a safety
hazard and are of particular concern with respect to Refuse Vehicle impacts on the City’s streets, most
notably residential streets. The impact of Refuse Vehicles on the City’s streets increases exponentially with
weight, and as such overloaded vehicles exert significantly greater impacts on the City’s streets than
vehicles that do not exceed their legal load weights.
Recommendations
Contract or district collection services support increased Refuse Vehicle safety.
Consider requiring that all Refuse Vehicles be equipped with the state-of-the-art safety
technologies as conditions of the City’s hauler licenses or contracts.
Consider requiring haulers to track and report overweight vehicles.
B.1.4
Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Refuse Vehicle Emission Noise Safety Analysis (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
DRAFT
1
ATTACHMENT 5 B.1.5
Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Curbside Contracting Engagement Report (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
DRAFT
In a contracted system, haulers compete for the chance to provide service to all homes in a
neighborhood. Large multifamily complexes (more than eight units) are exempt by state law,
and households that want to use a different hauler can pay an opt-out fee. Potential benefits of
a contracted system can include receiving lower, “bulk” rates for collection services, reducing
noise, pollution, and road wear-and-tear from truck traffic, and increasing options for recycling
and composting. Potential drawbacks can include a lack of individual choice, reduction in the
number of companies providing services, and a loss of ability to customize services to meet
individual needs.
In June of 2022, City staff gathered feedback at virtual information sessions, in-person outreach
events, and through online surveys and forums. In total, approximately 300 residents shared
their thoughts and priorities for their trash and recycling services. These efforts built on
previous engagement surveys, and sought to prioritize feedback from traditionally
under-surveyed populations (low-income households, etc.).
Many mentioned the urgency of taking action to protect the environment and curb the effects of
climate change. Some expressed a desire for increased recycling and/or composting services,
but low prices were a higher priority, particularly for renters and respondents under 30.
Comments related to personal choice frequently cited a lack of trust in City government, and
uncertainty that the benefits warranted the risks of this potential path.
Finally, while specific services for “low-generators” who do not have or currently underutilize
their trash service was not a priority in the survey, it came up frequently in comments as
important to uphold the goals of a contracted system and maintain low, fair pricing.
2
B.1.5
Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Curbside Contracting Engagement Report (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
DRAFT
Demographic Summary
The City received 211 responses through an open survey posted online on the OurCity
engagement page. In addition, 29 responses were received in person and online through
targeted outreach to typically under-surveyed populations, including low-income households
and renters for a total of 240 survey responses. An additional 61 comments were received
through an OurCity open forum (43), and through email to City staff (18), and approximately 25
people participated in two online events regarding a potential contract.
No demographic information is available for emailed comments, forum comments, or event
participants, but survey respondents were asked to fill out optional demographic information on
their age, income, and homeownership status, among others. Thus, in the following sections we
distinguish “respondents” from “commenters,” and any demographic information only refers to
those who filled out the surveys.
The City used a targeted survey in an attempt to reach typically under-surveyed populations like
renters and low-income households. Targeted engagement efforts were successful in reaching
more low-income households and better reflecting community rates of homeownership, but
residents under 30, Spanish-speaking residents, and those in manufactured housing remain
under-represented in this sample.
Category All responses Targeted survey
Age 60+ significantly
over-represented
20-29 under-represented
60+ significantly
over-represented
20-29 under-represented
Income Low income households
under-represented
Low-income households
over-represented
Homeownership status Homeowners significantly
over-represented
Homeowners slightly
over-represented
The following sections include some breakdowns by homeownership status, income, and age in
an attempt to better represent the perspectives of our diverse community. Renters and
respondents under 30 frequently had similar priorities. While these groups overlapped to some
extent, not all renters fell into the under 30 category (and vice versa), and each should be treated
as a distinct group.
Overall, it is important to treat these results as a “slice” of community feedback and not a
representative sample of community sentiment. More detailed information on the survey
sample, and how it compares to Census Bureau estimates of community characteristics will be
available as an appendix to the final report.
3
B.1.5
Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Curbside Contracting Engagement Report (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
DRAFT
Overall Feedback and Priorities
Key Findings
●Environmental impact, low, stable costs, and quality customer service were most
important to survey respondents
●Low, stable rates were particularly important for low-income households and renters.
The majority prioritized lower prices over additional services, though some commenters
expressed a desire for more options for composting, yard trimmings, and other services
that would support waste reduction.
●While personal choice was extremely important to about 20% of respondents, most
groups ranked it the lowest of the six priorities.
●Among commenters, 43% submitted comments in opposition. Many of these comments
cited the importance of personal choice. 30% of comments were in favor of a
contracted system, citing a mix of potential benefits to the environment, costs, and
services.
Survey respondents were asked to rate the importance of a variety of different priorities related
to environmental quality, cost, and services. Environmental impact, low, stable costs, and
quality customer service were most frequently cited as “extremely important.”
Priorities with the highest percentage of “extremely important” responses
All responses (240)Targeted survey responses (29)
Reducing air pollution (60%)Reasonable cost (90%)
Reasonable costs (59%)Stable, uniform rates (86%)
Quality customer service (52%)Quality customer service (75%)
Consistent recycling education
Reducing illegal dumping (tied,47%)
Reducing air pollution (67%)
Among all responses and in the targeted survey, alley pickup and personal choice were among
the least likely to be “extremely important.” Personal choice was “extremely important” for 22%
of all respondents.
When asked to rank across different priorities, more than half of all respondents (53.4%) said
that meeting environmental goals was the highest priority. About 17% of respondents ranked
personal choice as their top priority, though for most it was the lowest priority. Another 15.5% of
all responses said that low prices were their top priority.
4
B.1.5
Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Curbside Contracting Engagement Report (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
DRAFT
All responses Targeted
survey
Under 60K Renters Under 30 Over 60
Environmental
goals
Environmental
goals
Environmental
goals
Environmental
goals
Environmental
goals
Environmental
goals
Lowest price Customer
experience
Lowest price Underserved
populations
Underserved
populations
Lowest price
Customer
experience
Lowest price Underserved
populations
Lowest price Lowest price Customer
experience
Underserved
populations
Underserved
populations
More services More services More services Personal
choice
More services More services Customer
experience
Customer
experience
Customer
experience
More services
Personal
choice
Personal
choice
Personal
choice
Personal
choice
Personal
choice
Underserved
populations
The following sections contain illustrative quotes and key findings for each priority area, in order
of prioritization by respondents to the targeted survey.
Environmental Goals
Zero waste and other environmental goals are the highest priority for me since it
affects all others. If we trash our planet and continue to pump CO2 into the
atmosphere we are all in big trouble.
Without a healthy environment/zero waste there will be nowhere safe to live. We
have to take care of our earth!
Key Findings
●Making progress towards zero waste and environmental goals was the top priority for
respondents. Comment in the survey, online, and through email expressed the urgency
of taking action to address climate change.
●Reducing air pollution from trash trucks was of high importance to many respondents,
with an average rating of 4.28 out of a possible five. Renters and respondents under 30
gave this a higher priority ranking.
●Consistent recycling education was also a relatively high priority (4.2 out of 5).
5
B.1.5
Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Curbside Contracting Engagement Report (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
DRAFT
Improved Customer Experience
“I want the best possible pickup service and a customer service dept. that is
staffed with friendly, helpful and knowledgeable employees to solve pickup
problems in a timely manner.”
“The present system is the best I have dealt with in the many communities I have
lived in. I have lived in communities with community run trash collection and it was
very poor compared to service in communities with private servers.”
It’s important to me to be able to speak with a local representative…. I like smaller
businesses because I feel the service is better, all-around.
Key Findings
●Current experiences of customer service were mixed. Just over half of respondents had
a positive experience with customer service. Respondents to the targeted survey were
slightly more likely to have had a negative customer service experience.
●Consistent, quality customer service was a high priority, particularly for respondents over
60. Respondents rated the overall quality of the service as more important than a
dedicated local line, but many comments noted benefits of local customer service.
Lowest Price
Trash is an essential service, and I think that having the lowest price possible will
help reduce cost burdens on low-income families.
“To me, the lowest-cost solution is most important.. Please do not shift to a city
contracting system, as it places everyone at risk for hiked rates due to low
competition and squeezes out true market competition that keeps prices low.”
Key Findings
●Low prices were extremely important, particularly for low-income households.
●In the targeted survey, stable rates were a higher priority than low-income rates, even
though many respondents may qualify for a low-income rate. Some respondents over 60
shared that they were on a fixed income, and expressed concern about rising prices.
●When asked to choose between lower prices or more services, two-thirds of respondents
chose lower prices. 80% of renters prioritized lower prices over more services.
6
B.1.5
Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Curbside Contracting Engagement Report (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
DRAFT
More Services
“ I live alone and have very little trash, but must pay as much as those who have
four times as much.”
I would love for the City to contract for city-wide waste hauling service that
includes yard waste and food scrap waste for everyone. I don't like that yard waste
is presently a separate charge…and is more expensive than trash service, which
does nothing to encourage people to adopt the habit of composting food scraps.
Key Findings
●Most respondents had traditional curbside trash and recycling service. Few had existing
service for yard trimmings (20%) or food waste (5%).
●Some commenters who received contracted service through their HOA wanted to keep
their existing contracts and not participate in a Citywide contract.
●Additional pickup services for yard trimmings and bulky items were only moderately
important for survey respondents. Commenters were more supportive of additional
services, particularly food waste pickup/composting services.
●Options for “low-generators” were not highly prioritized in most survey responses, but
were extremely important for commenters. They emphasized that a low-generating
option was important for fairness, keeping costs low, and meeting zero waste goals.
●Approximately 60% of respondents preferred an “opt-in” model for things like bulky items
and yard trimmings. There was slightly more support for bundled service for bulky
items, especially among respondents to the targeted survey.
Access for Underserved Populations
Without first addressing the underlying inequity in society, I fear that we won't be
able to successfully tackle issues like reducing environmental waste, etc.
I find that the underserved get a raw deal in Fort Collins. I'm new to [the] area. Also
zero waste and environment are crucial for me.
Key Findings
●Renters and respondents under 30 prioritized services for vulnerable and underserved
populations more highly than other respondents.
●Access for non-English speaking households was a moderate priority for respondents.
On average respondents rated it a 3.46 out of 5, though this was higher among
respondents under 30 and those renting their homes.
7
B.1.5
Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Curbside Contracting Engagement Report (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
DRAFT
Personal Choice
“The personal choice for which company picks up our trash should be ours to
make. We do not need more government telling us as citizens who live in a free
country who we can hire to handle our trash collection.”
“The right to choose the company of our choice for this service is important.
Freedom of choice is necessary, especially for individuals on fixed incomes!"
Key Findings
●Personal choice was the lowest priority for most survey respondents, but people over 60
on average ranked it fourth out of the six priorities.
●In questions about services, respondents generally preferred to choose or “opt-in” to
expanded services rather than bundle them or have the option to opt-out.
●Potential opt-out fees sparked strong negative reactions among some commenters who
felt it punished choice. Comments in favor or undecided also worried that “opt-outs”
would water down potential environmental benefits.
●Commenters felt that the current system was the best way to maintain competitive
pricing and incentivize good customer service because it allowed for choice.
●Comments about personal choice were also closely linked to ideas about the role of
government. Commenters felt that a contracted system was outside the scope of local
government, and did not trust the City to execute a contract well.
Conclusion
Respondents identified progress towards environmental goals, quality customer service, and
low, stable pricing as top priorities for trash and recycling services. The emphasis on quality
and cost was also found among commenters, and many who opposed a contracted system did
so because they were worried it would affect the quality and cost of their services (though some
were opposed to any increased government role in curbside services).
Tensions remain between increasing services to better meet zero waste goals and keeping
costs low. While some have strong feelings about personal choice of hauler, more seem to
prioritize choice in the services that they receive, preferring “opt-in” services and different sizes
of services that allow them to customize their service to their needs and budget. If a contracted
system is implemented, it may be wise to offer different “packages” that meet the needs of
low-generators, budget-conscious, and environmentally conscious households.
Ultimately, though cost is an important component of these services, responses suggested that
this decision is not just a matter of economics. It is important to recognize that, while most
people likely do not think about their trash/recycling service on a daily basis, people still place a
great priority on these services and want to be deeply involved in decision-making to ensure
their values and priorities are accurately reflected in their services.
8
B.1.5
Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: Curbside Contracting Engagement Report (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
Economic Health Office
300 LaPorte Avenue
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6505
970.224.6107 – fax
fcgov.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 27th, 2022
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
CC: Kelly DiMartino, Interim City Manager;
Josh Birks, Economic Health and Redevelopment Director
FROM: Renee Walkup, Chair – Economic Advisory Board;
John Parks, Vice-Chair – Economic Advisory Board; and
Members, Economic Advisory Board for 2022
RE: SUPPORTING A SINGLE CONTRACTED PROVIDER RESIDENTIAL
WASTE & RECYCLING SYSTEM
On April 20th and June 15th, 2022 the Economic Advisory Board received presentations from city
staff about the proposed residential contracting proposal for waste and recycling service
providers. We were pleased by the findings of the city staff about the advantages of this
proposed system. As community members, we have been concerned and somewhat perplexed
by the plurality of trash and recycling hauler services that frequent our neighborhoods. We also
recognize that making real progress on the road to Zero Waste is one of the priorities of
Council. Reducing the number of trash haulers has been proposed several times before, and
now is the time to implement it.
Therefore, the members of the Fort Collins Economic Advisory Board support the proposal of
adopting a single provider contracted residential waste and recycling system for the
following reasons:
1.The city would save roughly $600,000 in annual road repairs.
2.It would reduce the GHG emissions from redundant waste and recycling trucks.
3.The city could control the rates that the provider charges customers.
4.Increased road and pedestrian safety from redundant trucks.
5.Decreased noise from redundant trucks.
6.There is the potential for more feedback from the provider to customers in terms of
recycling protocols to avoid contamination.
Additionally, the contracted system bundled with yard waste has the additional benefits of
increasing residential participation in the yard waste program dramatically, which would divert a
considerable amount of waste as well as reduce waste related emissions. If bundling the yard
waste in the contracted system is found to be economically feasible, we would also recommend
the inclusion of this option.
Adopting the single provider contracted residential waste and recycling system bundled with
yard waste would help to attain the following city goals:
•2020 Strategic goal: Environmental Health 4.3
o Enhance efforts to achieve 2030 zero waste goals
•2021 Our Climate Future Big Move 2: Zero Waste Neighborhoods
ATTACHMENT 6 B.1.6
Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: Economic Advisory Board Recommendation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
MEMORANDUM
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
DATE: July 6, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Natural Resources Advisory Board
SUBJECT: Contracting of Waste Pick-Up and Hauling Proposal
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
On June 15, 2022, Kira Beckham, Lead Specialist for Waste Reduction and Recycling, presented on the
council priority of exploring a districted system for garbage, recycling, and compost, and the subsequent
recommendations for a single-hauler contracted system. The purpose of this memo is to express the
Board’s support for the proposed single-hauler contracted system for waste pick-up and hauling. The
Board further supports the adoption of Package B, the diversion-focused option. As a Board that
prioritizes the conservation of natural resources and the impact they have on the future of our
community, we see the single-hauler contracted system as beneficial because it foremost allows for
fewer haulers to be on the road. The benefits of this include:
●A decrease in greenhouse gas and other harmful emissions
●An improvement in air quality to benefit public health
●A decrease in street maintenance costs associated with having fewer haulers on the streets
●An increase in safety for all users of city streets, especially within our neighborhoods
The Board supports the diversion-focused option, or Package B, and promotes the inclusion of the
following items that will provide additional environmental and social benefits to Fort Collins community
members:
●Yard trimmings to be bundled with waste/recycling
●Addition of composting when available
●Bulky waste collection by request
●Low-income program
●Alley and valet service
1
ATTACHMENT 7 B.1.7
Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: Natural Resources Advisory Board Recommendation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
Additionally, the Board would like to advocate for lower and zero-emission vehicle options as it pertains
to the review process of future and/or continued contracts for a single-hauler system. We see this as
instrumental in achieving Our Climate Future goals, particularly as it pertains to the “Big Move 2: Zero
Waste Neighborhoods” and additional environmental health goals outlined in the City’s strategic plan.
Thank you for your time and consideration on this issue and its future implications for the community.
Very Respectfully,
Dawson Metcalf, MS
Chair, Natural Resources Advisory Board
2
B.1.7
Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: Natural Resources Advisory Board Recommendation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
ECONOMIC ADVISORY COMMISSION
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
June 15, 2022 4:00 – 6:00 pm
Via Zoom
06 /15 /22 – MINUTES Page 1
*** MINUTES ABBREVIATED TO ONLY INCLUDE ITEMS RELATED TO TRASH AND
RECYCLING CONTRACTING CONVERSATION*****
1.CALL TO ORDER
4:07 pm
2.ROLL CALL
•List of Board Members Present
o Renee Walkup
o Blake Naughton
o Aric Light
o Mistene Nugent
o John Parks
o Thierry Dossou
•List of Board Members Absent – Excused or Unexcused, if no contact with Chair
has been made.
o Brauilo Rajoas
o Denny Coleman
o Jeff Havens
•List of Staff Members Present
o Shannon Hein, Acting Staff Liaison, Economic Sustainability
o Kellie Falbo, Executive Director, Sustainable Living Association
o Dustin Spears, Program Assistant, Sustainable Living Association
o Pete Iengo, Community Engagement, Utilities
o Javier Echeverria Diaz, Sr Analyst, Finance
o Sylvia Tatman-Burruss, Sr Project Manager, City Manager’s Office
3.NEW BUSINESS
ATTACHMENT 8 B.1.8
Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Economic Advisory Board Minutes (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
0 6 /1 5 /22 – MINUTES Page 2
• Single Family Trash, Recycling, and Compost Contracting
− Presentation from Sylvia Tatman-Burruss.
− This fits into our adopted plans and it is a Council priority. It is part of Our
Climate Future and the big move zero waste neighborhoods that creates a
zero-waste system in the City plans and part of the City Strategic plan.
− There are multiple types of systems. Pure open markets do not have
regulations. Open market with licensing, which is how the City is currently
operating. It requires haulers to be licensed with the City. In Fort Collins, we
currently require recycling to be bundled with trash services. There are some
things that can be required under a licensed system but essentially still open
because the haulers can operate on the same street. HOAs can opt into a
contract where their trash is paid through their HOA dues.
− The City is looking at a contracted system. Multiple municipalities have gone
to this type of system. It is done through a competitive RFP process. It could
be for multiple haulers within a districted system or one hauler. A lot of
communities our size go with one hauler. This is different from a municipal
hauling system. Loveland is the closest community that has municipal
hauling.
− Fewer trucks in the neighborhoods is one of the elements that is specifically
addressed by contracting. Neighborhood HOAs that contract would likely stay
the same.
− Q (Mistene) Will you allow the HOA’s to continue as they are?
− A (Sylvia) That will be a conversation with Council. That is one option.
It is one we are leaning towards because a lot of peer communities do
that, and it can be contentious for neighborhoods that want to stay with
their hauler that already have a contract.
− Q (Mistene) So haulers with HOA contracts would be grandfathered
in?
− A (Sylvia) They could be. We will discuss it with council. They could
continue their current contract. We could require them to come onto
the City’s contract once theirs is over, so they won’t be penalized for
breaking a contract. We could essentially allow them to be
grandfathered in and just stay with their contract. We would hope that
we could incentivize them into the City’s contract by the economy of
scale and that it would be cheaper for them to come on with the City.
− Q (Renee) Would the HOA just pay the City?
B.1.8
Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Economic Advisory Board Minutes (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
0 6 /1 5 /22 – MINUTES Page 3
− A (Sylvia) It could be individuals, or we could work with the hauler.
That is something we would need to figure out depending on which
way Council wants to go.
− Presentation There could also be predictable pricing. There probably would
be escalations or ways they could increase pricing for things like gas or
changes we don’t have control over, but it would be more predictable. Equity
and customer service is something that would also be addressed with a
contract. There could be a low-income program. We could also require a
valet service for people who qualify for the driver to go get their bin and bring
it to the curb and then back.
− The contract would only apply to single family homes, duplexes, townhomes,
condos, and multifamily complexes of 7 units or fewer. That is a State law
requirement that it cannot apply to multifamily complexes of 8 of more,
businesses, construction sites or industrial. We might be able to offer it to
them if they want to opt in. Contracts may apply to HOAs that are contracted
for trash and recycling services now.
− Q (Mistene) What is the rationale for the exclusions.
− A (Sylvia) That is State law that it can only apply to single family
homes. We could offer it to them if they want it. Haulers get a lot of
revenue from those, so I think the State wants to protect those
industries.
− Q (Mistene) Do you have any information on what year that law was
passed?
− A (Sylvia) I am sure Caroline does but that is something I can find out
for you. I am not sure if trash contracting was always allowed. I think
that has changed to allow municipalities to do what we are trying to do.
I am not sure on the history of it.
− Presentation We did studies for the waste truck impacts in terms of road
maintenance, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and safety. Our current
system is costing the maintenance fund and community around one million
dollars. A hauler truck is about the equivalent of 1200 cars on a street if they
are at legal weight.
− Q (Renee) So one trip is 1200 cars?
− A (Sylvia) Yes so you can imagine if there are three haulers on one
street picking up trash, recycling, and maybe yard waste every week,
that is where the impact is coming from. These are some general
numbers from the impacts on our roads. We cold get more specific but
B.1.8
Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Economic Advisory Board Minutes (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
0 6 /1 5 /22 – MINUTES Page 4
if you were to move up to more haulers, that could increase. If we go
with one hauler in the contracted system, we will get to a much smaller
number around $300k instead.
− Comment (Renee) I didn’t see these numbers on the slide and would
recommend you relay that information to Council in writing.
− Comment (Sylvia) There is a slide coming up with those numbers.
− Comment (Renee) That is what is costing us money, it’s the damage
on the streets.
− Presentation We also did a pricing study, we know that our neighbor could
be paying a different price for the same service with the same hauler. We
collected bills from employees of the City and then the community. We are
still doing the data but the range for the small cart is $10-16/month. We
learned that the $10 is from the new hauler Mountain High and we think they
have that price set to start trying to get in the market share, but they would
likely raise that to be more average. The $16 is from our mor established
haulers.
− Q (Mistene) So the smallest size is the ones you buy at Home Depot, not
the ones the haulers provide?
− A (Sylvia) 32 Gallons is the smallest size you see. 96 gallons is the
big size that you see that the recycling bins also are.
− Presentation The $23-36/month is for the mid-size and the larger size is
$20-45/month. Now most people pay these as a quarterly payment. Yard
waste is only offered by one hauler and that is $13-18/month.
− Q (John) Did you get a decent number of bills?
− A (Sylvia) We did get a decent number. We received a lot from
employees and then the public. I don’t know the exact number, but it
does give us a good range and understanding for the RFP.
− Presentation These numbers are going to be compared to a single hauler
with diesel trucks. Annual maintenance costs would save us ore than $600K.
Green house gasses would decrease by 1200 for MTCO2e. A benefit to the
contracted system is the ability to require things like compressed natural gas
or electric vehicles, which would then save more. The large nationally owned
haulers are better able to do that.
− Q (Mistene) Is there a concern at the City level if they are a “small guy”?
− A (Sylvia) It is interesting timing for this process because pretty much
all the haulers that operate now are nationally owned. Even the new
B.1.8
Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Economic Advisory Board Minutes (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
0 6 /1 5 /22 – MINUTES Page 5
hauler is technically not locally owned. Their company is run out of
Kansas City. There isn’t necessarily a small guy.
− Q (Renee) What about Ram?
− A (Sylvia) I don’t believe they are, but Caroline would know. I believe
part of the timing is that there are not longer any of those small local
haulers. They are accustomed to these RFPs and contracted systems.
I think last time Gallegos was struggling with this because they were a
local hauler, but they were bought out by Republic.
− Presentation We are also looking at elements like noise reduction and even
more if we require electric. Safety increases in neighborhoods due to less
trucks. Again, there is the figure of one truck at the normal allowance of legal
weight is equivalent to 1,250 cars. A lot of the trucks weight a lot higher than
that.
− Comment (Renee) If you multiple that by three for the waste, recycling and
possible yard waste over two hours that is on one street…
− Q (John) and they must go down both sides of the street. Is 1,250 when the
truck is full or at its average weight?
− A (Sylvia) I would need to look but believe it is average, not full, or
empty. It also depends on the cars as well, are you looking at a smart
car or truck? I think it is the average overall.
− Comment (John) It would be nice to have that for Council.
− Comment (Sylvia) We do have the reports from a third-party
company in the packets for them. There would probably still be those
three trucks going down the street every week each side because of
the three different services but you won’t have to multiple that by three
or four haulers. They currently must go down the street even if there is
one person being serviced.
− Q (Renee) I know this portion has not been presented to Council yet, but
have you gotten any idea as to appetite on Council’s idea?
− A (Sylvia) Because it is a priority of theirs, they have said we want to
do trash contracting. This is not a staff led effort, it is Council telling us
to do it. That is part of the messaging in the community too as to why
we are doing it now. They see the benefit of it and want to get it done
within their term and to get it done right.
− Presentation Some other potential benefits include a yard waste opt in. We
get about 15% of residential yard waste that is already being diverted. If we
B.1.8
Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Economic Advisory Board Minutes (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
0 6 /1 5 /22 – MINUTES Page 6
do a spring and fall pick up, assuming 50-60% of residential waste could be
diverted we would see a 5-6% reduction in waste emission. If it is bundled,
which is what we are recommending, assuming 85-90% could be diverted,
we could see a 9-10% reduction in waste emissions. There is not a lot of
people getting yard waste.
− Comment (John) It would be nice to have the bundled option because I have
neighbors who want it but don’t want to spend the extra money.
− Comment (Sylvia) We would hope that with the economies of scale,
for the RFP process and it being City wide, you would get the price
reduction in trash services so the yard waste could then be added at a
lower rate than what people are currently paying.
− Presentation Food scraps is a future program as we don’t have the
infrastructure for large scale composing in the region. I think Boulder might
have the ability but that is too far. It is in the works and once it comes online,
we could include it in the next contract as part of the service.
− Q (Renee) what kind of composting, only certain foods?
− A (Sylvia) It would depend on the facility and how they break it down.
In communities in Seattle, you can put everything in there and if it
ends up in your trash you can be fined. That is not something we could
offer this round, but we could get 75% effectiveness we could see an
8% reduction in waste emissions if everyone has the option to divert
their food scraps.
− Presentation With a contracted system you can have a base and then work
off it as other services become available like electric vehicles and food
scraps. It would also help air quality because of the methane that comes off
it.
− Comment (John) Methane from landfills is a concern, but in our arid climate
it is not as big as in a humid climate. The methanogens need an anerobic
environment to do their thing, which is when they are wet. It makes me
wonder just thinking about total volume waste diversion might be another
useful metric.
− Comment (Sylvia) We threw it out there since it is not something we can do
right now but that is something we could say as a future savings benefit.
− Comment (Mistene) I don’t see anything on recycling specifically.
− Comment (Sylvia) That is because we already require it.
− Q (Mistene) Does anyone have any feel for recycling from a market
B.1.8
Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Economic Advisory Board Minutes (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
0 6 /1 5 /22 – MINUTES Page 7
standpoint on if its really happening right now?
− A (Sylvia) That would be a great question for Caroline as she has a
better understanding of how much is getting recycled and where.
− Comment (Mistene) We were at Taste of Fort Collins and there were
not recycling bins, so my guess is it is not happening.
− Comment (John) There was a recent study in the Guardian that said
in the US 5% of plastics are getting recycled. There was also a recent
bill passed at the state level that the producers are responsible for
recycling. I am not sure how that will play into the full question, but it
will take the burden off the municipalities and put it on the producers.
− Comment (Renee) My husband volunteers at the recycling center and
he reports numbers about it. He was telling me how cardboard is
profitable, and plastic is not. He knew some of the numbers of what
they get back vs what is costing them. Most of it costs the City money,
but some of it doesn’t. I don’t know the numbers, but they are
available.
− Comment (Mistene) It also changes with the market right now. I used
to work at a paper shredding company and sometimes they would
make more money recycling the paper but sometimes they didn’t, and
it would go to the trash.
− Comment (Renee) The critical thing is where is the contamination?
Let’s say its cardboard and its highly profitable and then someone
throws a greasy pizza box in there, it can mess up the equipment. I
don’t know what happens to everything, but they can take trips to the
processing plants and see how it can mess up the machines and
wholesale product. What makes me crazy is I look in the recycling bins
and anything is in there.
− Comment (Mistene) I have teenagers in my house, and it happens to
me too.
− Comment (John) That is something I would like to see come out of
this is more of an educational piece. I get the feeling since there is
market competition that there is no feedback from the haulers to their
customers.
− Comment (Mistene) I am skeptical, I think it is just going to the trash.
I feel like I put all of my stuff in the recycling bin to make me feel
better, but it doesn’t matter because nothing is getting recycled.
− Comment (John) Republic is using the normal trash trucks to collect
B.1.8
Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Economic Advisory Board Minutes (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
0 6 /1 5 /22 – MINUTES Page 8
recycling.
− Comment (Mistene) At least we have the façade because the
recycling truck comes by.
− Comment (Sylvia) I wish Caroline was here because she is very
passionate about this, and she could answer that. We can get that
from her because there is something within our licensed system that
recyclers and haulers are required to report contamination rates and
where it is going. They must go to particular places with the current
licensing. Now where it ends up, I am not sure, but we could ask
Caroline.
− Comment (John) It just seems to me that if there is contracting then
they are not concerned about losing customers and they could say this
is contaminated we are going to note that to the customer and next
time we won’t take it or something similar.
− Comment (Sylvia) Part of the contracted system is some more control
like that. There would be requirements for education, customer
service, reporting or etc. more than what we have with the licensed
system. We could also get more requirements in the licensed system,
but I think you are right that there would be some benefit to contracted
and having one hauler.
− Comment (Renee) These are national companies so they might be
working with cities like Seattle that are more particular and diligent.
They would know what is accepted and not.
− Comment (Sylvia) There are those benefits with national haulers and
having the requirements in other communities.
− Presentation Haulers that are not awarded a contract would continue to
serve commercial, multifamily, and construction site customers. It could
continue to service existing HOA contracts. They could shift staff; in the RFP
we could require them to hire folks that were laid off. It is not necessarily
something we will do. They would also have 12-18 months to plan for the
adjustments. Companies like Republic are accustomed to this in other
communities. It doesn’t mean there isn’t an impact on the nationally owned
haulers, certainly each one wants the contract. I am sure they might prefer a
districted system but there is a lot to that.
− For the RFP we would have these different items that needed to be priced
out. Within the RFP we ask for certain things. One of those is pay as you
throw which is volume-based, based on the size of your cart. Recycling would
also still be bundled with trash. Both are currently required under the licensed
B.1.8
Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Economic Advisory Board Minutes (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
0 6 /1 5 /22 – MINUTES Page 9
system for us. We are required by state law to have an opt out option which
would look like an opt out fee. This is so we don’t get a bunch of folks opting
out and going with a different hauler, because that would defeat the purpose.
We are recommending a fee equivalent to the smallest trash cart service
cost. These are things recommended to Council, but they could decide
something else. That is particularly true in the districted decision. A lot of peer
communities our size go with one district and that is for a lot of reasons.
Billing is easier because if you have two different haulers you may have to
charge a fee to level out the differences in pricing. The City would probably
not do billing, it would be the hauler doing the billing. Managing two contracts
is also a lot. We would need staff to manage two separate contracts with the
different reporting requirements and things like that. We are recommending
one district. Council could decide to do something else. I think we could look
at an admin fee for reimbursement to fund the contract management. We
could have a way or opt in option to offer service multifamily and commercial
locations. There would also be requirements for GHG reduction and safety
improvements. We are under review for what those percent reduction
requirements might be. These are some of the base recommendations we
are looking at there are some differences between program options.
− We are recommending package A with the other pieces. We would look at
yard timing to be either bundled all year, seasonally, or have an opt in option.
Food scraps to be added when infrastructure is available. For bulky waste
collection, we don’t want people just dumping those items, but we don’t want
to encourage people to off load a bunch of waste, so we are looking at 1-3
bulky items per year by request and might have a size limitation.
− Q (Renee) So like one sofa per year?
− Comment (Mistene) Our neighborhood does a dumpster for three
days following our garage sale
− A (Sylvia) Yes that is one way to do it. I think there is a little bit of
concern there if we do it City wide, its different equipment that brings
out the dumpster.
− Comment (Mistene) And could you even monitor what is going in the
dumpster?
− Comment (Sylvia) Right, it could be great for certain neighborhoods,
and we could price out some roll off dumpsters, but it may not fit within
out waste reduction goals, and so we are trying to find a middle
ground.
− Presentation (Sylvia) Carts are a big deal. I think it would cost around $11
B.1.8
Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Economic Advisory Board Minutes (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
0 6 /1 5 /22 – MINUTES Page 10
million to buy carts initially. That is typical and could be financed as a fee that
folks would pay. It could then go down to a maintenance fee after a certain
amount of years. The City would own them, and the hauler would maintain
them. That way if you switch haulers in a different contract, you won’t have to
go pick them all up and redeploy them. You just keep your cart and if you
wanted to switch sizes or needed another one, they could do that.
− We would probably look at a low-income program, depending on the price we
got back. That would be for people who either qualify for SNAP benefits or
some median income percentage. That would be a qualify only program. We
would also look at alley and valley services. We do have alleys within Fort
Collins, and they are serviced different so we would want to include them.
The valet service is for folks with physical impairment that cannot get their
cart out to the street.
− Q (Renee) So when it’s a residential alley, I wouldn’t think those vehicles can
get in the alleys, are they wide enough.
− A (Sylvia) I think with old town they are serviced by those trash trucks
now, but we would want to make sure those are priced into the
system. I am not sure how they are serviced now if it’s a different truck
or someone hops off and manually loads it.
− Presentation For HOA’s we are recommending them be able to opt in or
they can remain on their own contract if they follow our requirements with
recycling bundled and volume-based pricing.
− We have an option B to show Council some differences but there are not
many differences between them.
− Comment (John) It sounds like it might be nice for us to put together a
memo for Council for June 28th.
− Comment (Sylvia) The next work session is on July 12th and the regular
session is on July 19th. That is basically the resolution that Council uses to
have us move forward with the RFP. We would move forward with decision
making in December.
− Comment (Mistene) It sounds like its not a formal yes or no but we are going
to do this. The real decision will be the bundles and options.
− Comment (Sylvia) July 12th will be a conversation around priorities and
pieces they want. Then they will direct us through the process. They could
later decide they don’t like any submissions and they are not going to do this
or they will do it again. So, the decision to move forward with the RFP
process is what we are looking for on July 19th.
B.1.8
Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Economic Advisory Board Minutes (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
0 6 /1 5 /22 – MINUTES Page 11
− Q (Mistene) Are you only submitting the RFP to providers that are already in
our market?
− A (Sylvia) No, I don’t think so. I think it is required to go out to
everyone.
− Comment (Sylvia) As a group for you could recommend anything from these
things. You could weigh in on whether to move forward with the contract or if
you support what we have right now. We could offer our team to come back
with any details you might need.
− Comment (Renee) Usually as a board we create our recommendation, which
is usually in alignment with staff and then we polish it and send it off. We
don’t have quorum anymore so we can just discuss.
− Comment (John) I would support drafting a memo to support the
districting/contracting. What is everyone’s thoughts
− Q (Mistene) I say keep it simple for efficiency for the City. Are you saying
districted or one hauler?
− A (Sylvia) So the contract is either districted or one hauler. Contracted
is different from licensing. Right now, we are licensed; contracting
would be moving to either one hauler or districted. Districted would be
potentially 2 or more districts. It is a bit confusing.
− Comment (Renee) I see districting as geographic
− Comment (Sylvia) Yes so it would be breaking up the City into
districts.
− Q (John) So if we say we support districting that would mean supporting
either one hauler or multiple haulers?
− A (Sylvia) It would be more if you say I support a City contracted
system and then we either do or do not support districting. Districting
would be breaking the City up into two or more areas. A contracted
system could be done with one hauler. A contracted system could also
be done with multiple haulers and then it would be a districted,
contracted system.
− Comment (Shannon) And that would dictate the RFP process and
how it is flushed out.
− Comment (Sylvia) Yes Council could say structure the RFP to be
contracted and districted. Here is the map of the districts.
− Comment (Renee) So we should tell Council that we support, keep it simple.
B.1.8
Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Economic Advisory Board Minutes (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
0 6 /1 5 /22 – MINUTES Page 12
− Comment (Mistene) The question is what do we support? It sounds like we
are moving to contracting so for us to say we support contracting doesn’t add
value.
− Comment (Renee) Well it is not decided. Council has a priority, they take it
to the City and the City says we will do research, investigate and then make a
recommendation. That is what they are doing. As a board and we don’t have
to agree with everything, but if we think it is a good idea, we send a memo to
Council saying we support this and here is why. They can listen or the don’t
have to. It is a way for us to have some input
− Comment (Mistene) So we would say we support contracting, should we
take it to the next level and say we support districting or one hauler?
− Q (Renee) We could say one hauler, right?
− Q (John) What would you support?
− A (Renee) I know there are restrictions, but I would say we support
one hauler per district to help with street repairs, traffic, safety. It
doesn’t make sense to have 2 haulers per neighborhood due to
impact.
− Q (John) Based on your presentation, what are you moving towards?
− A (Sylvia) We are moving towards a single hauler as a
recommendation because of the efficiencies it creates. But the
districting could include more than one hauler. The Mayor has asked
about it from a City management of the contract perspective. We see it
would require more resources to do.
− Comment (John) I would support contracted single hauler. I think it makes
the greatest amount of savings.
− Comment (Renee) I agree
− Comment (John) I see no reason to have a choice for your hauler.
− Comment (Mistene) It is trash and it’s costing us a lot of money.
− Comment (Renee) Legally though people must have a choice.
− Comment (Sylvia) You must have an opt out and we would
recommend it being an opt out fee. The fee would be the lowest level
of service, so you might as well just have the service.
− Comment (Mistene) The market will take care of itself. Someone is going to
win he contract. We might have a few HOAs but even the ones with HOAs
might not have enough business.
B.1.8
Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Economic Advisory Board Minutes (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
0 6 /1 5 /22 – MINUTES Page 13
− Comment (Renee) Multifamily housing too.
− Comment (Mistene) It will play itself out.
− Comment (John) The one with the contract will be more efficient than
anyone else.
− Q (John) Mistene, are you agreeing with one hauler?
− A (Mistene) Yes.
− Renee supports as well.
− Sylvia mentioned they can add any of the details, like yard trimmings or
anything important to them. Renee stated they like to keep it simple to better
ensure it will be read.
− Renee will send out an email to the Board that will include the presentation to
get a vote with quorum for the memo.
4. ADJOURN - 6:00 pm
B.1.8
Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Economic Advisory Board Minutes (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
June 15, 2022 6:00 – 8:00 pm
Via Zoom
06/15/2022 – MINUTES Page 1
*** MINUTES ABBREVIATED TO ONLY INCLUDE ITEMS RELATED TO TRASH AND
RECYCLING CONTRACTING CONVERSATION*****
CALL TO ORDER
6:02 pm
ROLL CALL
•List of Board Members Present –
−Barry Noon
−Dawson Metcalf - Chair
−Drew Derderian
−Victoria McKennan
−Kevin Krause- Vice Chair
−Danielle Buttke
•List of Board Members Absent – Excused or Unexcused, if no contact with Chair
has been made
−Hillary Mizia
−Avneesh Kumar
•List of Staff Members Present
−Honore Depew, Staff Liaison
−John Phelan
−Kira Beckham
−Kelly Smith
•List of Guests
−none
1.NEW BUSINESS
a.Contracting of Waste Pick-up and Hauling – Kira Beckham, Lead Specialist for
Waste Reduction & Recycling, presented and discussed considerations for a
contracted system of waste pick-up and hauling for households within the Fort Collins
community and received feedback on options for the issuing a request for proposals
ATTACHMENT 9 B.1.9
Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Natural Resources Advisory Board Minutes (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
0 6 /15/2022 – MINUTES Page 2
(RFP) and hauler selection process, prior to a July 12 Council Work Session. (Action)
− Discussion | Q + A
− Danielle – Q – I appreciate data where you can pinpoint wear and tear on
the roads because of the multiple heavy trucks. Is there any data from other
communities on a similar analysis regarding air pollution specifically thinking
about diesel and being that it is one of the most harmful pollutants from a
human health perspective? We are in one of the worst air quality cities in the
nation and there are not that many diesel sources that are this heavy of use.
Kira – A – We have come across that data and have looked at the overall
emissions. What is interesting is when we looked at the emissions that are
impacted, when you bump them up against the overall greenhouse gas
inventory, they are a small percent of the overall picture. We see more
measurable success when we start playing in the compost and waste
diversion. The road maintenance becomes more quantifiable factor for us
than the emissions themselves. Danielle – Comment – If you look
specifically at black soot, PM2.5, and nitrous oxide, you might find more of a
contribution from these trucks as those are unique to diesel trucks and are
higher, the heavier the vehicle. Kira – Comment – One element we didn’t go
into a lot of detail in because we are still exploring it is we can look to require
moving toward compressed natural gas (CNG) or electric vehicles (EV). The
big win with a contracted system is we can start small and grow overtime; it
gives us the foundation we need to start to move in that direction. On one
side you have price and the other hand the different attributes we can ask for.
It will be a tradeoff. Danielle – Comment – I think that is also a great
opportunity to think about those things. Middlebury, Vermont has trash
haulers that use horse and buggy. It can be done and there are other options
out there. I think incorporating language so that this can be flexible and
adaptable based on regulations and technology as it comes out will be key.
Kira – Comment – The contract terms then to be in the range of 3-7 years.
− Danielle – Comment – There is always going to be this chicken and egg
problem. There isn’t going to be a food scrap facility or service until you have
people that are willing to bring it. Market players can have outsized impacts
on development of new markets for these products or development of food
scrap composing. I think that is another incentive point if you are looking at
rating and ranking RFPs; one might have a relationship with a potential food
scrap facility. Kira – Comment – Part of that discussion relates to the Larimer
County Landfill, the Regional Wasteshed, and the capabilities new facilities
may have. So we do have a team working closely with them to understand
what will and will not be possible and how local flow control of various
materials might influence that. They are very passionate about getting to
B.1.9
Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Natural Resources Advisory Board Minutes (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
0 6 /15/2022 – MINUTES Page 3
haulers having those relationships or their own capabilities. It will be key. One
question we have gotten a lot from the community is about what will happen
to the haulers/owners that don’t get selected if we go with a one contract
system. The contract wouldn’t be implemented for 12-18 months after a final
decision has been made so there is time for the haulers to respond and
adjust staffing levels. They will still have several HOA customers that are
already contracted. Three out of four haulers are large national haulers that
are used to these shifts at local markets and also service surrounding areas.
− Kevin – Comment – I love this project and I think it’s so on point and big for
the community based on the data and some of the goals. I just want to
piggyback on Danielle’s point of not just looking at greenhouse gas
emissions. The one thing that came to mind is tire particulate because that
alone for a bunch of heavy trucks is not insignificant. There are a bunch of
these layers that make it so obvious that this is a great path for our
community, and I would love to see as many of those pointed out as possible.
Just as far as other options for actual service for lessening waste in the
community and increasing efficiency has been to do every other week option
for trash; our small bin is still too big for us. Kira – Comment – Those are two
things we have heard loud and clear from our community. They want that
very low volume option, not only for pricing but because it is the right thing to
do. We are looking at an individual bag capability and have explored the idea
of every other week trash. Right now, our base model is assuming weekly
trash and recycling and, if we bundle it, yard waste. The main reason for that
is the efficiency’s but we are looking at all the considerations. I think that also
becomes an even more viable solution as we get increased composting for
food scraps because that eliminates a lot of concerns about rodents and
smell that become a real factor when talking about what’s currently in
people’s trash.
− Kevin – Comment – I am curious if we talk about solar, paying your own way
and equity, I am curious if you start to thread some of these things together.
Let’s say I opt for a 75-gallon bin every week because I throw everything in
the trash and don’t compost or reduce where I can versus being a really low
trash user. Are the heavy trash users paying their own way in the community
because they are increasing impacts on the roads, other facilities, and
emissions? I think this is a bigger discussion for our board later, but it feels
funny to me. Maybe the pricing and incentives will play out. There is the cost
of the disposal but then there is an impact on city facilities like roads but just
having more waste. Kira – Comment – We are looking at that, but it is a little
tricky in terms of the pay as you throw design to charge more from a rate
perspective for the heavy users directly. One of the other things that we have
recognized with the increased price that is incurred from an open market
B.1.9
Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Natural Resources Advisory Board Minutes (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
0 6 /15/2022 – MINUTES Page 4
system today is there are communities that charge a road impact fee
because the city is subsidizing. So, there are considerations on a road
maintenance fee and that fee shrinks a lot when you move to a contracted
system because you have a lower impact on your roads.
− Dawson – Q – What is the timeline on crafting a memo? Kira – A – The July
12th work session materials are due by Wednesday, June 6th.
− Honore – Q – If the Board decides to act related to this item, I saw you
presented on two options. Is there one that is a staff recommendation or are
you presenting them side by side as optoins? I know this board tends to be
concerned about overall ways to reduce waste, emissions and be efficient, so
is there one option that would be more effective in advancing towards
adopted goals? Kira – A – I think it really depends on which one you are
homing in on. Whether you are focusing on diversion, equity, or something
else. We have a recommended package but again that doesn’t narrow on
things like yard trimmings, so I think I would almost suggest focusing more on
some of those nuisances or in general in favor of a contracted system. I think
it might be the independent elements that become more important to Council
and speaks loudly.
− Kira will share slides with Board.
2. OTHER BUSINESS
a. Memo for Contracting for Waste Pick-up & Hauling
− Danielle makes a motion that the Board approve a memo in support for the
waste hauling plan that was presented with the addition of advocating for
incentives to rate proposals that have either lower emissions, zero emissions,
or future for lower emission vehicles and that allows for faster and/or more
accessible food scrap pick up in the contract. Dawson Seconds. Passes 4-0-
1.
− Dawson will work on the memo and will send it out to the Board.
− The Board discussed the option to have an in-person board meeting as it
would be nice to meet everyone in person but for environmental reason go
back to virtual meetings after. They decided on an in-person meeting for their
May 18th Board meeting.
− Board members looked at upcoming subjects through the summer. There
was interest shown in land use code, trash/recycling contracting, active
modes plan draft recommendations, Halligan water supply project update,
B.1.9
Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Natural Resources Advisory Board Minutes (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
TYPE OF MEETING – REGULAR
0 6 /15/2022 – MINUTES Page 5
and budget review.
3. ADJOURN - 8:52 pm
B.1.9
Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Natural Resources Advisory Board Minutes (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
Single Family Tr ash,
Recycling and Compost
Contracting
July 12, 2022
City Council Work Session
Caroline Mitchell
Lindsay Ex
Additional project team members:
Kira Beckham
Sylvia Tatman-Burruss
Ashley Pace
Sheela Backen
Molly Saylor
ATTACHMENT 10 B.1.10
Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
2Question for Council
Do Councilmembers have feedback about the recommendations to be
included in a contracted system for residential waste and recycling collection
program, which will be included in a Request for Proposals (RFP)?
•Materials Collected and How
•System Design
B.1.10
Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
3Strategic Alignment
City Plan
Council Priority:
Explore Districted
System for Garbage,
Recycling and
Compost
Principle ENV 5:
Create a Zero Waste
system.
Environmental Health
4.3 Zero Waste
Strategic PlanCouncil Priority Our Climate Future
Big Move 2:
Zero Waste
Neighborhoods
Aligned:
Advance Regionalism
Accelerate Composting
Improved Air Quality
Enhanced Recycling Education
Critical Path to
Achieving Climate
Goals (composting)
B.1.10
Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
4Impacts of an open market hauling system
Fort Collins’open market trash and recycling hauling system creates:
$603,000 more street maintenance cost every year (67% more)
$14 million of the $82M street maintenance backlog is due to open market system
If there were 7 haulers in neighborhoods, would be $1.25 million more than single hauler
1200 MTCO2e greenhouse gas emissions from hauling
Equivalent to the energy use of approximately 150 homes/year
More noise
More risk of accidents
More vehicle emissions
=1,250
150
Inequitable pricing
some residents paying 100%more for same service
differences from same companies in same area of town
B.1.10
Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
5Pricing within Fort Collins
Ta keaways:
•Pricing varies
significantly for the
same trash cart size
within Fort Collins
($10-$15 / mo.,
$120 -$180 / yr)
•Pricing even varies
with same hauler in
same area of town
$20
$39
$46
$18
$33
$38
$10
$26
$31
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
$50
Small Medium Large
Fort Collins Monthly Open Market Trash Price by Cart Size
All Haulers Combined
Average
$10 (100%)
difference
$13 (50%)
difference
$15 (48%)
difference
B.1.10
Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
6Fort Collins Open Market Pricing Compared with Other Systems
Fort Collins
Open Market
Fort Collins
HOAs w contract
Boulder
Open Market
Golden
Single District Contract
Lafayette
Single District
Contract
Bundled services
(no extra charge)
Services by request /
for extra charge
To tal monthly cost
(small trash + yard trims)$23 -38
$6-$11
(trash only –
yard trimmings data
unavailable)
$35 $11.50 $20.50
Cost compared w FC
open market
-$4 to -$9
(40%-45% less)
+ $13 to -$3
(56% more
to 8% less)
-$11.50 to -$26.50
(50% to 70% less)
-$2.50 to -$17.50
($11% to 46% less)
= recycling = yard trimmings = food scraps = bulky waste
B.1.10
Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
7Diversion, Participation, & Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Av erage Participation Rates:
•Opt-in 15%
•Opt-out 85%
•Bundled 95%
Diversion :
•Would include some shift from drop-off
programs to curbside programs
•Would include new diversion as well
Recommended options would increase yard trimmings collection participation and diversion
Recommended options would decrease greenhouse gas emissions
Details will be available by final decision-making time (later this year)
B.1.10
Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
8Engagement Summary
Priorities with the highest percentage of “extremely important” responses:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Reducing Air
Pollution
Reasonable
Costs
Quality Customer
Service
Consistent
Recycling
Education
Reducing Illegal
Dumping
Stable Uniform
Rates
All Responses Targeted Survey
Input gathered via:
•Virtual
community
meetings
•Open community
survey
•Ta rgeted Survey
B.1.10
Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
Materials Collected and How
Recommended Options
B.1.10
Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
10Recommendations: Materials Collected and How
Material Recommendation Why
Ya rd Trimmings
Weekly collection from April –Nov
Request pricing for opt-out, bundled pricing
·Understand pricing impacts to make informed decision
·Opt-out allows choice for those who don’t want / need
the service, removes barrier to sign up for service
·Bundled generally lowest price for service
Bulky Waste
(Items too large to
fit in curbside cart)
Request two versions of bulky waste
pricing:
a-la-carte (not in base trash charge) and 2
items / year included in base trash charge
·Understand pricing impacts to make informed decision
·Balances diversion focus with equity
·Options for people who don’t have trucks/trailers
Tr ash Keep volume-based pricing ·Current System
·Best practice for waste reduction
Recycling
Pricing model: Bundled w trash service for
no extra charge
Service frequency: Request pricing for
weekly and every-other-week service
·Current System
·Best practice for increased recycling
·Understand pricing to determine whether to keep every
other week or shift to weekly service (which would likely
increase recycling)
Food Scraps Do not include in this contract ·Consider when infrastructure to process food scraps is
near Fort Collins
[
B.1.10
Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
System Design
Recommended Options
B.1.10
Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
12Recommendations: System Design
Element Recommendation Why
Homeowner ’s
Associations (HOAs)
with current contracts for
trash and recycling service
Allow exemption if current contract
meets Pay-As-Yo u Throw requirements
·Existing contracts already achieving the goals of a
contracted system
Carts
•Purchased by hauler, reimbursed
from fee on monthly bill
•Utilize / seek grant funding to offset
cost
•Hauler maintains carts
•Include City logo, become City
property at end of contract
·Carts remain when next contract begins
·Provides level playing field for next contract
process
·Creates community ownership of program
·Cart maintenance already a hauler proficiency
·After initial purchase, maintenance fee funds
replacement of broken carts
Opt-Out Fee Equal to smallest trash cart service cost
·Opt-out option permitted by State law
·Matches peer communities
·Preserves the benefits of the contracted system
Districts One district
·Lowest price
·Most environmental benefits
·Successful in peer communities
B.1.10
Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
13Multiple Districts vs. One Hauler
Multiple Districts
•Often perceived as “middle ground” between open market and
single hauler
•No successful models in Colorado
•Dilutes the benefits of a contracted system
•Complications: different prices between districts for
the same service
•Wo uld delay RFP release
Single District
•Lowest price
•Most environmental benefits
•Many successful models in Colorado
•Haulers remain in community –continue to service other
sectors in Fort Collins and adjacent areas
•Continued low price, competitive proposals from many haulers
Single
Family
Homes
Contracted
HOAs
Construction
and Demolition
Sites
Multi-Family
and
Commercial
Sectors Serviced by Haulers
in Fort Collins
B.1.10
Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
14Recommendations: System Design Cont.
Element Recommendation Why
Flow Control Direct trash to Larimer County
Landfill
·Supports Regional Wasteshed goals
and a public landfill option
·Provides level playing field for hauler proposals
Customer Service Conducted by hauler;
Require Fort Collins-focused staff
·Aligns with hauler conducting billing
·Ensures most of calls answered by staff familiar w Fort
Collins; allow roll-over to national customer service staff
to allow for more customer service hours
Admin Fee Include a fee to fund City role in
contract management
·Best practice from peer communities
·City staff time investment will depend on final contract
elements; will be clarified prior to contract adoption
Alley Service Included ·Haulers provide service in alleys
Va let Service Included ·Haulers take carts from home to curb for servicing and
return the carts to the home for disabled residents
Billing Conducted by hauler ·City cannot do billing in near future
·May consider City billing in next contract
Multi-family &
Commercial
Dumpster Pricing
Request pricing from haulers
·Would provide a fixed price for dumpster service for
multi-family or commercial customers who would like to
opt in to the program
·Has been successful in peer communities
B.1.10
Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
15Recommendations: System Design
Element Recommendation
HOAs
with current
contracts
Allow exemption if current contract meets
Pay-As-Yo u-Throw requirements
Carts
•Purchased by hauler, reimbursed from fee
on monthly bill
•Utilize / seek grant funding to offset cost
•Hauler maintains carts
•Include City logo, become City property at
end of contract
Opt-Out Fee Equal to smallest trash cart service cost
Districts One district
Flow Control Direct trash to Larimer County Landfill
Element Recommendation
Customer Service Conducted by hauler;
Require Fort Collins-focused staff
Admin Fee Include a fee to fund City role in
contract management
Alley Service Included
Va let Service Included
Billing Conducted by hauler
Multi-family /
Commercial
Dumpster Pricing
Request pricing from haulers
B.1.10
Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
16Timeline and next steps
Involves Council and
Community
Apr–Jul
City Staff
Aug -Nov
Involves
Council and
Community
Nov+
•Issue RFP
•Haulers draft responses
•Review Proposals
•Council vote on code
changes for new
program
•Roll-out new service 12
-18 months after
contract adoption
•Community engagement
•Clarity from Councilmembers
at July 12 Work Session
•July 19 Regular Session
Resolution about policy
elements of program
B.1.10
Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
17Question for Council
Do Councilmembers have feedback about the recommendations to be
included in a contracted system for residential waste and recycling collection
program, which will be included in a Request for Proposals (RFP)?
•Materials Collected and How
•System Design
B.1.10
Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
18Recommended Elements to be Included in RFP
Material Recommendation
Ya rd
Trimmings
Weekly collection from April –Nov
Request pricing for opt-out, bundled
pricing
Bulky
Waste
(Items too
large to fit in
curbside cart)
Request two versions of bulky waste
pricing:
a-la-carte (not in base trash charge) and 2
items / year included in base trash charge
Trash Keep volume-based pricing
Recycling
Pricing model: Bundled w trash service for
no extra charge
Service frequency: Request pricing for
weekly and every-other-week service
Food
Scraps Do not include in this contract
Materials to be Collected and How
Element Recommendation
HOAs
with current
contracts
Allow exemption if current contract
meets current requirements
Carts
•Purchased by hauler, reimbursed
from fee on monthly bill
•Utilize / seek grant funding to
offset cost
•Hauler maintains carts
•Include City logo, become City
property at end of contract
Opt-Out
Fee
Equal to smallest trash cart service
cost
Districts One district
Flow
Control
Direct trash to Larimer County
Landfill
System Design
Element Recommendation
Customer
Service
Conducted by hauler;
Require Fort Collins-
focused staff
Admin Fee
Include a fee to fund
City role in contract
management
Alley
Service Included
Va let
Service Included
Billing Conducted by hauler
Multi-family /
Commercial
Dumpster
Pricing
Request pricing from
haulers
B.1.10
Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
B.1.10
Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
20Differences Between Contracted System and Monopoly
Monopoly Contracted Trash and Recycling System
No competition Competitive purchasing process with many haulers
submitting proposals
Unrestricted price
increases
Contract allows for price increases in predetermined manner
for specific reasons
Generally higher prices Generally lower prices
No other service providers
Haulers remain in community servicing commercial & multi-
family, construction and demolition, Homeowners’Association
customers
Lack of choice for other
options Can pay an opt-out fee and work with a different hauler
B.1.10
Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
21What would happen to a hauler that wasn’t awarded a contract?
•Existing nationally-owned haulers
•Could continue to service commercial, multi-family and construction site customers
(70% of market)
•Could continue to service existing HOA contracts (10% of market)
•Could shift staff to servicing accounts in adjacent communities
•Is significant staff turnover now; possible that existing attrition over the 12-18 month
roll-out period would prevent any jobs ending
•Hauler awarded the contract would likely be adding staffing
•New locally-owned hauler
•Could adjust business model to service other Northern Colorado communities
Haulers would have 12-18 months to plan and adjust
Existing haulers have many other customers in Fort Collins and surrounding areas
B.1.10
Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
22Multiple District Options and Tradeoffs
Potential Goal
Likely #
of
districts
Considerations
Maintain a “backup”
hauler in the
community
2
·No matter the size of the district, haulers right-size staff and equipment to
service needs in the community; if an issue arose with one hauler, it would still
take time to increase capacity of another hauler to begin serving more areas
·Could incentivize negotiating to a higher price proposal
Keep all haulers in
the community active
in the general
residential market
4
·Not possible to restrict competitive purchasing process to only existing haulers
·All haulers currently operating in the community will stay in the community as
they continue to service their commercial, multi-family, construction and
demolition and Homeowners’Association customers
Make at least one
district at a scale that
could be won by a
small hauler
2?
·Cannot guarantee district would be won by small hauler
·Smaller haulers are commonly purchased by large national haulers, so even if
a small hauler won a district, it may not be serviced by a small hauler for the
length of the contract
B.1.10
Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11765 : Trash and Recycling Contracting Details)
DATE:
STAFF:
July 12, 2022
Ginny Sawyer, Policy and Project Manager
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide background and analysis on adoption of a local minimum wage and to
clarify next steps.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What additional information would be beneficial to Council?
2. Does council support bringing forward an ordinance for consideration on November 15, 2022?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Criteria to Set a Local Minimum Wage
In 2019, the Colorado State legislature passed a bill allowing municip alities to adopt their own minimum wage and
in 2021, Council adopted a priority to increase the local minimum wage. The state house bill limits the number of
municipalities establishing a local minimum wage to 10-percent of all local governments in the state and requires
those considering a local wage to engage with stakeholders including chambers of commerce, small and large
businesses, businesses that employ tipped workers, workers, labor unions, and community groups and consult
with surrounding local governments.
The City is working to meet these criteria in the following ways:
• Meeting with Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce
• Meet with Latino Chamber of Commerce.
• Utilizing the scheduled National Business Survey to incorporate questions on minimum w age.
• Distributing and making available a general questionnaire for anyone interested in participating. (Reports
pulled on July 6 and included in attachments.)
• Sharing plans for minimum wage considerations through regional managers group.
In survey and questionnaire questions, a wage of $15 was used to provide a benchmark for participants to gauge
impacts.
The bill also states that any local wage adjustment must take effect on the same date as the statewide adjustment
and that if a local government adopts a wage that is higher than the statewide minimum wage the local
government can only increase the local minimum wage each year by $1.75 or 15%, whichever is higher until the
local wage reaches the amount enacted by the local government.
Given these parameters and the $15 amount, Fort Collins could increase at the following rate:
• 2023: $14.44 (15% of current $12.56 wage)
• 2024: $15.00
B.2
Packet Pg. 90
July 12, 2022 Page 2
To date, Denver is the only local government to adopt a local minimum wage. The program began in 2020 and
outlined the following adjustment schedule:
• $12.85 from January 1, 2020 - December 31, 2020;
• $14.77 from January 1, 2021 - December 31, 2021;
• $15.87 from January 1, 2022 - December 31, 2022; and
• On January 1st in subsequent years, the Minimum Wage will increase by the prior year’s increase in the
regional consumer price index, if any.
Denver’s program is administered out of the Denver Labor office which is part of the Auditor’s Office where they
receive and investigate complaints. Detailed information on Denver’s program can be found at:
<https://denvergov.org/Government/Agencies-Departments-Offices/Agencies-Departments-Offices-
Directory/Auditors-Office/Denver-Labor>
Without the addition of staff/resources, staff does not foresee immediate active enforcement capab ilities.
Employees would be entitled and able to pursue legal action if they were not being paid the legal minimum wage.
Local Data Analysis
The City has also engaged Economic Planning Systems (EPS) to gather local employment and wage information.
EPS findings overall include:
• Existing research indicates that a higher local minimum wage generally does not lead to job losses or higher
prices, but it does increase worker earnings and employee retention.
• Approximately one-quarter of the Fort Collins workforce would benefit from a $15/hour minimum wage.
• These jobs are primarily concentrated in the service sector - food service, retail, accommodations, personal
care.
More specific findings highlighted that a local minimum wage could have a small but pos itive impact on worker
earnings, a minimal impact on employment levels, and a small increase in price in the restaurant sector.
Research also shows that a higher minimum wage can reduce employee turnover and increase retention.
Data also suggests a minor increase in business closures with a higher local minimum wage.
In Larimer County, approximately 25% of earners are currently below $15/hour with most of these workers being
in food service and personal care occupations. The overall average hourly wage i n Fort Collins is currently $29.67
/hour.
Current State
A state minimum wage was put in place in 2007 ($6.85/hour) and is adjusted every year starting January 1 based
on cost-of-living as determined by the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
B.2
Packet Pg. 91
July 12, 2022 Page 3
$5.15 $5.15 $5.15 $5.15 $5.15 $5.15 $5.15
$6.85 $7.02 $7.28 $7.24 $7.36 $7.64 $7.78 $8.00 $8.23 $8.31
$9.30
$10.20
$11.10
$12.00 $12.32 $12.56
$0.00
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
$8.00
$10.00
$12.00
$14.00
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
State Minimum Wage Implemented
NEXT STEPS
Staff has scheduled a first reading for local minimum wage consideration on November 15, 2022. This would
allow time for a second reading and a January 1, 2023 implementation if desired.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Employee Survey (PDF)
2. Employer Survey (PDF)
3. Survey Results - Other than Employees and Employers (PDF)
4. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)
B.2
Packet Pg. 92
ATTACHMENT 1 B.2.1
Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Employee Survey (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Employee Survey (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Employee Survey (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Employee Survey (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Employee Survey (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Employee Survey (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Employee Survey (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Employee Survey (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Employee Survey (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Employee Survey (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
B.2.1
Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Employee Survey (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
ATTACHMENT 2 B.2.2
Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Employer Survey (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
B.2.2
Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Employer Survey (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
B.2.2
Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Employer Survey (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
B.2.2
Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Employer Survey (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
B.2.2
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Employer Survey (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
B.2.2
Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Employer Survey (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
ATTACHMENT 3 B.2.3
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Survey Results - Other than Employees and Employers (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
B.2.3
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Survey Results - Other than Employees and Employers (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
Local Minimum Wage Consideration
July 12, 2022Ginny Sawyer, Project and Policy Manager
ATTACHMENT 4 B.2.4
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
2Council Questions
1.What additional information would be beneficial to
Council?
2.Does Council support bringing forward an ordinance for
consideration on November 15,2022?
B.2.4
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
3Background
HB19-1210
•Allows local governments to establish minimum wage laws.
•Only 10% of Colorado municipalities allowed to adopt local wage.
•Local wage must take effect on the same day as the statewide wage.
•If wage is higher than the statewide minimum the local wage can only
increase each year by $1.75 or 15%, whichever is higher until the local wage
reaches the amount enacted by the local government.
•Communities considering a local wage must:
•Engage with stakeholders including chambers of commerce, small and large
businesses, businesses that employ tipped workers, workers, labor unions,
and community groups, and;
•Consult with surrounding local governments.
B.2.4
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
4CityEfforts to Meet Criteria
·Meeting with Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce (Legislative group and focus
group discussions underway.)
·Meet with Latino Chamber of Commerce.
·Utilizing the scheduled National Business Survey to incorporate questions on
minimum wage.
·Distributing and making available a general questionnaire for anyone
interested in participating.
·Sharing plans for minimum wage considerations through regional managers
group.
B.2.4
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
5Program Implementation
In Denver: program began in 2020 and outlined the following adjustment schedule:
$12.85 from January 1, 2020 –December 31, 2020;
$14.77 from January 1, 2021 –December 31, 2021;
$15.87 from January 1, 2022 –December 31, 2022; and
On January 1st in subsequent years, the Minimum Wage will increase by the prior year ’s increase in
the regional consumer price index, if any.
Denver ’s program is administered out of the Denver Labor office which is part of the Auditor ’s Office where they receive
and investigate complaints.
If Fort Collins chooses a $15 minimum wage:
2023: $14.44 (15% of current $12.56 wage)
2024: $15.00
Currently, no dedicated resource for enforcement.Employees would be entitled and able to pursue legal action if they
were not being paid the legal minimum wage.
B.2.4
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
Research
MINIMUM WAGE
ECONOMIC IMPACT
STUDY
Initial Data Analysis
B.2.4
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
7Research
Context
§In 2016, Colorado voters approved
Amendment 70 to gradually raise
minimum wage to $12.32/hour
($9.30/hour for tipped wage
earners)
§In 2019, the Colorado legislature
passed HB19-1210 granting local
governments the authority to adopt
and enforce a local minimum wage
Key Questions
§What are the current employment
and wage conditions in Fort
Collins?
§What are the potential economic
impacts of a local minimum
wage?
§What are the potential costs and
benefits of a local minimum
wage?
B.2.4
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
8Research
KEY FINDINGS
Existing research indicates that a higher local minimum wage generally does
not lead to job losses or higher prices, but it does increase worker earnings and
employee retention.
Approximately one-quarter of the Fort Collins workforce would benefit from a
$15/hour minimum wage.
These jobs are primarily concentrated in the service sector –food service,
retail, accommodations, personal care.
B.2.4
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
Minimum Wage History in Colorado
•Current minimum
wage is $12.56/hour
($9.54/hour for tipped
employees)
•State minimum wage
is adjusted annually for
cost-of-living
increases, as
measured by the CPI
for Colorado
•Currently, Denver is
the only municipality in
Colorado with a higher
local minimum wage
($15.87/hour
9
$5.15 $5.15 $5.15 $5.15 $5.15 $5.15 $5.15
$6.85 $7.02 $7.28 $7.24 $7.36 $7.64 $7.78 $8.00 $8.23 $8.31
$9.30
$10.20
$11.10
$12.00 $12.32$12.56
$0.00
$2.00
$4.00
$6.00
$8.00
$10.00
$12.00
$14.00
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
State Minimum Wage Implemented
B.2.4
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
Communities with a Local Minimum Wage 10
Santa Rosa, CA: Currently at $15.85. Increased from
original level of $12.00 in 2019. Future increases are
pegged to the San Francisco metro CPI.
Tucson, AZ: Currently at $13.00; will increase
to $15.00 by 2025, then increases are pegged
to the CPI-U for each year thereafter
Flagstaff, AZ: Currently at $15.50. Increased
from original level of $10.50 set in 2017. Future
increases are pegged to the CPI-U
Denver, CO: Currently at $15.87. Increased from
original level of $12.85 in 2020; Future increases
are pegged to the Denver metro CPI
Minneapolis, MN: Currently at $13.50.
Increased from original level of $10.25 set
in 2018 and will increase to $15.00 by 2024.
Future increases will be calculated by state Portland, ME: Currently at $13.00; will
increase to $15.00 by 2024. After 2024,
increases are pegged to the CPI-U
B.2.4
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
Existing Research on Local Minimum Wage 11
Employment
What is the impact
of a higher
minimum wage on
employment?
Earnings
How does a
higher minimum
wage affect
earnings for
workers?
Prices
What is the
impact of a
higher minimum
wage on prices?
Employee Retention
How does a
higher minimum
wage affect
employee
retention and job
turnover?
Business Closures
How does a
higher minimum
wage affect the
ability of
businesses to
stay open?
B.2.4
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
Existing Research on Local Minimum Wage 12
•Evidence points to
increases of a local
minimum wage having a
minimal impact on
employment levels
•Some negative effect on
the rate of hiring for low-
wage workers seeking
a first job
•Overall, increases have
a minor but positive
effect on worker
earnings
•A h igher minimum wage
can be offset by
reduction in hours
•This is more likely to
happen to less
experienced workers
•More experienced
workers see greater
increases in earnings
•Research indicates that
increases to minimum
wage do not drive
higher prices in most
sectors, including
grocery, gas, retail
chains, drugstores
•Evidence points to
higher prices in
restaurants, although
the effect is small
Employment Earnings Prices
B.2.4
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
Existing Research on Local Minimum Wage 13
•Research generally finds that a
higher local minimum wage reduces
employee turnover and increases
employee retention
•Leads to improvements in job quality
and worker attachment
•Research suggests that higher local
minimum wage lead to more
business closures, but the effect is
minor
Employee Retention Business Closures/Exit Rates
B.2.4
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
Wa ges vs. Prices, Fort Collins 14
Avg, Wage, Ft. Collins, 147%
Housing Price Index, 204%
All Prices, 130%
Food, 131%
Medical Care, 137%
Transport, 122%
100%
120%
140%
160%
180%
200%
220%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
% of 2010
Source: BLS; FHFA;Economic & Planning Systems
B.2.4
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
15Wage Distribution, Larimer County (2021)
10%
25%
50%
75%
90%
$13.83 $14.80 $22.66 $35.29 $48.84
Source: BLS OES; Economic & Planning Systems
10% of earners make
more than $48.84 per
hour
10% of earners make
less than $13.83 per
hour
B.2.4
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
16Wages by Occupation, Larimer County (2021)
$14.15
$14.37
$17.16
$17.16
$17.47
$18.06
$18.44
$18.47
$23.02
$23.24
$23.37
$23.63
$23.86
$28.87
$29.95
$35.35
$36.05
$37.45
$45.84
$46.09
$58.40
$0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00
Food Preparation and Serving
Personal Care and Service
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance
Sales and Related
Healthcare Support
Transportation and Material Moving
Production
Office and Administrative Support
Protective Service
Construction and Extraction
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media
Community and Social Service
Educational Instruction and Library
Life, Physical, and Social Science
Legal Occupations
Business and Financial Operations
Healthcare Practitioners
Computer and Mathematical Occupations
Architecture and Engineering
Management Occupations
Source: BLS OES; Economic & Planning Systems
B.2.4
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
17Major Low Wa ge Occupations, Larimer County
De scription Hour ly Wage Em ployment unde r $15/hr
Media n W age Below $15/Hour
Fo od Preparation and Servi ng $14.15 7,675
Pers onal Care and Service $14.37 1,765
25th Percentile Wage Be low $15/Hour
Sales and Related $14.01 4,568
Healthcare Support $14.27 1,630
Building and Grounds Cleaning $14.37 1,348
Trans portation and Material Moving $14.42 2,533
10th Percentile Wage below $15/Hour
Ar ts , Entertainm ent, Sports , and Media $13.87 207
Prote ctive Servi ce Occupations $13.95 267
Offi ce and Adm inis tr ative Support $14.02 1,859
Production Occupations $14.16 717
Educational Ins truction and Library $14.34 927
In stallation,Ma intenance,and Repair $14.40 620
Sour ce: BLS OES ; Economic & Planning Sy stems
Many low-wage occupations
are in the service sector:
Food Prep
Personal Care
Healthcare Support
Sales
Office support
B.2.4
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
18PreliminaryNational Business Survey Information
106
13
9
5 6 9
15
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Ap proximately what percent, if any, of your employees earn less than $15/hr?
None Under 10%10-24%25-49%50-74%75% or more Don't know
B.2.4
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
19PreliminaryNational Business Survey Information
45
38
16
54
6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
To what extent do you support or oppose the minimum wage in Fort Collins increasing to $15 per hour?
Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Don't know
B.2.4
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
20PreliminaryQuestionnaire Results
998 responses as of July 6
B.2.4
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
21PreliminaryQuestionnaire Results
B.2.4
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
22Next Steps
•Continue survey and questionnaire analysis.
•First reading for local minimum wage consideration on
November 15, 2022.
B.2.4
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
23Council Questions
1.What additional information would be beneficial to
Council?
2.Does Council support bringing forward an ordinance for
consideration on November 15,2022?
B.2.4
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11760 : Consideration of a Local Minimum Wage)
DATE:
STAFF:
July 12, 2022
Jenny Axmacher, Senior City Planner
Rebecca Everette, Development Review Manager
Brad Yatabe, Legal
Eric Potyondy, Legal
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Water Adequacy Determination Review Process.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide Council with an update on the creation of a water adequacy determination
review process. Staff is seeking input on specific aspects of the process creation, including the approach for
evaluating new water providers, impacts to existing water providers, and identifying the decision maker for
determining water adequacy.
Water is a crucial and constrained resource, and the City strives to ensure that development meets the
community’s vision and expectations for responsible resource management. City Plan includes policies to ensure
water is used wisely and our community is prepared for a changing climate. Cur rently, development within the
City only occurs within the boundaries of existing City (Fort Collins Utilities) and Special District water providers,
such as Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and East Larimer County Water District. A project is determin ed to
have an adequate water supply through the issuance of a “will serve” letter from the established water provider at
the time of development plan or building permit approval.
The necessity for an updated water adequacy review program stems from the li mited supply and high cost of
water resources, which have resulted in developers pursuing more creative ways to provide water to their
proposed developments, particularly projects striving to provide affordable housing or the denser development
patterns called for in City Plan. To establish a more comprehensive water adequacy review process, staff is
considering the best practices from other jurisdictions, authority/review by other agencies, and creating a city
review process specifically for new providers. The water adequacy determination review process for new
providers will look at evaluation criteria, review timing and decision -making authority.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does Council have feedback on the evaluation approach for new water providers?
2. Does Council support different standards for established providers and new providers?
3. Does Council have feedback on who the decision maker should be for water adequacy determinations for
new providers?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Relevant Past Council Discussions
• Northeast Fort Collins Planning and Projects Overview - August 31, 2021
o Work Session Summary:
<https://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=218&docid=3524914&dt=MAIL+PACKET>
• Montava Development: Overview of Proposed Potable Water Supply Relying on Groundwater - February 9,
2021
B.3
Packet Pg. 135
July 12, 2022 Page 2
o Work Session Summary:
<https://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=218&docid=3519208&dt=MAIL+PACKET>
• Approval of Montava PUD Overlay and Master Plan - February 18, 2020
o Agenda Item Summary:
<https://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=72&docid=3434279&dt=&doc_download_date=FEB -18-
2020&ITEM_NUMBER=>
• Northeast Fort Collins Planning and Projects Overview - September 24, 2019
o Work Session Summary:
<https://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=218&docid=3392244&dt=MAIL+PACKET>
• Rural Scenario Assessment and reconfirmation of the Mountain Vista subarea framework plan - June 12,
2015.
o<https://citydocs.fcgov.com/?cmd=convert&vid=218&docid=2504540&dt=MAIL+PACKET>
Water is a crucial and constrained resource, and the City strives to ensure that development meets the
community’s vision and expectations for responsible resource management. City Plan includes policies to ensure
water is used wisely and our community is prepared for a changing climate. The plan also supports managing
water resources in a manner that enhances and protects long -term water quality, supply, and reliability for current
and future residents.
The necessity for an updated water adequacy review progra m stems from the limited supply and high cost of
water resources, which have resulted in developers pursuing more creative ways to provide water to their
proposed developments, particularly projects striving to provide affordable housing or the denser deve lopment
patterns called for in City Plan. One development contemplating a more unique and potentially innovative
approach to supplying water resources is the Montava Planned Unit Development (PUD), which proposes a
groundwater-based water supply for both potable and non-potable water service. The developer believes this
system will improve the overall resiliency of the water supply for the area while also reducing the cost.
Because the City does not currently have a review process or criteria for “non -standard” water service models,
including groundwater systems, new policy and code are needed to confirm that future residents are adequately
served. While the Montava project has generated the immediate need for this type of review, staff believes a
comprehensive program could have benefits for reviewing all new developments moving forward, regardless of
the water source.
Requirement for Water Adequacy Review
This review process is being proposed to further effectuate a Colorado state statute (Section 29 -20-301, et seq.,
C.R.S.), which states:
A local government shall not approve an application for a development permit unless it determines in its
sole discretion, after considering the application and all of the information provided, that the applicant
has satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed water supply will be adequate. A local government
shall make such determination only once during the development permit approval process unless the
water demands or supply of the specific project for which the development permit is sought are
materially changed. A local government shall have the discretion to determine the stage in the
development permit approval process at which such determination is made.
For this regulation, the Colorado state statute d efines some key terms, including the following. “’Adequate’ means
a water supply that will be sufficient for build-out of the proposed development in terms of quality, quantity,
dependability, and availability to provide a supply of water for the type of development proposed and may include
reasonable conservation measures and water demand management measures to account for hydrologic
variability.” “’Water supply entity’ means a municipality, county, special district, water conservancy district, water
conservation district, water authority, or other public or private water supply company that supplies, distributes, or
otherwise provides water at retail.”
B.3
Packet Pg. 136
July 12, 2022 Page 3
Currently, development within the City only occurs within the boundaries of existing City (Fort Collins Utilities) and
Special District water providers, such as Fort Collins-Loveland Water District and East Larimer County Water
District, and the adequacy determination is made through the issuance of a “will serve” letter from the established
water provider. Pursuant to state statute, ‘will serve’ letters meeting certain requirements may satisfy the water
adequacy determination, but staff will soon be faced with a proposal that is outside the bounds of the current
system and needs a more robust and transparen t process to evaluate the more complex proposal. It is partly the
responsibility of the City to ensure that future residents are well served by an adequate system. Please refer to
the chart created by Del Corazon Consulting and included in the Growing Wat er Smart - The Water-Land Use
Nexus Guide by the Sonoran Institute and Babbitt Center. (Attachment 2)
Best Practices from Other Jurisdictions
Staff continues to conduct research on how other jurisdictions handle the water adequacy review process. A
summary of the information collected to date is below and will continue to be updated as the process progresses.
It is worth noting that many municipalities have not been faced with the challenge of regulating a private water
supply system. This is an innovativ e/novel idea and there is not much basis to find comparisons. Most
municipalities have their own municipal service or obtain service through one or more special districts. It is more
likely a situation that a county jurisdiction might experience. The lead er in code creation on the topic is La Plata
County, with additional work being done in El Paso County.
The Sonoran Institute is expecting to receive a report about the challenges and opportunities for ensuring an
adequate water supply within the next month, which will also include best practice information. Staff will share this
information if available prior to the work session.
The City has issued both a request for information (RFI) and a request for proposals (RFP) to seek a consultant to
assist with this program creation and the City received only one proposal, limited to assistance with application
review, as a response to either request. This topic of private water systems and adequacy determinations is
clearly an emerging trend, and the City will be a trendsetter on how these issues are handled but may need to do
so without significant outside expertise.
Jurisdiction Water Provider Mechanism Timing
Fort Collins Municipal Utility w/water plan and
Special Districts with water plans
Will Serve Letters Building Permit
Windsor Special Districts w/ water plan Code Requirements Building Permit
Loveland Municipal Utility w/water plan Building Permit
Denver Denver Water (Special District)
w/water plan
Lakewood Municipal Utility w/water plan and
Special Districts with water plans
Water Service Form Building Permit
Littleton Denver Water (Special District)
w/water plan
Will Serve Letters Up to Building Permit
Thornton Municipal Utility w/water plan Will Serve Letters Up to Building Permit
Commerce City Special District w/ water plan Will Serve Letters Building Permit
Westminster Municipal utility w/water plan
Colorado Springs
Larimer County Special Districts
El Paso County
La Plata County Has requirements for New
Entities
Code Requirements
Greeley
Timnath Special Districts w/ water plan
Boulder
Arvada Municipal Utility w/water plan and
Special Districts with water plans
B.3
Packet Pg. 137
July 12, 2022 Page 4
Other Agency Review
The 1996 Amendments to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) required each state to develop a program
to ensure that all new community water systems and new non-transient, non-community (NTNC) water systems
beginning operations after October 1, 1999 demonstrate the technical, managerial, and financial (TMF) capacity
to comply with the national primary drinking water regulation in effect or likely to be in effect prior to starting
operations. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (department) enacted regulations
establishing that owners of new community or NTNC public water systems demonstrate adequate capacity to
construct, operate and manage the new public waterworks.
Any new water supplier must obtain approval from CDPHE to operate, and this will be true of the system the
Montava development is proposing. Staff will work with CDPHE to better understand their review and approval
process to explore overlaps and efficiencies that can be gained for the City review process. It is anticipated that
the water supplier would receive CDPHE approval prior to submitt ing to the City for a water adequacy
determination; however, the process timing will be explored further to confirm that assumption. (Attachment 3)
It is also important to point out that there likely is a role for Water Court to play in the process to adj udicate claims
for water under Colorado Law, such as if a new water supply (e.g., groundwater) is proposed.
Staff will continue to investigate which other entities have jurisdiction over these private water systems, which will
help to inform the City’s review process creation.
CITY REVIEW PROCESS
Evaluation Criteria
The goal of the water supply evaluation of these systems is to ensure a reliable, high quality water supply for City
residents that can be guaranteed into the future. Consistent with the s tatute, staff is proposing to determine water
adequacy differently based on the type of water entity.
A more streamlined process is recommended if providers have certain types of water supply planning in effect,
like how adequacy is determined now with a will serve letter. There is an opportunity to set a minimum bar to hold
these entities (primarily existing special districts) accountable, if desired. Staff could continue to accept a will
serve letter but would look at ways to make sure the letters provide consistent information across different water
entities and ensure all crucial information on the project and supply are included in the letter.
In establishing the process to review supplies from new water entities, the City has identified the followi ng
characteristics for evaluation criteria:
• Water Quality
• Quantity of Water
• Dependability of Supply and Supplier
o Supply Resiliency
o System Redundancy
o Maintenance and Outages
• Availability of Supply
• Financial Sustainability of Supplier
o Capitalization
These criteria would apply to both potable (water for human consumption) and non -potable (raw water primarily
for irrigation and not for human consumption) systems.
B.3
Packet Pg. 138
July 12, 2022 Page 5
The City could also consider requiring approval from any existing water entity if a new entity is proposed within
their current service area.
Timing
The state statute leaves the determination timing during the development process up to the purview of the local
jurisdiction. However, the determination may only be made once during the process unless something materially
changes. This gives the City the option to make the adequacy determination as early in the process as
annexation or zoning entitlement, or as late in the process as building permit or certificate of occupancy. Staff
continues to evaluate the ideal timing for water adequacy determinations within this new process. Currently, water
adequacy is determined with will serve letters at the time of building permit, but adequacy is also generally
considered during zoning entitlements, especially for planned unit development overlay districts.
Approval Authority
There are a variety of potential decision makers for the adequacy determination, and staff is still evaluating
options and best practices for the approval authority. Staff is not exploring placing the decision-making authority
with a new entity, as there are a variety of potential decision makers already involved in the development review
process. Options currently under consideration include:
• Option 1: Match water adequacy determination authority with the appropriate decision -maker for the
development plan.
This option would allow the decision maker for the development plan to also make the determination of water
adequacy. The decision maker may vary based on the type of project or the review stage at which the water
adequacy determination is made. Depending on the type and stage of review, potential decision makers could
include the Community Development and Neighborhood Services (CDNS) Director, Planning & Zoning
Commission, and administrative hearing officers. This approach could result in a greater need for training on
such a unique subject matter as water adequacy if multiple groups could serve as the final decision maker,
however it could streamline the approval process for the applicant, as there would not be a need for an
additional step in the process.
• Option 2: Grant authority to the Water Commission for water adequacy determinations.
This option would grant authority to the Water Commission to make either recommendations or final decisions
about water adequacy. The Water Commission is already granted quasi-judicial authority for certain
decisions, and their role could be expanded to include these determinations. Alternatively, the Commission
could provide formal recommendations to a separate decision-maker. The Commission generally includes
members with experience with water, wastewater, and stormwater systems, and this technical expertise may
benefit the overall review and determination process.
• Option 3: Grant authority to the CDNS Director for water adequacy determinations.
This option would place authority for water adequacy determination with the Community Development and
Neighborhood Services Director. This generally matches the current decision-making structure, where staff
review “will serve” letters from outside utility providers to ensure adequate water supply and service. Because
water adequacy determinations require review and application of technical criteria, keeping the decision at the
staff level may support more consistent and neutral decision-making than an appointed board or commission.
Staff welcomes feedback from Council on these or other options prior to making a final staff recommendation.
NEXT STEPS
The major milestones for this project are:
• Review Existing Service Provider Requirements for New Development
• Establish Provider Sustainability Review and Determination
• Propose Water Supply Requirements for New Development
• Create Review Procedure
B.3
Packet Pg. 139
July 12, 2022 Page 6
• Code Adoption and Implementation
Because the City did not receive any viable response to the RFP earlier this year, staff intends to proceed using
internal staff resources and will be leading this project, creating the process and writing the updated code
language. Staff is currently in conversations with a consultant to provide limited advisory support in key areas.
Staff will provide updates to Planning and Zoning Commission, Water Commission, and Council as the process
progresses. Staff will also be meeting with community members, including existing water providers, developers,
and other interested parties, to gather information and seek input. There will be opportunities for the community
at-large to review and provide feedback on the proposed process and review criteria, as well.
Code adoption is currently targeted for Q1 2023, but exact timing will depend on staff workload and other
competing priorities.
Once a new process is established, staff still intends to contract with a third -party consultant for the technical
review of any Montava or other water adequacy determination applications.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Adequate Water Supply Regulation Summary (PDF)
2. CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (PDF)
3. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF)
B.3
Packet Pg. 140
GROWING WATER SMART THE WATER-LAND USE NEXUS 19
Created by Del Corazon Consulting
ATTACHMENT 1 B.3.1
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Adequate Water Supply Regulation Summary (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION
SAFE DRINKING WATER PROGRAM POLICY
POLICY TITLE: New Public Water System Capacity Planning Manual
SDWP policy number: DW-011
Adoption date: June 28, 2016
Effective date: June 28, 2016
Scheduled review date:
Revision:
Approved by :
Ron Falco, P.E.
Safe Drinking Water Program Manager
ATTACHMENT 2 B.3.2
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
New Public Water System Capacity Planning
Manual (NPWSCPM)
1 Background information ............................................................................................ 4
1.1 Document organization....................................................................................... 4
2 Definitions ............................................................................................................ 4
3 General information and frequently asked questions ......................................................... 5
3.1 Which public water systems must submit a TMF capacity evaluation? .............................. 5
3.2 Why is a TMF capacity assessment required? ............................................................. 6
3.3 Which public water systems must submit a plans and specifications submittal? .................. 7
3.4 Does the department have a visual representation of the work flow and start of operations? . 7
3.5 How should a TMF capacity assessment be prepared? .................................................. 8
3.6 How should the TMF capacity assessment be submitted? .............................................. 8
3.7 When should a TMF capacity assessment be submitted? ............................................... 8
4 Additional resources ................................................................................................ 9
5 TMF capacity assessment form .................................................................................. 10
5.1 General information ........................................................................................ 10
5.2 Executive summary ......................................................................................... 11
5.2.1 Initial and future service area description ....................................................... 11
5.2.2 Initial and future population and demands ....................................................... 11
5.2.3 Proposed facilities .................................................................................... 12
5.3 Technical capacity .......................................................................................... 12
5.3.1 Planning area description ............................................................................ 12
5.3.2 Population and water demand projections ....................................................... 14
5.3.3 Source water planning ............................................................................... 14
5.3.4 Proposed facilities .................................................................................... 15
5.3.5 Staffing.................................................................................................. 17
5.4 Managerial capacity ........................................................................................ 17
5.4.1 Legal ownership of system .......................................................................... 17
5.4.2 Organizational chart .................................................................................. 18
5.4.3 Plans and policies ..................................................................................... 18
5.4.4 Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC) requirements .......................................... 19
5.4.5 Record keeping ........................................................................................ 19
5.5 Financial capacity ........................................................................................... 20
5.5.1 Annual budget ......................................................................................... 20
5.5.2 Financial status ........................................................................................ 20
5.5.3 5-year cash flow projection ......................................................................... 21
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
5.5.4 Available capital ...................................................................................... 21
5.5.5 Audits ................................................................................................... 21
5.5.6 Insurance ............................................................................................... 22
5.5.7 Capital costs for infrastructure ..................................................................... 22
5.1 General information ........................................................................................ 24
Figures
1. Work flow and commencement of operations
2. TMF capacity assessment checklist
Attachments
1. Project area map
2. Population projection
3. Water rights
4. Plans and specifications submittal
5. Distribution system schematic
6. Organizational chart
7. Monitoring plan
8. Backflow prevention and cross-connection control plan
9. Water efficiency plan
10. Operation and maintenance manual
11. Public notification policies
12. Ordinance or bylaws
13. Annual and 5-year budget
14. 5-year cash flow projection
15. Liability insurance documentation
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
1 Background information
The 1996 Amendments to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) required each state to
develop a program to ensure all new community water systems and new non-transient, non-
community (NTNC) water systems beginning operations after October 1, 1999 to demonstrate the
technical, managerial and financial (TMF) capacity to comply with the national primary drinking
water regulation in effect or likely to be in effect prior to starting operations. The Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment (department) enacted regulations establishing that
owners of new community or NTNC public water systems demonstrate adequate capacity to
construct, operate and manage the new public waterworks.
This NPWSCPM (manual) is intended to guide new public water systems on the minimum
information required by the department to review TMF capacity. This document serves as a tool
for both the department and the new public water system to understand, document and review
the TMF capacity for the management and operation of the water system.
1.1 Document organization
This manual provides general background information on the purpose and objectives of Colorado’s
capacity development program and provides a format for submitting required information used by
the department to evaluate the TMF capacity of new community and NTNC public water systems.
Section 5 of this manual includes a fillable PDF form to help new community water systems and
new NTNC water systems document their TMF capacity.
Please note, additional resources regarding TMF capacity can be found in Section 4 of this
document.
2 Definitions
Many definitions used within this manual are defined within Regulation 11, Section 11.3 and also
repeated here for convenience. The definitions within Regulation 11 may be updated periodically and
take precedence if any differences exist.
1. Begin construction - initiation of the physical effort to construct a project, excluding
engineering, architectural, legal, fiscal and economic investigations, studies, and
completion of plans and specifications, and surveys. Physical effort includes, but is not
limited to, site clearance, excavation, construction, or the establishment of an office or
construction building on site (Regulation 11, Section 11.4(1)(b)(i)).
2. Community water system - a public water system that supplies at least 15 service
connections used by year-round residents or that regularly supplies at least 25 year-round
residents (Regulation 11, Section 11.3(10)).
3. Financial capacity - a water system’s ability to acquire and manage sufficient financial
resources to allow the system to achieve and maintain compliance with SDWA requirements
(Guidance on Implementing the Capacity Development Provisions of the Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments of 1996).
4. Managerial capacity - the ability of a water system to conduct its affairs in a manner
enabling the system to achieve and maintain compliance with SDWA requirements.
Managerial capacity refers to the system’s institutional and administrative capabilities
(Capacity Development Guidance).
5. New waterworks -
a. Any newly constructed public water system; or
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
b. An existing system that becomes, by definition, a public water system by extending
its infrastructure through physical expansion by virtue of increasing the number of
connections, the number of individuals served, or by extending the number of days
of service (Regulation 11, Section 11.4(1)(b)(iii)).
6. Non-transient, non-community water system (NTNC)- a public water system that
regularly serves a population of at least 25 of the same people for at least six months per
year and is not a community water system (Regulation 11, Section 11.3(48)).
7. Public water system or PWS - a system for the provision to the public of water for human
consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances, if such system has at least
fifteen service connections or regularly serves an average of at least 25 individuals daily at
least 60 days per year. A public water system is either a community water system or a non-
community water system. Such term does not include any special irrigation district. Such
term includes:
a. Any collection, treatment, storage, and distribution facilities under control of the
supplier of such system and used primarily in connection with such system.
b. Any collection or pretreatment storage facilities not under such control, which are
used primarily in connection with such system (Regulation 11, Section 11.3(57)).
8. Supplier of water or supplier - any person who owns or operates a public water system
(Regulation 11, Section 11.3(74)).
9. Technical capacity - the physical and operational ability of a water system to meet SDWA
requirements. It refers to the physical components of the water system, including the
adequacy of source water and the adequacy of treatment, storage, and distribution
infrastructure. The term also refers to the ability of system personnel to adequately
operate and maintain the system and use required technical knowledge (Capacity
Development Guidance).
10. Transient, non-community water system - a non-community water system that serves a
population of at least 25 people per day for at least 60 days per year and is not a non-
transient, non-community water system or a community water system (Regulation 11,
Section 11.3(77)).
11. Water system capacity - the ability to plan for, achieve, and maintain compliance with
applicable drinking water standards. Capacity has three components: technical,
managerial, and financial. Adequate capability in all three areas is necessary for a system
to have “capacity (Capacity Development Guidance).
3 General information and frequently asked questions
3.1 Which public water systems must submit a TMF capacity evaluation?
To ensure new public water systems have adequate TMF capacity to build, manage and operate a
new waterworks, the department reviews the TMF capacity of the new public water system’s
against the requirements within this manual. This evaluation is required for all new public water
systems that are classified:
• New community water systems commencing operations after October 1, 1999.
• New non-transient, non-community (NTNC) water systems commencing operation after
October 1, 1999.
There are several scenarios that trigger the requirement to submit a TMF capacity assessment. For
example:
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
1. A new prospective water system may be constructed that will meet the definition of a
public water system on the first day of operations (e.g. office building, school, etc.). For
this scenario, the system can begin operations after:
• the water system has demonstrated TMF capacity,
• the department has issued design approval in accordance with the State of
Colorado Design Criteria for Potable Water Systems,
• and the project engineer certified the system has been constructed according to
the design approval and final plans and specifications.
Prior to beginning construction of a new community or NTNC, all requirements of the
capacity review must be in place. The department expects that the prospective system will
submit a TMF capacity assessment six months prior to the date the system anticipates
meeting the definition of a public water system.
2. An existing water system may not initially meet the definition of a public water system, but
may eventually meet the definition through expansion of population or taps (e.g. housing
development). For this scenario, the department must approve of the TMF capacity
assessment and the plans and specifications for any existing waterworks and any proposed
improvements or modifications in use at the time the system meets the definition of a
public water system.
At the time the system meets the definition of a public water system, the design review
must be approved and all requirements of the capacity review must be in place. The
department expects the prospective system will submit a TMF capacity assessment six
months prior to the date the system anticipates meeting the definition of a public water
system.
3. An existing water system can be a “found” water system, meaning that the water system
currently meets the definition of a public water system, but did not meet the definition
prior to October 1, 1999 and has not previously received approval of the TMF capacity
assessment. For this scenario, the system must work with the department and submit a
TMF capacity assessment in a timely manner to comply with Regulation 11.
For the purposes of this manual, new water systems and prospective new water systems that
expect to become public systems within the next six months will be collectively referenced as new
water systems. Colorado requires all new water systems to meet the capacity requirements
contained within this manual.
Approval of a TMF capacity assessment by the department does not relieve the responsibility of
the design engineer and/or water supplier for successful implementation of the project nor does it
relieve the supplier of water from the responsibility of proper operation of the water system and
compliance with Regulation 11. Please refer to Section 4 for links to Regulation 11 and additional
resources referenced in this manual.
3.2 Why is a TMF capacity assessment required?
The requirements for demonstrating TMF capacity are established within the Safe Drinking Water
Act amendments of 1996. Based on the regulatory authority granted via the Safe Drinking Water
Act and implemented by the State of Colorado in Regulation 11, Section 11.4(1)(a), prior to
beginning construction, new community and NTNC water systems must submit a complete capacity
assessment and receive department approval.
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Specific authority to review TMF capacity assessments is given under Regulation 11, Section
11.4(1)(a), which states:
For new community or non-transient, non-community water systems, the supplier must
not begin construction of the new water system until the supplier completes and receives
department approval of a capacity (technical, managerial, and financial) assessment using
the criteria found in the New Public Water System Capacity Planning Manual.
In addition to the requirements contained within this manual, Regulation 11, Section 11.4(1)(b)
specifies approval for plans and specifications for construction or use of waterworks. Section
11.4(1)(b) states:
For all public water systems, the supplier must not begin construction of any new
waterworks, make improvements to or modify existing waterworks, or begin using a new
source until the supplier submits and receives department approval of plans and
specifications for such construction, improvements, modifications, or use.
Further, Sections 11.4(1)(b)(v) and 11.4(1)(b)(vi) state:
11.4(1)(b)(v) Decisions regarding the review and approval of plans and specifications for
new waterworks or improvements or modifications to existing waterworks
shall be based on conformance to the design criteria developed by the
department specified in Policy DW- 005, State of Colorado Design Criteria for
Potable Water Systems.
11.4(1)(b)(vi) The department shall grant approval upon finding that the proposed facilities
conform to the design criteria specified in Policy DW-005, State of Colorado
Design Criteria for Potable Water Systems, and are capable of continuously
complying with all applicable laws, standards, rules and regulations.
3.3 Which public water systems must submit a plans and specifications submittal?
For all new community and new NTNC water systems, a TMF capacity assessment must be
submitted along with the plans and specifications when required. Plans and specifications shall
meet the requirements of the design criteria. All new community water systems and NTNC water
systems must demonstrate compliance with both this manual and the design criteria prior to
receiving department approval.
New public water systems that include water treatment and/or potable water storage tanks
require submission of a plans and specifications for department review. If the new public water
system includes distribution only without treatment or potable water storage, plans and
specifications submission is not required.
For new community or NTNC water systems where plans and specifications are not required, the
department will review the technical capacity of the system through information provided in
Section 5.3 of the TMF capacity assessment form.
3.4 Does the department have a visual representation of the work flow and start of
operations?
Refer to Figure 1 for a flow chart depicting the process for work flow and start of operations for
all new public water systems.
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Figure 2 provides a checklist of the TMF capacity assessment. The checklist can be used along with
a supporting report as an alternative means for documenting TMF capacity, in lieu of the TMF
capacity assessment form in Section 5. The checklist format may be useful for systems with large
amounts of documentation to support their TMF capacity assessment where the form does not
provide adequate space to respond to requirements. For systems that chose to use the checklist
format, the checklist must be accompanied by a report to provide the required information and all
additional required attachments. The report must utilize the same outline as the TMF capacity
assessment form.
3.5 How should a TMF capacity assessment be prepared?
The TMF capacity assessment must be completed in its entirety, including all applicable
attachments. Attachments must be incorporated into the document with their respective cover
sheet. If the form does not provide adequate space for needed text, the department will accept
TMF capacity assessments that do not utilize the form; however, the TMF capacity assessment
must utilize this manual’s outline to provide the information required. If the form is not used,
please utilize bookmarks to separate attachments in the electronic document.
Please note that the department expects that the TMF capacity assessment and plans and
specifications review will be conducted concurrently, when required (see Section 3.3). Thus, the
plans and specifications shall be submitted with the TMF capacity assessment as Attachment 4.
NTNC water systems with groundwater sources may utilize the Pre-Accepted Non-Community
Groundwater Source/Treatment/Storage Drinking Water Design submittal. Links to the applicable
design submittal forms are provided on the Attachment 4 cover page.
Additional resources regarding TMF capacity can be found in Section 4 of this manual. These
resources can be used to help complete the TMF capacity assessment.
The department is available for pre-application meetings as requested by the proposed system.
Please contact the engineering section at 303-692-6298 to request a pre-application meeting or
for other questions regarding submittal preparation.
3.6 How should the TMF capacity assessment be submitted?
Please submit your TMF capacity assessment electronically (email, ftp, or CD) to the engineering
section. Submittals can be emailed to cdphe.wqengreview@state.co.us
3.7 When should a TMF capacity assessment be submitted?
Per Regulation 11, a new public water system is required to receive approval of the TMF capacity
assessment (reviewed against the requirements within this manual) and new waterworks plans and
specifications (reviewed against the requirements in the design criteria) prior to beginning
construction of any new waterworks or improvements. However, Regulation 11 does not apply to
water systems until the water system meets the definition of a public water system, as defined by
the regulation. This can create a regulatory paradox for prospective systems. To address this, the
department expects that prospective systems will submit a TMF capacity assessment six months
prior to the date the system anticipates meeting the definition of a public water system. For
prospective water systems that anticipate meeting the definition of a public water system more
than six months in the future but are seeking comment from the department, please contact the
department to discuss available options for review of TMF capacity. The department is also
available for a pre-submittal meeting to discuss applicable regulations and expectations.
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
4 Additional resources
1. Water Quality Control Division website
https://cdphe.colorado.gov/water-quality
2. Regulation 11, Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations
https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/GenerateRulePdf.do?ruleVersionId=8999&fileName=5%20CCR
%201002-11
3. Design Criteria for Potable Water Systems
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lOVDmKp2qQLr8V-s5Km5LesZTr1Pg8_J
4. Tools for drinking water facilities and managers
https://cdphe.colorado.gov/dwtrain
5. Regulation 100, Water and Wastewater Facility Operators Certification Requirements
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1w2XtuPrSde4VOiCE2pyMW8Qdinlc6sVu/
6. Drinking water monitoring plan templates
https://cdphe.colorado.gov/monitoringplans
7. Municipal water efficiency plan guidance
https://cwcb.colorado.gov/municipal-water-efficiency-plan-guidance-document
8. Policy 7, Backflow Prevention and Cross-connection Control Rule Implementation Policy
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1d91ljRFttVALfUGap1gtdfZH0It1G45u
9. Backflow Prevention and Cross-Contamination Control Plan Template
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwDv77AW5PLkYjc3RXRKcWlHWWM/view?resourcekey=0-
ok3Vu-S0vnCeDCIRpmo-yA
10. Water quality operation and maintenance manual
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwDv77AW5PLkM19XRkJELU1OQ2s/view?resourcekey=0-
MsPezO2Z9OopQV_EYzRcXw
11. Water system self -evaluation
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13nPIkmZbeCxaBf1kIozHGRqMzGB-ASrt/view
12. Checkup program for small systems (CUPSS)
CUPSS is a free, easy-to-use, asset management tool for small drinking water and wastewater
utilities. CUPSS provides a simple, comprehensive approach based on EPA's highly successful
Simple Tools for Effective Performance (STEP) Guide series. Information available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/cupssandus.pdf
13. Local assistance unit (LAU)
The Water Quality Control Division LAU provides resources and assistance for public water
systems including help with development of technical, managerial and financial resources.
More information available at: https://cdphe.colorado.gov/dwtrain or by contacting Tom
Valenta at 303-692-2988 or thomas.valenta@state.co.us.
14. EPA capacity development guidance
Guidance on Implementing the Capacity Development Provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act
of 1996. Available at: http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=2000284Z.txt
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
5 TMF capacity assessment form
5.1 General information
System name:
PWSID (if applicable):
Applicant information:
Name:
Address:
Email: Phone:
Consulting engineer information (if applicable):
Note: A professional engineer registered in the State of Colorado is not required to prepare the
TMF capacity assessment. Professional engineers that do complete the TMF capacity assessment
must follow the applicable requirements of the Department of Regulatory Agencies. See Section 3,
general information and frequently asked questions, and Attachment 4 for submission of the plans
and specifications.
Name:
Address:
Email: Phone:
Signatures:
This TMF capacity assessment was prepared by: ___________________________
(Print name)
Signature: ______________________________________ Date: _____________
Authorized applicant signature: ____________________ Title: _______________ Date: _______
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
5.2 Executive summary
5.2.1 Initial and future service area description
Please describe the initial and future service area for the new water system including the
portion of the service area that will serve residents, transients and non-transients. For
example, transient users include customers at restaurants, convenience stores,
campgrounds, etc. Non-transient users include schools, office buildings, etc. Please also
indicate the design planning period and why the design planning period was selected.
5.2.2 Initial and future population and demands
Use the tables below to provide initial and future population and average day and peak
water demands. Please refer to Section 5.3.2 for additional information and tools for
population and demand projections.
Initial service area population:
User type Population Average day
demand
Peak demand
Residents
Non-Transients
Transients
Anticipated future population based on design planning period:
User type Population Average day
demand
Peak demand
Residents
Non-Transients
Transients
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
5.2.3 Proposed facilities
Provide a description of the proposed source and source area, treatment type, potable
water storage and distribution system including pressure zones.
5.3 Technical capacity
5.3.1 Planning area description
5.3.1.1 Project area map
Provide a map showing a minimum three mile radius around the project area that
includes environmental features (lakes, streams, wetlands, floodplains). Map must
include initial and future service area for the design planning period, proposed drinking
water facilities (plants, major distribution lines, water sources, storage facilities),
existing and proposed wastewater outfalls/permitted discharge points and any new or
affected sources with regard to the pertinent watershed or source water area. Include
the map as Attachment 1.
5.3.1.2 Regional plan
Is the project within or near an area included in a regional long term plan?
Yes No
If yes, describe how the project is conformance with the long term plan and any other
planning limitations.
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
5.3.1.3 Local and regional issues
Were local and regional planning efforts considered, including water quality and/or
quantity?
Yes No
Please describe.
Was consolidation with another water system/treatment facility considered?
Yes No
If yes, describe the consolidation considerations. If no, please indicate why consolidation
was not considered.
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
5.3.2 Population and water demand projections
For a proposed planning period, forecast the population growth, projected increase in
Equivalent Residential Taps (ERT), and projected drinking water demands.
Population and demand projections - The division generally accepts two methodologies for
projecting water flows over the proposed planning period. Other methodologies may be
acceptable with a clear explanation and listing of all assumptions and parameters:
Method 1: Population based projections. Recommended for primarily residential systems
and/or for systems without water meter data.
Method 2: Equivalent Residential Taps (ERT) Analysis. Recommended for systems with a
high multifamily, commercial, industrial, irrigation demands.
Method 1 and 2 templates can be found at in Attachment 2.
Attach the population projection as Attachment 2.
Discuss supporting data and reasons for projected future growth during the proposed planning
period. Include existing data sources (e.g., census data, water flow data) and any
assumptions (e.g., growth rate).
5.3.3 Source water planning
5.3.3.1 Overall water resource management description
For the proposed planning period, describe the new water system’s water resource
management plan and source water area. Include a discussion of the source water,
primary water quality parameters of concern, seasonal variability and availability.
Summarize anticipated flow conservation measures.
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
5.3.3.2 Source water supply capacity
For the proposed planning period, discuss if the proposed source water supply
infrastructure is capable of delivering adequate source water to meet projected needs. If
fire flow will be provided by the new water system, include fire flow considerations in
the description.
5.3.3.3 Water rights
Describe the new water system’s water rights and if the water rights are sufficient to
meet the system’s projected water demands.
Include copies of supporting documentation for water rights or other supply agreements
as attachment 3.
5.3.4 Proposed facilities
5.3.4.1 Proposed sources, treatment and storage
Provide the plans and specifications for the proposed sources, treatment and storage
infrastructure as Attachment 4. Links to the applicable design submittal forms to
accompany the plans and specifications are provided on the Attachment 4 cover page.
Non-transient, non-community water systems with groundwater sources may utilize the
Pre-Accepted Non-Community Groundwater Source/Treatment/Storage Drinking Water
Design submittal. All other community and non-transient non-community water systems
must use Appendix B of the design criteria.
5.3.4.2 Proposed distribution
Overall distribution system description
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Discuss the proposed finished water distribution system including: gravity vs. pumped
pressurization, material type, condition of materials, number of pressure zones, fire
flow requirements, pump stations, and storage tanks.
Pressure
The distribution system must be designed to maintain a minimum pressure of 20 psi at
all ground level points in the distribution system under all conditions of flow as
required in the design criteria. The design criteria also recommends a normal working
pressure in the distribution system of approximately 60 psi, and not less than 35 psi.
Near storage tanks, the water main pressure will be less than the required pressures
stated above. The department expects water systems to mitigate low pressure around
storage tanks and to minimize the amount of distribution main impact. When fire
protection is to be provided, system design should be such that fire flows and facilities
are in accordance with the requirements of the appropriate regulatory authority (e.g.
Insurance Services Office). Discuss how the distribution system will meet the required
and recommended distribution system pressures.
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Schematic
Provide a schematic or design drawings of the proposed distribution system as
Attachment 5. This schematic may be included in the project area map described in
Section 5.3.1.1, if appropriate.
5.3.5 Staffing
Explain how the system has adequate staffing considering proposed treatment, to operate
and maintain the system from source to tap and consistently provide safe drinking water
that meets all state and federal regulations. Please note that certified operators must be
accountable for performing as a minimum, the duties delineated by Regulation 100. If other
workers perform these duties, written delegation of duties is expected along with a
statement of constraints or conditions requiring consultation with the ORC prior to making
adjustments that could affect the quality of the finished water. Please include delegation of
tasks as applicable in the operations and maintenance manual (See Section 5.4.3.4).
5.4 Managerial capacity
5.4.1 Legal ownership of system
Name:
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Address:
Email:
Phone:
Fax:
5.4.2 Organizational chart
Include an organizational chart as Attachment 6.
5.4.3 Plans and policies
5.4.3.1 Monitoring plan
In accordance with Section 11.5 of Regulation 11, all public water systems are required
to comply with the Monitoring Plan Rule. Refer to Section 11.5 of Regulation 11 for
additional information on requirements. Include a copy of the monitoring plan as
Attachment 7. (The division has template monitoring plans available for use here.)
5.4.3.2 Backflow Prevention and Cross-Connection Control Plan
In accordance with Section 11.39 of Regulation 11, all public water systems are required
to comply with the Backflow Prevention and Cross-connection Control Rule. Refer to
Section 11.39 of Regulation 11 and Policy 7, Backflow Prevention and Cross-connection
Control Rule Implementation Policy for additional information on the requirements.
Include a copy of the Backflow Prevention and Cross Connection Control Plan as
Attachment 8. (The division has a template backflow prevention and cross connection
control plan available for use here.)
5.4.3.3 Water efficiency plan
Water efficiency plans are regulated by the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Water
efficiency plans are required for system that will sell over 2,000 acre feet of water
annually. Include a copy of the water efficiency plan as Attachment 9. (Additional
information about water efficiency plan requirements can be found here.) - Not
Applicable
5.4.3.4 Operation and maintenance manual (O&M)
Include an O&M manual as Attachment 10. The O&M manual must be sufficient to meet
the needs of the system based on the size of the service area and the scope of the water
system. The O&M manual should include, as applicable, a description of the facilities;
explanation of start-up and normal operation procedures; sampling schedules; staffing
requirements; potential water supply risks; a safety program; delegation of tasks from
the certified operators; plans for tracking unaccounted water; available external
resources for equipment, emergency water supply, etc.; an emergency response plan;
and manufacturer’s manuals. (Guidance and a template for O&M manuals can be found
here.)
5.4.3.5 Public notification policies
Provide a description of public notification policies as Attachment 11. Describe public
education policies, customer complaint policies, and policy for notification of a water
quality violation.
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
5.4.3.6 Ordinance establishing authority
Provide a copy of water system’s ordinance or bylaws as Attachment 12 when applicable.
The ordinance or bylaws for the water system should give the authority to establish tap
fees, water service rates, board members and voting to enable the water system to
remain whole.
Not Applicable
If not applicable, please explain.
5.4.4 Operator in Responsible Charge (ORC)
requirements
Please provide the certified treatment operator information below:
Name(s):
Operator identification number:
Certification number:
Certification expiration date:
Please provide the certified distribution system operator information below:
Name(s):
Operator identification number:
Certification number:
Certification expiration date:
Proposed System Operator Certification Level (check one)
Refer to the Regulation No. 100, Water and Wastewater Facility Operators Certification
Requirements for operator certification level requirements.
Staff Operator Contract Operator
Treatment: Class D Class C Class B Class A
Distribution: Class 4 Class 3 Class 2 Class 1
Combined Treatment/Distribution: Class S Class T
5.4.5 Record keeping
Describe the system’s proposed record retention policy that meets the requirements of the
Regulation 11 including: record type, retention period, and record location. Electronic
copies of these records are acceptable.
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
5.5 Financial capacity
5.5.1 Annual budget
Does/will the new water system prepare an annual budget?
Yes No
Does/will the new water system prepare and maintain a capital improvement plan?
Yes No
Please provide a narrative of the process for annual budgeting and financial planning.
Financial planning ensures that revenues are sufficient to meet operation and maintenance,
debt service, and capital requirements, establish cash reserves, and meet debt service
coverage requirements. The department has many tools and resources to assist with budget
preparation and financial planning, which can be found here.
Provide a copy of the annual and five-year budgets as Attachment 13.
5.5.2 Financial status
Describe the current multi-year financial planning for the system including O&M costs,
required reserve accounts, rate structure, fees, billing, other capital improvement
programs, and the new water system’s reserve policies. For existing systems that now meet
the definition of a public water system (scenario two or three as described in Section 3.1),
please include a description of the system’s current financial status and existing debt.
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
5.5.3 5-year cash flow projection
Include a copy of the five year cash flow projection as Attachment 14. Include projected
revenues, expenditures, O&M reserve and capital and O&M expenses for the water
system.
5.5.4 Available capital
Describe the new water system’s funding capacity including available sources and
limitations for public and/or private capital that are available to the system.
5.5.5 Audits
Local governments are required by State Statute (29-1 Part 6 et seq., C.R.S.) to submit
audits to the Department of Local Affairs. Please describe the system’s policy for
preparation and submittal of audit documents.
Not applicable (please explain)
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
5.5.6 Insurance
Does/will the system maintain general liability insurance? While insurance is not a
requirement, lack of insurance could affect a system’s ability to repay a loan or other
obligations if anything should happen. A lack of liability insurance may have an impact on a
system’s ability to qualify for a loan.
Yes – Include documentation of general liability insurance as Attachment 15.
No, please explain
5.5.7 Capital costs for infrastructure
Summarize the capital costs of the new water system infrastructure. The five year cash flow
projection included in Attachment 14 must reflect the capital and operation and
maintenance costs associated with construction of the water system infrastructure.
1
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Figure 1. Work flow and start of operations
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Figure 2. TMF capacity assessment checklist
5.1 General information
System name:
PWSID (if applicable):
Applicant information:
Name:
Address:
Email: Phone:
Consulting Engineer Information (if applicable):
Note: A professional engineer registered in the State of Colorado is not required to prepare the TMF capacity assessment. Professional engineers
that do complete the TMF capacity assessment must follow the applicable requirements of the Department of Regulatory Agencies. See Section 3,
general information and frequently asked questions, and Attachment 4 for submission of the plans and specifications.
Name:
Address:
Email: Phone:
Signatures:
This TMF capacity evaluation was prepared by: ___________________________
(Print name)
Signature: ______________________________________ Date: _____________
Authorized applicant signature: ____________________ Title: _______________ Date:_______
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
5.2 Executive summary
Capacity requirement Applicability
(Yes or N/A)*
Documentation and location
within submittal
Comments
5.2.1 Initial and future service area description
5.2.2 Initial and future population demands
5.2.3 Description of proposed facilities
5.3 Technical capacity
Capacity requirement Applicability
(Yes or N/A)*
Documentation and location
within submittal
Comments
5.3.1.1 Map showing a minimum of a three mile radius
around the project area that includes environmental
features, initial and future service area, proposed
facilities, existing and proposed wastewater outfalls, and
new or affected sources
5.3.1.2 Conformance with regional long term plans
5.3.1.3.a Consideration of local and regional planning
efforts including water quality and/or quantity
5.3.1.3.b Consideration of consolidation with another
water system/treatment facility
5.3.2 Forecast for population growth, projected increase
in Equivalent Residential Taps(ERTs), and projected
water demands
5.3.3.1 Water resource management plan for the source
water
5.3.3.2 Adequacy of source water to meet projected
needs
5.3.3.3 Water rights description
5.3. 4.1 Plans and specifications for the proposed
sources, treatment, and storage infrastructure
5.3. 4.2.a Finished water distribution system description
5.3. 4.2.b Distribution system pressure description
5.3. 4.2.c Schematic or design drawings of the
distribution system
5.3. 5 Discussion of adequacy of staffing
* If N/A, provide justification in comment column
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
5.4 Managerial capacity
Capacity requirement Applicability
(Yes or N/A)*
Documentation and location
within submittal
Comments
5.4.1 Legal ownership
5.4.2 Organizational chart
5.4.3.1 Monitoring plan
5.4.3.2 Backflow prevention and cross-connection
control plan
5.4.3.3 Water efficiency plan
5.4.3.4 Operation and maintenance manual
5.4.3.5 Public notification policy
5.4.3.6 Ordinance or bylaw that gives the water system
authority to establish tap fees, water service fees, board
members, and voting to enable the water system to
remain whole
5.4.4 Operator in responsible charge for the treatment
and distribution system that meets the requirements of
Regulation 100
5.4.5 Record retention policy
5.5 Financial capacity
Capacity requirement Applicability
(Yes or N/A)*
Documentation and location
within submittal
Comments
5.5.1.a Annual budget
5.5.1.b Capital improvement plan
5.5.1.c 5-year budget
5.5.2 Description of multi-year financial plan for the
system including O&M costs, required reserve accounts,
rate structure, fees, billing, other capital improvement
programs, and the water system’s reserve policies
5.5.3 5-year cash flow projection
5.5.4 Description of funding sources available for public
and/or private capital
5.5.5 Policy for preparation and submittal of audit
documents
5.5.6 Documentation of general liability insurance
5.5.7 Estimate for capital costs for the new water system
infrastructure
* If N/A, provide justification in comment column
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Attachment 1
Project area map
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Attachment 2
Population projection
Method 1: Population based projections. Recommended for primarily residential systems
and/or for systems without water meter data.
Method 2: Equivalent Residential Taps (ERT) Analysis. Recommended for systems with a
high multifamily, commercial, industrial, irrigation demands.
Other
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Projecting Water Flows Method 1: Population based projections
Assumptions/data Information source
Current system population People
Current service area population (If providing water to
neighboring community)
People
Population growth rates percent increase/year
Average daily per capita flow rate Gallons per capita day
Maximum daily per capita flow rate Gallons per capita day
Peak hour factor
Year System
population
Service area
population
(if different)
Average
daily flow
Maximum
daily flow
Peak hour
flow
+0
+5
+10
+15
+20
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Projecting water flow method 2: Equivalent Residential Taps (ERT)
A Number of active residential taps – As calculated in the pre-qualification form
B Total annual consumption (gallons per year) – residential
C Estimated equivalent residential tap water usage
Annual flow per ERT=A/B
D Total annual consumption (gallons per year) – commercial/industrial/irrigation
E Estimated commercial/industrial/irrigation flow in ERT
# of commercial/industrial/irrigation ERT = D / C
F Total ERTs = A + E
Population and flow assumptions/data Information source
Current system population People
Current service population (if providing
water to neighboring community)
People
Population growth rate percent increase / year
Average daily flow per ERT Gallons per capita day
Maximum daily per ERT Gallons per capita day
Peak hour factor Gallons per capita day
Year System
population
Service
population
(if different)
Residential
taps (ERTs)
Multifamily
residential
taps (ERTs)
Commercial/
industrial
taps (ERTs)
Irrigation
taps
(ERTs)
Total
taps
(ERTs)
Average
daily flow
Maximum
daily flow
Peak
hour
flow
+0
+5
+10
+15
+20
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Attachment 3
Water rights
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Attachment 4
Plans and specifications
Non-Transient Non-Community (NTNC) groundwater system
All other Community and Non-Transient Non-Community water (NTNC) systems
For community water systems, the final plans and specifications design submittal must be prepared by
a professional engineer registered in the State of Colorado. For a non-transient, non-community water
system the final plans and specifications design submittal is not required to be prepared by a
professional engineer.
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Attachment 5
Distribution system schematic
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Attachment 6
Organizational chart
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Attachment 7
Monitoring plan
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Attachment 8
Backflow prevention and cross-connection control plan
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Attachment 9
Water efficiency plan
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Attachment 10
Operation and maintenance manual
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Attachment 11
Public notification policies
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Attachment 12
Ordinance or bylaws
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Attachment 13
Annual and five year budget
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Attachment 14
Five year cash flow projection
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Attachment 15
Liability insurance documentation
B.3.2
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: CDPHE New System Capacity Planning Manual (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Wa ter Adequacy
Determination Review
7-12-2022
Jenny Axmacher
Senior City Planner
ATTACHMENT 3 B.3.3
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
2Purpose of this Item
•Provide Council with an update on the creation of a water adequacy
determination review process.
•Seeking input on
•the approach for evaluating new water providers
•impacts to existing water providers
•identifying the decision maker for water adequacy determinations
1.Does Council have any feedback on the evaluation approach for new water providers?
2.Does Council support different standards for established providers and new providers?
3.Does Council have feedback on the decision maker for water adequacy determinations for new
providers?
B.3.3
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
3Plan Alignment
STRATEGIC PLAN
•ENV 4.4: Provide a resilient, reliable
and high-quality water supply.
•NLSH 1.6: Transform regulations and
revise procedures to increase clarity
and predictability to ensure new
development advances adopted City
plans and policies.
CITY PLAN
•LIV 1.6 –Adequate Public Facilities
•LIV 1.7 –Fees and Development
Requirements
•LIV 4.1 –New Neighborhoods
•ENV 6.1 –Water Resource Planning
OUR CLIMATE FUTURE
•BIG MOVE 3 –Climate Resilient
Community
B.3.3
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
4Prior Council Discussion
•February 9, 2021 Work Session –Proposed Groundwater-Based Potable Water Supply for
Montava Development
•Council feedback:
•Concerns about creation of a new water provider within the Growth Management
Area
•Support for creating a “non-standard” water adequacy determination process that
could be applied to Montava and other future projects
•Support for costs of new process and review to be paid by developers
•Concern about costs of the water supply system being passed along to future
homeowners within the development
•Identified the need to explore alternative strategies for achieving affordable housing
and other goals; openness to new options and creative solutions to water challenges
B.3.3
Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
5Introduction
•Wa ter is a critical resource and its cost and availably impact new
development
•Existing review process
•Need for a more robust process
•More complicated development
•Potential for creation of new water providers
B.3.3
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
6Requirement
This review process is being proposed to further effectuate a Colorado state
statute (Section 29-20-301, et seq., C.R.S.), which states:
A l ocal government shall not approve an application for a development permit
unless it determines in its sole discretion, after considering the application
and all of the information provided, that the applicant has satisfactorily
demonstrated that the proposed water supply will be adequate. A l ocal
government shall make such determination only once during the development
permit approval process unless the water demands or supply of the specific
project for which the development permit is sought are materially changed. A
local government shall have the discretion to determine the stage in the
development permit approval process at which such determination is made.
B.3.3
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
Current Process
•Development occurs within the district
boundaries of existing water providers
•Will Serve Letter issued by provider
•Part of the building permit
process
7
B.3.3
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
8Other Jurisdictions
•Other Jurisdictions
•Staff continues to conduct research on other jurisdictions
•Most comply with the state statute by:
•Getting a will serve letter from
•A w ater entity with a water plan on file with the municipality
•Many municipalities have not been faced with the challenge of
regulating a private water supply system
•Innovative/novel idea
•Not much basis to find comparisons
B.3.3
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
9Other Regulatory Agencies
•Other Agency Review
•Other agencies have the authority to review new providers
•Colorado Dept of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE)
•Requires public water systems demonstrate adequate capacity to
construct, operate and manage the new public waterworks.
•Wa ter Court
•There is also likely a role for Water Court to play in the process to
adjudicate claims for water under Colorado Law such as if a new
water supply (e.g., groundwater) is proposed.
•Staff will continue to investigate what other entities have jurisdiction
over these private water systems which will help to inform the city’s
review process creation.
B.3.3
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
10Proposed Evaluation Process
Wa ter Adequacy
Determination
Needed
Established providers:
-Fort Collins Utilities
-East Larimer County Water District
(ELCO)
-Fort Collins Loveland Water District
New providers:
-Special Districts
-Metro Districts
-Private Utilities
B.3.3
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
11Proposed Evaluation Process –Existing Providers
•Keep similar process for existing providers
•Will Serve Letter
•Consider opportunities to
•Improve letters
•Streamline process
•Increase consistency between different providers
B.3.3
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
12Proposed Evaluation Process –New Providers
•Evaluation criteria for new providers
•Wa ter Quality
•Quantity of Water
•Dependability of Supply and Supplier
•Supply Resiliency
•System Redundancy
•Maintenance and Outages
•Availability of Supply
•Financial Sustainability of Supplier
•Capitalization
•Would apply to potable and non-potable supplies
B.3.3
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
13Timing and Approval Authority
•Ti ming
•State statute leaves the determination timing up to the local jurisdiction
•The determination may be made only once, unless something
materially changes
•Options under consideration:
Annexation/
Zoning
Overall
Development
Plan or
Planned Unit
Development
Project
Development
Plan
Final
Development
Plan
Building
Permit
Certificate of
Occupancy
B.3.3
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
14Approval Authority
Option 1: Match to
Devt Review Process
•Use same decision
maker as the
development plan
•P&Z Commission,
Hearing Officer, or CDNS
Director depending on
project type
•Avoids an extra step in
the process
Option 2: Water
Commission
•Grant authority for
recommendations or final
decisions
•Could offer greater
technical expertise
Option 3: CDNS
Director
•Matches current
approach for established
providers
•Offers efficiency and
consistency
Decision maker could also vary based on type of provider (established vs. new providers)
B.3.3
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
15Next Steps
•The major milestones for this project are:
•Review Existing Service Provider Requirements for New Development
•Establish Provider Sustainability Review and Determination
•Propose Water Supply Requirements for New Development
•Create Review Procedure
•Code Adoption and Implementation
•Outreach to community members, existing water providers, developers, and
other interested parties at key milestones
•Code adoption targeted for Q1 2023
B.3.3
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
16Questions for Council
1.Does Council have any feedback on the evaluation approach for new water
providers?
2.Does Council support different standards for established providers and new
providers?
3.Does Council have feedback on the decision maker for water adequacy
determinations for new providers?
B.3.3
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)
THANK YOU!
B.3.3
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Powerpoint Presentation (11764 : 22/7/12 WADR Work Session)