Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWORK SESSION SUMMARY-09/23/2008-Work Session (2)City of City Manager's Office City Hall Fort Collins Fort LaPorte Ave. PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.22.605 970.224.6107 -fax fcgov.com MEMORANDUM TO: City Council Members FROM: Ann Tumquist, Policy and Project Manager THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager RE: Work Session Follow-up: Trash Services Study Update, September 23, 2008 DATE: September 25, 2008 On September 23, Council and staff met in Work Session to review the Trash Services Study and discuss several strategies for addressing the Council's problem statement: "In what ways can the City reduce the impacts of trash collection services in Fort Collins, addressing issues of the cost of street wear, air quality, neighborhood aesthetics, noise, and other neighborhood impacts? Are there ways that the City might also improve diversion rates for recyclables?" Council was asked to review five implementation alternatives for which staff will develop detailed proposals. The five alternatives included: Option 1: City-wide Contract for Service or Districted Trash Service (includes Pay as You Throw Ordinance and Recycling Enhancements) Option 2: Additional License Requirements without Districting Option 3: Implementation of Recycling Strategies Option 4: Additional License Requirements and Implementation of Recycling Strategies without Districted Trash Service Option 5: Null Altemative/No Legislative Changes Council directed staff to develop two alternatives for further consideration: Options I and 4 above. Council also asked staff to schedule an additional work session before the end of 2008 to review specific proposals. Therefore, Staff has added the Trash Services Study to the December 9 work session agenda. Council asked for additional information about several questions: 1. What rates do haulers currently charge for residential trash service? How are rates different for HOA contracts? 2. When will the landfill have scales? What issues have prevented the Larimer County Landfill from having scales in the past? City Council Members Work Session Follow-up: Trash Services Study Update September 25, 2008 Page 2 3. What methods might be available to increase hauling densities by voluntary consolidation of more neighborhoods? 4. Could the City charge a truck mileage fee, wherein trash trucks are charged for the miles that they travel? Would this help pay for the impact of trucks and change the haulers routing? 5. Is it possible to regulate where haulers serve in a way that takes into account where their current routes are and only allowing them to serve neighborhoods where they have a certain level of density? Staff will address these questions in a follow-up memorandum. Please let us know if you have any additional questions. Cityof City Manager's Office City Hall Fort or LaPorte Ave. PO Box 580 Collins F Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.22.605 970.224.6107 -fax fcgov.com MEMORANDUM TO: City Council Members FROM: Ann Tumquist, Policy and Project Manager Susie Gordon, Sr. Environmental Planner THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager b -- Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager RE: Work Session Follow-up: Trash Services Study Update, September 23, 2008 DATE: October 9 , 2008 On September 23, Council and staff met in Work Session to review the Trash Services Study and asked for additional information about several questions: 1. What rates do haulers currently charge for residential trash service? How are rates different for HOA contracts? Staff has gathered information from a variety of sources to develop a list of residential trash rates. Sources include information provided by the haulers as a part of their annual licensing requirements, sample trash bills from customers, and quotes gathered from phone calls to haulers. The entire range of subscription rates offered by haulers is $4 / month (one 33 gallon can per week) to $28 / month (three 33 gallon cans per week or one 95 gallon toter.) Staff is unable to tell whether the extremely low rate of $4 is actually in effect anywhere. We think it could be a special price that the reporting company offers, for instance to seniors or military customers. Same goes for the higher rates of $28 - although it is reported to us by one of the companies, we don't actually know if it is applied to any customers. The typical rates charged (quoted over the phone) for single subscribers are: Hauler A = between $10.75 / month (one can per week) to $23 / month (three cans) Hauler B = between $11.95 / month (one can per week) to $23.95 / month (three cans) Hauler C = between $14 / month (one can per week) to $23 / month (three cans) HOA rates are very difficult for us to extract from the reports, but it appears that for HOA residents, the respective special rates are approximately: Hauler A = $7 / month (one can) to $14.40 / month (three cans) Hauler B = $8 / month (one can) to $16 / month (three cans) Hauler C = $7.50 / month (one can) to $16 / month (three cans) City Council Members Work Session Follow-up: Trash Services Study Update September 25, 2008 Page 2 Based on this data, the savings that can be realized by HOA customers, on average, is: Hauler A = $3.75 / month to $8.60 (35 - 37% lower) Hauler B = $3.95 / month to $7.95 (33% lower) Hauler C = $6.50 / month to $7 (46% for lower level of service, 30% for higher level of service customers) 2. When will the landfill have scales? What issues have prevented the Larimer County Landfill from having scales in the past? Installing scales at the landfill will be a financial issue for the City and Larimer County. Purchasing and installing scales is projected to cost between $55,000 and $150,000. Larimer County does not have funding available for this purchase. Larimer County has not previously installed scales because it has based its tipping fee price structure on volumes rather than weights. The County's philosophy for establishing these prices has been that the weight of materials was not as relevant to its operations as the volume of materials to be disposed of and covered. Larimer County staff is concerned that the addition of scales may slow the entry of vehicles into the landfill, especially on days when large numbers of self -haulers enter the landfill. The location of the gatehouse, near Taft Hill Road, makes it critical that vehicles can enter the landfill quickly and not back up onto the roadway. If scales are installed, operational issues regarding which vehicles are weighed and whether the information is used to charge fees based on weight rather than volume must be resolved. As an enterprise fund, the County Solid Waste Department recognizes that by creating a possible time delay for haulers who take trash to the landfills, or other deterrents associated with scales, they may cause their customers to patronize other area landfills. 3. What methods might be available to increase hauling densities by voluntary consolidation of more neighborhoods? Currently, City staff strongly encourages new developments to establish cooperative agreements for consolidated trash services as a part of their HOA, starting as early as the conceptual review stage for new housing subdivisions. This process has been successful in ensuring that many new neighborhoods have only one hauler providing services to all residents. Staff from the Natural Resources Department is in the midst of conducting a survey of known HOAs to determine the number and location of consolidated hauling agreements. The Neighborhoods Division has worked with the Natural Resources Department to encourage neighborhood groups to establish voluntary agreements regarding trash hauling in areas where HOAs do not exist. The attached handout has been provided to neighborhood groups to highlight the benefits of voluntary consolidation and working City Council Members Work Session Follow-up: Trash Services Study Update September 25, 2008 Page 3 together to reduce the number of trash trucks in individual neighborhoods. See Attachment A. In the future, if a districted or contracted City-wide service is not pursued, staff will renew its work with neighborhoods to provide tools for creating voluntary consolidated service. Handouts that include suggestions for how to establish a consolidated contract will be provided to all known neighborhood groups and staff will seek opportunities such as Neighborhood Night Out to circulate information about voluntary consolidation. Information can also be posted on the City's web site and publicized occasionally to encourage groups to form voluntary agreements. 4. Could the City charge a truck mileage fee, wherein trash trucks are charged for the miles that they travel? Would this help pay for the impact of trucks and change the haulers routing? Some communities, primarily in California, have imposed "refuse vehicle impact fees" based on deterioration caused by the size and weight of solid waste vehicles. These communities all seem to operate under franchise agreements for the provision of a City- wide trash service. The fee is imposed on the hauler as a condition of the contract for service. An example of such a fee from Livermore, CA is included as Attachment B. The City's ability to charge a similar fee under Colorado law would need to researched and evaluated by the City Attorney's Office. Staff believes that charging a fee based on mileage would be difficult to administer because existing haulers provide service both inside and outside the city limits, often with the same trucks on the same run. They also mix residential and commercial loads. If the goal is to ensure that the haulers have the most efficient routes possible to minimize unnecessary trips, staff believes that the effect of high diesel fuel prices over recent months are a significant incentive to be efficient. If the goal is to create a revenue stream to cover street damage, alternatives might include revisiting the Transportation Maintenance Fee (TMF) last considered by City Council in 2005 or pursuing changes to the trash haulers licensing fee. Either of these options would require a careful analysis of the fee level and the nexus between the fee and the City's costs. 5. Is it possible to regulate where haulers serve in a way that takes into account where their current routes are and only allowing them to serve neighborhoods where they have a certain level of density? Colorado State Statues outline a method for local governments to use in regulating the residential trash hauling market which is geared toward the competitive practice of trash districting or providing a city-wide contract for service. In the 1970s, efforts to informally divide up the community based on where various haulers had the greatest number of customers were met with legal challenges from the State and charges of collusion and price City Council Members Work Session Follow-up: Trash Services Study Update September 25, 2008 Page 4 fixing. Staff believes that the City's options for regulating where haulers serve are limited to the awarding of contracts through a competitive process. 6. Is it possible to divide the city into the EXISTING HOA "trash districts," plus one? Each HOA or neighborhood group that is already contracting with a single hauler would become a district. If other HOAs or neighborhood groups want to constitute themselves into a trash district, let them do that. Could the city then set up rules, extending those we already have, about PAYT, recycling, etc., for all hauling? Could we consider the HOAs to be commercial accounts? The Trash Services Study consultant, R3 Consulting, has advised us that the difficulty for the City in managing multiple contracts, which is considerable, should only be undertaken for three or fewer "districts." In fact, the optimal system to achieve council's objectives would be a single -contract agreement. The more districts created, the lower the economies of scale and the more administrative requirement. Staff strongly feels that it would be impractical to create "mini -districts," each of which would require City administration and oversight. The City of Lafayette used a different approach than creating separate districts for HOAs by exempting HOAs with existing written contracts for services. Lafayette's experience was that, despite being excluded from the City-wide contract for service, many of the HOAs later requested to participate in the City's program because of better pricing and less administrative work for the HOA. Administrative issues in pursuing this option would include identifying and defining eligible HOAs, determining the applicability of the exemption to "informal" voluntary consolidations, maintaining the inventory of HOAs exempt from the ordinance, and on -going administration of the exemption. Staff is also concerned about the effectiveness of the bidding process when a significant number of neighborhoods may choose to opt -out. Such uncertainty may lead the haulers to bid a higher overall price for the service because they will not clearly know how many accounts will be available to them in a district or city-wide contract. Categorizing HOAs as commercial accounts and exempting them from the City contract presents several significant issues. In 2004, the City amended the Pay -as -you -Throw ordinance to clarify that HOA accounts are to be considered residential, not commercial accounts. This enables the City to apply PAYT provisions to HOAs. Previously, haulers often chose not to offer PAYT opportunities to those customers who participated in consolidated accounts. If the City reverts to classifying HOAs as commercial customers, then the city would need to again amend the PAYT ordinance to include commercial customers. Staff is certain that if the City attempts to change the rate structure for commercial customers it is likely to raise significant objections from trash haulers and commercial customers - possibly even litigation. 7. If Council decides to go with some sort of organization based on geography, can we require commercial accounts to use the hauler assigned to their area? More City Council Members Work Session Follow-up: Trash Services Study Update September 25, 2008 Page 5 generally, could someone offer us a one -pager on what rules we can and cannot impose on collection of trash from businesses and apartment houses? Staff s understanding of the State legislation regarding regulation of commercial trash hauling is that, while the City can become involved in commercial hauling regulations, it may not regulate rates, impose mandatory fees for government provided services or require commercial/multi-family trash customers to use the City's trash services over the services of a private trash hauler. Staff believes that requiring commercial customers to use a specific hauler could be in conflict with State requirements. Staff does believe that the City could create requirements regarding trash and recycling collection that would be applicable to both residential and commercial customers. Such requirement might include requiring PAYT pricing structures (not the specific rates), requiring the haulers to offer recycling services to commercial customers as a part of the base pricing, or other requirements aimed at increasing recycling rates (e.g., corrugated cardboard ban.) On December 9, Council and staff will meet again in Work Session to further discuss several options for managing trash services in Fort Collins. Options may include the following: o Additional Hauler Requirements • Pay as you Throw Ordinance Changes ■ Yard Waste ■ Large, Single -stream Recycling Toters • Recycling Education Partnership ■ Licensing fees per Account • Vehicle Specification ■ Corrugated Cardboard Ban o Districted Trash Collection Contracts for Service with Additional Hauler Requirements o City-wide Trash Collection Contract for Service with Additional Hauler Requirements Staff looks forward to discussing these options in greater detail on December 9. Attachment A City of Fort Collins Community Planning and Environmental Services IW �CW,,,e, Natural Resources Department For information on trash and recycling consolidation, contact the City of Fort Collins Natural Resources Department at 221-6600. 281 N. College Ave. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6600 • FAX (9701 224-6177 d Define the boundary areas of a neighborhood you want to consolidate. Others have defined their area from as little as a street or two, to several blocks. d Call several of the trash haulers in Fort Collins to find out their interest and terms for working with your neighborhood to consolidate trash and recycling services. Haulers will often give you a price quote for consolidated services, generally depending upon the size of your neighborhood. d Contact the people in your defined neighborhood. Provide information about the benefits of consolidating, the terms expressed by the hauler you have chosen and how to sign-up for the service. d Follow-up with neighborhood residents to answer questions, provide additional information etc. d Provide new people moving into the neighborhood information about consolidated trash and recycling services and encourage them to sign-up with the 'neighborhood hauler.' d Celebrate your neighborhood's success. This can be as simple as a 'Thank you' note or as elaborate as a block party. NOTES: ® Homeowner associations sometimes develop a written contract with a hauler for consolidated services. In these instances, the membership of the homeowners' association has agreed to consolidate as an association. ® Sometimes it takes several months for people to switch haulers because they have prepaid for service. BFI Waste Systems 223-0154 Dick's Trash Hauling Service 482-1674 Gallegos Sanitation, Inc. 484-5556 Ram Waste Systems, Inc. 226-3396 S & S Sanitation 482-9093 Waste Management of Northern Colorado 482-6319 Larimer County Landfill 498-5770 City of Fort Collins Natural Resources Department 221-6600 (provides information on precycling, grasscycling, recycling and composting) City of Fort Collins Neighborhood Resources Department 221-6091 3 (Modify according to your specific needs) (Date) Dear Neighbor: Did you know... 0 The impact of one trash truck on a residential street is equal to approximately 300 to 400 cars? 0 An average of six trash trucks travel on our residential streets every week? 0 Nearly one third of our city's neighbors voluntarily consolidate trash and recycling services? 0 Over two thirds of communities that have tried voluntary trash and recycling consolidation services are successful? Until recently, I didn't. It makes sense for us as a neighborhood to consolidate trash and recycling services with one company. Some of the benefits of reducing to a single trash collection service include: Increased residential safety, especially to children, less traffic congestion and noise, enhanced air quality and decreased wear and tear on road surfaces caused by heavy vehicles. I have contacted several trash hauling agencies about working with our neighborhood. The most economical company is 'XYZ'. Specifically, each bag or container of trash would cost $X and curbside recycling is provided at no extra charge. In order to receive this price, at least xx % of our neighborhood must sign with 'XYZ' company. Improving the aesthetics of our neighborhood is an additional benefit as the number of days trash cans will be visible on the street is greatly reduced. You can see why my goal is 100% participation over the next fews months. If you have not signed -up with'XYZ' company, I urge you to register. Hopefully, we will reach our goal soon! If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at #555-1234. Sincerely, W. J. Trash 4 Attachment B City of Livermore, CA Article X. Refuse Vehicle Impact Fee 8.08.900 Purpose of article and findings. The city council hereby finds and declares as follows: A. Traffic associated with solid waste, recycling and yard waste collection vehicles (refuse vehicles) places a significant burden on city streets and is a significant cause of street damage; and B. The city council finds that unless certain actions are taken, pavement damage related to refuse vehicles will result in adverse impacts including accelerated deterioration of pavement conditions on city streets, reduced ride quality, increased vehicle repairs, increased energy consumption, and disruption to traffic flow. Implementation of the refuse vehicle impact fee will prevent these undesirable consequences, allowing the city to maintain the streets and roads in a good condition and avoid the deterioration of pavement to the point where extensive rehabilitation or reconstruction becomes necessary at a higher cost; and C. The city council also finds that, in the absence of this chapter imposing a refuse vehicle impact fee, existing and future sources of revenue will be inadequate to fund a substantial portion of pavement repair for the city's streets and roads necessary to avoid unacceptable pavement condition indexes in the city created by refuse vehicle impacts; and D. Accordingly, it is the intent of the city council to adopt by this chapter a fair and equitable method of securing some of the funds necessary to repair the damage caused to city streets and roads as a result of refuse vehicles to preserve acceptable pavement conditions throughout the city; and E. The city commissioned an independent study that determined the annual street repair costs attributable to damage caused by refuse vehicles is approximately $838,000 annually; and F. The city council has considered that independent study analyzing the cost to repair street damage caused by refuse vehicles; and G. The city council has determined that the cost incurred by the city for such street repair resulting from refuse vehicles should be defrayed by the imposition of fees charged by the city's franchised solid waste services provider to cover at least a portion of those costs; and H. The city council has determined that the following fees will cover a portion of the costs to the city for its street repair costs resulting from refuse vehicles; and I. The city council is aware of and understands the preemption issue presented by California Vehicle Code Section 9400.8; and J. The fee imposed by this chapter is distinguishable from the fee found to be preempted by "County Sanitation District No. 2 v. the County of Kern" in that the refuse vehicle impact fee is based on reasonable costs of repairing and restoring streets to previous levels whereas the county of Kern imposed its fee pro rata based on the number of tons hauled in the county; and K. The refuse vehicle impact fee is a regulatory fee imposed for the general welfare of the city and as an exercise of the city's police power pursuant to Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution; and L. The city does not grant privileges for using city streets. City streets are open to all members of the driving public generally; and M. Refuse vehicles have the same right as any other vehicle to drive over city streets; and N. This chapter may not be enforced by an injunction which prevents a construction vehicle from driving over city streets until payment of the fee is made; and O. The proposed refuse vehicle impact fee has been noticed consistent with California Government Code Section 66018 and a hearing was held on the matter on June 25, 2007. (Ord. 1818 § 1, 2007) 8.08.901 Fees. A. An annual refuse vehicle impact fee of $838,000 shall be assessed to the city's franchised solid waste collection services provider and remitted to the city on a monthly basis. The fee may be amended from time to time by resolution of the city council. B. Character of Fee. The city council has determined that the fee is related to the cost of repairs provided and shall not exceed the estimated reasonable costs of the repair. This fee is not imposed as an incident of property ownership within the meaning of Proposition 218, California Constitution, Article XIIID, Section 6. C. Collection. Each owner and occupant of the city receiving waste collection services from the franchisee shall be billed by the franchisee a fee for refuse vehicle impact in accordance with the rates established by the city council. The fee shall be collected by the franchisee as part of the solid waste collection fee, in conformance with LMC 8.08.130. (Ord. 1818 § 1, 2007) 8.08.902 Transfer, deposit, use and accounting of fees. A. Transfer. The franchisee shall convey the refuse vehicle impact fee to the city in accordance with the franchise agreement on a monthly basis. B. Deposit. When conveyed to the city, the fees shall be kept in a separate line item account together with any interest earned. C. Use of Fee. The fees shall be used only to defray the costs of street repair associated with refuse vehicular impact. (Ord. 1818 § 1, 2007) uuiities C'} electric - stor mwater wastewater - water Of Fort ,Collins Street PO Box 580 Foowood Fort Collins, CO 80522 ns,CO 970.221.6700 970.221.6619 -tax 970.224.6003 - TDD uf117ties0k9wcom k9ovcnMuVI ies MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Hutchinson and City Councilmembers THRU: Darin Atteberry, City Manager - k Brian Janonis, Utilities Executive Director FROM: Patty Bigner, Utilities Customer and Employee Relations Manager 14),t/ CC: Steve Catanach, Light and Power Operations Manager John Phelan, Energy Services Engineer DATE: September 24, 2008 SUBJECT: September 23, 2008 Work Session Summary — Draft 2008 Energy Policy On September 23, 2008, City Council held a work session for discussion and to provide direction to staff on the Draft 2008 Energy Policy. Specific questions asked of Council: 1. The proposed 2008 Energy Policy reflects substantial changes to the current policy. Are there additional revisions to the proposed policy? 2. Staff plans to conduct public outreach prior to adoption of the Draft policy. What specific information about community support for the concepts in the policy is needed for Council consideration? 3. What additional information does Council need in order to consider adoption of the Draft 2008 Energy Policy? Key Discussion Points Brian Janonis provided context for the discussion, summarizing the importance of the draft policy in providing direction to staff and a vision for provision of electric services to the community. The Draft 2008 Energy Policy is intended to replace the 2003 Electric Energy Supply Policy. He explained the adoption of the Policy would be followed by the development of implementation plans, including rate impacts and funding strategies. The adoption of the Draft 2008 Energy Policy also supports the development of the City's Climate Action Plan, since energy efficiency, conservation and renewable energy contribute to reaching carbon reduction goals for the year 2020.policy goals. -2- Council supported the major shifts outlined in the Policy, including emphasis on affordability rather than lowest cost, and the change to a carbon accounting framework for reporting progress in reducing environmental impacts with energy efficiency programs and renewable energy purchases. Council also emphasized the importance of the reliability and efficiency of our electric system and acknowledged the "world -class" reliability metrics. Council supported the inclusion of an additional goal related to the relationship with Platte River Power Authority, in order to highlight the importance of Platte River to the City. Other areas of agreement: Annual reporting of progress toward meeting identified goals is important in maintaining transparency and accountability in the future, and pointed out it is important for citizens to understand Utilities programs are supported by utility rates rather than sales taxes. Several suggestions were made for wording changes and additions. In general, Council expressed support for public outreach prior to considering adoption of the Policy and directed staff to begin preparing implementation for their review early next year. Next Steps October- November: Conduct public outreach and compile comments November — December: City Council consideration of a Resolution adopting the Draft 2008 Energy Policy November — January: Development of implementation strategies and programs Early 2009: Presentation of strategies; Rate ordinance to fund programs