HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-07/21/2009-RegularJuly 21, 2009
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, July 21, 2009, at
6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy, and
Troxell.
Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Krajicek, Roy.
Citizen Participation
Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset, thanked the City for conducting sound demonstrations on July
9 and 10 for the proposed sound standards for the Downtown Entertainment District. The
demonstrations showed there is more information to be gathered before any changes should be made
to the sound standards. The Bohemian Foundation Oxbow Performance Venue will greatly impact
the Buckingham neighborhood. She requested a noise demonstration to illustrate the sound volume
that will be allowed up to 1 1/2 hours after a performance at the venue.
Joe Solomon, 1721 Lindenwood Drive, expressed concern about financing infrastructure projects
in the Mountain Vista Subarea. Before Council considers adoption of the Plan, a method of
financing the grade -separated crossings that will be necessary so traffic will not become untenable
as the area develops should be included.
Stacy Lynne, 216 Park Street, expressed her dislike of the CFL lights recently installed in the
Council Chambers.
Matt Majoros, 1405 Linden Lake Road, stated his concerns with the the proposed realignment of
Vine Street, which could become a truck bypass route. He asked that the proposed Mountain Vista
Subarea Plan include a section that states Vine is not designed to be a truck bypass route.
Mike McGarry, 7220 Randolph Court, thanked Council and City staff for the rapid response in
correcting the spelling of a street name in Registry Ridge.
Andrew Scott, 514 North Shields, stated Councilmember Roy does not live in District 6 and should
not be allowed to vote on City issues.
Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court, asked for a full disclosure of all City fees, including any new
fees that might be proposed and any increases in utility rates.
249
July 21, 2009
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony, expressed his concerns about recycling and stated the City
should not offer curbside recycling because it requires more energy for trash trucks to haul
recyclables away than is saved through recycling.
Citizen Participation Follow-up
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if the online disclosure of City expenditures would provide full
disclosure of all City fees. City Manager Atteberry stated the project to provide transparency about
City expenditures to the public, will be completed before September 1. The City is transparent about
any proposed fee increases as part of the budget process. Council adopts utility fees. If other fees
are changed administratively, Council is informed through the Budget process. An upcoming work
session is planned to discuss utility issues, including cost of service and rates. He does expect
electric, water and wastewater fees to increase.
Mayor Hutchinson noted utility fees are not automatically increased and Council has to approve all
utility rate increases.
Councilmember Ohlson stated the new lighting in Council Chambers was installed to provide more
energy savings but needs to be adjusted to lessen the harshness of the glare.
Councilmember Troxell thanked Mr. McGarry for providing the information needed to correct the
spelling of "Truxton" Street in the Registry Ridge neighborhood.
Councilmember Roy stated he lives within District 6 in the City of Fort Collins and is fully qualified
to be a Councilmember.
Agenda Review
City Manager Atteberry stated Item #15 Resolution 2009-069 Renaming Certain Streets in the
Registry Ridge First and Third Filings and Richards Lake First Filing has been revised. He pulled
Item #17 Resolution 2009-071 Authorizing the Issuance of a Revocable Permit to the Board of
Governors ofthe Colorado State University System for Installation of Electric Service Lines on City -
owned Property from the Consent Agenda because Councilmember Troxell has filed a conflict of
interest with the item. He requested that Council vote to postpone consideration of Item 925 Second
Reading of Ordinance No. 062, 2009, Amending Chapter 26, Article VI of the City Code Relating
to Net Metered Electric Service until new interconnection standards can be brought forward.
Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court, pulled item # 10 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2009
Amending Chapter 26, Article VI, Division 4 of the City Code Relating to Excess Circuit Charge.
250
July 21, 2009
CONSENT CALENDAR
Second Reading; of Ordinance No. 072, 2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Program and Authorizing the Transfer of
Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Police Services Operating Budget.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 7, 2009, authorizes the
appropriation of a grant in the amount of $21,574 and additional funds of $5,000 that have
been received from the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice for salaries associated with the
continued operation of Restorative Justice Services and authorizes the appropriation of
matching funds in the amount of $8,858 from the Police Services budget.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2009 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Light and Power Fund for the Energy Star New Homes Program and for the
Residential Solar Grant Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously
Appropriated in the Light and Power Operating Budget.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 7, 2009, appropriates grant
funds totaling $72,500 received from the State of Colorado's Governor's Energy Office to
fund additional solar rebates for eligible residential solar installations within the service area.
8. Items Relating to the Completion of the 2009 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for
Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development
Activities Utilizing the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program,
and Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Program, and the City's Human Services
Program and Affordable Housing Fund.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
in the Community Development Block Grant Fund.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
in the HOME Investment Partnership Fund.
These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 7, 2009, complete the 2009
spring cycle of the competitive process for allocating City financial resources to affordable
housing programs/projects and community development activities.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2009, Dissolving the Telecommunications Board and
Amending City Code by Repealing Sections Relating to the Telecommunications Board.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 7, 2009, dissolves the
Telecommunications Board. Because of the current state of the telecommunications and
cable TV regulatory environment and the City's limited role in either providing or regulating
any form of data and telecommunications services, the charter and mission of the
251
July 21, 2009
Telecommunications Board is no longer aligned with City needs and priorities. In light of
that assessment, the Telecommunications Board can be dissolved without adversely affecting
the City.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2009 Amending Chapter 26 Article VI Division 4
of the City Code Relating to Excess Circuit Charge.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 7, 2009, allows the Utilities
to respond promptly to a customer's request for excess capacity service based on the
proposed Code provision. The charges for the service will be stated in the Code and revised
when electric cost of service studies are updated.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2009 Amending the City Code and the Traffic Code
Re ag rding Obstructions of Parking Spaces for Persons with Disabilities.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 7, 2009, relocates Traffic
Code Section 1208(10) regarding parking privileges for persons with disabilities to City
Code, Section 20, for more logical placement within the Code and to increase effectiveness
of enforcement. This Section prohibits any person from placing or allowing to remain, any
snow, ice, litter or other materials onto any parking space which is identified for use by
persons with disabilities, or on any area immediately adjacent thereto.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2009, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related
to the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (Phase Two).
The Mason Express ("MAX"), bus rapid transit project is entering into the right-of-way
acquisition phase of the project. Project acquisitions have been broken into three phases.
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 7, 2009, pertains to the
second phase (Phase II) and consists of eighteen distinct property ownerships. As a critical,
federally funded transportation project, staff requests authorization to utilize eminent
domain, if necessary, and only if good faith negotiations break down, in order to ensure a
timely acquisition of the necessary property interests.
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2009, Repealing Ordinance No. 038, 20097
Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins, Colorado Downtown Development Authority;
and Amending the Plan of Development of the Authority.
Ordinance No. 080, 2009, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 7, 2009, changes
the boundaries of the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) District and amends the
Plan of Development of the Authority to include properties located in the Lemay/Lincoln
Avenue area and South Howes Street area.
252
July 21, 2009
14. Resolution 2009-068 Adopting the Recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board
Regarding Fort Fund Disbursements.
The Cultural Development and Programming and Tourism Programming accounts (Fort
Fund) provide grants to fund community events. This resolution will adopt the
recommendations from the Cultural Resources Board to disburse these funds.
15. Resolution 2009-069 Renaming Certain Streets in the Registry Ridge First and Third Filings
and Richards Lake First Filing.
Registry Ridge First and Third Filings and Richards Lake First Filing are three recorded
subdivisions that contain errors in the spelling of three street names. Since these names are
misspelled on the recorded plats, they must be changed by Resolution. These three streets,
with their correct spellings, are Truxton, Seawolf and Beam Reach. This Resolution will
allow the Streets Department to change the street signs.
16. Resolution 2009-070 Authorizing a Twelve -Month Extension of the Revocable Permit Issued
to Platte River Power Authority_for Installation of Two Meteorological Towers on Meadow
Springs Ranch Property.
On February 19, 2008, Council adopted Resolution 2008-022, authorizing the City Manager
to issue a temporary revocable permit to Platte River Power Authority for the purpose of
installing meteorological (MET) towers at Meadow Springs Ranch. Due to an unanticipated
interruption in data collection, Platte River is requesting a 12-month extension to improve
its data set. The proposed Resolution will authorize the City Manager to issue a 12-month
extension to the revocable permit for the purpose of extending the data collection period.
The extension for the temporary towers will allow Platte River to collect detailed wind speed
and other data to investigate the site for potential wind generation.
17. Resolution 2009-071 Authorizing the Issuance of a Revocable Permit to the Board of
Governors of the Colorado State University System for Installation of Electric Service Lines
on City -owned Property.
Colorado State University (CSU) is in the process of constructing a new parking garage on
the north side of Prospect Road between Centre Avenue and Bay Street. CSU plans to
install a solar array on the roof of the new parking garage and would like to connect the
garage and array to CSU's electrical system on campus.
18. Resolution 2009-072 Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned Property Located at 212 West
Mountain Avenue For Up to Two Years as Part of the Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative
Program.
Since the summer of 2004, the City has leased space to RMI2 and its participating
companies. Currently, RM12 leases space in Suites A and C at 200 West Mountain Avenue
253
July 21, 2009
and 321 Maple Street. This Resolution is a request for authorization to lease the facility at
212 West Mountain Avenue to RMI2.
19. Resolution 2009-073 Amending Resolution 2002-062 Relatine to the Recruitment and
Appointment Process for Boards and Commissions.
This Resolution will change the current policy relating to the application and interview
process for incumbents on boards and commissions.
20. Resolution 2009-074 Making Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions.
A vacancy currently exists on the Community Development Block Grant Commission due
to the resignation of Phil Majerus. Councilmember Lisa Poppaw and Mayor Doug
Hutchinson conducted interviews and are recommending Vickie Traxler to fill the vacancy
with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2010.
A vacancy currently exists on the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board due to the
resignation of Ray Boyd. Councilmember Aislinn Kottwitz and Mayor Pro Tern Kelly
Ohlson conducted interviews. The Council interview team is recommending Paul Mills to
fill the vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2012.
A vacancy currently exists on the Youth Advisory Board due to the resignation of Vivian
Acott. Councilmember Aislinn Kottwitz and Mayor Pro Tern Kelly Ohlson conducted
interviews and are recommending Brigette Bleicher to fill the vacancy with a term to begin
immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2011.
A vacancy currently exists on the Zoning Board of Appeals due to the resignation of David
Shands. Mayor Pro Tern Kelly Ohlson and Councilmember Aislinn Kottwitz conducted
interviews. The Council interview team is recommending Peter Bohling to fill the vacancy
with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2012.
***END CONSENT'
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek.
6. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 072, 2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the General Fund for the Restorative Justice Program and Authorizing the Transfer of
Matching Funds Previously Appropriated in the Police Services Operating Budget.
7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 073, 2009 Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue
in the Light and Power Fund for the Energy Star New Homes Program and for the
Residential Solar Grant Program and Authorizing the Transfer of Matching Funds Previously
Appropriated in the Light and Power Operating Budget.
0411
July 21, 2009
8. Items Relating to the Completion of the 2009 Spring Cycle of the Competitive Process for
Allocating City Financial Resources to Affordable Housing and Community Development
Activities Utilizing the Federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program,
and Home Investment Partnership (HOME) Program, and the City's Human Services
Program and Affordable Housing Fund.
A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 074, 2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
in the Community Development Block Grant Fund.
B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 075, 2009, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue
in the HOME Investment Partnership Fund.
9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 076, 2009, Dissolving the Telecommunications Board and
Amending City Code by Repealing Sections Relating to the Telecommunications Board.
10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 077, 2009 Amending Chapter 26, Article VI, Division 4
of the City Code Relating to Excess Circuit Charge.
11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 078, 2009 Amending the City Code and the Traffic Code
Regarding Obstructions of Parking Spaces for Persons with Disabilities.
12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 079, 2009, Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent
Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related
to the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (Phase Two).
13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 080, 2009, Repealing Ordinance No. 038, 2009;
Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins, Colorado Downtown Development Authority;
and Amending the Plan of Development of the Authority.
25. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 062, 2009, Amending Chapter 26, Article VI of the City
Code Relating to Net Metered Electric Service.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt and approve
all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar and to adopt Item #15 as revised. Yeas:
Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Reports
Mayor Hutchinson reported he attended the Colorado Municipal League Executive Board retreat.
255
July 21, 2009
Resolution 2009-075
Adopting Pilot Trash and Recycling Services District Boundaries and Directing
the City Manager to Request Proposals for Trash and Recycling Collection
Services Within Said District, Adopted
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
If the Resolution is adopted, the City will have one-time startup costs (approximately $25, 000) for
implementing the billing system through the Utility Billing system. These costs will be incurred in
2009, prior to the start-up of the district billing and are expected to be paid with 2009 General Fund
monies.
On an ongoing basis throughout the length of the 5-year contract, the program would be self-
sustaining through user fees, including the monthly hauler charge and administrative charges.
Administrative costs are projected to average as follows:
On -going City costs: $1.00 per month/per account for billing
$ .25 per month/per account for contract administration
Based on a population of 6, 500 residential accounts in the pilot area, total annual costs of $97, 500
include: $78, 000 per year billing
$19, 500 per year contract administration
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Resolution directs staff to implement a proposed Trash Services Pilot District and outlines a
number of key components of the District. If the resolution is adopted by Council, staff ivill take the
following steps to implement the Trash Services Pilot District:
• Issue the State required 6-month notice to haulers of the City's intent to provide service in
the designated area;
• Issue a Request for Proposals for haulers to submit proposals to provide the service in the
district;
• Interview qualified proposers, select a provider, and negotiate a contract;
• Seek Council approval of the Trash Services Fee for customers within the District (includes
hauling charges and administrative costs);
• Notify residents of the change; and
• Implement service in Pilot Trash District in the 1st Quarter, 2010
Staff proposes that the District include the area bounded by College Avenue on the east, Prospect
Road on the south, City limits on'the west, and the Poudre River on the North. This area is
specifically described in Resolution 2009-075.
W61
July 21, 2009
BACKGROUND
The proposed pilot program is an outgrowth of comprehensive analyses and discussion by the City
Council about how to bring greater levels of waste reduction and greater efficiency to the
community's trash collection system. A pilot trash and recycling services district is targeted at
addressing the original problem statement in the 2008 Trash Services Study:
"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? "
Issues related to trash collection, recycling and the impact of a large number of trash vehicles on
neighborhood streets have been reviewed by the City Council a number of times over the past 20
years. In 1995, concerns about adverse impacts of trash trucks in neighborhoods led to a Council
resolution and goals to reduce the number of trucks and strive for greater consolidation of
residential trash services. The City conducted a study regarding trash districting in 1998, and in
1999, City Council established a goal to divert 50% of the community's waste stream from landfill
disposal by 2010. Staff has recently analyzed 2008 data regarding recycling rates and landfill
statistics. Staff calculates the community's overall recycling rate at 33%. This increase over the
past few years is attributed to several factors, including the addition of single stream recycling,
additional materials included in the community's recycling programs (cardboard, paperboard and
plastics 1-7) and reduced landfill rates because of the slowing economy (a 20 % drop in volumes
at landfills in recent months.) The curbside recycling rate has grown from 13% in 2006 to 20%.
A brief report on current recycling rates is included as Attachment 1.
In directing staff to undertake the 2008 Trash Services Study, Council set forth goals to improve
the community's diversion rate and reduce the impact of trash trucks on residential streets. Council
also expressed specific interest in improving the "Pay -as -you -throw " (PAYT) solid waste ordinance.
These goals are consistent with key goals ofthe 2008 Climate Action Plan approved by City Council
in December 2008. They are also consistent with several of the goals in the draft 2006 Strategic
Plan for Solid Waste Diversion reviewed by City Council.
On May 5, 2009, City Council adopted several modifications to the City Code regarding trash and
recycling services as developed from the Trash Services Study, that focus on requiring haulers to
take actions that will improve recycling diversion rates and improve the pricing incentives of the
Pay -as -you -throw Ordinance. These new initiatives become effective starting September 1, 2009.
At the May 5 meeting, Council also adopted Resolution 2009-046, directing staff to develop one or
more pilot trash districts in a portion of the community. In the designated area, the pilot would
change the market for trash services from a purely open competitive market for residential trash
services to a mix of City -contracted service and open competitive service. Council directed staff to
develop a specific proposal for one or more pilot districts, and to more specifically outline the steps
257
July 21, 2009
necessary to move forward to implement the pilot district. These items are included in this
Resolution and attachments to this Agenda Item.
PILOT TRASH SER VICES DISTRICT PROPOSAL
Staff has developed a draft implementation plan for a Pilot Trash District. This option was raised
at the December 9, 2008 work session as Council was discussing the Market Option of creating a
city-wide trash services contract, or trash districting system. Council suggested considering a pilot
trash district in a portion of the community, rather than implementing the strategy city-wide.
Districting Process
The City can elect to develop a trash and recycling district for a specific geographic area, award
a single contract for trash services within that area, and charge a City fee to single-family
residences, according to State statute. The City would offer private trash haulers the opportunity
to compete to provide trash and recycling services within the area, with fees billed by the City on
its monthly Utility bill.
A key component of a pilot trash district project would be to carefully analyze and document the
effectiveness of the program. Staff would conduct a pre- and post project data collection project
to measure the effectiveness of the program in achieving waste stream reduction goals and in
reducing the impacts of trash vehicles upon streets and other aesthetic issues in the district.
If the Council chooses to adopt the Resolution, State statute requires a 6-month notice period to the
existing trash haulers before the City could begin contracting for trash service; the haulers then
would have 30 days following the notice to respond and let the City know if they are interested in
participating in the process.
During this 6-month period, the City would issue a Request for Proposals (RFP), select a provider,
negotiate a contract and work though implementation issues. Six months after the notice, the City
would issue a trash/recycling contract for service to all residential customers in the pilot program
area (single family dwellings and multi family dwellings of 3 residences or fewer). A tentative
schedule for implementation of the pilot district, should Council vote to proceed with the project,
is included as Attachment 2.
A draft Request for Proposals is included for City Council 's review and discussion. (See Attachment
3.) If the Resolution is approved, final terms of the RFP will be completed and issued by
approximately September 1, 2009. Staff expects to allow approximately six weeks for haulers to
develop and submit proposals for the contract.
The selection process would include review of the proposals, selection of qualified vendors for
interview, rating of the proposals and negotiation with the top candidate. Criteria for evaluation
of the offers would include several factors, including:
Price to customers;
Ability to meet high standards for delivery of trash and recycling services, compliance with
local requirements and customer service;
258
July 21, 2009
Ability to meet additional conditions outlined in the Request for Proposals, e.g., work in
coordination with the City to provide recycling education within the district; and
Other innovations proposed by the hauler which would reduce solid waste and increase
diversion, e.g., curbside yard -waste recycling, special recycling events, market -based
initiatives such as Recycle Bank, or other incentive based programs.
Though price to customers would be a major factor in the winning proposal, the other qualitative
factors would also be an integral part of the purchasing process to determine the best qualified
proposal.
Upon selection of the top ranked proposal, staff would return to the City Council in the 4th Quarter,
2009 with a resolution to authorize the application ofa fee for service to residents within the district.
The Trash Service Fee is the fundamental tool for implementing the Pilot Trash District. It is a fee
for the City providing trash service to residences and is composed of the cost for the subscription
level oftrash service (per the rates quoted by the successful contractor) plus the administrative costs
for billing and contract administration.
The final component of the implementation would be notification to residents in the district
regarding the change in service. Staffanticipates written notification would be made via direct mail,
utility bills and public meetings to provide information to affected residents.
Proposed District
The pilot area boundaries would be set by clearly identifiable landmarks. Staff has tentatively
identified a pilot area north of Prospect Road, south of the Poudre River, east of Overland Trail
Road, and west of College Avenue. (See Attachment 4.) This area includes approximately 6,500
dwelling units which would be served by the pilot district contractor. Commercial properties and
multi family units of greater than 3 dwellings would be excluded from the contracted service per
state law. Criteria used by staff in tentatively selecting this area included the clear boundaries,
relatively few commercial properties within the area except those along the boundaries of College
Avenue and Prospect Road and a limited number of Homeowners Associations (HOAs) which might
have existing trash service contracts.
Contract Terms
Terms of the contract for service could include (but are not limited to) provisions such as:
a. The contract would be for a term of 5 years.
b. The hauler would be asked to provide subscription service rates for all single family
residences and multi family dwelling up to 3 units in the proposed district, with the
exception of Homeowner's Associations with existing contracts, if they include all
residences in the HOA.
C. The successful hauler would be required to fully comply with the City Code
regarding trash and recycling.
259
July 21, 2009
d. The hauler would be asked to quote a price to provide curbside yard waste recycling
service (at an additional cost) to customers upon request.
e. The hauler would be asked to quote a price and a proposed processfor implementing
a bag or tag system for overages, including a proposed method for distributing the
bags/tags to district customers.
f. The hauler would provide specific recycling education information to customers who
fail to properly prepare or set out recyclable materials (e.g., friendly cart hanger
notices for a customer who places non -recyclable materials into the recycling
container, or places recyclable materials in the trash container).
g. The hauler would ensure that all collection vehicles are in clean and safe operating
condition, meet DOT standards, and be operated according to manufacturers
specifications for loading (e.g., use of tag axles.)
h. The contract for service would include performance standards for the hauler,
addressing such issues as customer service, missed pick-ups, etc.
i. Signage and/or outreach materials would be used by the hauler to encourage
recycling and motivate customers to participate in waste reduction activities.
Issues Analysis
In developing the general parameters of a Trash and Recycling Services Pilot District, staff has
explored a number of issues.
• Contract for Pilot Trash District would be for a term of 5 years.
Analysis: A successful contractor for the trash district may need to acquire additional
equipment to serve the pilot district, including trash and recycling vehicles, toters or poly -
carts for trash and recycling, and other business equipment. In order to give a high quality,
low price for the service, they would need to be able to amortize their equipment purchases
over a reasonable period of time, such as 5 years. Such a long-term contract would also
make it more difficult for one company to provide an artificially low proposal to secure the
contract in order to drive out other competitors for the future.
The Pilot District would include 6,500 households.
Analysis: The tentative pilot district identified by staff includes approximately 6,500
accounts. The pilot district would be of a large enough size to attract quality bids. This size
district could be bid on by a company with approximately 3-4 trucks. The boundaries of the
district should be clearly defined by major streets so that as Council districts, census
districts or other boundaries change, the pilot trash hauling district would remain well
defined.
Establish a Pilot District with a variety of housing types.
Analysis: The geography and demographics of the district needs to be factored into how a
hauler would price its proposal. For instance, it is possible that a district that contains
260
July 21, 2009
many older homes with alleys would be more time-consuming, and therefore expensive, to
serve than an area of newer development with curbside service on uniform streets. If an
area with a great deal of alley service is included, prices could be higher than if it featured
more HOAs or new development.
Data Collection and Analysis.
Analysis: A key component ofa pilot trash district project would be to carefully analyze and
document the effectiveness of the program. Staff would collect pre- and post -project data
to measure the effectiveness of the program in achieving waste stream reduction goals and
in reducing the impacts of trash vehicles upon streets and other aesthetics in the district.
Staff would develop a data plan for the project and implement plans to do data collection
such as a trash and recycling set -out survey. The set -out survey would be afield study (both
within and outside the proposed district) to gather data about the volumes of trash and
recycling which are set out by randomly selected households during a representative week.
By weighing and measuring actual materials set out for collection on trash day, detailed
information can be gathered about customer behaviors before and during the pilot project.
The number of different haulers within the district would also be documented before and
after the district is established.
Billing and Customer Service.
Analysis: The City would be contracting for trash service within the district and would
provide customer billing for the fees; the additional new costs for billing service and other
administrative costs would be covered by a specific additional charge in customers' trash
bills. All eligible residences within the district would be billed for at least the minimum level
ofservice. Without this automatic billingfor all customers, some customers may be able to
choose not to participate in the pilot and continue with their existing hauler or choose to
self -haul. This would defeat the goals of reducing truck traffic and undermine the pilot
district's effectiveness. The City proposes that customer service for changes in accounts
such as start-up for new accounts or discontinuation of services would be handled by City
customer billing staff. The contracted hauler would provide first -line response to other
customer service issues such as cart delivery/maintenance, missed collection or other
performance issues.
As billing issues are addressed, the final Request for Proposals may need to be adjusted to
address the inclusion of multi family units within the district. Currently, some multi family
units receive one utility bill for all units, while others receive separate bills for each unit.
In addition, some multi family units utilize communal collection (Dumpsters) for their trash
service. Depending on the final analysis of the accounts included in district, additional
language describing the residences which will receive service may need to be added to the
RFP that is issued.
261
July 21, 2009
The City's implementation costs would be covered within the charges on customer bills.
Analysis: The City would incur new costs for both administering the contract and billing
for a trash service fee. The City would need to include an administrative charge on each
account to cover these costs. Once the City agrees on a price per account, it would
determine the rate for the City's fees, including overhead charges so that the monthly charge
reflects the total true cost of service.
Based on the experience of other communities implementing trash contracts, hauler
proposals should be lower than prices offered in other portions of the community because
the hauler won't have to cover billing costs and because of the efficiencies to be gained by
having a consolidated district where every residence is served by the same hauler. The City
would collect fees to cover its expenses for the program so that the program is self-
sustaining.
If the Resolution is adopted, a contract executed and the service fee established, the City
would have some one-time startup costs for implementing the billing system through the
Utility Billing system. One-time billing start-up costs are projected to be $25,000. These
costs would be incurred prior to the start-up of the district billing in 2009 and would likely
be paid through current year general fund monies.
On an ongoing basis the program would be self-sustaining through user fees, including the
monthly hauler charge to customers based on the service level they choose and additional
administrative fees. Administrative fees which would be used by the City for its
administration are projected to average as follows:
On -going City costs: $1.00 per month/per account for billing
$ .25 per month/per account for contract administration
Based on a population of 6,500 residential accounts in the pilot area, total annual costs of
$97,500 include:
$78,000 per year billing
$19, 500 per year contract administration
Billing fees would pay for on -going customer service for start-ups, changes, stop -service,
collections, and billing computer system maintenance. In addition to the billing costs, other
overhead cost would be recovered through the trash services fee for contract administration
costs. These fees would pay for a portion of a staff member's time in the Natural Resources
Department to administer the contract, review performance data, work with the hauler to
conduct recycling education programs in the district, and measure the success of the
program in meeting the Council's goals. The estimated total administrative fee would
average $1.25 per account per month.
Pilot Districted Trash Service
262
Financial Benefits:
Potential savings to Cityfor street
maintenance = S40, 000-50, 000
Potential savings to some of the
District's residents = lower monthly
rates with increased efficiency of system
(based on experience of other
communities)
Achieves:
Reduced Truck Traffic
0 Trash truck related street damage
would be reduced in a portion of the
community - S40, 000-50, 000 per
year savings in street maintenance
(could be more because we don't
know how many trash vehicles are
over legal weight limits)
0 40+ tons in reduced CO2 emissions
0 Less fuel consumed by haulers
• Improved neighborhood aesthetics within
pilot district with fewer days of trash
cans on streets, uniform containers and
less noise
• Opportunity to gain experience before
implementing change to entire
community, if successful
• Increased safety within pilot district with
fewer trucks in neighborhoods
• More readily available tools for
increased diversion - as terms of the
contract, City could require successful
hauler to:
0 Provide greater levels of education
about recycling to customers in the
pilot district
0 Offer yard waste at additional
charge with a set formula approved
by the City
0 Build in requirement for audit/data
monitoring and analysis
July 21, 2009
Costs:
• City implementation costs = $25, 000 for
retooling the Utility Billing system
• Ongoing City administrative costs =
$25, 500 annually, not including City
billing costs
Shortcomings:
• Customer concern re: loss of choice
• Fear of cost increases causes concern for
some residents. Actual cost of service
under revised system would be unknown
until offers are solicited (though offers
need not be accepted if offers represent
significant cost increase)
• Current haulers will be concerned that
new haulers to community would be able
to compete for business in pilot district
• Some haulers will lose business. These
haulers may include locally owned,
established businesses
• Significant involvement in privately
provided service is considered negative
by some
• Customers would be required to pay a
City service fee, including those
customers who might choose to continue
using their existing hauler's services
regardless of City contract within the
pilot district
• Self -haulers would not be able to avoid
fee and opt out of the service
263
Achieves:
Greater leverage to guarantee no
overweight vehicles if include
contractual requirement for random
weighing of trash trucks
Smaller area impacted than with city-
wide districting
Reduced overall cost with greater system
efficiency due to economies of scale
• Other communities pay less after
contract for service established
• Some in HOAs already enjoy these
rates - others could benefit too,
creating more "social equity"
o Increased operational efficiency for
hauler selected
• Competition preserved when bidding
on contract
July 21, 2009
Shortcomings:
Haulers concerned that a large, national
company may make an artificially low
initial offer to receive the contracts, then
increase prices in future years when
local businesses are no longer able to
compete
Some believe that a contracted hauler
system would provide lower level of
service because of lack of day-to-day
competition
• Some believe that prices for service
would go up under this model
• Selection of an older neighborhood/area
for the pilot project may bias the results
of the pilot toward higher than average
costs to provide service, (e.g., more alley
service) compared to newer areas of
development
Could choose an area where few HOAs Some or all of the current haulers will
exist or a mix of housing types exists not be awarded the district. This could
significantly impact them.
• Could be a demonstration of improved
efficiency and lower rates for the rest of
the community
• City administrative costs would be
completely covered by user fees; this
overhead may not be much different from
private subscription costs of billing and
administration normally built into cost of
services.
Self -hauling may be reduced, which helps
improve safety and reduce costs at
Lorimer County landfill.
264
Administrative costs for administrative
staff, program oversight and auditing
5-year commitment required by contract
would lead to changes in assignments for
City staff to work on billing and
administration
If price to customers is lower than open
market, non -districted residents may
object to not being included. If price to
pilot district customers is higher than
open market, City could choose not to
proceed with contract.
July 21, 2009
Achieves:
Shortcomings:
• Current economic conditions may make it
difficult for haulers to secure financing to
make the required investment in new
equipment, including additional vehicles
• If current trash rates have been held
down because of uncertainty of the local
market, the pilot project could cause non -
districted accounts to see a price
increase. (Such an increase could occur
with any final resolution concerning
districting, a decision that has now been
pending for two years)
Mayor Hutchinson stated in May, Council adopted an ordinance amending the City Code relating
to trash hauling, with the general purpose of increasing the incentive for solid waste customers to
reduce trash and improve recycling diversion rates. The item before Council at this time is a
resolution that directs the City Manager to prepare a pilot trash hauling district within the city. Staff
has recommended one area of the city for the pilot district. The resolution, if adopted by Council,
directs the City Manager to solicit proposals from any trash haulers that are interested in serving the
district and to either select a proposal and negotiate a contract or to inform Council that none of the
proposals is satisfactory. If a proposal is selected, the final step in the process is for Council to
impose a fee for the service to be provided in the district, which is scheduled to occur before the end
of 2009.
Ann Tumquist, Policy and Project Manager, stated the City has spent the past 18 months examining
ways to reduce the impact of trash trucks on residential streets, improve air quality, address issues
of aesthetics related to trash service and improve recycling rates in the community. Many public
outreach meetings have been held and Council has held several work sessions on the issue. If the
resolution is adopted, staff will begin implementation of the pilot district. The resolution will set
the trash district boundaries and directs the City Manager to issue a Request for Proposals for trash
and recycling collection service within the designated district. The City would award a five-year
contract for the pilot program through a competitive process where trash haulers would be invited
to submit a proposal to provide those services. The City will provide the billing service through the
existing Utility billing process and the cost of the billing service will be processed through
residential utility bills within the district. The proposal is only for residential service and not for
commercial service or larger, multi -family residences. Any homeowner associations within the pilot
district that already have existing contracts with trash haulers will be exempt from the pilot district.
The district would be located in the northwest portion of the community with boundaries set by
Prospect Road on the south, College Avenue on the east, the Poudre River and City limits on the
north and Overland Trail on the west and encompasses about 6500 residences. This area was chosen
because it has clear boundaries that will not change over five years. It has relatively few homeowner
265
July 21, 2009
associations, which often have their own contracts with trash haulers. One goal of the pilot district
is to demonstrate the effectiveness of consolidated service. The area has a high density and variety
of residential housing which will be easier for the trash hauler to service. There are relatively fewer
commercial properties, which will be exempt from the pilot district.
A goal of the pilot district is to keep the overall cost for residents in the district lower than residents'
current trash costs. Other communities have experienced lower costs when trash service has been
consolidated. The City has the financial goal of ensuring the program pays its way with fees and
does not add costs to the City. The actual cost of the service to residents will be determined by the
competitive proposals submitted by the trash haulers. The competitive process to award the contract
should keep costs lower with more efficiencies. Information will be collected before and during the
pilot program and will include the number of trucks in the district, impact on streets, recycling
volumes, the cost to residents and aesthetic issues.
If the resolution is adopted, staff intends to issue the RFP within 30 days and seek proposals from
trash haulers. The proposals will address issues including the price for various levels of trash
collection service, other services the hauler may be willing to provide as part of the contract, and any
innovative ideas to increase recycling within the district. Staff will evaluate each proposal using
criteria such as the price to customers, customer service qualifications, and any other elements of the
proposal that meets the City's goal of increasing waste diversion to 50% by 2010.
The City is required by State law to give the haulers a 6-month notice that the City intends to provide
service through a contract. That notice would be published by August 1. The RFP will be issued
by September 1 and the haulers will be given six weeks to submit their proposals. Staff will conduct
interviews, negotiate a contract and then return to Council later in the fall with an ordinance that
establishes the fee. The amount of the fee will not be known until a contract is negotiated. Staff will
contact residences with the pilot trash district later this fall to notify them of the change in service.
The following citizens did not support implementation of a pilot trash services district and urged
Council not to adopt the proposed resolution:
Wayne Davis, 3913 Lynda Lane
Ashlynn Bullchag, Fort Collins resident
Lyn Pring, 1136 East Stuart
Gina Bagbey, 2523 Constitution
Patty Kennedy, 559 South Saint Louis Avene
Tom Weatherly, 2550 Custer
Stacy Lynne, 216 Park Street
Tom Jackson, Fort Collins resident
Mike Farrell, 518 Ramah
Kathleen Bailey, 924 East Ridgecrest Road
Rudy Zitti, 1626 Fantail Court
Mike Schwab, 2902 Rigden Parkway
Kathy Dillon-Durica, 906 Bramblebush
Kathy Wydallis, 812 LaPorte Avenue
July 21, 2009
David Steinmetz, 4936 Smallwood Court
Noreen Flood, 21313 Hampstead Drive, Loveland
Levi Gallegos, Gallegos Sanitation
Eli Luhong, Gallegos Sanitation
Marc Siegfried, 1030 Wagonwheel
Andrew Scott, 514 North Shields
Tracy Brand, Gallegos Sanitation
Matt Gallegos, Gallegos Sanitation
Colleen Finnman, 3306 Creekstone Drive
Bob Brown, President of Greenbriar Homeowner's Association
Phillip Salazar, Fort Collins resident
John Puma, Ram Waste Systems owner
Nate Burns, Fort Collins resident
Rudy Gallegos, Gallegos Sanitation owner
Ray Harvey, Fort Collins resident
Ray Meyer, 1344 Saint John Place
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony
Mark Glorioso, Gallegos Sanitation
Ray Martinez, 4121 Stoneridge Court
David Shine, Ram Waste
J. D. Padilla, Fort Collins resident
David Palmer, Ram Waste
Art Gallegos, Gallegos Sanitation
Howard Dimmick, 7015 Avondale Road
Jason Gallegos, Gallegos Sanitation
Don Raymond, Fort Collins resident
The following citizens supported implementation of a pilot trash services district and urged Council
to adopt the proposed resolution:
Reiner Lomb, 6718 Avondale Road, Climate Task Force member
Dan Bihn, 421 South Howes
Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb
Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset,
Mary Smith, 1618 Sagewood Drive
Gary Wockner, 516 North Grant
Eric Levine, 514 North Shields, Chair of the Air Quality Advisory Board
("Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Councilmember Roy asked for the cost of developing the pilot trash program. Tumquist stated
considerable staff time has been spent in developing the program, but there has not been an estimate
of the cost of staff and attorney time. Council had authorized up to $70,000 to be spent on a trash
study done last year, which cost $55,000.
267
July 21, 2009
Councilmember Troxell asked who was the City organization's trash hauler and what amount of
trash is recycled.. Susie Gordon, Senior Environmental Planner, stated Waste Management holds
the City's contract for all City buildings. The City has improved its recycling rates, but she did not
have actual figures.
Councilmember Troxell asked for information about the accuracy of the data that has been presented
for recycling rates. Turnquist stated the trash study consultant estimated that 14% of recycling was
a result of curbside residential recycling as opposed to all recycling within the community. The
consultant was working with data that was about two years old. There have been significant changes
in the types of materials that are collected in the recycling stream and the estimate is now 20% for
curbside recycling. The total community diversion rate is estimated at 33% for 2008.
Councilmember Troxell asked for clarification of a pilot district. Turnquist stated the pilot is the
concept of the City providing service under a contract with a private hauler.
Councilmember Troxell asked if an assessment plan had been developed to help understand what
works within the pilot district, such as actually measuring the wear on city streets caused by trash
trucks and not just estimating what the street wear might be. Turnquist stated data will be gathered
before and during time of the contract with the pilot district. The pilot is an effort to demonstrate
what consolidated service will look like, what it will cost, and to show that consolidated service is
more efficient service.
Councilmember Troxell noted the RFP will allow a flat fee to be charged within the pilot district but
trash service to other parts of the city will be required to conform to the pay -as -you -throw ordinance.
He asked how the proposed rate structure will be assessed from the RFP. Turnquist stated the trash
haulers must include administrative fees as part of their fees. The City will have administrative costs
as part of providing the billing service for the pilot district. Staff estimates the City's fees will
average $1.25 per customer. It will not be applied to each customer's bill as a flat rate, but will be
a proportional rate, the same way trash haulers will apply fees to customers under the pay -as -you -
throw rates.
Councilmember Troxell asked what customer service the City will provide to citizens within the
pilot trash district. Turnquist stated the City will handle customer service issues such as starting and
stopping service within the pilot district and changes in level of service because they relate to the
price of service. Customer service concerning missed pick-ups, temporarily halting service or
provision of the trash and recycle containers will be provided by the haulers and will be part of a
trash hauler's bid for service in the pilot district.
Councilmember Troxell asked for an explanation of an opt -out policy for those citizens who live in
the pilot district but do not wish to be part of the pilot. Turnquist stated there is no opt -out option
for customers in the pilot district. Every residence will be charged at least for the minimum level
of service.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if the City fee would only be charged to the residents within the pilot
trash district and if they have been notified they are located with the district. Turnquist stated only
WON
July 21, 2009
residences located with the pilot trash district will be charged the City fee. Each residence will be
contacted as part of the implementation of the plan to provide information about pricing and
procedures.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if commercial and multi -family dwellings would excluded from
districting, if it were applied citywide. Turnquist stated current State law does not allow this type
of program for commercial or multi -family of greater than eight units. An existing HOA located
within the district that has a contract with a trash hauler would be exempted from the pilot.
Councilmember Manvel asked if most of the trash dumped at the landfill is generated by commercial
businesses. Gordon stated 72% of landfill tons delivered to a landfill are attributed to the
commercial sector. The community is producing less waste and the slowdown in construction has
also contributed to the lower amount of waste produced.
Councilmember Roy asked if the price structure will be different for residences within the district
as compared to rates some homeowner associations receive. Tumquist stated residences that are not
part of a group pricing typically pay a higher price for trash collection than those residences that have
banded together and negotiated a group price, such as many homeowner associations have done.
The expectation of the proposals submitted by the trash haulers is that the fees will be lower than
what is currently charged residents within the pilot district. If the fees are not lower, Council could
decide not to continue with the pilot. Other communities who have moved to consolidated trash
service have seen lower prices as a result of consolidation.
Councilmember Roy asked how the proposed program will affect any HOAs in the pilot district.
Turnquist stated any HOA in the district that has a contract with a trash hauler would be exempted
from the pilot.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if an HOA will be able to renegotiate its trash contract if the contract
expires during the time of the pilot program. Turnquist stated if an HOA is exempted from the pilot,
it is unlikely it would be included into the pilot at a later date.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if any mitigation measures have been considered for trash haulers who are
required to provide large recycle carts for all their customers, but may not be awarded the contract
for the pilot district. Turnquist stated the implementation date for providing recycling carts is
January 1, 2010. The contract for the pilot district should be awarded before the end of 2009, so the
haulers will know who has received the contract before the implementation date for the recycling
carts.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if the pilot will be implemented for five years or if further Council
consideration could be brought forward in two or three years. City Manager Atteberry stated the
pilot district program is designed to be implemented for a five-year period. The length of time of
the contract is designed to allow time for ample data collection and determination of the success of
the pilot. Council will consider this issue in five years and, at that time, could decide whether or not
to move forward with citywide districts or determine the pilot has not been successful and
discontinue the program. The issue of trash collection has been discussed for over 20 years and one
269
July 21, 2009
problem has always been the lack of hard data. The program is intended to gather solid data so an
informed decision can be made by Council in five years. Tumquist noted the hauler who is awarded
the contract will need to purchase new equipment to service the district and the five-year length of
the contract is designed to give the hauler a set income to amortize the payments for that equipment.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked for the financial impacts of adding the billing responsibilities to the
Utilities billing department. Tumquist stated the administrative fee the City will add to utility bills
for residences within the district is designed to cover the costs of providing the billing services. No
BFO offer to add additional staff will be submitted.
Councilmember Ohlson asked if the trash haulers' preference was for the contract to run for five
years. Turnquist stated the consultant indicated a pilot needs to run for a long period of time. Staff
has not discussed the length of the contract with the trash haulers to avoid any "pre -negotiation" of
a contract. City Attorney Roy stated it is possible to poll the haulers to determine if they would
prefer a shorter time frame for the pilot.
Councilmember Troxell asked how staff will determine if a proposal is underbid just to win the
contract. Jim O'Neill, director of Purchasing and Risk Management, stated there will be several
rating criteria for the proposals and cost would only be one of those criterion. Cost is typically
weighted at 20% of a proposal for a City contract. The quality of the proposer, the type of service
to be provided and other factors are considered in addition to cost. The contract will not be awarded
solely on a low cost. Consideration is given to the scope of the proposal, which describes how the
hauler will provide the service to the City, what type of employees will be working on the service,
availability to provide the service and if the hauler is offering any special services to the customer.
City Manager Atteberry stated the criteria used to evaluate the proposals are typical of those used
to evaluate proposals submitted for City contracts.
Councilmember Troxell questioned how the City could adopt a policy that harms local businesses
and is counter to the City's economic health objective. He asked if the Economic Advisory
Commission had reviewed the proposal. City Manager Atteberry stated the proposal has not been
presented to the Economic Advisory Commission.
Councilmember Poppaw asked how the reference evaluation will enhance the REP process. O'Neill
stated once a trash hauling firm is selected, reference checks will be performed, overall performance
will be evaluated, including the timetables the hauler has set for other contracts, their ability to
maintain costs as bid for other contracts and their knowledge of the type of service they will provide.
Once the reference checks were completed, contract negotiations would occur with the selected
company.
Councilmember Poppaw asked if the reference evaluation will allow the haulers an opportunity to
demonstrate their customer service and attention to customer needs. O'Neill answered in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if the City's RFP process considers local businesses first. City
Manager Atteberry stated a large majority of City organization purchases are made locally. A
270
July 21, 2009
national firm could be chosen in the event a local company is not available. The criteria for
purchasing process does not require a local preference. A local preference policy can discourage
competitive bidding and can drive costs up. O'Neill stated the City tries to ensure local businesses
have an opportunity to compete.
Councilmember Ohlson asked for clarification of the number of residences to be included in the pilot
district. Gordon stated she did not have that clarification but would provide information about the
percentage of Fort Collins residences that will be included in the pilot district.
Councilmember Troxell asked if a residence within the district already will be able to continue a
contract they might already have with a particular trash hauler. City Attorney Roy stated people will
continue to have the option of using another hauler in the district, but they will still be required to
pay the fee. The districting program will not prohibit people from maintaining a current contract.
Tumquist stated a group contract, such as one held by an existing HOA, would be exempt from the
pilot district.
Councilmember Troxell asked if a trash hauler will be required to disclose its customer list to the
City. City Attorney Roy stated the pilot district proposal is not requiring proprietary information
such as customer lists, from trash haulers. City Manager Atteberry stated Utilities has information
files on residences in the district and that information will not be required from the haulers. The
customer service provided by the hauler for the pilot district will be part of the contract negotiations.
Mayor Hutchinson asked if a citizen initiative can be mounted to overturn the resolution, if it is
adopted. City Attorney Roy stated under the Charter, only ordinances can be referred by the voters
after adoption by the Council. A citizen can initiate a resolution or ordinance, but this resolution
cannot be referred.
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Resolution
2009-075.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked if three Councilmembers could bring the resolution to the voters
before Council votes to adopt the resolution. City Attorney Roy stated Council can refer either an
ordinance or resolution to the voters. If Council adopts the resolution and does not refer it to the
voters, it cannot be referred to the voters by citizens. It takes a majority of four Councilmembers to
take formal action, such as referring an ordinance.
Councilmember Kottwitz asked Council to refer the resolution to the voters of Fort Collins before
taking a vote at this time.
City Attorney Roy stated Council needs to dispose of the motion to adopt the resolution before any
consideration of referring the matter to the voters. If adoption of the resolution fails, Council can
then make a motion to refer the matter to the voters.
Councilmember Troxell supported the request to refer the resolution to the voters and asked Council
not to adopt the resolution at this time.
271
July 21, 2009
Councilmember Manvel stated the idea of a pilot trash district makes sense because it lowers the risk
that local companies could be put out of business. Much of the trash hauling business in Fort Collins
will not be affected by the pilot trash district. Residential collection is not the major part of trash
haulers' business. The haulers do considerable business outside the city limits. HOAs will be
exempt from the district. It appears the proposal involves a small part of the total trash hauling
within the city limits that will be awarded to one company. The proposal does takes away some
business from two companies but is not intended to put them out of business. The customers in the
district will probably pay less for their trash service and should still receive excellent service that
may offer more options than the customers currently have available. The fee collected by the City
to provide billing service will be large enough to cover costs but will not provide a profit to the City.
The City will benefit from fewer trash trucks on the street which will lessen the wear on the streets.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the idea of the pilot district and gathering data sounds good in the abstract
but the people affected by the proposal also need to be considered. Requiring all residences within
the pilot district to pay at least the minimum fee is not the way Fort Collins operates.
Councilmember Manvel stated all people in town are required to pay for government services that
are provided for everyone, whether they use them or not. Most trash service in the country is
provided by a municipal server or a single contractor. The proposal is not advocating that the City
provide trash collection for its residents. Some groups in town already have districted service and
are pleased with the service. HOAs negotiate contracts with trash haulers where one hauler serves
the entire neighborhood for a reduced rate, which is the definition of a districted service. HOA
boards select the trash hauler for the entire neighborhood; the choice is not made by each residence.
A voluntary group could negotiate a contract with a trash hauler but it is not often a satisfactory,
long-term solution because the group rate disappears when new people move into the neighborhood
and do not want to join the group. It is also difficult to forma large, voluntary group that would have
the impacts that a trash district can have.
Councilmember Troxell stated people have the choice of moving into a neighborhood with an HOA
that requires the use of one trash hauler. Choice is removed when the City forms a district and
requires all residences within that district to participate.
Councilmember Ohlson stated most municipalities in the country have municipal trash service and
do not have multiple companies providing trash service. The City is not proposing to take over trash
hauling. Trash hauling is a licensed, regulated business in Colorado. State statute grants
municipalities authority to create districts and to regulate trash hauling but does not grant a
municipality the right to set rates. The pilot district does not include multi -family or commercial
trash collection. The district will not include any HOAs that have a contract with a trash hauler. The
district is a small portion of the trash collection in Fort Collins and should not put anyone out of
business. The issue has been carefully considered by City Council since 1985. This Council has
held four work sessions on the topic. The concept of neighborhoods banding together to form
voluntary groups for trash collection has not worked in the past and is not a good solution to the
issue. He thanked citizens for providing input. He supported the motion and did not support
referring the matter to the voters.
272
July 21, 2009
Councilmember Poppaw stated Council has worked on this issue for 18 months and much
information has been provided on which to base her decision. She thanked the citizens for providing
their input and concerns. The pilot district will provide valuable information to determine whether
districting the entire city would be a wise decision in the future. Residents within the district will
pay less for trash services, the impact of collection on the environment will be decreased, road
maintenance cost will be reduced and will lead to quieter streets.
Councilmember Roy thanked citizens for speaking about the issue. The resolution begins the
process to select a proposal to negotiate a contract for services with the selected trash hauler or
determine that no proposal is sufficient or satisfactory. He supported adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Troxell noted many citizens have urged Council not to adopt the resolution and he
thanked the citizens and the trash company employees who shared their thoughts. The pilot trash
district gives residents less choice, less service and will raise costs to citizens and the City. The
City's estimates are too low and the expectations are unrealistic concerning customer service. The
pilot objectives are not specified and there is no assessment plan. The consultant's report used by
staff was based on false and inadequate data and reporting. There will be multiple haulers within
the pilot district because commercial hauling will be provided by all three haulers. Creating a
government monopoly is not the solution and moving forward with a pilot district is not listening
to what citizens are saying. The City should not put local businesses out of business. He did not
support the resolution.
Councilmember Kottwitz stated the pilot program will allow a trash hauler to charge one single fee
which seems contradictory to the ordinance recently adopted which stated haulers could not charge
a flat fee. The goal of the pilot is to decrease trash truck traffic on residential streets and increase
aesthetics with uniform containers but with the program, residents can pay the fee and can choose
to opt out. An organized group is already planning to opt out of the pilot program. The goals of the
pilot will not be met. One compromise would be for the City to assist neighborhoods in forming
volunteer groups to negotiate a rate with one hauler. The residents in the pilot district have not been
notified of the proposed fee and will have their choice in trash haulers removed.
Councilmember Ohlson noted the pilot program will be developed over the next six months to
formalize the arrangements with the trash hauler who is awarded the contract. The fee will be
minimal because the cost will be lower for the residents in the district, similar to what HOAs
experience throughout the city.
Councilmember Manvel stated HOAs are exempt because they already have contracts with haulers.
The City is attempting to reduce truck traffic on residential streets and lower costs to residents. HOA
members already receive those benefits. Residents will see financial benefits from the formation of
a district even though they will not have a choice in which hauler to use. There will be less damage
to streets because there will be less heavy truck traffic on residential streets. This is not the
government "taking over" trash service but is the government organizing a group in the city to
receive certain benefits. He did not believe the pilot district will cause any trash hauler to go out of
business because most of the trash hauling in the city is not from residential, single-family housing
in the northwest quadrant of the city.
273
July 21, 2009
Councilmember Poppaw stated HOAs benefit from the ability to negotiate a contract with one hauler
for the entire neighborhood and that economy of scale should be extended as a benefit to other
residents in the city.
Mayor Hutchinson stated the issue is about people and choice and the City should not be removing
citizens' choice in this issue. Having neighborhoods voluntarily banding together to form a group
does not work because people want choice. The current system works quite well and does not need
to be fixed.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, and Roy. Nays:
Hutchinson, Kottwitz, Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
("Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.)
Councilmember Kottwitz left the meeting at this point.
Ordinance No. 077, 2009
Amending Chapter 26, Article VI, Division 4 of the City Code
Relating to Excess Circuit Charge, Adopted on Second Reading
The following is staff s memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on July 7, 2009, allows the Utilities to
respond promptly to a customer's request for excess capacity service based on the proposed Code
provision. The charges for the service will be stated in the Code and revised when electric cost of
service studies are updated. "
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance
No. 077, 2009 on Second Reading. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell.
Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 2009-071
Authorizing the Issuance of a Revocable Permit to the Board of Governors
of the Colorado State University System for Installation of Electric Service
Lines on City -owned Property, Adopted
The following is staffs memorandum for this item.
274
July 21, 2009
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Colorado State University (CSU) is in the process of constructing a new parkinggarage on the north
side of Prospect Road between Centre Avenue and Bay Street. CSU plans to install a solar array
on the roof of the new parking garage and would like to connect the garage and array to CSU's
electrical system on campus.
BACKGROUND
CSU has asked Council to grant a revocable permit to allow CSU to install conduits and cable
across Lake Street, between Centre Avenue and Bay Street. CSU is currently building anew parking
garage on the site and plans to install a solar array on the roof of the structure. CSUwould like to
connect the array to the campus electric distribution system it owns and operates.
As provided in Section 26-444(2) of the City Code, ifa customer -generator wishes to furnish electric
service to customer -generator's own propertyfor use by the customer -generator and installation
ofelectricfacilities under a public place is necessary, the installation shall be allowed only pursuant
to the issuance of a revocable permit approved by the City Council, after determination by
resolution that the provision of such service will not materially alter the viability of the electric
utility system and will benefit the citizens of Fort Collins as well as the customer -generator.
Connection of the parking garage and solar array to the electrical distribution system owned and
operated by CSU willprovide a significant benefit to the long range UniverCity goal of establishing
a zero energy district downtown and on campus. Additionally, as a partner in the FortZED
Renewable Distributed System Integration (RDSI) grant from the Department of Energy, CSU has
committed matchingfunds towards the grant. Permitting the parking garage solar array to connect
to the campus system will connect the facility to one of the two electrical feeders that are part of the
FortZED RDSI project. The installation of the solar array will add to the distributed resources
being utilized for the RDSI project and will help CSU meet its grant commitment. "
Councilmember Troxell withdrew from the discussion of Resolution 2009-071 Authorizing the
Issuance of a Revocable Permit to the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System
for Installation of Electric Service Lines on City -owned Property due to a conflict of interest.
Councilmember Roy asked if the project is required to place utility lines underground. Steve
Catanach, Light and Power Operations Manager, stated all the power lines will be placed
underground.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to adopt Resolution
2009-071. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, and Roy. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
275
July 21, 2009
Ordinance No. 062, 2009,
Amending Chapter 26, Article VI of the City Code Relating to
Net Metered Electric Service, Postponed to early 2010
The following is staff's memorandum for this item.
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on May 19, 2009, amends Chapter 26,
Article VI the City Code to define the net metering requirements for qualifying renewable generation
facilities. In light ofrecent technological and legislative developments, the City intends to formalize
its net metering program. Pursuant to a pilot program, the City has offered net metering services
to its customers since 2005 through special services contracts. The intent of this amendment to the
City Code is to codify the net metering rate in the Utility's existing rates.
During the June 2, 2009 Council meeting, Second Reading of the Ordinance No. 062, 2009, was
postponed. Staff was directed to come back with language that more clearly expresses the
generation limits on the maximum level at which net metering is offered.
Staff recommends the following revisions. The net metering rate language in each of the General
Services Rate Codes could be changed as detailed below. Additions to the Code language are
underlined.
"Net metering. Net metered service is available to a customer -generator producing
electricity exclusively with a qualifying facility and using a qualifying renewable
technology. For qualifying facilities that venerate more than twenty-five (25) kilowatts, the
generation capacity o such facility shall not exceed 125% ofthe customer's peak demand
or up -to -one megawatt, whichever is less. Ifthe customer's peakdemand is unknown, then
the name plate capacity of the customer's service entrance shall serve as the limit....... "
Staff has presented the language above to the Electric Board and the Electric Board voted 5-1 in
support of the proposed change. The Natural Resources Advisory Board had not met to consider
this language prior to the printing deadline of this Agenda Item Summary. A brief memo will be
placed in the "read -before" packet advising Council of the outcome of the Natural Resources
Advisory Board's consideration of this item.
BACKGROUND
In reference to the original proposed Code language, the size of generator a City of Fort Collins
customer could install was limited by both the physical limits of their service entrance equipment
and by the Parallel Generation portion of the Rate Code. The Parallel Generation component of
the Rate Code limits the size ofgeneration that can be installed to no greater than the customer's
instantaneous energy or capacity i.e., the customer's peak demand. The proposed revised net
metering language will increase that limit to 125% of peak demand for renewable technologies.
Additionally, if peak is unknown, the limit will be the service entrance size. In either case, by
276
July 21, 2009
limiting the size ofgeneration to either the customer's peak demand, 125% of the customer's peak
demand, or the name plate capacity of the service entrance, the ability of a customer to generate
more energy than they consume is limited.
Net metering is intended to define the financial treatment that will be applied to excess energy that
is generated by a renewable source. The Code language in the Ordinance adopted on First Reading
limits net metering to I megawatt for commercial customers and does not allow customers to install
generation up to I megawatt. The language states the City will purchase the annual excess energy
generated at the customer's retail energy rate for installations up to I megawatt. Under the Code
language adopted on First Reading, a customer must have a peak demand of I megawatt or greater
to install 1 megawatt of generation. If the revised language is approved, a customer with a peak
demand of 800 kilowatts could install up to 1 megawatt of generation. For most customers, this
would allow them to move closer to supplying their own energy needs but in most instances, they
would still not be producing any excess energy.
Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance on Second Reading with the revisions referenced
above.
Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to continue
consideration of Second Reading of Ordinance No. 062, 2009 until new interconnection standards
are brought forward.
Eric Sutherland, 631 LaPorte, stated in 2008, the State legislature required interconnection
.agreements to be similar to those interconnection agreements developed by the Public Utilities
Commission for regulating investor -owned utilities. The City's interconnection agreements do not
meet that standard. The City's Utility has hired a consultant to advise the City about its
interconnection agreements. There are model interconnection agreements available and it should
not be necessary for the City to spend money to hire a consultant.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and
Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember•Manvel, to adjourn the regular -
meeting until after the General Improvement District No. 1 meeting.
(Council adjourned into the General Improvement District No. 1 meeting at this point in the meeting)
Council reconvened at 10:35 p.m.
277
July 21, 2009
Suspension of Rules
Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to suspend the rules and
extend the meeting. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, and Roy. Nays: Troxell.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Executive Session Authorized
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to go into executive
session as permitted under Section 2-31(a)(3) of the City Code to consider the possible acquisition
of real property by the City for water storage purposes. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson,
Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
("Secretary's note: The Council went into executive session at this point in the meeting.)
Council reconvened at 11:32 p.m.
Councilmember Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to cancel the August 4,
2009 regular Council meeting to allow Councilmembers and staff to participate in Neighborhood
Night Out activities. Yeas: Hutchinson, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Roy and Troxell. Nays: none.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
The meeting adjourned at 1 1:35 p.m.
ATTEST:
- LL
City Clerk
Adjournment
278