HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 01/08/2008 - TRASH SERVICE STUDY DATE: January 8, 2008 WORK SESSION ITEM
STAFF: Ann Turnquist FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Trash Services Study.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Are the proposed problem statement,project scope and timeline acceptable to City Council?
2. Is the proposed range of options acceptable to City Council? Are there other options that
should be explored? Options that should be eliminated?
3. Staff plans to update the Trash Service Study which was completed in 1998, including an
updated Citizen Survey. Are both of these updates r p y pd s appropriate?
BACKGROUND
In the 2008-2009 Final Budget, City Council funded an offer to address trash services in Fort
Collins. A number of issues were identified as a part of the scope of the study, including the
possibility of creating districts for the collection of trash. Staff has developed a problem statement
to guide the work of the project:
Problem Statement:
In what ways can the City reduce the impacts of trash collection services in Fort
Collins, addressing issues of air quality, neighborhood aesthetics, noise, other
neighborhood impacts and the cost of street wear? Are there ways that the City
might also improve diversion rates for recyclables?
The project will review background information regarding trash collection issues in Fort Collins,
identification of issues (causes and effects), past studies, legal issues, and options for addressing
issues which are identified. The range of options under consideration will include:
1. Null alternative—no changes to the existing system.
2. Regulatory actions which address one or more of the identified issues: noise, air quality,
neighborhood aesthetics, safety, street damage and/or recycling diversion rates.
3. Districting of trash service with City billing and awarding of districts.
The purpose of this work session will be to review the general background information that will form
the basis of the Study and to seek Council direction on the range of alternatives to be considered.
January 8, 2008 Page 2
I. History of Trash Service in Fort Collins
Trash service can be provided to a community in a variety of ways. Many cities operate municipal
trash services where the city operates the utility with its own employees, trucks and billing. Other
communities regulate the collection of trash in a variety of ways including the use of private haulers
to collect trash in districts which are assigned through a competitive process. In some communities,
including Fort Collins,an open,competitive business environment exists where haulers compete for
customers and provide service throughout the community. Currently,three private haulers compete
for residential trash service customers in Fort Collins: Gallegos Sanitation/Dick's Trash Hauling,
Waste Management, Inc. and Ram Waste Services.
In 1964, the community chose to license private trash collection. The City's landfill on South Taft
Hill Road was transferred to Latimer County to manage.
Beginning in the late 1970s, five local trash haulers divided the city up into districts for exclusive
hauling and controlling prices. In 1985,the State of Colorado successfully brought an anti-trust suit
against Poudre Refuse Billing Service Corporation which represented the five haulers,and found that
the trash haulers had illegally colluded in a manner that undercut competition in the trash hauling
business. A number of haulers had worked together to set up the billing service which assigned
customers to a hauler based on geographic locations. This informal districting was found to be
illegal collusion. The State was successful in prosecuting the haulers and dispersed more than
$228,000 to approximately 7,000 Fort Collins customers that had been overcharged during the period
of the conspiracy covered in the lawsuit.
After the lawsuit was settled, the City was minimally involved in solid waste issues, though there
was continuing concern about street damage, truck weight violations, safety, noise and pollution.
When public interest in recycling grew in the 1980s, the Council began exploring available local
recycling opportunities. hi 1986, City Council earmarked $50,000 for waste reduction studies. A
pilot curbside recycling program was implemented in 1990 that showed strong community interest
in recycling. Natural Resource Department staff established new solid waste reduction goals,
starting with an ordinance in 1991 that required haulers to provide recycling upon request to
residential customers. The next year, Larimer County constructed a regional recycling center at the
landfill.
In 1995, the Council passed two significant Code changes that reformed the requirements made of
trash haulers as condition of their City license. A"bundling ordinance"took effect requiring haulers
to provide curbside recycling at no extra charge upon customer's request. This requirement was
followed by an ordinance that prescribed the use of a variable(volume-based or pay-as-you-throw)
rate structure for residential customers in Fort Collins.
Also in 1995, a marketing firm was hired to develop a new recycling campaign, and a Request for
Proposals was released for studies to be conducted on: (1)the feasibility of a City compost facility,
and(2)the feasibility of a consolidated trash collection system. A consulting firm(R.W. Beck)was
hired to prepare both reports. A task force helped study the issues around building a City compost
facility. However,high costs were estimated,and after concern was expressed about the City being
in competition with a local compost business, the project was deemed infeasible.
January 8, 2008 Page 3
H. History of Trash Districting Policy Discussion
In the mid-1990s, the City conducted several studies regarding the possibility of districted trash
service in the community. Benefits such as savings in street maintenance costs,safety,neighborhood
noise and pollution were predicted. Improved recycling and solid waste reduction were also
anticipated if a districted system were established.
When Council reviewed these studies,it requested more information on the economic effects to the
open competitive system and to customers, as well as a survey of public opinion about districting.
This additional study was conducted by the consulting firm of Hilton Farnkopf&Hobson(HF&F.)
In 1998, HF&H prepared a report on public opinion and economic considerations. The full report
is attached to this agenda item for Council's review (See Attachment 1)
Some key findings from the 1998 report include:
• A public survey showed a large margin of support for consolidated, or "districted" trash
service.
• Based on surveys of other communities, the consultant found higher trash collection costs
for residential customers in open competitive environments than in either contracted services
or municipal collection environments.
• The consultant predicted potentially lower prices to homeowners for trash service within the
regulated environment.
• Fewer trash trucks on City streets would mean the City could save at least$350,000 annually
on avoided street maintenance (1998 estimate). Costs and impacts were modeled, finding
that loaded trash trucks cause damage equivalent to 250 cars. The consultant noted that
residential streets were not built to withstand heavy weight trucks on a consistent or regular
basis.
• Other benefits from trash service consolidation were identified including:
0 Greater neighborhood safety and aesthetics
o Less air pollution
o Public goals and policies, e.g. recycling, would be easier to meet
• Several approaches to implementation were identified:
o City could subcontract with haulers, adding a line item charge to City Utility bills
0 City could compete with haulers by establishing its own Utility
Following the full Council's review of the consultant's report, the Council Finance Committee
suggested putting the issue on an election ballot in 1999. The Council Governance Committee
reviewed the recommendation to put districting to a vote of the citizens and asked for a work session
to be held with the entire Council (January 12, 1999)to review data from the HF&H report and to
put it into the perspective of City policies.
January 8, 2008 Page 4
The outcome of the 1998-99 Council discussion of the Trash Districting concept was direction from
Council to postpone the districting concept,but to instead fund new waste reduction projects and to
promote voluntary trash consolidation in neighborhoods. Concerns that led Council to defer any
action on trash districting included the impact of their decision on local trash haulers who might not
be awarded a district in a competitive process,and citizen concerns about the possibility of reduced
quality of service and the lack of choice in their trash hauler.
III. Changes since 1998 Trash Study
Since City Council's 1999 decision to defer the possible implementation of a districted trash system,
a number of conditions have changed for both the City organization and for the community.
• Fewer haulers in business in Fort Collins: In 1998,six private haulers provided residential
trash service in Fort Collins, which created the potential for twelve trucks to use any
neighborhood street in one week(6 trash and 6 recycling vehicles). In 2007,three residential
trash haulers continue to provide service in Fort Collins (Gallegos/Dick's, Waste
Management and Ram Waste.)
• More voluntary districting: Homeowner associations have been urged and assisted to use
single haulers for their neighborhoods. By encouraging HOAs to contract with a single
hauler or encourage all residents to voluntarily agree to use one hauler,the City has been able
to achieve some of the benefits of a formal trash districting system without implementing a
districting system. Most new HOAs voluntarily make one of these two arrangements with
trash haulers.
• Reduced funding and increased cost for Street Maintenance: In recent years,funding for
the Street Maintenance/Pavement Management Program has been subject to budget
reductions. A 2007 study of the Pavement Management Program found that the current
street system funding levels are inadequate to maintain the streets to adopted standards. In
addition,the cost of maintenance has increased significantly because of higher than normal
increases in construction and materials costs. These changes are not reflected in the 1998
calculations of the cost of street wear caused by trash trucks and need to be updated.
• Increased standards for residential streets: New minimum street structural design
standards were adopted as part of the updates to the Larimer County Urban Street Standards.
The minimum pavement sections are now designed to carry the construction truck traffic
during build out of a subdivision. A residual effect of this change is a reduced impact from
trash truck traffic on local streets in newer subdivisions. Since 1998, the City has added
approximately 100 miles of residential streets which have been constructed to this higher
standard.
• Recycling efforts: Additional City resources have been directed toward recycling including
funds for the creation and operation of the recycling drop-off center at Rivendell School and
an additional environmental planner position.
January 8, 2008 Page 5
• City Board and Commission involvement: In the past year, several City Boards have
encouraged City Council to pursue changes in trash service.The Natural Resources Advisory
Board and Air Quality Board have recommended pursuing districting. (See Attachment 2)
IV. Trash Service Policies/Practices in Other Communities and Industry Trends
In Colorado,a variety of trash hauling arrangements are used in municipalities. Many cities provide
municipal trash service directly to residents. In recent years, a number of local communities have
moved towards greater regulation or districting of trash services.
Municipal Trash Service Policies and Practices
Neighboring and Regional Communities
December 2007
City Community- Residential Who If private, Does City Any changes to
wide waste waste collects? how may contract collection
diversion diversion haulers? hauler to services
rate rate provide considered?
residential?
Fort 27% not private 3 haulers No yes, study
Collins separately sector provide underway in
measured residential; 2008
—10 haulers
provide
commercial
Windsor not measured not private 6 to 10 No yes, interested in
measured sector single bid for
entire town
Loveland not measured 52% City does 3 haulers No No
residential residential; provide<10%
private of residential;
sector does —II haulers
commercial provide
commercial
Greeley not measured not private —12 haulers; 4 No looked at it last
measured sector offer year briefly in
residential response to
service multiple
trucks in
neighborhoods
Longmont not measured 30% City does City has 95% No No
residential residential; of residential;
private 5 haulers
sector does provide
commercial commercial
January 8, 2008 Page 6
City Community- Residential Who If private, Does City Any changes to
wide waste waste collects? how may contract collection
diversion diversion haulers? hauler to services
rate rate provide considered?
residential?
Lafayette not measured not City 3 haulers Yes in October,
measured contracts provide—50% awarded contract
with one of residential; for single hauler
hauler for 4-6 haulers to provide all
non-HOA provide residential
residential commercial excluding HOAs
service
Denver not measured 10% City does 3 to 5 contract for yes,currently in
residential residential; commercial household master planning
private haulers hazardous process
sector does waste
commercial curbside
collection
Boulder 30-34% 52% private one hauler has No No
sector 90%of
residential; 10
haulers provide
commercial
In conducting this study, staff intends to gather information from other communities to explore the
pros and cons of various systems. Neighboring communities and benchmarked cities may also be
helpful in exploring the policy options which maybe available to address the issues which have been
identified.
V. Study Scope and Schedule
Staff has developed a proposed project scope for the Trash Services Study. Rather than focusing
solely on the option of districted trash service, the Study will examine a range of options which
address the problem statement. Staff will analyze and present a variety of options for Council's
consideration. General alternatives which will be pursued include:
• Null alternative—no changes to the existing system.
• Regulatory actions which address one or more of the identified issues: noise, air quality,
neighborhood aesthetics, safety, street damage and/or recycling diversion rates.
• Districting of trash service with City billing and awarding of districts.
The 2008-09 Budget includes funding for a review of trash services in Fort Collins. Staff proposes
to seek a consultant to update the 1998 Trash Study and develop options for improving trash service
in Fort Collins. Each proposed option will include detailed cost/benefit analyses and take into
account the impact on existing trash haulers and residents. The Study can also include an updated
public opinion survey on citizen views of trash service and the impacts of the current system on
January 8, 2008 Page 7
neighborhoods and the community as a whole. Specific information can be sought regarding the
interest of citizens in a districted trash system. Other avenues for citizen involvement will also be
utilized, such as web site outreach, media contacts, public meetings, and other techniques.
Staff also intends to involve the three existing private residential trash haulers in the process of
conducting this study. The impact of any changes to the City's trash services policies and practices
can have significant impact on these local businesses, therefore staff will work to ensure that they
are both informed and involved in the analysis of options under consideration. Current haulers have
provided information to their customers, and are soliciting their feedback on the issue. This
information will also be provided to Council for its consideration. (See Attachment 3)
Several issues for local haulers are concerns about whether the City can include a local preference
in a district bidding system; if multiple haulers will be able to remain in business under a districted
system; a concern for a balanced study and policy discussion; and concerns about expediting
Council's decision making process so that it does not adversely impact their businesses.
Staff proposes that the study be conducted as an update to the 1998 study, " Trash Districting
Feasibility Analysis," conducted by Hilton Farnkopf& Hobson. (Attachment 1)
Specific areas which staff believes need to be considered and updated include:
• Trash vehicle impact on residential streets with cost estimates
• Regional comparative costs under municipal, districted and open competitive models
• Economic impact of districting and other possible regulatory changes
• Public opinion survey regarding citizen interest in districting and other possible regulatory
changes
Proposed Schedule
Presuming Council agrees with the proposed problem statement and scope of work, staff has
developed a proposed schedule for completion of the Study. The overall goal of the schedule is to
complete the policy discussion in 2008.
First Quarter 2008:
• January 8 Work Session to set project scope and review schedule
• Initiate update of 1998 Study including RFP for Consulting Services and community survey
(if needed)
• Identify and contact stakeholders (haulers, boards and commissions, community groups,
individual interested parties)
Second Quarter 2008:
• Develop detailed options for public and Council consideration
• Public Outreach process
• Community meetings, website outreach, utility billing insert (March '08)
• Complete Study
January 8, 2008 Page 8
Third Quarter 2008:
• Council work session: Review detailed options; community feedback;study update; survey
data. Council direction re: alternative legislative actions to prepare for Council's formal
consideration.
Fourth Quarter 2008:
• Council decision making
ATTACHMENTS
1. 1998 Study: Trash Districting Feasibility Analysis.
2. Board and Commission communication re: Trash Service.
3. Customer flyers, Gallegos Sanitation and Ram Waste System.
rl
cc
rl
cc
rl
cc
cc
cc
cc CITY OF FORT COLLINS
cc
CC Trash Districting Feasibility Analysis
cc
rl
C c May 1 , 1998
cc
cPrepared by:
cc HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC
Cc
Cc
Cc
cc
cc
cc
CITY OF
FORT COLLINS
TRASH DISTRICTING FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVESUMMARY............................................................. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . i
CHAPTER1 BACKGROUND ................................ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ........................ .. .. .. I
CHAPTER 2 TRUCK IMPACTS ...................................................... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7
CHAPTER 3 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY .......... ......................... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..................................... II
CHAPTER 4 DISTRICTING MODEL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS . *see *see 21
CHAPTER 5 COMPARABLE RATES ........................... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ............................................... .. .. 28
CHAPTER 6 OTHER DISTRICTING IMPACTS ................................................................................ 32
CHAPTER 7 IMPLEMENTING DISTRICTS ................................. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ................................. 38
APPENDICES
Traffic Impact Analysis Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A
Public Opinion Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix B
Summary of Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix C
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1995, the City of Fort Collins (City) Council adopted a policy to reduce the average number
of trash trucks per week on residential streets from six to two on at least 80 % - 85 % of the
residential streets. The purpose of this policy is intended to respond to complaints from citizens
about trash truck traffic and to reduce street maintenance expenses.
Subsequently, the City engaged a consulting firm to perform an initial Districting feasibility
analysis and another firm to identify the costs associated with implementing Districting.
In February 1998, the City selected Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC (HF&H), through a
competitive process, to perform a more detailed feasibility analysis of creating a districted trash
collection system for residential customers. The purpose of this analysis is to provide a greater
understanding of what will happen if the City were to award residential trash hauling contracts
for specified geographic districts in the City (hereafter referred to as "Districting') .
Our analysis found many benefits to the City and customers from Districting, including:
❖ Districting would result in a reduction to the number of trash and recycling trucks traveling
on City streets. According to the City's model, this reduced number of trucks would
reasonably be expected to also reduce traffic congestion, noise and air pollution and street
maintenance costs . Assuming an average reduction in trash and recycling vehicles from six
to two per week on a typical residential street, the associated annual street maintenance cost
savings is roughly $322,000;
❖ According to our public opinion survey, a majority of the City' s residents can be expected to
support the City's interest in Districting;
❖ According to our economic analysis, a Districting system comprised of five or less districts
would likely result in savings of as much as $500,000 annually from the current Open
Competitive system's current residential rates. (Savings could be significantly greater if
certain system changes were implemented such as automated collection.) This result is
generally supported by our survey of comparable community rates from which we found
that Open Competitive systems tend to have higher rates than either municipal or
contracted systems.; and,
❖ Other benefits such as improved aesthetics, comparability of services and rates, and reduced
City liability may accrue from Districting.
However, our analysis also identified certain disadvantages to the City, customers and
collection companies:
❖ Districting will require increased attention by the City Council and staff both during the
implementation stage and thereafter. (The associated costs are included in our economic
analysis and we have assumed that the City would be reimbursed for the cost of these
efforts through the residential rates) .
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC i
City of Fort Collins
❖ Customers will lose their ability to choose their collector, unless they are willing to
additionally pay a second collector. (This did not appear to be a major drawback in the
public opinion survey responses.)
❖ Districting will probably result in changes that will adversely affect customers such as
transitioning to a different hauler, adjusting to new services and even, increased rates in
some particular cases
❖ Finally, it is almost certain that some of the current collectors may be disadvantaged by
Districting. It is unlikely that all will continue to provide residential service in the City and
those remaining may be operating at lower levels of profitability. The degree to which a
particular collector is disadvantaged is directly related to the proportion of their profits,
which result from residential operations in the City.
We conclude from our analysis, that it is in the City' s and customers' overall best interest to
create up to five districts and contract exclusively with one collector for service in that district.
Whether the non-economic disadvantages of Districting outweigh both the non-economic
benefits and the significant economic benefits is a decision which the City Council must make .
ii Trash Districting Study
Chapter 1 — Background
CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND
Primarily in response to concerns regarding excessive trash
and recycling collection vehicle traffic on residential streets
which results in ongoing street damage, the City of Fort
Collins (City) engaged Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC
(HF&H) to: analyze the cost and benefits of switching to a
districted trash and recycling collection system from the
current "open " system; and to analyze public opinion
related to such a change. The purpose of the study is to
determine if districting could meet the City 's primary goals
of reducing vehicle traffic in residential neighborhoods and
reducing costs to residents . Other policy and programmatic
implications that should be considered were also to be
identified.
BACKGROUND
Overview of Current System
The City maintains an " open system' for trash and recycling collection. In an open system, the
resident has the ability to select its collector from any company that maintains a City license to
haul trash and recyclables within the City. Currently, there are six licensed collectors:
1) BFl Waste Systems;
2) Dick' s Trash Hauling;
3) Gallegos Sanitation, Inc.;
4) Ram Waste Systems, Inc.;
5) S&S Sanitation; and,
6) Waste Management.
These collectors range in size from very small privately held companies, to the largest publicly
traded solid waste management companies in the world. Typically, residents receive weekly
trash collection using either customer-supplied containers or company supplied carts. The
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 1
City of Fort Collins
collectors must offer recycling service. Typically, this service is provided using a company
provided 18-20 gallon bin (tub) .
Each rate shown below includes a service fee of $4.00-$5.00 and the remainder of the rate is
volume based (e. g., $4.00 for the first 33 gallons and $4. 00 for each additional 33-gallons), per
City requirements. As Table 1-1 below describes : The rates for 2-33 gallon cans range from
$12.60 to $13 . 70, a difference of 8.7% or only $13 .20 a year. The prices for 90 gallon cart service
range from $16.95 to $22.86, a difference of approximately 35 % . The difference in cart service
rates may result from the number of cart accounts each collector services (both inside and
outside of the City), and the collectors' relative economies of scale related to purchasing the
carts and collection efficiency.
Table 1 - 1
1997 Residential Rates
Category
( Includes Service Fee ) BFI Dick' s Gallegos Ram S &S Waste
Mgt .
1 -33 gallon can $8 . 33 $9 . 00 $ 8 . 35 $9 . 10 $8 . 40 $9 . 10
2-33 gallon can $ 12 . 6 $ 13 . 0 $ 12 . 65 $ 13 . 7 $ 12 . 6 $ 13 . 70
6 0 0 0
3-33 gallon can $ 16 . 9 $ 17 . 0 $ 16 . 95 $ 18 . 3 $ 16 . 8 $ 18 . 30
9 0 0 0
1 -65 gallon cart N/A $ 17 . 5 $ 12 . 65 $ 13 . 7 N /A $ 13 . 70
0 0
1 -90 gallon cart $ 17 . 0 $20 . 0 $ 16 . 95 $ 18 . 3 $22 . 8 $ 18 . 30
0 0 0 6
What a Districted System Means for Residents
Under a districted trash collection system, the City would be divided into one or more
geographic areas, and only one company would be designated to collect trash and recyclables in
each district' . Therefore, a resident and their immediate neighbors would all use the same
collector. Benefits of a districted system from a resident's perspective often include:
❖ The opportunity for reduced trash bills due to the trash collectors' reduced costs
which result from increased operational efficiencies;
' The actual number of districts would depend on collection efficiencies, the number of different collectors/recyclers desired
by the City and the savings related to fewer districts for residents and the City.
2 Trash Districting Study
Chapter 1 — Background
❖ An opportunity to increase residential service levels, such as adding separate yard
waste collections, or increasing the types of recyclable materials collected;
❖ Less damage to roadways, since fewer large trucks would travel on individual
neighborhood streets;
❖ Less air pollution and traffic congestion and improved traffic safety, since fewer big
trucks would be on residential streets;
❖ Improved community appearance, since neighbors would all set out trash containers
on the same day of the week; and,
❖ Less noise, since trash would be picked up only one day each week in each
neighborhood.
Disadvantages of districting from a resident' s perspective might be that:
❖ Residents would not be able to choose which trash collector to use without paying
higher rates 2;
❖ Residents may end up with a different trash collector, since the City would select
one company for the entire district;
❖ Trash collection schedules may change for residents, since the single collector would
establish new collection days and times;
❖ Some residents may experience increased rates, if higher than current service levels
are required;
❖ Some residents may experience short-term disruptions in service, such as missed
pickups, since a new trash collector would need to learn the new routes and special
services on those routes; and,
❖ Some residents may need to use different trash and recycling containers, depending
on the service offered by the new collector.
PRIMARY ENGAGEMENT
OBJECTIVES
HF&H was hired by the City of Fort Collins to complete three key study objectives:
❖ Evaluate the impact of reduced vehicle traffic on residential streets as a result of
districting;
❖ Survey public opinion regarding districting; and,
❖ Analyze the cost/benefits of a districted system.
2 Under a districted system, residents would be obligated to pay for service provided by the City's designated hauler,
although they may be able to continue with their current collector for an additional fee.
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 3
City of Fort Collins
In order to accomplish these objectives, HF&H in consultation with the City developed the
following scope of work.
SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work was comprised of six tasks:
Evaluate Traffic Impacts
HF&H reviewed the City Engineering Department' s original Truck Impact Analysis for
reasonableness, mathematical accuracy and logical consistency . We found the original
methodology to be reasonable. We did, however, revise a number of the assumptions used in
the analysis, and updated certain data based on information provided by the City and the
collectors. The result of the updated analysis was an estimated street maintenance cost savings
resulting from districting. Our findings are described in Chapter 2.
Evaluate Public Opinion
As requested, HF&H developed a residential customer survey in order to help gauge public
opinion regarding the current level of trash and recycling services and predict residents'
reactions to the implementation of districted service. The City's direct mail contractor mailed
the survey to approximately 3,000 residences, based on the likelihood of receiving at least 384
responses, a statistically valid response. 813 responses were received, although not all
respondents answered every question. Our interpretation of the results is described in detail in
Chapter 3.
Determine Rate Impacts of Districting
As described in Chapter 4, we projected rate impacts from different districting scenarios. In
order to accomplish this, we have spoken with a number of the current collectors. We also
relied on industry data and our extensive files from trash and recycling procurements and
financial reviews . As discussed in our limitations section, while we are confident in the
justification of our method and data, it is impossible to predict the behavior of collectors in a
competitive environment. In spite of our best efforts to identify likely outcomes, actual results
could be different and those differences could be significant.
Gather Comparable Rates
In order to evaluate the current residential rates and services, HF&H was asked to survey at
least 10 other jurisdictions' trash systems. In response, we surveyed over 20 jurisdictions as
described in Chapter 5 . Based on our experience, we would recommend that the reader use
caution when comparing rates among jurisdictions. Rarely are rates comparable among
jurisdictions because they seldom reflect similar services, geography, pricing strategies,
demographics or competitive environments .
4 Trash Districting Study
Chapter 1 — Background
Identify Other Benefits of Districting
In addition to a reduction in vehicle traffic and a possible reduction in overall rates, there are a
number of other significant benefits that can be obtained by the City and its residents through
districting. Some of these impacts include, but are not limited to:
❖ Improved street aesthetics (e.g., same day collection and similar containers);
❖ Higher levels of collector insurance which helps protect customers from collector
accidents and damage to private property;
❖ Hazardous waste and other indemnifications to the City and its rate payers to
protect against future litigation and CERCLA claims, which could lead to higher
rates;
❖ Long-term, fully-permitted disposal capacity;
❖ Increased recycling services (including yard waste collection);
❖ Reduced vehicle emissions due to decreased truck traffic; and,
❖ Reduced vehicle traffic in residential neighborhoods since collection would only be
one day per week for each district.
These benefits are discussed in detail in Chapter 6.
Estimate the City's Districting Start-Up Costs
Should the City elect to implement districted trash service, a number of activities need to take
place in order to successfully transition from the current open system to districts. In Chapter 7,
we describe each of these activities in detail and provide a range of cost estimates for each of
these activities.
LIMITATIONS
Although we have followed the scope of work as proposed, there are a number of limitations
inherent in our analysis:
❖ HF&H' s updating of the City' s 1994 Vehicle Impact Analysis did not address the
reasonableness of the City' s underlying assumptions related to current residential
street mileage, the life of a typical residential street, the average maintenance cost
per mile, the daily vehicle loadings on those streets, or changes in street maintenance
costs over time;
❖ Our role in the public opinion survey was limited to creating the questions and
format and analyzing the results. We did not verify the compilation of the results or
the randomness of the survey;
❖ Where current rates are discussed, we relied on the City's survey of the collectors
and the public opinion survey;
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 5
City of Fort Collins
❖ Since the City receives no financial information from the current collectors, we were
not able to base our analysis on the actual cost to provide residential service in the
City and therefore had to base our analysis on data from other jurisdictions.
❖ We have used financial and operational data from companies providing similar
services and data from competitive procurements (much of which is proprietary and
therefore confidential); and,
❖ Our analysis of the impact of districting on current rates is based on industry
standards, other competitive districting procurements with which we are familiar
and information provided by the City and the collectors. However, it is impossible to
precisely predict in advance the outcome of a competitive procurement due to
market conditions and competitive pressures on the collectors. Therefore, we have
been conservative in our analysis, however, the actual impact could be more or less
than estimated, and that difference could be significant;
6 Trash Districting Study
Chapter 2 - Truck Impacts
CHAPTER 2
TRUCK IMPACTS
One of the real benefits of districted residential trash
collection is a reduction in the number of trash and
recycling vehicles traveling on the City 's residential
streets. As trash and recycling vehicle traffic decreases,
associated traffic congestion, vehicle noise and air pollution
would also be expected to decrease. In addition, the City
may be able to realize significant savings in its annual
residential street maintenance costs.
A benefit from districted residential trash collection is a reduction in the number of trash and
recycling vehicles traveling on individual residential streets in the City. As trash and recycling
vehicle traffic decreases, associated traffic congestion, vehicle noise and air pollution would also
decrease. In addition, the City may be able to realize significant savings in its annual residential
street maintenance costs. As part of this engagement, HF&H assisted the City with the
estimation of the annual residential street maintenance cost savings, which may result from a
reduction in the average number of trash and recycling vehicles as a result of districting.
Background
The City' s Engineering Department prepared an analysis in 1994 of the impact of trash and
recycling vehicles on the average annual maintenance cost for a typical residential street in the
City. That analysis included the following general assumptions:
❖ The average life of a typical residential street is 20 years (at current levels of
residential trash and recycling vehicle traffic);
❖ An average of 250 vehicles travel on a typical residential street each day over its
lifetime, with four (4) percent of those vehicles being trucks;
❖ The average street maintenance cost over the 20 year life of a typical residential
street was $280,000 per mile in 1994 (that cost is currently estimated to be roughly
$315,000 in 1998 dollars, assuming a 3.5 % annual cost increase);
❖ There were a total of 200 miles of residential streets in 1994 (that figure is currently
250 miles (1998)) as a result of growth and annexations;
❖ Typical trash and recycling vehicles operating on the City's residential streets are
half-full;
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 7
City of Fort Collins
❖ Trash and recycling vehicle traffic on a typical residential street are equal (i.e., if a
trash vehicle for a given company serves a residential street, a recycling vehicle for
that company also serves that street and travels the same distance); and,
❖ The impact of individual trash and recycling vehicles on those streets that are
traveled will be the same under a districting scenario as it is with Open Competition.
The only difference is the number of miles which each vehicle impacts (i.e., districted
vehicles will impact fewer street miles) .
The impact of vehicle traffic on a residential street depends on both the number and weight of
those vehicles . For purposes of projecting the impact of trash and recycling vehicles, two
additional major assumptions were required: (1) the average weight of typical residential trash
and recycling vehicles, and (2) the associated average axle weight of those vehicles (i.e., the
weight borne by each axle of the vehicle) which dictates the impact of those vehicles on the
City' s streets.
Using the general assumptions noted above, and associated axle weights of " typical" residential
trash and recycling vehicles, the impact of reducing the average number of those vehicles on the
City' s residential streets was estimated. That reduced impact was reflected as additional life in
the typical residential street beyond the 20-year baseline estimate, and as an associated saving
in annual street maintenance costs. Central to the analysis was the assumption that the lifetime
maintenance cost of a typical residential street does not change, regardless of life span, and
accordingly, the average annual street maintenance cost decreases as street life increases. This
occurs since that cost is spread across a longer period of time.
Methodology
HF&H reviewed the City Engineering Department's original analysis for reasonableness,
mathematical accuracy and logical consistency. Our review found that the approach used by the
City, as described above, was generally reasonable, logically consistent and mathematically
accurate. We did, however, revise the assumed gross weight and associated axle weight of the
" typical" trash and recycling vehicles used in the analysis, based on updated information
provided by the collectors. Using this updated vehicle weight information and updated street
maintenance costs and mileage, we revised the City' s analysis following the original approach.
The results of that analysis are summarized in Table 2-1, with the projected savings resulting
from districting presented as both a percent increase in street life, and an associated monthly
savings in annual street maintenance cost per residential trash account. A summary of the
Traffic Impact Analysis is included as Appendix A.
Findings
As shown in Table 2-1, the projected savings are dependent upon the average number of trash
and recycling vehicles currently assumed to be traveling on a typical residential street, and the
number of those vehicles which would remain after districting. For purposes of this analysis,
we have assumed that districting would result in an average of two vehicles per typical
residential street per week (one trash and one recycling vehicle) .
8 Trash Districting Study
Chapter 2 - Truck Impacts
Table 2 - 1
Vehicle Impact Summary
Assumed Number
of Weekly Trash Projected Monthly Savings
and Recycling per Residential Account Total Annual Citywide
Vehicles Savings
Associated Old Street New Street Old Street New Street
Current Districte Percent Increase Construction Construction Construction Construction
System d in Street Life Standards Standards Standards Standards
System
10 2 17 . 4 $2 .21 $ 1 . 99 $7005000 $630 , 000
8 2 12 . 5 $ 1 . 59 $ 1 .43 $5035000 $453 , 000
6 2 8 . 0 $ 1 . 02 $0 . 91 $3225000 $290 , 000
4 2 3 . 9 $0 .49 $0 .44 $ 1555000 $ 139 , 000
The City could further reduce the number of trash and recycling vehicles per street, per week to
one, using co-collection vehicles that can collect both trash and recyclables in a single vehicle.
Additionally, should the City elect to implement a separate yard waste program, a co-collection
vehicle could be used to limit the number of vehicles to two per street (one for refuse and yard
waste and one for recycling), per week.
It should be noted that there is currently some geographic consolidation of accounts with
specific haulers which may reduce the average number of haulers serving streets in those areas.
In addition, even with districting there may be multiple haulers serving certain residential
streets due to the presence of multi-family units. These multi-family units are considered
commercial accounts and their service provider would not be impacted by districting.
If districting is pursued and street maintenance cost savings are realized, those savings would
not be expected to be realized in full until correction of " current system damage' has been
completed. As such, current residential street maintenance costs per mile would not be expected
to decrease significantly in the short-term.
Finally, the City recently developed and implemented new construction specifications for
residential streets. This action was taken largely to minimize large vehicle impacts associated
with construction of new residential developments. The new specifications require 3.5 inches of
asphalt on 6 inches of base compared with the old standard of 3 inches of asphalt on 4 inches of
base. The City' s Engineering Department projects that these new standards will reduce
maintenance costs by roughly 10 percent each year. Accordingly, the trash and recycling vehicle
impacts which have been projected based on the former construction standards would be
reduced by approximately 10 percent, for those residential streets constructed according to the
new standards as shown in Table 2-1 . This reduced maintenance cost will be realized gradually
over time. New residential street construction is projected to increase at roughly 3.5 % per year,
while roughly 5 percent of existing residential streets will be upgraded each year (based on an
average 20 year life) . Therefore, the entire benefits of these upgraded construction specifications
will take roughly 20 years to realize.
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 9
City of Fort Collins
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
10 Trash Districting Study
Chapter 3 Public Opinion Survey
CHAPTER 3
PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY
Based on the results of the public opinion survey, a
majority of Fort Collins ' residents favor trying a districted
trash and recycling collection system . A significantly lesser
number are opposed to changing their current collector.
Most residents report that they participate in recycling, but
do not wish to pay more to recycle more types of materials.
Residents want to pay their trash collection bills either
directly to the collector, or optionally through the City 's
utility bill, preferably four times per year.
PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY
In order to gauge residents' feelings regarding their current trash and recycling services, as well
as their opinions regarding a districted waste collection system, the City and HF&H conducted
a public opinion survey of the City' s residents.
Approach
As requested, HF&H developed a draft survey instrument designed to solicit residents'
opinions regarding the provision of both current and future trash and recycling collection.
Subsequent to City review and comment on this draft, HF&H revised the survey in order to
meet all of the City' s needs with the survey instrument. Among the goals of the survey were the
following:
❖ Educate the public on what districting might mean to them.
❖ Determine the public' s level of support for various aspects of districting.
❖ Elicit the public' s descriptions of their current services and their thoughts about
those services.
❖ Ask the public about their preferred method of trash and recycling collection billing.
❖ Provide the public an opportunity to share related comments.
Based on these goals, the survey contained an introductory section that reviewed the concepts
associated with districted trash collection, followed by four sections eliciting residents'
responses to:
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 11
City of Fort Collins
1) Districted Trash and Recycling Collection Alternatives.
2) Description of Current Trash and Recycling Collection Services.
3) Bill Payment Method Preferences.
4) Freeform Comments .
A separate City contractor, First Class Direct, Inc ., generated a random survey pool of 3,000
residents, and mailed the survey to them. A postage-paid return envelope was included with
each survey. They were returned to First Class Direct' s offices, where responses were tallied
and entered into a database.
To get as much of an overall sampling as possible, four zip codes in Fort Collins were selected -
80521, 80524, 80525, and 80526. The list of addresses was then selected for 1,500 homeowners
and 1,500 renters throughout these zip codes. Then further selected for 750 of each group with
children, and 750 without children. Then a random selection was made from each zip code
using the above criteria. A total of 813 respondents submitted their completed surveys to First
Class Direct for tabulation. First Class Direct submitted those results to HF&H for analysis. A
summary of findings for each of the four survey sections is presented below. A copy of
the survey is attached as Appendix B and the summary of the responses is included as
Appendix C.
Districted vs . Open Trash & Recycling Collection
Questions 1-4 of the survey solicited residents' thoughts regarding districted trash collection.
Question 1 asked respondents to identify the importance of seven criteria related to districted
trash and recycling collection. Question 2 asked residents to determine the importance of five
criteria related to retaining an open system of collection. Questions 3 and 4 asked the residents
to provide their overall opinion as to whether they supported districted or open collection
systems, respectively.
Based on the results of Question 1 ( " the following benefits of districting are important to me "), a clear
majority of Fort Collins' residents would appreciate the benefits of districted trash collection.
For all identified benefits, 62.7-73.8 percent of the residents rated those benefits as either
important or very important. Only 14.4-21 .3 percent strongly or very strongly disagreed with
the importance of the identified benefits . Chart 3-1, below, graphically summarizes residents'
responses to each potential benefit. The purpose of Charts 3-1 and 3-2 is to illustrate a weighted
average for each question in order to factor in the strength of feelings that often surrounds trash
issues. The weighting is also intended to take into account those respondents that had no
opinion on a particular question. See the footnote below Chart 3-1 for a further explanation.
12 Trash Districting Study
Chapter 3 Public Opinion Survey
Chart 3 - 1
Importance of Districted Collection Benefits*
Very Strong U
_ = v1
N = 0 lY Z
o
� m
Cn
W am Q (n
StrongCU y J
J � 0 J m
0
M . Z
Neutral
Strom
❑ Support ❑ Opposition
"Chart 3-1 was derived numerically by weighting all "Strongly Agree/Disagree' responses with double the value of
"Agree/Disagree" responses. All "Neither" responses were assigned a zero value. Thus, in Chart 3-1, and in succeeding
charts of similar design, a large number of "Neither" responses is indicated by a shorter bar, top-to-bottom, for that
particular question. There were few "Neither" responses throughout the survey, so a taller bar generally indicates a
greater number of responses. The white portion of the bar above the "Neutral' axis is reflective of weighted values in the
same manner as the gray bars below the "Neutral' axis. All axes of all charts of this design use the same scale from Very
Strong Support down to Neutral, down to Strong Opposition.
Chart 3-1 reflects the strong support for, and relatively little opposition to the perceived benefits
of districted trash collections. Specific results for each of the attributes surveyed in Question 1
are shown in Table 3-1 below.
Table 3 - 1
Support for Districted Collection
Agree/ Disagree/ Number of
Question Strongly Agree NeutralStrongly DisagreeResponses
There would be less truck traffic 72.9 % 11 .5 % 15.6 % 776
Traffic safety would improve 65.2 15 .8 19.0 774
The community would look better 66.4 16.1 17.5 777
Trash bill might be reduced 62. 7 15.9 21 .3 759
There would be less air pollution 71 .0 13 .2 15.9 772
Fewer trucks to damage roads 73 .8 11 . 7 14.4 777
Less truck collection noise 71 . 7 13.9 14.4 777
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 13
City of Fort Collins
While the survey responses are very positive regarding perceived benefits, it should be noted
that 21 .3 percent of the respondents do not place importance on the possibility that trash bills
would be reduced as a result of Districted Collection. This response could be interpreted to
mean that residents either do not believe that trash bills would be reduced, or that they are
price insensitive to lower trash bills, compared to the other benefits .
Question 2 ( "the following benefits of keeping trash collection as it is are important to me "), solicited
respondents' opinions about the benefits of retaining the current open collection system. While
respondents ascribed importance to some of the benefits of an open system, the level of support
for those benefits was much weaker than that of the districting system (as shown by the shorter
length of the bars) . Of significant importance, there was a greater percentage of respondents
who indicated disagreement or strong disagreement with the importance of open selection
benefits, as compared with Districted Collection. Chart 3-2, below, graphically presents the
support for and opposition to the importance of benefits with an open system.
Chart 3 -2
Importance of Open System Benefits
Very Strong
O L
O j
U
Strong O U Q O
U +, p U
QM . . m a a�
Y M 0 f°
Y �
Z
Neutral
Strong
❑ Support ❑ Opposition
Chart 3-2 indicates that respondents agreed most strongly with the benefits of retaining the
option of selecting their trash collector. The second highest response was for being able to use
the same trash containers as they have in the past, followed closely by being able to keep the
same trash collector. The weakest support, and strongest disagreement was for keeping the
same day and time for trash collection. Table 3-2 provides numeric responses to each of the five
identified benefits.
14 Trash Districting Study
Chapter 3 Public Opinion Survey
Table 3 -2
Support for Open System
Agree/ Disagree/ Number of
Question Strongly Agree Neutral Strongly DisagreeResponses
Keeping current trash collector 45 .8 % 26. 7 % 27. 6 % 754
Selecting my trash collector 50.0 24.8 25 . 1 745
Keeping same collection day & time 31 .5 34.5 34 . 0 750
No transitional disruption 36.5 33 .4 30 . 1 746
Continue to use same containers 46.8 28 .3 24 .8 755
The amount of neutral responses for the open system is about twice as high as that of
districting, suggesting that significantly more respondents do not care either way about an open
system. Finally, respondents indicated disagreement with the benefits of an open system about
twice as often as they did for districting. These results are supported by the responses to
Questions 3 and 4 of the survey, which solicited overall support for districted and open
selection, respectively, all things considered. Chart 3-3, below, graphically depicts the results of
this comparison.
Chart 3 -3
Overall Support for Districted vs . Open System
Very Strong
Try Districtir
Strong
Keep Open Sys
Neutral
Strong
O Support ■ Opposition
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 15
City of Fort Collins
Chart 3-3 indicates very strong support, overall, for a desire to try districted trash collection.
There was some opposition to districted trash collection, but that opposition was not as strong
as that shown for keeping the open system method. Further, the support for retaining the open
system method was only about half that of residents' desires to try Districted Collection. Table
3-4, below, presents the numeric responses to these two questions.
Table 3-4
Districted vs . Open System
Agree/ Disagree/ Number of
Question Strongly Agree NeutralStrongly DisagreeResponses
Try Districted Collection 65 . 8 % 10.8 % 23 .4 % 766
Keep open system 30 . 7 22.0 47.3 719
Table 3-4 indicates that support for districted trash collection is twice as strong as staying with
the current open system. Further, the number of "fence sitters," those who do not have opinions
one way or another, is twice as high under the open system. Finally, and perhaps most
importantly, over twice as many respondents indicated that they do not want to keep the
current system, compared with trying Districted Collection. This response is particularly
significant, since those who do not want to keep the current system represented almost half of
the number of responses.
Current Trash & Recycling Collection
Questions 5-16 of the survey solicited information about current trash and recycling services.
Among the information requested was information about annual bill amounts, number of
containers put out each week, the length of time with the current hauler, and participation in
recycling programs. The primary findings for these indicative questions are presented below.
Current Bill Amounts
Respondents were asked to estimate their annual trash and recycling collection bills . There was
a very wide range of responses, from $3-$720, but approximately half of the responses clustered
around the ten most common amounts. The average annual bill paid by survey respondents
was $152, which amounts to $12.64 per month. There may have been some misunderstanding of
this question regarding the time period to estimate bills, which might explain the response of $3
annual collection bills. Other responses included $10, $12, $18, and $20, which may or may not
be valid answers to the question. To that extent, the average might be skewed downward. On
the other hand, there were 15 responses of annual bills totaling $400-720. If any of those
responses are invalid, then the average would be lower.
Self-Haul
According to the survey results, 17.6 % of the respondents self-haul their trash at least once per
year, while 82.4 % do not. Of those who self-haul their trash, most do so only 2-6 times per
year — approximately 78.9 % of the respondents reported making 2-6 trips per year. Only three
respondents reported making 50, 52, and 90 trips, respectively, during the course of one year.
This means that almost every resident subscribes to trash collection service.
16 Trash Districting Study
Chapter 3 Public Opinion Survey
Container Numbers
Residents reported using cans, bags, dumpsters, carts, bins, boxes, barrels, tubs, etc . The most
common responses were for one can, one bag, or one cart. Of those three responses, the most
common number of containers was one can (240), one cart (164), and one bag (156) . The
responses for the most common containers are summarized in Table 3-5, below:
Table 3-5
Common Container Types
Cans Number Bags Number Carts Number
0 . 5 2 0 . 5 5 1 164
1 240 1 156 2 4
2 92 2 62
3 25 3 21
4 3 4 6
Given the wide range of types and quantities of containers in use, any attempt to change service
levels would require consideration of the variety and type of residents' containers. While
respondents did not indicate strong opposition, there may be some strong sentiment against
changing containers, if those respondents assumed that they would be able to continue to use
containers substantially the same as they now use.
Trash Collector
Respondents reported a wide range of periods that they have used their current trash collector,
from 1 month to 36 years. The average weighted period that respondents have used the same
collector was 4 years, 6 months, although the single most common response was 12 months .
Respondents reported that the last time they considered changing their trash collector also
varied widely, from 1 month to 36 years . The average weighted time that respondents indicated
they last considered changing their trash collector was 2 years, 5 months, although the single
most common response was 12 months.
A majority of the respondents indicated that their hauler was not the same one used by their
neighbors. Of those that responded, 36.4 % indicated that they used the same collector, while
63.6 % said they used a different one.
These responses indicate that a majority of the respondents are either satisfied with their
current collector and do not often consider changing, or simply do not care about changing
haulers, given current conditions. This result is surprising because the strongest perceived
benefit of an open system is the freedom to switch haulers (which seems to occur infrequently
for those surveyed) .
Efforts to Recycle
Questions 11-15 were designed to gauge respondents' current recycling efforts, as well as their
demand for more recycling services. In general, respondents are satisfied with their recycling
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 17
City of Fort Collins
service, and believe that they make every effort to recycle their materials. Further, a very large
majority, 78 .5 percent, indicated that they wanted to recycle more types of materials.
However, when questioned about whether residents wanted to use separate yard waste
containers, only a simple majority (52.8 % ) indicated support. It is also clear that most residents
would not want to pay more to increase the type of materials recycled. Table 3-6, below
provides numeric indicators of respondents' support for recycling.
Table 3 -6
Support for Recycling
Agree/ Disagree/ Number of
Question Strongly Agree Neutral Strongly DisagreeResponses
Satisfied with current recycling service 77.4 % 13 .8 % 8 . 8 % 774
Currently recycle as much as possible 86 . 7 8.2 5 . 1 790
Want to recycle more types of materials 78 .5 13 .2 8.3 756
Want a separate yard waste container 52.8 24.0 23 .3 742
Will pay more to recycle more 33 .3 17.4 49.3 765
As another measure of support for recycling, respondents were asked how many times per
month they set out recyclable materials for collection. Out of 617 respondents, 14.4 percent
indicated once per month, 17.2 percent indicated twice per month, 10.9 percent indicated three
times per month, and 57.5 percent indicated four times per month. Thus, a majority of the
respondents indicated weekly participation in recycling programs.
It is also important to note that 25 (4 % ) of respondents wrote in zero times per month, although
it was not one of the pre-defined answers for this question. This write-in answer may indicate
either a desire not to recycle, or a lack of understanding about their opportunities to do so with
their current collector. Given the quantity of write-in responses, there may be additional
residents who would have chosen zero times per month, if given the option of selecting zero.
Bill Payment Methods
The third question of the survey solicited respondents' opinions regarding bill payment
methods. Specifically, respondents were asked whether they would like to combine their trash
bill with the City's utility bill, pay the trash collector directly, or pay through automatic bank
transaction. The results of these questions are presented in Table 3-7, below:
Table 3-7
Preferred Bill Payment Method
Agree/ Disagree/ Number of
Question Strongly Agree NeutralStrongly DisagreeResponses
Combined with City utility bill 48 . 0 % 12.8 % 39.2 % 725
Mail directly to trash collector 60. 0 24.2 15 . 7 703
Automatic bank transaction 14 . 8 14.1 71 .0 686
18 Trash Districting Study
Chapter 3 Public Opinion Survey
The respondents were clear on their preferred method of bill payment: they want to mail their
bills directly to their collector, although a significant number would consider combining the
trash bill with the City utility bill.
In terms of billing frequency, the average for the 722 respondents was 5.6 times per year,
reflecting a desire for bi-monthly billing. The range of responses was 1-32 times per year
(ignoring the one response of zero times per year) . The most common response (57.9 % ) was
four times per year, followed by twelve times per year (20.2 % ) .
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 19
City of Fort Collins
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
20 Trash Districting Study
Chapter 4 Districting Model Financial Analysis
CHAPTER 4
DISTRICTING MODEL FINANCIAL
ANALYSIS
In order to estimate the financial impacts of a districted
system, HF&H created a financial model to estimate future
residential rates . Should the City implement districted
collection, we believe that overall residential rates could be
reduced by as much as 13 % or $500, 000 per year city-wide.
However, because 1) the data we used to develop our model
was taken in part from other jurisdictions and 2) it is
impossible to predict collector behavior in a competitive
procurement, the actual results of districting could differ.
DISTRICTING MODEL
The districting model was designed to estimate the financial impact of switching from the
current open system to between one and six districts and assumes that only one collector will
provide residential trash and recycling services in each district.
Approach
In order to develop our model, we relied on a number of sources of information. These sources
include:
❖ Financial and operational information from a number of the City' s current collectors;
❖ Periodic operational reports to the City by the collectors;
❖ Financial and operational data from our work papers and from other engagements,
using a sample of companies of different sizes and corporate structures (e.g., public
vs, private); and,
❖ Results from competitive and negotiated procurements of similar services.
Limitations
While we are confident in the reasonableness of our assumptions, we cannot predict the actual
behavior of the potential proposers in a competitive environment. For example, we assume that
proposers may be able to offer the City further reduced rates if they are awarded a larger
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 21
City of Fort Collins
district(s) . To illustrate this point, we have included Table 4-1, below, which summarizes the
results of a recent competitive procurement where bidders were given the opportunity to
propose on more than one district (zone) consisting of a total of 57,000 residential accounts:
Table 4- 1
Sample Districting Outcomes
($000' s)
Recycling Green Waste Both
Propos Zone 1 Zone 2 Both Saving Zone 1 Zone 2 Both Saving Zone 1 Zone 2 Both Saving
al s s s
1 2,267 1,711 31602 (9.4) 5,945 31960 9,688 (2.2) 81212 5,671 13,290 (4.3)
2 2,538 11009 31434 (3.2) 51259 21687 7,863 (1.0) 71797 3,696 11,297 (1.7)
3 5,285 3,609 61405 (28.0) 6,499 51237 91678 (17.5) 11,785 8,846 16,083 (22.0)
4 21495 11590 31660 (10.4) 51547 41710 81739 (14.8) 81042 61300 12,399 (13.5)
As Table 4-1 shows, each of the four proposals included proposals for Zone 1, Zone 2 or both
zones. As shown above, in each case (recycling, green waste, or both), the proposed cost of
providing service to both zones was less than the sum of providing similar services to each zone
separately. As shown above, this results in savings ranging from 1 % to 28 % , simply by
rewarding the proposer with a larger service area. These economies are not always related to
changes in how the services will be performed, but likely include pricing decisions made by
each company related to the additional value (profit) of providing more service to more
customers. A company desiring control of the waste stream for its own landfill may be more
aggressive in its collection proposal. In this procurement, two collectors were very large
publicly traded companies and two were locally owned private companies. Further, this
analysis shows how large a variance typically exists between companies proposing to provide
similar services, as could be expected in Fort Collins. These pricing decisions are the primary
reason why it is difficult to predict the actual behavior of those companies that elect to submit
proposals to provide districted service to the City.
Another limitation is that, although some of the City' s collectors were very cooperative and
provided us useful data, not all of the data required for our analysis was provided by the City' s
collectors. Additionally, since the City requires no financial information from the collectors, we
were not able to obtain financial information from the City. Therefore, where local data is not
available our analysis is based in part on data from other comparable jurisdictions. Information
specific to the City of Fort Collins for a number of the key model variables, including the
number of accounts, waste volumes and average hourly labor costs was, however, provided by
either the City, County, or collectors, and is reflected in the model.
Assumptions
In order to generate the model, we made the following assumptions:
22 Trash Districting Study
Chapter 4 Districting Model Financial Analysis
❖ Each districted collector is only providing residential trash and recyclables collection
in the City. The impact of commercial collection or other services in the City, or in
non-City areas, is not considered.
❖ The sizes of the districts are proportionate to each other (i.e., each district is the same
size) . However, when the actual districts are created, the sizes may vary based on
the City' s geography or other factors in order to optimize collection efficiency;
❖ A one-person semi-automated side loader will be used for trash collection and a one-
person manual two compartment side loader for residential recycling, with direct
costs of roughly $50 per route per hour.
❖ The average length of the standard work day will not exceed ten hours;
❖ A route driver is paid for a minimum of 8 hours per day regardless of how many
hours he/ she actually works;
❖ The average number of stops per trash route per 8-hour day is 517;
❖ The average number of stops per recycling route per 8-hour day is 473, based on a
70 % set out rate of at least one bin;
❖ Operations and maintenance costs are based on projected route operating hours for
one district. This cost is then escalated in proportion to total direct labor hours for
each of the multiple district scenarios to account for decreasing economies of scale;
❖ General and administrative costs are estimated to be roughly 32 percent of direct
costs for one district. That percentage is then escalated in proportion to the direct
costs for each of the multiple district scenarios. As an example, in the case of six
districts, this expense is 32 % of the six district direct route costs multiplied by 1 .24
(the ratio of the overall direct costs for six district to the direct cost of one district) .
❖ The average current monthly residential rate is estimated to be $12.46 based on
information provided by the haulers and responses received through the customer
survey.
❖ Each resident would receive one recycling bin and roughly 25 percent would receive
a solid waste cart (note: The customer survey results indicate that roughly 21
percent of residents currently have cart service);
❖ All trash would be disposed of at the County facility, although, this may eventually
not be the case because certain collectors may opt to use their own landfills; and,
❖ No tip fee or revenue is assumed for recyclables.
Should the City request proposals for Districted Collection, key model variables, such as
collector productivity, average hourly operating costs and the assumed economies of scale will
likely be different than those assumed in our model and these differences can significantly
impact the model results. For example, more aggressive productivity would result in lower
operating costs and therefore lower rates, while decreases would result in higher rates.
In order to determine the total costs related to providing trash and recycling services to each
district, we developed projections for the following cost components:
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 23
City of Fort Collins
❖ Direct Route Costs . This category includes driver and supervisor wages and
benefits, vehicle operating and maintenance costs, vehicle depreciation and any
other expenses directly related to running the routes;
❖ General and Administrative Costs . These costs are primarily administrative related
expenses and are unrelated to the direct provision of collection services (i.e., rent,
officers salaries, utilities, billing);
❖ Container Costs . These costs account for the purchase of both trash and recycling
containers;
❖ Landfill Disposal Costs . Disposal costs are based on the current tip fees at the
Larimer County Landfill;
❖ City Costs/Fees. These costs include any additional incremental cost to the City for
annual administration of the agreements and future rate setting or operational
reviews and was set at $50,000.
Findings
Table 4-2 describes our estimates of the potential impact of districted service on the average
current rate paid by residents:
As shown in Table 4-2, we have estimated that the current estimated cost per month for service
is $12.46. Should the City move to districted service, we believe that the impacts on the average
monthly rate would range from a $1 .58 decrease to a $1 .16 increase, depending on the number
of districts selected. A number of the current collectors agreed that these numbers do not
appear to be unreasonable.
The projected savings are also consistent with the 10 to 20 % savings estimated by
Environmental Financial Group in its letter report to the City dated September 4, 1996 . Table 4-
2 illustrates that the cost savings of moving to districting decrease as the number of districts
increase. This is due primarily from economies of scale related to increased efficiencies that
develop as the number of accounts serviced increases. For example with a larger service area, a
collector generally has more opportunity to use overtime in lieu of adding additional routes. A
collector serving a smaller area has less opportunity to do so, since he has fewer routes which
he can operate overtime. As a result, he may be forced to add an additional route, and incur
associated costs, sooner than a hauler with a larger service area. Additionally, a hauler with
five routes may be able to maintain a single backup vehicle, while a hauler with fewer routes
would also require a similar level of backup capacity.
Further, we have assumed that certain indirect expenses would also increase as the number of
districts increase. For example, under a single district, there would likely be only one operations
facility, but under a six district system there could be as many as six facilities, although the
average size of each facility would be less. This would also be true for certain necessary
personnel required for each district regardless of its size. Finally, smaller districts have less of a
rate base in which to spread fixed costs.
24 Trash Districting Study
Chapter 4 Districting Model Financial Analysis
Finally, we have assumed that the current collection system (i.e., mix of carts and cans) remains
the same. However, should the City implement automated cart collection, the savings could be
significantly greater than those shown above.
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 25
This page intentionally left blank.
0
O O
O 0 0 CD 0 0 O O O O 1 o O (fl � Dp O O
V o Oo o O o 00 o O O 00 o O
o N m CO 00 0) 0 N O
00 r�- o (M N M CM N
m
m v Et>
Ef> EA Ef> e9> Ef> Ef> Ef> Ef> Qf> U> Ef> (s> Es
LO 0 00 0 O O O O O N N
W 0 00 O O o O O � O O O? V Lr) O i O O
N O O O O Lr) C) O o O DO N O Dp O
Ln M Ln O) (D N L In O O GG � Ef> 0
CO N O (fl Oqqt O m (fl N
1� 0) (O r� M N m
(M m Ef> t
Ef> 69 U9 (f> Ef> U) EA EA EA (A EA 69 Ef>
O
E
7
0
0
0 co co
0 0 00 O O O O O O O 0 N
0 00 O O O O i O I� 00
E9
� O O CD � O o O O � o � (V CDo
V coO7 I� O M m O p V) 0 O
O 0) I� (n 0') m LO It
N .... N
U) co CO I� O M N M O
cm m Es>
En 69 U9 fA 69 H) EA EA EA 69 EA U) U>
� m 3
0 a
0
i 0 0 o O 0 O 0 0 O O N (0 O p N 0-
L W 0 0 0 O o O O q 0 N (V O O o t 'O
E M 00 CO M 0 M O O O Ef> O Ef> 0 E
7 O M O N m h CO co 0 O_Z r� Ln r� 0) M N LO co m
N m N d
EA EA EA ER EA U9 Ef> Ef> Ef> EA Ef> ff> Ef> N U
� t
o � N
W O O O O O O O O M 0) N
N o0o O o O o o O O 4 cho oo m co
N 0 0 0 O O 0 O O O O N 0 i O E
N m O) Lf) O M LO o Lri r� O o O Ef3 EA 8 O
00 (O � � co m Ln N NV
(6 M Ln (D O M N L N O
M O
N m
.L d) 64 Ef> 6G EA Ef> EH Ef> EH EA Ef> Ef> 64 O
w+ O a
N
0 _ o _
Ln O O O O O O O O O O o (O M O m N O ` E
O O O O O O O O 0 O N 0 O� 0 > >
O O O O N 6
N 0) (O o (O M �_ O1 LO V � O N C O
(O M Ln (O O M N Ln O N O N
00 V Ln co -0 E
N C N 7
N O
E9 EA Ef> Ef> Ef> Ef> E9 Ef> Ef> Ef> Ef> EA ER c6 O
m Q
N N
W N
N a+ O
_ O R (U L R
y O ^2 c N C N
O c0> y la O c O G) N O N
= N a a
c O L> > (> y
C: U u Q 3 u c 3
O c a> u w C c w
`D c c yam--' ? J U Q U = U
(UE m Mn CL N tm Q ° > Q 3
ON C ` Oy U)..
Qe p
a.
Ycm C c QQ 'c 0 O >/ Uv FN F CL m
- (A N C N
O !E m L LL Z R
o
O >
o a
U E oc
LL
o cu m u
t w
m
U >
w
e
u N
r rN
•m N
� U
t a
a
t o
w �
w
u a
•� w
� o
<t+ x
u
U
W
O
O
w
O
bA
m
H
City of Fort Collins
CHAPTER 5
COMPARABLE RATES
In order to gauge how the City's trash and recycling rates
compare with other jurisdictions, HF&H conducted a
residential trash collection rate survey of communities
within Colorado as well as a number of communities of
similar size outside the state. Rate and service information
was obtained for a total of 26 jurisdictions . The survey
looked at open systems, municipal collection and private
service.
COMPARABLE RATES
As part of this project, HF&H conducted a residential trash collection rate survey of
communities within Colorado as well as a number of communities of similar size outside the
state. Rate and service information was obtained for a total of 26 jurisdictions .
Survey Overview
The communities surveyed have arranged for trash collection service using one of the three
following structures:
1) Private Open Competition
Jurisdictions in which residential trash collection is provided in a manner where private
companies compete with little, if any, municipal regulation. Rate information was obtained for a
total of seven jurisdictions with private, Open Competition, five in Colorado and two in
Missouri.
2) Municipal Collection
Jurisdictions which provide municipal residential trash collection with a municipal work force.
The majority of those jurisdictions surveyed indicated that the residential collection operation
functioned as an enterprise fund, and that the rates were intended to reflect the actual cost of
collection. Rate information was obtained for a total of eight municipal collection operations,
five in Colorado and three in Wyoming.
28 Trash Districting Study
Chapter 5 Comparable Rates
3) Private Contracted Service
Jurisdictions which contract directly with the private sector for residential trash collection. Rate
information was obtained for a total of 11 jurisdictions with Contracted Service. Nine of these
jurisdictions are in Colorado, including seven small jurisdictions in the Fort Collins area, as well
as Commerce City and Greenwood Village in the Denver Metropolitan Area, and two in Kansas
(Kansas City, and a small homeowners association (Windom Hill) in Overland Park) . In all
cases, a single collector was contracted for residential service, as opposed to multiple collectors
serving within defined districts .
In the case of those jurisdictions with Contracted Services, it is our understanding that those
contracts were all awarded through a competitive bid process. In the case of those jurisdictions
in Colorado with Contracted Service, it is also our understanding that most, if not all, of these
contracts are "non-exclusive." That is to say, residents are free to contract with, and pay a third
party for service. Residents are, however, still billed for the Contracted Service whether they
chose to use it or not. This has led to basically one hauler servicing the entire jurisdiction. This
is a similar approach that could be used by the City. Billing is typically handled by the
jurisdiction through its utility billings, with the jurisdiction reimbursing the contracted
collector. To our knowledge, none of those jurisdictions with Contracted Service employed
" districting" of services among multiple collectors.
Findings
As described in Table 5-1 on the following page, the majority of respondents' (with similar
types of trash and recycling services to those of Fort Collins) rates are higher in the jurisdictions
with Open Competition than those with municipal collection. Rates are generally less for
Contracted Service than those jurisdictions with either Open Competition or municipal
collection (although the contract rates typically do not include recycling service which typically
ranges between $1 . 00 and $3.00 per month per account for weekly service) . In the case of both
Greenwood Village and Kansas City, Kansas, City representatives stated their Contracted
Service rates were significantly less than those of neighboring Open Competition jurisdictions
for similar or greater levels of service.
A comparison of Fort Collins' rates to that of other Open Competition communities which were
surveyed indicates that, in general, the City's rates are lower for one-can service, ($8.74 as
compared to an average of $11 .05 for Boulder and Colorado Springs), roughly average for two-
can service ($13.06 as compared to an average of $12.88 in Boulder and Colorado Springs), and
higher for three-can service ($17.50 as compared to an average of $11 .83 for Colorado Springs,
Greeley and Pueblo) and 90 gallon carts ($19.60 as compared to an average of $14.08 in
Colorado Springs, Greeley and Pueblo) . This relationship in prices and container sizes should
be expected as a result of the City' s implementation of volume-based rates.
As with the other Open Competition jurisdictions, the rates in Fort Collins are generally higher
than those of municipal collection operations (with the exception of bag service which is slightly
lower than Loveland), and in all cases significantly more than those jurisdictions with
Contracted Service ($19. 60 for a 90 gallon cart as compared to an average of $7.06 for unlimited
non-cart service) . However, those Contracted Service rates, in all but one case, do not include
recycling service, and the residents are not billed directly by the contractor. Typically the
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 29
Cifi/ of Fort Collins
contractor sends a single bill to the jurisdiction which charges the residents through its utility
billing system. It should also be noted that the above comparison is based on a fairly limited
survey and sample base.
Table 5- 1
Residential Rate Survey Summary
PRIVATE OPEN COMPETITION
Colorado Independencd;pringfield
Fort Collins Aurora Boulder Springs Greeley Pueblo Missouri Missouri
Population 106,000 252,000 909000 3455000 685000 995000 1105000 1435000
Service Level :
bag $4 . 17 + $ 1 . 18/bag
unlimited $ 12 .75 $ 17.55 $ 12.00
1x32 can 8 .74 $ 12.60 $ 9. 50
2x32 can 13.06 $ 14. 75 $ 11 .00
3x32 can 17.40 $ 12. 00 $ 13.00 $ 10 .50
60/65 toter 14.25
90/96 toter 19.60 $ 15. 00 $ 15.00 $ 12 .25 $ 13 .00 $ 11 .65
Curbside Recycling WEEKLY BI-WEEKLY WEEKLY WEEKLY WEEKLY BI-WEEKLY NO BI-WEEKLY
MUNICIPAL COLLECTION
Grand Cheyenne Casper Laramie
Denver Junction Longmont Loveland Thorton Wyoming Wyoming Wyoming
Population 497,000 40,000 587000 45,000 67,000 53,000 487000 267000
Service Level : Bags only
bag $4.60 + $ 1 /bag
unlimited $ 10 .50 $ 12 .00 $ 7. 50
1x32 can
2x32 can $ 8 . 56
302 can
60/65 toter $ 8 .96
90/96 toter $ 10 .96 $ 13 .21 $ 11 . 50
Curbside Recycling BI-WEEKLY MONTHLY WEEKLY WEEKLY WEEKLY NO NO NO
2x/wk servic
PRIVATE CONTRACTED SERV
Commerce Greenwood
Citv Evans Eaton Villaqe Grover Johnstown Kersey Milliken
Population 171000 6 ,000 21000 121000 ( 135 accts. ) 2 ,000 1 ,000 21000
Service Level :
unlimited $ 5. 76 $ 6 .00 $ 7 .80 $ 9. 35 $ 11 . 00 $ 7 .00 $ 7.00 $ 7.00
Curbside Recycling NO NO NO WEEKLY NO NO NO NO
Kansas City Windom Hill
Pierce Kansas Kansas
Population 11000 1421000 (390 accts. )
Service Level :
unlimited $ 5.65 $ 5 .40 $ 5 .75
Curbside Recycling NO NO NO
30 Trash Districting Study
Chapter 5 Comparable Rates
Limitations of Rate Surveys
When considering the findings of a rate survey of this type, comparing rates is valuable as a
"reality check," but there are often significant differences among operations (e.g., municipal
versus private cost allocations, subsidies between residential and commercial services, tip fees,
wage rates) which can have a material effect on the rates and the findings of subsequent
comparisons. Additionally, the method of procurement of services (sole source or competitive
bid), current competitive pressures and pricing decisions (e. g., rate subsidies and volume-based
rates) also impact rates. With that said, however, it does appear that contracting of residential
trash collection in those jurisdictions surveyed has resulted in lower rates.
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 31
City of Fort Collins
CHAPTER 6
OTHER DISTRICTING IMPACTS
In addition to reduced truck traffic and a potential decrease
in rates, there are a number of other advantages and
disadvantages that should also be considered including
improved aesthetics, comparability in services and rates,
decreased liability, improved reporting and record keeping
and rate stability. There are also disadvantages that should
be understood. Finally, elements of successful districting
projects have been identified.
OTHER BENEFITS OF
DISTRICTING
In addition to the benefits described elsewhere, there are a number of less tangible but equally
important benefits of districting. These include:
Improved Aesthetics
Currently, many adjacent residents place their containers out for service on different days and
times. This can detract from the appearance of a neighborhood because there may be trash
containers placed at the curbside for collection throughout the week. Additionally, containers
currently come in all shapes and sizes and differing colors. Under a districted system, typically,
all containers are placed for collection at the same time and on the same day, so, streets are free
of trash and recycling containers, six days out of the week. Additionally, containers can be
standardized and if carts are used, no detached lids are needed. These changes generally result
in improved overall neighborhood aesthetics.
Comparable Services
Under the current open system, residents may be receiving different levels of service. These
differences may include bigger or smaller recycling containers, more materials recycled, and
different trash can/ cart sizes . Further, companies may only offer particular levels of service and
may provide different levels of customer service and responsiveness. In a districted system, all
of the services throughout the City would be comparable, unless the City elected to offer
differing services among the districts. Even if that were the case, adjacent residents would have
similar services. Additionally, districting could help the City create incentives to improve
overall landfill diversion levels by increasing recycling.
32 Trash Districting Study
Chapter 6 Other Districting Impacts
Comparable Rates
Theoretically, the primary advantage of the open system is that residents have the ability to
shop around for the best rates available. However, based on the response to the survey,
residents rarely change collectors . Only 121 of the nearly 800 respondents changed their hauler
in the last 12 months . Also, based on our rate survey of comparable jurisdictions, Open
Competition systems do not appear to result in the lowest rates.
Decreased Liability through Collector Indemnifications
Assuming that the City would enter into collection agreements with each selected collector, the
agreements provide the City the opportunity to gain certain indemnifications from the
collectors. It is common for collectors to provide jurisdictions general indemnification for
negligent behavior; hazardous waste indemnifications related to CERCLA for the hazardous
waste collected by each collector and pass-through indemnifications from the landfill
owner/ operator. These indemnifications provide jurisdictions with greater future rate stability
due to protections from unforeseen events; typically lawsuits.
Improved Reporting and Record Keeping
Based on our experience, collection agreements can require additional reporting and record
keeping from the collectors. This reporting usually relates to tonnage collected by type (trash
and recyclables), missed pick-ups, complaints, financial information, accounts, account mix (i.e.,
container sizes used), vehicles and new customers. Additionally, detailed record keeping will
allow the City to adjust rates on an ongoing basis, should the City elect to set rates. This could
help the City on future issues related to the actual levels of waste diversion and in determining
the City' s fair share of closure/ post-closure costs, or hazardous waste at the County landfill.
Rate Stability
Under an open system, the City has no control over current and future residential rates. In a
competitive districting system, rates would be set and adjusted periodically based on a pre-
determined method. This approach ensures the lowest possible initial rate and reasonable
future rates.
DISADVANTAGES OF
DISTRICTING
The biggest disadvantage to moving to a districted system from the customers perspective is
that they will no longer have the option to choose their own collector (without having to pay
twice for that privilege) . Although the City would select one collector to provide service in each
district and require each residential customer to pay for service offered by that designated
collector, a resident could opt to use a different service provider, yet not be relieved of paying
the rates charged by the City' s designated collector.
Additionally, it is possible that certain residents will have a rate increase because the level of
service under the districted system may be greater than that which they currently receive. For
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 33
City of Fort Collins
example, if cart service is implemented, residents currently using bags will likely incur
increased rates.
For most residents, their current collector may change, as might their current collection day.
This would result in some inconveniences during the start-up phase of districting. Additionally,
any transition to a new collector results in some service disruptions as drivers are learning their
routes. This could be limited by the winner being required to hire former route drivers.
Difficulties can be minimized, however, if the collectors submit thoughtful transition plans and
implement them as proposed.
Finally, in a districted system, there may be an increased amount of City administrative time
necessary to manage multiple districts, however, this could be offset by additional functions
currently performed by the City being performed by the collector (such as public education) .
KEY POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
In order to move to a districted system, a number of key policy issues should also be
considered.
Legal Restrictions
Colorado law authorizes local governments to arrange for local residential trash hauling
services through a competitive process. In addition, local governments are authorized to charge
residential households a fee for those trash hauling services. Our analysis is based on the
assumption that the City will institute such a fee. As a result, it is reasonable to assume, and we
have assumed for the purposes of our analysis, that the designated trash collector for any
particular district will provide trash hauling services to substantially all of the residential
households in that district.
Billing
In prior consultant reports performed for the City, there was an assumption that under a
districted system, the City would have to become the billing agent for the residential customers
and incur the cost to do so. This assumption results in considerable expense to the City in order
to revise its utility billing system to provide these services. Further, if the City performed the
billing, the rate revenues collected would result in a revenue increase to the City budget which
may force the need for an Enterprise Fund and/ or be prohibited by annual City revenue
increase limits. However, it is very common for collectors to perform the billing function. In
addition, larger collectors have performed the billing function for smaller ones. Finally,
collectors are currently providing this function and are compensated for this service through the
rates charged for service. Therefore, in a districted system, we have assumed and recommend
that the billing function be performed by one or more of the collectors.
Impact on Collectors
Under a districted system, it is possible that the number of collectors providing residential
service will decrease from the current six. The actual decrease will depend on the number of
34 Trash Districting Study
Chapter 6 Other Districting Impacts
districts selected and whether or not a collector could be awarded more than one district.
However, it is not clear what impact districting will have on the current number of service
providers since their number of current residential accounts serviced by each collector is
unknown. Because collectors typically provide commercial and industrial service as well as
service to other jurisdictions, including the County, it is difficult to predict if the loss of the Fort
Collins residential base will result in any collector going out of business. Alternatively, it is
possible through the districting process to encourage teaming and subcontracting relationships
to ensure the maximum number of current service providers remain or give preference to a
local service provider in at least one district, should that be desirable to the City. Finally, in a
districted arrangement, the City has some control over the sale or assignment of the collection
agreements which would allow them to ensure competition and/ or local companies this ability
does not exist. Under the current open system, this is not the case.
Rates/Services between Districts
In our experience, jurisdictions typically want all of their residents to receive comparable
services and pay the same rate for those services . Through districting, the City will gain the
ability to ensure that services and, if desired, rates are consistent for all residents. Conversely,
the City could allow rates to be set at their proposed or negotiated levels and allow for service
differences for comparison purposes, if conformity is not necessary.
Urban Growth Area
It is our understanding that there is a significant urban growth area surrounding the City that is
actually in the County. It is likely that the City's current collectors are also providing services in
this area which impacts the rates charged in Fort Collins. One option for the City, if legal, and
assuming County support, may be to include the urban growth area in the districting process.
This is a common practice in California in order to maximize collection efficiencies and
minimize administrative costs. Additionally, if not done, it is possible that adjacent city and
county residents on opposite sides of the street could receive different services, at different
rates, which may cause some customer complaints.
KEY COMPONENTS OF
SUCCESSFUL DISTRICTING
PROJECTS
Based on our experience there are certain activities which if performed correctly, will help
ensure a successful and smooth transition to the districted system. These components include:
Public Support. In order for any major trash service transition to be successful, it is essential
that the public and advisory groups be supportive and understand the need for the transition or
at a minimum, not be outwardly opposed. To that end, the City and HF&H conducted the
public opinion survey to better understand the attitudes of the City' s residents regarding their
current trash and recycling services, and the possible change to a districted system.
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 35
City of Fort Collins
Should the City Council determine that a districted system is their desired alternative, the
public should be kept informed of the procurement process and the selection of collectors for
each district. This information allows the public to have input into the process and protects the
City from assertions that decisions were made without adequate public information.
City Council and Staff Support. In addition to public support, it is important that the City
Council and appropriate staff be involved in all phases of the project. This reduces the
likelihood of " surprises' and helps keep the project on schedule. Often, a subcommittee of the
City Council is formed to work with City staff and their consultant in order to educate the City
Council on what are very complex issues.
Collector "Participation". It is also important that the collectors understand the objectives of
the City and the possible outcomes of the system change. This can be done through periodic
meetings with the collectors, allowing them the opportunity to review draft documents, and
providing them an opportunity to comment on the documents. If collector comments are
incorporated, collectors will feel like they have participated in the process, rather than having it
imposed on them by the City. Collector participation should begin early in the process and
continue through the awarding of the districts. Based on our experience, there are usually
collectors that support the process (usually the ones that win a contract) and others who are
very opposed (the ones that fail to win a contract) .
Customer Benefits. As one would expect, significant system changes are typically better
received by residents, if those changes are accompanied by benefits such as rate reductions,
increased service, reduced traffic, less noise and pollution, etc. In regard to service changes,
increased service in the City's case could include separate yard waste collection or an expanded
recycling program.
A major benefit of successful districting projects is a reduction in the number of vehicles on
residential streets. These reductions most commonly result from limiting the number of
collectors on any given street to one for each service (trash, recycling, and yard waste) . Recently,
vehicle innovations have helped reduce the number of vehicles on City streets even further by
co-collecting in one vehicle, multiple materials (e.g. recyclables and trash) in separate
compartments.
Community Benefits. In a districted system, a more unified approach could be instituted to
ensure that containers are all similar and trash and recycling collections would always occur on
one day only for all residents of a particular street. This could improve the visual appearance of
a neighborhood . Additionally, it is common in districted systems for the City to enter into an
agreement with each service provider, which clarifies the terms, and conditions related to the
provision of services in the City. These agreements could allow the City to clearly define the
service standards, gain certain indemnifications from the collectors, ensure long-term disposal
capacity, reduce liability, define necessary insurance provisions and other items discussed
earlier in this Chapter.
36 Trash Districting Study
Chapter 6 Other Districting Impacts
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 37
City of Fort Collins
CHAPTER 7
IMPLEMENTING DISTRICTS
In order to implement a districted system, certain tasks
must be undertaken by the City. These include conducting
public/Council workshops, document preparation,
negotiations and rate setting. Based on our experience
with other jurisdictions, the start-up costs are likely to
range between $ 71, 000 and $91, 000, for technical
assistance provided to the City. Other necessary activities
will be performed by the haulers or funded out of the
residential rate base as is currently the case.
START- UP COSTS
Should the City decide to implement districted trash and recycling services, a number of tasks
will need to be completed in order to ensure a smooth transition for the City' s residents. The
entire process typically takes between one and two years, depending on the number of
workshops, and other factors. Particular tasks to be performed by the City include:
❖ City Council/ public/ advisory group/ collector workshops or meetings (60 days);
❖ Drafting of request for proposals (60 days);
❖ Drafting of agreements (included);
❖ Evaluation of proposals (90 days);
❖ Negotiation of new agreements (60 days); and,
❖ Developing and approving a revised residential rate structure (45 days);
The schedule includes six months to one year for development of proposals, implementation of
the new program, and unforeseen slippage in the schedule, including delays in the delivery of
equipment (e.g., carts and trucks) . We describe each of the above tasks in greater detail below:
City Council/Public/Collector Workshops and Notification
Requirements
As discussed earlier, it is important that the City Council, the public and the current service
providers be involved throughout the districting process. Typically, we recommend that the
City' s objectives be determined in advance in order to guide the procurement process. This is
often done through the use of surveys and/ or workshops. By establishing the objectives of the
38 Trash Districting Study
Chapter 7Implementing Districts
City in advance, it makes the selection process much more straightforward by evaluating
proposals against these pre-determined objectives.
We would assume that City Council Workshops/ Meetings on districting should be held up to
twice prior to the release of any RFP and at least once after the receipt of proposals . At least two
meetings should be held in advance of the RFP with the collectors in order to solicit their
opinions and allow them the opportunity to review and comment on draft procurement
documents. We anticipate that all of these meetings would be public meetings where the
residents of the City would be encouraged to participate . This type of approach protects the
City from accusations by residents or prospective proposers that they were unaware of what
was happening or did not understand how the changes might impact them.
Drafting the Request for Proposals
In order to solicit proposals from the current and other collectors, the City will need to develop
a Request for Proposals (RFP) . The purpose of the RFP is to solicit proposals from interested
parties to provide service in one or more of the districts. The RFP should be developed in a
manner that ensures an " apples to apples" comparison between the proposals and allows the
City the opportunity to review the proposals for reasonableness. The RFP should also require
information which allows the City to evaluate the proposers ability to perform the requested
services in a manner that will provide the City reasonable assurances that the collector has the
necessary ability both financially and operationally to provide the proposed services.
Drafting of Collection Agreements
In a districted system, the City would enter into agreements with their collectors. Typically,
when we prepare RFP' s for our clients, we recommend that the draft agreement be included in
the RFP package, so potential proposers can review in advance of the submission of their
proposal, the desired terms and conditions of the City. In their proposal, companies are
instructed to identify any exceptions they take to the proposed terms and conditions included
in the agreement. This approach provides for a much shorter negotiation process than one that
provides the selected collector(s) with the draft agreement after selection. It is common for
collectors in a competitive environment to take minimal or no exceptions to the agreement in
order to help position themselves during the selection process.
Evaluation of Proposals
Presumably, there will be multiple proposals submitted by interested parties for each district.
Therefore, it will be necessary to evaluate each proposal and award the districts in a manner
that best meets the objectives of the City and meets the evaluation criteria determined prior to
the submission of proposals . Typical evaluation criteria include, but are not limited to,
proposed rates, financial stability, demonstrated history of providing similar services, and
exceptions to the proposed agreement.
Negotiation of New Agreements
Once companies are selected for each district, collection agreements will need to be finalized
with each collector. As stated above, by including draft agreements with the RFP and asking
proposers to identify their exceptions, the City is limiting the negotiations to only those items
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 39
City of Fort Collins
taken exception to by each proposer. This eliminates the need for protracted negotiations, which
results in a more ambitious schedule and reduced overall expenses.
Develop Revised Residential Rate Structure
Although the RFP would require bidders to identify their proposed rates, it may be desirable for
the City to develop a Citywide rate structure. Although, it is most common for all residents to
pay the same rate for each service, it is possible for the City to allow differing rates for similar
services . In some instances, jurisdictions set different rates for senior citizens, low income
residents and residents that are harder to service due to hilly terrain or private driveways.
However, since proposers would "bid" rates, and changes to those rates would be a policy
decision of the City.
Estimated Start-Up Costs
In Table 7-1 below, we have estimated the potential start-up costs related to the implementation
of a districted system, assuming the City contracts for the provision of these services. Because a
number of these costs are contingent on the number of districts suggested, we have provided a
range of expenses based on between one and six districts, with all other potential start-up costs
falling within that range.
Table 7 - 1
Estimated Start- Up Costs3
One Six
District Districts
Workshops $13,000 $13,000
Drafting of request for proposals $16,000 $18,000
Drafting of collection agreements $12,000 $12,000
Evaluation of proposals $19,000 $23,000
Negotiation of new agreements $5,000 $14,000
Develop revised residential rate $6,000 $11,000
structure
Total $71,000 $91,000
3 There are a number of other expense items described in a prior City report which we have not included in this estimate.
These include establishing an enterprise fund, a residential generation survey, a rate study, utility billing programming and
public education. Based on our experience and understanding of collector billing capabilities, and since the collectors are
currently billing for these services, we have assumed that at least one collector could act as the billing agent for the City and
possibly other collectors. This would eliminate the need for the City to revise its billing system or create an enterprise fund
since revenues would not flow through the City finances. Only 16% of the survey respondents were opposed to mailing their
bills directly to the collector.
Based on our experience, we believe that a residential generation study would provide only limited value, and data collected
would be mostly for informational purposes and have little impact on the districting process. There has been substantial
analysis on residential waste streams conducted by public agencies and private collectors. We believe that the combination
of available information and collector experience will be adequate. In regard to the rate study, we performed that study as
part of this analysis, and as discussed elsewhere in this report, believe that information is interesting but provides little value
to the City's districting approach. The companies as part of their proposals to the City can provide the public education
component. The City could supplement this effort with their own efforts.
40 Trash Districting Study
Chapter 7Implementing Districts
We have also included in our districting model, $50,000 annually to cover unknown staff or
consulting costs for administering the system and for future rate setting and adjustments. This
amount is included in the rates and would be used to reimburse the City; therefore the City
would not have to generate this amount from its general fund.
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC 41
APPENDIX A
Traffic Impact Analysis Summary
This Section Intentionally Left Blank
This Section Intentionally Left Blank
APPENDIX B
Public Opinion Survey
Strongly Disagree Neither Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 Total Mean St. Dev.
QUESTION #1 -The following benefits districted collection are important to me :
Less traffic from big trucks 82 39 89 159 407 776 3 .99 1 . 34
10.6% 5 .0% 11 .5% 20.5% 52.4% 95.4%
Better safety from fewer trucks 92 55 122 172 333 774 3.77 1 .38
11 .9% 7. 1% 15.8% 22.2% 43 .0% 95.2%
Better community appearance 85 51 125 165 351 777 3.83 1 .35
10.9% 6.6% 16. 1 % 21 .2% 45.2% 95.6%
Trash collection bill might be reduced 117 45 121 144 332 759 3.70 1 .46
15.4% 5.9% 15.9% 19.0% 43 .7% 93.4%
Less pollution from trucks 83 39 102 171 377 772 3.93 1 .34
10.8% 5. 1% 13.2% 22.2% 48.8% 95.0%
Less road damage from trucks 76 36 91 172 402 777 4.01 1 .30
9.8% 4.6% 11 .7% 22. 1% 51 .7% 95.6%
Less noise from once per week collections 80 32 108 147 410 777 4.00 1 .33
10.3% 4. 1% 13.9% 18.9% 52.8% 95.6%
QUESTION #2-The following benefits of open collection are important to me :
Keep current collector 135 73 201 103 242 754 3.32 3 .43
17.9% 9.7% 26.7% 13.7% 32. 1 % 92.7%
Select own collector 122 65 185 119 254 745 3.43 1 .44
16.4% 8.7% 24.8% 16.0% 34. 1 % 91 .6%
Retain same collection day & time 173 82 259 63 173 750 2.97 1 .43
23. 1% 10.9% 34.5% 8.4% 23 . 1 % 92.3%
No disruption in service 148 77 249 97 175 746 3. 10 1 .40
19.8% 10.3% 33 .4% 13.0% 23 .5% 91 .8%
Use the same containers 126 61 214 103 251 755 3.39 1 .44
16.7% 8. 1% 28.3% 13.6% 33 .2% 92.9%
QUESTION #3-1 would like to try districted trash collection
143 36 83 155 349 766 3.69 1 .53
18.7% 4.7% 10.8% 20.2% 45.6% 94.2%
QUESTION #4-1 would rather keep things as they are
231 109 158 49 172 719 2.75 1 .55
32. 1% 15 .2% 22.0% 6.8% 23 .9% 88.4%
QUESTION #5-What is the annual estimated trash bill?
Total responses: 664
% of responses: 81 .7%
High: 720
Low: 3
Mean: 151 .66
Standard Deviation: 80.42
Actual Responses: Count Amount Count Amount Count Amount
65 120.00 3 192.00 1 124.00
60 100.00 3 270.00 1 135 .00
40 200.00 3 280.00 1 142.00
38 150.00 3 500.00 1 145 .80
23 110.00 2 15.00 1 151 .80
21 160.00 2 42.00 1 152.40
18 130.00 2 62.00 1 155 .00
17 108 .00 2 94.00 1 163 .00
17 220.00 2 97.00 1 164.00
16 180.00 2 115.00 1 164. 70
14 80.00 2 126.00 1 171 .00
12 240.00 2 128.00 1 178.00
11 250.00 2 132.00 1 185 .00
11 300.00 2 138.00 1 188.00
10 75 .00 2 148.00 1 190.00
10 140.00 2 151 .00 1 202.00
10 165 .00 2 153 .00 1 204.00
9 90.00 2 156.00 1 206.00
9 125 .00 2 174.00 1 207.40
9 144.00 2 175.00 1 215 .00
7 36.00 2 195.00 1 215 .40
7 70.00 2 219.00 1 219.60
7 96.00 2 222.00 1 224.00
7 168 .00 1 3 .00 1 226.00
6 114.00 1 10.00 1 230.00
6 152 .00 1 12.00 1 232.00
6 170.00 1 18.00 1 235 .00
6 210.00 1 20.00 1 256.00
6 225 .00 1 25.00 1 260.00
4 50.00 1 28.00 1 261 .00
4 60.00 1 30.00 1 268.00
4 65 .00 1 55.00 1 288.00
4 85 .00 1 56.00 1 296.00
4 88 .00 1 66.00 1 302.00
4 109.00 1 67.00 1 315 .00
4 112.00 1 75.60 1 326.00
4 162.00 1 78.00 1 360.00
4 208 .00 1 78.75 1 378.00
4 216.00 1 92.00 1 396.00
4 400.00 1 93 .00 1 408.00
3 40.00 1 98.00 1 420.00
3 48 .00 1 100.80 1 450.00
3 72.00 1 101 .30 1 480.00
3 104.00 1 109.20 1 516.00
3 105 .00 1 113 .76 1 600.00
3 13 6.0 0 1 116.00 1 650.00
3 176.00 1 121 .00 1 720.00
QUESTION #6a—Do you haul your own trash ?
Yes No Total
138 646 784
17.6% 82.4% 96.4%
QUESTION #6b—Average number of self-haul trips per year
Total responses: 142
% of responses: 17.5%
High: 90
Low: 1
Mean: 5 .49
Standard Deviation: 9.66
Count Trips
41 2
30 4
27 3
10 6
8 1
4 15
4 12
4 10
4 5
3 8
3 7
1 90
1 52
1 50
1 24
QUESTION #7—The number of containers set out each week:
Count Number
Cans : 240 1
92 2
25 3
3 4
2 0.5
1 1 +
1 20
1 5
Carts: 164 1
4 2
Bags: 156 1
62 2
21 3
6 4
5 0.5
2 6
1 7
1 5
Other:
1 18
1 Recycle Bin 18
Recycling Bin 10
1 Recycling Bin 7
Recycle Bin 6
Dumpster 5
1 Dumpster 3
Toter 2
.5 Dumpster 1
.5 Recycle Box 1
1 Barrel 1
1 Bin 1
1 Recycle 1
1 Recycle Cart 1
1 Recycle Container 1
1 Recycle Tub 1
2/Yr 1
3 Yard Boxes 1
Box 1
Lg Boxes, etc. 1
Newspapers 1
Papers 1
Recycling Bins 1
Trash Bin 1
Tub 1
Yard Waste 1
QUESTION #8—How long with current collector?
Total responses: 748
% of responses: 92.0%
High: 432
Low: 1
Mean: 57.24
Standard Deviation: 63.53
Count Months Count Months Count Months
121 12 4 192 1 44
85 24 3 21 1 46
79 36 3 122 1 50
71 60 3 156 1 52
43 48 2 5 1 53
40 120 2 13 1 61
30 72 2 14 1 62
23 6 2 19 1 65
20 96 2 20 1 67
17 240 2 27 1 68
15 1 2 38 1 69
14 84 2 42 1 75
14 180 2 51 1 110
12 8 2 55 1 111
11 18 2 66 1 115
8 144 2 78 1 118
7 9 2 102 1 134
7 132 2 204 1 159
5 4 2 216 1 162
5 11 2 300 1 222
5 30 2 360 1 252
5 108 1 16 1 260
4 2 1 17 1 276
4 3 1 22 1 324
4 7 1 28 1 336
4 10 1 31 1 408
4 15 1 39 1 420
4 29 1 40 1 432
4 54 1 43
QUESTION #9—When did you last consider changing collectors?
Total responses: 423
% of responses: 52.0%
High: 432
Low: 1
Mean: 31 . 15
Standard Deviation: 42. 16
Count Months Count Months Count Months
101 12 4 144 1 14
59 24 4 240 1 17
46 1 3 9 1 19
38 36 3 21 1 25
26 6 2 11 1 38
26 60 2 15 1 39
18 48 2 16 1 54
11 2 2 20 1 55
11 72 2 30 1 61
10 96 2 84 1 69
9 3 2 132 1 85
8 120 2 180 1 122
5 4 1 7 1 432
5 8 1 10
4 18 1 13
QUESTION #10-Do you and your neighbors use the same collector?
Yes No Total
253 442 695
36.4% 63 .6% 85.5%
1 2 3 4 5 Total Mean St. Dev.
QUESTION #11 -1 am satisfied with current service quality
28 40 107 209 390 774 4. 15 1 .07
3.6% 5 .2% 13.8% 27.0% 50.4% 95.2%
QUESTION #12-1 do everything I can to recycle
19 21 65 208 477 790 4.40 0.92
2.4% 2.7% 8.2% 26.3% 60.4% 97.2%
QUESTION #13-1 would like to recycle more types of materials
32 31 100 123 470 756 4.28 1 . 11
4.2% 4. 1% 13.2% 16.3% 62.2% 93.0%
QUESTION #14-1 would like to use a separate yard waste container
119 54 178 127 264 742 3.49 1 .44
16.0% 7.3% 24.0% 17. 1% 35.6% 91 .3%
QUESTION #15-1 am willing to pay more for increased recycling
269 108 133 150 105 765 2.63 1 .47
35.2% 14. 1% 17.4% 19.6% 13 .7% 94. 1%
QUESTION #16-1 currently set out recyclables for collection this many times per month
89 106 67 355 617 3. 12 1 . 15
14.4% 17.2% 10.9% 57.5% 75.9%
QUESTION #17-1 support the following bill payment methods
Combine with City utility bill 239 45 93 172 176 725 3.00 1 .61
33.0% 6.2% 12.8% 23.7% 24.3% 89.2%
Mail payment directly to collector 65 46 170 138 284 703 3.75 1 .30
9.2% 6.5% 24.2% 19.6% 40.4% 86.5%
Automatic bill payment through account 434 53 97 51 51 686 1 .88 1 .31
63.3% 7.7% 14. 1 % 7.4% 7.4% 84.4%
QUESTION #18-How may times per year do you want to pay your bill ?
Total responses: 722
% of responses: 88.8%
High: 32
Low: 1
Mean: 5.57
Standard Deviation: 3.58
Count Times
418 4
146 12
76 3
36 6
30 2
10 1
2 5
1 7
1 9
1 24
1 32
APPENDIX C
Summary of Responses
Strongly Disagree Neither Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 Total Mean St, Dev.
QUESTION #1 -The following benefits districted collection are important to me :
Less traffic from big trucks 82 39 89 159 407 776 3 . 99 1 . 34
10 . 6% 5 . 0 % 11 . 5% 20 . 5% 52 .4% 95 .4%
Better safety from fewer trucks 92 55 122 172 333 774 3 . 77 1 . 38
11 . 9% 7 . 1 % 15 . 8% 22 . 2% 43 . 0% 95 . 2%
Better community appearance 85 51 125 165 351 777 3 . 83 1 . 35
10 . 9% 6 . 6 % 16 . 1 % 21 . 2% 45 . 2% 95 . 6%
Trash collection bill might
be reduced 117 45 121 144 332 759 3 . 70 1 .46
15 .4% 5 . 9 % 15 . 9% 19 . 0% 43 . 7% 93 .4%
Less pollution from trucks 83 39 102 171 377 772 3 . 93 1 . 34
10 . 8% 5 . 1 % 13 . 2% 22 . 2% 48 . 8% 95 . 0%
Less road damage from trucks 76 36 91 172 402 777 4 . 01 1 . 30
9 . 8 % 4 . 6 % 11 . 7% 22 . 1 % 51 . 7% 95 . 6%
Less noise from once per
week collections 80 32 108 147 410 777 4 . 00 1 . 33
10 . 3% 4 . 1 % 13 . 9% 18 . 9% 52 . 8% 95 . 6%
QUESTION #2-The following benefits of open collection are important to me :
Keep current collector 135 73 201 103 242 754 3 . 32 3 .43
17 . 9% 9 . 7 % 26 . 7% 13 . 7% 32 . 1 % 92 . 7%
Select own collector 122 65 185 119 254 745 3 .43 1 .44
16 .4% 8 . 7 % 24 . 8% 16 . 0% 34 . 1 % 91 . 6%
Retain same collection day & time173 82 259 63 173 750 2 . 97 1 .43
23 . 1 % 10 . 9% 34 . 5% 8 .4 % 23 . 1 % 92 . 3 %
No disruption in service 148 77 249 97 175 746 3 . 10 1 .40
19 . 8% 10 . 3% 33 .4% 13 . 0% 23 . 5% 91 . 8%
Use the same containers 126 61 214 103 251 755 3 . 39 1 .44
16 . 7% 8 . 1 % 28 . 3% 13 . 6% 33 . 2% 92 . 9%
QUESTION #3-1 would like to try districted trash collection
143 36 83 155 349 766 3 . 69 1 . 53
18 . 7% 4 . 7 % 10 . 8% 20 . 2% 45 . 6% 94 . 2%
QUESTION #4-1 would rather keep things as they are
231 109 158 49 172 719 2 . 75 1 . 55
32 . 1 % 15 . 2% 22 . 0% 6 . 8 % 23 . 9 % 88 .4 %
Strongly Disagree Neither Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 Total Mean St, Dev.
QUESTION #5-What is the annual estimated trash bill ?
Total responses : 664
% of responses : 81 . 7%
High : 720
Low: 3
Mean : 151 . 66
Standard Deviation : 80 .42
Actual Responses : CountAmount CountAmount CountAmount
65 120 . 00 3 192 . 00 1 124 . 00
60 100 . 00 3 270 . 00 1 135 . 00
40 200 . 00 3 280 . 00 1 142 . 00
38 150 . 00 3 500 . 00 1 145 . 80
23 110 . 00 2 15 . 00 1 151 . 80
21 160 . 00 2 42 . 00 1 152 .40
18 130 . 00 2 62 . 00 1 155 . 00
17 108 . 00 2 94 . 00 1 163 . 00
17 220 . 00 2 97 . 00 1 164 . 00
16 180 . 00 2 115 . 00 1 164 . 70
14 80 . 00 2 126 . 00 1 171 . 00
12 240 . 00 2 128 . 00 1 178 . 00
11 250 . 00 2 132 . 00 1 185 . 00
11 300 . 00 2 138 . 00 1 188 . 00
10 75 . 00 2 148 . 00 1 190 . 00
10 140 . 00 2 151 . 00 1 202 . 00
10 165 . 00 2 153 . 00 1 204 . 00
9 90 . 00 2 156 . 00 1 206 . 00
9 125 . 00 2 174 . 00 1 207 .40
9 144 . 00 2 175 . 00 1 215 . 00
7 36 . 00 2 195 . 00 1 215 .40
7 70 . 00 2 219 . 00 1 219 . 60
7 96 . 00 2 222 . 00 1 224 . 00
7 168 . 00 1 3 . 00 1 226 . 00
6 114 . 00 1 10 . 00 1 230 . 00
6 152 . 00 1 12 . 00 1 232 . 00
6 170 . 00 1 18 . 00 1 235 . 00
6 210 . 00 1 20 . 00 1 256 . 00
6 225 . 00 1 25 . 00 1 260 . 00
4 50 . 00 1 28 . 00 1 261 . 00
4 60 . 00 1 30 . 00 1 268 . 00
4 65 . 00 1 55 . 00 1 288 . 00
4 85 . 00 1 56 . 00 1 296 . 00
4 88 . 00 1 66 . 00 1 302 . 00
4 109 . 00 1 67 . 00 1 315 . 00
4 112 . 00 1 75 . 60 1 326 . 00
4 162 . 00 1 78 . 00 1 360 . 00
4 208 . 00 1 78 . 75 1 378 . 00
4 216 . 00 1 92 . 00 1 396 . 00
4 400 . 00 1 93 . 00 1 408 . 00
3 40 . 00 1 98 . 00 1 420 . 00
3 48 . 00 1 100 . 80 1 450 . 00
3 72 . 00 1 101 . 30 1 480 . 00
3 104 . 00 1 109 . 20 1 516 . 00
3 105 . 00 1 113 . 76 1 600 . 00
3 136 . 00 1 116 . 00 1 650 . 00
3 176 . 00 1 121 . 00 1 720 . 00
Strongly Disagree Neither Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 Total Mean St, Dev.
QUESTION #6a—Do you haul your own trash ?
Yes No Total
138 646 784
17 . 6% 82 .4% 96 .4%
QUESTION #6b—Average number of self-haul trips per year
Total responses : 142
% of responses : 17 . 5%
High : 90
Low: 1
Mean : 5 .49
Standard Deviation : 9 . 66
Count Trips
41 2
30 4
27 3
10 6
8 1
4 15
4 12
4 10
4 5
3 8
3 7
1 90
1 52
1 50
1 24
QUESTION #7—The number of containers set out each week :
CountNumber
Cans : 240 1
92 2
25 3
3 4
2 0 . 5
1 1 +
1 20
1 5
Carts : 164 1
4 2
Bags : 156 1
62 2
21 3
6 4
5 0 . 5
2 6
1 7
1 5
Other:
1 18
1 Recycle Bin 18
Recycling Bin 10
1 Recycling Bin 7
Recycle Bin 6
Dumpster 5
1 Dumpster 3
Toter 2
. 5 Dumpster 1
. 5 Recycle Box 1
1 Barrel 1
1 Bin 1
1 Recycle 1
1 Recycle Cart 1
1 Recycle Container 1
1 Recycle Tub 1
2/Yr 1
3 Yard Boxes 1
Box 1
" Lg Boxes , etc. " 1
Newspapers 1
Papers 1
Recycling Bins 1
Trash Bin 1
Tub 1
Yard Waste 1
QUESTION #8—How long with current collector?
Total responses : 748
% of responses : 92 . 0%
High : 432
Low: 1
Mean : 57 . 24
Standard Deviation : 63 . 53
Count Months Count Months Count Months
121 12 4 192 1 44
85 24 3 21 1 46
79 36 3 122 1 50
71 60 3 156 1 52
43 48 2 5 1 53
40 120 2 13 1 61
30 72 2 14 1 62
23 6 2 19 1 65
20 96 2 20 1 67
17 240 2 27 1 68
15 1 2 38 1 69
14 84 2 42 1 75
14 180 2 51 1 110
12 8 2 55 1 111
11 18 2 66 1 115
8 144 2 78 1 118
7 9 2 102 1 134
7 132 2 204 1 159
5 4 2 216 1 162
5 11 2 300 1 222
5 30 2 360 1 252
5 108 1 16 1 260
4 2 1 17 1 276
4 3 1 22 1 324
4 7 1 28 1 336
4 10 1 31 1 408
4 15 1 39 1 420
4 29 1 40 1 432
4 54 1 43
QUESTION #9-When did you last consider changing collectors ?
Total responses : 423
% of responses : 52 . 0%
High : 432
Low: 1
Mean : 31 . 15
Standard Deviation : 42 . 16
Count Months Count Months Count Months
101 12 4 144 1 14
59 24 4 240 1 17
46 1 3 9 1 19
38 36 3 21 1 25
26 6 2 11 1 38
26 60 2 15 1 39
18 48 2 16 1 54
11 2 2 20 1 55
11 72 2 30 1 61
10 96 2 84 1 69
9 3 2 132 1 85
8 120 2 180 1 122
5 4 1 7 1 432
5 8 1 10
4 18 1 13
QUESTION #10-Do you and your neighbors use the same collector?
Yes No Total
253 442 695
36 .4% 63 . 6% 85 . 5%
Strongly Disagree Neither Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 Total Mean St, Dev.
QUESTION #11 -1 am satisfied with current service quality
28 40 107 209 390 774 4 . 15 1 . 07
3 . 6 % 5 . 2 % 13 . 8 % 27 . 0 % 50 .4 % 95 . 2 %
QUESTION #12-1 do everything I can to recycle
19 21 65 208 477 790 4 .40 0 . 92
2 .4 % 2 . 7 % 8 . 2 % 26 . 3 % 60 .4 % 97 . 2 %
QUESTION #13-1 would like to recycle more types of materials
32 31 100 123 470 756 4 . 28 1 . 11
4 . 2 % 4 . 1 % 13 . 2 % 16 . 3 % 62 . 2 % 93 . 0 %
QUESTION #14-1 would like to use a separate yard waste container
119 54 178 127 264 742 3 .49 1 .44
16 . 0 % 7 . 3 % 24 . 0 % 17 . 1 % 35 . 6% 91 . 3%
Strongly Disagree Neither Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 Total Mean St, Dev.
QUESTION #15-1 am willing to pay more for increased recycling
269 108 133 150 105 765 2 . 63 1 .47
35 . 2 % 14 . 1 % 17 .4 % 19 . 6 % 13 . 7% 94 . 1 %
QUESTION #16-1 currently set out recyclables for collection this many times per month
89 106 67 355 617 3 . 12 1 . 15
14 .4% 17 . 2% 10 . 9% 57 . 5% 75 . 9%
QUESTION #17-1 support the following bill payment methods
Combine with City utility bill 239 45 93 172 176 725 3 . 00 1 . 61
33 . 0 % 6 . 2 % 12 . 8 % 23 . 7 % 24 . 3% 89 . 2%
Mail payment directly to collector 65 46 170 138 284 703 3 . 75 1 . 30
9 . 2 % 6 . 5 % 24 . 2 % 19 . 6 % 40 .4 % 86 . 5 %
Automatic bill payment through account 434 53 97 51 51 686 1 . 88 1 . 31
63 . 3% 7 . 7 % 14 . 1 % 7 .4 % 7 .4 % 84 .4%
QUESTION #18-How may times per year do you want to pay your bill ?
Total responses : 722
% of responses : 88 . 8%
High : 32
Low: 1
Mean : 5 . 57
Standard Deviation : 3 . 58
Count Times
418 4
146 12
76 3
36 6
30 2
10 1
2 5
1 7
1 9
1 24
1 32
dTft Fort Collins
City of Fort Collins Air Quality Advisory Board
AIR QUALITY BOARD RESOLUTION TO CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Fort Collins Air Quality Advisory Board
DATE : May 29, 2007
SUBJECT: Board Recommendation to establish a City Trash Collection Utility
Dear Mayor and members of City Council :
At our meeting of May 22 , the Fort Collins Air Quality Board passed a unanimous resolution to City
Council :
"The AQAB recommends that City Council develop and adopt an implementation plan for a City of
Fort Collins public trash collection utility. "
The AQAB recognizes that the establishment of a utility constitutes a substantial undertaking for the
City. We also understand that the establishment of a new utility will involve a change in our charter, and
thus require a public vote.
Nonetheless, the Board believes that the one-time challenges will be more than compensated for by
solving this intransigent problem once and for all. The Board is convinced that absent action. this
longtime problem will not only continue, but will grow worse as it negatively impacts safetu noise, costs
to residents and streets, congestion, and air quality.
Review
The Board has had recent presentations by two citizen groups advocating districting. We also reviewed
the most thorough study to date, the 1998 HF & H "Trash Districting Feasibility Analysis." Some
conclusions of this study were as follows :
• Districting would reduce truck traffic on city streets, resulting in less congestion, less noise and
air pollution, and less street maintenance costs . Street cost savings alone is roughly $322,000 per
year.
• The report 's extensive public opinion survey shows a majority of Fort Collins residents can be
expected to support districting.
• The report 's economic analysis showed cost savings to residents at as much as $500,000 per year.
Fort Collins
Air Quality Advisory Board
City of Fort Collins
Discussion
Before its motion, the Board examined three courses of action.
1 . Do nothing/market correction.
Historical experience over two decades has not shown evidence of market consolidation or
reformulation that would result in a significant reduction in trash truck trips . One presenter to our
Board , Mary Smith , observed the following :
`7 live on a street that's two blocks long and has 27 houses on it and is 2110 of a mile long. I have
four trash haulers on my street and four recycling trucks on my street. Three days a week there are
trash haulers and recyclers on my street. One day there are four trucks; the other two days there
are just two. Three days of the week there are trashcans sitting out on the street. These are the
heaviest vehicles on our street, with the exception of an occasional moving van, that comes through
every week. Somehow, it seems to us, that eight trucks to pick up 27 houses, there has to be waste
somewhere . . . I 've been here for 27 years and when I first moved here there was districting. "
2. Trash Districting .
Recommended in the 1998 HF & F study. The Board believes that districting would solve the
problems associated with our excessive truck trips .
One change in districting would be that residents could no longer select their hauler. In reality, this
may not pose a major concern . HF & F 's survey showed residents were more concerned about
container selection (46 . 8 % ) than keeping their current hauler (45 . 8 % ) .
The greatest challenge to the Board concerning districting was devising an equitable way to
partition districts among existing haulers , as well as what to do about possible future haulers or
market consolidation . The Board was unable to formulate solutions to these problems .
3 . City Utility.
This solution , recommended by the Board , would solve the problems associated with our current
excessive truck trips , as well as avoid the problems associated with creating districts and
accommodating market changes . Loveland has run its own collection utility since 1989 .
As mentioned , establishing a city utility will require an election . It will also require bonding if the
City was interested in owning the necessary equipment. A possible alternative approach would be
to subcontract some or all of the work involved . Employees of haulers could either continue in their
jobs via subcontracting , or alternately, work for the City.
Thank you for your consideration of this resolution. I would be happy to answer any questions or convey
your comments and further direction to the Board.
Sincerely, J
Eric Levine, PAW,
Board Chair
MEMORANDUM
FROM THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
NATURAL RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
DATE : August 6, 2007
TO : Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Ryan M. Staychock on behalf of the Natural Resources Advisory Board
SUBJECT : Recommendation pertaining to trash hauling.
The Natural Resource Advisory Board. asks City Council to have staff put together one or
more recommendations in the area of trash hauling which would have the effect of
significantly improving environmental quality while simultaneously reducing road
maintenance and other costs to the City. Such recommendations may include districting
or a utility, as well as an analysis of the current system and its effectiveness.
Please feel fi•ee to contact me regarding the NRAB ' s recommendation on this issue.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ryan M . Staychock, Chair
Natural Resources Advisory Board
970-481 - 180I
ryan8taycbock@liotmail.com
com
cc: Dariii Atteberry, City Manager
John Stokes, Staff Liaison
ATTACHMENT 3
�•�� Rwycidm
FALL 2007 VOLUME 10 ISSUE 4
Freedom of Choice in Waste Collection Threatened
or the past 10 years the city of Fort Collins has spent valuable
time, and taxpayer dollars on the investigation into taking control
of residential trash collection in the city limits. For 2008, they
may be allocating as much as$135,000 toward the same cause. Does s
this sound like a good use of your tax dollars?Doesn't this sound like an
excessive amount of money?
h,
From past efforts,city officials concluded that the reports produced may ;,;
have been biased,lacking factual proof,and did not take into consideration
the effects on the waste collectors as businesses, who are major
stakeholders in the process. After those studies they concluded it would !.
be better to put the funds to use in more productive ways and let the
current marketplace continue to improve through the efforts of "
stakeholders working together without the threat of take-over.
Under the current free market system, you have choices. You can choose what service type best fits YOUR household's
needs,whether it's one small bag set out less than monthly or a large cart every week. You can choose what, how much and
even if your household will participate in recycling. If we fail to meet YOUR service quality standards at any time, you can
choose to be serviced by another hauler. Not to be forgotten,you can choose to get together with your neighbors or homeowner's
4ssociation and pick,as a group,your desired hauler for your block or neighborhood,without the government telling you who
will be.
Fort Collins is supposed to be the"Choice City,"but that status is continually threatened,especially when government aims to
steal hard-earned business from private industry. They want to be known as a supporter of LOCAL business,but how is the
threat created by districting supportive to the two remaining small waste collection businesses in our community? As business
owners,we all face similar challenges. But having our business'future,our family's and employee family's futures threatened
by local government take-over should not be one of them. What is it that makes our business of any less value than the
landscapers, construction contractors or restaurants of our community,to the degree that the 49 years we have put into this
business and community to build a respectable reputation and quality service should be threatened by government take-over?
The city officials and supporters have not been clear or honest in explaining the reason behind districting and this makes waste
haulers very skeptical of supporting the concept. Supporters of districting have only brought PERCEIVED benefits to the table
and are responsible for twisting opinions by asking questions that offer savings to residents. If the reason for districting is truly
to improve recycling rates (% recycled), these funds should be spent helping the COMMERCIAL and construction waste
sectors increase their programs for the fastest, most significant improvement. If the reason is to reduce street repairs in
residential neighborhoods by decreasing truck traffic,then you should know that the number of trucks and companies is of
what it was 10 years ago, during the last study. (14 trucks to 6, now only 3 companies). You should also know that some of
their ideas would actually INCREASE the number trucks in your neighborhood!
We ask you, is spending even more valuable resources on an issue that is For more information on this
working itself out through existing competition really necessary? If the study
subject, please visit our website. ;
alone will cost $135K, how much would the actual system cost? Is districting We would encourage you to
residential trash collection necessary? Why really is it being considered and send your comments to us at
are the desired results achievable through such a program? If government was Q�� r1com
more efficient than private industry,wouldn't everything be run that way? What or by mail to:
ajo they call government that controls industry?If a districted system is put into Districting Issue
lace, residents will pay MORE, through increased monthly fees and taxes. PO Box 1986
After all, what does the government actually do that doesn't cost more than in Ft. Collins, CO 80522
the private sector?
Attachment 3, p. 2
RANI WASTE SYSTEMS.INC.-WINTER 2007
IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR SERVICE
FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN WASTE COLLECTION THREATENED!
Fur the past ten years the City of Fort Collins has spent valuable time and taxpayer dollars on the investigation
into taking control of residential trash collection. Now at a time when we cannot properly fund our police or
fire departments, the City has decided to pursue a study of trash districting at an initial cost of$75.0(X). We ask
you, is spending$75,000 on an issue that is already being handled by the competitive marketplace really
necessary? Is the City.just trying to expand its control into private business? Do you really think government
regulated business would be cheaper and more customer focused than the local haulers'? If a districting system
is put into place, residents will ultimately pay more for a lower level of customer service.We believe that the
districting idea is an assault on our freedom of choice and the support of local established businesses.
Under the current free market system, you have choices.You can choose what type of service best fits your
needs and select which company will perform the service. In addition,you can join together with your
neighbors or homeowners association to choose it custom service and pick up days. If we fail to meet you
service quality standards,you can choose to be serviced by another hauler.As a result of competition and of
ficedom of choice,your service is good,rates are competitive and you can support local business.
City officials and supporters have not been clear or honest in explaining the reason behind districting. They
have only stated perceived benefits and are responsible for manufacturing one sided and biased claims.If a city
controlled districting system is pun into place you will pay more foi service through increased fees and taxes.
The City of Fort Collins claims to be a supporter of local businesses,but how is the threat created by districting
supportive to family owned waste collection businesses in our community'?As an established local business, we
have faced many challenges. Being forced to give up loyal customers and having our businesses future, along
with out-employees and their families future, threatened by local government take over,should not be one of
them.
We thank you for your continued support.We welcome your thoughts on this issue If you would like to share
your opinion, please take a moment and complete the form below and send back with your payment.
Once again, we thank you for your business.
LOCALLY OWNED AND SERVICING FORT COLLINS FOR 24 YEARS
CHECK ALL THAT APPI Y
I LIKE THE OPTION TO BE ABLE TO CHOOSE MY HAULER
I AM HAPPY WITH MY CURRENT SERVICE
1 BELIEVE IN SUPPORTING LOCAL BUSINESS
I BELIEVE THAT A COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE IS THE BEST SYSTEM
I DO NOT WANT MORE GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN DAILY ACTIVITIES
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
NAME: ADDRESS:
fOPTION'AL)