HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Read Before Packet - 11/26/2013 - Letter From Roger Hageman, Hageman Earth Cycle, Re: Work Session Agenda Item #1 - Zero WasteNovember 25, 2013
To:
Susie Gordon, Natural Resources Department
City Manager, Darin Atteberry
Honorable City Council Members
From: Roger Hageman, Hageman Earth Cycle,
Re: Zero Waste
I know that the job all of you have to do is and or can be monumental in
terms of being able to govern and do what is best for all concerned. Thank you
for being willing to serve! Yet that is what government is for, to lead and set the
example and to set policy that will allow for the prosperity of those you govern.
I respect each of you and if you will allow me, I want address some concerns
with the proposed “Zero Waste” policies, land use policies and the handling of
yard waste and other organics.
I want to apologize in advance for the tone of this letter as it represents a
small part of my frustrations with some City policies that have dealt us
unfavorable consequences over the past years. It is not my intent to be critical
of any one person but to convey my frustrations so that you might hopefully
understand some of the repercussions your policies have on business and
people. I have laid out 6 areas of conflict and frustrations we have had over
policies that have been handed to us with no chance of redress on our part.
Please read and address as is applicable to your leadership.
For those of you who don’t know who we are, we are a recycle and
landscape supply company on east Prospect in Ft. Collins and we have been at
this location since 1982 and recycling since 1995. We recycle over one hundred
thousand cubic yards of material each year and we do it economically and
without “government” assistance, and we actually pay taxes on products we
sell. We have many valued customers whom we have endeavored to assist in
recycling efforts and we have provided a needed service for them for the past 18
years. I consider them my customers, not that I own them, but I have earned
the right to provide for them. I have invested many resources in our ability to
serve them and they have found value in our service and products. Now, with
the new zero waste program, as it currently is recommended, you as leaders in
government, will take those customers away from me and eventually mandate
they use your services. My question for you is this, what gives you, the City, the
right to use TAX dollars and compete with me in taking those customers from
me and assuming they belong to you. I trust that will not be the official policy
of the City of Ft. Collins Zero Waste program. I do not think that any of you
would want to have that happen to you on a personal level? I can compete with
any government on a level playing field and that being the point, your field no
November 26, 2013
Council Work Session
Agenda Item #1
matter how you look at it is stacked against me and is designed to run over me
at your collective will. I have been told by well-meaning leaders that I can bid on
doing the recycling. Yes I could, but are they your customers to be letting a bid
out on them. I have earned their loyalty by giving great products and services
and I don’t mind losing them to honest competition but your brand of
competition is not on the same field as we compete on. If you start your
program at a tax supported rate and your price is lower than ours, it will
certainly hurt our business. Wouldn’t a better solution be to allow the customer
to choose the services they want and by what provider.
1. Please bear with me to repeat here what I have stated many times
since it took place some time ago. In my start up days I presented a
development plan before the City and Natural Resources reviewed the plan and
immediately went out and bought the land I had already agreed to buy and the
owner agreed to sell me, but because the City had millions in “open space
funds”, I was told by the seller that I was out of luck. (I know that you applaud
your open space policies and in many cases I assume they are a good thing. However,
when those policies take away the right of individuals and or companies to buy or own
land that is otherwise needed, those policies are counter-productive. Such is the case
concerning our business. Because you as a city have purchased many acres surrounding
the city, there is no place that we can buy land close in that will serve our customer’s
needs. Since you took away the land we were trying to purchase it now becomes a battle
to provide our services. Also, I have been told by City leaders that we can still buy land,
just pay the price. Coming from me, someone who cannot tax people, that is an ignorant,
arrogant statement. I do not tax people, you do, I cannot afford to compete with a
government that uses tax dollars to provide their every need.) Since that time I have
paid rent to the City as I certainly needed the space. This is one of the first
examples of government interference and control.
Well you might state that the City has the right to do what it wants with
its money and I suppose they do and they have. I looked for other land over the
years and of the properties that may work for me, 20 or more, have been
purchased by the City, using open space funds. We needed land and were in
the process of buying and we were out bid by City government every time. The
restrictions placed on open space or development restricted land then is
prohibitive for beneficial use. We cannot do what we do without land and we
also need a location that allows us good access for drop off and sales of our
product. (That counts up to over 20 examples of intervention and or restriction and
control.)
2. We were composting on our site for many years and there were no
adverse results but many good results from the composting. The City spent
some $35K+ to try to find something wrong with our operation and found no
contaminants in the water, yet now we are forced to not compost on the land
because of government rules and now we need to haul all the compostable
materials to a remote location. How much more fuel does that take to
accomplish! You strain and worry to have everyone make smart-trips and to not
allow them to idle their cars in winter, and yet you cause us to burn 1,000s of
gallons of fuel simply because we cannot compost at our location. (we were
never consulted as to the idea of not allowing composting within the City) and
you have taken away the ability to develop composting here because you took
away the possibility of us owning the land and improving it to meet the recycle
needs that are out there. Also the area would look much better today if we
owned it. This is example number 2 (actually #22) of government policies that restrict
or stop further beneficial use for our company.
The new proposed and approved facility that is to recycle “mixed loads
only” is a great example # 3. I am assuming it will be built in the near future
and it will not do what you have planned it to do and because you will get
complaints and you will approve a new and bigger facility and soon you will be
competing with our business in a more direct way again. How can I compete
with what you are determined to do here? How are we to compete with this
mind set? If we had had the space, LAND, we would already be doing the mixed
loads, asphalt shingle recycling, etc. and actually paying taxes on the income.
Example # 4, (or is it 24) is the taking of retail customers by requiring
them to use the suggested idea of yard waste pickup. (As recommended in the
zero waste program.) I suppose a container per week will suffice sometimes, but
the great majority of cars, trailers and trucks I see coming into our facility have
much more than a trash can per week. And, aren’t some trash haulers already
doing the weekly pickup of yard debris. Yet the policy seemingly wants everyone
to fit an ideal mold or the ideal one can per week situation, and I don’t really
think that will work everywhere.
A possible future example of number 5, will, I assume, be your
requirements for whomever hauls the material that the material be taken to a
compost facility as suggested in the recommendations. We at times transport
our yard waste to our fields and to a farmer’s field where it is put to its highest
use as a natural fertilizer. Seems like a pretty good solution rather than
spending $2,500,000.00 on a permitted facility that will not turn out more than
15,000 cubic yards per year of finished material. Why on earth would it cost $2
million, it is because of government regulations. It is the way it is. At a cost of
$2.5 million it would take a very long time to return the capital cost and
operating cost at only $130 - $150K income per year. And, on what grounds will
you justify the expense. Private firms are already picking up yard waste
material and disposing of it, so why do you feel you need to control it at an
added cost that will not be sustainable.
6. Another issue that has been difficult for us is the road in front of our
place. Twice over the past 15 years it was rebuilt but we were never able to
address the width of the road and the turn lanes. It is an issue that was
supposed to be taken care of in “Issues 95”. As I remember that tax, it was to
widen Prospect, but it has not happened where we are. I realize there are
greater issues with drainage and etc., but may I suggest that next time instead
of or in conjunction with purchasing more open space, plan to fix the roads we
have now.
A Solution?
One, a change of attitude and or thinking! I believe it needs to come from
the top down as in any organization. Please work with me and or other
contractors, entrepreneurs to facilitate their needs in land and resources
instead of working against us. Set polices that allow for the working together
and or flourishing of both City and Private Companies. They are your life blood,
not the enemy. Let me or someone else buy the land we need to do the job at a
fair market price. Instead of insisting upon the land being “a place for deer to
run”, why not sell it, and let us make it a first class recycle facility? If
government would have stayed out of the way in the first place, much more
could have already been accomplished. Is that space so sacred or needed in the
broad scheme of open space that your whole program will fail by selling 10 to 20 acres,
especially when it could solve a real problem of recycling? Since Prospect is to be the
environmental gateway to Ft. Collins, why not make the land back there
available to those who can make it that way.
In part of the Zero Waste recommendations being submitted, it is
suggested that the City work with those in the private sector to accomplish Zero
Waste goals. Great idea! Five years ago in a City Council meeting, when our
lease was renewed, the council then instructed the City Manager to work with
us to see what could be worked out, well, I am still waiting. In reality, what can
the City Manager or others in leadership do, as the solution would be stepping
on some supposedly “sacred” ground or unchangeable set in stone plan.
Change would require leadership admit that maybe that land could be used for
something other than a place for deer to run, which by the way, they already
do. While some have visited us, nothing has been done. This is not said to
blame anyone as many other issues rule the day for all of us. But the fact
remains, we are no closer to a solution other than being at odds with us and
building your own facility to do what we already do. I did not create this
situation, City leaders did.
We do now have a working facility which will soon be in competition with
you and that is by your design, not mine. Unless your policies are changed it is
clear to me that it is your intent or at least the intent of Natural Resources to
put us out of business. How can you develop a system as you have approved
and are building down the street from us and say it does not compete with us? I
would love to hear your feeble answer and or your justification.
I do want to let it be known however, that I am now and have been in the
past, very willing to work for the best scenario going forward. I have never been
closed to working with the City or anyone on any process or solution that will
work. I believe there are many common sense solutions that can be put into
place that will make a decision that is good for all.
Thanks you for your time and patience in reading this small book.
Sincerely,
Roger Hageman
Hageman Earth Cycle
970-566-1918
roger@hecinc.net