HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFP - P1109 TRASH SERVICES STUDYADDENDUM No 1
P1109 Trash Services Study
SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
Description of RFP P1109 Trash Services Study
OPENING DATE 3 00 P M (Our Clock) February 22 2008
To all prospective bidders under the specifications and contract documents described above
the following changes are hereby made
•ce
Task 3
25 With regard to a trash districting option consider the market impacts that
have been observed in other communities that have districted their trash
collection service such as whether new haulers who were not previously in
business in the community bid on the contracts and if local independent haulers
discontinued business under the new system
Attached
• Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson LLC Trash Districting Feasibility Analysis May 1
1998
Notes from prebid meeting held February 13, 2008 at 215 N Mason,
Fort Collins & via teleconferencing
1 Will this project cover issues for commercial trash collection?
Answer The focus of the study is residential trash
For the prioritized list of recommendations for actions, is the City looking for what
the consultant thinks should be done?
Answer We re looking for an analysis such as a matrix of options that shows which of
the issues of concern would be addressed by the options presented by the consultant
What is the role of the local haulers? Given the short time frame of the project,
how will we get the information about trucks? The report will be better if the
information concerning trucks is accurate Are the haulers playing an active role
in the study?
Answer The haulers are not driving the process but they are important stakeholders
along with citizens and other interest groups The City does have information about
trash trucks which must be licensed in Fort Collins
where renewal is a way of life
Chapter 1—Back,4round
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'
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,
o Survey public opinion regarding districting and
Analyze the cost/benefits of a districted system
In order to accomplish these objectives HF&H in consultation with the City developed the
following scope of work
' 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
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 Analysts 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 marl 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
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),
4 Trabh DistrictingThidy
Chapter I —Background
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,
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
Hilton Farnkopf&Hobson LLC 5
City of Fort Collins
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 to our analysts however the actual impact could be more or less
than estimated and that difference could be significant
6 Trash Districting Sti dy
Chapter 2 — Tneck 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 tragic 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 a 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 protecting 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 a 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 Departments 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 Sthidy
Chapter 2 — Truck Impacts
Table 21
Vehicle Impact Summary
Assumed Number of
Weekly Trash and
Projected Monthly
Savings per
Recycling Vehicles
Residential
Account
Total Annual Citywide
Saving
Associated Percent
Old Street
New Street
Old Street
New Street
Current Districted
Increase in Street
Construction
Construchon
Construction
Construction
System System
Life
Standards
Standards
Standards
Standards
10 2
174
$2 21
$1 99
$700 000
$630 000
8 2
12 5
$1 59
$143
$503 000
$453 000
6 2
8 0
$1 02
$0 91
$322 000
$290 000
4 2
3 9
$0 49
$0 44
$155 000
$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 linut 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 minmuze 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
Gh/ of Fwt Collins
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
10 Tmsh Districting Study
Chapter 3 Pnblic 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 distncted 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 distncting
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 distncted trash collection followed by four sections eliciting residents
responses to
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson LLC 17
k
Gtv o Fort Collins
1) Distncted 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 d mailed them A
with
each survey They were returned o
returnedto Firspostage-pa
t Class Direct s return envelope
officeswhereresponses weretalled
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 1500 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 subrrutted their completed surveys to First
Class Direct for tabulation First Class Direct subrrutted those results to HF&H for analysis A
sumary of four
y sections is
ented
the survey isfattached asindings for eAppendixach of eB and the esummary of thesbelow
responsesis included as
Appendix C
Districted vs Open Trash & Recycling Collection
Questions 1-4 of the survey solicited residents thoughts regarding distncted 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
!following benefits of districting are important to me ), a clear
Based on the results of Question 1 ( th
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 4-213 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
opiruon on a particular question See the footnote below Chart 3-1 for a further explanation
4 What data resources will be available to the consultants?
Answer City staff stated that a list of resources will be provided in an addendum for
potential consultants that indicates what sources of information and data will be available
during the course of the study for the awarded consultant firm including
o list of licensed trash and recycling collection vehicles
o 2006 Report Strategic Plan for 50% Solid Waste Diversion in Fort Collins
http //fcgov com/talkingtrash/odf/DRAFT solid waste diversion plan prelim staf
f recs 2006-0321 pdf
o Website to watch broadcast of January 8 2008 Council study session and
broadcast of community trash districting forum June 2007
http //fcgov com/cable14/video php?home#
o Traffic count data as available
o Breakdown of when streets were built
o Pavement Management Study 2007
o Budget protections for future road maintenance work based on deterioration
records and other data
5 Is the City looking for a specific recommendation about districting?
Answer If it s a likely measure for the City to consider yes but this is not specifically a
trash districting study What the City needs is good data about a range of alternatives
that address some or all of the problems outlined in the problem statement
6 Are the primary solutions that the consultant comes up with supposed to combine
trash collection and recycling?
Answer Not necessarily Some options might hit 3-4 of the issues some may only hit
one
7 Is Task 1, item 1, second bullet referring to "recycling diversion rates" in terms of
cost rates, or recycling rates?
Answer We re interested in changes to levels of recycling rather than rates in term of
cost to residences
8 Will the consultant be asked to meet with the City Manager or Council?
Answer We do not anticipate that
9 Is it possible that the consultant on this project would be retained for further work
on implementing any recommendations from this study?
Answer We do not anticipate that
10 How far back does the City's information go concerning street paving costs, and
are the costs appropriate for the level of maintenance (PCI) that you are trying to
achieve?
Answer Our cost information goes back ten years The City s target is 75 PCI and
we ve ranged between 73-76
11 How extensive a study of Best Management Practices, and from which
communities, are you looking for?
Answer City Council has a frame of reference for Fort Collins but other places have a
variety of ways to deliver services that s the kind of information we re looking for
generally from communities that have similar demographics regulatory frameworks etc
12 Are you looking for quality benchmarkmg versus quantity benchmarkmg?
Answer Yes
Very Strong
Strong
Neutral
Strong
Chart 31
Importance of Districted Collection Benefits'
OSupport ®Opposition
Clutpter 3 Public Opinion Survey
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 bir generally indicates a
greater number of responses The wtute 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 stile 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
AgreiJJ Disagree) Number of
Question Stronal�Agree Neutral Strongly Disagree Responses
There would be less truck traffic
72 9%
115%
15 6%
776
Traffic safety would improve
652
158
190
774
The community would look better
664
161
175
777
Trash bill aught be reduced
627
159
213
759
There would be less air pollution
710
132
159
772
Fewer trucks to damage roads
738
117
144
777
Less truck collection noise
717
139
144
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 213 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
to some of the benefits of an open system the level of support
respondents ascribed importance
for those benefits was much weaker than that of the distncting 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
Very Strong
Strong
Neutral
Strong
Chart 3 2
Importance of Open System Benefits
[3Support ■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
Chapter 3 Public Opinion Survey
Table 3 2
Support for Open System
Agree/ Disagree/ Number of
Question Strongly Agree Neutral Strongly Dlaagree Rest
Keeping current trash collector
45 8%
Selecting my trash collector
500
Keeping same collection day & time
315
No transitional disruption
365
Continue to use same containers
468
26 7a/o
27 6%
754
248
251
745
345
340
750
334
301
746
283
248
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 distncting These results are supported by the responses to
Questions 3 and 4 of the survey which solicited overall support for distracted 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 Districting
Strong
Neutral
Strong
❑Support ®Opposition
Keep Open System
Chart 3-3 indicates very strong support overall for a desire to try distracted trash collection
There was some opposition to districted trash collection but that opposition was not as strong
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson LLC 15
Oty of Fort Collins
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 Dtstricted Collection Table
3-4 below presents the numeric responses to these two questions
Table 3 4
Districted vs Open System
p9r� Disagree/ Number of
Queshon Strongly Agree Neutral Strongly Disagree Resoonses
Try Distncted Collection 65 8% 10 8% 23 4% 766
Keep open system 307 220 473 719
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 11most 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 $132 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 pet
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
Tlus means that almost every resident subscribes to trash collection service
16 Trash Distnctmg 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
05 2 1 05 5 1 1 164
1 240
1
156
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 penods 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 & Hobwn LLC 17
Cdv 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
Number of
Satisfied with current recycling service
77 4%
13 8%
8 8%
774
Currently recycle as much as possible
867
82
51
790756
Want to recycle more types of materials
785
132
83
Want a separate yard waste container
528
240
233
742
Will pay more to recycle more
333
174
493
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
Combined with City utility bill
Mail directly to trash collector
Automatic bank transaction
Number of
48 0%
12 8%
39 2%
725
600
242
157
703
148
141
710
686
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
hash 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 & Hobwn LLC 19
Cifof Fort Collins
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
Chapter 4 Districting Model manual 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 estimateMure
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 surular 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
district(s) To illustrate this point we have included Table 4-1 below which summarizes the
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson LLC 21
Collins
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
Proposal
Table 4-1
Sample Districting Outcomes
($000 s)
Recycling
Zone 1
Zone 2
Both
savings
2267
1711
3602
(94)
2 538
1009
3 434
(3 2)
5 285 3 609 6 405 (28 0)
2495 1590 3660 (104)
Green Waste I Both
Zone 1
Zone 2
Both
Savings
5 945
3 960
9 688
(2 2)
5259
2687
7863
(10)
6 499
5 237
9 678
(17 5)
5,547
4 710
8 739
(14 8)
Zone 1
Zone 2
Both
Savings
8212
5671
13290
(43)
7 797
3 696
11,297
(17)
11785
8 846
16 083
(22 0)
8042
6300
12399
(135)
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
Each distncted 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
22 Trask Drstncting Stittty
13 How extensively do you want the consultant to evaluate the impacts of other types
of delivery trucks and buses on streets?
Answer Council is interested in a comparative analysis relative to the impacts from
trash trucks a one-to-one comparison For example what is the typical difference in
street damage between various types of vehicles?
14 Will legal research be needed as part of the study?
Answer No the City will do its own legal work and the Deputy City Attorney is part of
the staff team on this protect
15 How much coordination will be needed between the staff and consulting teams?
Answer It will depend on the needs of the consultant but the City s goal is to do much
of the work on-line and via conference call to minimize travel time for the consultant
16 Are the trash haulers willing to share information about the weight distribution of
their trucks, fuel usage, number of miles of traveled on residential streets, etc?
Answer The City is hopeful that local haulers will provide critical information but we
can t guarantee it
17 Task 1 item 1 requests an evaluation of the City's metrics and measurements for
solid waste and recycling diversion rates (including compost and construction
debris) How should we consider composting and C&D (much of which is
generated & managed outside the residential sector) given the previous direction?
Answer The City evaluates its diversion rates based on data for the entire community
waste stream and recycling stream not just for the residential waste and recycling
Consultants will be provided with these data and with a standard quantification used by
the City to estimate what portion of the waste stream may be reasonably attributed to
residential generation
Please contact John D Stephen CPPO CPPB Senior Buyer at (970) 221-6777 with any
questions regarding this addendum
RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY A WRITTEN STATEMENT
ENCLOSED WITH THE BID/QUOTE STATING THAT THIS ADDENDUM HAS BEEN
RECEIVED
Chapter 4 Districting Model Financmt Analysis
The sizes of the districts are proportionate to each other (i a 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 opturuze 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 st indard work d-ty 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 124
(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 hp fee or revenue is assumed for recyclables
Should the City request proposals for Districted Collechon, 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
Direct Route Costs This category includes driver and supervisor wages and
benefits vehicle operating and maintenance costs, vehicle depreciation and anv
other expenses directly related to running the routes,
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson LLC 23
city of Fort Collins
General and Administrative Costs These costs are primarily administrative related
expenses and are unrelated to the direct provision of collection services (i a 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 rip fees at the
Lanmer 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
s shown in Table 4-2 we have estimated that the current estimated cost per month for service
A
A shown
46 Should the City move to districted service we believe that the impacts on the average
monthly rate would range from a $158 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
Fhe protected 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 emay be forced n
l route and
associated costs, sooner than a hauler with larger service area Addit onally a haulerincur w with
five routes may be able to maintain a single backup vehicle while a hauler with fewer routes
would also require a sirrular 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
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 savmgs could be
significantly greater than those shown above
24
V
m
000
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
m
Do
°
N O
O
000
O
O
O
p
O
O
O
m
C
-0
W
0 0
y
O O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
N
O
O
m O n
W
m
C1
N
m
t7
C'J
m
a
w
w vi w
w
vi
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
n
o o o
0
O
0
0
0
O
o
m
m
N O
a`
m
000
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
W
o
m a
a
00
c
N
o o O
o
0
0
0
0
0
O
N
m
m
w
w
q
c
0
W
O
O O O
000
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
D
O
O
O
m
n
m
O
^ O
n 0
m
N O
O O
q
m
O O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
0
O
m
p
^
N
nm m
n
O
N
N
n
N
m
m 3
a
w 19 to
f9
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
q
_ m
N
0 0 0
O
O
y
0 0 0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
N O
O
O O
Em
d
m
000
0
0
O
O
O
Z
n m m
n
W
m
N
m
N
t7
y�
w w fA
w
d!
w
f9
w
w
w
f9
w
O N
m
a o
A O
V
m
o 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
n
m
000
0
o
0
o
0
0
0
o
v
n o
^
o 0
3 E
N g
N
O O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ocm
5
m u
N
m
d?
F L
w w w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
o a
N
2N
m
O O O
O
p
p
O
O
O
O
W
m
m 0
N O
m
N
O O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
O
m 0
N
00
i `m
m
^N
N < m
m
m
C1
�-
O
O
m
a�
^
•-
w O
w N
C m
WmO
n
m
O^
W
m
.gyp
�-N
Om
m m m
m
m
m
N
V
v
m
w w f9
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
N
m a
_
m
T'
t q
a
N Vl
"q
O
O
m
q
m
C
m
m
¢
.
2
z
E
c
0
'
0 m
m
m
O
W
m
;
0 9
m
C 9
f0]
m
S O
b
Q
N
Ol
Y
> W
C
Y R
E
g
e
u
a
m
v
N c
'e
q
cmi
u
O
9
Y
^Vi
Z
A G
q
Ooi
Y
O
�
C
Q
1
y Q
0is A
2 s° a
m,
o
z
c
�O>
m
Y
m
a
=
!-
U
£
N
C
C
O
U
w
U
Y
t
m
Collins
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
26 Tmnh Dwnctmg Study
Chapter 5 Compamble Rates
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 Wyorrung
Hilton Famjk pf & -Hobson LLC 27
ON of Fort Collins
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 tlurd
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 junsdictions
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) hi 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 $1105 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
28 Trash Distncting Stndy
Chapter 5 Comparable Rates
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
Cdorado
Indepetlence
Spnngfleld
FaRCollins At80m
B9vklst
Sodnaa
Fit
P&I2
FA
!mod
Population
105 000 252 000
90 000
345 000
6a 000
99 000
110 000
143 000
Samoa Levet
bag
$4 17 . $1 18rbag
unkndai
$ 1275
5 17 55
$ 1200
142 an
8 74
$ 1260
$ 950
242 an
1308
5 1475
$ 1t 00
3Y32 on
1740
$ 1200
$ 1300
S 1050
60165 toter
1425
90196 toter
1960
$ 1500
$ 1500
$ 12.25
$ 13.00
$ 1165
Curbside Recycling
WEEKLY BI WEEKLY
WEEKLY
WEEKLY
WEEKLY
BI WEEKLY
NO
BI WEEKLY
MUNICIPAL COLLECTION
Grand
owmie
Casper
Laramie
DIM
>l71 =
Lgligiront Lovdmw I09tl90 Wvcm
Wvomm
WVDMI&
Population
497 000
40 000
58 000 45 000 67 000
53 000
48 000
26 000
service Level
Sags only
bag
54 60 a $ilbag
unimeed
S 1050
$
1200
$ 750
1142 can
242an
$ 856
3r32 can
60165 toter
5 896
90196 toter
$ 1096
S 1321 5 1150
Curbside Recycing
81 WEEKLY
MONTHLY
WEEKLY WEEKLY WEEKLY
NO
NO
NO
2*wk semce
PRIVATE CONTRACTED SERVICE
COMM"
Gaaenwood
;M
Eran
E21111. VMM Grovel J9i>nsmxm
Ke1r.11
NAM
Population
17 000
6 000
2 000 12 000 (135 accls)
2000
1 000
2000
Sella Level
un9m8ed
a 5 76
S 600
9 780 $ 935 5 1100 3
700
S 700
$ - 00
Curbside RecycOrg
NO
NO
NO WEEKLY NO
NO
NO
NO
Kama City Windom NO
Pierce Kansas Karma
Population loco 142 000 (390 ants)
Semi Level
unhealed $ 565 $ 5 40 S 575
Curbnde Recycling NO NO NO
Hilton Farnkop% y Hobson LLC 29
City of Fort Collins
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
30 Trash Districting Stndy
Cimpter 6 Other Districting Impacts
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 successfid 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 chstncted 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
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson LLC 31
City of Fort Collins
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 gam 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) trussed pick ups complaints financial information, accounts, account rmx (i e ,
contamei 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 drstncting 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
example if cart service is implemented residents currently using bags will likely incur
increased rates
32 Trash Disstnamg Stiidy
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
Trash Districting Feasibility Analysis
May 1,1998
Prepared by
HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON, LLC
Chapter 6 Other Districting Impacts
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 mcur 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 lirruts 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
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
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson LLC 33
CaV of Fort Collins
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 gam 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 distracting 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
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
34 Trash Districting Study
Clmpter 6 Otker Districhnq Impacts
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 subcomrruttee 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 fall 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 tlus Chapter
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson LLC 35
City of Fort Collins
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
36 Tmsh Distncttng Study
Chapter 7lmplementnig Districts
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 $71000 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 CouncilIPublic/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
Hilton Farnkopf 6 Hobson LLC 37
Ght of Fort Coffins
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 rrurumal 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 subrrutted 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 sinular 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 luruting the negotiations to only those items
38 Trash Districting Study
Citapter 7lmp4mienting Districts
taken exception to by each proposer This elirmnates the need for protracted negotiations which
results in a more ambitious schedule and reduced overall expenses
Develop Revised Residential Rate Structure
Although the PFP 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 71
Estimated Start Up Costs'
One District
Six 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
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
There are a number of other expense items described in a prior City report which we have not included in this estin ate
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 ebminate the need for the City to revue its billing system or create an enterprise fund
since revenues would not Bmv 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 distracting 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 duancting 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
Hilton Farntopf & Hobson LLC 39
City of Fort Collins
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
40 Trash Districting Study
APPENDIX A
Traffic Impact Analysis Summary
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Total Number Of flesi ntlal ACCOUOta 28 135 Juna 9] Bierinuai Re
Aassumed Vehicle and Payload Weigms Relative Axle Weight Distribution Assumptions
Primary Pnmary Recycling Modal 5014 Waste Mcdal
Recyaang Solid Wavle
Front 37% Front 22%
Vehicle Tare (Weighted Ave) . 17 900 28 900 fb 63% Rear 78Y
Payload tonnagaiload 1 5 7 0 Model Axle Weights
Note Pavloso tarn a is Aaeumed for osovdinif and weighted for said waste Recycling Solid Waste
Total Weight 19 400 Total Weight 33 g00
Relatlw Paylged Aasumptlon Front 7 300 Front 7 300
50% Rey 12,100 P. 26.600
reer
it Waste
Dauhle R..I Single Front
weight 26 600 weight
SAE 0 403 SAE
Recycling
Simla. Re, Single Front
weight 12100 Weight
SAE 0198 SAE
crignal analYale check
15 000 single We
0 492
Croas Axle
SAE Equwalan e
Weight
Single Axle Double Axle
7 300
8 000
0 010
0 001
0 026 Total W. r 0 429
8 Coo
0 034
0 003
equivalent can - 537
10 000
0 088'
0 007
12 000
0 189
0 014
14 000
0 360
0 027
7 300
16 000
0 623
0 047
0 026 Tdal SAE. 0 223
18 000
1 000
0 077
equ valant cam 279
20 000
1 510
0 121
22 000
2 180
C 1 B0
24 000
3 030
0 260
26 000
4 090
0 384
2A.000
5 son
o ...
Street Maintenance Coat Factor
100% 100% Old specification
90% . new specifications
S 16 CBS . Annual Maintenance Conavile
250 . Total Residential MIle6
Annual coal adjustment fatly
Lifetime
Annual
maintenance
mamtytence
coat per mse
cost per aide
(20 year life)
1994 S 280 000
S 14 000
1995 5 289 800
S 14 490
1996 S 299 943
S 14 997
1997 S 310 441
3 15 522
IAAA S A91 Ing
o r. naa
iUATION Can TM$Ii TRI1CK5 FEGYlA34O TRUCKS Omer Trucks
Number of (X) munber, o1 SAE (Y) number of SAE (Y) Winner of SAE Z lnumber of) SAE 36 500
Vehcle
5 X 00008 5 200 0 429 5 200 0 223 73 000 0 24 36 500
4 X 00008 4 160 0 429 4 160 D 223 73 000 0 24 36 500
3 X 0 0008 3 120 0 429 3 120 D 223 73 000 0 24 36 SCO
2 X 0 0008 2 080 0 429 2080 0 223 73 000 024 30 500
Immil em
Increase in
Mount
total annual
Maintenance
Tmal SW S Recycling
Vehicles
Life of Street
Us of Seems
savingshnse
savings
Cost Savings
(percent)
(years)
(S/acchml)
X
10
19 482 184
8
20 330 747
4 4Y
0 9
5
700
If 175 000
S 0 55
8
211793f0
87%
17
S
1399
S 350000
$ 110
4
22 027 873
13 1%
2 6
$
2 090
5 525 000
S 1 fib
2
22 876 437
17 4%
3 5
S
2 799
S 700 000
S 2 21
X
8
20 330 747
8
21 179 310
4 21'
0 8
$
671
$ 168 000
S 0 53
4
22 027 873
B 3Y
1 7
S
1 341
$ 335 000
$ 1 06
2
22 876 437
12 5%
2 5
S
2 012
S 503 000
3 1 59
X
6
21 179 310
4
22 027 873
4 0%
0 8
S
644
S 161 000
S 0 51
2
22 876 437
6 0%
1 6
S
1 287
S 322 000
F S 1 02
X -
4
22 027 873
2
22 876 437
3 9%
0 6
S
619
S 155 000
5 0 49
base tees
a reduCtIm of
weekly valyJes from 8 to 2 per
"dentist in Is
4/30/88 1 12 45 PM FC Traffic Impact FINAL / Truck Impact Analysis Summary
CITY OF
FORT COLLINS
TRASH DISTRICTING FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAPTERIBACKGROUND
CHAPTER 2 TRUCK IMPACTS
CHAPTER 3 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY
CHAPTER 4 DISTRICTING MODEL FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 5 COMPARABLE RATES
CHAPTER 6 OTHER DISTRICTING IMPACTS
CHAPTER 7IMPLEMENTING DISTRICTS
APPENDICES
Traffic Impact Analysis Summary
Public Opinion Survey
Summary of Responses
1
_7
11
21
27
31
37
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
HdRon Farnkopf & Hobson LLC
APPENDIX B
Public Opinion Survey
WHAT' S YOUR OPINION
Of Trash and Recycling Services in Fort Collins Qty of F_ art�>
In May 1994 the City of Fort Collins surveyed many residents opinions regarding trash and recycling
collection services (referred to collectively as trash collection) We are now conducting a follow up survey to
solicit your opinions regarding your current service and the possibility of instituting districted trash collection
Under a districted trash collection system, the city would be divided into several geographic areas, and only one
company would be designated to collect trash in each district Therefore, you and your immediate neighbors
would all use the same trash collection company Those who favor districted trash collection cite the following
benefits
There would be a possibility of reduced trash bills due to the trash collectors increased
operational efficiencies
There would be less damage to roadways, since fewer heavy trucks would travel on
neighborhood streets
There would be an opportunity to increase residential service levels such as adding separate
compost collections, or increasing the types of recyclable materials collected
There would be less air pollution since fewer collection trucks would be on the road
There would be less traffic congestion and improved traffic safety since fewer big trucks would
be on residential streets
The community s appearance would improve since neighbors would all set out trash containers
on the same day of the week
There would be less noise since trash would be picked up only one day each week
Those who might oppose districted trash collection may cite the following arguments
Residents may end up with a new trash collector other than their current company since the Ciry
would designate a single company for the entire neighborhood
Trash collection schedules may change for residents since the single collector may establish new
collection days and times and some residents may have to adjust to different trash pick up days
and times
Some residents may experience minor temporary disruptions in service since a new trash
collector would need to learn the new routes and special services on those routes
Some residents may need to use different trash and recycling containers depending on the
service offered by the new collector
Now you can see why we need your input Please send us your thoughts on districted trash collection It is our
continued desire for Fort Collins residents to receive the highest quality lowest cost service Please take a few
minutes to complete the survey on the back of this letter and return it in the enclosed postage paid envelope by
Friday March 13 1998 Thank Your
4 1�zj-
ohn F Fischbach
City Manager
FORT COLLINS TRASH AND RECYCLING COLLECTION SURVEY
In order to more accurately complete this survey please review the cover letter which explains dcstricted recycling
and trash services for city residents
The following survey is intended to better understand the residents of Fort Collins attitudes regarding their current
trash and recycling collection seance and gauge your attitude regarding a potential switch to districted service
Your response will help the City better tailor city trash services to the needs of our residents
Strongly strongly
Dnegree NaNtr Agree
1 The following benefits of distncted trash collection are important to me
There would be less traffic in my neighborhood from big trucks
1 2 3 4 5
Traffic safety in my area would improve due to fewer big trucks on the road
1 2 3 d 5
My community would look better with trash out only one day a week
1 2 3 4 5
My trash collection bill might be reduced
1 2 3 4 5
There would be less air pollution in my neighborhood from big trucks
1 2 3 4 5
Fewer big trucks would result in less damage to the roads in my neighborhood
1 2 3 4 5
Trash collection noise would occur only once a week in my neighborhood
1 2 3 4 5
2 The following benefits of keeping trash collection as it is are important to
me
I would keep my current trash collector 1 2 3 4 5
I would be able to select my trash collector 1 2 3 4 s
My trash pick up day and time would stay the same 1 2 3 4 s
I would not experience any transitional disruption in service 1 2 3 4 5
1 could continue to use my same trash containers 1 2 3 4 5
3 All things considered, I would like to try districted trash collection 1 2 3 4 5
4 All things considered I would rather keep things as they are 1 2 3 4 5
5 What is the amount of your estimated yearly trash bill? $
6a Do you haul your own trash to the landfill'? Yes No
6b If you self -haul your trash what is the average number of trips you make
per year Trips per Year
7 Please write in the number of trash containers normally set out each week Cans gags
for your hauler to collect
Carts Other
8 How long have you been with your current trash collector? Years Months
9 When is the last time you considered changing your trash collection
company9 Years Months
10 Do you and your neighbors use the same trash collector? Yes No
CIRCLE ONE
4tr0ngly strongly
liugcaa AgrYe
11 I am satisfied with the quality of my current recycling and trash collection
service 1 2 3 4 5
12 I try to do everything I can to recycle instead of throwing materials into
the trash
13 I would like to recycle more types of materials
14 I would Ue to receive and use a separate container for my yard waste
15 I am willing to pay more for increased recycling services
(i a more types of materials would be collected)
16 I currently set out my recyclable materials for collection
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
Times Per Month
1 2 3 4
CIRCLE ONE
ly
17 I understand that the City is exploring optional ways of paying trash bills biz .: faiths ';,�.
I would support the following methods
Combine my trash bill with the City utility bill 1 2 3 4 5
Mail my trash bill payment directly to the trash collector 1 2 3 4 5
Automatically pay my trash bill through my checking savings or credit
card 1 2 3 4 5
18 How many tunes per year would you like to pay your trash collection Times
bill9 (other than zero"')
Please return this survey in the enclosed postage -paid envelope by Friday March 13 1998 If you have any questions or
comments please caU Susie Gordon City of Fort Collin at 221 6265 Thank you for your helpf
Get
maid
>f rt
i~ca. b,&.
APPENDIX C
Summary of Responses
Strongly Disagree Neither Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 Total Meal St Dev
QUESTION fft—The following benefits districted collection are important tome
Less traffic from big trucks
82
39
89
159
407
776
399
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
377
138
119%
71/6
158/c
222°%
430%
952%
Better community appearance
85
51
125
165
351
777
3 83
135
109%
66%
161%
212°%
452%
956%,
Trash collection bill might
be reduced
117
45
121
144
332
759
370
1 46
154%
59°%
159%
190°%
437%
934%
Less pollution from trucks
83
39
102
171
377
772
393
1 34
108%
51%
132°%
222°%
488%
950%
Less road damage from trucks
76
36
91
172
402
777
401
130
98°%
46°%
117%
221°%
5170/
956/6
Less noise from once per
week collections
80
32
108
147
410
777
4 00
133
10 3%
41 %
13 9%
18 9°%
52 8%
95 6%
QUESTION R2—The following benefits of open collection are important to me
Keep current collector
135
73
201
103
242
754
332
3 43
17 9%
9 7%
26 7%
13 7%
321°%
92 7%
Select own collector
122
65
185
119
254
745
3 43
1 44
16 4%
8 7%
24 8°%
16 0%
341 °%
916%
Retain same collection day &time
173
82
259
63
173
750
297
1 43
231%
109%
345%
84°/
231%
923%
No disruption in service
148
77
249
97
175
746
310
1 40
198°%
103°%
334°%
130%
235%
918%
Use the same containers
126
61
214
103
251
755
339
1 44
167%
81%
263%
136%
332°%
929%
QUESTION 93-1 would like to try districted trash collection
143 36 83 155 349 766 3 69 153
187/6 47% 108%, 202% 456% 942%
QUESTION 114—I would rather keep things as they are
231 109 158 49 172 719 2 75 155
321% 152% 220% 68% 239°% 884%
Strongly Disagree Neither Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 Total Mean $t Dev
QUESTION M—What is the annual estimated trash bill9
Total responses 664
%of responses 817%
High 720
Low 3
Meant 15166
Standard Deviation 8042
Actual Responses Count
Amount
Count
Amount
Count
Amount
65
12000
3
19200
1
12400
60
10000
3
27000
1
13500
40
20000
3
28000
1
14200
38
15000
3
50000
1
14580
23
11000
2
1500
1
15180
21
16000
2
4200
1
15240
18
13000
2
6200
1
15500
17
10800
2
94 00
1
16300
17
22000
2
9700
1
16400
16
18000
2
11500
1
16470
14
8000
2
12600
1
171 00
12
240 00
2
12800
1
17800
11
25000
2
132 00
1
18500
11
30000
2
13800
1
18800
10
7500
2
148 00
1
19000
10
14000
2
15100
1
20200
10
16500
2
15300
1
20400
9
9000
2
15600
1
20600
9
12500
2
17400
1
20740
9
14400
2
17500
1
21500
7
3600
2
19500
1
21540
7
70 00
2
21900
1
21960
7
9600
2
22200
1
224 00
7
16800
1
300
1
226 00
6
11400
1
1000
1
230 00
6
15200
1
1200
1
232 00
6
17000
1
1800
1
23500
6
21000
1
2000
1
25600
6
22500
1
2500
1
26000
4
5000
1
28 00
1
26100
4
60 DO
1
3000
1
26800
4
6500
1
5500
1
28800
4
8500
1
5600
1
296 OD
4
8800
1
6600
1
302 00
4
10900
1
6700
1
31500
4
11200
1
75 60
1
32600
4
16200
1
7800
1
36000
4
20800
1
78 75
1
37800
4
21600
1
9200
1
39600
4
40000
1
9300
1
40800
3
4000
1
9800
1
420 00
3
48 00
1
10080
1
450 00
3
7200
1
10130
1
480 00
3
10400
1
10920
1
51600
3
10500
1
11376
1
60000
3
13600
1
11600
1
65D 00
3
17600
1
12100
1
72000
Strongly Disagree Neither Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 Total WM SL Dev
QUESTION #6 —Do you haul your own trash?
Yes No Total
138 646 784
17 6% 82 4% 96 4%
QUESTION N6b —Average number of self haul trips per year
Total responses
142
% of responses
17 5%
High
90
Low
1
MGM
549
Standard Deviation
966
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
05
1
1+
1
20
1
5
Carts
164
1
4
2
Bags
156
1
62
2
21
3
6
4
5
05
2
6
1
7
1
5
Other
1 Recycle Bin
Recycling Bin
1 Recycling Bin
Recycle Bin
Dumpster
1 Dumpster
Toter
5 Dumpster
5 Recycle Box
1 Barrel
IBin
1 Recycle
i Recycle Cart
1 Recycle Container
1 Recycle Tub
2/Yr
3 Yard Boxes
Box
Lg Boxes etc
Newspapers
Papers
Recycling Bins
Trash Bin
Tub
Yard Waste
11
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
f 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 Distnchng
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 y Hobbon LLC :
QUESTION #8 How long Math current collector?
Total responses
748
% of responses
92 0%
High
432
Low
1
Mean
5724
Standard Dmatton
6353
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
Meat
3115
Standard Deviation
4216
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
QUES11ON #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 Meal St Dev
QUESTION #1" am satisfied with current service quality
28 40 107 209 390 774 415 107
3 6% 5 2% 13 8% 27 0% 50 4% 95 2%
QUES11ON #12-4 do everything I can to recycle
19 21 65
208
477
790 4 40 092
2 4% 2 7% 8 2%
26 3%
60 4%
97 2%
i
QUESTION 413-1 would like to recycle more types of materials
32 31 100
123
470
756 4 28 Ill
42% 41% 132%
163%
622%
930%
QUESTION #14-1 would like to use a separate yard waste container
119 54 178
127
264
742 3 49 1 44
160% 73% 240%
171%
356%
913%
s
Strongly Disagree Neither Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 Total Mm St Dev
QUESTION #15—I am willing to pay more for increased recycling
269 108 133
150
105
765
2 63 1 47
352% 141% 174%
196%
137%
941%
QUESTION #1" currently set out recyclables for collection this
many times per month
89 106 67
355
617
312 115
144% 172% 109%
575%
759%
QUESTION #17—I support the following bill payment methods
Combine with City utility bill 239 45 93
172
176
725
300 161
33 0% 6 2% 12 8%
23 7%
24 3%
89 2%
Mad payment directly to collector 65 46 170
138
284
703
375 130
9 2% 6 5% 24 2%
19 6°/
40 4%
86 5%
Automatic bill payment through account434
53 97 51 51 686 188 131
633%
77% 141% 74% 74% 644%
QUESTION #18—How may times per year do you want to pay your bill?
Total responses 722
% ofresponses 88 8%
High 32
Low I
Meet 557
Standard Deviation 358
Count
Times
418
4
146
12
76
3
36
6
30
2
10
1
2
5
1
7
1
9
1
24
1
32
Financial Services _
Purchasing Division
215 N Mason St 2n° Floor
PO Box 580
Fort Collins CO 80522
970 221 6775
970 221 6707
fcgov com/purchasing
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
P1109 Trash Services Study
Written proposals four (4) will be received at the City of Fort Collins Purchasing Division 215
North Mason St 2nd floor Fort Collins Colorado 80524 Proposals will be received before
3 00 p m (our clock) February 22 2008 Proposal No P1109 If delivered they are to be sent
to 215 North Mason Street 2nd Floor Fort Collins Colorado 80524 If mailed the address is
P O Box 580 Fort Collins 80522-0580
Questions concerning the scope of the protect should be directed to Protect Manager Ann
Turnquist (970) 224-6094
Questions regarding proposals submittal or process should be directed to John D Stephen
CPPO CPPB Senior Buyer (970) 221-6777
A pre -proposal meeting will be held at 1 30 MST on February 13 2008 at the Community Room
215 N Mason in Fort Collins Teleconferencing service will be provided and please call 970
416 2500 to participate You must state your name and have downloaded the RFP from the
following website www fcgov com/eprocurement The answers to all questions will be sent by
e-mail to the registered consultants and posted on the Purchasing webpage
A copy of the Proposal may be obtained as follows
1 Download the Proposal/Bid from the BuySpeed Webpage
https //secure2 fcgov com/bso/login isD
2 Come by Purchasing at 215 North Mason St 2nd floor Fort Collins and request
a copy of the Bid
The City of Fort Collins is subject to public information laws which permit access to most
records and documents Proprietary information in your response must be clearly identified and
will be protected to the extent legally permissible Proposals may not be marked Proprietary in
their entirety Information considered proprietary is limited to material treated as confidential in
the normal conduct of business trade secrets discount information and individual product or
service pricing Summary price information may not be designated as proprietary as such
information may be carried forward into other public documents All provisions of any contract
resulting from this request for proposal will be public information
Sales Prohibited/Conflict of Interest No officer employee or member of City Council shall have
a financial interest in the sale to the City of any real or personal property equipment material
supplies or services where such officer or employee exercises directly or indirectly any decision -
making authority concerning such sale or any supervisory authority over the services to be
rendered This rule also applies to subcontracts with the City Soliciting or accepting any gift
gratuity favor entertainment kickback or any items of monetary value from any person who has
or is seeking to do business with the City of Fort Collins is prohibited
Collusive or sham proposals Any proposal deemed to be collusive or a sham proposal will be
rejected and reported to authorities as such Your authorized signature of this proposal assures
that such proposal is genuine and is not a collusive or sham proposal
rev 01/08
The City of Fort Collins reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to waive any
irregularities or informalities
Sincerely
Jafne B O Neill II CPPO FNIGP
Direc r of Purchasing &Risk Management
TRASH SERVICES STUDY
SCOPE OF WORK
Complete a study of trash collection services in the City of Fort Collins, Colorado that will 1)
review the City's current solid waste reduction policies and programs, 2) supply data to address a
variety of questions about the impacts of trash collection in the community, and, 3) provide a
comprehensive and detailed list of options for making improvements to the current system in
terms of collection efficiency, air quality and neighborhood considerations, and waste diversion
The consulting team will work closely with a team of City staff including representatives from
Natural Resources, Engineering, City Attorney, Finance, and Purchasing departments
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
To address trash services questions in Fort Collins, the City will hire a consultant or consulting
team to prepare a comprehensive study that answers the following problem statement/question
"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 wear9 Are there ways that the City might also improve
diversion rates for recyclables9 '
The City Council has allocated a total project budget of $60,000
The project will rely on consulting assistance to prepare background research and data regarding
trash collection issues (causes and effects), and options for addressing these issues The range of
options under consideration will include, but are not limited to
• Null alternative —no changes to the existing open/competitive 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 consulting team will work with an inter -departmental team for the purposes of completing
three separate tasks, as follows
TASK 1 Review the City's current policies (e g , "pay -as -you -throw" and recycling
ordinance), practices, and programs that are currently in place to meet the
community s adopted goal of diverting 50% of the waste stream from landfill
disposal
2/9/00
I Review existing data and practices
• Review the City s recycling ordinances and incentive/promotion programs to evaluate
opportunities to improve recycling and diversion rates
• Evaluate accuracy of City's metrics and measurements for solid waste and recycling
diversion rates (including compost and construction debris)
2 Document 'best practices" for trash and recycling services used by other communities and
provide data regarding the number of cities with municipal trash collection, districted
systems, open competition, or other systems
3 Evaluate the future impact of emerging hazardous waste needs on trash collection service,
(e g , mercury, compact fluorescent light bulbs, and a -waste)
TASK 2 Data Collection and Analysis
1 Use information from the City, local private trash haulers, and other public agencies (e g ,
Lanmer County and State) to establish accurate local data on impacts of trash collection
services on the community
2 Provide detailed analysis of the impact of typical trash trucks on City streets, including older
streets and those which are built to street standards adopted in 1999
• Update model used in previous 1998 study
(http //www fceov com/recyclmn/pdf/trash districting feasibility analysis 1998 pdf)
to quantify impacts from truck traffic to street maintenance in Fort Collins, and
clearly establish new baseline data
• Provide comparative evaluation of impacts from trash collection vehicles and other
types of service / delivery trucks, as well as buses
• Research additional impacts that may occur from over -loaded trash collection
vehicles and model this information to establish the impact of trucks based on both
'legal" weights and typical, full -load weights
3 Quantify impacts to air quality, neighborhood safety, and community aesthetics that are
related to trash collection
4 Consider applying concepts from Industrial Ecology (i e, Material Flows Analysis) to pull
data together in context of achieving community goals and optimizing efficiencies
TASK 3 Research and create a list of options for the City of Fort Collins to consider
implementing that will help the community achieve greater efficiency in trash
collection and increase its waste diversion and recycling Describe which
priority actions are recommended by the consultant for implementation
1 Options should include, but are not limited to
• Null alternative (no changes to existing open/competitive system)
• Changes and/or additions to regulations affecting trash collection
• Direct involvement by local government in creating trash collection districts whereby
districts are bid upon competitively by private haulers, including analyses of
2/9/00
0 how Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMTs) change under a districted system
0 affects on air quality from the acceleration/deceleration of trash trucks versus
the amount of VMTs that occur
• Alternatives that make improvements to the system without harming existing haulers
• New recycling initiatives
2 Each option should be evaluated for its impacts on street condition, air quality, neighborhood
aesthetics, safety, noise, and estimated cost of implementation
3 Professional suggestions for additional alternatives to consider evaluating could include, but
are not limited to
• Technology innovations in the hauling industry which may address one or more of
the identified issues
• Regulation of haulers to improve either mileage (Vehicle Miles Traveled,) such as
route planning software, mileage tracking or other methods for addressing the impact
of trucks on air quality
• Regulations on the operation of trash vehicles, including weight limitations and
enforcement of overweight violations
• Improvements in recycling and diversion rates that may reduce the impact of trash
trucks on streets
• Establishment of local environmental fee by City government to pay for waste
diversion programs
• Pursuit of regional solutions
4 Prepare report that includes data analysis, pros / cons of each option presented, a graphical
representation of how each option addresses the issues of concern (i e , air quality, noise,
damage to streets, etc ), and, professional recommendations on which option(s) would be
most feasible and/or effective for the City to implement
TIMELINE
Timeline for 2008 Trash Services Stud
February 13, 2008
Optional bidders meeting
February 22, 2008 3 00 P M
Proposals due
Week of March 3, 2008
City interviews, select bidders
March 3-12, 2008
Negotiated contract finalized
March 14 — June 6, 2008
Initiate and implement work on project
June 6, 2008
Completion of project
June 24, 2008
Final report due
2/9/00
DELIVERABLES
Written outline of the schedule for completing tasks
Complete final report and analysis of various solid waste collection strategies or systems (three
hard copies and electronic files of all materials), including
• Executive summary
Prioritized list of consultants professional recommendations for actions that the City
could take to increase trash collection efficiency, address impacts of trash collection
on streets and neighborhoods and improve recycling rates
OTHER
Consultants must provide rate schedules for themselves and subcontractors as part of submitted
responses References must be provided for consultants and subcontractors
Deliverables must be provided within 80 days of the notice to proceed Any requests for
extensions to deadlines must be approved by the City in advance
Selection of consultant will be determined based on the criteria attached Interviews may be
requested with selected firms
Consultant may be asked to make a presentation(s) to the City Manager and the Council
FOLLOW-UP WORK ORDERS
City reserves the right to use selected consultant(s) for additional contractual work during the
next year
PREFERRED QUALIFICATIONS FOR CONSULTING TEAM
Consulting team's experience in the following areas is seen as critically important to the success
of the project
• solid waste, recycling, and trash collection planning for municipalities
• pavement design, engineering, and management
• analysis of truck traffic impacts on maintenance costs
• transportation data collection (i e , trips, truck loads etc )
Examples of previous work in these areas of emphasis should be provided Use of qualified
subcontractors for any part of the work is permissible, each company must be fully identified in
responses submitted to this RFP
2/9/00
REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT
Professional firms will be evaluated on the following criteria These criteria will be the basis for
review of the written proposals and interview session
The rating scale shall be from I to 5, with 1 being a poor rating, 3 being an average rating, and 5
being an outstanding rating
WEIGHTING
QUALIFICATION
STANDARD
FACTOR
20
Scope of Proposal
Does the proposal show an understanding of the
project objective, methodology to be used and
results that are desired from the project9
20
Assigned Personnel
Do the persons who will be working on the project
have the necessary skills? Are sufficient people of
the requisite skills assigned to the project9
10
Availability
Can the work be completed in the necessary time?
Can the target start and completion dates be met9
Are other qualified personnel available to assist in
meeting the project schedule if required? Is the
project team available to attend meetings as
required by the Scope of Work9
10
Motivation
Is the firm interested and are they capable of doing
the work in the required time frame9
20
Cost and
Do the proposed cost and work hours compare
Work Hours
favorably with the project Manager's estimate? Are
the work hours presented reasonable for the effort
required in each project task or phase?
20
Firm Capability
Does the firm have the support capabilities the
assigned personnel require? Has the firm done
previous projects of this type and scope9
2/9/00
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
transitionmg 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
it Trash Distncting Shiny
Reference evaluation (Top Ranked Firm)
The project Manager will check references using the following criteria The evaluation rankings
will be labeled Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory
QUALIFICATION
STANDARD
Overall Performance
Would you hire this Professional again Did
they show the skills required by this project?
Timetable
Was the original Scope of Work completed
within the specified time9 Were interim
deadlines met in a timely manner9
Completeness
Was the Professional responsive to client
needs, did the Professional anticipate
problems? Were problems solved quickly and
effectively9
Budget
Was the original Scope of Work completed
within the project budget?
Job Knowledge
a) If a study, did it meet the Scope of Work?
b) If Professional administered a construction
contract, was the project functional upon
completion and did it operate properly9
Were problems corrected quickly and
effectively?
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into the day and year set forth below by and
between THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COLORADO a Municipal Corporation hereinafter
referred to as the City" and [insert either a corporation a partnership or an
individual doing business as hereinafter referred to as Professional'
WITNESSETH
In consideration of the mutual covenants and obligations herein expressed it is agreed
by and between the parties hereto as follows
1 Scope of Services The Professional agrees to provide services in accordance
with the scope of services attached hereto as Exhibit A consisting of ( ) pages
and incorporated herein by this reference
2 The Work Schedule [Optional] The services to be performed pursuant to this
Agreement shall be performed in accordance with the Work Schedule attached hereto as
Exhibit B' consisting of ( ) pages and incorporated herein by this reference
3 Contract Period This Agreement shall commence 200 and shall
continue in full force and effect until 200 unless sooner terminated as herein
provided In addition at the option of the City the Agreement may be extended for additional
one year periods not to exceed four (4) additional one year periods Renewals and pricing
changes shall be negotiated by and agreed to by both parties The Denver Boulder Greeley
CPIU published by the Colorado State Planning and Budget Office will be used as a guide
Written notice of renewal shall be provided to the Service Provider and mailed no later than
ninety (90) days prior to contract end
4 Early Termination by City Notwithstanding the time periods contained herein
the City may terminate this Agreement at any time without cause by providing written notice of
termination to the Professional Such notice shall be delivered at least fifteen (15) days prior to
the termination date contained in said notice unless otherwise agreed in writing by the parties
All notices provided under this Agreement shall be effective when mailed postage prepaid and
sent to the following addresses
Professional
City
With Copy to
City of Fort Collins Purchasing
PO Box 580
Fort Collins CO 80522
In the event of any such early termination by the City the Professional shall be paid for services
rendered prior to the date of termination subject only to the satisfactory performance of the
Professionals obligations under this Agreement Such payment shall be the Professional's sole
right and remedy for such termination
5 Design, Proiect Indemnity and Insurance Responsibility The Professional shall
be responsible for the professional quality technical accuracy timely completion and the
coordination of all services rendered by the Professional including but not limited to designs
plans reports specifications and drawings and shall without additional compensation
promptly remedy and correct any errors omissions or other deficiencies The Professional
shall indemnify save and hold harmless the City its officers and employees in accordance with
Colorado law from all damages whatsoever claimed by third parties against the City and for the
City s costs and reasonable attorneys fees arising directly or indirectly out of the Professional s
performance of any of the services furnished under this Agreement The Professional shall
maintain commercial general liability insurance in the amount of $500 000 combined single
limits and errors and omissions insurance in the amount of $
6 Compensation [Use this paragraph or Option 1 below ] In consideration of
the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement the City agrees to pay Professional a
fixed fee in the amount of ($ ) plus reimbursable direct costs All such fees and
costs shall not exceed ($ ) Monthly partial payments based upon the Professionals
billings and itemized statements are permissible The amounts of all such partial payments
shall be based upon the Professionals City -verified progress in completing the services to be
performed pursuant hereto and upon the City s approval of the Professionals actual
reimbursable expenses [Optional] Insert Subcontractor ClauseFinal payment shall be made
following acceptance of the work by the City Upon final payment all designs plans reports
specifications drawings and other services rendered by the Professional shall become the sole
property of the City
6 Compensation [Option 1] In consideration of the services to be performed
pursuant to this Agreement the City agrees to pay Professional on a time and reimbursable
direct cost basis according to the following schedule
Hourly billing rates
Reimbursable direct costs
with maximum compensation (for both Professionals time and reimbursable direct costs) not to
exceed ($ ) Monthly partial payments based upon the Professionals billings and
itemized statements of reimbursable direct costs are permissible The amounts of all such
partial payments shall be based upon the Professionals City -verified progress in completing the
services to be performed pursuant hereto and upon the City s approval of the Professional's
reimbursable direct costs Final payment shall be made following acceptance of the work by the
City Upon final payment all designs plans reports specifications drawings and other
services rendered by the Professional shall become the sole property of the City
7 City Representative The City will designate prior to commencement of work its
protect representative who shall make within the scope of his or her authority all necessary and
proper decisions with reference to the protect All requests for contract interpretations change
orders and other clarification or instruction shall be directed to the City Representative
8 Proiect Drawings [Optional]Upon conclusion of the protect and before final
payment the Professional shall provide the City with reproducible drawings of the protect
containing accurate information on the protect as constructed Drawings shall be of archival
prepared on stable mylar base material using a non -fading process to provide for long storage
and high quality reproduction CD disc of the as built drawings shall also be submitted to the
owner in and AutoCAD version no older then the established city standard
9 Monthly Report Commencing thirty (30) days after the date of execution of this
Agreement and every thirty (30) days thereafter Professional is required to provide the City
Representative with a written report of the status of the work with respect to the Scope of
Services Work Schedule and other material information Failure to provide any required
monthly report may at the option of the City suspend the processing of any partial payment
request
10 Independent Contractor The services to be performed by Professional are those
of an independent contractor and not of an employee of the City of Fort Collins The City shall
not be responsible for withholding any portion of Professional s compensation hereunder for the
payment of FICA Workers' Compensation other taxes or benefits or for any other purpose
11 Personal Services It is understood that the City enters into this Agreement
based on the special abilities of the Professional and that this Agreement shall be considered as
an agreement for personal services Accordingly the Professional shall neither assign any
responsibilities nor delegate any duties arising under this Agreement without the prior written
consent of the City
12 Acceptance Not Waiver The Citys approval of drawings designs plans
specifications reports and incidental work or materials furnished hereunder shall not in anyway
relieve the Professional of responsibility for the quality or technical accuracy of the work The
City s approval or acceptance of or payment for any of the services shall not be construed to
operate as a waiver of any rights or benefits provided to the City under this Agreement
13 Default Each and every term and condition hereof shall be deemed to be a
material element of this Agreement In the event either party should fad or refuse to perform
according to the terms of this agreement such party may be declared in default
14 Remedies In the event a party has been declared in default such defaulting
party shall be allowed a period of ten (10) days within which to cure said default In the event
the default remains uncorrected the party declaring default may elect to (a) terminate the
Agreement and seek damages (b) treat the Agreement as continuing and require specific
performance or (c) avail himself of any other remedy at law or equity If the non -defaulting
party commences legal or equitable actions against the defaulting party the defaulting party
shall be liable to the non -defaulting party for the non -defaulting party s reasonable attorney fees
and costs incurred because of the default
15 Binding Effect This writing together with the exhibits hereto constitutes the
entire agreement between the parties and shall be binding upon said parties their officers
employees agents and assigns and shall inure to the benefit of the respective survivors heirs
personal representatives successors and assigns of said parties
16 Law/Severability The laws of the State of Colorado shall govern the
construction interpretation execution and enforcement of this Agreement In the event any
provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent
jurisdiction such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision of this
Agreement
17 Prohibition Against Emplovmg Illegal Aliens This paragraph shall apply to all
Contractors whose performance of work under this Agreement does not involve the delivery of a
specific end product other than reports that are merely incidental to the performance of said
work Pursuant to Section 8-17 5-101 C R S at seq Contractor represents and agrees that
a As of the date of this Agreement
1 Contractor does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien
Mr.
2 Contractor has participated or attempted to participate in the basic pilot
employment verification program created in Public Law 208 104th Congress as
amended and expanded in Public Law 156 108th Congress as amended
administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security (the Basic
Pilot Program ) in order to confirm the employment eligibility of all newly hired
employees
b Contractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform
work under this Agreement or knowingly enter into a contract with a subcontractor that
knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien to perform work under this
Agreement
c Contractor shall continue to apply to participate in the Basic Pilot Program and
shall in writing verify same every three (3) calendar months thereafter until Contractor is
accepted or the public contract for services has been completed whichever is earlier
The requirements of this section shall not be required or effective if the Basic Pilot
Program is discontinued
d Contractor is prohibited from using Basic Pilot Program procedures to undertake
pre -employment screening of job applicants while this Agreement is being performed
e If Contractor obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work
under this Agreement knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien Contractor
shall
1 Notify such subcontractor and the City within three days that Contractor
has actual knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or contracting with an
illegal alien and
2 Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three days of
receiving the notice required pursuant to this section the subcontractor does not
cease employing or contracting with the illegal alien except that Contractor shall
not terminate the contract with the subcontractor if during such three days the
subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not
knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien
f Contractor shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado
Department of Labor and Employment (the Department ) made in the course of an
investigation that the Department undertakes or is undertaking pursuant to the authority
established in Subsection 8-17 5-102 (5) C R S
g If Contractor violates any provision of this Agreement pertaining to the duties
imposed by Subsection 8-17 5-102 C R S the City may terminate this Agreement If this
Agreement is so terminated Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential
damages to the City arising out of Contractors violation of Subsection 8-17 5-102
CRS
h The City will notify the Office of the Secretary of State if Contractor violates this
provision of this Agreement and the City terminates the Agreement for such breach
18 Special Provisions [Optional] Special provisions or conditions relating to the
services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement are set forth in Exhibit consisting
of ( ) pages attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference
THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS COLORADO
By
James 0Neill ll CPPO FNIGP
Director of Purchasing & Risk Management
DATE
ATTEST
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Assistant City Attorney
[Insert Professionals name] or
[Insert Partnership Name] or
[Insert individuals name] or
Doing business as [insert name of business]
M
Title
CORPORATE PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT
Date
ATTEST
Corporate Secretary
(Corporate Seal)
EXHIBIT B
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
1 The Service Provider will provide from insurance companies acceptable to the City the
insurance coverage designated hereinafter and pay all costs Before commencing work under
this bid the Service Provider shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance showing the
type amount class of operations covered effective dates and date of expiration of policies and
containing substantially the following statement
The insurance evidenced by this Certificate will not be cancelled or materially altered
except after ten (10) days written notice has been received by the City of Fort Collins "
In case of the breach of any provision of the Insurance Requirements the City at its option
may take out and maintain at the expense of the Service Provider such insurance as the City
may deem proper and may deduct the cost of such insurance from any monies which may be
due or become due the Service Provider under this Agreement The City its officers agents
and employees shall be named as additional insureds on the Service Providers general liability
and automobile liability insurance policies for any claims arising out of work performed under
this Agreement
2 Insurance coverages shall be as follows
A Workers Compensation & Employers Liability The Service Provider shall
maintain during the life of this Agreement for all of the Service Providers employees
engaged in work performed under this agreement
Workers Compensation insurance with statutory limits as required by
Colorado law
2 Employer s Liability insurance with limits of $100 000 per accident
$500 000 disease aggregate and $100 000 disease each employee
B Commercial General & Vehicle Liability The Service Provider shall maintain
during the life of this Agreement such commercial general liability and automobile liability
insurance as will provide coverage for damage claims of personal injury including
accidental death as well as for claims for property damage which may arise directly or
indirectly from the performance of work under this Agreement Coverage for property
damage shall be on a 'broad form basis The amount of insurance for each coverage
Commercial General and Vehicle shall not be less than $500 000 combined single limits
for bodily injury and property damage
In the event any work is performed by a subcontractor the Service Provider shall be
responsible for any liability directly or indirectly arising out of the work performed under
this Agreement by a subcontractor which liability is not covered by the subcontractor's
insurance
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)
BFI 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
Cav of Fort Collins
collectors must offer recycling service Typically this service is provided using a company
provided 18-20 gallon bm (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 11
1997 Residential Rates
Category
(Includes Service Fee)
BFI
Dick's
Gallegos
Ram
SO
Waste Mgt
1 33 gallon can
$8 33
$9 00
$8 35
$9 10
$8 40
$910
2 33 gallon can
$12 66
$13 00
$12 65
$13 70
$12 60
$13 70
3 33 gallon can
$16 99
$17 00
$16 95
$18 30
$16 80
$18 30
1 65 gallon cart
N/A
$17 50
$12 65
$13 70
WA
$13 70
190 gallon cart
$17 00
$20 00
$16 95
$18 30
$22 86
$18 30
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,
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,
' The actual number of distracts would depend on collection efficiencies the number of different collector/recyclers destred
by the City and the savings related to fewer districts for residents and the City
2 Trash Districting Study