HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-06-2024 - Study Session Agenda Packet STUDY SESSION AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge CO May 6, 2024
6:30 pm
This meeting will be conducted as a virtual meeting, and in person, at 7500 West 29th
Avenue, Municipal Building. City Council members and City staff members will be physically present at the Municipal building for this meeting. The public may participate in these ways: 1. Attend the meeting in person at City Hall. Use the appropriate roster to sign up to speak upon arrival.
2. Provide comment in advance at www.wheatridgespeaks.org (comment by noon on
May 6, 2024) 3. Virtually attend and participate in the meeting through a device or phone:
• Click here to pre-register and provide public comment by Zoom (You must
preregister before 6:00 p.m. on May 6, 2024)
4. View the meeting live or later at www.wheatridgespeaks.org, Channel 8, or YouTube Live at https://www.ci.wheatridge.co.us/view
Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Contact the Public Information Officer at 303-235-2877 or wrpio@ci.wheatridge.co.us with as much notice as possible if you are interested in
participating in a meeting and need inclusion assistance.
Public Comment on Agenda Items
1. UC Denver GIS presentation
2. Residential Waste Engagement Project Update
3. 2023 Boards and Commissions Annual Report
4. Staff Report(s)
5. Elected Officials’ Report(s)
Item No. 1
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager FROM: Marianne Schilling, Assistant City Manager
Lauren Mikulak, Community Development Director DATE: May 6, 2024 SUBJECT: UC Denver GIS Presentation
PURPOSE:
Councilmember Weaver has taught a project-based course in the spring for graduate students
from CU Denver to tackle current geographical issues with geospatial tools such as GIS. Over the past few years, the course has partnered with City staff to create and address city-specific projects as part of the curriculum. The students will be presenting the outcomes of this semester’s projects to City Council.
BACKGROUND: City staff worked with Councilmember Weaver’s graduate level GIS course to create real-world work projects which aim to provide professional experience for the students as part of their graduate coursework. In January 2024, City staff presented four projects to the students for
consideration and of those four, two projects were chosen. Along with the project summaries,
staff identified questions and considerations for the students to review over the course of their project. As part of their continued professional development, the students will be presenting this semester’s projects to City Council.
Project Summaries
Project 1: 2J Wheat Ridge residents passed a ballot initiative this past fall to invest in safer streets, improve connectivity through bike lanes and sidewalks, and bolster the stormwater and drainage systems
to reduce flood risks. The specific ballot language can be found below:
Ballot Language: Shall the City of Wheat Ridge debt be increased by up to $75 million, with a repayment cost of not more than $125 Million, and shall the one-half cent (0.50%) sales and use tax
approved by the voters of the city in 2016 be extended, with the proceeds of such tax, and
other sales and use tax revenue as the city may determine, be used for the payment of the
2017 bonds issued under the authority of the 2016 election as well as the debt authorized by this question, such debt to be issued for capital improvement projects of the city including:
UC Denver GIS Presentation May 6, 2024
Page 2
• Sidewalk, bike lane and street improvements on primary street corridors such as 32nd Ave., 38th Ave., 44th Ave, and Youngfield St.
• Filling sidewalk gaps and other sidewalk repair and replacement with an
emphasis on major pedestrian corridors and routes to schools.
• Drainage and floodplain infrastructure improvements at priority locations in the city. (For the purpose of this project, drainage and floodplain infrastructure are
not addressed)
In order to fill sidewalk gaps and make improvements on priority corridors, it is necessary to understand existing conditions so we can know how to deploy limited funds. What are the existing conditions along major pedestrian routes, routes to schools, and along priority corridors?
These questions can be answered by identifying presence of sidewalk, sidewalk width, sidewalk type (attached/detached), and presence and type of bike facilities. The City does not have a singular database of this information. What other information might staff, or a councilmember want in order to decide how to deploy limited funds? What other information would a member of
the public want to understand why certain areas are funded and not others?
Project 2: Tree Canopy The City of Wheat Ridge has been a Tree City for 45 years and maintains a tree inventory of over 7,500 trees through its TreeKeeper website. The U.S. Department of Agriculture provides
funding to communities to add trees on public lands, and the City regularly seeks out this
funding to continue to expand its tree canopy. For the next tree planting cycle, the City would like help prioritizing where to add trees on public lands based upon where trees are needed most. The considerations would include, but
not be limited to, demographic data such as age, income, accessibility, and health data such as
heat islands and air quality. The City would be able to provide the tree inventory data to support this project. RECOMMENDATIONS:
This is informational only. No action is needed.
Meghan Thompson, Vaz Ganushchak, Pat Hall, Erika
Jermé, Hannah Larsen, Haorui Guo
Map-based Decision Support
Tools for 2J Initiatives
ATTACHMENT 1
/
Project Overview
•Goal: Provide baseline information for
decision-making related to the 2J sales tax
•Assessment focused on 3 corridors: 32nd Ave,
38th Ave, 44th Ave
•Topics were broken down into 3 sections:
1.Existing condition of pedestrian and
bike infrastructure
2.Demographic factors that may impact
Infrastructure decision making
3.Current tree canopy in public space
Photo credit: Denver Post
/
Infrastructure
/
Analysis Goals
•High-level assessment of infrastructure conditions related
to pedestrian and cyclist access
•Help identify problem areas for further study
•Focus Areas:
•Sidewalks
•Bike lanes
•Pedestrian crossings
Infrastructure
Photo credit: Denverite
/
Infrastructure Bicycle Ratings MapSidewalk Presence & Quality
Infrastructure
/
Infrastructure Sidewalks Detail EastCondition of Sidewalks along Routes to Schools
Infrastructure
/
Infrastructure Sidewalks Map OverviewBike Lane Presence & Quality
Infrastructure
/
Demographics
/
•What are Demographics?
•Why consider Wheat Ridge demographics for the implementation of 2J?
•2 Focus Areas:
•Population Density
•Distribution of Low Income Households
Demographics
Introduction
Photo credit: Morningside Apartments, Wheat Ridge, CO.
/
Demographics
Population Density
/
Percent of Households that Report Less than 25k per Year
Demographics
/
Density vs. Income Map Comparison
Demographics
/
Tree City, USA
/
•How can Tree Canopy Factor into Decision Making?
•Trees provide connection to nature
•Improves quality air & water
•Improves the “viewshed” of street and park infrastructure
Introduction
Trees
/
Tree Species and Location
Trees
/
1.There are clear areas of need based on missing sidewalks and bike lanes.
2.Considering demographics can provide more nuance to decision making.
3.Tree canopy can support stormwater management goals and improve the
pedestrian environment.
Conclusion
Item No. 2 Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Marianne Schilling, Assistant City Manager Patrick Goff, City Manager
FROM: Mary Hester, Sustainability Coordinator DATE: May 6, 2024
SUBJECT: Residential Waste Engagement Project Update
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study session is to provide City Council with an update on the Residential Waste Engagement project, including public engagement results to-date and to discuss next steps
for the second, final round of public engagement to ensure alignment with Council priorities. BACKGROUND: At the January 10, 2022, City Council meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Hultin and Councilmembers Hoppe and Weaver asked that an overview of existing waste management policies and potential
organized waste strategies be scheduled at a future study session. At the April 4, 2022, Study Session, staff returned to provide information on this topic, including potential waste management strategies such as enhanced licensing requirements, city-contracted
hauling, a preferred hauler system, and municipal hauling. City Council provided direction for
staff to pursue the creation and implementation of a community outreach and engagement strategy to better understand what Wheat Ridge residents would like to see regarding residential waste management options within the City. Council directed Staff to return with a budget appropriation request at that time.
Following the direction provided at the April 4, 2022, Study Session, staff conducted a Request for Proposal (RFP) solicitation. Four proposals were received, and staff interviewed three firms before ultimately selecting HDR Engineering, Inc. as the chosen vendor. City Council approved a budget supplemental for this project in the amount of $125,379.19 at the April 24, 2023, City
Council meeting.
PROJECT STATUS: Purpose The purpose of this project is to gain a deeper understanding of what residents think about the
current residential waste management system in Wheat Ridge, and what residents may like to see
regarding potential changes. The final report will provide an analysis of public feedback received throughout the project’s duration as well as recommended next steps, however, the purpose of
Residential Waste Engagement Project Update May 6, 2024
Page 2
2
this project is focused on public engagement and outreach, and not to provide a final, technical solution.
Project Phases, Timeline, and Milestones
This 18-month process began in July 2023 with a project team kick-off. The Residential Waste Engagement project is comprised of four phases: Phase 1 (Complete): Research and Public Engagement Plan Development
Phase 1 of the project took place between July and December 2023, and focused on laying the
groundwork for comprehensive community engagement. The project team completed community research and conducted informational interviews with City Council, Sustainable Wheat Ridge, neighborhood leaders from the Sustainable Neighborhoods program, and other Wheat Ridge residents to gather initial feedback and learn how to best engage with the greater community.
During this phase, a project page was created on What’s Up Wheat Ridge, which currently has
151 subscribers and is the main source for project updates. This phase culminated in the development of a public engagement process to guide the remainder of the project. Phase 2 (Complete): Initial Public Engagement
The first round of public engagement took place between December 2023 and January 2024. The
project team first attended the Holiday Celebration on December 2. Following this event, an online self-guided open house and digital survey were accessible between December 6 and January 26, and the project team hosted an in-person open house on December 13. During these events, information was provided to residents about the potential pros and cons associated with
the current open-market system, as well as alternative methods: enhanced licensing, municipal
hauling, opt-in preferred hauler, and contracted hauling. Information was also provided about flat rate and pay-as-you-throw fee structures which could be applied to a waste management system. During this phase, residents were also encouraged to ask questions and provide comments in-person at the open house and as part of the survey process.
The information provided online and at the open house is attached (Attachment 1). In total, 691 people were reached during Phase 2, and the project team received 329 survey responses and 895 open-ended comments within the survey responses.
Communication channels for this round of public engagement are listed below:
• What’s Up Wheat Ridge project page and all-subscriber email
• Connections newsletters
• Mayor’s Matters articles
• City of Wheat Ridge website newsflash
• Social media posts with paid ads
• Sustainability Newsletter
• Newspaper Ad in the Gazette
• Press Release
• Yard Signs
• Tabling at City event
Residential Waste Engagement Project Update May 6, 2024
Page 3
3
Phase 3 (In-Progress): Input Analysis and Additional Public Engagement Phase 3 of this project is currently underway and nearing completion, focusing on analyzing the survey results and public input from the Phase 2 engagement. A draft Phase 2 Engagement
Summary report has been created and is attached (Attachment 2). Additionally, the project team
provided an update to Sustainable Wheat Ridge on April 18. The project team has prepared a draft Phase 3 survey (Attachment 3), aiming to dive deeper into what waste-related services residents would support. The project team is planning to launch this
survey later this spring, with engagement continuing into early summer. The project team plans
to continue utilizing the engagement channels listed above in Phase 2. Summary of Public Feedback To-Date The goal of the Engagement Summary Report is to give City Council an informed overview of
the public sentiment towards the current and alternative residential waste management systems.
To date, the public feedback on the waste management systems has been mixed, with support and opposition expressed for each of the waste management methods and fee structures presented. Currently, there does not appear to be a clear consensus from residents on any one method.
The presentation and attached Phase 2 Engagement Summary will cover the feedback received to date in further detail. Phase 4 (Not Started): Final Analysis and Recommendations
The final phase of this project is anticipated to begin this summer, with the project concluding
this fall. This phase will focus on analyzing the feedback received in Phase 3 and will culminate in a final report and recommendations for next steps. The final report will meet the direction of City Council, which was specifically to pursue the creation and implementation of a community outreach and engagement strategy to better understand what Wheat Ridge residents would like to
see regarding residential waste management options within the City.
CITY COUNCIL FEEDBACK REQUESTED: The project team is seeking City Council’s feedback on the following questions: 1. Does City Council have comments, suggestions, or feedback regarding the draft Phase 3
survey?
2. What else is needed for City Council to feel like there is an understanding of what Wheat Ridge residents’ care about regarding residential waste? ATTACHMENTS:
1. PDF of information displayed during the Phase 2 in-person and online open house
2. Phase 2 Engagement Summary Report 3. Phase 3 Draft Survey
Residential Waste
Engagement Project
The City of Wheat Ridge is conducting a Residential Waste Engagement
project that aims to understand residents’ opinions on the current trash
hauling system and potential future changes to this system.
;What do you like about how your trash is collected now?
;What don’t you like?
;What kind of changes would you like to see?
whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste
WELCOME
ATTACHMENT 1
whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste 303-235-2841
About the Residential
Waste Engagement Project
Schedule
The Residential Waste Engagement Project aims to understand your opinions about the current residential waste management
system in Wheat Ridge. It will also look at potential future changes to this system. If the City decides to make a change, these
changes would apply to residential dwellings with seven (7) or fewer units. The feedback received throughout this project will
play an important role in shaping future decisions regarding residential waste management in Wheat Ridge.
In recent years, residential waste management has become a significant topic of discussion in Wheat Ridge. Currently,
Wheat Ridge has an open market system for waste management, which means that residents individually choose and
contract with licensed waste haulers operating in the City.
Initial
Public Engagement
WE ARE HERE
Fall 2023 - Spring 2024
Input Analysis and
Additional Public Engagement
Spring 2024 - Fall 2024
Project Goals
Ensure that
all residents
have the
opportunity to
provide input
and share their
perspectives
Inclusivity
and
Accessibility
Remain impartial while
offering clear and
unbiased information
to foster well-
informed feedback
from the residential
community
Neutral Information, feedback,
and analysis resulting
from this project will
be presented to City
Council with the goal
of informing future
decision making
InformativeMaximize
Resident
Engagement
Reach a broad
spectrum of Wheat
Ridge residents,
encouraging active
participation from
all corners of the
community
Project
kick-off
Phase
1
Phase
2
Phase
3
Final Analysis and
Recommendations
Fall 2024
Phase
4
Engagement History
Research and Public Engagement
Plan Development
Summer 2023 - Fall 2023
June 2023
whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste 303-235-2841
What are residents
saying about our waste
management system?
In the past, residents have expressed both a desire for change and satisfaction with current practices through a variety of
input opportunities including the Let’s Talk program, Sustainable Neighborhoods program, and resident surveys.
The team kicked off the Residential Waste Engagement Project with a series of stakeholder listening sessions with
Sustainable Wheat Ridge, Sustainable Neighborhood leads, City Council, media, and community members. Below are
some key takeaways that we heard.
Wheat Ridge should consider
alternative waste management options,
such as pay-as-you-throw system or
incentives for certain haulers.
There should be transparency
in pricing structure.
The current waste management
system in Wheat Ridge needs
to be improved.
The number of trash trucks
on our roads needs to be addressed.
Make sure to consider small business
owners so there isn’t a monopoly
on trash hauling if there was a
single hauler.
Residents should be able to
choose their hauler.
AgreeAgreeAgree
Agree Agree Agree
DisagreeDisagreeDisagree
Disagree Disagree Disagree
whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste 303-235-2841
Wheat Ridge’s Current Method
Open markets allow numerous haulers to do business for waste services. There are no
restrictions on who can provide waste management services, and any licensed company can
enter the market and compete for business.
;Similar to Golden
Cons
For Resident
• Neighbors may choose to not have services
leading to potential illegal dumping.
• More trucks on the road.
• May have multiple days of service on your
block.
• Burden to research, select, and negotiate
contract with hauler.
For City
• Potential for less quality control.
• No control over rates, contract or services.
• Impacts to infrastructure from inefficient truck
routes.
• Decreased neighborhood aesthetics due to no
set service day.
• Increased greenhouse gas emissions due to
inefficient truck routes.
For Hauler
• May not have majority of service.
Pros
For Resident
• Customers can choose which company they
want to use.
• Encourages competition and potentially drives
rates down.
• Residents may still procure agreements from
the hauler of their choosing and negotiate
rates, which are in line with their budgets and
expectations.
For City
• Less staff time due to no contracts.
For Hauler
• Ability to continue to provide service.
Open Market Hauling Comments or Questions?
whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste 303-235-2841
Wheat Ridge would choose to contract with a residential waste hauler through a competitive process. To
maintain market competition, the City could add districting to this strategy. This would allow haulers to bid
on servicing a district, which could result in more than one city-contracted hauler. Residents would have
the ability to opt-out of the program, but would likely be required to pay a fee.
;Similar to Golden and Arvada
Cons
For Resident
• Ability to opt-out, but may require an
opt-out fee.
• Eliminates consumer choice.
For City
• Interrupts free-enterprise system.
• Increased staff time to manage contract.
For Hauler
• Could put smaller haulers out of business.
• Haulers may not have the capacity to serve an
entire community; some would not be able to
bid at all.
Pros
For Resident
• Contract would lock-in a rate charged by
the hauler.
• Don’t have to negotiate contracts or shop
around for the lowest prices.
For City
• Establish performance standards that would
allow the municipality to cancel a contract if
standards aren’t met.
• Fewer collection trucks on the roads would
mean less wear and tear on streets, less noise
pollution, and less greenhouse gas emissions.
• Improved neighborhood aesthetics due to
more efficient service.
For Hauler
• Can require contracted hauler to keep
improving services and continue innovation.
Contracted Hauling Comments or Questions?
whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste 303-235-2841
The city would purchase trucks and carts and provide waste collection services to residents.
;Similar to Denver
Cons
For Resident
• Eliminates consumer choice to select hauler.
For City
• City does not currently have expertise in
providing waste collection services.
• Significant initial investment for city to
purchase trucks and carts and hire employees
to provide the service.
For Hauler
• Eliminates needs for services.
Pros
For Resident
• Don’t have to negotiate contracts or shop
around for the lowest prices.
• Residents all receive the same level of service
from the City.
For City
• City has control of costs and service levels
provided.
• Fewer collection trucks on the roads would
mean less wear and tear on streets, less noise
pollution, and less greenhouse gas emissions.
• Improved neighborhood aesthetics due to
coordinated service days.
For Hauler
• Not applicable.
Municipal Hauling Comments or Questions?
whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste 303-235-2841
The city would go out to bid for a preferred hauler. Residents would have the option of opt-in or selecting to
go with the preferred hauler at the city’s negotiated rate and service.
;Several neighborhoods in Wheat Ridge
Cons
For Resident
• Would have to take action to signup with the
preferred hauler.
For City
• City chooses the preferred hauler and there is
an advantage to that business.
• Preferred hauler is optional, and will not
decrease the number of trash trucks, noise
pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions
unless a significant portion of residents opt-in
to the program.
• Neighborhood aesthetics unlikely to improve
unless a signification portion of residents opt-
in to the program.
For Hauler
• Other haulers may not be able to provide
service on the selected days.
Pros
For Resident
• Would likely result in lower prices and higher
levels of service due to hauler operating at a
larger scale.
• Would still have choice of hauler.
For City
• Would likely result in lower prices and higher
levels of service due to hauler operating at a
larger scale.
• Would still have choice of hauler.
For Hauler
• Can incentivize preferred hauler to keep
improving services and continue innovation.
Opt-in Preferred Hauler Comments or Questions?
whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste 303-235-2841
An open market system would be maintained with multiple haulers serving residents. However, haulers
would be required by the City to meet enhanced requirements in order to receive their business license. For
example, enhanced requirements could include pay-as-you-throw pricing, pickup day requirements, recycling
and compost requirements, minimum number of customers, and customer service standards.
;Similar to Boulder
Cons
For Resident
• Burden to research, select, and negotiate contract
with hauler.
• More trash trucks on neighborhood roads when
compared to municipal and contracted hauling
methods.
• May have multiple days of service on your block.
For City
• More staff time managing multiple licenses.
For Hauler
• More enforcement and oversight from city over
license and services.
Pros
For Resident
• Customers can choose which company they
want to use.
• Encourages competition and potentially drives
rates down.
For City
• Provides more enforcement over contract
and services.
• Additional requirement can be placed on
haulers such as require providing additional
services such as recycling or organics
collection.
• Enhanced licensing can include requirement
for minimum number of customers which can
reduce number of trucks on the city streets
over time.
• Could improve neighborhood aesthetics
depending on requirements.
• Could decrease the number of trash trucks on
roads, noise pollution, and greenhouse gas
emissions depending on requirements.
For Hauler
• A competitive market for the haulers with
more control over rates.
Enhanced Licensing Comments or Questions?
whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste 303-235-2841
Flat Rate Waste Disposal
Residents pay a fixed amount for waste disposal services regardless of the volume of material placed at the curb.
In addition to the different waste hauling options, there are also different options for fee
structures, or how haulers can charge for waste removal.
Cons
For Resident
• Those who generate less pay for those who generate more.
• May have additional fees for disposal of certain types of wastes.
For City
• No incentive to reduce waste.
For Hauler
• May not cover all costs.
Pros
For Resident
• Users don’t usually know the actual costs of disposal.
For City
• Easier to manage because you don’t need to monitor the
container sizes placed at curb.
For Hauler
• Easier to manage, don’t have to consider container size.
Fee Structures Comments or Questions?
Pay-As-You Throw
Collection and costs are based on the size of container and how much material you place at the curb.
;Similar to Denver
Cons
For Resident
• Can be costly for low-income households.
For City
• Could increase illegal dumping.
• Could increase contamination in the recycling and organics streams.
For Hauler
• Makes enforcement of services more complicated.
Pros
For Resident
• Gives residents an incentive to participate in recycling and
composting programs.
For City
• Creates an economic incentive for people to reduce the volume of
trash they generate and decrease the amount they pay.
For Hauler
• Costs typically cover services provided.
whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste 303-235-2841
Next Steps
Thank you so much for your participation in the Wheat Ridge Residential
Waste Engagement Project. The feedback received throughout this project will
play an important role in shaping future decisions regarding residential waste
management in Wheat Ridge.
Fill out the comment form or visit the
website at whatsupwheatridge.com/
residential-waste
Do you have questions or
comments about the project?
?
The final engagement report with proposed recommendations on
future waste management systems will be published in Fall 2024.
Final Engagement Report
The project team will analyze the results and will gather additional
input from residents in Spring 2024.
Project Team Results
This self-guided online meeting is the first phase of public
engagement for the project and will close on January 26, 2024.
Self-Guided Online Meeting
ATTACHMENT 2
Summary Phase Two
Residential Waste
Engagement
April 2024
DRAFT
i
Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................. 2
Who We Heard From ................................................................................................................................. 2
What We Heard ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Current System ......................................................................................... 4
Current Waste Providers ........................................................................................................................... 4
Current Satisfaction ................................................................................................................................... 6
Cost of Service .......................................................................................................................................... 8
Hauling Systems ..................................................................................... 10
Survey Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 10
Summary of Results ................................................................................................................................ 11
Open Market ............................................................................................................................................ 13
Enhanced Licensing ................................................................................................................................ 14
Municipal Hauling .................................................................................................................................... 17
Opt-In Preferred Hauling ......................................................................................................................... 18
Contracted Hauling .................................................................................................................................. 20
Alternative Fee Structures ..................................................................... 21
Summary of Results ................................................................................................................................ 21
Flat Rate .................................................................................................................................................. 23
Pay-As-You-Throw .................................................................................................................................. 23
Additional Open-ended Comment Topics ............................................. 24
Future Service ......................................................................................... 26
Closing and Next Steps .......................................................................... 27
2
Executive Summary
The Wheat Ridge Residential Waste Engagement project aims to understand if residents would like to
see change regarding waste management options in the city. In order to gather feedback on the current
trash hauling system and potential future changes to this system, multiple engagement opportunities took
place between December 2023 and January 2024. The project team hosted a self-guided online meeting
and an in-person open house. They also attended the Holiday Celebration community event.
691 329 895
PEOPLE REACHED ONLINE SURVEYS COMMENTS RECEIVED
The results of this engagement effort were mixed, with people both in support of and in
opposition to changing the city’s waste system.
Respondents were asked to review a series of potential waste management systems and rank their
preferences. Additionally, they were asked to rank their values and priorities as it relates to residential
waste services. The following waste management systems were included:
• Open Market (current system)
• Contracted hauling
• Municipal hauling
• Opt-in preferred hauler system
• Enhanced licensing requirements
• Alternative fee structures:
o Pay-As-You-Throw system
o Flat rate waste disposal
Open Market Hauling (Wheat Ridge’s current waste management system) was the top preference;
however, several other options were close behind. The feedback indicated that choice and cost are
the top two factors that respondents value when considering what is important with their waste service.
In addition, flat rate disposal was the preferred alternative fee structure. Details of the engagement results
will be provided in this report.
Who We Heard From
Engagement efforts to gather feedback took place from December 2023 to January 2024. A wide range of
residents engaged in this feedback, as indicated below and in Figure 1.
3
• 633 people accessed the online meeting from Dec. 6, 2023, to Jan. 28, 2024.
• 7 people connected with the team at the Holiday Celebration on Dec. 2, 2023.
• 51 people attended the open house on Dec. 13, 2023.
Figure 1: Map of Residents Surveyed
Geographical dispersion of surveyed residents was successful during this phase of engagement, primarily
due to the self-guided online meeting being available at the public’s convenience. City-wide social media
posts and two newspaper advertisements in the Wheat Ridge Gazette are assumed to be contributing
factors to this success.
Overview of What We Heard
The survey asked respondents if the current waste management system works well, to which 41% said
no, 15% were indifferent, and 44% said yes. This indicates that 56% may be interested in some
change to the current system.
Along with the 329 survey responses, the project team also received 895 open-ended comments. Similar
to the survey question response, 57% of comments were in support of or indifferent to changing
the current waste system, while 43% were against changing the system.
4
Additionally, through a voting exercise at the open house, 21 of 51 people in attendance felt that the
waste management system in Wheat Ridge does not need to change, while 12 indicated that a change
would be good, and two people were indifferent to the change. The remainder did not vote.
Current System Feedback
The following section provides details on sentiment around the current system. These results include
what services residents currently use, what they like, and what can be improved. This provides a baseline
understanding of people’s perception of the current system, which can be compared to their feedback on
the future service possibilities. Current Waste Providers
Based on the results from the survey (and what is displayed in Figure 2), Waste Management (28%),
Waste Connections (27%) and Crush Disposal (24%) are the most used waste providers in the city. The
survey also revealed that 49% of residents have switched their waste haulers due to quality of service
(i.e. dissatisfaction with service), and 31% switched because their previous hauler was bought out or
went out of business (displayed in Figure 3). When asked which service they had switched from,
respondents most commonly answered Waste Management (46%), shown in Figure 4.
Figure 2: Haulers Currently in Use
5
Figure 3: Reason for Switching Haulers
Figure 4: Previous Haulers (Customer Switched)1
1 Note: Some respondents listed more than one hauler in their answer; all are included in this data.
Quality of
Service, 49%
Bought/Went
out of Business,
31%
Other, 13%
Container Size, 7%
Waste Management46%
Republic
20%
Waste Connection
14%
Pro Disposal
6%
Other
5%
Crush
3%
Pac Man
3%
BFI
3%
6
Current Satisfaction
The survey asked respondents about their level of satisfaction with their current waste system, including
likes and dislikes about their current hauler. As shown in Figure 5, results were split on whether people
think the current service works well, with 44% responding ‘Yes,’ 41% responding ‘No,’ and 15% responding that they are ‘Indifferent.’
The survey found that customers currently appreciate the convenient and reliable service (26%), cost
(17%), and customer service (16%) as shown in Figure 6. Concurrently, Figure 7 demonstrates that
some residents do not like the lack of compost services (27%) and think the cost of their service is too high (25%).
Figure 5: Does the Current Waste Management System Work Well?
Figure 6: What Residents Like About Their Current Waste Hauler
7
Figure 7: What Residents Do Not Like About Their Current Waste Hauler
Related to the current satisfaction topics of the survey, here is a sampling of direct quotes received
through the open-ended comments as qualitative feedback to support the statistical data noted above:
“I don't know why the city is looking at this issue again. Don't know what the city is going to find out this
time that they haven't found out before. The city is wasting time and money (paying consultants) to do
another survey, come up with recommendations, present to city council, etc. I keep hearing that this is an
area of concern to residents, but it must be just a vocal few who have city council's ear because I don't
hear anyone talking about trash hauling.”
“I am very glad to see changes to our waste services being considered. I think the current free market
option has considerable downsides. I understand that contracted services or enhanced licensing have a
lower barrier to entry for the city, but I would love to see some analysis on the potential long-term budget
impacts of municipally provided services. While this does significantly increase the footprint of city
services, and contributes to a perceived reduction in choice, ultimately, I think it would offer the city the
most sustainable and flexible option. With full control of the services provided, the city will be able to
adjust services to meet voter needs, without any contract negotiations or complex licensing changes.”
8
Cost of Service
When asked how much residents pay monthly for their current service, 39% pay $21-$30 and 24% pay
$31-$40 (shown in Figure 8). Figures 9 and 10 show that 68% of services currently include recycling and
72% of respondents pay more for that service. Also, most residents (77% shown in Figure 11) did not
sign a contract with their hauler and those who did sign a contract, most payments are month-to-month
with yearly payments coming in next as most comment payment frequency (Figure 12).
Figure 8: Monthly Cost for Current Service
Figure 9: Does Service Include Recycling/Composting?
9
Figure 10: Do Residents Pay More for Recycling/Composting?
Figure 11: Is a Contract Required?
10
Figure 12: Length of Current Contract2
Hauling Systems Feedback
The following section provides details on the sentiment around each hauling system, including results
from the survey and an analysis of open-ended comments. Overall survey results are provided followed
by additional details on each hauling system.
Survey Methodology
The survey asked respondents to review five waste hauling systems. Each included a description, a
pro/con list, and example municipalities that use the specific system. Following review, the survey asked
respondents to rank the systems in order of preference, using a weighted ranking system. The weighted
ranking system involved respondents assigning a number (one through 5) to each option, with 1 being the
most favored, and 5 being the least favored. All responses were tallied up with the lowest score
representing the most preferred option. The five waste hauling systems presented to the community
included:
2 Only if a contract is present.
11
• Open Market: Open markets allow numerous haulers to do business for waste services. There
are no restrictions on who can provide waste management services, and any licensed company
can enter the market and compete for business.
• Contracted Hauling: Wheat Ridge would choose to contract with a residential waste hauler
through a competitive process. To maintain market competition, the city could add districting to
this strategy. This would allow haulers to bid on servicing a district, which could result in more
than one city-contracted hauler. Residents would have the ability to opt-out of the program but
would likely be required to pay a fee if they choose to do so.
• Municipal Hauling: The city would purchase trucks and carts and provide waste collection
services to residents.
• Opt-in Preferred Hauler: The city would go out to bid for a preferred hauler. Residents would
have the option of opt-in or would be given the opportunity to select the preferred hauler at the
city’s negotiated rate and service.
• Enhanced Licensing: An open market system would be maintained with multiple haulers serving
residents. However, haulers would be required by the city to meet enhanced requirements in
order to receive their business license. For example, enhanced requirements could include pay-
as-you-throw pricing, pickup day requirements, recycling and compost requirements, minimum
number of customers, and customer service standards.
Summary of Results on Potential Hauling Systems
Based on survey results, Open Market was ranked the most favored method, followed closely by
Enhanced Licensing. In open-ended comments on Open Market hauling, residents said they prefer the
current system.
Municipal Hauling was ranked third. Some people had concerns about how the program would be
managed. Some open-ended comments indicated that similar programs in other communities are not
working well, while other residents commented that they’ve had good experiences with Municipal Hauling
programs in other communities.
Opt-in Preferred Hauler and Contracted Hauling were ranked the second to least and least favored
methods, respectively; however, they were also very close in score, as outlined in Figure 13.
Commenters expressed concern that the Opt-in Preferred Hauler option would increase bureaucracy and
questioned what service or sustainability problems that system would solve. Commenters also expressed
concern that Contracted Hauling would force everyone to pay a set price for services they may not want.
12
Figure 13: Rank of Different Hauling Methods
The following order is based on a weighted ranking system where the lowest score is the most favored
hauling method.
1. Open Market, weighted score 659
2. Enhanced Licensing, weighted score 681
3. Municipal Hauling, weighted score 873
4. Opt-in Preferred Hauler, weighted score 1,333
5. Contracted Hauling, weighted score 1,374
In addition to ranking the five hauling options, survey respondents were asked what would be most
important to them in selecting a waste management system. In assessing those responses, cost ranked
number one (shown in Figure 14). Other important factors in the top five ranking include having
convenient and reliable services, recycling options, customer service, and the ability to pick the
hauler of their choice.
When compared to all the other criteria, collection frequency was least important, followed by
environmental impacts, having large item pick-up options, and composting options.
Figure 14: Selection Criteria Ranked from Most Important to Least Important
The following order is based on a weighted ranking system where the lowest score is the most important
criteria.
1. Cost, weighted score 825
2. Convenient and reliable services, weighted score 1,246
3. Recycling options, weighted score 1,604
4. Customer service, weighted score 1,862
5. Ability to pick a hauler of my choice, weighted score 1,950
6. Less trash trucks in the neighborhood, weighted score 2,125
7. Pick-up day, weighted score 2,149
8. Compost options, weighted score 2,224
9. Large item pick-up options, weighted score 2,431
10. Environmental impacts, weighted score 2,451
11. Collection frequency, weighted score 2,741
13
Open Market
Open Market is the current system and slightly outranked Enhanced Licensing as the number one
preference in the survey. A total of 137 open-ended comments were received regarding this option.
Half of the open-ended comments indicated support for this option. Slightly over half of the
attendees (28) at the open house agreed that if the city makes a change, it needs to consider small
business owners.
Several commenters said choice is important, and they don’t want government overreach.
“We already voted on this, and this is what the people wanted.”
Several commenters in support of the Open Market option want to keep the ability to change providers if
warranted and appreciate the freedom of choice.
“This method has worked out for our household. Though we do see multiple companies throughout the
day, most seem to pick up Tuesdays. I like having options to find the best price to service. We initially had
one company that kept raising prices while service went subpar. We switched and have been happy.”
“I prefer to choose a company, so I have recourse if they raise rates or provide poor service. I feel that
government control would not benefit anyone.”
Community Impacts were referenced more often than general support in the open-ended comments,
followed by desire for Freedom of choice/dislike of government control, and Costs.
Of the comments designated in the Community Impacts category, 25 mentioned concerns for the number
of trucks on the road, 11 discussed truck noise, 10 indicated concern for the environment, and six (6)
were concerned about the wear and tear on streets. These concerns include some of the reasons
related to why municipalities change their hauling systems. One respondent stated, “We have lived
in Wheat Ridge since 1991, and contracting for waste management service and switching services when
rates go up unreasonably, has been a real headache. We started with Waste Management, then moved
to Republic Services, and now we have Crush. We like Crush the best, but we just got a rate increase of
36% over last year. We have noticed numerous waste management trucks on our street (Field Drive) at
least three days a week: Waste Management, Pro Disposal, Republic Services, Crush, and Waste
Connection. We feel badly about the carbon footprint of all these trucks, and the damage they do to our
street. There has got to be a better way.”
Of the comments in the “Freedom of choice/dislike of government control” category, 16 indicated the
desire to continue to make their own choices and have control over their service: “This method works well
14
since consumers are free to choose the service that works best for them.” Another stated, “This is the
best. Gives people full control over costs and service levels. Allows the development of local businesses.”
Two (2) comments referenced government control and concern over monopolies, and eight (8) felt the
city should not be involved in waste management, with one respondent stating, “A open market forces
providers to keep costs low to compete for our business. A one size-fits-all approach will take away
consumer choice. The city doesn't need to control my trash services and recycling.” And the other saying,
“This system is by far the best system. I do not want the city spending my money for me.”
As it relates to cost, six (6) comments indicated having an open market would benefit them, and four (4)
indicated that their current rates are high. Seven (7) comments indicated that the cost would have a
negative impact on them. Figure 13 provides the detailed breakdown of open-ended comment
categorical responses.
Figure 13: Open-Ended Open Market Hauling Comment Categories
Overall, the Open Market hauling option was ranked the highest as the preferred option, but the
community is curious about the details of other options and how those might benefit them and their
community. A deeper understanding through technical analysis and studies about the direct impacts
(negative and positive) to changing from Open Market to another option is recommended.
Enhanced Licensing
Enhanced Licensing ranked as the second-best option in the survey. In total, 94 open-ended comments
were received about the Enhanced Licensing option. While Enhanced Licensing had strong support in the
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Code Liscensing
Large/Yard Waste Pick Up
Small Business
Recycle/Compost
Opposed
Quality of Service
Questions
In Favor
Keep Current System
Cost/Taxes
Freedom of Choice/Dislike of Government Control
Impacts
15
survey, approximately half of the open-ended commenters opposed Enhanced Licensing. One-third of the
commenters were either neutral to or in support of this option.
Many of the opposition-focused comments were about concern with the overall process of making this
work, and what is perceived as government control should this option be used in the city. One commenter
stated, “Why is more oversight needed? Is there a problem with the trash companies not following rules?
Seems like more government for the sake of more government.” Additionally, one respondent said, “This
doesn't offer any benefit over the current practice.”
Concern was expressed in the open-ended comments about cost to the city and residents to implement
Enhanced Licensing and how it would be difficult to manage and enforce.
“We need improved business licensing. In Lakewood, all licensed haulers are posted on (the) city site and
have requirements for showing rates upfront. The city licensing for the haulers is so low on cost and
requirements. The city has passed the burden onto residents to spend more money, have bad services,
and communicates that it is our choice. I don’t have the choice to have the services I want because a
hauler won’t provide unless there is more neighboring up. The city needs to take responsibility for being
part of the problem. The city must update city code and strengthen business licensing requirements for
this sector.”
For those who provided comments in support of Enhanced Licensing, a common theme was that this
should be the bare minimum. One respondent stated, “This is table stakes and should be required if no
change to the waste management process is determined. This should be implemented now with no vote.
A company should not be allowed to operate within a city without first having licensing. Wheat Ridge
should hold their licensed vendors to high/appropriate standards for the service they are providing to the
community. This should not be a separate option on this vote. It should be part of BAU (business as
usual).”
Another respondent commented, “This may be a very good option because I doubt residents will ever
vote to give up the right to choose their own hauler, even though the benefits are obvious. This could be a
good compromise to nudge us in the right direction in terms of composting, recycling, minimum number of
customers, etc.” Another had a similar sentiment and indicated that this, “(This) should be the first step.
Lowest cost, most choice. The city regulates far less impactful services in the city. Why has trash not
been one?”
Many comments were overall opposed to this strategy and indicated that they did not see how this option
would be a benefit over the current Open Market system. As an example, one respondent said, “I
personally do not think this is the right solution for a community-based need. The competition of the past
16
is not a solution for reducing the inefficiencies we currently need to address. This system leads to a great
deal of redundancy and wasted energy.” Another stated, “How does this decrease the number of trucks
on the road? This does not fix the current issue.”
As it relates to cost, one (1) person indicated having Enhanced Licensing would benefit them, and one (1)
indicated that it would be costly to the city to implement. Eight (8) comments indicated that the cost would
have a negative impact on them, with one person indicating, “I think this drives costs up, not down;
doesn't guarantee eliminating any burden on the residents, neighborhoods, or the environment; and adds
burden to the city and the hauler. And if there is any concern about driving small haulers out of the
running, this one is a red flag. Frankly, I don't think it is the city's job to make sure small haulers have a
good business plan and will succeed - that's the hauler's and the market's job.
Overall, if a change is made from the current Open Market system, Enhanced Licensing could be a
preferred alternative as it may address some of the concerns that residents have with the current
system. Figure 14 summarizes the comments received for Enhanced Licensing.
Figure 14: Open-Ended Enhanced Licensing Comment Categories
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Pay-As-You-Throw
Small Business
Code/Liscensing
Eliminates Competition
Questions
Keep Current System
Concerns about System Management
Recycle/Compost
In Favor
Freedom of Choice/Dislike of Government Control
Impacts
Cost/Taxes
Opposed
17
Municipal Hauling
Municipal Hauling was ranked third in preference based on the survey results. In total, this option
received 113 open-ended comments, in which residents were mainly opposed to a municipal hauling
system.
Many of the commenters that indicated opposition to this option did not think it was the city’s place to
manage the system, with one respondent stating, “Waste collection should be performed by companies
that specialize in that service, not the city.” Others thought it was impractical for a city the size of Wheat
Ridge: “While I loved this method while living in Denver, it doesn’t seem practical for a smaller
municipality.”
Cost was the most referenced topic in the open-ended comments. Four (4) comments in the cost
category indicated municipal hauling would benefit them, and eleven (11) indicated that it would be costly
to the city to implement. One respondent said, “Would be good except for initial cost.” Another indicated,
“City does not have necessary infrastructure or budget to provide waste collection services. Significant
initial investment for city to purchase trucks and carts and hire employees to provide the service.”
Twenty (20) comments indicated that the cost would have a negative impact, with one commenter
stating, “Not likely to happen. The costs involved to put this in place would have to be passed on to
residents, and it would end up being more expensive than the other options.” Another person said, “This
has potential to significantly raise rates for citizens and create a monopoly.”
The next highest comment category was concern over how the city would implement, manage, and
enforce this system.
“Purchasing trucks and finding employees to run such an operation makes this option unfeasible.”
Another person said, “Like this idea, but there would be a substantial learning curve for the municipality.
City would be stretched to become an expert in something they are not completely focused on; too many
competing priorities for them to excel at this. Too much CapEx and overhead. Keep it to OpEx and low
overhead to keep cashflow within the city. No entity can be all things to all stakeholders. A city is no
different. It’s worth paying a 3rd party with a margin for them to run the operation, that is their core
competency. This frees up city resources to pursue more high impact strategic objectives.”
“It costs a huge initial investment by the city to buy trash containers, and Wheat Ridge would need to hire
more staff to manage the program, bill and collect the fees. Denver has not been able to provide the
official trash cans to residents.”
18
“I'm going to very annoyed if you go the route of Denver and create these extremely messy streets due to
no accountability with the trash service. Go to an ally in (the) Sloans (Lake) area after pick up to see what
I’m talking about.”
Conversely, many others indicated in the open-ended comments that they had good experiences with
Municipal Hauling programs in other communities, and that they would like to see that happen in
Wheat Ridge.
“I lived in Denver for many years and thought that the city’s program was fantastic. This would be my
preferred option.”
While the survey indicates this option as a top one for the city to consider, the open-ended comments
shared specific concerns about the resident cost to planning and implementing for this and leaving the
community unable to make a personal choice. However, those who have experienced this option in other
communities appreciated that the city managed the process and logistics of hauling.
Figure 15: Open-Ended Municipal Hauling Comment Categories
Opt-In Preferred Hauling
Opt-in Preferred Hauling was the second to last choice in the survey results. A total of 93 open-
ended comments were received on this option. Most of those comments were opposed to this hauling
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Code Liscensing
Impacts
Large/Yard Waste Pick Up
Pay-As-You-Throw
Quality of Service
Container Size
Keep Current System
Small Business
Questions
Recycle/Compost
In Favor
Freedom of Choice/Dislike of Government Control
Opposed To
Concerns about System Management
Cost/Taxes
19
system. Of those opposed, some were skeptical that residents would change to the new Opt-in hauler,
with one person stating, “I don’t think that many people would take the time to change to the new one, so
I think the situation would remain pretty much the same as current state.”
Other commenters expressed concern over government control. One commenter said, “I don't think the
city needs to spend its resources on this. Again, they do not need to choose winners and losers, and I
worry about corruption with this method. Also, we do not need to be paying another city employee or
opening a position for this, which I am sure this would lead to.”
Freedom of choice/dislike for government control was the most common reference in the open-
ended comments, with nine (9) commenters indicating a desire to choose their own provider, and three
indicating that the city should not be involved.
One respondent stated, “Neighborhoods who choose this have that right. The city does not need to be
involved. That incurs needless costs and expenses for the city.” Another indicated a preference for this
option because it still allowed choice: “This option is a fair option since it still leaves a choice and decision
to the citizens.”
Generally, the freedom of choice and dislike for government control was the critical reason for this option
ranking low on the list of options based on the open-ended comment analysis and further analysis into the
option’s cost to the city and residents would be needed.
Figure 16: Open-Ended Opt-in Preferred Hauling Comment Categories
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Code/Licensing
Opt Out
Incentivizing
Questions
Cost/Taxes
Opposed
In Favor
Freedom of Choice/Dislike of Government Control
20
Contracted Hauling
Contracted Hauling was ranked least favorable among hauling options in the survey. A total of 128 open-
ended comments were received about Contracted Hauling. While support and opposition are mixed in the
open-ended comments, and several comments expressed support for this method, Contracted Hauling is
still the least favorable option.
One commenter who expressed support for Contracted Hauling stated, “This is my top preference –
seems like it would be the most efficient both cost and emissions-wise.”
Common themes for those opposed include the lack of choice or ability to switch haulers for better
service or price. “As a resident of Wheat Ridge for over 26 years, this plan is not desired, as it restricts
you to one trash service at a set price. I prefer to choose my own trash service and get a lower price if
needed or change service because of issues I may have with a particular vendor. I don’t need to be
penalized with a monthly fee if I opt-out of the city-mandated service. Arvada has implemented this
already, and the trash service company they chose is not very reliable and would miss pickup days with
no explanation or offer to pick up when the scheduled trash day is missed or refund if a service day was
missed. Residents should have the choice to pick a more reliable service, and if they do, they are
penalized with a minimum service fee. This is not a very good option. Thanks!”
As it relates to cost, only one person indicated having a contracted hauler would benefit them. Six
comments indicated that the cost would have a negative impact.
“How does single contract hauling look like in other areas? Everyone I know with single choice service
says it starts well but ends up being more costly. If only one provider, who do we switch to when quality
goes down?”
Based on the comments that referenced Community Impacts, eight (8) participants indicated that
contracted hauling would be beneficial by reducing the number of trucks on the road. Five comments
indicated it would help reduce pollution. Four indicated there would be a reduction in noise and wear on
infrastructure. One commenter stated, “This would be my choice. I like that it would mean one truck, one
day of the week. I also like that it keeps a healthy competition by offering districts.”
Thirteen people commented with concern for loss of business, with one stating, “I think highly of small
businesses and their survival. Implementation of this type of program will not only create a loss of
revenue to these small companies but a loss of jobs, leaving more to struggle.”
21
Overall, this option has most concern with the cost related to this option, but community benefits were top
of mind for respondents recognizing that pollution and reduction of truck traffic would be a positive with
this option.
Figure 17: Open-Ended Contracted Hauling Comment Categories
Alternative Fee Structures Feedback
In addition to questions about hauling method preferences, survey respondents were asked to review two
different fee structures: flat rate waste disposal and Pay-As-You-Throw. These fee structures are defined
as follows:
• Flat Rate: Residents pay a fixed amount for waste disposal services regardless of the volume of
material placed at the curb.
• Pay-As-You-Throw: Collection and costs are based on the size of container and how much
material you place at the curb.
Summary of Results
Of the two fee structures presented, flat rate waste disposal was preferred by two-thirds of
respondents, as displayed in Figure 18.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Code/Liscensing
Container Size
Concern About System Management
Quality of ServiceOpposed
Districting
Eliminates Competition
Large/Yard Waste Pick Up
Recycling/Compost
Questions
Keep Current System
Other
Freedom of Choice/Dislike of Government Control
Opt Out
Small Business
Cost/Taxes
Impacts
In Favor
22
Figure 18: Preferred Fee Structures
Along with the survey, feedback at the in-person open house indicated overwhelming support for
transparency in price structure. A total of 95 open-ended comments were received regarding fee
structure, generally. It should be noted that the comments related to cost in this effort were primarily
concerns regarding increased costs, but there were also some comments in support of a different/distinct
fee structure. Overall, flat rate fee structure is preferred, but the sentiment is close enough that further
analysis and study to potential fee structures is warranted to determine which is most appropriate for
residents of Wheat Ridge.
Figure 19: Open-Ended Fee Structure Comment Categories
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Illegal Dumping
Questions
Container Size
Pay-As-You-Throw
Large/Yard Waste Pick Up
Flat Rate
Freedom of Choice/Dislike of Government Control
Cost/Taxes
23
Flat Rate
The Flat Rate for waste disposal was the most preferred alternative fee structure based on survey results.
Very few open-ended comments contained feedback on the Flat Rate option.
Additionally, the equity of a flat rate was mentioned, with one commenter indicating that the flat rate, “is
easy and simple to understand, but as more or less pointed out, this is lumping everyone into the same
bucket. It's not exactly fair that a single person living in a small house would have to pay the same
amount as a family with 3 kids.”
Pay-As-You-Throw
In addition to the 95 open-ended general comments related to fee structure, there were 88 open-ended
comments specifically about the pay-as-you-throw option. As noted above, the survey responses show
only 35% of people support the pay-as-you-throw option, while 65% support flat rate. At the open house,
when asked if Wheat Ridge should consider alternative waste management options such as pay-as-you-
throw, or incentives for certain haulers, 20 people disagreed, while eight (8) agreed.
Many of the open-ended survey comments opposed to this option were expressing opposition to the
project a whole, and not necessarily just pay-as-you-throw, with one respondent stating, “I am opposed to
this. City should not be in this business. Loud minority is making this an issue,” and another saying, “I like
what I have now which is not this!! Let me make the decision for myself and keep the government out of
it!!”
Others who were opposed to this option, were concerned with the potential costs to limited-income
homes or those with large families. Seven comments brought up potential impacts to limited-income
households, indicating these households may have less access to lower-waste products and waste
diversion resources. One respondent said, “‘Can be costly for low-income households should be all that is
needed to not go this direction.” Another stated, “Penalizes larger families, lower-income families, or
families with special needs that may generate more waste.”
Another commenter stated, “I think that pay-as-you-throw would basically just hurt low-income residents
(who likely have access to less time, education, and opportunity for lower-waste products and other waste
diversion options), result in a lot of non-compliance and cross-contamination of recycling and compost
streams, and not really change the amount of waste we generate.”
Those in support of this option like the possibility of not paying as much when they do not produce as
much trash. One respondent stated, “This is by far my preferred method as we generate hardly any trash.
It will be hard for a lot of people to adopt and certainly could negatively impact lower-income folks. I think
24
if there was a lot of education and marketing, and people understood that it would save them money to
compost and recycle, it could be doable.” Another commenter indicated, “This is a great idea! It's a great
way to reflect the cost of waste and encourage better diversion rates.”
Recycle and compost were most frequently referenced in Pay-As-You-Throw Comments. Ten
commenters mentioned how this could incentivize recycling and composting, with one respondent stating,
“I prefer this method as it incentivizes reducing, reusing, and recycling consumer products. Figure 20
outlines the total comments related to Pay-As-You-Throw. Resident interest in recycling and composting
services aligns with the survey results suggesting 27% of customers wish they had access to composting
services; however, the open-ended comments do not outweigh the fact that residents overall do not
support this fee structure.
Figure 20: Open-Ended Pay-As-You-Throw Comments
Additional Open-Ended Comment Topics
The following sections will provide further details on the most popular topics covered in the open-ended
comments in addition to the hauling systems and fee structure responses provided in the survey and
outlined above. These are subjects that the residents wanted to emphasize and is qualitative data that will
help the city determine sentiments on the overall topic of waste management and appropriate next steps.
The open-ended comments were categorized by topic, captured in Figure 21 below. The categories
range from financial concerns to specific service needs such as container size or large item pick up.
Residents also commented on more general concepts such as overall support or opposition to change
and dislike of government control. The figure does not include comments designated as ‘other’.
0 5 10 15 20 25
Communication
Impacts
Keep Current System
Container Size
In Favor
Concerns over System Management
Freedom of Choice/Dislike of Government Control
Questions
Illegal Dumping
Opposed
Cost/Taxes
Recycle/Compost
25
Figure 21: Summary of all Open-ended Comment Categories
Costs/Taxes
Concern related to costs and taxes appeared most frequently in the in open-ended comments. The
majority of comments in this category related to concern over increased costs, either directly for residents
or for the city. A smaller number of comments indicated that current costs are high and residents may
benefit from a change in hauling methods if it included a cost reduction. A handful of comments
mentioned specific issues relating to equity that the city may consider, such as senior discounts, impacts
to low-income households or single-income households. Out of 895 comments, major input included:
• Concern about residents paying more within certain hauling systems. Including concern for
seniors, low-income, and single-income households.
• Concern over an increased cost to the city.
• Belief that cost to residents may be beneficial depending on the hauling system.
Freedom of Choice/Dislike of Government Control
Freedom of choice/dislike of government control was the topic category with the second highest number
of comments. The majority of these comments relate to a desire for freedom of choice, not wanting the
city involved in waste management, and wanting personal control over services. A smaller number of
comments related to monopolies and corruption. Out of 895 comments, major input included:
• Wanting freedom of choice and being in control of their own services.
Container Size
Incentivizing
Concern over Opt Out System
Large Item/Yard Waste Pick Up
Small Business
Elimination of Competition
Concern about Quality of Service
Asked Questions
Concern about System Management
Against Change
In Favor of Change
Recycling/Composting
Keep Current System
Impacts
Freedom of Choice/Dislike of Government Control
Costs/Taxes
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
26
• Not wanting the city involved in waste management because it limits personal choice and
coincides with not wanting this personal need to be controlled by the government.
• Not wanting government control, generally.
Community Impacts
Comments in this topic category relate to a range of perceived impacts on the community and the
environment, related to current service and potential future changes. These comments include discussion
of waste hauling’s impact on traffic, pollution, noise, infrastructure and more. Slightly over half of the
attendees (28) at the open house agreed that if the city makes a change, it needs to consider small
business owners. Out of 895 comments, major input included:
• Concern for the number of trucks and traffic, including noise from trucks and wear and tear on the
streets.
o There was a split opinion on whether the number of trash trucks on the road needs to be
addressed, with 16 agreeing and 16 disagreeing.
• Desire to protect the environment and prevent climate change, pollution, and greenhouse gas
emissions.
Recycling and Composting
A significant number of comments related to recycling and composting were generally pro-recycling and
composting. These comments expressed a desire for enhanced recycling and composting service or the
need to incentivize recycling and composting, or even mandatory recycling/composting. Out of 895
comments, major input included:
• Preference for enhanced recycling or composting options.
• The need to incentivize recycling or composting.
• The need for more frequent recycling pick-ups.
• Interest in a recycling drop-off facility.
Future Service Feedback
Overall, there were mixed opinions about whether the city should make changes to the waste hauling
system. The survey asked respondents if the current waste management system works well, to which
41% said no, 15% were indifferent, and 44% said yes. This indicates that 56% may be interested in some
change to the current system.
Based on survey results, Open Market was ranked the most favored hauling method, and it also had the
most support within the open-ended comments when compared other hauling options.
27
During a voting exercise at the open house, around 40% of people in attendance felt that the waste
management system in Wheat Ridge does not need to change, while just over 10% of those in
attendance indicating that a change would be positive.
Ultimately, residents consistently stated that having convenient and reliable services, recycling
options, customer service, and the ability to pick the hauler of their choice were their main priorities.
If the City of Wheat Ridge were to consider changing the current hauling system, these priorities should
influence the decision-making process.
Closing and Next Steps
Overall, the feedback received in phase two of the Wheat Ridge Residential Waste Engagement Project
indicated that there is not community consensus on which waste system would be best for Wheat Ridge.
Responses were mixed with many people in support of and in opposition to changing the city’s waste
system. Open Market Hauling (Wheat Ridge’s current waste management system) was the top
preference; however, several other options were close behind.
The feedback indicated that cost and choice are the top two factors that respondents are focused on
when considering what is important with their waste service. Given these main factors, as well as some
of the other comments and input that were received, the project team will focus the next phase of
engagement (phase three) on learning more about what services the residents want to see at home.
Considering cost is most important to residents, understanding the type of service desired will help create
a baseline level of service that will allow the city to more easily compare these various hauling systems.
Specifically, next steps will include:
• City Council Study Session to review the results of phase two and discuss engagement for Phase
3.
• One additional public survey to hone in on resident input and gather more specific information on
potential waste service improvements or amenities related to a specific hauling option or
elements that can be considered outside of changing the hauling method (i.e. a centralized
recycling center or multiple-times-a-year large item pick-up / drop-off center).
• Attendance at two public events to discuss the project and receive community feedback.
This feedback will help determine whether there are opportunities to enhance waste service and
management experience in the Wheat Ridge community. Following the phase three engagement there
will be a final City Council Study Session to report out project findings and propose next steps.
1
ATTACHMENT 3
Phase Three Survey Draft
Introduction
Thank you to everyone who provided input and comments through the self-guided online meeting and in-person open house throughout December 2023 and January 2024. The City of Wheat Ridge values your input and wants to continue to understand the community’s wants and needs regarding the waste management system. Click here (link will be added before distribution) to review the public open house display boards from the winter event. Now that we introduced you to various collection options such as enhanced licensing, franchising, and municipal collection, along with their pros and cons, we need to understand what types of services you are looking for at home. Feedback from the first survey indicated that the overall community does not prefer one waste management system over another, with each having support. When looking at criteria that would be most important to residents in selecting a waste management system, cost ranked number one. Other important factors in the top five ranking include having convenient and reliable services, recycling options, customer service, and the ability to pick the hauler of their choice. As cost is the number one priority for the community, understanding your preferred type of trash and recycling services will help the city understand cost impacts of potential future services. 1. The survey results also show that 56% of residents either do not think the current system works well or are indifferent. Given that many residents would like to see change, which changes would you support?
o Access to curbside recycling collection for all
o Access to curbside yard waste collection for all
o Cost control
o Improved customer service and convenience
o Increased waste diversion for the city
o More drop-off options for recyclables, yard waste, etc.
o None
Recycling
We previously presented various collection methods that the city could explore. The information and comments you provided with respect to those various options were insightful in understanding what’s important to you. Based on the input received in the previous survey, over 70% of the respondents had curbside recycling services. This indicates that the community participates in waste reduction efforts. We would like to better understand what drives the community to participate in these programs and services.
2
1. We heard that cost was a key consideration in the previous input we received. If recycling more at home resulted in producing less trash and reduced monthly trash collection cost, would that make a difference in how much you recycle?
o Yes – I would make sure to recycle more
o No – I wouldn’t care to recycle more
o I’m not sure
o I don’t want recycling service 2. Based on the amount of recyclable material you have at your household, would you prefer weekly or every-other-week recycling service if cost was not a factor?
o Weekly
o Every other week
o Depends on the size of the recycling bin/cart
o I’m not sure 3. If the city required that haulers provide recycling service included in your trash collection fee at no additional cost, would you participate?
o Yes
o No
o I’m not sure 4. If there was a centralized recycling drop-off site available, would you use it instead of curbside collection?
o Yes
o Only if it’s free
o No
o I’m not sure
Yard Waste & Other Organic Waste
Based on the responses in the previous engagement, many homeowners deal with leaves and other yard debris during spring cleanups and general maintenance of yards. We heard this could be an issue for many. We would like to better understand how residents might benefit from potential yard waste collection/management.
5. Yard waste collection/management is not always necessary throughout the year and often can be managed through seasonal variations. During times when you have yard waste, how often would you need yard waste collection?
o Weekly
o Every other week
o Monthly
o Spring and fall only
o I don’t have enough yard waste
3
6. If yard waste collection was included in your trash collection fee at no additional cost, would you participate?
o Yes
o No
o I’m not sure 7. If yard waste collection was offered for an additional fee, would you subscribe to this service?
o Yes
o No
o Depends on the cost of the service
o I’m not sure 8. Would you be interested in a permanent drop-off facility for yard or other organic waste?
o Yes
o No
o Depends on the cost of the service
o I’m not sure 9. The city has several yard waste drop-off events each year, typically after large storms and in the fall. Have you participated in one of these events in the past?
o Yes
o No 10. If not, why haven't you participated?
o I didn't know about it
o I couldn't transport my yard waste to the event
o I didn’t need to participate (i.e., no yard waste to drop off) o Other
11. If there was a future yard or organic waste bin, would you be interested in that to reduce the amount of trash going to the landfill? (Regardless of cost).
o Yes
o No
o I’m not sure
Large Items
Based on the input in the previous engagement, a few homeowners wanted more opportunity to provide input on the opportunities for larger item disposal. The city already has a two-times-a-year pick-up for large items for those who sign-up in advance and also has a drop-off location of large items four-times-a-year called “Dumpster Days.” We would like to better understand if residents are using the current services and also how residents might benefit from new or different large item collection/management.
4
12. Would you be interested in a curbside large item collection program (i.e. bulky items like furniture and mattresses)?
o Yes
o No
o I’m not sure 13. How often would you need large item collection?
o Monthly
o Every eight weeks
o Once a quarter
o I don’t throw away large items 14. If curbside large item collection was included in your trash collection fee at no additional cost, would you participate?
o Yes
o No
o I’m not sure 15. If curbside large item collection was offered for an additional fee, would you subscribe to this service?
o Yes
o No
o I’m not sure 16. If the city offered a free large item drop-off site (permanent or temporary), would you use it?
o Yes
o No
o I’m not sure 17. The city offers two large item pick up events each year and Localworks offers four clean up days (drop off events) each year. Have you participated in either of these programs in the past?
o Yes, I’ve participated in the large item pickup program.
o Yes, I’ve participated in Localworks’ clean up days.
o Yes, I’ve participated in both.
o No, I’ve never participated in either. 18. If not, why haven’t you participated?
o I didn’t know about them
o I couldn’t transport my large item to the Clean Up Day
o The day or time wasn’t convenient for me.
o The large item pickup program was full
o Other
5
Next Steps
The information gathered in the last phase and this additional public survey will allow the project team to focus in on resident input and gather more specific information on potential waste service improvements or amenities related to a specific hauling option or elements that can be considered outside of changing the hauling method. The city will be attending two existing public events to discuss the project and receive community feedback. This feedback will help determine whether there are opportunities to enhance waste service and management experience in the Wheat Ridge community. Following this phase three engagement there will be a final City Council Study Session to report out project findings and propose next steps. Stay informed about the project by visiting the website and following the city on Facebook and Instagram (add links before final distribution).
Item No. 3
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager Marianne Schilling, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Cole Haselip, Management Analyst DATE: May 6, 2024 SUBJECT: 2023 Boards and Commissions Annual Report
ISSUE:
Staff has completed the first Boards and Commissions Annual Report. This report details the
achievements of each public body included in the report through the 2023 calendar year, anticipated activities in 2024, and provides information regarding the members of each public body. Staff liaisons and commission members from the Election Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Cultural Commission will present an update on each Commission
at the May 6th study session. PRIOR ACTION: The City Council requested that staff prepare an annual report detailing the activities of the City’s boards and commissions at the August 7, 2023, Study Session.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND:
This development of the first Boards and Commissions Annual Report was a collaborative,
cross-department effort, involving the staff liaison to each board, commission, committee, and authority included within. A testament to the community’s willingness to contribute toward the next chapter of Wheat Ridge, these public bodies are comprised of approximately 70 volunteers from across the City. This report aims to acknowledge the significance of their hard work by
providing insight into the accomplishments of each public body in 2023 and outlining some of
the key issues they anticipate addressing in 2024. Enclosed within the report is a description of nine public bodies, each committed to addressing unique issues. Some engage in quasi-judicial land-use and building decisions, while others
provide recommendations to staff or the City Council. Certain public bodies allocate grants to
community partners or organize community events. Some engage in a combination of each of these activities. Enhanced by the diversity of their focus areas and roles within City processes, the value of these bodies, their dedicated volunteers, and the staff that support them are indispensable to the City’s success.
The report features all the City’s Boards and Commissions, Hybrid (Staff and Council-Selected) and Council-Selected Committees, and the Liquor Licensing Authority.
The staff liaisons to the public bodies featured in the report will be presenting to City Council over the course of two study sessions. Half of the staff liaisons will present at the April 1, 2024, study session, with the remaining half scheduled for the May 6, 2024 study session.
April 1 Presentations:
• Community Partners Grant Program
• Board of Adjustment
• Building Code Advisory Board
• Planning Commission
• Sustainable Wheat Ridge
May 6 Presentations:
• Election Commission
• Parks and Recreation Commission
• Cultural Commission These presentations are designed to complement the report by addressing potential questions and facilitating conversation. The respective Chairs of the public bodies being showcased have been invited to attend each presentation and will be available for questions as well. RECOMMENDATIONS: None. ATTACHMENTS:
1. 2023 Boards and Commissions Annual Report
ATTACHMENT 1
2023 Boards and Commissions Annual Report
City staff is excited to present the first Boards and Commissions Annual Report. This project was a
collaborative, cross-department effort, involving the staff liaison to each board, commission,
committee, and authority included within. A testament to the community’s willingness to
contribute toward the next chapter of Wheat Ridge, these public bodies are comprised of
approximately 70 volunteers from across the City. This report aims to acknowledge the
significance of their hard work by providing insight into the accomplishments of each public body
in 2023 and outlining some of the key issues they anticipate addressing in 2024.
Enclosed within is a description of 9 public bodies, each committed to addressing unique issues.
Some engage in quasi-judicial land-use and building decisions, while others provide
recommendations to staff or the City Council. Certain public bodies allocate grants to community
partners or organize community events. Some engage in a combination of each of these activities.
Enhanced by the diversity of their focus areas and roles within City processes, the value of these
bodies, their dedicated volunteers, and the staff that support them are indispensable to the City’s
success.
This report features all the City’s Boards and Commissions, Hybrid (Staff and Council-Selected)
and Council-Selected Committees, and the Liquor Licensing Authority. These bodies, and those
that are similar will be included in the annual report moving forward.
Beginning March 1, 2024, the City has implemented term limits for public bodies. Members will
become term limited after serving two consecutive three-year terms. The only exception is the
Election Commission. Due to its unique function, members will become term limited after serving
three consecutive two-year terms.
The pages for each public body include a table listing member names, member positions, terms
served, and the expiration date of their current term. Accompanying each member, you will see a
“0” for terms served beginning March 1, 2024. This is because the City has only just begun
tracking “terms served”. This column will be updated accordingly in the future.
If members of the public are interested in serving on one (or more) of these public bodies, they
should apply by visiting the City’s website.
Table of Contents
Community Partners Grant Program Committee ………………………...1
Building Code Advisory Board …………………………………………..2
Board of Adjustment ……………………………….…………………….3
Planning Commission ………………………………………….…....……4
Sustainable Wheat Ridge …………………………………………………6
Election Commission …………………………………………………......8
Liquor Licensing Authority …………………………………………........9
Parks and Recreation Commission ………………………………...……11
Cultural Commission …………………………………………………....13
Community Partners Grant Program Committee
MI
S
S
I
O
N
The Community Partners Grant Program (CPGP) is a City-sponsored grant program that
supports area non-profit agencies and programs that benefit and improve the health and
wellness of Wheat Ridge residents. The CPGP Committee reviews all applications to the
program and presents its award recommendations to the City Council for approval.
20
2
3
AC
H
I
E
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
The CPGP Committee reviewed applications and presentations from 26 different
community organizations, reflecting $284,330 in funding requests. This marks an
increase of three applicants and $101,700 in funding requests compared to the previous
year. After analyzing funding requests from each organization, the Committee
recommended awarding $200,000 to community partners in the 2024 City Budget. That
represents an increase of $40,000 compared to last year.
20
2
4
UP
C
O
M
I
N
G
The CPGP is introducing new contracting and reporting requirements for 2024 recipients.
To support this transition moving forward, recipient training, example materials, and
updates to the CPGP application will be developed and implemented.
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
M
E
M
B
E
R
S
COMMITTEE
MEMBER
DISTRICT TERMS SERVED SINCE
MARCH 1, 2024
TERM EXPIRATION
DATE
Jerry DiTullio I 0 3/2/2024
Geneva Fox I 0 3/2/2025
Brooke Allison II 0 3/2/2024
Dan Graeve II 0 3/2/2025
Stephanie Thanner III 0 3/2/2025
Diana Lopez III 0 3/2/2025
Alexander Goldsmith IV 0 3/2/2025
Vacant IV 0 3/2/2024
2023 BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, & VOLUNTEERS BBQ JOIN THE COMMITTEE
1
Building Code Advisory Board
MI
S
S
I
O
N
The Building Code Advisory Board (BCAB) has the authority to review appeals of the
decisions and determinations of the Chief Building Official (CBO). In this capacity, they
make decisions regarding code interpretations, contractor license suspensions, and the
suitability of alternate building materials and methods of construction.
20
2
3
AC
H
I
E
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
There were no appeals filed in 2023, and therefore no meetings of the BCAB.
20
2
4
UP
C
O
M
I
N
G
The BCAB will serve in an advisory capacity in 2024 as part of the City’s adoption of
updated building codes.
BO
A
R
D
M
E
M
B
E
R
S
COMMITTEE
MEMBER
DISTRICT TERMS SERVED SINCE
MARCH 1, 2024
TERM EXPIRATION
DATE
Al Gallo I 0 3/2/2026
Jason McCullough II 0 3/2/2025
Ronald Abo III 0 3/2/2024
John Kellow IV 0 3/2/2024
Nathan Hoppe At-Large 0 3/2/2026
AERIAL VIEW OF CLEAR CREEK CROSSING
FEATURING SEVERAL SITES UNDER CONSTRUCTION
AS OF LATE 2023
CONVERSION OF HOWARD JOHNSON
HOTEL TO TABOR LAKE APARTMENTS
COMPLETED IN 2023
2
Board of Adjustment
MI
S
S
I
O
N
The Board of Adjustment has the authority to review and make quasi-judicial decisions
on requests for variances and waivers related to the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Sign
Code. The Board can also make official interpretations of these regulations.
20
2
3
AC
H
I
E
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
The Board met just once in 2023 to amend their Bylaws.
The Board typically reviews variances or waivers from the strict application of
measurable standards, such as building setbacks, greater than 50%. Variances are meant
for unique sites with steep slopes or unusually shaped lots that cannot accommodate a
traditional building. Because of that, very few variances are heard by the Board.
BO
A
R
D
M
E
M
B
E
R
S
COMMITTEE
MEMBER
DISTRICT TERMS SERVED SINCE
MARCH 1, 2024
TERM EXPIRATION DATE
Dan Bradford I 0 3/2/2024
Betty Jo Page I 0 3/2/2025
Thomas Burney II 0 3/2/2025
Larry Richmond At-Large/II 0 3/2/2026
Laura Sicard III 0 3/2/2026
Michael Griffeth At-Large/III 0 3/2/2024
Jesse Pearlman IV 0 3/2/2024
Paul Hovland IV 0 3/2/2026
Alastair Huber At-Large 0 3/2/2025
Andre Amoor At-Large 0 3/2/2025
Andy Sulak At-Large 0 3/2/2026
20
2
4
UP
C
O
M
I
N
G
There are currently no items for upcoming meeting agendas.
EXAMPLE OF A VERY NARROW LOT EXAMPLE OF AN UNIQUELY
SHAPED LOT
2023 BOARDS, COMMISSIONS,
& VOLUNTEERS BBQ 3
Planning Commission
MI
S
S
I
O
N
To develop, amend, and implement a land use master plan for the physical, economic,
and social development of the City of Wheat Ridge. The Planning Commission is also a
quasi-judicial body responsible for making recommendations to the City Council
regarding certain types of land use cases such as rezonings and planned developments.
Furthermore, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council on all
amendments to the City’s Municipal Code: Chapter 26 – Zoning and Development.
20
2
3
A
C
H
I
E
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
In 2023, the Commission heard a variety of cases including:
•Two Specific Development Plans
•Six zone changes
•One major subdivision
•Adoption of the 44th Avenue Subarea Plan
•Code ordinances including:
o Requirements for dedication of public parks and sites
o Subdivision regulations
o Requirements for mixed use zone districts
o Parking requirements for deed-restricted affordable housing
o Regulations for childcare facilities
o Amendments to the hotel licensing program
o Amendments to the billboard regulations
In most cases, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council.
ZONING MAP NEW MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING
4
Planning Commission
20
2
4
U
P
C
O
M
I
N
G
The Commission will be informed and involved throughout the new City Plan process
which is expected to continue through mid-2025.
They will also consider electric vehicle and bicycle parking and storage ordinances in the
first quarter of 2024.
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
M
E
M
B
E
R
S
COMMITTEE
MEMBER
DISTRICT TERMS SERVED SINCE
MARCH 1, 2024
TERM EXPIRATION DATE
Jerry DiTullio I 0 3/2/2024
Jonathan Schelke I 0 3/2/2025
Julianne Stern II 0 3/2/2025
Kristine Disney II 0 3/2/2026
Patrick Quinn III 0 3/2/2025
Will Kerns III 0 3/2/2025
Janet Leo IV 0 3/2/2024
OPEN SEAT 0 3/2/2026
///
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN CODE CHANGES
5
Sustainable Wheat Ridge
MI
S
S
I
O
N
To advise the City of Wheat Ridge on matters pertaining to environmental sustainability
and promote sustainability programs to residents and businesses within the City of
Wheat Ridge through engagement and outreach.
20
2
3
A
C
H
I
E
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
•Earth Day and Mayor’s Monarch Pledge Proclamations.
•Onboarded three new Sustainable Wheat Ridge committee members.
•Worked with the Planning Dept. to present waterwise landscaping, programming,
and EV parking regulations to the City Council
•Selected and onboarded a consultant for the Residential Waste Engagement
Project, kicked off project, and hosted an open house with 56 attendees.
•Hosted two e-waste recycling events (6,072 lbs. recycled total), a paint recycling
event (26,336 lbs. recycled), and a yard waste compost weekend (21,287 lbs.
composted) with a total of 528 attendees across all events.
•Mentored a Wheat Ridge 102 group focusing on green business, with a plan to
implement a green business program in 2024.
•Awarded Charge Ahead Colorado grant for 2 Level II EV chargers at Anderson Park
and a State of Colorado grant to implement residential turf-replacement
programming in 2024.
•Presented the annual Green Business Award to The Craft Box.
•Air quality monitors installed at Rec Center and Panorama Park.
•The Sustainable Neighborhoods Program held 21 events attended by 1,249 total
residents.
PAINT RECYCLING EVENT YARD WASTE COMPOST WEEKEND
6
Sustainable Wheat Ridge
20
2
4
U
P
C
O
M
I
N
G
•Expand water conservation programming to offer new sprinkler audit discounts
and discounts for residential turf replacement.
•Continue to pursue grant funding and new programming.
•Wrap up the Residential Waste Engagement project in Fall 2024 and assess next
steps.
•Complete the first update to the Sustainability Action Plan.
•Continue to support the Sustainable Neighborhoods program and other ongoing
programming including Mayor’s Monarch Pledge, Fresh Food Connect, and
Garden In A Box.
•Apply to join the Colorado Green Business Program, launch program in Wheat
Ridge, and start piloting businesses.
•Host annual events including yard waste composing, paint recycling, e-waste, and
hazardous household waste events.
CO
M
M
I
T
T
E
E
M
E
M
B
E
R
S
COMMITTEE
MEMBER
District TERMS SERVED SINCE
MARCH 1, 2024
TERM EXPIRATION DATE
April Nowak I 0 3/2/2024
Rachel Boothe II 0 3/2/2025
Betsy Coppock III 0 3/2/2024
Brittany Guimond IV 0 3/2/2025
Amy DePierre At-Large 0 3/2/2026
Joy Opp At-Large 0 3/2/2026
Karen Berry At-Large 0 3/2/2025
Kelly Blynn At-Large 0 3/2/2024
Mark De La Torre At-Large 0 3/2/2024
Michaela Butler At-Large 0 3/2/2026
Montana Stevenson At-Large 0 3/2/2025
Rob Robinson At-Large 0 3/2/2026
Rachel Hultin Councilor 0 3/2/2026
SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBORHOODS EASTER EGG HUNT AND
NATIVE GRASS SEED SPREADING EVENT
SUSTAINABLE NEIGHBORHOODS ZERO
WASTE CHILI COOKOFF
7
Election Commission
MI
S
S
I
O
N
The Election Commission develops procedures to establish proof or residency when it is
in question, determines the winner of an election by lot in the event of a tie vote, and
advises on general voting matters.
20
2
3
AC
H
I
E
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
The Election Commission did not meet in 2023. The Election Commission only meets
when there is an election dispute and there was none in 2023.
20
2
4
UP
C
O
M
I
N
G
The Election Commission will meet if there is an election dispute.
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
ME
M
B
E
R
S
COMMITTEE
MEMBER
DISTRICT TERMS SERVED SINCE
MARCH 1, 2024
TERM EXPIRATION DATE*
Sunny Garcia At-Large 0 12/11/2023
Wanda Sang At-Large 0 12/11/2023
Steve Kirkpatrick City Clerk 0 11/2/2027
* Election Commission terms expire at the end of a calendar year to better align with election cycles.
TEAM WHEAT RIDGE AT 2023 CARNATION FESTIVAL VOTE PIN
8
Liquor Licensing Authority
MI
S
S
I
O
N
The Liquor Licensing Authority is a quasi-judicial body that promotes the health, safety,
and welfare of present and future Wheat Ridge community members by regulating,
controlling, and licensing the sale of alcohol beverages.
20
2
3
A
C
H
I
E
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
Hotel and Restaurant Liquor Licenses: Dba Little Brazil, Illegal Pete’s, First Watch, 3rd
Shot Pickleball, Rossi’s Italian Eatery
New Beer and Wine Licenses: Wolf and Wildflower and Silver Oil
Modification of Premises: Grammy’s Goodies, DiFeo’s Tavern, King Soopers, Safeway,
Wheat Ridge Lanes, Hoppers Sports Grill, Clancy’s,
New Resolutions: Waive the application fees for Special Event liquor permits to non-
profit 501c3 organizations.
Training: Liquor Licensing Authority members took and passed a State Liquor
Enforcement Division approved on-premises consumption server/seller training class and
received certifications through the program.
3rd SHOT INDOOR PICKLEBALL COURTS INCREASED WINE SALES @ CIRCLE K
9
Liquor Licensing Authority
20
2
4
UP
C
O
M
I
N
G
• New Hotel Restaurant applications for dba TBirds Roadhouse, and others that will
be located at Clear Creek Crossing
• New Lodging and Entertainment liquor license applications for Life Time Fitness,
and others that will be located at Clear Creek Crossing
• Vote for new Board Chair and Vice Chair
• Schedule liquor licensed facility field trips for authority members and staff.
• Recertification of authority members and staff for State Liquor Enforcement
Division Approved Off Premises Server and Seller Training.
AU
T
H
O
R
I
T
Y
M
E
M
B
E
R
S
COMMITTEE
MEMBER
DISTRICT TERMS SERVED SINCE
MARCH 1, 2024
TERM EXPIRATION DATE
Brian Rollo I 0 3/2/2024
Morgan Richards I 0 3/2/2025
Juanita Stites II 0 3/2/2024
Edward Volk III 0 3/2/2024
Anthony Romano III 0 3/2/2025
Lenny Ortiz III 0 3/2/2025
Clarence Fullard IV 0 3/2/2024
Cynthia Shaw IV 0 3/2/2025
NEW IMAGE BREWING VINTNERS RESTAURANT NEW K&G BEER & WINE COOLER
10
Parks and Recreation Commission
MI
S
S
I
O
N
The Parks and Recreation Commission regularly consults with the Parks and Recreation
Director, acts as a liaison between the community and the Parks and Recreation
Department, and makes recommendations on related matters to staff and the City
Council.
20
2
3
A
C
H
I
E
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
• Participated in a prioritization exercise and provided feedback on the Open Space
Management Plan update, adopted by City Council in May of 2023.
• Drafted letters of support for various grant applications (State Historic Fund, Great
Outdoors Colorado, CDOT’s Transportation Alternatives Program, and more).
• Participated in a Leave No Trace workshop, led by the City’s environmental
interpreter.
• Provided feedback on a playground proposal associated with the Metropolitan
Football Stadium District funding.
• Took part in an annual Wheat Ridge Parks tour, specifically visiting current and
future project sites.
• Reviewed and provided feedback on proposed changes to the Boards and
Commissions Code.
• Discussed capital projects funded in the 2024 budget.
• Represented the Parks & Recreation Commission at the following events:
o Food Forest Dedication/Arbor Day Celebration
o National Public Lands Day
o Tapas & Topics – Jeffco Senior Collaboration
o Annual Boards & Commissions Celebration
o Nature Playground Ribbon Cutting
LEAVE NO TRACE SPOTLIGHT EVENT FOOD FOREST DEDICATION
11
Parks and Recreation Commission
20
2
4
U
P
C
O
M
I
N
G
• Planning to participating in the Parks & Recreation Master Plan update in 2024
and 2025, championing the efforts and encouraging participation from friends
and neighbors.
• Prepared to implement newly updated bylaws and other board/commission
changes.
• Interested in observing numerous park projects come to fruition.
• Committed to continue supporting various grant efforts.
• Interested in hearing from this year’s School of Mines students, studying
Creekside Park hill stabilization.
• Looking toward participating in upcoming City events, ribbon cuttings, volunteer
opportunities, etc.
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
M
E
M
B
E
R
S
COMMITTEE
MEMBER
DISTRICT TERMS SERVED SINCE
MARCH 1, 2024
TERM EXPIRATION DATE
Cambria Rollo I 0 3/2/2024
Ralph Habben I 0 3/2/2025
Karen Stanley II 0 3/2/2024
Christine Samaniuk II 0 3/2/2026
Kathy Koniz III 0 3/2/2024
Mark Doody III 0 3/2/2026
Andrew Rasmussen IV 0 3/2/2026
Pat Cervera IV 0 3/2/2026
NATURE-THEMED PLAYGROUND AT ANDERSON PARK NATIONAL PUBLIC LANDS DAY
12
Cultural Commission
MI
S
S
I
O
N
The Cultural Commission works to promote artistic endeavors within the City by
encouraging an appreciation for arts and culture, developing, and recommending
cultural programming to the City Council, and seeking community input and advice on
the management of public art.
20
2
3
A
C
H
I
E
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
• Established 3 Pillars of the Cultural Commission: Programming, Grants Programs,
and Connectivity.
• The 2023 Cultural Commission Business Award was presented to The Wheat
Ridge Theatre Company. Artcentric and All Sacred Tattoo were runners up.
• Sponsored Performance in the Park: Commissioners attended concerts and
distributed sidewalk chalk and custom bilingual coloring books.
• Marched in the Carnation Festival Parade and distributed sidewalk chalk, custom
coloring books, and crayons.
• Sponsored the Carnation Festival Commemorative Plate design contest.
• Hosted the Inaugural Community Outreach mixer at Clancy’s with over 50
creatives in attendance.
• Partnered with the Active Adult Center to decorate their new Little Free Library.
• Hosted a matinee performance of The Christmas Cactus by the Wheat Ridge
Theatre Company. This event provided the community with free access to theater
and promoted a local company.
• Provided letters of support for various causes.
• Supported applications for a USDA Urban Forestry Grant Program and a State
Historical Fund Competitive General Grant.
• Sponsored projects including the chalk at Ridgefest, Colorado Folk Arts Council’s
International Heritage Festival and Oktoberfest, and Wheat Ridge Theatre
Company’s Pride Parade float. Additional grants provided art supplies to Sobesky
Academy and Everitt Middle School programs.
CARNATION FESTIVAL PARADE CULTURAL COMMISSIONERS
13
Cultural Commission
20
2
4
U
P
C
O
M
I
N
G
• Winter and Summer Art Drop Programs
• Ongoing Sponsorships
• Pursuing opportunities to partner with Parks and Rec on more activities.
• Enhance social media presence and communication channels.
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
M
E
M
B
E
R
S
COMMITTEE
MEMBER
DISTRICT TERMS SERVED SINCE
MARCH 1, 2024
TERM EXPIRATION DATE
Celia Daly I 0 3/2/2024
Kathleen Martell I 0 3/2/2026
Beth Kelley II 0 3/2/2024
Stephanie Taylor II 0 3/2/2026
Kathy Plummer III 0 3/2/2026
Teresa Linder III 0 3/2/2026
Brendan Kelley IV 0 3/2/2024
Lindsey Burney IV 0 3/2/2026
Liz Hurlburt At-Large 0 3/2/2024
COMMISSIONERS AT PERFORMANCE IN THE PARK COMMUNITY GATHERING
14