The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-18-2024 - Study Session Agenda Packet STUDY SESSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge CO November 18, 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 November 18, 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 November 18, 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. Stormwater Master Plan Outcomes and Program Development 2. Residential Waste Engagement Final Update and Recommendations 3. Staff Report(s) 4. Elected Officials’ Report(s) ITEM NO. 1 Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager FROM: Maria D’Andrea, Director of Public Works DATE: November 18, 2024 SUBJECT: Stormwater Master Plan Outcomes and Program Development ISSUE: Staff will present the outcomes and recommendations of the draft Stormwater System Master Plan along with recommendations for implementation of various capital projects focused on system enhancements to prevent flooding, maintenance of the existing system, and various operational needs. A stormwater utility is recommended to be established which would provide a dedicated funding source for the operational and capital needs of the overall program. BACKGROUND: It is essential to properly plan, design, and construct urban drainage systems that will protect properties, structures, and built infrastructure from extensive damage and loss of life due to flooding. A plan for drainage is a primary part of planning and development of a community. The city commissioned a Stormwater Master Plan in 1979 that identified more than 50 projects for implementation to address flooding and sub-standard drainage throughout the city. Since that time, limited analysis of the city’s stormwater drainage system has occurred. While approximately half of those identified projects have been completed, a significant number have not. Due to on-going development, opportunities to provide stormwater detention to capture concentrated flows has significantly diminished. Therefore, the primary means to address drainage issues is by installing larger pipes with outlets to the city’s major drainageways. Similarly, limited maintenance of the existing stormwater system has been undertaken. This has resulted in the need for a significant investment in the system. In March 2024, the city contracted with RESPEC, Inc. to provide a new Stormwater Master Plan. The Plan will provide an assessment of the current system, development of immediate and future needs along with recommendations for improvements, cost estimates, and an implementation schedule. The contract also includes review and recommendations for modifications to the city’s current development standards related to drainage and runoff. Public Outreach A What’s Up Wheat Ridge page was developed to inform citizens and solicit input on drainage issues around the city. More than 330 “visits” to the page were recorded and 77 specific comments Stormwater Master Plan Preliminary Recommendations & Program Implementation November 18, 2024 Page 2 were provided. Staff and RESPEC evaluated each of these as a part of the Plan development process. RESPEC and staff also participated in two city-sponsored events to provide information on the proposed Plan and solicit input. Stormwater System Analysis & Priority Enhancement Projects The total drainage area studied contains approximately 6,700 acres or 10.5 square miles. There are three major drainage basins within the city – Clear Creek, Lena Gulch, and Sloan’s Lake. These major basins were then subdivided into more than 600 sub-basins along with the city’s existing storm sewer network and annualized rainfall models from the Mile High Flood District (MHFD) into stormwater modeling software. In accordance with recommended MHFD practices, the Colorado Urban Hydrograph Procedure (CUHP) was utilized and applied to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) to simulate the hydrologic response of the subbasins. Three storm events were modeled – a 5-year event, a 25- year event, and a 100-year event. A 100-year storm event has a likely frequency of one in every 100 years or is a rainfall event that has a one percent (1%) probability of occurrence in any given year. This analysis resulted in various areas of flooding throughout the community, (see attached maps). Proposed projects were identified which require upgrades/enlargement of the existing storm sewer system to provide a level of protection to adjacent properties for the 25-year storm event. The benefit of these individual projects is to alleviate flooding in a specific geographical area by improving the drainage capacity. Cost estimates were then prepared for each project. The Plan recommends implementing the various projects over a 10-year period, based on available funding. Due to the need for significant investment in repair of the existing storm sewer system, adequate funding may not be available for all these efforts in the 10-year Plan time frame. The following projects have been identified for implementation: Project Limits Total Project Cost W 48th Avenue (1) Intersection of Teller St & 48th Ave to 350 feet north $276,000 W 48th Ave (2) Intersection of Pierce St & 48th Ave to 180 feet north $232,000 Holland Street 32nd Ave to 37th Ave $775,000 Pierce Street 38th Ave to 47th Ave & connection to I-70 $2,599,000 W 33rd Avenue Intersection of 33rd Ave & Quail Ct to 500 feet north $744,000 W 29th Ave Benton St, prior to the detention pond at the Richard Hart Estate $344,000 47th Ave Pierce St, north on Lamar St, 400 feet east along 47th Pl $3,012,000 Stormwater Master Plan Preliminary Recommendations & Program Implementation November 18, 2024 Page 3 W 44th Ave (1) Connection to Clear Creek $311,000 W 44th Ave (2) Wright St to Tabor St/Prospect Lake $7,385,000 Total, Proposed Projects $15,170,000 In addition, several significant projects were identified that will require further coordination with CDOT as well as discussion of shared funding: Project Limits Total Project Cost Kipling Street 44th Ave south to Clear Creek $1,966,000 I-70 Frontage Rd Varies $4,853,000 A significant project was also identified within Creekside Park. This project would likely be funded through other sources: Project Limits Total Project Cost Creekside Park n/a $194,000 Regional Stormwater Projects As mentioned previously, the land within the city has three primary watersheds:  Lena Gulch  Clear Creek  Sloan’s Lake MHFD has completed various studies for these water bodies and their tributary areas over the past 60 years. The latest Master Drainage Plan identifies various recommended improvements. Typically, these are implemented by the sponsoring agency with funding support, up to 50%, from MHFD. The proposed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the city’s stormwater system includes funding to implement improvements within the Clearvale area (north of the 44th Ave bridge) and in Lena Gulch, from approximately Union St to Parfet St, including water detention and water quality improvements within Lewis Meadows Park, in the following 10-year period. The current estimated cost impact to the city is $16.0M. This assumes that MHFD would participate at 50% of the total cost. Projects within the Sloan’s Lake watershed would not be implemented as further discussion and coordination with the City of Edgewater would be required. Existing System Repairs The city experienced a series of storm sewer pipe failures in 2023. It is anticipated that the number of failures will increase as 1) minimal maintenance has occurred, and 2) the entire system was likely installed at approximately the same time. In 2024, the city expended more than $700,000 on Stormwater Master Plan Preliminary Recommendations & Program Implementation November 18, 2024 Page 4 emergency storm sewer repairs. The CIP includes $1.2M per year, over the next 10 years, to attempt to address anticipated repairs. The goal would be to identify failing segments (prior to failure) so that the pipes can be rehabilitated instead of removed and replaced which tends to be more costly. However, it is necessary to identify the segments as soon as possible through a systematic cleaning and televising program. This will be discussed in more detail later in this memo. Many of the problem areas noted by citizens result in “nuisance” flooding which affects localized areas of poor drainage where inlets may not be present or under capacity, or where a lack of curb and gutter and/or flat streets contribute to standing water. As the city implements its targeted pavement management program, the goal would be to address many of these areas at the same time as the streets are re-paved, where possible. Collectively, the CIP, over the next 10 years, including a Project Manager to oversee project implementation, totals about $51M, as detailed below: Category Estimated 10-Year Cost Priority Enhancement Projects $15,170,000 Regional Stormwater Projects $16,000,000 Existing System Repairs $16,600,000 Detailed drainage studies $1,100,000 Personnel $1,760,000 Total $50,630,000 Stormwater Operations Program Establishing various annual programs is the best way forward for improving the city system. The proposed programs have been established to guide the city from a reactive mode with a lot of unknowns to a proactive plan based on industry standard guidelines. These include 3 programs - focused on maintenance and evaluation of the system which is intended to lead to a better system of identifying immediate repairs and future investment needs. Additional, dedicated personnel and equipment are required to carry out and oversee these programs. This assumes that some portions of existing staff positions would be funded as well as utilizing existing Public Works staff to complete some of the existing pipe repairs. These costs would be an offset to the General Fund potentially. Program Estimated 10-Year Cost Clean & televise existing pipes, by Zone $3,140,000 Clean/dredge existing detention facilities $1,350,000 Geographic Information System mapping $400,000 Stormwater Master Plan Preliminary Recommendations & Program Implementation November 18, 2024 Page 5 Equipment $1,380,000 Personnel $5,800,000 Total $12,070,000 Drainage Development Standards As mentioned previously, RESPEC is also in the process of evaluating the city’s drainage requirements when land is developed. The current standards do not align with MHFD- recommended requirements. This results in the city bearing the impact of increased flows from developed areas on an already strained system. Staff hopes to implement these new standards by late-Spring 2025. Only newly submitted development projects would be subject to the more rigorous standards. CIP & Program Funding Historically, the city has funded stormwater maintenance and capital improvements through the annual operating budget (General Fund) and the capital budget (Capital Fund). The Plan recommends creating a stormwater utility (SWU), which will accomplish two things: 1) Create a dedicated funding source. A stormwater utility fee would provide a dedicated funding source for both operations and maintenance of the existing stormwater infrastructure and the enhancement projects (local and regional) needed to reduce the impacts of stormwater runoff. A dedicated funding source would also allow the city to pursue dedicated revenue bonds or low-interest loans to access funds to complete these necessary improvements more quickly. 2) Equitably allocate costs. A fee would more equitably distribute the cost of stormwater service to all properties based on their stormwater runoff impact. Most Colorado communities along the Front Range have implemented a SWU to fund their stormwater program, including Arvada, Lakewood, Golden, Denver, rather than using general fund revenues. Like utilities for water and sanitary sewer, a SWU is a fee-for-service approach to providing stormwater management services. Rate payers are charged a fee based on the stormwater runoff impact their respective properties generate, using impervious surface as the measurement of that impact. All residential properties would be charged the same monthly fee, regardless of the size of their lot. For commercial and industrial properties, the amount of each property’s impervious (hard) surfaces would be the basis for the fee. That is because impervious surfaces create the most stormwater runoff. Therefore, the more impervious surface a property has, the greater the stormwater fee will be for that property. This would incentivize properties to develop on-site stormwater detention facilities such as rain gardens which would not be included as impervious area. The following table shows the total and annualized costs (over a 10-year period) for the proposed SWU: Program Estimated 10-Year Total Cost Estimated Annualized Cost Capital Improvement Plan $50,630,000 $5,063,000 Stormwater Master Plan Preliminary Recommendations & Program Implementation November 18, 2024 Page 6 Operations Program $12,070,000 $1,207,000 Total $62,700,000 $6,270,000 Implementation Schedule & Next Steps The 2025 budget includes funds to conduct a comprehensive rate study. This study will determine a recommended rate to charge, by property type, to recoup the necessary operational and capital costs of the SWU as well as billing costs. The rate study will also collect comparative data from other communities. It is assumed that the city would issue revenue bonds or solicit a low-interest loan through the State Revolving Loan Fund, administered by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, to advance the various, proposed capital projects. Therefore, the rate study will also analyze the needed funding to re-pay bonds or a loan. The rate study would likely begin in February 2025 and be completed in Spring 2025. Implementation of the fee, if approved, would begin in mid- to late-2025. DISCUSSION: Staff feels that the Stormwater Operations and Capital Improvement Program, as detailed in this memo, represents a thoughtful and prudent approach to stormwater management in the city. Also, implementing a stormwater utility fee will allow for a dedicated funding source that would be used exclusively for these efforts. Staff requests that the City Council consider the following questions as a part of the discussion on this item and provide staff with direction/guidance on the proposed next steps:  Does the Capital Improvement Plan seem reasonable given the needs within the city?  Is there interest in establishing a stormwater utility with a dedicated funding source?  What other information is needed from staff at this time? Staff, along with project team members from RESPEC, will provide a presentation and be available for questions and discussion. ATTACHMENTS: 1. 5-Year Storm Event, Map of Impacted Areas 2. 25-Year Storm Event, Map of Impacted Areas 3. 100-Year Storm Event, Map of Impacted Areas 4. Enhancement Project Map 70 W 5 8 th Ave W 5 8 t h A v e Wa rd R d Ward R d W 4 4 t h Av e Van Bibber Park Fairmount Yo u n gfield S t W 20th A v e Sim ms S t W 3 8 t h Ave The Club at Rolling Hills Northeast Jefferson Applewood 58 172 76 70 W 5 2 n d A v e W 44th Ave Kip li n g S t K i pl i ng S t Ralston Rd W a d s w o rt h B y p South Sheridan Arlington Meadows Lakeside 181 W 3 8 t h A v e W 2 0th Ave W 3 2 n d A v e Wa d s w o rt h B lvd Ki p l in g S t W C olfax AveW C o lfax A v e Crown Hill Park Sloan's Lake ParkEdgewater Mountain View Wheat Ridge 6 2 3 4 1 5 County and City of Denver, Jefferson County, CO, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS, Maxar, USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road data; Natural Earth Data; U.S. Department of State HIU; NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information DRAFTWheat Ridge SWMP- Proposed Storm Sewer 5 year event 720 S. Colorado Blvd Suite 410 S Denver, CO 80246 (303)757-3655 respec.com Improvement Zones Additional Size (ft) 1.5 ≤ x ≤ 2 2 < x ≤ 3 3 < x ≤ 4 4 < x ≤ 5 0 10.5 Miles ATTACHMENT 1 70 W 5 8 th Ave W 5 8 t h A v e Wa rd R d Ward R d W 4 4 t h Av e Van Bibber Park Fairmount Yo u n gfield S t W 20th A v e Sim ms S t W 3 8 t h Ave The Club at Rolling Hills Northeast Jefferson Applewood 58 172 76 70 W 5 2 n d A v e W 44th Ave Kip li n g S t K i pl i ng S t Ralston Rd W a d s w o rt h B y p South Sheridan Arlington Meadows Lakeside 181 W 3 8 t h A v e W 2 0th Ave W 3 2 n d A v e Wa d s w o rt h B lvd Ki p l in g S t W C olfax AveW C o lfax A v e Crown Hill Park Sloan's Lake ParkEdgewater Mountain View Wheat Ridge 6 2 3 4 1 5 County and City of Denver, Jefferson County, CO, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS, Maxar, USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road data; Natural Earth Data; U.S. Department of State HIU; NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information DRAFTWheat Ridge SWMP- Proposed Storm Sewer 25 year event 720 S. Colorado Blvd Suite 410 S Denver, CO 80246 (303)757-3655 respec.com Improvement Zones Additional Size (ft) 1.5 ≤ x ≤ 2 2 < x ≤ 3 3 < x ≤ 4 4 < x ≤ 5 5 < x ≤ 6 6 < x ≤ 7 7 - 7.5 0 10.5 Miles ATTACHMENT 2 6 2 3 4 1 5 Earthstar Geographics, USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road data; Natural Earth Data; U.S. Department of State HIU; NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information DRAFTWheat Ridge SWMP- Proposed Storm Sewer 100 year event 720 S. Colorado Blvd Suite 410 S Denver, CO 80246 (303)757-3655 respec.com Improvement Zones Additional Size (ft) 1.5 ≤ x ≤ 2 2 < x ≤ 3 3 < x ≤ 4 4 < x ≤ 5 5 < x ≤ 6 6 < x ≤ 7 7 < x ≤ 8 8 < x ≤ 9 0 10.5 Miles ATTACHMENT 3 W 53rd Ave S w a dley D i tch 70 Ev e r et t S t Indep e nd e n ce S t Ind e p e n d e n c e S t W 50th A v e W 5 1 st Ave Ho lla n d St Ga r r i s o n S t W 4 9th P l W 43 r d Ave Mil lerSt W 48th A ve W 49th Ave Iri s St Fi e l d S t Ho y t C t W 5 2 n d Ave W 51st Pl W 4 6 th P l W 45th Pl Ho y t S t Hoyt S t Ga r l a n d S t Ga rl a n d S t W 44th Ave Ki p l ing St Kipli ng S t Jack B Tomlinson Park Anderson Park 70 W 52nd Ave W 52nd A ve W 51st Ave W 5 1 st A v e Al l i so n St Alli so n St Ba l s am St Yar r o w St Yarr o w St Ca r r St Ca r r S t Do ve r St Do v e r S t W 4 8th A ve W 4 6th Ave Zeph y r St N I 70 Frontage Rd Es t e s St W 4 7 t h A v e Du d l e y S t W 50th Ave W 4 4th A v e Johnson Park Esri Community Maps Contributors, County and City of Denver, Jefferson County, CO, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/ NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Maxar, USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road data; Natural Earth Data; U.S. Department of State HIU; NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information DRAFTWheat Ridge SWMP- Proposed Storm Sewer November 2024 720 S. Colorado Blvd Suite 410 S Denver, CO 80246 (303)757-3655 respec.com Additional Size 5 yr (ft) 1.5 ≤ x ≤ 2 2 < x ≤ 3 3 < x ≤ 4 Additional Size 25yr (ft) 1.5 - 2 2 < x ≤ 3 3 < x ≤ 4 4 < x ≤ 5 5 < x ≤ 6 6 < x ≤ 7 Additional Size 100yr (ft) 1.5 ≤ x ≤ 2 2 < x ≤ 3 3 < x ≤ 4 4 < x ≤ 5 5 < x ≤ 6 6 < x ≤ 7 Improvement Zones 0 0.350.17 Miles ATTACHMENT 4 Reno D i t c h Reno Ditch MountOlivetCe metery Mount Oliv et Cemetery W 4 3 r d D r W 42nd Ave Zang St Xenon St W 44t h Ave W 44th Ave YoungfieldSt 265 C l earCreek YoungfieldSt Sl o u g h D itc h Tabor Lake 70 Vivian St Tabor St Swadley St W 46th Ave Simms St Wright St Ward Rd W 44th Ave 266 266 Clear Creek West Lake Simms Ct Simms St Taft Ct W 46th Ave Robb St W 46th Pl Routt St W 44th Ave Prospect Park C l ea r Cr e ek W 3 9 th Pl Routt St Maxar, USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road data; Natural Earth Data; U.S. Department of State HIU; NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Jefferson County, CO, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/ NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS DRAFTWheat Ridge SWMP- Proposed Storm Sewer November 2024 720 S. Colorado Blvd Suite 410 S Denver, CO 80246 (303) 757-3655 respec.com Additional Size 5 yr (ft) 1.5 ≤ x ≤ 2 2 < x ≤ 3 3 < x ≤ 4 ≤ 5 Additional Size 25yr (ft) 1.5 - 2 2 < x ≤ 3 3 < x ≤ 4 5 < x ≤ 6 6 < x ≤ 7 Additional Size 100yr (ft) 1.5 ≤ x ≤ 2 2 < x ≤ 3 3 < x ≤ 4 4 < x ≤ 5 5 < x ≤ 6 6 < x ≤ 7 7 < x ≤ 8 Improvement Zones 0 0.20.1 Miles Harlan St Ingalls St Harlan St Ingalls St Ingalls St W 28th Ave W 29th Ave Depew St W32nd Ave Gray St Fenton St Eaton St Depew St Depew St W 26th Ave Gray St Eaton St Fenton St Fenton St W 27th Ave W 28th Ave W 29th Ave Chase St Benton St W 30th Ave Ames St N Zenobia St W 29th Ave N Sheridan Blvd W 26th Ave Chase St Chase St Chase St Benton St Benton St Benton St W 28th Ave Ames St N Zenobia St Sheridan Blvd Richard Hart Estate Park Esri Community Maps Contributors, City of Lakewood, County and City of Denver, Jefferson County, CO, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Maxar, Microsoft, USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road data; Natural Earth Data; U.S. Department of State HIU; NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information DRAFTWheat Ridge SWMP- Proposed Storm Sewer November 2024 720 S. Colorado Blvd Suite 410 S Denver, CO 80246 (303) 757-3655 respec.com Additional Size 5 yr (ft) 1.5 ≤ x ≤ 2 Additional Size 25yr (ft) 1.5 - 2 Additional Size 100yr (ft) 1.5 ≤ x ≤ 2 Pipe Size 3 3.5 Improvement Zones 0 0.10.05 Miles 70 70 76 W 52nd Ave Teller St Yarrow St Yarrow St W 48th Ave Zephyr St Vance St Ree d St Reed St Saulsbury St Upham St Quay S t W 47th Ave W 52nd Ave W 44th Ave Arvada Marketplace Johnson Park Quay St N Teller S t N High Ct W 38th Ave Wadsworth Blvd Wadsworth B lvd Wheat Ridge Middle School W 53rd Ave W 53rd Ave Marshall St Lake Rhoda Harlan St Newland St Jay St W 45th Pl Pierce St Eato n S t W 44th PlOtisSt W 48th Ave W 47th Ave W 45th Ave W 47th Pl W 46th Pl W 51st Ave W 4 9 t h D r W 44th Ave Harlan StW 52nd Ave Lakeside Ln Marshall St W 48th Ave Inspiration Point Park Lakeside R o c k y Mountain D it c h Depew St W 41st Ave W 35th Ave Pierce St Marshall St Marshall St Otis St Harlan St Chase StChaseSt Jay St Jay St Fenton St Eaton St Newland St Newland St Kendall St W 33rd Ave W 39th Pl W 38th Ave Mountain View Esri Community Maps Contributors, County and City of Denver, Jefferson County, CO, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/ NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Maxar, USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, 3DEP Elevation Program, Geographic Names Information System, National Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, National Structures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; USGS Global Ecosystems; U.S. Census Bureau TIGER/Line data; USFS Road data; Natural Earth Data; U.S. Department of State HIU; NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information DRAFTWheat Ridge SWMP- Proposed Storm Sewer November 2024 720 S. Colorado Blvd Suite 410 S Denver, CO 80246 (303) 757-3655 respec.com Additional Size 5 yr (ft) 1.5 ≤ x ≤ 2 2 < x ≤ 3 3 < x ≤ 4 ≤ 5 Additional Size 25yr (ft) 1.5 - 2 2 < x ≤ 3 3 < x ≤ 4 4 < x ≤ 5 5 < x ≤ 6 6 < x ≤ 7 7 < x ≤ 7.5 Additional Size 100yr (ft) 1.5 ≤ x ≤ 2 2 < x ≤ 3 3 < x ≤ 4 4 < x ≤ 5 5 < x ≤ 6 6 < x ≤ 7 7 < x ≤ 8 8 < x ≤ 9 Improvement Zones 0 0.40.2 Miles 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: November 18, 2024 SUBJECT: Residential Waste Engagement Final Update and Recommendations PURPOSE: The purpose of this study session is to provide City Council with a final update on the Residential Waste Engagement Project. This session will focus on the results from the Phase 3 public engagement and present the final recommendations developed based on the comprehensive public input and data gathered throughout the project. Council will also have the opportunity to provide feedback on these recommendations, and staff will seek consensus on moving forward with the immediate next steps identified at the end of this memo. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Implementing the final recommendations will require a budget increase to support initiatives such as expanding waste-oriented events for residents. Other recommendations, particularly those that are exploratory, may incur additional costs. However, there may be free technical assistance programs or grant funding available to help evaluate the feasibility of these new programs before any subsequent steps are taken. Budget allocations will not be made without further approval from City Council at a future meeting. BACKGROUND: At the January 10, 2022, City Council meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Hultin and Councilmembers Hoppe and Weaver requested an overview of current waste management practices and potential strategies for improvement. During the April 4, 2022, Study Session, Council directed staff to develop and implement a community engagement strategy to understand residents’ preferences for residential waste management. City Council approved a budget supplemental for this project in the amount of $125,379.19 at the April 24, 2023, City Council meeting to allow staff to work with HDR Engineering to complete this public engagement project. During the May 6, 2024, Study Session, City Council reviewed the public engagement efforts and results from Phases 1 and 2 of the Residential Waste Engagement Project. City Council expressed agreement with the project team’s recommendation to pivot engagement efforts towards enhancing the current waste management system, rather than pursuing an alternative system or major systematic change. 2 With project Phases 1-3 complete, the project team presents the findings from the Phase 3 public engagement and survey, along with the final recommendations based on the resident feedback and data gathered throughout the project. PROJECT SUMMARY: Purpose The purpose of the Residential Waste Engagement Project has not been to gain a consensus from residents about any particular waste management method, but rather to better understand residents’ perspectives on the current residential waste system and gather input on potential improvements or changes. To achieve this, the project team centered its efforts around the following goals: • Maximize resident engagement by reaching a broad spectrum of Wheat Ridge residents and encouraging active participation. • Ensure inclusivity and accessibility in engagement opportunities, allowing all residents to provide input and share their perspectives. • Remain impartial while providing clear, unbiased information to support well-informed feedback from the community. This project began in July 2023 and was implemented in four phases. Phase 1 (Complete): Research and Public Engagement Plan Development Phase 1 took place from July to December 2023 and focused on gathering initial feedback from community stakeholders and developing a comprehensive engagement plan. The team conducted interviews with City Council, Sustainable Wheat Ridge, neighborhood leaders, and other residents. A project page on What’s Up Wheat Ridge was also established, which currently has 188 subscribers. Phase 2 (Complete): Initial Public Engagement Phase 2, conducted between December 2023 and January 2024, focused on initial public engagement through events, a public survey, and informational resources about various waste management systems. A total of 691 residents participated, and the project team received 329 survey responses and nearly 900 general comments. Engagement efforts included e-newsletters, social media posts, press releases, yard signs, hosting a project-specific open house at the Wheat Ridge Recreation Center, and tabling at the City’s Holiday Celebration. The outcomes of the Phase 2 engagement efforts are further detailed in the Wheat Ridge Residential Waste Engagement Project Final Report (“Final Report”) (Attachment 1) in Appendix D. Phase 3 (Complete): Input Analysis and Additional Public Engagement Phase 3 took place during the spring and summer of 2024 and focused on analyzing input from Phase 2 while gathering more targeted feedback through additional public engagement efforts and a second public survey. The Phase 2 engagement results, along with the draft Phase 3 public survey, were presented to City Council at the May 6, 2024, Study Session. Given the widely varied feedback received in the first survey and at in-person engagement events, and the respondents’ general preference to maintain the current open-market system, the project team and City Council agreed to focus 3 Phase 3 on gathering insights that could inform enhancements to the existing system rather than pursuing a major overhaul. The Phase 3 survey was available between June and August 2024. The survey was primarily distributed online; however, hard copies were available upon request. The survey was promoted via e-newsletters, social media posts (organic and paid ads), newspaper advertisements, promotion from community champions, and attendance at public events including the City Plan Phase 2 Open House, Ridgefest, the Carnation Festival, and a TLC Clean-Up Day event. The project team received 401 survey responses, exploring resident preferences for enhancing the existing open-market system and expanding waste diversion efforts. Key insights from this survey included: • Interest in more waste drop-off opportunities; • Interest in curbside recycling and yard waste collection; • A desire to increase the City-led large item pick-up event from annual to quarterly; • A need for expanded options to dispose of or recycle items like mattresses, paint, electronic waste, hazardous waste, and furniture; • Limited awareness among respondents about existing waste collection and recycling events, with transportation cited as an additional barrier to participation; and • Willingness among many respondents to participate in an expanded recycling program if included with their trash service at no extra cost. The Phase 3 engagement efforts and survey outcomes are further discussed in the Final Report (Attachment 1) within the “Phase 3: Engagement Summary” section. Phase 4 (Current Step): Final Analysis and Recommendations The final phase has focused on analyzing all feedback and compiling the Final Report (Attachment 1) which presents the final recommendations developed from resident feedback and data collected throughout the project. Phase 4 and the Residential Waste Engagement Project will conclude with the presentation of these final recommendations to City Council, seeking feedback and consensus on the next steps for City staff. Summary of Public Feedback Throughout Project Throughout the project, residents consistently provided a wide range of feedback on waste management options, with all systems that were initially presented receiving both support and opposition. Participants indicated a preference to maintain the current open-market residential waste management system during the Phase 2 survey. In Phase 3, residents continued to express similarly varied feedback to the project team during in-person events and highlighted an interest in more varied and frequent waste and recycling events in the Phase 3 survey. Throughout the entire project, cost and choice of hauler remained primary concerns for residents. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS: Upon conclusion of the public engagement efforts and two public surveys, the project team analyzed the feedback and data gathered throughout the project to develop the final recommendations. The final recommendations have been categorized as either Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 depending on the anticipated level of effort and/or cost required for implementation: 4 • Tier 1: activities may be achieved utilizing existing staff resources; however, some additional funding may be required. • Tier 2: activities may require additional effort from the City to evaluate the impacts of a potential new program. This typically will involve overseeing a contractor to conduct a feasibility study and/or more detailed planning and coordination of resources before determining a solution. • Tier 3: activities will require long term site and staff dedication to new programs. A feasibility study may be included; however, the long-term goal is to expand on City infrastructure and recycling programs for residents. Some of the final recommendations, as detailed in the Final Report, will require multiple steps to implement. Staff is seeking consensus from City Council on the immediate next steps for these recommendations, many of which are exploratory. Budget allocations will not be made without subsequent approval from City Council at a future meeting. The following recommendations are intended to enhance the current system and continue engaging residents in waste management efforts: 1. Expand on TLC Clean-Up Day programming and other annual events. a. Why: Survey respondents expressed interest in expanding waste and recycling events and identified a need for options to dispose of items such as paint, large items, hazardous household waste, and electronic waste. Respondents also noted transportation challenges and event capacity as barriers to participation. Expanding the frequency, locations, and materials accepted can help address these challenges. b. Level of Effort: Tier 1 c. Immediate Next Step: Evaluate the costs associated with expanding the frequency, locations, and/or materials accepted at TLC Clean-Up Days and other annual events such as e-waste and paint recycling. 2. Implement a permanent drop-off site for yard waste and specialized recycling materials. a. Why: Survey respondents expressed interest in a drop-off location for yard waste and recycling. Currently, there are a limited number of yard waste disposal options for Wheat Ridge residents, with much of it likely being sent to landfills. Additionally, there are recyclable materials such as Styrofoam and flexible film that cannot be collected curbside and are not accepted at the Rooney Road Recycling Center. Establishing a permanent drop off location would make the responsible disposal of such materials more accessible for Wheat Ridge residents. b. Level of Effort: Tier 3 c. Immediate Next Step: Evaluate the costs of conducting a feasibility study, and whether there are any grants or technical assistance opportunities that could be utilized to complete this study. 3. Evaluate seasonal yard waste and expanded large-item collection. a. Why: In addition to interest in a permanent yard waste drop off site, survey respondents expressed interest in seasonal curbside collection of yard waste. 5 Respondents also preferred expanding the City’s existing large item collection program from annual to quarterly. b. Level of Effort: Tier 2 c. Immediate Next Steps: Evaluate the cost of expanding existing large item collection efforts to occur quarterly. Additionally, evaluate the costs and any grant or technical assistance opportunities available to conduct a feasibility study on seasonal yard waste collection. 4. Enhance overall marketing, public relations, information, and engagement on sustainability programs, including potential waste hauling options. a. Why: Many survey respondents were unaware of waste collection and recycling events that occur in Wheat Ridge. b. Level of Effort: Tier 1 or Tier 2 c. Immediate Next Step: Work with the communications team to identify ways to increase event marketing and improve overall event planning. 5. Educate City Council, staff, and the community on Extended Producer Responsibility efforts and stay engaged with these initiatives. a. Why: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) was signed into law in 2022. This policy will hold producers responsible for products throughout their lifecycle, including recycling. Single-unit and multi-unit households in Wheat Ridge and throughout Colorado will be eligible for weekly curbside recycling collection at no added cost. Phase 3 survey participants indicated they would recycle more if it were free, with many preferring curbside collection. It is important to stay active and engaged in the planning stages of these EPR efforts. b. Level of Effort: Tier 1 c. Immediate Next Step: Identify avenues to engage with Circular Action Alliance, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and Recycle Colorado, who are all working on EPR development, to provide input and stay informed. These recommendations are further detailed in the Final Report (Attachment 1) in the “Final Recommendations” section. These recommendations represent incremental steps forward and are intended to maintain momentum and enhance the current system but should not limit the City from exploring larger-scale changes in the future and continuing to engage with Wheat Ridge residents on their preferences and readiness for change. CITY COUNCIL FEEDBACK REQUESTED: Staff recommends moving forward with these recommendations and taking the initial exploratory steps towards implementation. Staff is seeking City Council’s feedback on the final recommendations, and consensus to move forward with the immediate next steps for each recommendation. ATTACHMENT: 1. Wheat Ridge Residential Waste Engagement Project Final Report 1 Wheat Ridge Residential Waste Engagement Project Final Report November 2024 ATTACHMENT 1 22 Table of Contents 3 Table of Contents Wheat Ridge Residential Waste Engagement Project 1 Final Report 1 Table of Contents 2 Executive Summary 4 Introduction 5 History 6 Solid Waste and Recycling Goals 7 Residential Waste Engagement Project Goals 7 Phase 1 Overview 10 Community Research 11 Key Takeaways from the Community Research 13 Suggested Outreach Strategies that were included in the Engagement Plan 14 Stakeholder Interviews 15 Key Themes 16 Engagement Plan 18 Phase 2 Overview 20 Phase 3 Overview 24 Phase 4 Overview 26 Final Recommendations 28 Phase 3 Engagement Summary 34 Methodology 35 Key Findings 35 Recycling Responses 37 Game-Changing Policy to Track 39 Level of Service 40 Yard Waste Responses 41 Food Waste Responses 45 Large Item Responses 47 Appendix 50 44 Executive Summary 55 Introduction The City of Wheat Ridge currently has an open market collection system for hauling, meaning residents are able to choose their own trash and recycling services In April 2022, the City Council provided direction for Wheat Ridge staff to pursue the creation and implementation of a community outreach and engagement strategy to understand the residential priorities, needs, and desire for change when it comes to waste management in the City The outreach and engagement educated residents on various waste management strategies, such as enhanced licensing requirements, City-contracted hauling, a preferred-hauler system, and municipal hauling Residents were also engaged to provide feedback on the levels of service needed in their community, including interest in additional recycling and composting options Gaining the public’s feedback on current services to understand potential opportunities and the appetite for change is an essential step when considering any changes to Wheat Ridge’s waste management system 66 History In 2010, the Wheat Ridge City Council considered an organized waste system, and a question was put on the ballot that fall The measure was defeated with 64 91% of voters in opposition The topic of waste management did not appear again on the Wheat Ridge resident survey until 2018, when residents were asked, “How important to you, if at all, is it that the City focus on each of the following areas of environmental sustainability, which may or may not increase costs for taxpayers?” A total of 53% of respondents believed “Diverting trash from the landfill” was “essential” or “very important” and 38% of respondents believed “Starting a compost program” was “essential” or “very important” In 2021, the Wheat Ridge resident survey included specific mention of organized waste for the first time since 2008 At this time, 55% of respondents believed “Implementing organized trash hauling in neighborhoods” was “essential” or “very important” and 62% of respondents believed “Expanding access to residential recycling and composting services” was “essential” or “very important” In addition to the resident survey, the City started the Let’s Talk Resident Engagement Program in late 2020, which focused on developing a thorough understanding of issues and opportunities at the neighborhood level All ten of the Wheat Ridge neighborhoods have been included, with mentions of trash and recycling services from residents in each neighborhood 77 Solid Waste and Recycling Goals In 2017, the City convened the Sustainable Wheat Ridge Committee, comprised of resident volunteers This group then developed the Wheat Ridge Environmental Sustainability Action Plan with Solid Waste and Recycling as one of six key focus areas, as directed by Mayor Joyce Jay, with two goals: • Improve waste management behavior by residents, businesses, and institutions • Reduce negative impacts of waste management on City infrastructure and local environment Residential Waste Engagement Project Goals With these solid waste and recycling goals formalized and in consideration of the historical input from the community about waste and recycling needs, the City launched this community engagement project as directed by City Council at the April 4, 2022 Study Session The goals of this project have been to: • Educate residents regarding: −The impacts of the current waste management system in Wheat Ridge −Surrounding communities’ waste management approaches −Potential options for Wheat Ridge and how they would address the current issues • Remain impartial while offering clear and unbiased information to foster well-informed feedback from the residential community • Gather and analyze feedback, opinions, and ideas from residents regarding waste management options • Provide accessible opportunities to engage with the initiative through virtual and in-person strategies • Partner with elected officials and key stakeholders to promote project milestones • Transform complex technical data into easy-to- understand communication materials • Empower the City Council to feel confident to provide further discussion on waste management decisions and approaches 88 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 September 2024 The project team hosted a self-guided online meeting and an in-person open house, attended multiple community events, and distributed two surveys for residential feedback This outreach involved members of the Wheat Ridge community including residents, haulers, elected officials, neighborhoods and organizations The project team worked with the City to ensure the outreach was accessible for disadvantaged communities, non-English speaking households and senior residents The Wheat Ridge Residential Waste Engagement Project was split into four phases, each new phase building on the previous findings to build a comprehensive understanding of potential changes to the Wheat Ridge solid waste management system Phase 1: Analysis & Plan Phase 2: Understanding Hauling Options Phase 3: Input on Specific Waste Programs Phase 4: Final Report and Recommendation Outreach during these phases included: • Promotional Materials • Digital Surveys • Open House (Phase 2 only) • Pop-up at Existing Community Events • Briefings to Sustainable Wheat Ridge Committee and City Council 99 1010 Phase 1 Overview 11 Community Research Informed using publicly available market research data, the community analysis and research effort provided an overview of the demographics of Wheat Ridge residents in great detail The project team used this information to help understand community socio- demographics, perceptions, and beliefs to inform the messaging and tactics for this initiative Key demographic, socioeconomic traits, employment, and environmental and political perceptions across Wheat Ridge were outlined to further tailor what tools (digital, in-person, or both) would be most appropriate for residents of Wheat Ridge The findings indicated that a blended approach of digital and in- person touch points were necessary in order to hear from as many voices as possible across Wheat Ridge and from residents of all demographics Jefferson County, State of Colorado, and national statistics were used as a statistical benchmark for comparing reported values across the City Metrics that indicate potentially vulnerable or disadvantaged populations were included in the analysis and incorporated throughout the public engagement plan To develop a holistic and inclusive Engagement Plan, metrics that indicated potentially vulnerable or disadvantaged populations were included in this assessment The team’s analysis examined social equity themes under the umbrella of socioeconomic, demographic, and community health categories Key findings from the research that helped confirm the need for in-person, digital, and Spanish-language materials are noted here 34,217 Population 4% No High School Diploma 11% Below Poverty Line 0% Mobile Housing 25% Senior Population 48% Renter Occupied Households 12 Additional Non-English Households Limited English Proficiency 12 Race/Ethnicity The population of Wheat Ridge identifies with the following race/ethnic groups (2021 ACS) 21% Hispanic 86% White 8% Two or More 2% Other 1% Black 1% Asian 1% American Indian Languages Spoken Areas with high percentages of Limited English proficiency (LEP) adults are highlighted on the map in dark orange In Census Tract 104 06 (northeast Wheat Ridge), approximately 12% of adults have limited English proficiency and primarily speak Spanish Citywide LEP Breakdown • 31% Spanish • 27% Other Indo-European Languages • 32% Asian- Pacific Island Language 13 Key Takeaways from the Community Research Based on the community research and analysis, the outreach strategies considered the overall presence of the following equity indicators compared to peer cities: A prominent Spanish-speaking community A higher than average number of seniors Higher than average poverty rates and areas of unemployment Tracts with low educational attainment High percentages of renters Historic redlining Areas with internet access limitations Higher than average crime rates One Justice401 community 1 The Federal government has made it a goal that 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain Federal climate, clean energy, affordable and sustainable housing, and other investments flow to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution Justice40 Initiative | Environmental Justice | The White House 14 Suggested Outreach Strategies that were included in the Engagement Plan Considering the research and these equity indications, these strategies below were implemented throughout this project The project team recommends that these be considered for future engagement efforts related to projects or programs that might come from the recommendations in this report Involve nearby community centers, senior centers, and/or related nonprofits Identify cultural events (festivals or celebrations) for pop-up events Partner with community liaisons who can advocate for and distribute information in-person, specifically Hispanic and faith-based leaders Develop targeted communication in Spanish In addition to online and social media advertising, use print materials (direct mail or neighborhood postings) in areas with internet access limitations Leverage Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram for digital promotion and engagement Read the full Community Research Report in Appendix A. 15 Stakeholder Interviews After the Community Research Report was complete, the project team met with key stakeholders to discuss their opinions about the current residential waste management system in Wheat Ridge and potential future changes to this system Five groups of stakeholders were interviewed during in-person and virtual listening sessions: Group 1: City Council Group 2: Sustainable Wheat Ridge Committee Group 3: Community Members (ranging in age and representing a diverse subset of the community, including members from the Race & Equity Task Force, Wheat Ridge Creates, Let’s Talk Program, and recent graduates of Wheat Ridge 101 living in the city) Group 4: Sustainable Neighborhood Leaders from Applewood Village, Paramount Heights, Fruitdale, and Panorama Park Group 5: Media representative from the Neighborhood Gazette Overall, stakeholders acknowledged several concerns with the current system including significant noise pollution from haulers, impacts to streets, cost, responsibility on the shoulders of consumers rather than the companies, and general confusion on the process of hauling away waste Stakeholders who were satisfied with the current system like the resident’s control to decide on the company selected and the option to not use a specific service, like recycling Stakeholders acknowledged that there is opportunity to provide more education about other hauling methods, such as a unified system with possible incentives, as well as more amenities and features that would be appreciated, such as composting or enhanced recycling Additional concerns were raised regarding the need to engage low socioeconomic communities and elderly residents who are typically not being engaged with during similar processes, but who may be most impacted by a change in the waste system 1616 Key Themes A variety of pre-determined questions were prepared for each interview, however, the project team allowed the conversation to steer to where the key concerns or opportunities were for the particular group For a list of the questions, see Appendix B The following key themes were derived from feedback received at the listening sessions: Concerns or reflections about current state of the community with an Open Market system • Because of the frequency of the different trash providers, more times than not, primary sidewalks are blocked by multiple trash cans, most of the week • Loose trash is an ongoing concern so a policy about clean- up needs or taking bins out too early may be needed • There needs to be accountability/policy/requirements for haulers regarding quality of trash removal, times of day and consistency of removal, etc • Damage to the street infrastructure is not widely discussed and should be • There has been some success with the preferred hauler system in neighborhoods that participate in the Sustainable Neighborhood Program • Sidewalk and other accessibility challenges are existent in the community and there is a concern that a change to the trash bins or hauling day/time could impact those who have accessibility challenges 17 Many questions and concerns about potential changes to the current system • There were questions on how residents would be billed if there were multiple providers • People would like options for recycling and composting For example, would there be different contractors for different services (e g , one for trash, one for recycling, one for compost) • Interviewees asked if there would be in-house hauling options, like City & County of Denver has • There were comments about where there could be a compromise between open market and a whole new system, like changing regulations, having preferred vendors, or having an opt out option • Most said their communities would not want to have their freedom of choice taken away There is concern about it becoming a monopoly with no accountability • There is concern that limiting trash haulers could someday limit delivery options as well • There is concern about impacts to pricing and being able to have the most affordable solution for resident needs if there is a change • There is concern about losing trash haulers currently liked by customers (e g , trash cans are brought up to the door for elderly) • People asked if there was a way to incentivize either haulers or resident participation in a preferred hauler option Curiosity about what a new system could bring to residents (positive or negative, which is different for each resident) • People were interested in alternative billing methods, like Pay As You Throw (PAYT) Ideas on how to engage the community during this project • Interviewees said that messaging should be about the benefit to the customer, not the City • Most agreed that there needs to be a focus on reaching seniors with in-person events, door-to-door and mailers, not just surveys Read the full Stakeholder Interview Framework and Stakeholder Interview Summary in Appendix B. 1818 Engagement Plan As a final step in Phase 1, using the community research and insights from the stakeholder interviews, the project team developed an Engagement Plan to be used as the project roadmap Project goals, key audiences, strategies, tools/tactics, and key messages were outlined to keep the team on-track with the efforts needed for each phase Specifically related to engagement tactics, the team leaned into the feedback of needing in-person and digital efforts One in-person open house event was hosted during Phase 2, as well as a self-guided online open house and survey and attendance at the City’s Holiday Celebration by way of a project booth For Phase 3, a digital survey was created, and the team attended the City Plan Phase 2 Open House with a project- specific booth staffed with project team members For Phase 4, the team attended the City Plan Phase 3 Open House to promote the initial ideas for final recommendations During Phases 2 and 3, social media content, promotional print collateral, press releases, newspaper advertisements, and e-newsletters were produced and distributed Finally, the team leveraged community members and other organizations to help promote the project and the input opportunities at each phase Read the full Engagement Plan in Appendix C. 1919 2020 Phase 2 Overview 2121 After Phase 1 was complete, the project team was ready to launch into the engagement efforts with the community Most of the direct engagement with the community occurred during this phase The project team aimed 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 After multiple in-person and virtual engagement efforts, the project team engaged with nearly 700 residents and received over 300 survey responses and nearly 900 general comments The project team worked with the City to develop the community presentations, educational information, and surveys to inform residents on the following waste management systems that were presented during these engagement efforts: • Open Market (current system) • Contracted hauling • Municipal hauling • Opt-in preferred hauler system • Enhanced licensing requirements • Fee structures: −Pay As You Throw (PAYT) −Flat rate waste disposal 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 In terms of analysis of the feedback received, Open Market Hauling (Wheat Ridge’s current waste management system) was the top preference for hauling method; however, several other options were close behind The feedback indicated that choice and cost are the top two factors that residents value when considering what is important in their waste service 2222 Over half of respondents would be interested in some changes to their collection services; however, most were in favor of the current open market system and were concerned about cost of service In addition, flat rate disposal was the preferred fee structure Specifically, these engagement efforts found: • 56% of respondents may be interested in some changes to the current collection services and recycling program • 40% of respondents are in favor of keeping the current open market system • 65% of respondents ranked choice and cost as the top two priorities when picking a service Overall, the City received mixed feedback regarding whether or not it should make changes to the waste hauling 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 to other hauling options During a voting exercise at the Residential Waste Engagement Project 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 indicated that a change would be positive The other 50% in attendance were either indifferent or didn’t know enough yet about impacts 23 Ultimately, residents consistently stated that having convenient, affordable and reliable services, recycling options, good 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 The results of this phase impacted the project team’s strategy for what questions to ask in the second survey made available to residents during Phase 3, as well as the decision to pivot towards enhancing the current system rather than pursuing a major overhaul of Wheat Ridge’s residential waste management system The results of the Phase 2 public engagement as well as the draft Phase 3 public survey were also presented to City Council at the May 6, 2024 study session At this meeting, City Council agreed with the project team’s approach towards the Phase 3 survey and its focus on evaluating system enhancements versus major systematic changes The complete summary of Phase 2 efforts can be found in Appendix D. The materials and supporting documents for Phase 2 can be found in Appendix E. 2424 Phase 3 Overview 2525 As noted in the previous section, the survey results from Phase 2 indicated that the Wheat Ridge community does not prefer one waste management system over another, with each having support, but ultimately keeping the open market system was most preferred According to the results, cost was the most important factor for residents in selecting a waste management system Other important factors for residents in the top five ranking include having convenient and reliable services, recycling options, good customer service, and the ability to pick the hauler of their choice Phase 3 focused on what type of trash and recycling services the community wants or needs, which can be used to inform future potential cost analyses conducted by the City Residents were asked to indicate their interest in and service needs for curbside collection, drop-off programs, and events for recycling, large items, and yard waste Residents also provided feedback on how existing City programming can be improved to gain more participation The following results summarize the findings in this survey: • 70% of respondents support financial incentives for decreasing trash • 78% of respondents would recycle more if recycling services were included at no additional cost • 59% of respondents were interested in a drop-off facility for large items and 40% of respondents were interested in a drop-off facility for yard waste The full summary of this survey effort and results can be found in report Section A: Phase 3 Engagement Summary. The raw results and other supporting materials for this can be found in Appendix F. 2626 Phase 4 Overview Votes Seasonal yard waste and large item collection Recycling and yard waste drop off Expanding on TLC Clean-up Day programming 35 votes 44 votes 27 votes 27 The final phase of this project, Phase 4, involves summarizing all of the findings from the engagement efforts, including a final presentation to City Council in partnership with City staff As part of Phase 4, the project team developed recommendations for the City’s consideration based on input received throughout this project In summary, residents were clear that the City should evaluate cost effective and convenient improvements to existing programs and consider additional options for recycling, yard waste, and large-item services The HDR project team attended the City Plan Phase 3 Open House in September 2024 to obtain feedback from Wheat Ridge residents on the following initial ideas for final recommendations: 1 Expand existing TLC Clean-up Day programming and other annual events 2 Implement a permanent drop-off facility for yard waste and specialized materials for recycling 3 Provide seasonal yard waste collection and expand existing large- item collection efforts Based on feedback from over 100 residents at this community event, seasonal yard waste and large-item collection was the most popular recommendation Overall, residents supported all three recommendations Results are summarized in Figure A Figure A Results from the booth activity at the City Plan open house 2828 Final Recommendations 2929 Based on the results of the Phase 2 and 3 surveys and in person community events, the following recommendations should be evaluated further for potential implementation by the City Recommendations are categorized as either Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 based on complexity to implement The tiers are described as follows: • Tier 1 activities can be achieved utilizing existing staff resources; however, some additional funding may be needed • Tier 2 activities may require additional effort from the City to evaluate the impacts of a potential new program This typically will involve overseeing a contractor to conduct a feasibility study and/or more detailed planning and coordination of resources before determining a solution • Tier 3 activities will require long term site and staff dedication to new programs A feasibility study may be included; however, the long-term goal is to expand on City infrastructure and recycling programs for residents Recommendation #1: Expand on TLC Clean-Up Day programming and other annual events Description: Nearly half of Wheat Ridge residents who participated in the Phase 3 survey said they are not participating in existing drop-off programs today due to lack of awareness or transportation options In order to leverage existing programming and preserve resources, the City should partner with Localworks and other organizations such as PaintCare and Springback to host more robust Clean-up Day events including more drop-off sites and larger education/awareness campaigns to drive more participation and accessibility Next Step: City staff should evaluate potential materials to be added to drop-off sites for recycling (e g , electronics, paint, textiles, scrap metal, etc ), in addition to any gaps in current drop-off site locations Staff should contact partner organizations to understand cost estimates for increased programming based on increased materials and/or locations Level of effort: Tier 1 - Easier to achieve as programs are already in place with dedicated staff Does not involve long term site identification May include need for budget increases 3030 Recommendation #2: Implement a permanent drop-off site for yard waste and specialized materials for recycling Description: Based on survey results, Wheat Ridge residents would participate in a drop-off site for many material streams if available The City should explore establishing a drop-off site for residents and consider more than one site to increase participation Materials to consider for collection may include, but are not limited to, yard waste, flexible films, block Styrofoam, mattresses, and tires Since Wheat Ridge residents will have access to curbside recycling under Colorado’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation, it is important to provide access to other recycling opportunities at drop-off sites for materials that cannot be collected curbside Notably, costs associated with managing packaging materials such as flexible films and block Styrofoam (or Expanded Polystyrene) will be considered eligible for reimbursement through the EPR program and the City will not need to bare those costs Consider opportunities to absorb some or all program costs within the City’s General Fund, understanding that cost is an important factor for resident participation Next Step: Create an implementation plan to describe all programmatic needs for developing a new drop-off site This may be conducted by a third-party entity This plan should include a site selection evaluation to address accessibility, zoning, available properties, site arrangement, etc as well as determining specific services to provide Costs for containers, staffing, educational materials, and collection should be included within this plan Level of effort: Tier 3 – More complex to implement as at least one permanent site would need to be identified by the City for the drop-off location Program resources such as staffing, containers, signage, educational materials, and collection services would be new budget considerations for the City 3131 Recommendation #3: Evaluate seasonal yard waste and expanded Large Item collection Description: Based on the feedback from Wheat Ridge residents, the City should explore more curbside programs to increase diversion and equitable access to services for residents The City should evaluate the feasibility of implementing seasonal yard waste collection service in the spring and fall and expanding the frequency of large-item collection events from once a year to quarterly for residents This will include evaluating hauling options, collection frequencies, appointment-based program options, and subscription-based programming considerations Next Step: Procure a third-party entity to conduct an evaluation of collection options for these programs to understand cost and diversion impacts for the City Level of effort: Tier 2 – Conducting a study to evaluate the costs and operational considerations for potential curbside services would be contracted out to a third-party entity by the City City staff would oversee the study and provide input; however, most of the work would be completed by the contractor The City would need to incorporate budget for this study 3232 Recommendation #4: Enhance overall marketing and public relations, information, and engagement related to sustainability programs, including existing and potential future waste hauling programs Description: Based on the feedback from the Phase 3 survey, many Wheat Ridge residents may be unfamiliar with or unaware of existing recycling and waste removal programs Thus, a recommendation is to allocate existing marketing and communication staff time, as well as members of Sustainable Wheat Ridge, City Council, and active recycling community organizations/neighborhoods, to increase the promotion of these existing and any future events/programs Promotional tactics include: pitched media stories and press releases; e-newsletter promotions; newspaper advertising; signage within the city (flyers, posters, RTD bus stop ads, billboards, electronic signage, City building signage); popular destination flyering/ signs (hospitals, restaurants, breweries, etc ); social media posts (paid and organic); quarterly or yearly event calendar mapping and tracking to have booths or a presence at existing community events At community events, have recycling and composting bins at the booth to educate the public on the ease of waste diversion efforts Next Step: Reallocate existing marketing and communication staff capacity to add more resources to these efforts; hire a dedicated sustainability-focused marketing/communication staff person; create an informal or formal agreement (like a memorandum of understanding) with Sustainable Wheat Ridge Committee and existing or formalized community groups and neighborhoods outlining the support they can provide with marketing and public relations; hire a third party vendor or consultant to manage the marketing and public relations efforts if hiring or reallocation of staff is not possible Regardless of which tactic is utilized, it will be important for the City to track the efforts and evaluate each tool’s effectiveness and return on investment so the City can reallocate resources to what works best and has the biggest positive impact Level of effort: Tier 1 and 2 – If existing staff have capacity or there is reallocation of staff time to this effort, it would be considered a Tier 1 effort Additional funds could be needed for paid advertising and marketing efforts If utilizing existing staff is not feasible, then this would trigger a Tier 2 effort where more substantial funding or staff/consultant support would be needed, but a full study or planning effort could be kept to a minimum 33 Recommendation #5: Educate City Council, staff and the community (as needed) and stay engaged with the Extended Producer Responsibility efforts Description: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy that holds producers responsible for the management of products throughout their lifecycle, including recycling EPR aims to encourage producers to design products that are more sustainable and recyclable, and to reduce the amount of waste that ends up in landfills On June 3rd, 2022, the Producer Responsibility Program for Statewide Recycling Act, House Bill 22-1355 was signed into law HB 22-1355 sets up a Producer Responsibility program that requires companies that sell products in packaging, paper products to fund a statewide recycling system to recycle those materials These companies will form an independent non-profit organization, called a Producer Responsibility Organization, to coordinate, fund, and manage this statewide recycling system The State of Colorado appointed Circular Action Alliance (CAA) as the designated Producer Responsibility Organization in May 2023 Circular Action Alliance was responsible for the needs assessment study to evaluate the recycling infrastructure, services, and costs throughout all geographic areas of the state The report also proposes a standardized list of materials to be accepted at all recycling facilities throughout the state It also proposes three scenarios for increasing the collection and recycling rates in Colorado by 2030 and 2035 This needs assessment was the first step in achieving the program’s goal to develop a convenient, cost-effective program that provides free and equitable recycling of packaging and paper products for all Coloradans CAA is currently developing a program plan that will outline how the organization plans to implement the EPR program in Colorado, due February 2025 Next Step: City Council and staff should participate in stakeholder opportunities hosted by CAA and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) to understand the EPR planning process and potential impacts to the Wheat Ridge community For example, CDPHE hosts regular meetings with the state’s EPR Advisory Board, which are open to the public to attend virtually, in which the Board reviews CAA’s progress on Program Plan development and provides feedback The City can use the learnings from this engagement to further educate stakeholders such as residents, relevant commercial entities, haulers, and City leadership The City can also engage with the statewide recycling organization, Recycle Colorado, to facilitate input for CAA or answer questions More information can be found here: https://cdphe colorado gov/hm/epr-program Level of effort: Tier 1 – Participating in the stakeholder opportunities and engaging in conversations with CAA, Recycle Colorado, or other entities will not require significant time and resources for Wheat Ridge staff 3434 Section A Phase 3 Engagement Summary 3535 Methodology In partnership with City staff, the project team developed a survey for Phase 3 that built on the findings from Phase 2 engagement efforts The results from Phase 2 indicated that the Wheat Ridge community does not have a strong preference of one waste management system over another, with each method that was presented having support There was a slight preference towards the open market system amongst stakeholders According to the results, cost was the most important factor for respondents in selecting a waste management system Other important factors for respondents in the top five ranking include having convenient and reliable services, recycling options, good customer service, and the ability to pick the hauler of their choice Based on the lack of strong preference for an alternative waste management system and the feedback received from City Council at the May 6, 2024 study session, the project team aimed to focus the Phase 3 survey on obtaining information that could be used to enhance the current open market system and expand current waste diversion efforts of the City The Phase 3 survey and public engagement efforts dive deeper into what type of trash and recycling services the community wants or needs, which can be used to inform future waste diversion efforts and potential feasibility analyses conducted by the City Key Findings As cost is the number one priority for the community, understanding residents’ preferred type of trash and recycling services will help the City understand the cost impacts of potential future services It is important to remember that this project does not guarantee any changes to the current system or that special services or programs will be enacted The City sought feedback in order for City Council to feel informed and empowered to explore next steps in new services, programs, technical feasibility studies/projects, and potentially other recommendations regarding waste management, recycling, and solid waste diversion 36 Phase 3 Survey Feedback Snapshot 401 Total Survey Responses 586 People Visited the Survey from a Facebook Post 3,100 Total Survey Views 658 People Visited the Survey by Way of an E-Newsletter Overview of Phase 3 survey responses received: • Respondents were interested in more drop- off opportunities; however, the majority want curbside recycling and yard waste collection, displayed in Figure B −Some respondents would be open to less-regular yard waste collection due to seasonality such as spring or fall collection • Approximately half of respondents participate in the City’s drop-off events; however, many respondents were not aware of these opportunities and transportation has been a challenge for some • Residents need options for disposing of or recycling mattresses, paint, and furniture −The City could leverage PaintCare to expand free paint recycling events in the community −The City could also partner with Springback to implement a mattress collection event or curbside service for residents −Respondents were interested in increasing the frequency of the City’s curbside large item pick- up events to quarterly, or the implementation of a drop-off site • Nearly 70% of respondents support financial incentives for decreasing trash such as a Pay As You Throw (PAYT) system −Note: In the Phase 2 survey, respondents preferred a flat rate fee structure; however, cost was the most important factor, which aligns with the preference towards a PAYT fee structure if costs will be decreased for recycling more • Respondents were split on whether weekly or every-other-week recycling would work for their home It may depend on the size of the container available • Respondents said they would participate in a recycling, yard waste, and food collection program if it was included in their trash service at no extra cost 3737 Some cities introduce special collection events before implementing new services to understand the community’s level of interest Please rank the following recycling events in order of interest or need in your household: Figure B 50 150 132132 224224 215215 9898 8484 189189 7979 250 Question Options Access to curbside recycling collection for all Increased city control over service costs Increased waste diversion for the city None More drop-off options for recyclables, yard waste, etc. Improved customer service and convenience Access to curbside yard waste collection for all Recycling Responses Phase 2 of the Wheat Ridge Residential Waste Engagement Project presented various waste collection methods that the City could explore The information and comments received from the community with respect to those various options were insightful in understanding what is important to Wheat Ridge residents Over 70% of the respondents in the Phase 2 survey had curbside recycling services, indicating that the community participates in waste reduction efforts Results from the Phase 2 survey also show that 56% of residents either do not think the current system works well or are indifferent, and therefore may be open to change Given that there was not a strong preference for an alternative waste management system but that many residents may be open to change, the Phase 3 public engagement efforts sought to better understand how to make enhancements to the current system and fill the service gaps in Wheat Ridge Question Options Yes – I would make sure to recycle more No – I wouldn’t care to recycle more I’m not sure I don’t want recycling service 3838 Policy Considerations The Phase 2 engagement results highlighted the importance of cost for Wheat Ridge residents when considering collection services In many communities across the United States, and within Colorado, residents are financially incentivized to recycle more and reduce their trash through a Pay As You Throw (PAYT) program Under PAYT, residents typically pay for how much trash is generated at their household, while having access to recycling services at no additional cost This model encourages residents to recycle as much as possible to decrease their trash bill When asked if Wheat Ridge residents would recycle more under this payment structure, the majority of residents (65%) said they would, as shown in Figure C Figure C 260 (65.8%) 37 (9.4%) 37 (9.4%) 61 (15.4%) Question Options Yes No I’m not sure 39 Another strategy that a City may deploy to increase recycling participation is through revising a hauler licensing ordinance to require recycling services to be included with trash collection If Wheat Ridge were to implement this change, approximately 75% of respondents said they would participate in recycling with no added cost, as shown in Figure D Figure D 295 (75.4%) 36 (9.2%) 60 (15.3%) Game-Changing Policy to Track Although the City may consider leveraging these policy tools to encourage recycling, the state’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Program may already be set in motion to resolve issues related to cost and access for recycling services As of January 2026, recycling service providers, processors, and educators will be reimbursed for providing recycling services to residential and select non-residential customers All single-unit and multi-unit homes in Wheat Ridge will be eligible for weekly curbside recycling services at no additional cost The program will be implemented by Circular Action Alliance (CAA), a non-profit organization formed by companies within the packaging industry who will fund the program CAA is developing a Program Plan which will describe timelines and expectations for services and contracts, due to the State in February 2025 The City should follow this EPR program closely to understand the benefit to Wheat Ridge residents and any potential changes with collection Question Options Yes Only if it’s free I’m not sure No 40 Level of Service In order to understand the potential cost impacts of increased recycling services, the level of service needs to be defined Survey respondents stated that every- other-week recycling service would be sufficient (35%); however, almost 30% of respondents also said that weekly would be preferred The remaining respondents were not sure what level of service they need or need to know what size carts are available to make a decision Education on what is recyclable and what size containers are available would help inform this decision further As shown in Figure E, survey respondents indicated that curbside service is preferred over using a drop-off site, if the drop-off is not free Specifically, respondents stated that even if a drop- site was available 43% of respondents would not use it If the drop site was free, then the demand for curbside vs drop- off services would be more evenly split Figure E 173 (43.7%) 115 (29.0%) 50 (12.6%) 58 (14.6%) Question Options Spring and fall only Every other week Monthly Weekly I don’t have enough yard waste 41 Yard Waste Responses Based on the responses in the Phase 2 engagement, many homeowners manage significant increases of leaves and yard debris in the spring and fall seasons The Phase 3 survey sought to understand how residents might benefit from potential yard waste collection and management Survey responses indicate that almost 90% of respondents would benefit from some type of yard waste collection, with the majority preferring seasonal (spring and fall), and the rest closely split between weekly, every other week, or monthly collection, as shown in Figure F Figure F 133 (33.8%) 76 (19.3%)62 (15.8%) 74 (18.8%) 48 (12.2%) Question Options Yes I’m not sure No 4242 Survey responses indicate that the majority (77%) would participate in yard waste collection services if it were included in trash collection at no additional cost, as shown in Figure G When asked if residents would pay for yard waste service at an additional cost, responses were mainly split between those who needed to know more about the cost of service (46%) and those who would not pay for the service (40%) Approximately 10% of respondents would pay an additional fee for yard waste services if available Additionally, over half of respondents (54%) stated that they would like to participate in a yard waste program to reduce the amount of material sent to the landfill, regardless of cost These results affirm the notion that Wheat Ridge residents want to participate in waste diversion programs; however, cost remains a main consideration Figure G 304 (77.2%) 43 (10.9%) 47 (11.9%) Question Options Yes No I’m not sure Depends on the cost of service 4343 If curbside yard waste collection is not feasible for the City to implement, a yard waste drop-off site or improved City-hosted collection events could be considered Approximately, 38% of respondents indicated that they would participate in a yard waste drop-off regardless of cost Another 26% of respondents may participate pending more information about potential costs to use the site, as shown in Figure H Figure H 151 (38.1%) 38 (9.6%) 105 (26.5%)102 (25.8%) 4444 Understanding that the City has several yard waste drop-off events each year, typically after large storms and in the fall, the Phase 3 survey asked residents if they’ve participated in these events Approximately half of survey respondents had not participated, mostly due to lack of information about the program or the ability to transport their yard waste, as shown in Figure I Some respondents stated that their hauler offers the option to collect yard waste; however, it is unlikely that the yard waste will be composted or mulched and is likely sent to landfill For those who selected ‘Other, please specify,’ being new to the City was the main reason as to why they haven’t participated Some residents have trash haulers who will collect yard waste included with their trash service, at no additional charge Figure I Question Options I don’t know about it I couldn’t transport my yard waste to the event I didn’t need to participate (i.e. no yard waste to drop off) Other (please specify) 0 20 40 60 80 100 66 84 46 29 Question Options Yes I’m not sure No 139 (35.3%) 157 (39.8%) 96 (24.9%) 45 Food Waste Responses In addition to yard waste collection, cities often explore opportunities for food waste collection when considering organics diversion Sometimes food waste and yard waste are collected together in the same container According to survey responses, participants were not interested in a drop-off site for food waste As shown in Figure J, almost 40% of survey respondents indicated that they would participate in a food waste program if it was collected with their yard waste, regardless of cost Approximately 35% of respondents would not participate; however, the container could still be used for yard waste Almost 25% percent of respondents were unsure and may require more education about a potential food waste program, including environmental benefits, costs, and instructions for how to use the services at home Figure J Question Options Yes I’m not sure No 4646 Survey responses indicate that many respondents (47%) would participate in a food waste collection program As shown in Figure K, and similar to the responses above, approximately 33% of respondents would not participate and the remaining 21% need more information and education Furthermore, nearly half of respondents (51%) stated that they would not participate in a food waste program for an additional fee An additional 28% may participate depending on the cost Figure K 129 (32.8%) 183 (46.6%) 81 (20.6%) Question Options Yes – I’ve participated in the large item pickup program Yes – I’ve participated in both Yes – I’ve participated in Localworks’ clean up days No – I’ve never participated in either 47 Large Item Responses Based on the feedback in the previous engagement, residents wanted more opportunities for large item disposal Large items may include furniture such as couches, mattresses, appliances, or other items that are difficult to transport for disposal and not accepted in curbside cart-based programs The City already manages a twice-per-year pick-up for large items for residents who sign-up in advance and also hosts four summer drop-off events called TLC Clean Up Days, which are managed by Localworks The Phase 3 survey sought to better understand whether residents are using the current services and whether any new programs or services are needed Events Approximately half (51%) of survey respondents have participated in either or both of the City’s large item collection or drop-off programs The other half has not participated in either of the programs, as shown in Figure L Most respondents stated that they haven’t participated because they were not aware of these programs, sometimes due to being new to the City Many respondents shared that they do not have any large items for disposal and haven’t needed the program Some respondents also stated that the event was limited, both in time and capacity and recommended that the City consider expanding the event Figure L 201 (50.6%) 81 (20.4%) 50 (12.5%) 65 (16.4%) 48 In addition to large item services, residents ranked the following materials in Table 1 as most needing collection events, which the City may consider if expanding programs and services These materials could also be considered for a potential drop-off site if the city is looking to expand programs beyond events Table 1: Ranking for Recycling Events 1st Yard Waste 2nd Electronics 3rd Hazardous Waste 4th Paint 5th Furniture 6th Mattresses Curbside Large Item Pick-up Based on the Phase 3 survey results, respondents were interested in either a curbside large item pick-up program or a drop-off site for these items Approximately 62% of respondents were interested in a curbside program and an additional 17% were unsure, needing more information Question Options Yes I’m not sure No Question Options Monthly Every eight weeks Once a quarter I don’t throw away large items 49 When considering curbside services, the majority of respondents (67%) were interested in quarterly large item collection; however almost 28% of respondents also stated that they don’t typically disposal of these items, as shown in Figure M Figure M 109 (27.8%) 254 (67.3%) 15 (3.8%) 4 (1.0%) Figure N shows that only 16% of respondents would subscribe to a large item collection service for an additional cost, while nearly half stated that they would not pay extra for the service A large portion (34%) were not sure if they would pay for the service Figure N 195 (49.4%) 63 (15.9%) 137 (34.7%) 5050 Appendices • Appendix A: Community Research Report • Appendix B: Stakeholder Interview Summary • Appendix C: Engagement Plan • Appendix D: Phase 2 Engagement Summary • Appendix E: Phase 2 Supporting Materials −Public House Informational Boards −Promotional materials • Appendix F: Phase 3 Raw Data and Supporting Materials −PDF of survey questions −Council PowerPoint −Promotional materials −Pop-Up Event Appendix A Community Research Wheat Ridge, CO Urban Area, 9.5 Square Miles Race / Ethnicity The population of Wheat Ridge identifies with the following race/ ethnic groups (2021 ACS). 21% Hispanic 86% White 8% Two or More 2% Other 1% Black 1% Asian 1% American Indian 31% Spanish 27% Other Indo-European Languages 32% Asian-Pacific Island Languages Languages Spoken Areas with high percentages of limited English proficiency (LEP) adults are highlighted on the map in dark orange. In Census Tract 104.06 (northeast Wheat Ridge), approximately 12% of adults have limited English proficiency and primarily speak Spanish. Income / Poverty Approximately 27% of Wheat Ridge residents are low income, and 11% of households live below the poverty line. For comparison, this is higher than the poverty rate in Jefferson County at 7% (2021 ACS). Darker areas show tracts with poverty rates higher than the national average of 13%. Tracts in Wheat Ridge are as high as 16-17%. Unemployment is also higher at 6% compared to the countywide rate of 3%. Census tracts with unemployment in the 80-90 percentile appear yellow in the map below (ACS 2021). Community Research Citywide LEP Breakdown This research – informed using publicly available market research data – provides an overview of the demographics of Wheat Ridge residents. HDR will use this information to help understand community socio-demographics, perceptions, and beliefs, and to inform the Wheat Ridge Residential Waste Engagement initiative. Key demographic information, socioeconomic traits, employment data, and perceptions across Wheat Ridge are outlined below. Statistics from Jefferson County, the State of Colorado, and national databases were used as a benchmark for comparing reported values across the city. To develop a holistic and inclusive Communications Plan, metrics that indicate potentially vulnerable or disadvantaged populations are included in this assessment. The following analysis examines social equity themes under the umbrella of socioeconomic, demographic, and community health categories. 25% Senior Population 48% Renter Occupied Housing 0% Mobile Housing 34,217Population 11%Below Poverty Line 4%Education: Age 25+: 9-12th Grade/No Diploma 4%Participated in Any Public Activity Last 12 Months 9% HHs with No Internet Access 2% Owner HHs with No Vehicles Education Approximately 6% of adults attained less than a high school education in Wheat Ridge (2021 ACS). The map below shows darker areas with rates higher than the national average of 11%. In Tract 104.06 (northeast Wheat Ridge), 21% of adults are not high school graduates. Transportation The map below shows the distribution of households with no vehicle available. Tract 107.01 is high at 14% compared to the national average of 8%. Across Wheat Ridge, 10% of renters do not own a vehicle (2021 ACS). Digital Access The percentage of residents in Wheat Ridge who do not have internet access is relatively high at 9% compared to 5% countywide (2021 ACS). Housing Home ownership is low in Wheat Ridge at 52% compared to 69% in Jefferson County (2021 ACS). Home owners are concentrated in west Wheat Ridge. 10% Renter HHs with No Vehicles 4% Took Public Transportation to Work Age Across Wheat Ridge, people aged 65+ make up 25% of the population, which is higher than the county at 19%. The map below shows senior populations in the 80-90 (yellow), 90-95 (orange), and greater than 95 percentiles (red). Health & Safety Areas of high Traffic Proximity are shown in the map below. The crime index (164) is 62% higher in Wheat Ridge than Jefferson County (101) and 27% higher than the statewide metric (128) (2023 Esri). The distribution of Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites in the 80-90 (yellow) and 95 percentiles (orange) are shown below. Wastewater discharge indicators in the 80-90 (yellow), 90-95 (orange), and greater than 95 percentiles (red) are displayed below. Justice 40 DisadvantagedCommunities “The goal of the Justice40 Initiative is to provide 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain Federal investments in key areas to disadvantaged communities.” Justice 40 data identifies Census Tract 104.06 (northeast, shown in dark blue) as Disadvantaged because it meets the criteria in four categories: climate change, health, transportation, water and wastewater. Device Ownership Internet and Social Media Usage in the last 30 Days Civic Engagement In Wheat Ridge, 79% partcipated in a public activity in the last year which is slightly lower than 83% participation in Jefferson County. Approximately 6% attended a public meeting on town or school affairs, which matches the average across the county, state and nation. Political outlooks trend middle of the road in this area (2022 Esri). Key Takeaways Based on the Community Research, recommended outreach strategies should consider the high/low values or the overall presence of the following equity indicators. • A Spanish-speaking Hispanic community • A higher than average number of seniors • Higher than average poverty rates and areas of unemployment • Tracts with low educational attainment • High percentages of renters • Historic redlining • Areas with internet access limitations • Higher than average crime rates • 1 Justice40 community Suggested Outreach Strategies • Involve nearby community centers, senior centers, and/or related nonprofits • Identify cultural events (festivals or celebrations) for pop-up event • Partner with community liaisons who can advocate for and distribute information in-person, specifically Hispanic and faith-based leaders • Develop targeted communication in Spanish • In addition to online and social media advertising, use print materials (direct mail or neighborhood postings) in areas with internet access limitations • Outreach through property managers • Plan in-person events in the Disadvantaged community • Leverage Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram for digital promotion and engagement Appendix B Stakeholder Interviews Resident Waste Engagement August 2023 DRAFT i Contents Stakeholder List ....................................................................................... 2 Email Notification ..................................................................................... 3 Agenda ...................................................................................................... 3 2 Stakeholder List The following stakeholders will be interviewed. Name Representation Details Contact Info Meeting Time Group 1: City Council Judy Hutchinson jhutchinson@ci.wheatridge.co.us Janeece Hoppe jhoppe@ci.wheatridge.co.us Rachel Hultin Council Liaison to Sustainable Wheat Ridge rhultin@ci.wheatridge.co.us or Scott Ohm sohm@ci.wheatridge.co.us Amanda Weaver aweaver@ci.wheatridge.co.us Korey Stites Mayor Pro Tem kstites@ci.wheatridge.co.us Valerie Nosler Beck vnosler@ci.wheatridge.co.us Leah Dozeman ldozeman@ci.wheatridge.co.us Mayor Bud Starker bstarker@ci.wheatridge.co.us Group 2: Sustainable Wheat Ridge April Nowak Mark De La Torre Montana Stevenson Michaela Butler Amy DePierre Group 3: Community Members Kevin Dickerson Rick Skaflen Cynthia Holdeman emailed in support of project Jamie Birky Wheat Ridge 101 grad Bob Brazell Wheat Ridge 101 grad Diana Lopez Race & Equity Task Force Mel Mayner Wheat Ridge Creates Kim Calomino Pam Anderson Christine Frost Let’s Talk Program Dominick Breton Let’s Talk Program Dan Graeve Wheat Ridge 101 grad Group 4: Sustainable Neighborhood Leaders Chelsea Villalba Applewood Village Joy Opp Paramount Heights Kassandra Rumbaugh Fruitdale Kathleen Martell Panorama Park Group 5: Media Guy Nahmiach Neighborhood Gazette Group 6: Cultural Advisory Groups Gabriela Recinos CLLARO Ruby Gonzalez Servicios de La Raza Salvador Hernandez Mi Familia Vota 3 Email Notification The following email will be used to invite stakeholders to participate in the interviews. Hello [community member/Sustainable Neighborhood Leader/etc.], The City of Wheat Ridge is conducting a Residential Waste Engagement project that aims to understand residents’ opinions on our 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 and what kind of changes would you like to see? You’ve been identified as someone who may want to share their thoughts, and as part of this process, we would like to invite you to participate in a focus group with [fellow community members/Sustainable Neighborhood Leaders/etc.]. You’ll learn more about this project and provide initial feedback on trash collection in Wheat Ridge. We would also like your thoughts on how best to reach your neighbors and friends throughout Wheat Ridge so that we hear from as many residents as possible in this process. Please fill out this Jotform [link] to indicate your availability for an hour-long virtual meeting. We kindly request that you complete the link by 5pm on September 8. Thank you for your time. We look forward to connecting about residential waste in Wheat Ridge. Sincerely, Residential Waste Engagement Project Team Agenda 1. Introductions 2. Project Overview 3. Waste Management Options 4. Public Feedback To-Date 5. Interview Questions (may vary based on stakeholder type and as discussion naturally progresses) a. How much do you know about Wheat Ridge’s waste management system and the alternative systems that are used in other cities? b. Do you believe residents know the difference between the current waste management system vs other waste system options? c. How do you feel about the current waste system? d. What do you believe works well for you and/or the community? e. How do you believe it can improve? f. How do you believe residents would feel about switching to a different waste system? g. What would be the best way to educate residents about waste management options? h. Are there specific neighborhoods or other groups that have a stronger opinion in the matter? i. We are meeting with local haulers and involving neighborhood organizations. Are there any other groups or individuals we should involve when conducting our engagement? 6. Questions 7. Next Steps Stakeholder Listening Sessions Summary Wheat Ridge Resident Waste Engagement November 2023 DRAFT i Contents Key Takeaways ......................................................................................... 3 Action Items .............................................................................................. 4 Sustainable Wheat Ridge ......................................................................... 5 Introductions .......................................................................................................................................... 5 Project Overview and Project Knowledge.............................................................................................. 5 Open Discussion/Questions .................................................................................................................. 6 What We Heard to Date ......................................................................................................................... 8 What Can be Improved? ........................................................................................................................ 9 What Works Well in the Current System? ............................................................................................. 9 Other Waste Management Systems .................................................................................................... 10 Education ............................................................................................................................................. 10 Key Takeaways .................................................................................................................................... 10 Community Members .............................................................................................................................. 11 Key Takeaways .................................................................................................................................... 14 Sustainable Neighborhoods .................................................................................................................... 14 Introductions ........................................................................................................................................ 14 How Do You Feel about the Current System? .................................................................................... 15 Do Folks Prefer having the Option to Choose? ................................................................................... 15 What Works Well with Current System? .............................................................................................. 15 Education ............................................................................................................................................. 16 Key Takeaways .................................................................................................................................... 16 Guy Nahmiac, Owner of Neighborhood Gazette Publication .................................................................. 17 In general, How Do You Feel about the Current System? .................................................................. 17 Improvements ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Do you believe they know the difference between the waste options? ............................................... 18 ii How do you believe the residents would feel about switching to something new? ............................. 18 Outreach and Education Ideas ............................................................................................................ 18 Groups We Should Engage With ......................................................................................................... 19 Key Takeaways .................................................................................................................................... 19 Wheat Ridge City Council........................................................................................................................ 19 Open Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 19 Education ............................................................................................................................................. 22 Key Takeaways .................................................................................................................................... 22 3 Stakeholder Listening Sessions Summary For the Wheat Ridge Residential Waste Engagement Project, the project team met with key stakeholders to discuss their opinions about the current residential waste management system in Wheat Ridge and potential future changes to this system. Overall, stakeholders acknowledged several concerns with the current system including significant noise pollution from haulers, impacts to streets, cost, responsibility on the shoulders of consumers rather than the companies, and general confusion on the process of hauling away waste. Stakeholders who were satisfied with the current system like the resident’s control to decide on the company selected and the option to not use a specific service. Stakeholders acknowledged that there is opportunity to provide more education about other hauling methods, such as a unified system with possible incentives, as well as more amenities and features would be appreciated such as composting or enhanced recycling. Additional concerns were raised regarding low socioeconomic communities and elderly not only being engaged in the process and to account for challenges to opt into a more expensive system. Key Takeaways Below is a list of other key takeaways from the listening sessions. • Currently there are impacts on the overall accessibility and neighborhood. • Internal connectivity outside of District One is really fragmented and necessitates movement along the major corridors. • Because of the frequency of the different trash providers, more times than not, primary sidewalks are blocked by multiple trash cans, most of the week. • Possible policy needed about loose trash. • How would residents be billed as there are multiple water providers? • People would like options for recycling and composting. Can there be different contractors for different services (e.g., one for trash, one for recycling, one for compost)? • Are there in-house options, like with Denver? • There needs to be accountability/policy/requirements for haulers. • Is there a way to compromise, perhaps with regulations and preferred vendors or opt out? • Don’t take away the freedom of choice. There is concern about it becoming a monopoly with no accountability. 4 • Messaging should be about the benefit to the customer, not the city. • Educate about infrastructure damages from trucks. • Interested in alternative billing methods, like pay-by-weight. • There is concern that limiting trash haulers could someday limit delivery options as well. • There is concern about pricing and being able to have the most affordable solution for their needs. • There is concern about losing trash haulers currently liked by customers (e.g., trash cans are brought up to the door for elderly). • Is there a way to incentivize either haulers or resident participation in a preferred hauler? • There has been some success with the preferred hauler system in neighborhoods that participate in the Sustainable Neighborhood Program. • Most agreed that there needs to be a focus on reaching seniors with in-person events, door-to- door and mailers, not just surveys. Action Items • Look into the Sustainable Wheat Ridge Action Plan (can be found on Google). • Consider that there will be outspoken, eloquent individuals representing a smaller minority, who will do their best to debunk those findings. Quantify themes we heard this from (57 surveys and only two surveys that people weren't dissatisfied at all). • Schedule meeting with haulers in Oct/Nov. • Continue hosting focus groups with Council members and others. • Start public engagement in January with education before gathering initial feedback while being mindful of the sensitivity of topic and then adjust approach before closing feedback loop for the public (12-month process). • Look into Arvada’s recent hauling system survey. 5 Detailed Meeting Minutes Below are the detail meetings minutes from each of the listening sessions. Additional key takeaways can be found highlighted in yellow. Sustainable Wheat Ridge Date Monday, September 18, 2023 Subject Sustainable Wheat Ridge Listening Session Attendees Sustainable Wheat Ridge April Nowak Mark De La Torre Montana Stevenson HDR Ashica Smith Katie Angell Introductions • April Nowak has been a resident of Wheat Ridge for over a decade and is part of the Sustainable Wheat Ridge Committee. • Mark De La Torre has been a resident for five years. He has three girls and is a Montessori representative. Mark is a Sustainable Wheat Ridge Committee member and on the board for the Adults Bike and Pedestrian Advocacy Group. He is also a deputy engineer at . • Montana Stevenson has been a resident for five years and is a volunteer on the Sustainable Wheat Ridge Committee and the Sustainable Neighborhood Program. o She is interested in getting residents engaged in sustainability projects that can be wide- ranging. o By day, she works in corporate sustainability and has experience in the food industry. o Food waste and waste are passion areas. Project Overview and Project Knowledge • The group had very little knowledge of the project (and are unfamiliar with the scope of work) but were aware that City Council wanted engagement with the public. • Sustainable Wheat Ridge created documents but the outreach that was scoped is too large for them. • First steps of project: 6 o Kicked off o HDR read prior documents collected by the City, including data collected from the previous neighborhood survey. o HDR gathered information on socio-economical demographics, perceptions, and beliefs of residents to form a public engagement initiative based on those findings. o HDR adjusted the communications plan to reach everyone, including disadvantaged populations, those who don't speak English primarily, and vulnerable communities that haven't been engaged. o The first step is to conduct stakeholder interviews and then meet with Council.  Each group is focused so that the team can receive input from specialized perspectives. o The team will conduct community surveys to gather input on waste management options and ideas and then gather input on the top waste management options that are likely to move forward.  There will also be an open house, with in-person and online options so people can either join in-person or join from the comfort of their own homes (self- guided), and the team will attend pop-up events in high-traffic areas throughout the community.  The team is taking a neutral stance in the community during engagement efforts. Here's what it is, what are your thoughts?  Promotion tactics include social media, traditional media print advertisements, flyers, and yard signs.  The City will be creating YouTube videos and adding information to Wheat Ridge’s website as well. Open Discussion/Questions • Mark De La Torre: What is the horizon time for when engagement is done? • Katie Angell: The project is currently in phase two. o Going to the public in December. o The project in full will last until next August. o The team will come back for additional input after the first engagement process phase and will use strategies that worked best from the first round. • Mark De La Torre: And when you move to the broader community, after your first round of findings, do you plan to come back to any of the focus groups or do you have any sort of prioritization or synthesis of what you heard collectively? 7 • Katie Angell: That isn't in the plan, but we do have some one-off meetings if we do want to gather more input. o We'll keep you all on our distribution list just so you're aware of when all these community engagement touchpoints are happening. o If we want more specific, nuanced input from you all, we'll reach back out and maybe do like a larger group with everyone who's been in these focus groups. o Phase two is determining what we truly need. o Our approach is adaptive, so it'll change based on what we learn in this first phase. • Montana Stevenson: Is there a specific number or goal of people you are trying to reach? • Katie Angell: We don't have a specific number for it, but we want to make sure that we're reaching everybody in each area of leverage. o With our experience, a number to aim for, especially with the online public meeting is 500. o But we have robust promotion for the opportunities to engage so it really is hard to tell.  Sometimes, we see 1,000s of participants. o We would love help with promotion, as well, and are asking folks who are part of these focus groups to see if they're willing to help spread the word through your communication channels. And the same with community members. • Mark De La Torre: Could you elaborate a little bit on the two points for the community analysis? o You're noting the type of demographic, as it is today. o Did you track any of that in terms of change over time? • Katie Angell: Somewhat, that's part of our analysis. o We did focus more heavily on where we are today just in an effort to reach folks who are there today, but we did compare it to I think 10 years previous and at least within population growth and the median age, as well as comparing where we are today with the county statistics. • Montana Stevenson: Did you get a chance to look at the Sustainable Wheat Ridge action plan or the section on solid waste and recycling? • Montana Stevenson: That’s what was drafted by Sustainable Wheat Ridge. o It put together an action plan for the City for five environmental areas and communications is one of them, but we have solid waste and recycling recommendations. o That's what we proposed. o The plan was supported, but not adopted. 8 o They actually have an RFP out right now. • ACTION: Katie to look into the Sustainable Wheat Ridge Action Plan (can be found on Google). What We Heard to Date • Noise pollution, greenhouse gases, wear and tear on road unsafe roads. o Mark De La Torre: From your initial analysis are there any preliminary takeaways that you're seeing in terms of either work that you've done in this nature or in other areas? Is there a parallel that you’re seeing or anything that you can share at this point? o Katie Angell: Many comments talked about the number of garbage trucks traveling through the neighborhoods daily. There was frustration around that.  There are several collection services causing unnecessary noise pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, wear and tear on the roads, and unsafe traffic in neighborhoods.  Unified and organized trash collection service is wanted.  Investments in a single-source provider or a type of single City-regulated waste management system. • ACTION: Consider that there will be outspoken, eloquent individuals representing a smaller minority, who will do their best to debunk those findings. Quantify themes we heard this from (57 surveys and only two surveys that people weren't dissatisfied at all). • Impacts on the overall accessibility and neighborhood. Internal connectivity outside of District – One is really fragmented and necessitates movement along the major corridors. o Because of the frequency of the different trash providers, more times than not, primary sidewalks are blocked by multiple trash cans most of the week. • People from other states are confused by this – they think it’s a municipal service. o Not just what other options are there, they don’t understand the cost to them now vs impact cost on another service. • Infuriated. Not just the trucks. o I can't get the services that I want – food organics pick up not available to her or in the area. o Feel like I am being stuck by trash trucks. o Always hear them – three days’ worth of pick up. o Lots of trucks, lots of noise. o Curbside compost pick up 9 o They pay a lot for basic services – volume or weight-based trash – pay as you throw – smaller bin – recycling and organics – recycling is bi-weekly pick up – services not available – organized system could help get there. o Extremely inefficient o Economics – moving toward approach is economically smart and makes it more affordable. o Bikes pedestrians and street, better practices. o How do we reach those who don’t want to change? o Saving money is sustainable. o A lot of people don’t like change. o Marketing by haulers is fear-based.  It’s a local business (advertise as that). o Questions aren’t about the actual issue.  I don’t want government to tell me what to do.  Economy of the scaled won’t be possible if it’s not in code.  These days you can have trash, this day you can have recycling, etc.  District one is denser than three or four.  Won't provide organics to just one house. What Can be Improved? • Transparency in pricing structure. o Rate continuously goes up and don’t know why unless you call. o A lot of time and effort to find out basics. • Used car dealership. o Individuals have to find who provides the services. o No info on who is licensed or who is an option – other cities post them. o Not just large haulers, also micro haulers. o Opportunities and challenges with those haulers. o Missing: Policy – no loose trash. What Works Well in the Current System? • Ignorance is bliss. • Overcoming what is missed. • Not fixing if it isn’t broken. • Third hauler – wouldn’t pick up, whack-a-mole to figure who is best – no resources – rates high. 10 Other Waste Management Systems • Golden o Organics pick up, volume-based trash, recycling. o City events  Leaf drop off/pick up  Batteries o Resources, add-on services (bring trash for older people) don’t charge extra for compost and recycle. • Wheat Ridge o No number of volume of waste. o Only have so much landfill space left. No one is providing metrics on how much is being sent to landfill. Transparency in volume. • Denver o Has a City department that handles it. o Has good policies. o Pay as you go. o Zero waste ordinance • Arvada o Just changed to a City contract. o How many people have opted out? Consider opt out options. Education • Cost comparison – what are the other towns getting for the price? o Arvada, Golden. • Education – you don’t know what you don’t know. • Compare services and costs in different cities. • Some focus on flyers, Nextdoor (older communities), open house (suggest rec center). • Senior resource center • Environmental impacts o Organics going to landfill. Gives off emissions. o Environmental impacts – plus and minus. Key Takeaways • Impacts on the overall accessibility and neighborhood. 11 • Internal connectivity outside of District One is really fragmented and necessitates movement along the major corridors. o Because of the frequency of the different trash providers, more times than not, primary sidewalks are blocked by multiple trash cans, most of the week. • Consider opt out options. • Possible policy needed about loose trash. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Community Members Date Tuesday, September 12, 2023 Subject Community Members Listening Session Attendees Residents Dan Graeve Kim Calomino Jamie Birky Kevin Dickerson Bob Razell HDR Katie Angell Kira Olson • Jamie Berkey – Education process is a selling tool. o The Consultants and the City are pushing a concept. o The roads are built to handle the trash trucks. o Don’t take the choice away.  Don’t have individual choice or entrepreneurship. o We have more Amazon trucks and delivery trucks in one day then we have of trash trucks all week long.  The delivery drivers are messing up the streets. • Bob Razell – Similar thoughts of what Jamie said. o He is a retired small business owner. o Worried about a monopoly on trash hauling, which is not fair to the small business owners that currently do trash hauling. o Another problem, in Arvada, Republic hauls all trash and Republic charges everyone $5 whether or not they use Republic.  When you eliminate competition, your service goes down and the price goes up.  In Arvada, the waste hauling, the cost goes on the water bill.  In Wheat Ridge, there are three water providers, so how would they bill for trash? 12  Northglenn does it on the water bill as well. • Dan Graeve – Complicated issue and a difficult issue. o The noise pollution is an issue more than the wear and tear on the roads. o People can overlook it because it is invisible. It is a significant issue. o The noise is frequent. o There is a lot of different ways to do it. o The nature of the contract and the term of the contract can be responsive to the service and price depends on how frequent it is renegotiated. o It is a unique space because it is a collective good we are talking about. It is a service that affects others in different ways. o The reality is that we produce too much waste. That is the root of the problem. We need to reduce how much waste we produce and when you have an open hauler system, you do not promote reducing waste. • Kim Calomino – Accountability. Concern about the greater good. o Small haulers may not have the equipment or expertise to manage recycling or organics. o Need to have the ability to sort recycling. o Noise is the number one concern for her, every neighbor uses a different hauler. o Delivery trucks use natural gas that is less pollution. o When you have a major contractor at the City, you have more authority. o In Wheat Ridge, neighbors on Facebook, there is a lot of discussion on waste haulers, and they are turning to each other to decide who to use, and the City could bring greater accountability to whoever is decided. o Question – Are all haulers actually supplying recycling? Kim doesn’t think so. o Can composting be included? o A hauler could offer trash and/or recycling. Can there be a contractor who just does one or the other (recycling or just trash) – Katie to look into and get back to Kim. o Example of a city that has a waste system that isn’t contract haulers? Denver does it inhouse – ACTION: Katie to look into. o How will you select the haulers that you will interview in this process?  Katie – there are four that are primary haulers, talking to them but also talking to the mid-size and smaller haulers including the ones that do compost. • Bob – Understands about the noise pollution however, all the haulers offer recycling. o How well they recycle, Bob is not sure. o Does all his recycling with sustainability.  They have closed down and only accept electronics. 13 o If we really want to get serious about recycling, then the City should look into doing something along those lines.  Glass plant (Coors) can take the glass to be recycled. o Bob is 73 years old.  From the last census that was done, 19% of the population is over 65.  When we do the survey and do things online, we are missing the elderly population and they should have as much say as everyone else.  If there is a survey, the Wheat Ridge connection goes out once a month. We should have an article in the paper and list the pros and cons and then have a way that they can vote – mail, computer or in-person. • Katie – 25% of population of Wheat Ridge is over 65. o We want to engage all ages and backgrounds. o We will be doing articles about the pros and cons and how to provide input. • Bob – Also send out flyers to the senior center, rec center and library. • Kim – Also the Council member district meetings. • Kevin – The voters in the City of Wheat Ridge addressed this in 2010 and voted it down 65% to 35%. o There are a lot of other things the City should be considering instead of trash collection. o Does not have a problem with the way the system is now. o We should be able to make a choice and choose haulers. o Doesn’t want to happen with what has happened in Denver and there are issues with missed pickups. o Residents don’t have choices to change. o Taking away free enterprise. o Where does the line end? Will it be a slippery slope to then limiting Amazon orders? • Dan – With municipalities, there is some licensing involved to require recycling and is that enforced. o Are some cities raising the bar in what they require out of the haulers and avoiding the contracting issues? • Katie – Will ask for follow up question. o We know they exist. Will follow up with the experts. o There are so many different types of hauling, not just the city but through the city. o Adding policy and requirements for haulers. • Kim – Fixed income concerns and not being in control of purchase choices. 14 o There might be great price predictability with the city. Price and predictability might be more dependable with the city. • Bob – The best way to control prices and service is through competition. • Kim – Contracts can be built with price renegotiation periodically. If you can capture a whole city for hauling you will put your price forward. • Dan – There is a lot of inefficiency in how it works. o The market is not being responsive to how it works. o Golden is currently paying less than what he currently is paying, and they are pay as you throw model and there is a lot of savings you can have. • Jamie – Longmont has one trash hauler, and it was great until every year they up the price of the trash and the City doesn’t change the price. o Jamie likes Crush because they take the cans from the street and put them up near her house. Key Takeaways • How would residents be billed as there are multiple water providers? • Can there be different contractors for different services (e.g., one for trash, one for recycling, one for compost)? • Are there in-house options, like with Denver? • There needs to be accountability/policy/requirements for haulers. __________________________________________________________________________________ Sustainable Neighborhoods Date Monday, September 25, 2023 Subject Sustainable Neighborhoods Listening Session Attendees Residents Kathleen Martell Joy Opp HDR Katie Angell Aslyn Kuciemba Introductions • Kathleen Martell – Been a conversation for years, familiar with the issue but unfamiliar with engagement process. • Joy Opp – Co-chair of Sustainable Wheat Ridge. 15 How Do You Feel about the Current System? • Kathleen – Feels mixed on current waste system due to ridiculous number of trucks coming through. o Sees advantages to streamlining but doesn’t like taking away the ability to choose. o Interested in idea of incentivizing an organized hauler. o Mentioned Lakewood is open but has specific requirements whereas Wheat Ridge has nothing. o Nervous that one provider would not provide flexibility or full cost transparency. o Ultimately thinks we can do better than we are doing now. • Joy – Does not love current system. o Need a reduction in hauler traffic down streets for noise and pollution reduction with a better sense of community. o Current system is great for those with personal preference but wants to offer incentives by using an organized hauler. Do Folks Prefer having the Option to Choose? • Joy – Historically town leans toward free enterprise as opposed to being told how it is. o Demographic of Wheat Ridge is slowly becoming more progressive and aware of environmental impact and urgency of composting needs but not fully there yet. • Kathleen – Significantly closer than 10-15 years ago. What Works Well with Current System? • Joy – Not a lot. o No sense of community knowledge share on costs. o Sustainable neighborhoods program expansion is offering a preferred hauler who offers compost, which is significantly cheaper alternative to free reign individual selection. • Kathleen – Wild Wild Wheat Ridge is pretty neutral but when something goes wrong, everyone gets worked up on Facebook groups and neighbor complaints; never positive. o Closest thing to control they have is changing services when experiencing issues. o It’s more about working around the system – elderly neighbors will rely on others for services. o Would be great if we could meet in middle as far as guidance or regulation to support a preferred vendor to make it easier for people to access trash services. • Joy – Selected their preferred hauler by conducting interviews with waste haulers and asked for reduced rate for a few hundred people. 16 o WM did not care to negotiate (biggest WR hauler) at all. o Committee conducted research to determine that Summit Waste will offer lower price if they can get certain amount of people signed up. o People are given a special code to add to their billing. o Biggest challenge is getting word out to neighbors (membership drives, use mailers and yard waste collection in fall). o Compost bins are full size trashcans to collect yard waste. o Has 50% participation. • Kathleen – Is there a point of critical mass? o Someone in Panorama Park needs to notify Summit to adjust billing. o Where you find a sustainable neighborhood group, there tends to be more vocally progressive individuals (four sustainable neighborhoods but there is a lot of overlap & confusion). Education • Kathleen – In-person events, email newsletters, yard signage. o Fatigue around surveys and providing feedback without results or any next-step action, • Joy – People are tired of taking survey questions but if you don’t participate, decisions will be made and imposed on you – double-edged sword. o Hesitancy of City to do anything to avoid blowback with any new changes or development. o Council person spent 30 minutes arguing against a mandated trash hauler at previous sustainable neighborhoods presentation to Council. • Kathleen – Regenerative ag program proves shift in attention and focus. o Wants to look at bigger picture. Key Takeaways • ACTION: Schedule meeting with haulers in Oct/Nov. • ACTION: Continue hosting focus groups with Council members and others. • ACTION: Start public engagement in January with education before gathering initial feedback while being mindful of the sensitivity of topic and then adjust approach before closing feedback loop for the public (12-month process). o Note: Man with the Gazette – has strong personal opinion, prefers free market, and will filter anything in Gazette through his own opinions • Is there a way to compromise, perhaps with regulations and preferred vendors or opt out? 17 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Guy Nahmiac, Owner of Neighborhood Gazette Publication Date Tuesday, October 10, 2023 Subject Listening Session with Guy Nahmiac, Media Listening Attendees Resident Guy Nahmiac HDR Katie Angell Tara Bettale • Strictly here as a resident and a real estate broker (if he wants to have a follow up interview, he’ll go through the appropriate process and channels). • Art on the Farm – urban garden – monthly community event (last Saturday of every month). • “America – The Land of Choice” – Open Hauling • If they opt out (assuming City would limit hauler options), what is the cost to not have service? (City of Arvada example) • Can there be a balance? Official option, but not exclusive – then new people who move in would take the official – soft transition without upsetting the masses. • Appreciate the ‘choice’ not forcing one option – split the city in quadrants and have preferred haulers. • Guy talked with several haulers about five years ago and none could do. • What’s next? Only one delivery option? Only one landscaper? In general, How Do You Feel about the Current System? • I love it – it works. o Gives people the choice to band together to use one hauler or pick their own. • Exclusivity breeds bad customer service. • He wants everyone to be able to negotiate their deal. • One size fits all doesn’t work. Improvements • Would love it if recycling was picked up every week rather than every two weeks. • I want to leave a better earth for my grandchildren. • Not a fan of ‘more gas emissions’ or ‘tearing up roads’ but let ME determine how to manage my funds/budget and what will work for my lifestyle (recycle more, compost more). • Can there be a lower rate for income or elderly? 18 • More people in house or weight…..cost more? Do you believe they know the difference between the waste options? • In his hood they do (Applewood) because of the ‘banding’ together. • Elderly not as aware of the differences between each. • For the most part, they ‘the community’ does know and they know there is a choice. How do you believe the residents would feel about switching to something new? • Change is hard and the older you get the more difficult it is. • Depending on the perception of ‘who the change is good for,’ that will impact their feelings. o i.e., City is doing it for revenue or because it’s ‘easy,’ they’ll hate it. o i.e., If it is beneficial to YOU as a resident because you will a. save money, or b. throw more and more often, then maybe they’ll be sold (if we could get more). • Incentivize!!!! If you choose this, we can reduce XXX from the taxes? o We’re not trying to make it cheaper for you but rather a BETTER service – keep the message tight on the benefits for THEM not for the CITY or mother nature. Outreach and Education Ideas • Willing to host us at the Art at the Farm for a pop-up event or other engagement effort. o Invite people to the event on the Gazette. • Door knocking and having conversations with people about the system and options. • 72% of residents pointed to the Gazette as their main source of news and information. • Pro/con article and call it “Trash Talking” – would be fun and entertaining – “Lighter Side of Trash.” o Create a space where people aren’t afraid to share their feelings.  i.e., Elderly person knows the hauler and they bring the bin up to the door because they have mobility issues.  Many people trust their haulers for reliability and customer services.  Fear is they’ll get ‘stuck’ with someone/hauler that isn’t giving them what they need for service. • The haulers want the business, and one hauler is a big $$$, but do they REALLY want to handle the red tape of the City, regulations/rules, routes along residential streets. • Guy is a huge fan of the City and is willing to be in the room to help in conversations. • There is a way to get everyone what they NEED and not just what the City wants. 19 o “I would hire someone else and pay more just to spite the system of no choice.” Groups We Should Engage With • Hispanic population is not very engaged. o He offered for Spanish writers to come write (not just translate English to Spanish). • 8 am every Weds – Optimist Club (low 30s to 80 in age). • Rec Center pop-up booth (families, business, young professionals). Key Takeaways • Don’t take away the freedom of choice. • Messaging should be about the benefit to the customer not the city. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Wheat Ridge City Council Date Thursday, October 26, 2023 Subject City of Wheat Ridge City Council Listening Session Attendees Councilmembers Mary (sustainability coordinator for City) Bud Starker (Mayor) Scott Om (Councilman) Judy Hutchinson (Councilwoman) HDR Katie Angell Doug DeCesare Aslyn Kuciemba Open Discussion • Scott – Current system creates road and sidewalk damage. o City is having study sessions on sidewalk repair. o Note to include message that trucks are damaging sidewalks and stormwater drainage/gutters. o Republic services has EV trash transportation, which reduces emissions and provides community benefit. o Mentioned article by Guy’s daughter back in 2010 in support of open hauler program, might be influencing current opinions on topic. o Appeal of the “other” combination. o Ex. Minnesota - City has private fleet of trash, cost is passed on through property taxes. 20 o Recycling – People want recycling and are willing to drive to get rid of it (big wish list item). o Want people to understand there are MANY options, not just X or Y stick approach.  Consider what is cheapest, then consider quality and services offered.  Emissions will likely have a lower response in demand considerations but is a plus. • Doug – Cost is always a huge factor, but in experience with other communities, individuals also consider what day of the week trash is collected on. o City of Loveland provides residential collection but offers owners to opt-out (no penalty, maybe tax reimbursement?). o Recent CO law forces packaging producers to create plans to improve recycling systems, which may have an effect on timeliness of community investments regarding recycling infrastructure. • Katie – Need for recycling frequency and interest in compost collection (Golden’s pay-by-weight hauling system was praised). o Noted switch to more recycling/composting as opposed to landfill trash. o Possibility for system to function by zones that designate which particular haulers collect where. • Bud – Questions to consider addressing: o Will we address waste before it becomes waste? o Will we analyze how packages are sold?  Can we decrease waste at the provider-level? o Are we surveying other cities within the county?  Arvada recently underwent looking at changing their waste hauling procedures.  Lakewood recycling – lots of people take theirs here because it is a good system. o Standardization of containers – will this be a factor? o Where will collection be collected? (Sidewalk vs. Alley) o Will haulers take yard waste? o Is there a volume limit to what haulers will take? (pay extra, pickup next time, etc) o What flexibility exists within hauler terms that we could enforce? (Ex. EV trucks only) o Cost containment – how extensive can it be and how long is the contract? • Mary – Reminder of project overview: o Presenting transparent detailed information to the public so that we can gather enough feedback to identify a clear direction that we can then conduct in-depth research on the potential systems available and accessible for the community. 21 o Project is assessing residential only hauling – seven or less units, townhomes, single- family homes. • Bud – Interested in downstream recycling (there is public knowledge void of what happens after trash/recycling is collected in our community) to get better hold on how to improve systems for end user. • Judy – Wants to know where is stuff coming from that needs to be recycled – what are we doing with plastics? Product packaging used to be less complex and contributed to best waste management practices. o People used to recycle simple materials, now we have to pay fees to recycle particular difficult items. o Plastics are far more common, adding to an issue of littering and poor waste management. o Single-stream recycling was more efficient to collect and capture more material but overtime, the variety of plastics in use today created far more contamination within this stream.  Education is a huge component of recycling systems efficiency. o Pressure needs to go back on companies producing this waste, not on consumer responsibility. o Interested in demographics of Wheat Ridge – senior residents are largest population here, so we need to reach them where they are. o Consideration for individual lot size as well. o Arvada monopoly hauler – only every 2 wks, trash accumulation from items that fall out of containers and doesn’t get picked up unless bagged.  People are paying for it in taxes.  Against removing the idea of choice – some people really like their haulers.  Wants it left up for everybody – sees this as control, not democratic to control how trash is collected on behalf of the residents in addition to public services already controlled by City/county. o Size of lots – too large to be restricted to one bin or limited frequency of pickups. o Wants this to go to voters and get manufacturers to do what they responsibly should. o Enough control is already going on, wants people to have a voice on it. o Composting – City currently offers services through Scraps Mile High ($15/monthly subscription).  Judy noted that personal compost could attract animals/bugs. 22 Education • Tell them how many cans they get. • Provide concrete examples of surrounding city systems. • Assess a financial analysis (economies of scale). • Ask haulers how they look at the market. • Ask community: o What is the frequency of recycling? o How much are people taking out? o What is overflowing or needs more/less frequency? o Seasonal influx? • Consider diversity of options within a hybrid system to address various needs of community and resident cost considerations. • Consider variety of options and assess frequency of which products going out to determine how to formulate the hybrid system – not a one all-be, all-solution approach. • Nextdoor neighbor app, newspaper (can be recycled at Arc for reuse), yard signage. • Action Item – Kate Angell to look into Arvada’s recent hauling system survey. Key Takeaways • Educate about infrastructure damages from trucks. • There is appeal for an ‘other’ or hybrid solution. • Interested in alternative billing methods, like pay-by-weight. Appendix C Public Engagement Plan Wheat Ridge Resident Waste Engagement November 2023 DRAFT i Contents Initiative Overview .................................................................................... 3 History ........................................................................................................................................................ 3 Solid Waste and Recycling Goals .............................................................................................................. 3 Public Engagement Overview.................................................................. 4 Engagement Goals ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Target Audiences ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Review Process .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Timeline ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Public & Stakeholder Involvement Tools ................................................ 6 Community Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 6 Key Stakeholder Interviews ........................................................................................................................ 6 Hauler Focus Groups ................................................................................................................................. 6 SWR and City Council Briefing Memos ..................................................................................................... 7 Community Liaisons ................................................................................................................................... 7 Digital Surveys ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Online Public Meeting and In-person Open House ................................................................................... 7 Pop-up Events ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Event List ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Communication Outlets ........................................................................... 8 Social Media Posts and Advertisements .................................................................................................... 8 Press Releases .......................................................................................................................................... 8 Print Advertisements .................................................................................................................................. 9 Flyers and Yard Signs ................................................................................................................................ 9 Video .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Website ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 ii Comment & Content Management .......................................................... 9 Key Messages ........................................................................................ 10 Tag Lines .................................................................................................................................................. 10 Elevator Speech ....................................................................................................................................... 10 About the Project ...................................................................................................................................... 10 How to Get and Stay Involved .................................................................................................................. 11 Project Goals ............................................................................................................................................ 11 What We’ve Heard ................................................................................................................................... 11 3 Initiative Overview The City of Wheat Ridge currently has an existing open market with licensing for haulers. In April 2022, the City Council provided direction for Wheat Ridge 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 waste management options within the City before pursuing any one option in greater detail. This includes potential waste management strategies such as enhanced licensing requirements, city-contracted hauling, a preferred-hauler system, and municipal hauling. History In 2010, the Wheat Ridge City Council considered an organized waste system, and a question was put on the ballot that fall. The measure was defeated with 64.91% of voters in opposition. The topic of waste management did not appear again on the Wheat Ridge resident survey until 2018, when residents were asked “How important to you, if at all, is it that the City focus on each of the following areas of environmental sustainability, which may or may not increase costs for taxpayers?” A total of 53% of respondents believed “Diverting trash from the landfill” was “essential” or “very important” and 38% of respondents believed “Starting a compost program” was “essential” or “very important”. In 2021, the Wheat Ridge resident survey included specific mention of organized waste for the first time since 2008. At this time, 55% of respondents believed “Implementing organized trash hauling in neighborhoods” was “essential” or “very important” and 62% of respondents believed “Expanding access to residential recycling and composting services” was “essential” or “very important”. In addition to the resident survey, the City started the Let’s Talk Resident Engagement Program in late 2020, which focused on developing a thorough understanding of issues and opportunities at the neighborhood level. Six out of 10 Wheat Ridge neighborhoods have been included, with mentions of trash and recycling services from residents in each neighborhood. Solid Waste and Recycling Goals The Sustainable Wheat Ridge Resident Advisory Committee developed the Wheat Ridge Environmental Sustainability Action Plan with Solid Waste and Recycling as one of six key focus areas with two goals: • Improve waste management behavior by residents, businesses, and institutions. • Reduce negative impacts of waste management on City infrastructure and local environment. 4 Public Engagement Overview Engagement Goals • Educate residents regarding: o The impacts of the current waste management system in Wheat Ridge. o Surrounding communities’ waste management approaches. o Potential options for Wheat Ridge and how they would address the current issues. • Gather and analyze feedback, opinions, and ideas from residents regarding waste management options. • Provide accessible opportunities to engage with the initiative through virtual and in-person strategies. • Partner with elected officials and key stakeholders to promote project milestones. • Transform complex technical data into easy-to-understand communication materials. • Empower the City Council to feel confident to provide further discussion on waste management decisions and approaches. Target Audiences • Wheat Ridge residents • Haulers • Elected Officials • Neighborhood Organizations • Resident Advisory Committee • HOAs (townhomes and complexes of 8 units or less) • Disadvantaged communities • Spanish speakers • Senior citizens Review Process HDR (add materials to Teams) City (review on Teams) HDR (add new, final document to Teams) 5 Timeline Milestone Timeline Engagement Promotion Phase 1 Research and public engagement plan development September 2023 Stakeholder interviews Community analytics report N/A Phase 2 Hauler engagement October 2023 Hauler focus groups N/A SWR and elected official engagement touchpoint #1 November 16, 2023 6-8 p.m. Briefing memo #1 SWR meeting #1 Materials on how to promote upcoming engagement opportunities Public education and feedback December 2023 Digital survey #1 Self-guided online meeting In-person open house (December 13) Pop-up event #1 (The Holiday Celebration, December 2) All communication outlets Phase 3 Input analysis January – February 2024 Summary of findings Website Further public feedback March – April 2024 Digital survey #2 Pop-up event #2 Hauler focus group (optional) Social media Press release Website SWR and elected official engagement touchpoint #2 May 2024 Briefing memo #2 SWR meeting #2 – april Council - May N/A Phase 4 SWR and elected official engagement touchpoint #3 June 2024 Briefing memo #3 SWR meeting #3 N/A Final report and recommendations July 2024 Website update Pop-up event #3 Hauler focus group (optional) Video Social media Press release Advertisements Website Video 6 Public & Stakeholder Involvement Tools HDR will plan and implement public engagement activities to educate the public, gather input and feedback, and inform the public about the final recommendations. The following tools will be used to engage the public and stakeholders throughout the initiative. A feedback summary will be included for each input-gathering tool, including interviews, surveys, meetings, and events. Community Analysis Informed using publicly available market research data, the community analysis provides an overview of the demographics of Wheat Ridge residents. HDR used this information to help understand community socio-demographics, perceptions, and beliefs to inform the initiative. Key demographic, socioeconomic traits, employment, and perceptions across Wheat Ridge are outlined below. The Jefferson County, State of Colorado, and national statistics were used as a statistical benchmark for comparing reported values across the City. Metrics that indicate potentially vulnerable or disadvantaged populations are included in the analysis and incorporated throughout this public engagement plan. Key Stakeholder Interviews HDR will conduct up to six interviews with stakeholders identified by Wheat Ridge to identify key issues of interest, messaging and communication preferences, and other stakeholders. • HDR: Create interview questions and conduct the interviews. • City: Provide stakeholder list and approve interview questions. Hauler Focus Groups HDR will conduct four focus group meetings with the haulers who service Wheat Ridge in Phase 1 and up to one meeting per phase thereafter (or an e-mail briefing) to provide specialized input and information to this unique stakeholder. • HDR: Schedule meetings, create materials, and present. • City: Approve materials and attend meetings. 7 SWR and City Council Briefing Memos HDR will produce briefing memos for distribution to the Wheat Ridge City Council, leadership teams, and Sustainable Wheat Ridge (SWR). These memos will be repurposed for public consumption by way of project website updates. In addition, up to three meetings with the SWR will be conducted. • HDR: Create briefing memos and meeting materials, including agenda and meeting minutes. • City: Approve and distribute information. Community Liaisons Community liaisons will be identified through the stakeholder interviews and online research to help spread the word about the project, specifically in underserved and Hispanic communities throughout the City. • HDR: Identify liaisons and provide promotional materials. • City: Help identify liaisons. Digital Surveys Two brief public digital surveys will be created to gauge the community’s understanding and thoughts about waste management. Survey #1: Gather input on waste management options and ideas. Included in the first online public meeting, open house, and pop-up event. Survey #2: Gather input on top waste management options that are likely to move forward. • HDR: Create the survey, promotional materials, and summary of responses. • City: Approve content and promote survey. Online Public Meeting and In-person Open House A self-guided and on-demand online meeting will be created to allow members of the public to participate from the comfort of their own computers. This meeting will occur at the initial public engagement touchpoint in Phase 2 to educate the public about the initiative, gather their input, and address questions and concerns. The same information will be presented at an in-person open house to provide accessible input opportunities. • HDR: Create the online meeting, open house boards and materials, and input summary. Provide Spanish speaker at in-person open house. • City: Approve content and promote the online meeting and open house. 8 Pop-up Events Three in-person meetings in the form of a pop-up event will be held at high-traffic locations around the City, such as a local business, library, community center, or brewery. These can also be held during existing community events in the form of a booth or table. Event locations will include multicultural and disadvantaged communities. The public will get to know the project staff and have a chance to learn more about the initiative and provide input. Additional events can be attended by City and SWR staff, with HDR providing materials. • HDR: Coordinate logistics, create materials and summary, and attend events. • City: Support logistics, approve content, and attend events. Event List Event Date/Time Location Staffing The Holiday Celebration Saturday, Dec. 2 3-6:30pm The Green on 38th Ave. Kira Olson Mary Hester TBD Spring 2024 TBD Summer 2024 Communication Outlets The following communication outlets and materials will be used to educate the public about the initiative and promote opportunities for public involvement. Printed materials will include brief information in Spanish. HDR will create the content and materials, and the City will print and distribute unless noted otherwise below. Social Media Posts and Advertisements Funds will be used to boost social media posts and post advertisements. • HDR: Create the content and graphics, and post advertisements. • City: Distribute posts and provide HDR access to advertise. Press Releases These will be in the form of a traditional press release, as well as a thought leadership question and answers piece with a City staff member. 9 • HDR: Create the content and media strategy. • City: Distribute to local publications. Print Advertisements Publications will include Connections and the Gazette. • HDR: Create advertisements, secure and pay for placement. • City: Approve advertisement. Flyers and Yard Signs Flyers will be distributed to local community centers and businesses. Yard signs will be posted in parks and neighborhood entrances. • HDR: Create graphics, print, and distribute. • City: Approve graphics and help distribute. Video A YouTube video will be created with footage of waste haulers and a City staff member. The video will be created to promote the findings at the end of the project. • HDR: Write video scripts. • City: Film/edit video, upload, and distribute. Website A project webpage will be created and hosted on the City of Wheat Ridge website. It will provide general information, opportunities for engagement, and educational materials. All documents will be 580 compliant. • HDR: Create the content, provide updates/materials, and manage distribution list submissions. • City: Develop the webpage and conduct edits/updates. Comment & Content Management The stakeholder and public contacts and comments that come through all avenues used for public and stakeholder engagement will be logged and classified into an Excel spreadsheet managed by HDR throughout the project. At the end of the public engagement process, HDR will provide a final report outlining the technical and outreach efforts to include recommendations on next steps. 10 Key Messages Tag Lines • Let’s Talk Trash: Wheat Ridge’s Residential Waste Engagement • Let’s Hash Out Our Trash: Residential Waste Engagement • It’s Time to Face Our Waste: Residential Waste Engagement Elevator Speech • The City of Wheat Ridge is conducting a Residential Waste Engagement project that aims to understand residents’ opinions on our 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 and what kind of changes would you like to see? About the Project • This project aims to understand the public’s opinions about the current residential waste management system in Wheat Ridge and potential future changes to this system. • 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. • There are several other waste management methods that could be used, like a single-hauler contract, pay-as-you-throw system, districted waste hauling, enhanced licensing requirements, or an opt-in preferred hauler system. • To date, 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. • This project kicked off in June 2023 and is anticipated to last 18 months, during which information will be provided regarding the current system, potential alternatives, and the advantages and disadvantages of each. • The project team will lead a public engagement process with ample opportunities for input, seeking to reach residents throughout the City. The feedback received throughout this project will play an important role in shaping future decisions regarding residential waste management in Wheat Ridge. 11 How to Get and Stay Involved • The public engagement component of this project will begin later in 2023. • The project team is currently working to create a public engagement plan, and there will be several opportunities for residents to provide feedback, including an in-person open house, virtual open house, digital survey, and pop-up events. • In the meantime, subscribe to What’s Up Wheat Ridge at whatsupwheatridge.com/residential- waste to receive email announcements regarding upcoming engagement opportunities. You can do this by locating the megaphone “stay informed” icon at the top right of this page or middle of the page on mobile. Project Goals • Maximize Resident Engagement: Reach a broad spectrum of Wheat Ridge residents, encouraging active participation from all corners of the community. • Inclusivity and Accessibility: Ensure that all residents have the opportunity to provide input and share their perspectives. • Neutral: Remain impartial while offering clear and unbiased information to foster well-informed feedback from the residential community. • Informative: Information, feedback, and analysis resulting from this project will be presented to the City Council with the goal of informing future decision making. What We’ve Heard • In 2020, the City of Wheat Ridge collected community feedback through the Let’s Talk Resident Engagement Program which was designed to learn more about what is important to residents in each neighborhood. • The Let’s Talk Resident Engagement Program breaks the City down into 10 neighborhoods. Each neighborhood had a “blitz” of engagement opportunities. • Residents provided input on improvements they would like to see and current and future concerns in their neighborhood. • Residents voiced several concerns and recommendations for improvements about waste management, including: o Large number of garbage trucks traveling through neighborhoods daily. o Several collection services causing unnecessary noise pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, wear-and-tear on roads, and unsafe traffic in neighborhoods. 12 o Wanting a unified and more organized trash collection service and that the City should invest in a single source provider or city-regulated waste management system like other cities. Appendix D Residential Waste Engagement May 2024 Summary Phase Two Content Executive Summary 3 Who We Heard From . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Overview of What We Heard . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Current System Feedback 7 Current Waste Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Current Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Cost of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Hauling Systems Feedback 12 Survey Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Summary of Results on Potential Hauling Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Open Market 16 Enhanced Licensing 20 Municipal Hauling 24 Opt-In Preferred Hauling 28 Contracted Hauling 30 Alternative Fee Structures Feedback 34 Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Flat Rate 36 Pay-As-You-Throw 36 Additional Open-Ended Comment Topics 39 Costs/Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 Freedom of Choice/Dislike of Government Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Community Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Recycling and Composting . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Future Service Feedback 42 Closing and Next Steps 43 Summary Phase Two | 3 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 Surveys Comments Received 4 | Summary Phase Two 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 included: • Open Market (current system) • Contracted hauling • Municipal hauling • Opt-in preferred hauler system • Enhanced licensing requirements • Alternative fee structures: −Pay-As-You-Throw system −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 . The results of this engagement effort were mixed, with residents both in support of and in opposition to changing the city’s waste system Summary Phase Two | 5 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 . 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 . FIGURE 1: MAP OF RESIDENTS SURVEYED Who We Heard From 633 7 51 people accessed the online meeting from Dec . 6, 2023 to Jan . 28, 2024 . people connected with the team at the Holiday Celebration on Dec . 2, 2023 . people attended the open house on Dec . 13, 2023 . N 6 | Summary Phase Two 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 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 . Summary Phase Two | 7 Current Waste Providers 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 . 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 FIGURE 3: REASON FOR SWITCHING HAULERS FIGURE 4: PREVIOUS HAULERS (CUSTOMER SWITCHED) Waste Management National Service Inc . Crush Disposal Container Size BFI Pac Man Crush Other Pro Disposal Waste Connection Republic Waste Management Other Bought/Went Out of Business Quality of Service 27% 4% 5% 13% 28% 24% 7% 3% 3% 3% 5% 6% 14%20% 40% 13% 31% 49% Republic Services Summit Waste & Recycling Other Entries Waste Connections of Colorado Inc . 8 | Summary Phase Two 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 FIGURE 7: WHAT RESIDENTS DO NOT LIKE ABOUT THEIR CURRENT WASTE HAULER Yes Cost Customer Service Lack of Large Item Pick-up Options Customer Service Other Entries Inconvenient and Unreliable Services Recycling Options Pick-up Day Lack of Compost Options Cost Other Entries Convenient and Reliable Services No Indifferent 44% 17% 16% 17% 9% 17% 5% 15%12% 27% 25% 14% 26% 41% 15% Summary Phase Two | 9 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. 10 | Summary Phase Two 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? FIGURE 10: DO RESIDENTS PAY MORE FOR RECYCLING/COMPOSTING? $21−$30 $31−$40 Yes − Recycling Yes − Recycling and Composting No $11−$20 $40−$50 39% 24% 68%Pay More 85%5% 27% Included in Cost 15% 11% 15% $0−$10 $60+ 1% 10% Summary Phase Two | 11 FIGURE 11: IS A CONTRACT REQUIRED? FIGURE 12: LENGTH OF CURRENT CONTRACT No Month to Month Yes One Year Other 77% 43% 23% 26% 30% 12 | Summary Phase Two 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 . 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 . Survey Methodology Summary Phase Two | 13 This is the current system 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 . 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 . 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 . 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 . The city would purchase trucks and carts and provide waste collection services to residents . Open Market Contracted Hauling Opt-in Preferred Hauler Enhanced Licensing Municipal Hauling The five waste hauling systems presented to the community included: 14 | Summary Phase Two 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 Op e n Ma r k e t En h a n c e d Li c e n s i n g 659 681 873 1333 1374 Mu n i c i p a l Ha u l i n g Op t - i n Pr e f f e r e d Ha u l e r Co n t r a c t e d Ha u l i n g 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 . 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 . Summary Phase Two | 15 0 500 1000 1500 825 1246 1604 1862 1950 2125 2149 2224 2431 2451 2741 2000 2500 3000 Co s t Co n v e n i e n t a n d Re l i a b l e S e r v i c e s Re c y c l i n g Op t i o n s Cu s t o m e r Se r v i c e Ab i l i t y t o P i c k a Ha u l e r o f M y C h o i c e Le s s T r a s h T r u c k s i n th e N e i g h b o r h o o d Pi c k - u p D a y Co m p o s t O p t i o n s La r g e I t e m Pi c k - u p O p t i o n s En v i r o n m e n t a l Im p a c t s Co l l e c t i o n Fr e q u e n c y 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 . 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 16 | Summary Phase Two Open Market Open Market is the current system and slightly outranked Enhanced Licensing as the number one preference in the survey 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 . 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 . We already voted on this, and this is what the people wanted. 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. Summary Phase Two | 17 “This method works well 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.” 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, 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: 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.” “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 of these trucks, and the damage they do to our street. There has got to be a better way.” 18 | Summary Phase Two 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 . 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 . FIGURE 15: OPEN-ENDED OPEN MARKET HAULING COMMENT CATEGORIES 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Community Impacts 37 32 22 15 9 4 3 3 2 1 1 1 Cost/Taxes Keep Current System In Favor Questions Quality of Service Opposed Recycle/Compost Small Business Large/Yard Waste Pick Up Code Liscensing Freedom of Choice/Dislikeof Government Control Summary Phase Two | 19 20 | Summary Phase Two 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 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 . “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.” Many of the opposition-focused comments were about concern with the overall process of implementing Enhanced Licensing, and what is perceived as government control should this option be used in the city . One commenter stated, 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. Summary Phase Two | 21 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) 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?” “I personally do not think this is the right solution for a community-based need. The competition of the past 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.” For those who provided comments in support of Enhanced Licensing, a common theme was that this should be the bare minimum . One respondent stated, Some residents felt that this solution would not address some of the environmental concerns pertaining to an Open Market system . One respondent stated, 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. 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). 22 | Summary Phase Two 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 16: OPEN-ENDED ENHANCED LICENSING COMMENT CATEGORIES 0 3 6 9 12 15 Opposed Cost/Taxes Community Impacts Freedom of Choice/Dislike of Government Control In Favor Recycle/Compost Concerns AboutSystem Management Keep Current System Questions Eliminates Competition Code/Liscensing Small Business Pay-As-You-Throw 15 12 10 9 2 6 6 4 3 2 2 1 1 24 | Summary Phase Two 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, Others thought it was impractical for a city the size of Wheat Ridge: Waste collection should be performed by companies that specialize in that service, not the city. While I loved this method while living in Denver, it doesn’t seem practical for a smaller municipality. Summary Phase Two | 25 “Purchasing trucks and finding employees to run such an operation makes this option unfeasible.” 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 . Twenty (20) comments indicated that the cost of Municipal Hauling would have a negative impact, with one commenter stating, The next highest comment category involved concern over how the city would implement, manage, and enforce this system . Another person said, 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.” “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. (I) 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. 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. 26 | Summary Phase Two 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 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 . I lived in Denver for many years and thought that the city’s program was fantastic. This would be my preferred option. FIGURE 17: OPEN-ENDED MUNICIPAL HAULING COMMENT CATEGORIES 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Freedom of Choice/Dislike of Government Control Community Impacts Code Licensing In Favor Opposed Keep Current System Cost/Taxes Recycle/Compost Questions Concerns About System Management Container Size Small Business Quality of Service Pay-As-You-Throw Large/Yard Waste Pick Up 39 18 11 11 8 5 5 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 Summary Phase Two | 27 28 | Summary Phase Two Opt-In Preferred Hauling Opt-in Preferred Hauling was the second-to-last preferred 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 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. 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. Other commenters expressed concern over government control . One commenter said, Summary Phase Two | 29 Generally, the freedom of choice and dislike for government control was the critical reason for this option ranking lowest based on the open ended comment analysis . Further analysis into the option’s cost to the city and residents would be needed . 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 (3) indicating that the city should not be involved . One respondent stated that it is, “neighborhoods who choose to 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.” FIGURE 18: OPEN-ENDED OPT-IN PREFERRED HAULING COMMENT CATEGORIES 0 3 6 9 15 14 9 8 8 6 6 5 4 4 3 1 1 1 1 12 15 Freedom of Choice/Dislike of Government Control Community Impacts In Favor Quality of Service Opposed Keep Current System Cost/Taxes Recycle/Compost Questions Concerns over System Management Incentivizing Small Business Opt Out Large/Yard Waste Pick Up Code/Licensing 30 | Summary Phase Two 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, Common themes for those opposed include the lack of choice or ability to switch haulers for better service or price . This is my top preference – seems like it would be the most efficient both cost and emissions-wise. 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!” Summary Phase Two | 31 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 . 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 (5) comments indicated it would help reduce pollution . Four (4) 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.” 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? 32 | Summary Phase Two Overall, this option received the most concern related to cost, but community impacts benefits were top of mind for respondents, recognizing that pollution and traffic reduction would be beneficial outcomes of this option . FIGURE 19: OPEN-ENDED CONTRACTED HAULING COMMENT CATEGORIES 0 5 10 15 20 Freedom of Choice/Dislike of Government Control Community Impacts Eliminates Competition Districting In Favor Opposed Keep Current System Cost/Taxes Recycle/Compost Questions Concerns About System Management Concerns About Opt Out System Container Size Small Business Quality of Service Code/Licensing Large/Yard Waste Pick Up 39 16 16 15 13 13 13 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 Summary Phase Two | 33 34 | Summary Phase Two 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: Residents pay a fixed amount for waste disposal services regardless of the volume of material placed at the curb . Collection and costs are based on the size of container and how much material you place at the curb . Typically, recycling and/or composting is financially incentivized . Of the two fee structures presented, flat rate waste disposal was preferred by two-thirds of respondents, as displayed in FIGURE 18 . Flat Rate Pay-As-You-Throw Summary of Results FIGURE 18: PREFERRED FEE STRUCTURES Pay-As-You-Throw 35% Flat Rate Waste Disposal 65% Summary Phase Two | 35 FIGURE 20: OPEN-ENDED FEE STRUCTURE COMMENT CATEGORIES Along with the survey, feedback at the in-person open house indicated overwhelming support for transparency in price structure . Within the survey, a total of 95 open-ended comments were received regarding fee structure . 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, a flat rate fee structure is preferred; however, further analysis is necessary to evaluate potential fee structures to determine which is most appropriate for residents of Wheat Ridge . 0 5 10 15 20 Freedom of Choice/Dislike of Government Control Community Impacts In Favor Quality of Service Opposed Keep Current System Cost/Taxes Recycle/Compost Questions Concerns over System Management Container Size Illegal Dumping Pay-As-You-Throw Large/Yard Waste Pick Up Flat Rate 18 10 9 8 7 7 6 5 4 4 3 2 1 1 1 36 | Summary Phase Two Flat Rate Pay-As-You-Throw 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, 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 fee structures 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 as 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!!” 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. Summary Phase Two | 37 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 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.” 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 . Another commenter stated, One respondent said that pay-as-you-throw, “Can be costly for low-income households should be all that is needed to not go this direction.” Another stated that it, “Penalizes larger families, lower-income families, or families with special needs that may generate more waste.” 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. 38 | Summary Phase Two Recycle and compost services 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 21 outlines the total comments related to Pay-As-You-Throw . Residential 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 21: OPEN-ENDED PAY-AS-YOU-THROW COMMENTS 0 5 10 15 20 Freedom of Choice/Dislike of Government Control Community Impacts In Favor Opposed Keep Current System Cost/Taxes Recycle/Compost Questions Concerns over System Management Container Size Illegal Dumping Communication 20 16 13 8 6 6 5 3 3 1 1 1 Summary Phase Two | 39 0 30 60 90 120 150 Freedom of Choice/Dislike of Government Control Community Impacts Elimination of Competition Incentivizing In Favor of Change Against Change Keep Current System Cost/Taxes Recycle/Compost Ask Questions Concerns About System Management Concerns About Opt Out System Container Size Small Business Concern about Quality of Service Large/Yard Waste Pick Up 144 114 89 80 72 66 64 36 29 26 24 20 19 17 16 11 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 understand sentiments on the overall topic of waste management and appropriate next steps . The open-ended comments were categorized by topic, captured in FIGURE 22 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’ . FIGURE 22: SUMMARY OF ALL OPEN-ENDED COMMENT CATEGORIES 40 | Summary Phase Two 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: 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 received to monopolies and corruption . Out of 895 comments, major input included: Costs/Taxes Freedom of Choice/Dislike of Government Control Concern about residents paying more within certain hauling systems . Including concern for seniors, low- income, and single- income households . Wanting freedom of choice and being in control of their own services . Concern over an increased cost to the city . 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 . Belief that cost to residents may be beneficial depending on the hauling system . Not wanting government control, generally . Summary Phase Two | 41 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: 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: Community Impacts Recycling and Composting Concern for the number of trucks and traffic, including noise from trucks and wear and tear on the streets . 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 . Preference for enhanced recycling or composting options . The need to incentivize recycling or composting . Desire to protect the environment and prevent climate change, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions . The need for more frequent recycling pick-ups . Interest in a recycling drop-off facility . 42 | Summary Phase Two Future Service Feedback Overall, the City received mixed feedback regarding whether or not it 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 . 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 . Summary Phase Two | 43 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: 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 . 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 . facebook com/CityofWheatRidgeGovernment instagram com/cityofwheatridge x com/citywheatridge youtube com/user/wheatridgetv8 nextdoor com/agency-detail/co/wheat-ridge/city-of-wheat-ridge/ whatsupwheatridge com/residential-waste Appendix E 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 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 Residential Waste 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. If the City decides to make a change, make sure to consider small business owners. 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 Lakewood Cons For Resident • Neighbors may choose to not have services leading to potential illegal dumping. • More trucks on neighborhood roads. • 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 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. 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 hauler 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. Additional public engagement will occur in the Spring and Summer of 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 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. We want to hear more about your thoughts on waste management in your neighborhood. The feedback received throughout this project will play an important role in shaping future decisions regarding residential waste management in Wheat Ridge. Tell Us About Your Current Service What cross streets do you live near? Would you like to stay informed about project updates and future opportunities to engage in this project? NoYes (Please provide email) How much do you pay for service per month? (If you pay quarterly, divide the price by three) $0 - $10 $11 - $20 $21 - $30 $31 - $40 $41 - $50 $60+ Yes (Please specify which hauler and why you switched) Have you used other haulers in the past? No What hauler do you currently use? Alpine Waste & Recycling Altitude Waste Solutions BFI of Colorado Inc. Go Green Recycling Republic Services Scraps Mile High Waste Management National Services Inc. Waste Connections of Colo Inc. Other (Please specify) Summit Environmental Group, LLC dba Summit Waste & Recycling Residential Waste Engagement Project Were you required to sign a contract with your hauler? No My contract is month to month My contract is for one year Other Yes Does the service you selected include recycling and composting? No I pay more for it I pay more for it I pay more for it It’s included in the cost It’s included in the cost It’s included in the cost Yes - recycling Yes - composting Yes - recycling and composting If Wheat Ridge were to make changes to its residential waste management system, what criteria do you believe would be most and least important to consider? (1 being most important, 11 being least important) Cost Convenient and reliable services Compost options Pick-up day Customer service Large item pick-up options Ability to pick a hauler of my choice Recycling options Less trash trucks in the neighborhood Collection frequency Environmental impacts Do you believe our current waste management system works well? Please specify Yes No I’m indifferent Do you have additional questions or comments: What do you like about the hauler you currently use? (Select all that apply) Cost Convenient and reliable services Compost options Pick-up day Customer service Large item pick-up options Recycling options Other (Please specify) What do you not like about the hauler you already use? (Select all that apply) Cost Customer service Pick-up day Lack of recycling options Inconvenient and unreliable services Lack of compost options Lack of large item pick-up options Other (Please specify) Please rank the different hauling methods: (1 being most favored, 5 being least favored) Open Market Hauling Contracted Hauling Opt-in Preferred HaulingMunicipal Hauling Enhanced Licensing Out of the two fee structures, which one do you like the most? Flat Rate Waste Disposal Pay-as-you-throw Based on what you just learned, tell us your thoughts about alternative residential waste management methods, fee structures, and what criteria is most important to you: What do you like about how your trash is collected now? What don’t you like, and what kind of changes would you like to see? Residential Waste Engagement Project We want to hear from you! whatsupwheatridge.com/ residential-waste Join the conversation! Residential Waste Engagement Project Join the Conversation Scan QR Code to learn more, sign up for updates and provided feedback: whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste What do you like about how your trash is collected now? What don’t you like, and what kind of changes would you like to see? We want to hear from you! 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 look at potential changes. Learn more about waste management methods and provide feedback on the project in one of two ways, at the open house or the self-guided online meeting. Online Meeting A self-guided online meeting can be accessed anytime between now and Jan. 26 Open House Date: Dec. 13, 2023 Time: Anytime between 4:30-6:30 p.m. Where: Wheat Ridge Recreation Center 4005 Kipling St. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 City of Wheat Ridge | Wheat Ridge Residential Waste Engagement Project PHASE 2 PROMOTIONAL CONTENT Press release Wheat Ridge to distribute December 7 Public Input Opportunity for Wheat Ridge’s Residential Waste Engagement Project Self-guided online meeting and open house available to learn more and provide feedback. Wheat Ridge, Colo. – Dec. 7, 2023 – 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 examine potential future changes to this system. Community members can learn more about residential waste management methods and provide feedback on the project in one of two ways, outlined below. Online Meeting: A self-guided online meeting can be accessed anytime between now and Jan. 26 at whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste. Open House: Date: Dec. 13, 2023 Time: Anytime between 4:30-6:30 p.m. Location: Wheat Ridge Recreation Center 4005 Kipling St. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 “The feedback received throughout this project will play an invaluable role in shaping the future of trash hauling in Wheat Ridge,” said Mary Hester, City of Wheat Ridge Sustainability Coordinator. “We want to know what you like about how your trash is collected now or what don’t you like. What kind of changes would you like to see? This input received will be incorporated into the project and help guide the direction of our waste management system.” In recent years, residential waste management has become a significant topic of discussion in Wheat Ridge. Currently, the City has an open market system for waste management, which means that residents individually choose and contract with licensed waste haulers operating in the area. Following this feedback period, the project team will analyze the results and will gather additional input from residents in Spring 2024. The final engagement report with proposed recommendations on future waste management systems will be published in Fall 2024. Learn more, sign up for updates and provide feedback at whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste. ### City of Wheat Ridge | Wheat Ridge Residential Waste Engagement Project PHASE 2 PROMOTIONAL CONTENT Eblast Wheat Ridge to distribute December 7 Subject: Tell us what you think about our trash hauling system We’re Evaluating Our Waste Management System What do you like about how your trash is collected now? What don’t you like, and what kind of changes would you like to see? We want to hear from you! 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 examine potential future changes to this system. In recent years, residential waste management has become a significant topic of discussion in Wheat Ridge. Currently, the City has an open market system for waste management, which means that residents individually choose and contract with licensed waste haulers operating in the area. Learn More and Provide Feedback Online Meeting: A self-guided online meeting can be accessed anytime to learn more about waste management methods and project goals. Visit whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste between now and Jan. 26 to learn more. Open House: Join us in person and speak with the project team. Date: Dec. 13, 2023 Time: Anytime between 4:30-6:30 p.m. Location: Wheat Ridge Recreation Center 4005 Kipling St. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Following this feedback period, the project team will analyze the results and will gather additional input from residents in Spring 2024. The final engagement report with proposed recommendations on future waste management systems will be published in Fall 2024. Learn more, sign up for updates and provide feedback at whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste. Thank you in advance for your participation! [signature] City of Wheat Ridge | Wheat Ridge Residential Waste Engagement Project PHASE 2 PROMOTIONAL CONTENT Flyer Wheat Ridge to include digital flyer in eblast and/or distribute as they see fit. City of Wheat Ridge | Wheat Ridge Residential Waste Engagement Project PHASE 2 PROMOTIONAL CONTENT Yard sign HDR to print 25 copies and mail to Wheat Ridge 7500 W 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Attn Mary Hester Wheat Ridge to distribute. Newspaper advertisement HDR distributed to Wheat Ridge Gazette on November 30 City of Wheat Ridge | Wheat Ridge Residential Waste Engagement Project PHASE 2 PROMOTIONAL CONTENT Four social media posts and graphics Timing Content Graphic Dec. 2 Wheat Ridge is seeking your feedback about the Residential Waste Engagement Project! What do you like about how your trash is collected now? What don’t you like, and what kind of changes would you like to see? 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 look at potential changes. Learn more about waste management methods and provide feedback on the project in one of two ways: Online Meeting: A self-guided online meeting can be accessed anytime between now and Jan. 26 at whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste. Open House: Date: Dec. 13, 2023 Time: Anytime between 4:30-6:30 p.m. Location: Wheat Ridge Recreation Center, 4005 Kipling St., Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Dec. 12 Is it trash or is it treasure? We want to hear from you about Wheat Ridge’s residential trash hauling system to understand if any improvements should be made. Let us know if you like how trash is collected now or if you’d like to see changes at our open house tomorrow night. Date: Dec. 13, 2023 Time: Anytime between 4:30-6:30 p.m. Location: Wheat Ridge Recreation Center, 4005 Kipling St., Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Can’t make it? A self-guided online meeting with the same information can be accessed anytime between now and Jan. 26 at whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste. City of Wheat Ridge | Wheat Ridge Residential Waste Engagement Project PHASE 2 PROMOTIONAL CONTENT Jan. 5 Be a part of Wheat Ridge’s ‘trashformation.’ New years are often about improvements and transformations, and hopefully that’s no different for our trash hauling system. We are conducting a Residential Waste Engagement Project that aims to understand residents’ opinions on the current waste management system and look at potential changes. Your voice matters! Learn more about waste management methods and provide feedback on the project with our self-guided online meeting. Learn more and provide feedback anytime between now and Jan. 26 at whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste. Jan. 22 Is it time for a ‘bintervention?’ Don’t miss your chance to provide feedback on the future of our trash hauling system. Our self-guided online meeting for the Residential Waste Engagement Project closes this week. Learn more and provide feedback anytime between now and Jan. 26 at whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste. Following this feedback period, the project team will analyze the results and will gather additional input from residents in Spring 2024. The final engagement report with proposed recommendations on future waste management systems will be published in Fall 2024. City of Wheat Ridge | Wheat Ridge Residential Waste Engagement Project PHASE 2 PROMOTIONAL CONTENT Appendix F Project Report 13 February 2020 - 19 September 2024 What's Up Wheat Ridge Residential Waste Engagement Highlights TOTAL VISITS 3.2 k MAX VISITORS PER DAY 229 NEW REGISTRATI ONS 4 ENGAGED VISITORS 386 INFORMED VISITORS 653 AWARE VISITORS 2.2 k Aware Participants 2,220 Aware Actions Performed Participants Visited a Project or Tool Page 2,220 Informed Participants 653 Informed Actions Performed Participants Viewed a video 0 Viewed a photo 0 Downloaded a document 192 Visited the Key Dates page 40 Visited an FAQ list Page 0 Visited Instagram Page 0 Visited Multiple Project Pages 206 Contributed to a tool (engaged)386 Engaged Participants 386 Engaged Actions Performed Registered Unverified Anonymous Contributed on Forums 0 0 0 Participated in Surveys 28 0 358 Contributed to Newsfeeds 0 0 0 Participated in Quick Polls 0 0 0 Posted on Guestbooks 0 0 0 Contributed to Stories 0 0 0 Asked Questions 0 0 0 Placed Pins on Places 0 0 0 Contributed to Ideas 0 0 0 Visitors Summary Pageviews Visitors Visits New Registrations 1 Jul '23 1 Jan '24 1 Jul '24 1k 2k Tool Type Engagement Tool Name Tool Status Visitors Registered Unverified Anonymous Contributors Survey Tool Residential Waste Hauling Engagement Phase 3 Survey Draft 534 28 0 358 What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 ENGAGEMENT TOOLS SUMMARY 0 FORUM TOPICS 1 SURVEYS 0 NEWS FEEDS 0 QUICK POLLS 0 GUEST BOOKS 0 STORIES 0 Q&A S 0 PLACES Page 2 of 27 Widget Type Engagement Tool Name Visitors Views/Downloads Document Phase 2 Engagement Summary 163 235 Document Phase 2 Open House Information Boards 43 53 Key Dates deleted key_dates from 40 43 What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 INFORMATION WIDGET SUMMARY 2 DOCUMENTS 0 PHOTOS 0 VIDEOS 0 FAQS 0 KEY DATES Page 3 of 27 Visitors 534 Contributors 386 CONTRIBUTIONS 402 What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 ENGAGEMENT TOOL: SURVEY TOOL Residential Waste Hauling Engagement Phase 3 Survey Results from our first survey show that 56% of residents either do not think the current system works well or are indiffere... Access to curbside recycling collection for all Access to curbside yard waste collection for all Increased city control over service costs Improved customer service and convenience Increased waste diversion for the city More drop-off options for recyclables, yard waste, etc.None Question options 100 200 300 224 215 132 98 84 189 79 Page 4 of 27 Optional question (396 response(s), 6 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 Some cities introduce special collection events before implementing new services to understand the community’s level of int... OPTIONS AVG. RANK Yard waste 2.61 Electronics 3.02 Hazardous waste 3.38 Paint 3.55 Furniture 3.68 Mattresses 4.23 Page 5 of 27 Optional question (372 response(s), 30 skipped) Question type: Ranking Question What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 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? 260 (65.8%) 260 (65.8%) 37 (9.4%) 37 (9.4%) 37 (9.4%) 37 (9.4%) 61 (15.4%) 61 (15.4%) Yes – I would make sure to recycle more No – I wouldn’t care to recycle more I’m not sure I don’t want recycling service Question options Page 6 of 27 Optional question (395 response(s), 7 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 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? 113 (29.5%) 113 (29.5%) 135 (35.2%) 135 (35.2%) 82 (21.4%) 82 (21.4%) 53 (13.8%) 53 (13.8%) Weekly Every other week Depends on the size of the recycling bin/cart I’m not sure Question options Page 7 of 27 Optional question (383 response(s), 19 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 If the city required that haulers provide recycling service included in your trash collection fee at no additional cost, would you participate? 295 (75.4%) 295 (75.4%) 60 (15.3%) 60 (15.3%) 36 (9.2%) 36 (9.2%) Yes No I'm not sure Question options Page 8 of 27 Optional question (391 response(s), 11 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 If there was a centralized recycling drop-off site available, would you use it instead of curbside collection? 50 (12.6%) 50 (12.6%) 115 (29.0%) 115 (29.0%) 173 (43.7%) 173 (43.7%) 58 (14.6%) 58 (14.6%) Yes Only if it's free No I'm not sure Question options Page 9 of 27 Optional question (396 response(s), 6 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 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? 74 (18.8%) 74 (18.8%) 76 (19.3%) 76 (19.3%) 62 (15.8%) 62 (15.8%) 133 (33.8%) 133 (33.8%) 48 (12.2%) 48 (12.2%) Weekly Every other week Monthly Spring and fall only I don't have enough yard waste Question options Page 10 of 27 Optional question (393 response(s), 9 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 If yard waste collection was included in your trash collection fee at no additional cost, would you participate? 304 (77.2%) 304 (77.2%) 43 (10.9%) 43 (10.9%) 47 (11.9%) 47 (11.9%) Yes No I'm not sure Question options Page 11 of 27 Optional question (394 response(s), 8 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 If yard waste collection was offered for an additional fee, would you subscribe to this service? 40 (10.1%) 40 (10.1%) 158 (40.0%) 158 (40.0%) 181 (45.8%) 181 (45.8%) 16 (4.1%) 16 (4.1%) Yes No Depends on the cost of the service I'm not sure Question options Page 12 of 27 Optional question (395 response(s), 7 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 Would you be interested in a permanent drop-off facility for yard waste? 151 (38.1%) 151 (38.1%) 102 (25.8%) 102 (25.8%) 105 (26.5%) 105 (26.5%) 38 (9.6%) 38 (9.6%) Yes No Depends on the cost of service I'm not sure Question options Page 13 of 27 Optional question (396 response(s), 6 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 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? 197 (49.7%) 197 (49.7%) 199 (50.3%) 199 (50.3%) Yes No Question options Page 14 of 27 Optional question (396 response(s), 6 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 If not, why haven't you participated? I didn't know about it I couldn't transport my yard waste to the event I didn’t need to participate (i.e., no yard waste to drop off)Other (please specify) Question options 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 66 84 46 29 Page 15 of 27 Optional question (198 response(s), 204 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 If there was a future yard waste collection service, would you be interested in that to reduce the amount of trash going to the landfill (regardless of cost)? 215 (54.3%) 215 (54.3%) 88 (22.2%) 88 (22.2%) 93 (23.5%) 93 (23.5%) Yes No I'm not sure Question options Page 16 of 27 Optional question (396 response(s), 6 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 If there was a service offering food waste and yard waste collected together in the same bin, would you participate (regardless of cost)? 157 (39.8%) 157 (39.8%) 139 (35.3%) 139 (35.3%) 98 (24.9%) 98 (24.9%) Yes No I'm not sure Question options Page 17 of 27 Optional question (394 response(s), 8 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 If food waste collection was offered as a separate service from trash, but included in your trash collection fee at no additional cost, would you participate? 183 (46.6%) 183 (46.6%) 129 (32.8%) 129 (32.8%) 81 (20.6%) 81 (20.6%) Yes No I'm not sure Question options Page 18 of 27 Optional question (393 response(s), 9 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 If food waste collection was offered for an additional fee, would you subscribe to this service? 49 (12.4%) 49 (12.4%) 203 (51.4%) 203 (51.4%) 111 (28.1%) 111 (28.1%) 32 (8.1%) 32 (8.1%) Yes No Depends on the cost of service I'm not sure Question options Page 19 of 27 Optional question (395 response(s), 7 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 Would you be interested in a permanent drop-off facility for food waste? 48 (12.1%) 48 (12.1%) 247 (62.4%) 247 (62.4%) 55 (13.9%) 55 (13.9%) 46 (11.6%) 46 (11.6%) Yes No Depends on the cost of the service I'm not sure Question options Page 20 of 27 Optional question (396 response(s), 6 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 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? 81 (20.4%) 81 (20.4%) 65 (16.4%) 65 (16.4%) 50 (12.6%) 50 (12.6%) 201 (50.6%) 201 (50.6%) Yes, I’ve participated in the large item pickup program.Yes, I’ve participated in Localworks’ clean up days. Yes, I’ve participated in both.No, I’ve never participated in either. Question options Page 21 of 27 Optional question (397 response(s), 5 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 If not, why haven’t you participated? I didn’t know about them I couldn’t transport my large item to the Clean Up Day The day or time wasn’t convenient for me The large item pickup program was full Other (please specify) Question options 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 92 43 34 29 49 Page 22 of 27 Optional question (199 response(s), 203 skipped) Question type: Checkbox Question What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 Would you be interested in a curbside large item collection program (i.e. bulky items like furniture and mattresses)? 244 (61.5%) 244 (61.5%) 84 (21.2%) 84 (21.2%) 69 (17.4%) 69 (17.4%) Yes No I'm not sure Question options Page 23 of 27 Optional question (397 response(s), 5 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 How often would you need large item collection? 4 (1.0%) 4 (1.0%) 15 (3.8%) 15 (3.8%) 264 (67.3%) 264 (67.3%) 109 (27.8%) 109 (27.8%) Monthly Every eight weeks Once a quarter I don't throw away large items Question options Page 24 of 27 Optional question (392 response(s), 10 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 If curbside large item collection was included in your trash collection fee at no additional cost, would you participate? 251 (63.7%) 251 (63.7%) 64 (16.2%) 64 (16.2%) 79 (20.1%) 79 (20.1%) Yes No I'm not sure Question options Page 25 of 27 Optional question (394 response(s), 8 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 If curbside large item collection was offered for an additional fee, would you subscribe to this service? 63 (15.9%) 63 (15.9%) 195 (49.4%) 195 (49.4%) 137 (34.7%) 137 (34.7%) Yes No I'm not sure Question options Page 26 of 27 Optional question (395 response(s), 7 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question What's Up Wheat Ridge : Summary Report for 13 February 2020 to 19 September 2024 If the city offered a free large item drop-off site (permanent or temporary), would you use it? 227 (57.0%) 227 (57.0%) 58 (14.6%) 58 (14.6%) 113 (28.4%) 113 (28.4%) Yes No I'm not sure Question options Page 27 of 27 Optional question (398 response(s), 4 skipped) Question type: Radio Button Question 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 to review the public open house display boards from the winter event and click here to review the summary of feedback from our first round of engagement. 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. It is important to remember that this project does not guarantee any changes to the current system or that special services or programs will be enacted. The City wants feedback for City Council to feel empowered to explore next steps in new services, programs, technical feasibility studies/projects, and potentially other recommendations regarding waste management, recycling and solid waste diversion. Results from our first survey 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? (Choose all that apply) Access to curbside recycling collection for all Access to curbside yard waste collection for all Increased city control over service costs Improved customer service and convenience Increased waste diversion for the city More drop-off options for recyclables, yard waste, etc. None Some cities introduce special collection events before implementing new services to understand the community’s level of interest. Please rank the following recycling events in order of interest or need in your household (1 - of most interest and 6 - of least interest): (Rank each option) Electronics Mattresses Furniture Yard waste Paint Hazardous waste Residential Waste Hauling Engagement Phase 3 Survey Residential Waste Engagement What's Up Wheat Ridge Page 1 of 7 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. 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? (Choose any one option) Yes – I would make sure to recycle more No – I wouldn’t care to recycle more I’m not sure I don’t want recycling service 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? (Choose any one option) Weekly Every other week Depends on the size of the recycling bin/cart I’m not sure If the city required that haulers provide recycling service included in your trash collection fee at no additional cost, would you participate? (Choose any one option) Yes No I'm not sure If there was a centralized recycling drop-off site available, would you use it instead of curbside collection? (Choose any one option) Yes Only if it's free No I'm not sure Residential Waste Engagement What's Up Wheat Ridge Page 2 of 7 Yard 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. 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? (Choose any one option) Weekly Every other week Monthly Spring and fall only I don't have enough yard waste If yard waste collection was included in your trash collection fee at no additional cost, would you participate? (Choose any one option) Yes No I'm not sure If yard waste collection was offered for an additional fee, would you subscribe to this service? (Choose any one option) Yes No Depends on the cost of the service I'm not sure Would you be interested in a permanent drop-off facility for yard waste? (Choose any one option) Yes No Depends on the cost of service I'm not sure 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? (Choose any one option) Yes No Residential Waste Engagement What's Up Wheat Ridge Page 3 of 7 If not, why haven't you participated? (Choose all that apply) I didn't know about it I couldn't transport my yard waste to the event I didn’t need to participate (i.e., no yard waste to drop off) Other (please specify) If there was a future yard waste collection service, would you be interested in that to reduce the amount of trash going to the landfill (regardless of cost)? (Choose any one option) Yes No I'm not sure Answer this question only if you have chosen No for 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? Residential Waste Engagement What's Up Wheat Ridge Page 4 of 7 Food Waste If there was a service offering food waste and yard waste collected together in the same bin, would you participate (regardless of cost)? (Choose any one option) Yes No I'm not sure If food waste collection was offered as a separate service from trash, but included in your trash collection fee at no additional cost, would you participate? (Choose any one option) Yes No I'm not sure If food waste collection was offered for an additional fee, would you subscribe to this service? (Choose any one option) Yes No Depends on the cost of service I'm not sure Would you be interested in a permanent drop-off facility for food waste? (Choose any one option) Yes No Depends on the cost of the service I'm not sure Residential Waste Engagement What's Up Wheat Ridge Page 5 of 7 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 clean up 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. 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? (Choose any one option) Yes, I’ve participated in the large item pickup program. Yes, I’ve participated in Localworks’ clean up days. Yes, I’ve participated in both. No, I’ve never participated in either. If not, why haven’t you participated? (Choose all that apply) I didn’t know about them I couldn’t transport my large item to the Clean Up Day The day or time wasn’t convenient for me The large item pickup program was full Other (please specify) Would you be interested in a curbside large item collection program (i.e. bulky items like furniture and mattresses)? (Choose any one option) Yes No I'm not sure How often would you need large item collection? (Choose any one option) Monthly Every eight weeks Once a quarter I don't throw away large items If curbside large item collection was included in your trash collection fee at no additional cost, would you participate? (Choose any one option) Yes No I'm not sure Answer this question only if you have chosen No, I’ve never participated in either. for 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? Residential Waste Engagement What's Up Wheat Ridge Page 6 of 7 If curbside large item collection was offered for an additional fee, would you subscribe to this service? (Choose any one option) Yes No I'm not sure If the city offered a free large item drop-off site (permanent or temporary), would you use it? (Choose any one option) Yes No I'm not sure Residential Waste Engagement What's Up Wheat Ridge Page 7 of 7 City Council Study Session Residential Waste Engagement Project May 6, 2024 Today’s Agenda •Introductions •Previous Project Input •Project Overview Outcome •Stakeholder Listening Sessions •Public Engagement Results To-Date What We Heard Key Takeaways •Upcoming Public Survey Feedback on Strategy/Approach •Additional Discussion •Next Steps Meeting Purpose To provide an update on the project and gather your input on the upcoming public survey. Previous Project Public Input •Let’s Talk – Trash, Recycle, Waste (2020) Part of the Let’s Talk Resident Engagement Program •Resident Surveys •Outcome illuminated the need for additional engagement Previous Project Public Input What We Heard Large number of garbage trucks traveling through neighborhoods daily. Several collection services causing unnecessary noise pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, wear-and-tear on roads, and unsafe traffic in neighborhoods. Interest was expressed in wanting a unified and more organized trash collection service and that the City should invest in a single source provider or city-regulated waste management system like other cities. Project Overview This project aims to understand the public’s opinions about the current residential waste management system in Wheat Ridge and potential future changes to this system. Goals Maximize Resident Engagement: Reach a broad spectrum of Wheat Ridge residents, encouraging active participation from all corners of the community. Inclusivity and Accessibility: Ensure that all residents have the opportunity to provide input and share their perspectives. Neutral: Remain impartial while offering clear and unbiased information to foster well-informed feedback from the residential community. Informative: Information, feedback, and analysis resulting from this project will be presented to the City Council with the goal of informing future decision making. Project Outcome Empower City Council to feel confident to provide further direction on waste management decisions and approaches. Project Outcome Enact robust public engagement to gather input from as many Wheat Ridge residents as possible through in-person and digital outreach. Using this feedback and technical waste management best practices, develop a set of recommendations on next steps. •This effort is not to develop a final solution to waste management. Stakeholder Listening Sessions Stakeholder Group Key Takeaways Sustainable Wheat Ridge •Needs to be improved. •Transparency in pricing structure. •Pay as You Throw System or weight/volume-based collection. •Large amount of trash trucks on our roads. Sustainable Neighborhood Leaders •Needs a reduction of hauler traffic and noise pollution. •One provider would not provide flexibility or full cost transparency. •Historically town leans toward free enterprise. •Preferred hauler is a good compromise. Community Members •Don’t take away the choice. •Worried about a monopoly on trash hauling – not fair to small business owners. •Noise pollution is an issue. •Best way to control prices is through competition. •The current system works. •Elderly not aware of the differences between haulers. •Include incentivizes for certain haulers. •Residents need the choice to pick. Public Engagement Results To-Date Self-guided online meeting, open house, and pop-up event held. Map of residents surveyed 691 Public Reached 329 Surveys 895 Comments Received What We Heard Does the current system work well? Yes , 44% Indifferent, 15% No, 41% Concerns about current hauler: Cost, 27% Lack of compost options, 17% Other entries, 5% Inconvenient and unreliable services, 9% Customer service, 17% Lack of large item pick-up options, 25% Most important regardless of system type Three Key Takeaways 1. Even split between people in support of and in opposition to, changing the city’s waste system. Three Key Takeaways 2. The survey asked respondents if the current waste management system works well: 41% said no, 15% were indifferent, and 44% said yes This indicates that 56% may be interested in some change to the current system Three Key Takeaways 3. Choice and cost are the top two factors that respondents value when considering what is important with their waste service. Upcoming Public Survey Purpose:Understand the preferred type of trash and recycling services to evaluate cost impacts of potential future services, as cost is the number one priority for residents. This will build on the input collected from the first survey. Questions: •Curbside vs. drop-off collection •Collection frequency •How fees impact participation •Seasonal participation Services Evaluated: •Recycling •Yard waste •Large-item ? Feedback on Phase 3 Survey •Is the purpose of the survey clear for the public? Does it make sense why we want to ask these questions? •Should other services be included, like food waste? •Other thoughts? Next Steps Presentation to City Council tonight Phase 3 survey launch Tentatively open and active late May through June Public engagement pop-up events at spring / summer events Final report and recommendations in the fall; another City Council briefing THANK YOU! Questions? Residential Waste Engagement Project Join the Conversation Scan QR Code to learn more, sign up for updates and provide feedback: whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste What types of waste hauling services would you like at home? We want to hear from you! The City of Wheat Ridge is conducting a Residential Waste Engagement Project that aims to understand residents’ opinions on the current waste hauling system and look at potential changes. The City is evaluating feedback received last winter regarding waste hauling and is in the final phase of the Residential Waste Engagement Project. Make sure to share your thoughts before it’s too late. Community Survey #2 Take our survey online to let us know your thoughts about waste hauling in Wheat Ridge. The survey is open through Aug. 31, 2024. Residential Waste Engagement Project What types of waste hauling services would you like at home? Let’s Talk Waste We want to hear from you! Community Survey #2 Take our survey online to let us know your thoughts about waste hauling in Wheat Ridge. The survey is open through Aug. 31, 2024. whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste This is the final phase of the Residential Waste Engagement Project so make sure to share your thoughts before it’s too late. Timing Content Graphic Mid-June for survey launch Wheat Ridge residents – join the conversation! What types of waste hauling services would you like at home? We’re evaluating feedback received last winter regarding waste hauling and in the final phase of the Residential Waste Engagement Project. Don’t miss this chance to share your thoughts. Please take a moment to fill out our online survey at https://whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste. The survey is open through the end of August. Mid-July Share your thoughts before it’s too late! We’re gathering one last round of feedback about the City’s current waste hauling needs. Before the end of August, let us know what kinds of waste services you’d like to see at your home: https://whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste Early to mid- August We’re conducting a final round of engagement for the Residential Waste Engagement Project. Take a moment to fill out our survey before the end of August and let us know about the kinds of waste hauling services you would prefer at home: https://whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste Late August Last chance to provide feedback on the City’s residential waste hauling system! The final phase of the Residential Waste Engagement Project closes at the end of August. Don’t miss your chance to tell us if any changes should be made. https://whatsupwheatridge.com/residential -waste After Labor Day Huge thank you to everyone who participated in our Residential Waste Engagement Project over the last year. Throughout this time, we have received more than XXX comments online and in person. We are evaluating all the data and will share a recommendation with City Council soon on whether or not any changes to the system are warranted. Learn more: https://whatsupwheatridge.com/residential-waste What types of waste hauling services would you like at home? PROJECT GOALS: • Maximize Resident Engagement: Reach a broad spectrum of Wheat Ridge residents, encouraging active participation from all corners of the community. • Inclusivity and Accessibility: Ensure that all residents have the opportunity to provide input and share their perspectives. • Neutral: Remain impartial while offering clear and unbiased information to foster well-informed feedback from the residential community. • Informative: Information, feedback, and analysis resulting from this project will be presented to City Council with the goal of informing future decision making. ABOUT 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 look at potential changes. The City is evaluating feedback received last winter regarding waste hauling and is in the final phase of the Residential Waste Engagement Project. Make sure to share your thoughts before it’s too late. RESIDENTIAL WASTE ENGAGEMENT PROJECT What types of waste hauling services would you like at home? Take our next survey online to let us know your thoughts about waste hauling in Wheat Ridge. The survey is open through Aug. 31, 2024. TELL US MORE WHATSUPWHEATRIDGE.COM/ RESIDENTIAL-WASTE