HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-04-11 (Special) Meeting Agenda PacketPlease note: If you have a disability and need auxiliary aids or services, please notify the City of Englewood (303-
762-2405) at least 48 hours in advance of when services are needed.
1000 Englewood Pkwy – Council Chambers
Englewood, CO 80110
AGENDA
City Council Special Meeting
Monday, April 11, 2022 ♦ 6:00 PM
Council Dinner will be available at 5:30 p.m.
To view the meeting, please follow this link to our YouTube live stream link:
City Council Special Meeting - 11 Apr 2022
I.Call to Order
II.Roll Call
III.Pledge of Allegiance
IV.Update on Englewood CityCenter Redevelopment - Information - 6:00 to 7:15p.m.
a.Director of Community Development Brad Power and Redevelopment Manager Dan
Poremba will be present with Tryba Architects David Tryba, Bill Moon, and Sarah
Komppa and SKB President Todd Gooding and Executive Vice President John Olivier to
discuss the CityCenter redevelopment update.
Presentation: 30 minutes
Discussion: 45 minutes
IVa
V.Organized Garbage & Recycling Collection Initiative - Direction - 7:15 to 8:05p.m.
a.Director of Public Works Maria D'Andrea and the Organized Residential Waste and
Recycling Collection Citizen’s Committee will be present to discuss the Organized
Garbage and Recycling Collection Initiative.
Presentation: 20 minutes
Discussion: 30 minutes
Va
VI.Break - 8:05 to 8:15p.m.
VII.Preliminary 2023 Revenue and Expenditure Underlying Forecast Assumptions - Information -
8:15 to 9:05p.m.
a.Director of Finance Jackie Loh will be present to discuss the Preliminary 2023 Revenue
and Expenditure Underlying Forecast Assumptions.
Presentation: 20 minutes
Discussion: 20 minutes
VIIa
VIII.Executive Session
a.Executive Session for a conference with the City attorney for the purpose of receiving
Page 1 of 226
Englewood City Council Special Meeting Agenda
April 11, 2022
Please note: If you have a disability and need auxiliary aids or services, please notify the City of Englewood (303-
762-2405) at least 48 hours in advance of when services are needed.
legal advice on specific legal questions under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b)
VIIIa
IX.Reports from Board and Commission Council Liaisons
X.Council Member’s Choice
XI.City Manager’s Choice
XII.Adjournment
Page 2 of 226
STUDY SESSION
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Brad Power, Dan Poremba
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
DATE: April 11, 2022
SUBJECT: CityCenter Redevelopment Update by SKB/Tryba
DESCRIPTION:
Update on Englewood CityCenter Redevelopment with presentations by Tryba Architects (David
Tryba or Bill Moon and Sarah Komppa) and SKB (John Olivier, Executive Vice President, and
Todd Gooding, President). This update will also serve as background for city council’s
consideration of a number of redevelopment related agreements and matters during the balance
of 2022, and possibly into early 2023.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends council consider information provided by Tryba Architects and SKB and
provide direction to staff and our development partners as needed.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
The Englewood City Council began exploring the redevelopment of the city-controlled portions
of CityCenter in connection with the August 2018 foreclosure of the adjacent 3-square block
retail and office portion of CityCenter previously developed and operated by Weingarten Realty
(depicted in red on the attached site plan).
• In study sessions on March 25, 2019 and April 22, 2019, council authorized a
competitive master developer RFQ/RFP procurement process for the city-controlled
property (depicted in blue on the attached site plan). Following a year-long competitive
procurement, SKB (aka Scanlan Kemper Bard) was selected as the preferred master
developer.
• On June 1, 2020, council approved by motion a Preliminary Development Agreement
(PDA) between the city/EEF and SKB. This followed an Exclusive Negotiation
Agreement (ENA) that council approved by motion on February 18, 2020. The ENA and
PDA were also approved by the board of the Englewood Environmental Foundation
(EEF).
• The First Amendment to the Preliminary Development Agreement (PDA) was approved
by the EEF board on April 9, 2021 and by city council on April 19, 2021. Due to COVID
pandemic impacts, it extended the term of the PDA to November 15, 2021 and beyond
with the mutual consent of the parties.
Page 3 of 226
• On October 12, 2020, council authorized staff to negotiate the terms of a Framework
Agreement between the city/EEF and LNR Partners (LNR). LNR is the firm managing
the former Weingarten property on behalf of the bond holders that had previously
foreclosed.
• The three key components of the Framework Agreement that council authorized
negotiating included the city’s commitment to the following:
i. Terminating the 75-year EEF ground lease to which the former Weingarten property
is subject (53 lease years remaining) and facilitating the transfer of outright fee simple
title to LNR’s buyers, including the four parcels anticipated at that time to be purchased
from LNR by SKB,
ii. A rezoning of the CityCenter PUD zoning to MU-B-1 (the downtown mixed-use
zoning category), which was completed by the city in 2021 with final council approval
on September 7, 2021.
iii. Preliminary endorsement of the development of a multi-family project on the south
half of the Office Depot block (site C.1).
City staff and LNR representatives were nearing what was expected to be a final version of the
Framework Agreement for city council consideration in August of 2021. LNR then elected to wait
until after the November 2, 2021 Englewood Downtown Development Authority (EDDA) debt
authorization election to finalize the Framework Agreement. LNR elected to wait because SKB’s
continuing role as the city’s master developer, and purchaser of four parcels of the LNR
property, was dependent on the favorable outcome of the debt authorization ballot measure.
SUMMARY:
As provided for in the Amended Preliminary Development Agreement, the SKB/Tryba team
resumed their site planning work following the favorable outcome of the November 2, 2021
EDDA debt authorization election. As previously discussed with council on several occasions, a
significant portion of this initial $70 million debt authorization is anticipated to be TIF-backed
bonding to facilitate the redevelopment of CityCenter. The SKB/Tryba team will present their
vision and concepts for the redevelopment of CityCenter at the April 11 study session (see the
attached PowerPoint presentation).
ANALYSIS:
Background. Without council's previous commitment to move forward with the Framework
Agreement, LNR indicated they would have proceeded to lease up the property and sell it on an
as-is basis. This would have almost certainly delayed any potential redevelopment by many
years, during which time the property would likely continue to decline in appearance and
function. An as-is sale would have also served as an impediment to the redevelopment of the
city-controlled property by SKB.
Following the favorable EDDA debt authorization election results, SKB/Tryba and LNR
increased their communications with staff and with one another and discussions emerged about
SKB/Tryba purchasing all of the former Weingarten property (not just the four parcels previously
contemplated). As of now, SKB/Tryba and LNR are still negotiating one key issue, pertaining to
Page 4 of 226
the transaction closing date, which may lead to a formal purchase and sale agreement for
SKB/Tryba to purchase the entire former Weingarten property.
This consolidation of the city-controlled property and the former Weingarten property was
strongly favored by council and staff following foreclosure of the former Weingarten property.
SKB/Tryba’s long-standing interest in acquiring and redeveloping the former Weingarten
property was one of the factors in their selection as the city’s master developer. Staff and
SKB/Tryba will further update council on the status of the acquisition negotiations during the
April 11 study session. If the parties fail to come to terms on the sale of the entire property
controlled by LNR, it is still possible the parties may agree to proceed with the transfer of the
four parcels as originally planned.
In order to facilitate SKB/Tryba’s purchase of the LNR property and their redevelopment plans,
city council consideration of a number of agreements will be necessary, following required
approvals by the EDDA and EEF boards. Council will have multiple opportunities to consider all
aspects of the proposed redevelopment plan and associated financing. An Economic Impact
Study by ArLand LLC is currently in process to assist council in evaluating all of the direct and
indirect benefits of CityCenter redevelopment to the city. Staff has also indicated to SKB/Tryba
that additional community review and input on the redevelopment plans will be required prior to
council’s consideration of the required agreements.
The comprehensive redevelopment of CityCenter, based on a shared vision between the City of
Englewood and SKB/Tryba, presents the opportunity to re-establish CityCenter as the
commercial center of the city and a thriving regional transit location. This will be accomplished
by incorporating new uses such as additional housing, commercial space and a hotel as well as
reimagined civic space, parking and public gathering areas.
Many of the transit-oriented developments (TOD) in the Denver region are now competing with
Englewood for developers, employers, tenants, residents and customers. Transit based projects
are now valued by cities as desirable economic development investments and these projects
are typically structured as public/private partnerships that may include subsidized land
transactions, public financing and other public/private partnership elements.
As previously discussed with council, the termination of the ground lease underlying the former
Weingarten property and transfer of outright ownership of the property is key to the successful
redevelopment of CityCenter. The possibility of SKB/Tryba purchasing the property from LNR
assumes that city council will continue to support the previously discussed goals for the
Framework Agreement, including the termination of the ground lease and transfer of the fee
simple ownership of the property to LNR’s buyer or buyers. In today’s market conditions, no
buyer/developer will undertake the financial costs and risks of a major mixed-use
redevelopment on ground leased property, particularly with only 53 years remaining on the
lease term.
Redevelopment Plan Elements. The attached presentation depicts the overall vision and goals
for the redevelopment plan and specific elements proposed by the SKB/Tryba team. In general,
the plan, which includes much of the former Weingarten property, envisions a 155-room hotel
and a redeveloped 42,000 square foot civic center building (formerly 24-Hour Fitness). It also
includes four multi-family residential buildings, with ground floor retail in key locations,
containing about 1,066 units (with affordability levels to be determined), and a new 88,000
Page 5 of 226
square foot office building. The plan totals approximately 1.3 million square feet of development
plus associated parking. Other key elements include the following:
• The current civic center building and parking garage would be demolished to facilitate
new development on multiple sites, (Block B).
• The former 24-Hour Fitness building (site B.2) would be renovated as a 42,000 square
foot new home for Englewood’s municipal government office functions in a much more
efficient building benefitting from significantly greater natural light. The city may lease or
own the building, subject to further financing considerations.
• Except for the new civic center building and hotel, which would share parking in adjacent
buildings, the Block B and C buildings would be developed over structured parking.
• The current plan assumes that at least 200 current RTD shared parking spaces, of the
300 currently located in the civic center parking garage, are eliminated under an
agreement to be negotiated with RTD (up to 100 remaining spaces are assumed to be
provided within the parking garages below the multi-family building on site C.1).
• On Block C, the SKB/Tryba redevelopment plan calls for two multi-family developments
on this portion of the former Weingarten property (site C.1 to the south and C.2 to the
north). The existing two-story retail and office buildings south of Englewood Parkway will
likely be demolished, but commercial and retail space will be included on the ground
floor adjacent to Englewood Parkway and in other visible locations.
• On Block D, Ross and Petco have long-term leases which will, in all probability, keep
this block from being redeveloped for 10 years or more.
• Usable and valued public spaces will be a key element of the redevelopment plan as a
way to unify all of the development and to create a gathering place for the Englewood
community. This will address the fact that CityCenter is currently challenged by the lack
of consistent and logical pedestrian and bicycle connections and the large plaza area is
not significantly utilized beyond several special events.
Financial. Staff and the city’s financial/legal consulting teams continue to work with SKB/Tryba
and their advisors on the overall project financial pro forma. The EDDA board and its staff and
anticipated financial advisor will also have input. As a result, the pro forma is still in process,
including a range of specific items being clarified and negotiated with SKB/Tryba. This financial
information will be provided for council review and approval prior to the consideration of formal
development agreements.
Based on the current discussions with SKB/Tryba, they will contribute approximately $51 million
in total equity and debt toward a $106 million total redevelopment cost (includes just the land
acquisition, demolition, horizontal infrastructure improvements, expected structured parking
costs, and the cost of the replacement Civic Center building). This total includes the acquisition
cost for the former Weingarten property. The balance of the project funding will come from
anticipated Metro District bond funding, EDDA TIF-backed bond funding and the city investment
for the replacement Civic Center building. City council’s subsequent consideration of the
Framework Agreement and the Master Development Agreement, among others, will include the
Page 6 of 226
specific details associated with the proposed project funding. Following that initial investment,
SKB/Tryba and other potential buyers/partners would then invest additional funds to complete
the commercial, residential and hotel developments that are envisioned in the redevelopment
plan.
Schedule. Before SKB/Tryba can close on the acquisition of the former Weingarten property
from LNR, currently estimated to take place in May of 2023, a number of key milestones will
need to be achieved, including:
• Execution of a Purchase and Sale Agreement between SKB/Tryba and LNR,
• Possible further amendment of the Preliminary Development Agreement between the
city/EEF and SKB/Tryba, to be considered by the EEF board and city council,
• Updated city/EEF Framework Agreement with LNR to be considered by the EEF board
and council,
• Master Development Agreement between the city/EEF and SKB/Tryba to be considered
by the EDDA board, EEF board and city council (including a bond financing plan),
• SKB/Tryba Metro District service plan and formation election to be considered for
approval by city council,
• RTD approval of a Transit Easement amendment to reduce RTD shared parking spaces
by 200-300 spaces, out of 910 required shared spaces (city council approval also
required),
• May 2, 2023 Metro District formation election.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Informational update.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Other than financial and legal consulting expenses associated with the outlined predevelopment
planning activities, there are no direct, short-term investment costs or implications for the city.
Significant long-term financial implications and potential public investments will be subject to
cost/benefit analyses to be provided in coordination with the consideration of future agreements
that would commit the city to a public/private partnership for the redevelopment of CityCenter.
CONNECTION TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
The Local Economy outcome area of the strategic plan includes the goal of redeveloping and
densifying CityCenter. Moving forward with the redevelopment tasks outlined in this
communication will facilitate the continued pursuit and achievement of this goal.
OUTREACH/COMMUNICATIONS:
Leading up to city council’s consideration of the Master Development Agreement, expected to
occur in late 2022, additional community outreach and stakeholder meetings concerning
CityCenter redevelopment will be scheduled. There has been a significant amount of outreach
to date in the context of all the EDDA formation steps (including the Downtown Matters Steering
Page 7 of 226
Committee and public outreach meetings) and council approval of the rezoning of CityCenter.
SKB/Tryba conducted initial public meetings and multiple articles have appeared in the
Englewood Herald and Englewood Citizen during 2019-2021. The SKB/Tryba team, EDDA
board and city staff have gathered comments to be addressed in subsequent refinements of the
plan.
SKB/Tryba representatives and staff met with a representative of the group initially opposed to
the replacement of the current Civic Center building/garage to address their concerns and ideas
for incorporating some of the history of Cinderella City within the redevelopment. Ideas have
been discussed about mirroring some of the Cinderella City graphics and historical elements
within the redeveloped CityCenter, including infrastructure graphics and a possible interactive
storefront displaying historical images and videos.
ATTACHMENTS:
CityCenter Site Plan (city-controlled property is depicted in blue and the former Weingarten
property is depicted in red)
SKB/Tryba Redevelopment Plan PowerPoint Presentation
Page 8 of 226
1
Current CityCenter Site Plan
(city-controlled property is depicted in blue and the
former Weingarten property is depicted in red)
Former Weingarten Prop.
(11.8 ac)
Page 9 of 226
11APRIL2022ENGLEWOODCITYCENTERTREDEVELOPMENTjjE2§FCityCouncilStudySessionO¥.;I—SEY2EI-_»%»T$.'|:ngleWOO(]anbIInDI-\I-\l\L.l'lII:x..|3,2‘Page 10 of 226
1Page 11 of 226
EnglewoodCityCenterVisionvI'a=.-u-=-————L1zg?liI!!!;z§I-\:1‘-31="@'=“"“r"-»v~.v'*EnglewoodCityCenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022%E?'g‘[ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS3Page 12 of 226
RelationshiptoEnglewood&theRegion6.5milesGLEOD‘STATION,IPLAFFEEIVRnew'CENTERErCRAIGviHOSPITALii7*5_~,--,.'A v-ALVBROADWAYPOTENTIAL//vTHE.A.‘‘A....«_h=.§,_.,e“ENGLEWOODC/TY‘A-A'AA'CENTERBOUNDA,.,EnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022%E?'g‘|_ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS4Page 13 of 226
ExistingSitePlanChallengesDi-_imitedreuseabiltyofexistingbuildings‘I10LSNOHDH-ExistingRTDParkingRequirements(+/—300dedicatedstalls)-3rd—partylandcontrol-QelocationofCityofficesandfunctionswill,.r,.'!1|I“l>’llllliiilHExtensivenewinfrastructurerequirements‘%-SignificantdeferredVi’:-iil‘I|i.|I1-A‘;II-Il||lll|||l|Iii..,i.kl?maintenanceandongoing-,,,,H,,,,maintenanceexpense-Existingretailleasesandassociatedparkingrequirements-EnglewoodParkwaywidthandelevationchangesllllllllrlllllllli?lllllllllllll-.',"'-_imitedvisualandpedestrianconnectionstoneighborhoodtothenorth‘lllllll|l”E
lllllllllll|EllllllH+llHl+lllll:"""'“‘iBllllllllllllllli2|I31‘iiiwiwiimiiuiilllllllllllNoprogrammingllllllllllll||lllllllllILw‘H2S:oI‘'.A_'-Lackofdiversehousingtypes—_)d.2l§.l|lII?‘II\IIIIIB||j9Il||F_H_lkEnglewoodCityCenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022$‘E?'§[ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS5Page 14 of 226
ProposedSitePlanDynamicDowntownEnglewood:1MULTIFAMILYRESIDENTIALUNITSB1:260B3(Workforce):125C1:300..C2:385ETotal:1,070>U)-InIIHOTELKEYSBB2:150-CITYHALLAREA(SF)B5:42,000g‘'‘'IOFFICEAREA(SF)EEEB4:86,800.3‘Q‘:V”‘:|Retail(SF)~‘’Throughout61,500Mixed-useIII’Residential_-;LE..cu|tura|(s|=)IIII7Throughout9,050C’No,g,‘,ALA_*‘_Parking(Stalls)L:1:EI§On—Street150HIIIHHHI‘_)d.2l§.l|lII?‘II\IIIIIIu||jBIlJ||F_—_IhEnglewoodCityCenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022$‘E?'§[ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS6Page 15 of 226
3MmemmsMmDynamicDowntownEnglewoodMixofUses..-.---_-:‘_"i'_'_';"§"‘”""_""I.,.._.--Sign-I-'Mixed-useResidentialMixed-useOEnglewoodCityCenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022$E?'g‘|_ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS7Page 16 of 226
ionVisionArrivalfromtheLightRailStat..4,.1my..D,ESOPORP5,?,,/..,.._VaEnglewoodCityCenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022%E?'g‘|_ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS8Page 17 of 226
VisionEnglewoodParkwayLookingWestOEnglewoodCityCenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022$E?'§|_ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS9Page 18 of 226
EnglewoodCityCenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022%E?'?|_ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS10Page 19 of 226
VisionOpenSpace2.4ACRES0.57ACRESSOFTSCAPEr1.83ACRESHARDSCAPE‘52NLg.‘WCL;wJ//2W1|wV\/IFLOYDAVEhélewqqq*5StationARTWALKAPARTMENTS901EcnvczmsnIDENTAL‘.CIVICCENTERBUILDINGORMER24HRFITNESS.CITYCENTERENGLEWOODPUBLICPARKINGWHAMPDENA\_/E%E3.3AA/CREAS1.13ACRESSOFTSCAPE2.17ACRESHARDSCAPE3«QEWIVELOYDVAVVEWESO9VdV‘[V9S,,,ARTWALK.«APARTMENTS/901I.T1";iiOpenSpaceLimitsSoftscapeLimitsEnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022§:‘E?'§|_ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS11Page 20 of 226
XisionOpenSpace&PublicRealmEnglewoodCityCenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022$E?'?|_ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS12Page 21 of 226
NewECCVisionPublicOpenSpaces&PublicArtMerca0Fonain’iiiMercadoParkErPavilionf‘~I.i-4‘‘‘'‘"...:i‘7[_1/*FestivalStreet‘/aniPotentialPublicArtLocationsEnglewoodCityCenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022$‘E?'§[ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS13Page 22 of 226
DynamicDowntownEnglewoodOpenSpacesEnglewoodCityCenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022%E?'g‘|_ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS14Page 23 of 226
VisionCuratedMixofUseswFLOYDAVE///.WFLOYDAVEFlWWWF51*F?tum?:1sO9Vd99‘1Pe/A-E)é4LSOE)VdV'lVE)s:3CITYCENTERENGLEWOODPUBLICPARKINGMulti—Fami|yCivic8CulturalRetail(New/Existing)Residential(New/Existing)Office(New/Existing)(New/Existing)Hotel(New/Existing)EnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022§:‘E?'§|_ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS15Page 24 of 226
VisionCuratedMixofUses—GroundFloor(/30>I’:>..,.Oo(/1-4_'.-u:g'@s::uun-—stubD_ENGLEWOODPARKWAY/Viit1”tattrtftvf“CITYCENTERENGLEWOODPUBLICPARKING__wHAMPDENAVE7TT
Multi—Fami|yCivic8CulturalRetail(New/Existing)Residential(New/Existing)Office(New/Existing)(New/Existing)Hotel(New/Existing)EnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022§:‘E?'§|_ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS16Page 25 of 226
HistoricReferenceNeighborhoodCirculation.w:0O>UE_EnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022§:‘E?'§|_ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS17Page 26 of 226
ExistingNeighborhoodCirculation\“I11ialiaii..ni.ili“liJ.l|1ii‘1(ni41Jm,/,\ooMEw<5’b:'>“i;‘—'«5L.r.\—-vuRTDLightRailC8DLineStreetNetworkProtectedBicycleRouteEnglewoodCityCenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022$‘E?'§[ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS18Page 27 of 226
EnhancedNeighborhoodCirculation‘ii;ii‘E.T
i‘'3.’‘:1:l-iRTDLightRailCErDLineFutureProtectedBicycleRouteFutureRailTrailStreetNetworkFutureStreetNetworkLocalEnglewoodShuttleProtectedBicycleRouteEnglewoodCityCenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022$‘E?'§[ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS19Page 28 of 226
VisionEnhancedPedestrian&BicycleFacilitiesLSO9‘v‘/ci‘d7I.VEI)SVIHIIARTWALKAPARTMENTS90‘IitODPARKWAYLfcnvczmsw‘DENTAL_..CIVICCENTERBUILDINGCITYCENTERENGLEWOODPUBLICPARKING-_WHAMPDENAVE+_ARTWALKAPARTMENTS901"‘j"T'’RTDLightRailCErDLineFrequentPedestrianProtectedBicycleRouteFutureRailTrailActivityEnglewoodCityCenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022$‘E?'§[ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS20Page 29 of 226
VisionEnhancedParking&Servicew/"(100PublicOn-‘StreetI1.ParkingStallsM:anAemu/ET*:~a3areIIkeWFLOYDAVET,1IE,_WFLO\7(|5'A\'/IEII/.,7*‘,1_LSO9VdV'IV9SE1Iso9vd\fI\19s’/gm,,_Englewood/,\it,StatiahARTWALKVARTWALKVI/-PARTMENTS901/,QNI; ?III'iii?I€43\$j_"_%?II:IffIT’:iI E“I\;n/‘‘ENGLEWOODPARKWAY1'gglIIIIIIIIHI:IlE/WcmzEmmDENTAL6R0uvENGEE,OODA,WAIEDWARDJONFSDENVERPPCCIVICCENTER"BUILDINGV’CITYCENTERENGLEWOODPUBLICPARKINGHARBORFREIGHTOFFICEDEPOTee/_»(QIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIWHAMPDENAV},.-ServiceandLoading%KIParkingStructureSurfaceParkingAngledParkingParallelParkingVehicularGarageEntn/EntryEnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022§:‘E?'§|_ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS21Page 30 of 226
VisionEnhancedCirculation—Bus&TransitARTWALKAPARTMENTS801,%;,R2®Englewood/‘‘Station_LSO‘:-)VdV‘iVE)SI|J.SO‘:')VdV"iV9SARTWALKAPARTMENTS901statia'r‘§f//”’F\*\33_»/2’T‘ARTWALKA‘*\K>\/—.%/_APARTMENTS901r,-A->2:2:'5:-E:‘E:i":.3;-I.“:‘_,‘.V'«4‘A:..rzf~iiiAlt‘-.;‘N’V#1.‘-‘VENGLEOODPARKWAY‘,=~21-.~‘-1212.’;££1CIVICCENTERBUILDINGCITYCENTER\ENGLEWOODPUBLIC\TPARKING_CI;/U.T’anamp,wHAMPDENAVERTDLightRailC8DLineLightRailPlatformBusRouteBusLayoverBusPickUpBusDropOffEnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022§:‘E?'§|_ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS22Page 31 of 226
EonceptualPhasingPhase1‘a.dkihgllFUTURE‘HSE11111’..IFUTUREPHASEBUILDINGFUTUREPHASEBWLWNGEnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022§:‘E?'§|_ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS23Page 32 of 226
WorktoDate&MovingForward2019EnglewoodCityCenterOpensasRegion’sFirstTODDevelopmentSKBITrybaasMasterDeveloperAdvancesMasterPlan2020CityofEnglewoodEngagesSKBasMasterDeveloperCityofEnglewoodRequestsProposalsfromDeveloperstoRedevelopCityCenterPublicOutreach&MeetingsContinuedAdvancementofMasterPlan2021CityofEnglewoodRezonesCitycenterPropertyCitizensofEnglewoodapproveformationofDowntownDevelopmentAuthoritySKBITrybateamcommencesdetaileddesignandegineeringContinuedPublicOutreach,MeetingswithCityCouncil,DDAandCityStaff20222023CompletionofNewCityHallProgrammingLandClosingConceptFinalizeApprovalofMasterNewParkingDevelopmentAgreementsAgreement&.withRTDFormationofPublicPrivatePartnershipsEnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022§:‘E?'§|_ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS24Page 33 of 226
ConclusionDynamicDowntownEnglewoodastheHeartofEnglewood3JTEnhanceConnectivity&.AccessibilityPromoteSustainability&.WellnessEnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022§:‘E?'§|_ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS25Page 34 of 226
1Page 35 of 226
*APPENDIX-=~UN|QUELYENGLEWOODIVPage 36 of 226
UniquelyEnglewoodStreetandHotelNaming‘,4/I/'J5’:»..-1C‘|I?f""//:A~~*‘'..EnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022$E?'§[ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS28Page 37 of 226
UniquelyEnglewoodSignage&InterpretiveGraphicsBANNERSASPLACEMAKINGELEMENTSAUGMENTEDREALITVEXPERIENCEHISTORICSTREETNAMINGEnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022$E?§[ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS29Page 38 of 226
‘APPENDIX?3:;§ERlENCEPage 39 of 226
HighStreetLOCATIONPROJECTTYPEPhoenix,AZMixed-useCOMPLETIONSIZE200899multifamilyunits174,942SFretailpR°’E°T°°sT330,369SFoffice$300MRelevancetoEnglewoodCityCenter-“Broken”mixed-usedevelopment.-Relocatedparkingtoincreaseaccessibility.—Repositionedretailtoasuccessfulentertainmentdistrictconcept.-Heavyeventprogrammingandcontinuingcommunityengagement.EnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022TRYBAARCHITECTS31Page 40 of 226
IheOverlandLOCATIONPROJECTTYPETigard,OregonMixed—useMu|ti—fami|yCOMPLETIONSIZE2022257,000SF219unitsPROJECTCOST$125MRelevancetoEnglewoodCitycenter-Ground-updevelopment-Synergisticmixed—usesuburbanmu|ti—fami|y-Experientialretailforneighborhoodstreet—|eve|activity-IntegratedParkingpodium-ImplementedOpportunityZoneinvestmentstructure—EffectivecollaborationwithCityofTigardEnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022*E?'§[erwoodTRYBAARCHITECTS32Page 41 of 226
IheRoundLOCATIONPROJECTTYPEBeaverton,ORTOD/RedevelopmentCOMPLETIONSIZE20145.07acres146,027SFPROJECTcos'r$35MRelevancetoEnglewoodCitycenter—Originaldevelopmentstartedin1997(earlystageTOD),becamefunctionallyobsolete.-In2012,SKBpartneredwiththeCityofBeavertontore—envisionthemasterplan,relocateCityHallandexecutethefullvision.—vvlvvwtvlyqlumI\¢\.I\/Inununnuquvuvuul\¢issues,repositionedretailandofficeuses,andfacilitatedtheCity'sdevelopmentofaPerformingArtsCenter.-Spurredhighlysuccessfuloffice,hotelandfood&beverageamenities.EnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022%E?§[ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS33Page 42 of 226
YorkStreetYardsTRYBAARCHITECTSLOCATIONDenver,COCOMPLETION2020$125MPROJECTCOSTPROJECTTYPEIndustrialRepositioningSIZE483,000SFRelevancetoEnglewoodCitycenter—CloseproximitytoDenver’surbancore,theRiverNorth(RiNo)ArtsDistrict,I-70andtheA—LinetoDenverInternationalAirport.—Uniquemulti—tenanturbanofficeandmanufacturingcampus,designedbyTrybaArchitects,introducesinnovativeretailuses.EnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022-Centralizedcommunityandtenantgatheringareas.-Eventsandcommunitywithoutdoorspace.-WorkwithCitytofacilitategreenwaydevelopmentandrestructuringofE.39thtofacilitateactiveuses,enhancedwalkability.TRYBAARCHITECTS34Page 43 of 226
FOXParkTRYBAARCHITECTSLOCATIONPROJECTTYPEDenver,COMixed-useCOMPLETIONSIZE7Ongoing41AC,317,000SF-o.‘Mmu:uu:«mus-!‘.aWmRetail,1.9MSFOffice,220—KeyHotel,3,360ResidentialUnitsRelevancetoEnglewoodCityCenter-Vibrantmixofusespurposelyconnectedandwalkable-Circulationintegratedintothetopographytocreatenewopenspacesandpark-likeconnections-AdjacenttoRTDRailStationEnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022%E?§[ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS36Page 44 of 226
ClaytonLaneatCherryCreekNorthTmmcnwectsLOCATIONPROJECTTYPEDenver,COMixedUseMulti-COMPLETIONlf_?:;'|5i/£a(?:f'Ce8‘2004pySIZE9.5AC,500,000SFRelevancetoEnglewoodCityCenter-Mixofuseswithsharedparkingstructures-Adjacencytohotelattractedcorporateheadquartersusers-MetroDistrictfinancingutilized-StreetlevelretailbecameIluu\JICIIulculauluv.EnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022$E?‘g[ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS35Page 45 of 226
Retail-basedPlacemakingTRvBAARcH-Teas..:IIl||H-_WEE!li-\.P'‘'‘‘’RLL9NDCALIFO.HIGHSTREETVMARCZYKFINEFOODSJUNC‘T|ONFOODErDRINKEnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022$E?’§|_ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS37Page 46 of 226
VVAppEN[)|)((ITEANALYSIS1Page 47 of 226
ExistingSiteAnalysisChallengesi'-E!\l\E:‘NN‘E\\L,‘5lx,.LSNoa.LSXO:lsII-r,i.~LII‘*'ii\IIIIIIARTWALKPARTMENTS901‘I-—'i-'-—-jj.\I\-IIIV>3uH_.L<t‘‘.ED\/‘JAPDJONES....‘‘j”‘x9‘lllIlllll“lllllllllll."||l|ll|||||I‘(IIl|||l|H||||Hll'’llllllllllllllllllia?i?‘|||l||||||||l|l|'V-Imllllllllllllllll.|||l|l|||||lll||||l'CIVICCENTER‘‘BUILDING..IHEARINGHIIIIIIIIIIIIII3Jllllllllllllvl||l||l|'||Il||||'wlllllllllllllCITYCENTERENGLEWOODPUBLIC_PARKINGlllllllllllllLN|tldSJ.SEIHVMVWEIGSlllllllillllllllllllllIA_imitedreuseabiltyofexistingbuildingsExistingRTDParkingRequirements(+/—300dedicatedstalls)3rd—partylandcontrolQelocationofCityofficesandfunctionsExtensivenewinfrastructurerequirementsSignificantdeferredmaintenanceandongoingmaintenanceexpenseExistingretailleasesandassociatedparkingrequirementsEnglewoodParkwaywidthandelevationchanges_imitedvisualandpedestrianconnectionstoneighborhoodtothenorth{WEnglewoodCityCenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022$‘E?'§[ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS39Page 48 of 226
ExistingSiteAnalysisOpportunities!\I!\e..E\:‘‘~‘NN_‘:~'\c.\5I»..I...LSNOE.LSXO:lSIiIIII-r,i.~LII‘*'ii\IIIIIIéjjééjtttjlll|lll|||||llll||llIII'_#(-.-ARTWALKPARTMENTS901III‘"||l|ll|||||lmllllllllllilllI’ll||l|lll|ll|llllli1B$§‘‘I_|||l|l|||||lll||||‘lllIll|ll“lllllllllll.liiliiliimiiiii}(IICIVICCENTER‘‘BUILDINGAHEAR|N(3.Il|||l|ll||||llll'|||l|||||||ll|ll'3Jllllllllllllvlllllllillllllllllllll||l||l|'IIIIIIIIICITYCENTERENGLEWOODPUBLIC_PARKINGLN|tldSJ.SE|ElVMV'|ElGSReactivationofthelightrailstationasanactive18-hour“Place”mprovedaccess&circulationEfficientanddiverseandusesncreaseddensityofresidential,commercialandretaildevelopmentMinorRTDbusrouteadjustmentstodriveretailactivationVisibilityfromHampdenAveDistrictParkingGaragetosupportdiverseusesDotentialforenhancedconnectionstotheneighborhoodtothenorth{WEnglewoodCityCenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022$‘E?'§[ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS40Page 49 of 226
EnglewoodCCTODContext6.5milesonSTATION,:E"Pm'PLATFERIVER-T~E.»MEDICAL-CENTEREr5CRAIG-ifHOSPITAL5"‘74‘;DEVELOPMENT-,1’'"A-it,EA.VWE‘r'52.jBRADPOTENTIAL//vTHE".C‘~V»..rENGLEWOODC/TY’‘T~*-TE'T‘'EnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022u."?'§|_ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS41Page 50 of 226
NewECCVisionGOALS&STRATEGIES/\Economy,Jobs8:llomes,includingfillingvacantstorefronts,retainingandsupportingsmallbusinesses,increasingtheDowntownemploymentbase,andsupportinghousingandsocialservices.Marketing&Programming,suchascultivatingabrandandidentityforDowntown,improvingmarketing.communication,andpromotion,andcoordinatingevents.PublicSpaceEnhancements&Placemalrlng,suchasensuringDowntownisclean,sale,andaccessible,activatingexistingpublicspaces.improvingthepedestrianexperience,andimprovingthephysicalenvironmentthroughstreetscapeenhancements.Moblllty&Transportation,includingenhancingAlignmentwithDowntownPlanBIGIDEAS1.CreateaDowntownDevelopmentAuthoritytohelpguideeconomicrecoverybeyondtheCOV|D—l9pandemicinthenear-term,andtobeastewardandchampionforDowntowninthelong—term.ExtendthevibrancyofDowntownthroughoutthedayandeveningbyaddingmoreresidents,jobs,andentertainment.Createadistinct,authenticbrandidentityandmarketingprogramforDowntown.Cultivatestreet-levelactivationofstorefrontsandpublicspacesthroughoutDowntown.CreateaconnectedmultimodalDowntownthatisconvenient,comfortable,andaccessibleforallagesandabilities.irnproiiingtheEngleviooiiTrolley,aiiidmanazingtheDowntownnarklnasunnii.6.CollaboratewithavarietyoflocalpartnerstoenhanceDowntownvitality.landUse&UrbanDesign,5chas--identifyingcalalyticredeveloptlnemsnesy7.IncreasesafetyandcomforttoalevelthatISwelcomingtoall.buildingonexistingmixed-useenergy,_____promotingbestpracticesinurbandesign8.PartnerwiththeprivatesectortopromotecoordinatedinfillinDowntown,andencouragingadaptivedevelopmentatcatalyticsites_reuseofbuildingswhereappropriate.EnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022%E‘?§[ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS42Page 51 of 226
ExistingCitycenterBuildingChallenges-Inefficientofficef|oor—plates‘».-Limitednaturallightonthea.Eminteriorofthebuildingduetolargeanddeepf|oor—p|atesI_r.-BuildingorientationontheII4!~’.’.'_isitemakesitimpossibleto-,.'bAredeveloparoundit‘Lhaiiin"\-..-Expensivetomaintain\'l@émri.‘;.li‘EnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022*E?§[ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS43Page 52 of 226
TRANSITORIENTEDDEVEOPMENTXPage 53 of 226
IransitOrientedDevelopment(TOD)Whatisit?Thecreationofcompact,walkable,pedestrian-oriented,mixed-usecommunitiescenteredaroundfrequenttransitRegionalplanning,cityrevitalization,suburbanrenewal,andwalkableneighborhoodscombinedAmeanstoaddressClimatechangebyreducingtheneedfordrivingsingle-\l\l\l\l'IlllItV\alII\lI\l\1.Ameanstolowerlivingcostsbyreducingcostsassociatedwithcarownership.EnglewoodCilycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022%Ef-‘fglewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS45Page 54 of 226
TODKeyIngredientsforSuccessSUCCESSFULTODs1DesignprioritizesthepedestrianTransitStationisaprominentfeatureofthetowncenter3Broadmixofuses(office,residential,retail,civic)Highestdensityexistswithina10-minutewalkCirclesurroundingthetrainstationTransitStationisservedwithcomplementarytransit5systems,includingbus,trolley,ride—share,bicycleandscootersKKKKKDesignedtoincludetheeasyuseotbicyclesand\/scootersasdailysupporttransport7Reducedandmanagedparkinginside10-minute\/walkcirclearoundtowncenter/trainstationSpecializedretailatstationsservingcommutersandJlocalsincludingcafes,grocery,drycleaners,etc.EnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022*E?'g[ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS46Page 55 of 226
TODKeyIngredientsforSuccessvs.ECCTodayandscootersSUCCESSFULTons(TOD1.0)1DesignprioritizesthepedestrianJXTransitStationisaprominentfeatureofthetown2»/~/center3Broadmixofuses(office,residential,retail,civic)J+/-Highestdensityexistswithina10-minutewalkcircle4...JXsurroundingthetrainstationTransitStationisservedwithcomplementarytransit5systems,includingbus,trolley,ride—share,bicycleJ+/-Uesignedtoincludetheeasyuseotbicyclesand\/scootersasdailysupporttransportReducedandmanagedparkinginside10-minuteJXwalkcirclearoundtownCenter/trainstation7Specializedretailatstationsservingcommutersand‘/localsincludingcafes,grocery,drycleaners,etc.EnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022%E?"g’[ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS47Page 56 of 226
EenverMetroTODComparisonsFULLSYSTEMMAPCenter-GardensENGLEWOODGLLEBROADWAYSTATIONLouusmnmvearl“non.AveE.Auponam.IGatewaypmFnlunmonsAURORA2ndAv»-Abnll-noAuroraMenucame:ENGLEWOOD._,,STATIONEmile».._HRCHERRYHILLS--.gE|DANV|l,l/XGE"DVIGWBELLEVIEW‘_om.a.::.zyoVSh(-ndzm'.,'GREENWOOD.n....STATIONV“LACEI’Ampohoc.uV-IngeCum»:Lnmolnn-DowntownIIONLmIeIan>M-nernlEnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022%E?§[ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS48Page 57 of 226
EenverMetroTODExampleAlamedaStationEnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril‘I1,2022$E?§[ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS49Page 58 of 226
ruin’"nmu-w«EnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril11,2022(/3W21.>2.D‘LsNvwuansTRYBAARCHITECTSS0Page 59 of 226
EenverMetroTODExampleBelleviewStationEnglewoodCitycenterRedevelopmentICityCouncilStudySessionIApril‘I1,2022$E?§[ewoodTRYBAARCHITECTS51Page 60 of 226
STUDY SESSION
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Maria D'Andrea
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
DATE: April 11, 2022
SUBJECT:
Study Session for Organized Garbage & Recycling Collection
Initiative
DESCRIPTION:
Presentation of information collected by staff and the Citizen's Committee in advance of the
public hearing on April 18, 2022. Members of the Citizen's Committee will be in attendance and
can be called upon to discuss or answer questions as well.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council consider information from staff, the committee and
survey, and ask any questions in preparation for the public hearing on April 18, 2022. Members
of the Citizen's Committee will be in attendance and can be called upon to discuss or answer
questions as well.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
January 24, 2022: Staff reviewed the proposed Outreach and Communications Plan and
reviewed the draft survey questions with the City Council.
June 14, 2021: Staff reviewed critical aspects of the draft RFP with the City Council.
December 7, 2020: The City Council endorsed the recommendations from the Citizen's
Committee to 1) reject the proposals received in July 2020 and 2) develop a new RFP based on
input from the Committee.
June 22, 2020: The City Council approved the organization of the Citizen's Committee with
eleven (11) members of the public. The intent of this citizen's committee is to:
• Assist staff with reviewing the proposals received from waste haulers in response to a
formal Request for Proposals (RFP) for single trash hauling service within the city; and
• Make recommendations to the City Council on next steps in the process
March 23, 2020: The City Council discussed the formation of the Citizen's Committee. At that
time, nineteen (19) people had submitted their names for consideration on the committee.
Council directed staff to seek more information from potential candidates regarding their interest
in participating on the committee.
Page 61 of 226
January 6, 2020: The City Council directed staff to solicit citizens for a citizen's advisory
committee which would be responsible for providing Council with recommendations regarding
upcoming decisions about trash hauling services in the city.
April 22, 2019: Staff presented a Study Session item to the City Council on single source trash
hauling. One of the recommended next steps was to form a citizen advisory group to further
investigate hauler options and/or perform outreach in the form of a survey & neighborhood
meetings to solicit input from the community on this topic.
SUMMARY:
The city began an effort in 2019, based on input from various Boards & Commissions, to
explore the possibility of providing organized garbage service within the community. An initial
survey & public information process was conducted in 2019 followed by issuance of a Request
for Proposals (RFP). A Citizen's Committee was established by the City Council who
recommended rejection of the initial proposals and subsequently re-wrote the RFP. The revised
RFP was issued in August 2021 and two proposals were received in November 2021. Over the
past two months, the city has conducted an informational effort with social media posts, a video,
public meetings, and a survey. The Citizen's Committee has mreviewed the proposals and
considered public input, and has made recommendations to the City Council which are outlined
below. This memo and the associated materials presents the culmination of this effort to aid City
Council in determining the next steps in the process.
ANALYSIS:
In 2019, at the request of several Boards and Commissions, including CASE (Citizens for the
Advancement of a Sustainable Englewood), the city began exploring the possibility of changing
to an organized collection system for garbage & recycling collection. In an organized collection
system, the city would contract with one vendor who would provide service to all residential
properties in Englewood.
The goals of this effort were to:
• Understand residents opinions about Englewood's changing to an organized collection
system for garbage collection.
• Communicate how the program will be considered; and process if the city moves
forward.
• Provide a summary of community opinions, concerns and survey results regarding
changing to an organized collection system for garbage collection.
Three public meetings were held in the summer/fall of 2019 and a public survey was
disseminated. Based on this input, the city issued an initial RFP to waste haulers in May 2020.
Two proposals were received in July 2020. During this period, the City Council established a
Citizen's Committee. The intent of this Committee was to:
• Assist staff with reviewing the proposals received from waste haulers in response to a
formal RFP for single trash hauling service within the city; and
• Make recommendations to the City Council on next steps in the process.
The Committee reviewed the two proposals and recommended to the City Council that both be
rejected and that the Committee re-write the RFP to:
• better incorporate elements that will better serve residents; and
• potentially reduce costs.
Page 62 of 226
The city requested the following through the RFP process based on citizen input & what citizens
preferred. Base Service (included in monthly price):
• Weekly collection & disposal of Garbage at either the alley or curbside, at household’s
choice
• Bi-weekly (every other week) collection & processing of Recycling at either the alley or
curbside, at household’s choice
• Large Item Disposal (furniture, non-freon appliances, etc.) of up to 3 items plus 10 bags
of trash plus 10 bags or bundles of yard waste, 2 times per year, curbside. These
vouchers would be provided to each household and would be transferable from year to
year and from household to household.
Costs would be included on the city’s monthly utility bill sent to each property owner. Thus,
eliminating the need for households to arrange & pay for these services directly to a waste
hauling company. Garbage & recycling bins would be provided to each household for use in the
program. For the first year, households could not Opt Out of the service. After the first year,
households could opt out but would 1) need to show proof of service by another company, and
2) pay a minimum fee (approximately $2 per month) for program administration.
The revised RFP was issued in August 2021. Two proposals were received in November 2021
from the following firms:
• Republic Services
• Waste Management
Each had important differences in what they proposed from what was requested in the RFP:
Service Waste Management Republic Services
Full alley or curbside pickup
for Garbage
No; only households who
currently have alley service
would continue to be serviced
in the alley
Yes
Full alley or curbside pickup
for Recycling
No; only households who
currently have alley service
would continue to be serviced
in the alley
Yes
Large Item Disposal Yes
No; households would be
required to bring items to a
central location on a specific
date
Opt Out Considerations
Households could opt out but
the company reserves the
right to renegotiate rates if
more than 10% opt out
Households could not opt out
and would have to pay the
company’s minimum service
fee
Page 63 of 226
Citizen's Committee Recommendations
The Citizen's Committee reviewed the new proposals and identified a list of questions for each
hauler. The Committee has developed a series of recommendations for the City Council to
consider:
Request that staff further negotiate individually with the haulers for all of the following
conditions, and recommend that the City Council accept whichever hauler can provide the
following package:
• Price $25 or under per household per month, inclusive of city admin fee (addresses cost)
• Recycling included at no additional cost (addresses sustainability)
• Annual price increases limited to 3% OR Water/Sewer/Trash CPI, whichever is lower
(addresses cost)
• Alley or curb service upon household choice for waste and recycling (addresses
flexibility and citizen preference; see alternative next slide)
• Opt-out allowed after first year (only $1.72 city admin fee would apply) (addresses
flexibility and citizen preference)
• If more than 10% of households opt out, hauler and city may renegotiate
• Choice between 32-gal and 96-gal bin size ** (addresses flexibility and citizen
preference; see alternative)
• Include yard waste: 4 bundles of branches and 4 bags of leaves/grasses (per pick-up)
(current level of service; addresses citizen preference) Note this does not include trash,
only yard waste.
Additional program recommendations:
• Consider discounts for low-income households
• Review staffing needs with attempt to minimize admin fees (addresses cost)
• Large-item pick-up not included (pay on demand) (addresses cost)
• City-wide yard waste events not included (continue former KEB events; seek other
options for expansion) (addresses cost)
• Investigate year-round yard waste drop-off site on city property like other nearby cities
(e.g. Northglenn, Thornton, Broomfield, Loveland, etc.) (addresses sustainability)
• Investigate opt-in compost program as a separate, future effort (bulk pricing) (addresses
sustainability)
• Requirement for all multifamily properties and properties to offer recycling to tenants
(addresses sustainability)
• Recommend that the City Council vote on this so they can adjust the program as needed
(if it goes to the ballot, every aspect of it is “set in stone”) aspect of it
Alternatives:
• Alley service: “Alley service upon request for any household with three or more full-size
steps to the sidewalk or extra steep driveway grade, demonstrated terrain difficulties,
disabled or senior citizen residents, or other demonstrated need” (may reduce overall
costs)
• Bin size: 96-gal bins only (may slightly reduce overall costs for the most common bin
size; adds simplicity
Page 64 of 226
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff recommends that the City Council consider information from staff, the committee and
survey, and ask any questions in preparation for the public hearing on April 18, 2022. Members
of the Citizen's Committee will be in attendance and can be called upon to discuss or answer
questions as well.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The RFP requested proposers to provide pricing for the following:
• Prices for a 5-year, 7-year and 10-year contract. One proposal provided pricing for all
three options and the other provided pricing only for the 7-year and 10-year contract
length.
Two pricing options were identified in the RFP:
Option 1:
Pricing for initial 2 years is fixed at proposed rates. Increases would be allowed in years 3-X
based on:
• The lesser of 3%, or
• The Denver/Aurora/Lakewood Consumer Price Index
The maximum total increase would be X% for a X-year contract, e.g. 5% for a 5-year contract.
Option 2:
Pricing for initial 2 years is fixed at proposed rates. Increases would be allowed in years 3-X
based on:
• The lesser of 3%, or
• The Denver/Aurora/Lakewood Consumer Price Index
The maximum total increase would not be limited but would be no more than 3% per year for
the length of the contract. So, 3% per year for 5 years (compounding) would be an approximate
15% increase.
Potential Modifications to the RFP Requirements:
• Both proposers are recommending that the city utilize the national Water/Sewer/Trash
Consumer Price Index in lieu of the Denver/Aurora/Lakewood Consumer Price Index
• Both proposers requested annual increases of 3.5% vs 3%.
The pricing received from each company was relatively similar. A summary of the potential
costs to each household is detailed below:
Monthly Cost
Base Service $25-$29/month
City Administrative Fee $2/month
Total Monthly Cost $27-$31/month
After 7 years, assuming 3% increase per year $32-$36/month
Page 65 of 226
If the city were to pursue a contract with a single vendor, the approximate cost of the annual
contract would be $2,900,000.
CONNECTION TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
Strategic Outcome: Sustainability
A city that protects its natural environment
• Evaluate organized garbage and recycling collection program
OUTREACH/COMMUNICATIONS:
The city has implemented the following elements of a Communications Plan to solicit input &
feedback from the community on this initiative:
• Englewood Engaged webpage: •Englewood is Talk n' Trash | Englewood Engaged
(englewoodco.gov)
• Survey provided to solicit public input; 1,742 responses received & tabulated; of these,
70 paper surveys were completed
• Public informational meetings held on March 8 & March 10, 2022; the video recording of
the March 8 session is posted on the Englewood Engaged webpage
• All questions & answers from both public meetings were summarized in a document
(FAQ summary dated 03/xx/22 (copy attached)) and posted on the Englewood Engaged
webpage
• All written comments (received via email to city staff) since November 2021 were
summarized for Council consideration (see attached)
• A Citizen's magazine article was published in Winter, 2021; another will be published in
Spring 2022
ATTACHMENTS:
Presentation
Public Survey Summary Charts
Public Survey Results Summary
Public Comment Summary
Reference Summary Memo
Area Municipalities Rate Comparison
FAQ Document 03.08 & 03.10.2022
FAQ Document 2019 Public Meetings
Page 66 of 226
Organized Garbage & Recycling Collection Initiative
Maria D’Andrea, Director of Public Works
April 11, 2022
Page 67 of 226
What is being considered?
•The city is exploring the possibility of changing to an organized collection system for
garbage & recycling collection.
•In an organized collection system, the city would contract with one vendor who
would provide service to all residential properties.
•Recycling would be required of all households.Page 68 of 226
Initiative Goals
1.Understand residents opinions about Englewood's changing to an organized
collection system for garbage collection.
2.Communicate how the program will be considered; and process if the city moves
forward.
3.Provide a summary of community opinions, concerns and survey results regarding
changing to an organized collection system for garbage collection.Page 69 of 226
Citizen’s Committee Members
•Dane Borman
•Christine Brinker
•Marcy Brown
•Carson Green
•Kanji Kawanabe
•Felicia Laib
•Matt Adams (former member)
•Geoff Frazier (former member)
•Brenda Hubka (former member)
•Cheryl Stewart (former member)
•Steve Ward (former member)Page 70 of 226
Background/Timeline
•Organized garbage collection evaluation was discussed by various city
Boards & Commissions as well as CASE –Citizens for the Advancement of a
Sustainable Englewood
•Initial Survey Conducted from 8/18/2019 –11/21/2019 to provide input on
current service within the community
•Public meetings were held on 8/29/19, 9/26/19 and 10/24/19 to gain
feedback from citizens & answer questions; a summary of these questions
& answers was prepared
•Initial RFP was developed by staff with input from representatives of these
groups
•Citizen’s Committee established by Council in June 2020
•Proposals from waste haulers were received in July 2020
Page 71 of 226
Background/Timeline
•Committee recommended that the City reject all proposals and re-write
the RFP to:
•better incorporate elements that will better serve residents; and
•potentially reduce costs
•A new RFP was issued in August 2021
•Proposals from waste haulers were received in November 2021
•Committee has been reviewing the proposals since that time
•Public input on costs & alternatives –February-March 2022
Page 72 of 226
Organized Collection-Advantages
Advantages:
•Increased efficiency (every house on the block is served by the same company)
which results in:
o Decreased impacts from truck traffic (pavement wear &tear,noise,
emissions)
o Decreased fuel consumption
•Greater community control including the ability to structure the program in
alignment with community goals
•Competitive bidding process ensures fair pricing –you pay what your neighbor
pays
•Increases are automatically built into the contract and are therefore planned
and predictable
Page 73 of 226
Organized Collection-Disadvantages
Disadvantages:
•No choice in provider (for the first year of the program)
•Greater administrative involvement and oversight by the city
•Hauling companies have more limited opportunities to compete for
contracts
Page 74 of 226
Base Service –Requested by City in RFP
Base Service (included in monthly price):
•Weekly collection & disposal of Garbage at either the alley or curbside, at
household’s choice
•Bi-weekly (every other week) collection & processing of Recycling at either the
alley or curbside, at household’s choice
•Large Item Disposal (furniture, non-freon appliances, etc.) of up to 3 items plus 10
bags of trash plus 10 bags or bundles of yard waste, 2 times per year, curbside.
These vouchers would be provided to each household and would be transferable
from year to year and from household to household.Page 75 of 226
Base Service –Requested by City in RFP
•Costs would be included on the city’s monthly utility bill sent to each property
owner. Thus, eliminating the need for households to arrange & pay for these
services directly to a waste hauling company.
•Garbage & recycling bins would be provided to each household for use in the
program.Page 76 of 226
Base Service –Requested by City in RFP
•Pricing for initial 2 years is fixed at proposed rates
•Increases would be allowed in years 3-X based on:
•The lesser of 3%, or
•The Denver/Aurora/Lakewood Consumer Price Index
•Maximum total increase would be X% for a X-year contract
Additional Pricing Option:
•Pricing for initial 2 years is fixed at proposed rates
•Increases would be allowed in years 3-X based on:
•The lesser of 3%, or
•The Denver/Aurora/Lakewood Consumer Price Index
Page 77 of 226
Service “Opt Out”
•Service mandatory for all households during first year of program
•After first year, households could “opt out” but would
1) need to show proof of service by another company, and
2) pay a minimum fee (approximately $2 per month) for program
administration.Page 78 of 226
Composting
•Optional Service
•Additional cost
•Year-round, weekly collection service
•Costs are currently unknown
•City wishes to determine the level of interest before
engaging with a company to provide these services
Page 79 of 226
Yard Waste
•RFP solicited pricing for 2 events per year where households could
bring their green waste to a designated site for disposal
Page 80 of 226
Proposals Summary
In response to a Request for Proposals,(RFP),the city received two responses from
waste hauling companies in November 2021.Each had important differences in what
they proposed from what was requested in the RFP.Page 81 of 226
Proposals Summary
Service Company A Company B
Full alley or curbside pickup
for Garbage
No; only households who currently
have alley service would continue to
be serviced in the alley
Yes
Full alley or curbside pickup
for Recycling
No; only households who currently
have alley service would continue
to be serviced in the alley
Yes
Large Item Disposal Yes
No; households would be required to
bring items to a central location on a
specific date
Opt Out Considerations
Households could opt out but the
company reserves the right to
renegotiate rates if more than 10%
opt out
Households could not opt out and
would have to pay the company’s
minimum service fee
Page 82 of 226
Costs
•The pricing received from each company was relatively similar.
•Annual increases would be capped at 3% annually; both companies wanted to
use different parameters for increases (Water/Sewer/Trash CPI or 3.5% annual
increase)
Monthly Cost
Base Service $25 -$29/month
City Administrative Fee $2/month
Total Monthly Cost $27 -$31/month
After 7 years, at 3% annual increase $32 -$36/month
Page 83 of 226
Communications & Outreach Plan
City Website
•Englewood Engaged page
•Talk -n-Trash page under Public Works
Print Media
•Citizen’s Magazine
•Postcard
Social Media
•Facebook/NextDoor/Twitter
Other
•Educational Video Public Meetings
o 2 meetings (one virtual and one in-person)
o FAQ sheet based on questions received via survey & in public meetings Page 84 of 226
Survey
•Survey could be found at:
•On line at the Englewood Engaged page
•Hard copy at Malley Center, Recreation Center, or Civic Center (3rd floor)
•Call 303-762-2500 to request a mailed hard copy with a self-addressed,
stamped envelope
•1,742 responses (80 were paper copies)Page 85 of 226
Key Survey Results
•Current Satisfaction Levels
•Current Costs paid by Residents
•Opt Out Administrative Fee
•Acceptability of Proposed Costs
•Key Concerns:
•Cost
•Service Reliability
•Yard Waste included in Base Service
Page 86 of 226
Citizen’s Committee Recommendations
Request that staff further negotiate individually with the haulers for all of the following conditions, and recommend that city council accept whichever hauler can provide the following package:
•Price $25 or under per household per month, inclusive of city admin fee (addresses cost)
•Recycling included at no additional cost (addresses sustainability)
•Annual price increases limited to 3% OR Water/Sewer/Trash CPI, whichever is lower (addresses cost)
•Alley or curb service upon household choice for waste and recycling (addresses flexibility and citizen preference; see alternative next slide)
•Opt-out allowed after first year (only $1.72 city admin fee would apply) (addresses flexibility and citizen preference)
•If more than 10% of households opt out, hauler and city may renegotiate
•Choice between 32-gal and 96-gal bin size ** (addresses flexibility and citizen preference; see alternative next slide)
•Include yard waste: 4 bundles of branches and 4 bags of leaves/grasses (per pick-up) (current level of service; addresses citizen preference) Note this does not include trash, only yard wastePage 87 of 226
Citizen’s Committee Recommendations
Additional program recommendations:
•Consider discounts for low-income households
•Review staffing needs with attempt to minimize admin fees (addresses cost)
•Large-item pick-up not included (pay on demand)(addresses cost)
•City-wide yard waste events not included (continue former KEB events; seek other options for expansion)(addresses cost)
•Investigate year-round yard waste drop-off site on city property like other nearby cities (e.g. Northglenn, Thornton, Broomfield, Loveland, etc.) (addresses sustainability)
•Investigate opt-in compost program as a separate, future effort (bulk pricing) (addresses sustainability)
•Requirement for all multifamily properties and properties to offer recycling to tenants (addresses sustainability)
•Recommend city council vote on this so they can adjust the program as needed (if it goes to the ballot, every aspect of it is “set in stone”) aspect of it is “set in stone”)Page 88 of 226
Citizen’s Committee Recommendations
•Alley service: “Alley service upon request for any household with three or more full-size steps to the sidewalk or extra steep driveway grade, demonstrated terrain difficulties, disabled or senior citizen residents, or other demonstrated need”(may reduce overall costs)
•Bin size: 96-gal bins only (may slightly reduce overall costs for the most common bin size; adds simplicity)Page 89 of 226
Implementation Timeline
•If Council decides to move forward, education would take place over about 6-9
months and then implementation in late-Fall 2022 or Spring 2023 Page 90 of 226
Questions & Discussion
Page 91 of 226
Public Hearing
Page 92 of 226
Project Report
24 March 2021 - 24 March 2022
Englewood Engaged
Englewood is Talk n' Trash
Highlights
TOTAL
VISITS
3.7 k
MAX VISITORS PER
DAY
593
NEW
REGISTRATI
ONS
0
ENGAGED
VISITORS
1.7 k
INFORMED
VISITORS
2 k
AWARE
VISITORS
3 k
Aware Participants 3,001
Aware Actions Performed Participants
Visited a Project or Tool Page 3,001
Informed Participants 1,976
Informed Actions Performed Participants
Viewed a video 21
Viewed a photo 3
Downloaded a document 51
Visited the Key Dates page 62
Visited an FAQ list Page 0
Visited Instagram Page 0
Visited Multiple Project Pages 291
Contributed to a tool (engaged)1,669
Engaged Participants 1,669
Engaged Actions Performed Registered Unverified Anonymous
Contributed on Forums 0 0 0
Participated in Surveys 3 4 1,640
Contributed to Newsfeeds 0 0 0
Participated in Quick Polls 0 0 0
Posted on Guestbooks 1 24 0
Contributed to Stories 0 0 0
Asked Questions 0 2 0
Placed Pins on Places 0 0 0
Contributed to Ideas 0 0 0
Visitors Summary
Pageviews Visitors
1 Feb '22 1 Mar '22
500
1000
1500
Page 93 of 226
Tool Type Engagement Tool Name Tool Status Visitors
Registered Unverified Anonymous
Contributors
Qanda What questions do you have?Draft 20 0 2 0
Guest Book Comments and Feedback Draft 69 1 24 0
Survey Tool Survey Archived 1870 3 4 1640
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
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 26 Page 94 of 226
Widget Type Engagement Tool Name Visitors Views/Downloads
Key Dates Key Date 62 97
Document Frequently Asked Questions.pdf 30 33
Document 2019 Garbage Survey Results 23 25
Document Public FAQ from three public meetings 20 22
Document Comments from 8.29.19, 9.26.19 & 10.24.19 Public Meetings 15 16
Document Questions for the Single Trash Hauler Public Meetings on March 8 & ...0 0
Video Englewood is Talk N' Trash 17 18
Video Talk n' Trash: March 8 Public Meeting 10 14
Video deleted video from 1 1
Photo deleted photo from Englewood is Talk n' Trash 3 3
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
INFORMATION WIDGET SUMMARY
5
DOCUMENTS
1
PHOTOS
2
VIDEOS
0
FAQS
0
KEY DATES
Page 3 of 26 Page 95 of 226
Visitors 20 Contributors 2 CONTRIBUTIONS 2
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
QANDA
What questions do you have?
No Responses
Page 4 of 26 Page 96 of 226
Visitors 69 Contributors 25 CONTRIBUTIONS 26
15 February 22
Kerstin
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
24 February 22
RON OLDS
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
28 February 22
verda gully
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
02 March 22
Herb Herndon
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
07 March 22
steve
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
GUEST BOOK
Comments and Feedback
Please consider adding a composting service like Denver has
Households do not have a choice in their provider (for the first year of the program); if y
ou are dissatisfied with the service, you may opt-out of the city’s program after the first
year but will still be required to pay a minimum service fee - How is being required to pa
y a fee for a service that you don't want, or use legal? sounds like someone is negotiati
ng a golden parachute account. Who is the beneficiary in this scam? How many house
s on a block? no ending date for the service fee, no cap on service fee - really ashamed
that we have city leaders that don't want to serve the good for the community and push
this type of dictator strong arming. This is an issue that the citizens should have a vote
on
I am in favor of this long overdue project. It would really help to preserve our streets. th
ank you
Don't try to fix something that's not broken. I am happy with my current provider becaus
e I can leave bags of tree limbs and yard waste every week with no limits, and I get alle
y pick-up.
Less than $50 with limited fuel surcharge for group purchase or not worth except for pri
ce increase cap
Page 5 of 26 Page 97 of 226
07 March 22
Hector76
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
08 March 22
Jimmy-D
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
08 March 22
vod kanockers
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
08 March 22
bob
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
08 March 22
Cam
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
08 March 22
Phillikn
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
09 March 22
Jennifer
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
GUEST BOOK
Comments and Feedback
Just my two cents; when a city or town uses one service for trash or ccable company, c
itizens do not have a flipping choice or voice in the matter. What if the city decided to c
ontract out police service just like the fire dept and calling 911, through Denver dispatc
h, wait times are 2 to 60 minutes. I already know the police service is poor and what if
citizens based the satisfaction on a customer service skill level, 10 being best, i would r
ate it a four, and those ratings would have to be reviewed by the mayor and police chie
f and if it continued, would seek a new police chief. I rarely see a city vehicle or police c
ar. Finally, more proactive police and code enforcement for problems like geese proble
ms , that would be great.
City of Englewood: please do not enable these companies to fleece us. Many of us hav
e contracts below $26/month. That price is available to most residents who shop aroun
d. There is no reason a whole city should be unable to get a better rate - especially wit
h the touted economies of scale. Plus, don't let the companies to push us around on all
ey pickups. Please remember you should be representing the citizens (including local
businesses to a fair degree) above other interests.
it is about time!!!
I think Englewood has bigger fish to fry. When there is only one contracted vendor that
service always goes up. Alley pick up is essential! I have a hill in my backyard - to haul
a trash can up that hill in the winter to get it out front of my house will be impossible. Pl
ease, look at the issue of no alley pick up - it is unreasonable and impossible for some.
The $24.00 surcharge for a service you don't receive has the look of, " Taxation without
Representation!"
I did not complete the survey as I currently reside in an apartment complex, which I as
sume is serviced differently than residential buildings. I would like to see the City of En
glewood to consider commercial buildings in its plans to change collection system. Spe
cifically, I’d like to see recycling services provided to our building. And ideally we would
have composting services as well.
Love the idea for environmental reasons; Fewer trucks and fewer service days seems li
ke a win on that front! I wonder if the second company (that allows alley pickup) would
be more willing to do large item pickup if it’s only a few times a year.. that way they can
plan to accommodate it on only a few select dates. Was just thinking trying to think of h
ow to get the best of both worlds (alley access + large item pickup).
Yes yes yes! This needs to happen sooner than later. The amount of pollution and dam
age to the roads having 6 trucks down it a week is insane for a city the size of Englewo
od!
Page 6 of 26 Page 98 of 226
10 March 22
None
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
10 March 22
Kelly Stangel Martin
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
17 March 22
seadog42
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
19 March 22
MBeerline13
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
19 March 22
Michelle
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
19 March 22
Michelle
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
19 March 22
Ginny, S. Huron St.
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
GUEST BOOK
Comments and Feedback
What are the options of getting recycle for all of the apartment buildings but would have
to be big bins like the trash bins.
Dear Englewood, I would be fine with one system as long as your prices do not mean
more money than I’m already paying. I would like you to consider fixing our water, that i
s where your efforts and energies should be focused. Our water tastes horrible, is smel
ly and is a real problem. Please worry about this issue and not the trash.
Please don't switch to city wide trash. We have worked hard to reduce our waste by co
mposting at home and buying compostable packaging. My worms eat my garbage. I do
n't want to pay the same and be forced into price increases. If they have a small trash b
in and I can pay less then I'll consider it. I would help with a pay as you throw away pro
gram or outreach in the community about home composing and reducing waste.
In favor depending on cost and company commitment to EDI efforts and sustainability
commitment.
I support this idea as long as it's competitively priced.
I support this idea as long as it's competitively priced.
I would recommend keeping two companies so there is always competition to keep the
prices lower than if there is only one company. A price lock and increase lock is only eff
ective for the first few years. Once one company has a monopoly and has potentially p
ut competitors out of business, they lack incentive to keep prices low. It seems like the
company Waste Management is taking over everywhere else. I agree with others that
more than two companies, maybe three at most, is too many and too much wear and t
ear, and pollution. Thank you!
Page 7 of 26 Page 99 of 226
19 March 22
Greg
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
19 March 22
J Schwartz
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
20 March 22
Gael Kathryns
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
20 March 22
Kdamericano
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
20 March 22
Jonathan
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
20 March 22
sverlee
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
21 March 22
Dave
AGREES
0
DISAGREES
0
REPLIES
0
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
GUEST BOOK
Comments and Feedback
No thank you! One of the advantages of living in a small c capitalist economy is choice
s of providers of merchandise and services. To allow a government agency to take ove
r a quite universally used service with no competition and virtually no oversight leads to
a possibly unhappy and locked in customer base!
I want the ability to choose which company we use. Do not like the idea of the city choo
sing for us.
We missed the survey cut off date, but still wish to make our voices heard. We think ver
y little of creating a city-wide monopoly on trash collection. Englewood has made a gre
at many mistakes over the past two decades with regards to the CityCenter, the restrict
ions and paving over of the canals, etc. The water treatment is still poor, and we have t
o filter our drinking water because it tastes like a swamp half the time. A monopoly on t
rash collection would only add to the mistakes that are leading Englewood away from b
eing a friendly small town and toward being an imitation city. So we are dead-set again
st it.
The company we currently use allows us addition bags/yard waste on a weekly basis v
s 2 times a year with this plan? That doesnt make sense, and I would not support this
plan as it sits. Englewood has way bigger infrastructure problems (water quality and a
wful alleys) to be opening this can of worms.
This seems like a great thing to do to reduce pollution and noise from all the extra truck
s that go through our neighborhood currently! I would also love some sort of compost pi
ckup solution, as the current ones are fairly expensive.
I think this is a good item, assuming the costs are comperable to what we are paying n
ow.
I am greatly opposed to a city-wide organized collection system. The city of Englewood
offers very little incentive to reducing human impact on the environment to curb climate
change and this would be one more over-arching government policy that would align w
ith that trend. Myself and other zero-wasters and composters would be forced to pay a
regular fee for a service we wouldn't use and this policy may also incentivize others to
create even more waste should the city offer a competitive pricing structure to other wa
ste services. Government policies are very inefficient when it comes to environmental i
mpact. I feel that this is a service better managed by individuals personally, according t
o their needs, rather than by a government.
Page 8 of 26 Page 100 of 226
Visitors 1870 Contributors 1647 CONTRIBUTIONS 1742
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
ENGAGEMENT TOOL: SURVEY TOOL
Survey
How satisfied are you with your current garbage service provider?
547 (31.4%)
547 (31.4%)
530 (30.5%)
530 (30.5%)
394 (22.6%)
394 (22.6%)
207 (11.9%)
207 (11.9%)62 (3.6%)
62 (3.6%)
Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied
Question options
Page 9 of 26
Optional question (1740 response(s), 2 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 101 of 226
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
What company currently provides service to your property?
2 (0.1%)
2 (0.1%)
206 (12.1%)
206 (12.1%)
601 (35.2%)
601 (35.2%)
752 (44.1%)
752 (44.1%)
104 (6.1%)
104 (6.1%)40 (2.3%)
40 (2.3%)
Little Dumpsters Republic Services Waste Connections Waste Management
Waste Services of Colorado Other (please specify)
Question options
Page 10 of 26
Optional question (1705 response(s), 37 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 102 of 226
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
Do you have alley service for waste?
707 (41.0%)
707 (41.0%)
928 (53.9%)
928 (53.9%)
88 (5.1%)
88 (5.1%)
Yes No Other (please specify)
Question options
Page 11 of 26
Optional question (1723 response(s), 19 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 103 of 226
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
Do you have alley service for recycling?
112 (6.6%)
112 (6.6%)
1440 (84.9%)
1440 (84.9%)
144 (8.5%)
144 (8.5%)
Yes No Other (please specify)
Question options
Page 12 of 26
Optional question (1696 response(s), 46 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 104 of 226
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
Do you currently have yard waste collection (bundled branches/bags of grass
clippings or leaves, etc.] included at no additional cost?
1072 (63.0%)
1072 (63.0%)
630 (37.0%)
630 (37.0%)
Yes No
Question options
Page 13 of 26
Optional question (1702 response(s), 40 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 105 of 226
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
Which of the following impacts of trash collection are you concerned about? Check
as many as apply.
Air pollution from trash and recycle trucks Noise from trash & recycle trucks Recycling rates
Availability of alley service Street and alley wear and tear Ability to dispose of large items Service reliability
Customer service Cost Predictable price increases
Yard waste included in standard service (bundled branches/bags of grass clippings or leaves, etc.)Cost
Other (please specify)
Question options
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
571
472
600 582
463
709
1082
709
1281
607
928
655
154
Page 14 of 26
Optional question (1711 response(s), 31 skipped)
Question type: Checkbox Question
Page 106 of 226
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
Do you currently receive recycling services as a part of your service?
1184 (68.9%)
1184 (68.9%)
535 (31.1%)
535 (31.1%)
Yes No
Question options
Page 15 of 26
Optional question (1719 response(s), 23 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 107 of 226
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
How much do you currently pay for garbage & recycling service on a monthly/yearly
basis? Please get a copy of your most recent bill instead of going by memory!
162 (14.3%)
162 (14.3%)
224 (19.8%)
224 (19.8%)
195 (17.3%)
195 (17.3%)
151 (13.4%)
151 (13.4%)
397 (35.2%)
397 (35.2%)
$22 or less per month / Less than $66 per quarter $22-$25 per month / $66-$75 per quarter
$25-$28 per month / $75-$84 per quarter $28-$31 per month / $84-$93 per quarter
More than $31 per month / More than $93 per quarter
Question options
Page 16 of 26
Optional question (1129 response(s), 613 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 108 of 226
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
How much do you currently pay for garbage service on a monthly/yearly basis?
Please get a copy of your most recent bill instead of going by memory! Be sure to
divide by 3 if you get a quarterly bill.
154 (30.4%)
154 (30.4%)
89 (17.6%)
89 (17.6%)
62 (12.3%)
62 (12.3%)
65 (12.8%)
65 (12.8%)
136 (26.9%)
136 (26.9%)
Less than $19 per month / Less than $57 per quarter $19-$22 per month / $57-$66 per quarter
$22-$25 per month / $66-$75 per quarter $25-$28 per month / $75-$84 per quarter
More than $28 per month / More than $84 per quarter
Question options
Page 17 of 26
Optional question (506 response(s), 1236 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 109 of 226
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
How important is it to you to have alley service for Garbage as a part of the potential
service?
622 (36.2%)
622 (36.2%)
169 (9.8%)
169 (9.8%)
237 (13.8%)
237 (13.8%)
691 (40.2%)
691 (40.2%)
Very Important Somewhat Important Neutral Not Important
Question options
Page 18 of 26
Optional question (1719 response(s), 23 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 110 of 226
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
How important is it to you to have alley service for Recycling as a part of the potential
service?
422 (25.0%)
422 (25.0%)
217 (12.8%)
217 (12.8%)
309 (18.3%)
309 (18.3%)
742 (43.9%)
742 (43.9%)
Very Important Somewhat Important Neutral Not Important
Question options
Page 19 of 26
Optional question (1690 response(s), 52 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 111 of 226
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
How important is it to you to be able to dispose of large items, such as furniture and
mattresses, at your home as a part of the potential service?
307 (17.9%)
307 (17.9%)
658 (38.3%)
658 (38.3%)
452 (26.3%)
452 (26.3%)
299 (17.4%)
299 (17.4%)
Very Important Somewhat Important Neutral Not Important
Question options
Page 20 of 26
Optional question (1716 response(s), 26 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 112 of 226
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
If you were to pay $27-$31 per month, with a maximum increase of no more than
$5.00, over the next 7 years ($32-$36 per month), that did not include alley service but
did include large item pickup, would you be amenable to this cost structure?
379 (22.2%)
379 (22.2%)
291 (17.0%)
291 (17.0%)
196 (11.5%)
196 (11.5%)
217 (12.7%)
217 (12.7%)
628 (36.7%)
628 (36.7%)
Strongly in Favor Somewhat in Favor Neutral Somewhat Against Strongly Against
Question options
Page 21 of 26
Optional question (1711 response(s), 31 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 113 of 226
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
If you were to pay $27-$31 per month, with a maximum increase of no more than
$5.00, over the next 7 years ($32-$36 per month), that did include alley or curbside
pickup but did not include large item pickup at your home, would you be amenable to
t...
338 (19.9%)
338 (19.9%)
318 (18.7%)
318 (18.7%)
316 (18.6%)
316 (18.6%)
261 (15.4%)
261 (15.4%)
467 (27.5%)
467 (27.5%)
Strongly in Favor Somewhat in Favor Neutral Somewhat Against Strongly Against
Question options
Page 22 of 26
Optional question (1700 response(s), 42 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 114 of 226
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
If there was an option to opt out of the program, with a $2 per month administrative
fee, would you be supportive of a change to one service provider for the city?
696 (40.9%)
696 (40.9%)
634 (37.3%)
634 (37.3%)
372 (21.9%)
372 (21.9%)
Yes No Neutral
Question options
Page 23 of 26
Optional question (1702 response(s), 40 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 115 of 226
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
Would you be interested in participating in a composting service at an additional
cost?
573 (33.4%)
573 (33.4%)
819 (47.8%)
819 (47.8%)
322 (18.8%)
322 (18.8%)
Yes No Neutral
Question options
Page 24 of 26
Optional question (1714 response(s), 28 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 116 of 226
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
How would you like to see a decision be made on this initiative?
492 (28.9%)
492 (28.9%)
1070 (62.8%)
1070 (62.8%)
142 (8.3%)
142 (8.3%)
City Council to decide Place on a future ballot for consideration by Englewood voters Other (please specify)
Question options
Page 25 of 26
Optional question (1704 response(s), 38 skipped)
Question type: Radio Button Question
Page 117 of 226
Englewood Engaged : Summary Report for 24 March 2021 to 24 March 2022
Please check the box below if the survey being entered is a paper survey.
Paper survey
Question options
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
80
Page 26 of 26
Optional question (80 response(s), 1662 skipped)
Question type: Checkbox Question
Page 118 of 226
24-Mar-2021 to 24-Mar-
2022
Admin Notes
3.71 k
0
33
3
96
1,976 3,001
Registere
d
Unverifie
d
Anonymou
s Participants Participants
0 0 0 21 3,001
3 4 1,640 3
0 0 0 51
0 0 0 62
1 24 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 2 0 291
0 0 0 1,669
Contributed to Ideas 0 0 0
0 Guestbook
s 0 0 0
0 Quick Polls 0 1
Unverified Anonymous
SurveyTools 1,870 4 1,640
Qanda 20 2 0
Guest Books 69 24 0
DOCUMENT
S 5 PHOTOS 1 VIDEOS 3 FAQS 0 1
Widget
Type
Document
Document
Document
Document
ENGAGEMENT TOOLS SUMMARY
Registered
KEY DATES
INFORMATION WIDGET SUMMARY
Comments from 8.29.19, 9.26.19 & 10.24.19 Public Meetings 15 16
Project Report:Englewood is Talk n' Trash
Project Highlights
1,669ENGAGED
PARTICIPANTS
INFORMED
PARTICIPANTS
AWARE
PARTICIPANTS
Asked Questions Visited Multiple Project Pages
Placed Pins on Places Contributed to a tool (engaged)
Frequently Asked Questions.pdf 30 33
2019 Garbage Survey Results 23 25
Public FAQ from three public meetings 20 22
What questions do you have?Draft 0
Comments and Feedback Draft 1
Engagement Tool Name Visitors Downloads/Views
Survey Archived 3
Engagement Tool NameTool Type Tool Status Visitors Contributors
Forum Topics
Qandas
Places
Stories
0
0
News Feeds
Survey Tools
Ideas
Participated in Quick Polls Visited the Key Dates page
Posted on Guestbooks Visited an FAQ list Page
Contributed to Stories Visited Instagram Page
Aware Actions
Performed
Contributed on Forums Viewed a video Visited at least one Page
Participated in Surveys Viewed a photo
Contributed to Newsfeeds Downloaded a document
Total Visits
New Registrations
Video views
Photo Views
Document Downloads
Engaged Actions Performed Informed Actions
Performed
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2022-01-262022-01-272022-01-282022-01-292022-01-302022-01-312022-02-012022-02-022022-02-032022-02-042022-02-052022-02-062022-02-072022-02-082022-02-092022-02-102022-02-112022-02-122022-02-132022-02-142022-02-152022-02-162022-02-172022-02-182022-02-192022-02-202022-02-212022-02-222022-02-232022-02-242022-02-252022-02-262022-02-272022-02-282022-03-012022-03-022022-03-032022-03-042022-03-052022-03-062022-03-072022-03-082022-03-092022-03-102022-03-112022-03-122022-03-132022-03-142022-03-152022-03-162022-03-172022-03-182022-03-192022-03-202022-03-212022-03-222022-03-232022-03-24Visitors Summary
Date
Page-views
Visitors
Visits
Page 119 of 226
Document
Photo
Video
Video
Video
Key Dates Key Date 62 97
Englewood is Talk N' Trash 17 17
Talk n' Trash: March 8 Public Meeting 10 10
deleted_video 1 1
Questions for the Single Trash Hauler Public Meetings on March 8 & 10 2022 0 0
3 3
Page 120 of 226
Talk-n-Trash Comments
Source Comments
Email 1/26/22 Summary:
• Pays $18/month, single individuals don’t produce as much
trash as families. Different bin sizes for different needs.
• Alley pickup – smaller containers should be an option for
elders & residents with disabilities that cannot manage very
large bins
• Trash service on vacation hold option
• Surveys for Citizens
Email 2/2/22 Summary:
I would love to see composting considered as part of the new city-
wide waste and recycling service. In our household we
try to compost ourselves, but we simply have too much volume to
handle everything. We currently compost a small
amount of food waste manually to fertilize the garden each spring.
While it's great to see recycling included, there are
many items that are compostable but not recyclable:
• paper products that can't be recycled like paper towels
• food waste
• yard trimmings, leaves, etc.
• plastic alternatives designed to be composted like
disposable utensils, plates, etc.
Phone 3/7/22 Resident said she is against the single hauler initiative if the cost is
higher than $25 per month.
Phone 3/9/22 Companies have increased their prices in the past year & it’s hard
to contact a customer service representative. Glad the City has
decided to do something about it.
Phone There shouldn’t be an opt out fee, if the residents will not receive
any type of service after they opt out.
Phone Very against initiative, the City is trying to control everything now,
residents should have the option to pick their own companies.
Phone Disabled person. Very difficult to bring cans up & down the
driveway. Doesn’t want the city telling them who can provide
service. They are happy with the way things are. They will be
charged $75/can to change service so $150 to get out of their
contract.
In-person 3/22/22 Against the City having control over trash, should be up to
residents to decide & put initiative on ballot.
Page 121 of 226
Facebook 3/14/22 My trash went up from 77 to 127, getting out of hand. 50 bucks
difference.
Facebook 3/9/22 I am trying to point out that they will then add fees and more fees
after that without changing the actual price for the pickup. Also
stops us from having choices and letting companies compete. Also
hate the idea even after a year if you opt out you have to still pay a
fee.
Facebook 3/3/22 I support this as long as it is the same or cheaper than the $26 a
month I pay now for WM. This has been a discussion since 2019 or
2020 and it seems to be taking quite a while to implement.
Facebook 3/3/22 Really excited for this. It is long overdue.
Facebook 3/3/22 I don't understand why Englewood cannot negotiate a decent rate
out of this. We pay $22/month while the city is negotiating for
$30/month. Curious - especially since the flyer only says, "The
pricing received from each company was relatively similar," and
"competitive pricing." We're about to get fleeced.
Facebook 3/3/22 And most of of that are home owners do NOT want this!
Englewood, you need to talk with home owners, not renters!!!!
Facebook 3/3/22 Of course you figured out how to get more money from the citizens
of City of Englewood. Rip off
Facebook 3/1/22 I live in Sheridan and this has worked good for our city. The cost is
so much better for us. And the service has been great.
Facebook 3/1/22 I believe this is much needed and beneficial for our landfills and
recycling.
Facebook 3/1/22 Put it on the ballot
Email 3/29/22 Summary:
Presentation on Alternative Programs/Ideas instead of single hauler
trash collection administered by City staff.
Email 3/30/22 Summary:
List of reasons why resident supports the initiative & would like to
see a composting option in the future.
• Less wear and tear on the infrastructure of our streets and
alleyways;
• Inclusion of recycling will encourage more people to recycle;
• Better performance by trash hauler will be required through
contract; and,
• Stable and known cost over a period of years with increases
set by contract.
Email 3/23/22 Summary:
Resident is strongly against the initiative & lists the disadvantages
of the program, such as:
• Costs under the proposed program would increase and are a
major concern to me and my neighbors. I currently
Page 122 of 226
contract for garbage and recycling services and this
proposal would cause my costs to increase with no
improvement in service.
• I am satisfied with my current trash collection arrangement.
• The primary benefit of an organized trash collection
program should be greater cost efficiency through increased
negotiating power resulting in a reduction in rates for the
community. This program does not achieve that.
• Individual households would lose any negotiating power to
get the best service and instead have to rely on the city to
advocate on their behalf.
Email 4/1/22 Summary:
I am writing to you in support of the Single Hauler Trash proposal.
My biggest issue with the current system is
its inefficiency. On trash days we have many trucks driving up and
down the street, my own trash company
travels my block 5 times to pick up the trash. Multiply that by the
number of trash companies, at least 4 and
you begin to understand how inefficient this system is.
Page 123 of 226
1
DATE: January 11, 2022
TO: Citizen’s Committee for Organized Collection of Garbage and Recycling
FROM: Maria D’Andrea, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Summary of Reference Checks for Waste Haulers
Staff contacted each of the references listed in the proposals from each hauler. They also
reached out to the City of Arvada, at the suggestion of Republic Services, as that city has
recently implemented service and they switched from a curbside large item pickup to drop
off events. Below is a summary of the phone discussions that occurred based on responses
to date.
Republic Services References
City of Edgewater, Colorado
Dan Maples, City Manager
Population: approximately 5,000
Republic Services provides a PAYT service for trash and recycling for the residents of
Edgewater. Additional services include a spring and fall bulk item collection and an
electronic recycling event. Republic has been providing services to the city of Edgewater
since 2010.
Republic’s service delivery has been good overall They have had some issues with staffing
when Republic took on Arvada’s contract. During that time, they were a little less
responsive to Edgewater for a while. They respond to customer service issues pretty
quickly and typically get resolved within a week. They have Republic for over 10 years now
so have worked out a lot of kinks. Edgewater takes all of the calls at their office (rather
than through the call center) and then work through a local rep to get them corrected. They
do have penalties worked into their contract but Republic has always corrected issues
before they have had to fine them.
90% of the city is serviced off of alleys so almost all vehicles are rear load. They offer large
item pickup, in the alleys, on a per item cost basis which is billed to the property owner.
They also do two large item pickups per year at a single location on a Saturday where
people have to bring items. For those events, the city pays for the costs based on tonnage
collected.
Billing is performed by the city as a part of the utility bill. Residents are allowed to “opt out”
of the program, i.e. they do not need to participate.
Page 124 of 226
2
City of Lafayette, Colorado
Elizabeth Szorad, Sustainability Director
Population: approximately 29,000
Republic Services provides a PAYT service for trash, recycling, and compost for the
residents of Lafayette. Additional services include a fall leaf and branch event, an annual
curbside bulk drop off event and a spring free finished compost event. Republic has been
providing service to Lafayette since 2014
Republic Services has done a great job overall. They are very responsive to issues once
they become aware of them. Has been difficult at times for citizens to get a hold of them
especially when volumes of calls are high – they get backed up and it takes longer to get
issues addressed. Using the local call center has provided better results. They do have the
ability to charge penalties, per their contract, but have not done so. Instead, staff has
reminded Republic that they have the ability to charge them. Generally, Republic has
addressed issues – whatever they happen to be – as they arise. For example, sometimes
second or third missed pickups at a particular house, they get all of their staff involved to
investigate the issue and resolve it. Oftentimes, it is a new driver who may not know the
route well yet.
They do two curbside large item drop off events per year. These are scheduled for two
Saturdays in a month and divide the city up so that one ½ gets pickup on one Saturday and
the other ½ on the next Saturday. These are well received by citizens. They also provide
large item pickup outside of these events at an additional cost per item to residents. They
also hold a Hard to Recycle event.
The city bills residents on their monthly utility bill. The city receives a file from Republic each
month in order to populate their billing system. Annual increases to the service contract
rates are based on 100% of the change (increase or decrease) to the
Denver/Aurora/Lakewood CPI.
City of Louisville, Colorado
Kurt Kowar, Public Works Director
Population: approximately 21,000
Republic Services provides a PAYT service for trash, recycling and composting for the
residents of Louisville Additional services include a spring and fall bulk item collection
event. Republic has been providing services to the city of Louisville since 2019.
No response to date.
City of Commerce City, Colorado
Steven White, Program Coordinator
Population: approximately 62,000
Republic Services provides a city-wide trash and recycle carted collection system.
Additional services include bulk item collection and leaf and branch removal. Republic has
been providing services to Commerce City since January 2020.
Page 125 of 226
3
City pays for all services so no citizens pay directly through a utility bill. Weekly garbage,
bi-weekly recycling plus one large item pickup curbside per year. Well used; there was a
bit of confusion last year with maps and days of planned pickups. No issues with non-
residents/people from other cities dropping things randomly for these events. Residents
also get two vouchers per year to use when they want for pickup & disposal of one
large/bulky item each. They need to call Republic to schedule that pickup.
Annual cost increases are either 4% or the national Water/Sewer/Trash index. They are
charged based on the number of households times the monthly rate so no
increase/decrease for changes in recycling value, i.e. if there’s no market for recyclables,
that cost is not passed back to the city. No issue with opt out as the city pays for the
service directly to Republic.
Customer service has been good overall but did have some issues with staffing of drivers
which led to service levels dropping. They have penalties or liquidated damages provision
in the contract if their missed pick up rate falls below 99.9%. They typically run about
99.94% to 99.95% but they have dipped to 99.88% and they did invoke liquidated
damages at that time. City staff and Republic staff meet every other week to go over &
resolve issues which has helped greatly in addressing issues promptly.
City of Arvada, Colorado
Jason O’Keefe, Utilities Manager
Population: approximately 124,000
New service began implementation in June 2021 and it took about 8 months for full
implementation. Started process in January 2021. Between January and June, they
averaged 4,000 phone calls per month regarding the new service. They now average
about 1,000 contacts (emails & phone calls) per month. They had to add two utility billing
technicians to handle the call load. Implementation of the program was handled through a
team of staff including the Deputy City Manager, the Sustainability Coordinator and
himself.
Before organized collection in 2021, the city did offer a curbside large item pickup for
residents at city cost. It cost about $500,000 so the city decided to go to drop off events at
local parks when they switched to organized collection. Two events now cost them about
$75,000. In the last event, they got 600K pounds of material including over 700
mattresses. People were not happy about the switch from curbside to central drop off. But
they also found that there were often people in the neighborhood who had a truck and/or
trailer who would reach out to seniors/others and coordinate pickup. Each resident was
allowed 5 items per household but they did not monitor this too closely. They also have
large item pickup through the contract at $15/item which is billed to the property owner.
The property owner still needs to get it to the curb.
They do have some alleys and some mountain stops which are serviced by a smaller,
side-arm vehicle and/or rear-load trucks.
Page 126 of 226
4
About 18,000 of 42,000 household are currently in the program or about a 30% opt out.
The 42,000 includes homes in HOAs who already have contracted service and may or
may not choose to use the city’s contractor. After they published their prices, another
company came in and offered pricing at approximately $1 less than the city’s rates.
Waste Management References
Town of Palisade, Colorado
Travis Boyd, Finance Director
Population: approximately 2,700
Waste Management provides residential trash and recycling collection including alley
service. New service was implemented in 2020.
It took a lot of staff time and length of time (about 2-3 months) to implement the program.
This needs to be factored into our timeline. Does not require households to participate but
thinks their non-participation rate is about 5% as they have a good price and limited
options for service from other companies. They do require households to participate in the
recycling program which is included in the base price/service. When they put the program
in place, they did have some people who took advantage of the city’s program and ended
their current contract and then some who tried the program and then decided to go with
their own provider. Overall, it seems like its been about a wash in terms of number of
households who opted in versus opted out.
WM responds to issues promptly and with good customer service overall. They know how
to do their business and do it well. Palisade has unpaved alleys and WM has serviced all
of these locations. Some issues with overgrown trees and overhead wires to contend with.
The city’s call volume dropped significantly once the program was implemented.
One of the issues they have been dealing with is reconciling the invoice from WM with the
city’s billing system and making sure residents are getting billed accurately for service.
They have worked out the kinks but are planning to do a reconciliation quarterly to ensure
service provided matches the services billed.
They have a clause in our contract that is tied to the lesser of 3% or the
Water/Sewer/Trash CPI. Each year of the contract has increased by the 3%.
City of Litchfield Park, Arizona
Matthew Williams, City Manager
Population: approximately 6,500
Waste Management provides residential trash and recycling collection. They have
provided service to the community for more than 13 years.
Current rate is $24.54 per month, per home. The city does have alleys in some places.
Garbage service is picked up in the alleys.
Page 127 of 226
5
Bulk item pickup is provided every month at the curb. This includes yard waste and grass
clippings.
City of Rio Rancho, New Mexico
Jim Chiasson, Director of Utilities
Population: approximately 100,000
Waste Management provides residential trash and recycling collection, large item pickup
yard waste collection events, and household hazardous waste collection. They have
provided service to the community for more than 30 years.
They have utilized WM for more than 30 years and staff has very little effort. They are a big
company and know their business. City staff responds to basic questions otherwise,
calls/emails go to WM’s call center for resolution. WM has been very attentive to resolving
issues. Rio Rancho performs an annual citizen’s survey and garbage service is always one
of the highest rated services.
They have a franchise in place so all residents must participate. The city does the invoicing
and then must collect if there is non-payment by citizens through liens, etc.
They do not participate in a risk-sharing/value share for the recycling but WM did come to
them a few years back about the difficult recycling market. Instead of just raising rates, the
city went from every week recycling collection to every other week. Rates still went up
(associated with recycling) but not as much as it could have been.
They have a large/bulky item pickup two times per year at a central location, so people
have to bring a limited number of items to the site for disposal. These costs are covered by
the program.
Annual increases are tied to the water/sewer/trash index. They are currently evaluating
whether or not to continue with WM as a sole source or issue an RFP. They have an
Environmental Manager position on staff who, among other things, oversees the garbage
program.
Sandy City, Utah
Michael Gladbach, Public Works Director
Population: approximately 95,000
Waste Management provides residential trash and recycling collection, and municipal
commercial collection. They have provided service to the community for more than 20
years.
Overall experience with WM has been very good. They operate in accordance with their
contract. This past summer they changed to every-other-week recycling collection so that
higher rates would not be incurred by residents.
They participate in WM’s Value Share program and have had good success. It is a risk
sharing. They have seen prices (costs to the city) of $78/Ton for some materials; one year
Page 128 of 226
6
ago it was $50/Ton for plastics but now is back in the black again where the city is gaining
$14/Ton. They have a separate Garbage Fund and the costs or revenue associated with
the Value Share are absorbed by the Fund until the next year’s rate adjustment.
Annual increase is based on the Water/Sewer/Trash national index. They typically adjust
the rates in conjunction with their fiscal year of July 1.
Large item pickup is provided two times per year for items that don’t fit in the standard can.
There is no limit on items. Public Works staff uses a loader to help place items in a truck
for disposal.
No one person on staff is responsible for managing the garbage program. Instead, a
variety of staff in different departments each have a “piece” of it. However, they have had
to add to Utility Billing staff over the years as more questions/calls come in.
Page 129 of 226
Local Municipalities - Summary of Garbage, Recycling & Composting Services
Agency Service Type Program Garbage Recycling Compost Xsmall Small Medium Large Large Item Pickup Other
Loveland Single Hauler contracted through city Volume based X X X $3.25 $6.50 $13.00 $19.50 One annual voucher per HH included Yard waste container available April thru Nov for $8.75/month
Golden Single hauler contracted through city Volume based X X X n/a $6.75 $13.50 $20.25 Through hauler at additional cost based on item(s)
Compost container is an additional $9.45/month; carry out &
carry back of cans available for an additional fee
Louisville Single Hauler contracted through city Volume based X X X n/a $15.44 $28.54 $41.62 1 quarterly large item pickup/HH
Only for SF homes not in an HOA; compost costs included in
rates
Longmont Single Hauler contracted through city Volume based X X X n/a $6.50 $12.90 $24.00 1-2 items $60; 3 items (max) $75
Compost available at an additional $6.60/month; rates include
a $2.96/month mgmt fee. Small pickup is 48 Gal picked up
every other week.
Lafayette Single Hauler contracted through city Volume based X X X n/a $9.49 $18.99 $28.48 1/year bulk item pickup/HH
Compost available at an additional $3.45/month for 96 Gal
container
Commerce City Single hauler contracted through city
1- 95 gallon
can/HH X X 1 item per quarter, additional items $15 each Additional cans $2.75/month
Arvada Single hauler contracted through city Volume based X X n/a $11.50 $15.63 $19.76 $3.50 per tag for additional items Service will begin in July 2021. $5.13 opt out service fee
Sheridan Single hauler contracted through city Volume based X X n/a $8.00 $12.67 $20.49 Additional cans $7.00/month
Edgewater Single hauler contracted through city Volume based X X X n/a $6.75 $12.14 $17.54 2 free items per year Additional cans $8.00/month
Highlands Ranch
Single hauler contracted through
community association Volume based X X Bundled & bagged yard waste is included in the service
Denver Municipal Utility X X X Fee for composting
Thornton Municipal Utility X X
Large item pickup available for a fee of $65 for up to
6 CY
Northglenn Municipal Utility X X X n/a n/a n/a $16.00 Property owner must purchase container from the city
Lakewood Open Subscription
Lakewood does not provide trash collection services. Services
need to be contracted directly with one of the city licensed
commerical waste haulers.
Fort Collins Open Subscription
Per Fort Collins Municipal Code, Sec. 12-18 (a), community
members in the City of Fort Collins are required to use a solid
waste collector licensed by the City. This includes for
construction and demolition projects.
Boulder Open Subscription
The city does not determine or have any way to control rates
nor does the city dictate appropriate levels of service. The city
does have a Zero Waste Startegic Plan.
Westminster Open Subscription
Westminster does not provide trash collection services.
Services need to be contracted directly with one of the city
licensed Trash and Recycling Collectors.
Littleton Open Subscription
The City of Littleton does not provide trash hauling or
recycling services, nor can the city endorse or recommend any
trash or recycling services.
Cherry Hills Village Open Subscription
Cherry Hills Village does not provide trash hauling or recycling
services, and does not have comprehensive list of companies
that are a availabe for service.
Wheat Ridge Open Subscription
The City does not have an official trash service company.
Residents may choose any company they would like.
Cost/month/HH
City pays for services through taxes
City pays for services through taxes; current cost is
$13.49/month/HH
Optional 95-gallon container or customer provider
containers $15.35/month/HH
$13.50 one container, $16.00 two containers, $25.20
three containers, $34.40 four containers
Page 130 of 226
Response to Questions from
Talk-n-Trash Meeting
March 8th & 10th, 2022
Question Answer
Are you going to share the dollar amounts
this evening?
Yes, the projected total monthly cost,
including the administrative fee is anticipated
to be between $27-$31 for the first year.
That is not true that alley service is limited in
Englewood. Many have it, and up until a few
years ago everyone had it for waste and
recycling. This is definitely a deal breaker!
Alley pick up service was more widely
available in Englewood a few years ago.
Some companies are now declining to
provide alley pick up service.
I thought the large item pickup was only
offered by Waste Management, not Republic?
Republic Services offered large item pick up
at a central location, where residents would
have to bring their items to a specific location
on a certain date.
What are these “safety” issues with alley
service?
Based on waste haulers’ comments, the
limited room or width of the alley requires
rear load vehicles where the driver has to
move the carts from the side of the alley to
the back of the truck to empty them and then
move them back to the side of the alley.
Also, sometimes the alleys have overhead
wires so there are height limits. Also, some
haulers have expressed concern about
damage to their vehicles due to the unpaved
alleys, ruts, etc.
Will the city offer discounts for seniors or
military?
This is a point that we need to discuss with
the City Council to see if there is a desire to
provide this. The city would need to
determine how to pay for this discount. It
could be structured like the low-income
discount that is currently in place for
water/sewer bills.
What about providing recycling to multifamily
(apartment houses) or other rental
properties?
The City cannot require multifamily dwellings
of more than 7 units to participate in the
program. Typically, multi-family dwellings use
a dumpster or different container than those
serviced with the vehicles used for single-
family dwellings. If the city were to move
Page 131 of 226
forward, the Citizen’s committee decided that
we would offer the services to apartments/
condos to use the city service.
If this program is implemented, would there
be any reimbursement for cancellation fees
from current trash companies? For example,
Waste Management charges $75/bin (so
$150 if you have trash and recycling) if you
cancel your service.
The city has not considered that issue.
Currently, the intent is that the City will not
reimburse residents so that will be an
additional cost to people.
Talk n’ Trash In-Person Meeting – March 10th, 2022
What companies responded to the RFP? Waste Management & Republic Services
Did Waste Connections submit an RFP? No, they did not.
What number of households do each
company service in the city of Englewood?
In 2019, between the two companies, they
serviced around 40-50% of the households in
the entire city.
Is there a consideration to provide different
bin sizes for different household needs?
We are looking at an option to provide 32-
gallon containers in addition to 96-gallon
containers.
Please provide clarification on why a
company is refusing to provide alley pick up.
Since it takes different type of equipment to
provide alley pick up & it takes longer to pick
up. Some companies are not willing to do.
Disclose which company is Company A &
Company B
The city would prefer not to disclose the
company names so as to ensure that the
process is fair for both companies and the
decision is based on pros & cons only.
What would the administrative fee revenue
be used for?
Informative & educational material each
quarter such as calendars, recycling info etc.
as well as salaries for staff to manage the
program.
Estimated opt out rate It is difficult to know how many households
might opt out of the program. However,
based on other communities opt out rates,
such as the city of Golden, we estimate 3%
of residents might opt out of the program
after the initial year.
If residents decide to opt out after the first
year, would the $2 administrative fee become
a tax?
The $2 administrative fee is not a tax since
residents will still receive a service. For
example, if a resident decides to opt out,
they will still have to go through the process
of showing proof that they hired a trash
hauler, which will be managed by City staff.
Also, residents will still receive the
Page 132 of 226
informative & educational materials each
quarter.
How will you deal with apartments &
multifamily homes?
The City cannot require multifamily dwellings
of more than 7 units to participate in the
program. Typically, multi-family dwellings use
a dumpster or different container than those
serviced with the vehicles used for single-
family dwellings. If the city were to move
forward, the Citizen’s committee decided that
we would offer the services to apartments/
condos to use the city service.
Is recycling mandatory for apartments? Recycling is not mandatory for any household
or business, currently, under the City code.
Clarification on why the opt out term is a full
year and not less
This will allow residents enough time to try
out the program and make an informed
decision of keeping the service or opting out
and providing alternate service through
another provider.
What was the integration process like in
other cities?
Arvada staff mentioned that the transition
was difficult at first, mostly, educating people
on the new process. It was an initiative that
took 5-6 months to be implemented. Overall,
they feel like it was worthwhile & beneficial
to their city.
What would the City do if a resident does not
pay for the administrative fee?
If the utility bill was not paid, this could
potentially result in a lien on the property.
How long would the contract be? The City requested pricing for 5, 7, & 10
years. One company provided prices for all
three options & the other company just for 7
& 10 years. Since the price didn’t change a
lot for 10 years, the City is focused on
evaluating the 7-year option.
What would the monthly cost be? Base Service $25-29/month plus
Admin Fee $2/month would equal a total
monthly cost of between $27-31/month,
initially.
I don’t think there will be less trucks on the
street, since the chosen hauler will require
more trucks to meet city needs.
It would be difficult to quantify how many
fewer miles would be driven as a result of
having one provider versus multiple
providers. However, qualitatively, we know
that each hauler drives down the full length
of a street whether they pick up one house,
five houses, or all houses on a particular
Page 133 of 226
block. Therefore, by collecting garbage or
recycling at every house, there is less travel
on the streets even if we assume that the
one hauler would need to take more trips to
the landfill site.
What about yard waste? All non-hazardous items can be placed in the
garbage container. The city requested pricing
to collect yard waste and dispose of it as
compostable material, at an additional cost to
property owners, however, neither company
provided pricing for this additional service.
What will be happening during the City
Council meeting?
The City Council meeting on April 18, 2022
will present all of the survey information and
comments received during the public
information process. The City Council may
decide to move forward with a single hauler
or not. They may also consider placing this
item on a future ballot.
Page 134 of 226
Response to Questions from
Talk-n-Trash Meetings
8/29/2019, 9/26/2019 & 10/24/19
Question Answer
Alley-Related Questions
Alley pick-up crucial for
residents with no street
access
This is a point that has been voiced by many people. Alley
pick up will need to be a requirement in many areas where
physical barriers restrict bringing garbage cans to the street
side of the property.
Poor alley conditions
restricts truck access
The City is in the process of performing improved grading and
adding asphalt millings to alleys so that they are able to better
withstand garbage truck traffic.
No access for certain alleys
(storm sewer in alley)
See above response.
Low wiring in alleys interfere
with trash pick-up
Xcel Energy is responsible for ensuring wiring meets minimum
heights. People may contact them with problem areas. This
includes all wiring on Xcel poles.
https://www.xcelenergy.com/Customer_Support/Contact_Us_Form
Alley pickup is not feasible
for my property/street
pickup is not feasible for my
property
Proposals will be received to consider picking up garbage in
both the alley and the street. So, residents would have the
option of where to place their container on pickup day. This
would require the hauler to drive down both the alleys and the
streets to collect.
Logistics/Abatement Questions
Parking from construction
(ex. Logan St.) interferes
with access to street pick-up
The Municipal code may need to be modified to detail when
and where garbage cans are placed, how parking should be
restricted, etc.
Bins left out after trash have
not been picked-up - (Code
Enforcement)
The Municipal code may need to be modified to detail when
and where garbage cans are placed, how parking should be
restricted, etc.
How is the City going to
handle illegal trash
dumping? Enforcement of
the residents with no trash
pick-up? One system –
Everybody paying into
system –all access
Some of the benefits of a single trash hauler include provision
for large item pickup (such as mattresses, furniture, etc.) so
that illegal dumping, and its impacts on the public, are
diminished. If a contract was put in place by the city, all
residential properties would be required to pay for service. So,
this would likely reduce the need for enforcement of
properties where no trash service is provided.
Page 135 of 226
How do we regulate trash
routes from neighboring
cities taking short cuts
through Englewood
Staff is evaluating options to address this concern.
Will residents be limited to a
single container (families
produce more waste)
No, additional service options, such as the option for more
than one container, will be available to customers, likely at an
additional cost.
I only generate a small
amount of garbage, do I still
have to pay for service?
Two or three sizes of bins will be available. There would likely
be a lower cost for a smaller bin over a larger one. All
properties will be charged for service to eliminate the
accumulation of waste and the use of neighbor’s containers
for trash disposal.
Large containers are difficult
to maneuver. How will this
be addressed?
The city will request that providers provide options to: 1)
provide smaller containers for eligible persons or allow them
to use their own containers, and 2) have the garbage person
bring the trash container to & from the front of the
garage/house, again for certain eligible persons.
How do we prevent other
neighbors or random people
from putting trash in
resident’s trash cans?
All properties will be charged for service in order to eliminate
the likelihood of neighbors using resident’s trash cans for their
waste. There is no way to control having random people
putting trash in cans. To limit trash from others, it would be
best to keep cans in the garage until the day of pickup.
Composting/Recycling Questions
Curbside composting; City
drop off facilities for plastic,
aluminum etc. to Increase
recycling effectiveness
Composting will be considered as an additional service that
people can opt into and pay for in addition to the base
service. Drop off recycling facilities, in lieu of curbside
recycling, will be considered in the Request for Proposals.
Yard waste container
alternative
Composting will be considered as an additional service that
people can opt into and pay for in addition to the base
service.
Consider composting and/or
large item pickup from
summer through fall
Staff will evaluate this option for composting; large item pick
up will likely be needed year round
Cost-related Questions
Dollar amount of road wear
and tear caused by trash
vehicles
According to the Colorado Asphalt Pavement Association, one
combination truck (similar to a trash truck) is equivalent to
7,372 passenger cars.
https://co-asphalt.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/03/TrashTruckDamage.pdf
Potential trash hauler pricing
increase tied to “Cost of
A yearly rate increase will be built into the contract (before it
is approved) based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the
Page 136 of 226
Living” similar to Social
Security check adjustments
Denver metro area. The contract amount will only change (up
or down) by this amount for each year of the contract.
Price Costs will be received with the responses to the Request for
Proposals and will be included in the materials presented to
the City Council for consideration. Highlands Ranch residents
pay $14/month currently. Likely rates would be between $15-
$20/month.
Will we be paying closer to
Waste management prices
(higher than competition)
Costs will be received with the responses to the Request for
Proposals and will be included in the materials presented to
the City Council for consideration.
Resident worried of Pick-
up/Delivery bin cost
The cost of the garbage & recycling bins as well as delivery to
each property will be included in the overall contract price.
City incapable of maintaining
current billing systems
(incorrect water bills), why
would we entrust them with
this?
The cost for garbage service would be included in the
quarterly utility bill which is sent out by the city. Concerns
with incorrect bills can be addressed by calling the Utilities
Department at 303-762-2635.
Worried of price increase
once contract has been
awarded; Examples of price
increase with Waste
Connection/ Waste
Management after contract
awarded
A yearly rate increase will be built into the contract (before it
is approved) based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the
Denver metro area. The contract amount will only change (up
or down) by this amount for each year of the contract.
Will every household be
charged for service?
Yes, all properties will be charged for service to eliminate the
accumulation of waste and the use of neighbor’s containers
for trash disposal.
Would additional city staff
be required to manage this
program?
Yes, it is likely that a program administrator would be needed.
Costs for this would be factored into the overall price of
service. Additional code enforcement services may also be
required to enforce container-related issues.
Has a program budget been
established yet? How many
staff will be needed to
administer the program?
No, the costs of the program have not yet been developed.
Hauler Proposal Questions
Recommendation for a
provisional component to
contract to meet pick-up
Levels of service, e.g. no more than X missed pickups per
week, will be included in the service contract. Penalties will be
assessed if the contractor does not meet these requirements.
Page 137 of 226
requirement benchmarks -
w/ penalties
Denver Trash service; how
will the city control trash
service quality, No
competition eliminates
citizen’s ability to change
provider if service quality
dwindles
Staff is investigating an idea to have the city and county of
Denver provide trash service. At this time it is unknown if that
is legally possible or if Denver would be interested in exploring
that option.
Trash service quality will be managed through levels of service
established in a contract with the contractor.
Current trash haulers
provide very poor customer
service
Having one point of contact with the contractor is critical to
getting issues addressed in a timely manner. Levels of service,
e.g. no more than X missed pickups per week, will be included
in the service contract. Penalties will be assessed if the
contractor does not meet these requirements.
Citizen recycling education –
Is education a City
responsibility or Trash
company responsibility
Typically this is shared responsibility between the municipality
and the contractor. Roles and responsibilities will be detailed
in the Request for Proposals. It is anticipated that a
communication piece will be issued on a quarterly basis as
well as social media opportunities.
City to run complaint call
center – trash haulers have
incentive to keep comments
from City
See response above re: poor customer service. There will
need to be city administrative assistance to serve as the point
of contact with the contractor to resolve issues. Providing a
call center through the city would be a City Council policy
decision.
Contract Length? - As it
relates to competition
The anticipated length of the initial contract would be for five
(5) years. This time period is needed in order for haulers to
depreciate the initial costs of the program (administration,
vehicles, bins, etc.) over a given time period.
Holding trash company
accountable to Recycle–
something more than a
verbal guarantee; Recycling
facilities not recycling
Companies recycling policies, including how they dispose of or
sell recycled materials, will be evaluated as a part of the
Request for Proposals process.
If our trash contract has any
teeth, we’ll need to audit
performance – we must be
the foxes to the trash
company’s hen house
Oversight of the contract and the provisions within would be
the responsibility of the city.
Limit truck size to reduce
street damage caused by
the larger/heavier vehicles
Truck sizes are regulated by the state.
Page 138 of 226
How would the city handle
missed pick ups?
Levels of service, e.g. no more than X missed pickups per
week, will be included in the service contract. Penalties will be
assessed if the contractor does not meet these requirements.
Current trash haulers are
dropping trash (or its
blowing out of their trucks)
as they drive to the transfer
facility on Oxford Ave. This
is not necessarily the trash
trucks but trailers and small
trucks.
This is a code enforcement issue. Please submit issues on-line
at: https://www.englewoodco.gov/our-community/englewood-co-
request-for-service/submit-a-request
City should consider
breaking up the city into two
or more districts and serving
each with different haulers
City is likely not big enough to make this option cost effective.
City needs to restrict the
size of the trucks used by
haulers to avoid damage in
the alleys and damage to
overhead
electric/cable/power lines
Haulers will be required to service both alleys and streets.
They will need to determine the sizes and types of vehicles to
do this in an efficient and safe manner.
Large Item/Other Item Questions
Will furniture/appliance
pickups be provided?
The city would ask haulers to propose pricing for regular
(possibly monthly or quarterly) pick up of large items at
homes. For example, on the first Saturday of the month, large
items could be placed curbside or in the alley and the hauler
would come through with a special truck to pick up these
items.
How will large items be
collected? Would there be
an additional cost?
Pick up of large items would likely be most efficient at homes
– not at a drop off location. This would eliminate the need for
citizens to haul items to a certain location and could allow
neighbors to help each other move items to a (relatively)
convenient location for pick up. The costs of these pickups
would be included in the monthly service charge. Also see
response above.
Can we investigate providing
household hazardous waste
pickup and electronic waste
pickup in the contract?
The city would ask haulers to propose pricing for regular
(possibly quarterly) pick up of these types of items at homes.
Page 139 of 226
Consider composting and/or
large item pickup from
summer through fall
Staff will evaluate this option for composting; large item pick
up will likely be needed year round
Policy-Related Questions
Will there be a senior rate The idea of a senior rate has not yet been discussed. This will
be included in the policy discussion with the City Council. If a
senior rate is established, the costs will need to be spread to
other users as there is not a lower cost to service senior’s
properties.
Include apartment
complexes, current
apartment complexes are
inefficient with recycling
The program is intended to service single family homes and
buildings with up to 4-dwelling units since, typically, these still
use garbage cans. Larger facilities often utilize a trash bin
which requires a different type of truck, and/or they get
serviced more than one time per week. Efficiencies are
achieved by having the same truck provide service to similar
types of properties.
Not council but a Citizen
Vote
This concept will be included in the policy discussion with the
City Council.
Consider providing trash
service through city &
county of Denver
Staff is investigating an idea to have the city and county of
Denver provide trash service. At this time it is unknown if that
is legally possible or if Denver would be interested in exploring
that option.
Need to have a way to allow
people to opt out if they
don’t want to participate in
the program
This concept will be included in the policy discussion with the
City Council.
Recycling should be required
of all current haulers
The current codes could be revisited to impose different
standards for current providers
Who instigated the single
trash hauler idea?
Idea to explore single hauler came from the Englewood
Transportation Advisory Committee (ETAC), Keep Englewood
Beautiful (KEB), and the Budget Advisory Committee (BAC).
If this were put on a ballot
for citizens to vote on how
would all of the options be
considered?
Likely that the ballot question would be a “yes” or “no” vote to
go to a single hauler. Then, if a “yes”, the city would
determine how to implement the program and options.
Other
Councilman/woman receive
free trash services
Councilpersons at the meeting stated that they did not receive
free trash services.
Fear that there are limited
trash companies operating in
As of May 9, 2019, six companies were licensed with the city
to provide trash hauling services.
Page 140 of 226
Englewood (corporate
greed)
3 meetings all at the same
time, all or the same day,
it’s almost like we conspire
to avoid people having any
input
Communications have already been finalized for the three
Talk-n-Trash meetings. Staff will consider alternate times for
future meetings. Responses to questions raised at the August
26 meeting have been created and posted to the city’s
website. A survey is also available to provide feedback. Emails
can be sent to: mdandrea@englewoodco.gov
Could we maybe put more
into our own super spartan
website – some of the
comments are redundant
and better communications
would elevate that in the
future
Responses to questions raised at the August 26 & September
24 meeting have been created and posted to the city’s
website.
Has anyone met with the
city of Sheridan regarding
their program?
Staff has not met with the city of Sheridan but will reach out
to them for their perspective. Staff has talked with Lakewood
and Highlands Ranch. The city will also be reaching out to
waste haulers and offering to meet with them to get their
ideas, potential issues, and feedback.
Page 141 of 226
STUDY SESSION
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Jackie Loh
DEPARTMENT: Finance
DATE: April 11, 2022
SUBJECT:
Preliminary 2023 Revenue and Expenditure Underlying Forecast
Assumptions
DESCRIPTION:
Preliminary 2023 Revenue and Expenditure Underlying Forecast Assumptions
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Council review 2023 predictions and assumptions, provide input on the
2023 budget process, and continue to discuss the fund balance reserve policy.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
• January 29, 2022 - Visioning and 2023 City Council Goal Setting Workshop
SUMMARY:
The purpose of the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget presentation is to provide City Council with a
formal 2023 Budget Calendar and to review the 2023 Revenue and Expenditure forecast and
underlying assumptions. Staff requests guidance from City Council regarding the 2023 Budget
Process, including the reasonableness of the underlying assumptions and forecasts. The
attached presentation provides the revenue and expenditure forecast for the General Fund,
including a 5-year projection, and the current status of all other funds. Historical city
performance and key State sources of economic trends were used in developing these
forecasts. They include, but are not limited to:
• Economic and Revenue Forecast Report, March 2022 - Colorado Legislative Council -
Focus Colorado
• Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO
• Arapahoe County 2021 Assessed Valuation Report
• Englewood Revenue and Expenditures for the period 2017 Actual through 2021
(unaudited) and the 2022 Budget
The economic forecast data included in recent various reports is available within the appendix of
the presentation.
Until the annual financial audit is complete, please note that the 2021 unaudited figures are
subject to change.
ANALYSIS:
Revenue and Expenditure Assumptions
Page 142 of 226
2023
Forecast
2024
Forecast
2025
Forecast
2026
Forecast
2027
Forecast
Revenue Sources
Sales and Use Tax Revenue * 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Property Tax Revenue + 0% 16% 0% 16% 0%
All Other Revenue Sources 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%
2022-2027 Compound Annual
Growth Rate (CAGR): 4.26%
Expenditure Uses 4% 3.5% 3% 3% 3%
2022-2027 Compound Annual
Growth Rate (CAGR): 3.86%
* No Rate Increase for Retail Marijuana sales
+ Property appraisals occur every odd numbered year and the increase in property taxes is
reflected in the following even numbered year
Federal Funds Target Rate increased .25% on 3/16/2022, the first rise since 2018 and
potentially 6 more increases are expected. Interest rates affect the economy by influencing
stock and bond interest rates, consumer and business spending, inflation, and recessions.
One way that governments raise money is through the sale of bonds. As interest rates rise, the
cost of borrowing becomes more expensive. As interest rates fall, it becomes easier to borrow
money, and many governments will issue new bonds to finance expansion. This will cause the
demand for higher-yielding bonds (bonds with higher interest rates) to increase, forcing bond
prices higher.
The Calculated Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) for the General Fund's Revenue
Expenditure and Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Denver-Aurora-Lakewood Area
The following periods provide the calculated CAGR for revenue, expenditures and the Denver-
Aurora-Lakewood CO Consumer Price Index:
CAGR Period Revenue Expenditure Consumer Price Index (CPI)
2011-2021 Unaudited 3.7% 3.0% 2.5%
2016-2021 Unaudited 4.9% 4.4% 2.7%
2011-2016 2.8% 1.6% 2.3%
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff is seeking City Council's guidance early in the budgeting cycle regarding the 2023 revenue
and expense budget policy. In addition, City Council is being asked to provide direction
regarding possible use of the Unassigned Fund Balance if the City experiences estimated
revenue shortfalls or higher than expected expenditures versus the budget.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Page 143 of 226
The General Fund 2022 Revenue and Expenditure estimates include the following assumptions
and amounts in addition to the original budget appropriation:
Operating Revenue - ($1.7M)
• $1.7M - Sales and Use Tax Revenue Estimate is revised upward by 5% since the
original estimate is below the 2021 unaudited actual amount
Operating Expenditures - ($4.7M)
• $2.9M - Certificates of Participation debt service payoff did not occur in 2021 as planned
and no amount was originally budgeted, therefore, the 2022 Estimate includes $2.9M for
the planned payoff in June, 2022
• $0.1M - 2022 Budget Supplemental #1 ($121,700) is reflected in the 2022 Expenditure
Estimate
• $1.7M - estimated amount to address the results of the Compensation (Salary &
Benefits) Survey (Q4) and inflationary impacts
The General Fund 5-year (2023-2027) Projection/Forecast
GENERAL FUND (in millions) 2023
Forecast
2024
Forecast
2025
Forecast
2026
Forecast
2027
Forecast
Operating Revenues and
Expenditures
Revenues $58.9 $61.6 $63.4 $66.3 $68.4
Expenditures $59.4 $61.5 $63.3 $65.2 $67.1
Net Revenues (Expenditures) ($0.5) $0.1 $0.1 $1.1 $1.3
Other Sources (Uses) of Funds
Transfers In $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.0
Transfers Out $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Net Other Sources (Uses) of Funds $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.0
Net Change in Fund Balance ($0.4) $0.2 $0.2 $1.2 $1.3
Beginning Fund Balance $13.8 $13.4 $13.6 $13.8 $15.0
Ending Fund Balance $13.4 $13.6 $13.8 $15.0 $16.3
Fund Balance
Composition/Designations:
Unrestricted Reserve - 16.7% of
Operating Revenue $9.8 $10.3 $10.6 $11.1 $11.4
LTAR Committed Funds $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1
TABOR Emergency Reserve $1.8 $1.9 $1.9 $2.0 $2.0
Designated Fund Balance $11.7 $12.3 $12.6 $13.2 $13.5
Unassigned Fund Balance $1.7 $1.3 $1.2 $1.8 $2.8
Fund Balance Total $13.4 $13.6 $13.8 $15.0 $16.3
All Other Funds 2021 versus 2022 Estimated Year End Balance
All Other Funds (in millions) 2021 2022
Page 144 of 226
Unaudited
Balance
Estimate
Balance
Special Revenue Funds
Conservation Trust Fund $2.3 $2.3
Donors Fund $0.4 $0.7
Parks & Recreation Trust Fund $0.1 $0.1
Malley Center Trust Fund $0.4 $0.5
Open Space Fund $2.4 $2.5
Debt Service Funds
General Obligation (GO) Bonds - Recreation $0.1 $0.1
General Obligation (GO) Bonds - Police
Headquarter & Law Enforcement Safety
Equipment
$0.1 $0.2
Capital Projects Funds
Public Improvement Fund $18.9 $18.0
Capital Projects Fund $2.9 $3.0
Police Headquarter & Law Enforcement Safety
Equipment Construction Fund $3.4 $2.8
Enterprise Funds
Water Fund $ 22.3 $14.4
Sewer Fund $7.7 $8.8
Stormwater Drainage Fund $11.8 $17.2
Golf Course Fund $1.8 $0.7
Concrete Utility Fund $1.8 $1.7
Housing Rehabilitation Fund $1.2 $0.9
Internal Service Funds
Servicenter Fund $0.8 $0.1
Capital Equipment Replacement Fund $4.2 $2.0
Risk Management Fund $1.6 $1.4
Employee Benefits Fund $0.7 $0.4
CONNECTION TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
Governance: A city government that is accountable, effective, and efficient
OUTREACH/COMMUNICATIONS:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
2023-2027 Preliminary Budget Assumptions & Continue the Fund Balance Reserve Policy
Discussion
Page 145 of 226
Presented By Jackie Loh
Director of Finance
Budget Update:
•2023-2027 Preliminary Budget Assumptions
•Fund Balance Reserve Policy Page 146 of 226
Agenda
•2023 Budget Planning
•2022 Revenue and Expenditure Estimate
•Forecasting Expenditures and Revenues-2023 and Beyond
(General Fund)
•2023-2027 Fund Balance Forecast
•2022 vs 2021 Estimated Year End Balances for Other Funds
•Continuation of Fund Balance Reserve Policy Discussion
•Reference Section
Page 147 of 226
2023 Budget Planning
Page 148 of 226
Feedback from Council Members
•What’s working
•Existing budget calendar
•Existing process
•Ideas for modification
•Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
•Combination of CIP presentation with Commissions, Boards and Committees
•Explanations of deviation of CIP from year two to year one (One Council
Member)
•Cost/Benefit Analysis for projects and initiatives, including effectiveness of
outsourcing (Two Council Members)
•Inflation Consideration (Two Council Members)
•Compensation strategy to hire and retain staff to provide adequate services (One
Council Member)
•Best-Worst-Most Likely Scenarios (One Council Member)Page 149 of 226
2023 City Council Budget Calendar
Q1
Jan-Mar
•City Council 2023 Vision/Goal Setting Workshop-Jan 29, 2022
Q2
Apr -Jun
•Preliminary 2023 Revenue and Expenditure Underlying Forecast Assumptions–Apr 11, 2022
•Review Preliminary 2023 Capital Projects List with City Council and Boards, Commissions, and Committees-Apr 25, 2022
•Review Preliminary 2023 Operating & Staff Prioritized Capital Requests–Jun 20, 2022
Q3
Jul-Sep
•Budget Advisory Committee Annual Report Review–Aug 1, 2022
•Draft Proposed 2023 Operating & Capital Budget–Aug 8, 2022
•Submit Proposed 2023 Budget–Sep 6, 2022
•Proposed 2023 Budget Public Hearing–Sep 19, 2022
•Budget Workshop to finalize 2023 Budget (Placeholder)–Sep 26, 2022
Q4
Oct-Dec
•2023 Budget Ordinances First Reading–Oct 3, 2022
•2023 Budget Ordinances Second Reading–Oct 17, 2022
Other Input into Budget
Process
•2023-2027 Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP)
recommended project list to
City Manager from the
following: Planning and
Zoning Commission, Library
Board, Transportation
Advisory Committee, Parks &
Recreation Commission and
Budget Advisory Committee -
Jun 9, 2022
•BC&C operating budget
update per their purview:
Library Board, Transportation
Advisory Committee, Parks &
Recreation Commission and
Budget Advisory Committee –
no later than Aug 1, 2022Page 150 of 226
Fiscal Health and Wellness
Fiscal Health*
“Spend Within Our Means”
Establish and Maintain Reserves
Understand Variances (Budget vs Actual)
Transparent About the “True Cost of Doing Business”
Incorporate Economic Analysis and Long-Term Planning into Decision Making
*Source: ResourceX/Priority Based BudgetingPage 151 of 226
National Economic Indicators
Source: Colorado Legislative Council Staff March 2022
Economic & Revenue Forecast, March 17, 2022Page 152 of 226
Colorado Economic Indicators
Source: Colorado Legislative Council Staff March 2022
Economic & Revenue Forecast, March 17, 2022Page 153 of 226
Colorado Economic Indicators
Source: Colorado Legislative Council Staff March 202 Economic & Revenue Forecast,
March 17, 2022, page 63Page 154 of 226
Englewood-External Factors
Category Description
Inflation-Price Increases Rebounding demand after COVID pandemic phase and transitioning to endemic
phase
Inflation-Price Increases Too much cash chasing too few goods and services
Inflation-Price Increases Supply chain disruption
Inflation-Price Increase Great Resignation/Reconsideration impacting the workforce supply and demand
Inflation-Price Increases Geopolitical events
Page 155 of 226
Englewood-Internal Factors
Category Description Estimated Amount
Compensation and
Benefits
Wage adjustments to 90% of grade midpoint $168,000 for 2022 (before
2023 COLA* adjustment)
Compensation and
Benefits
Classification and compensation study
implementation
TBD
Compensation and
Benefits
Bargaining unit negotiations Completed by 7/1/2022
Compensation and
Benefits
Healthcare insurance costs 10%-15% estimated
increase
Insurance Property and liability insurance premiums 7.5% estimated increase
Tax payments Property and Sales Tax to EDDA $85,000 (TIF estimate)
Sales Tax not yet known
* COLA = Cost of Living AdjustmentPage 156 of 226
2022 Revenue and ExpenditureEstimate
Page 157 of 226
General Fund (Fund Balance in Millions)
Original
Budget Estimate
2021 Preliminary Estimated Year End Fund Balance
~$5.0 million fund balance available above designated amounts
+$16.8 $16.8
2022 Revenue Budget ++$55.5 $57.1
2022 Expenditure Appropriation Budget *-$55.5 $60.2
2022 Net transfer-in from Public Improvement Fund +$ 0.1 $ 0.1
2022 Estimated Year End Fund Balance
~$1.7 million fund balance available above designated amounts
=$16.9 $13.8
+Revised Sales/Use Tax Estimate 5% increase *Includes 2022 Budget Supplemental #1 of $121,700 plus $2.9M
for COPs payoff and approximately $1.7M for salary/benefits compensation survey and inflationary impactsPage 158 of 226
General Fund (Fund Balance Composition in Millions)
Original
Budget Estimate
2022 Estimated Year End Fund Balance $16.9 $13.8
Designated Amounts:
TABOR Emergency Reserve +$ 1.7 $ 1.7
LTAR Committed +$ 0.1 $ 0.1
ARPA Restricted +$ 0.7 $ 0.7
Unrestricted Reserve @ 16.7% of Revenues +$ 9.3 $ 9.6
Total Designated Amounts =$11.8 $12.1
Unassigned Fund Balance +$ 5.1 $ 1.7
Estimated Fund Balance =$16.9 $13.8
Unassigned Fund Balance may be appropriated for one-time operational and/or capital usePage 159 of 226
Forecasting-2023 and BeyondRevenues and Expenditures(General Fund)Page 160 of 226
Fiscal Responsibility
$37,000,000
$42,000,000
$47,000,000
$52,000,000
$57,000,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Unaudited
General Fund Revenues and Expenditures 2011-2021 Unaudited
Expenditures Revenues
Revenue CAGR
2011-2021: 3.7%
2016-2021: 4.9%
2011-2016: 2.8%
Expenditure CAGR
2011-2021: 3.0%
2016-2021: 4.4%
2011-2016: 1.6%
2011-2021 Unaudited Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)
General Fund Revenue CAGR ~ 3.7%
General Fund Expenditures CAGR ~ 3.0%
CPI All Items / Denver-Aurora-Lakewood CO CAGR ~ 2.5%
2011-2016 Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)
General Fund Revenue CAGR ~ 2.8%
General Fund Expenditures CAGR ~ 1.6%
CPI All Items / Denver-Aurora-Lakewood CO CAGR ~ 2.3%
2016-2021 Unaudited Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR)
General Fund Revenue CAGR ~ 4.9%
General Fund Expenditures CAGR ~ 4.4%
CPI All Items / Denver-Aurora-Lakewood CO CAGR ~ 2.7%Page 161 of 226
General Fund Summary
* No Rate Increase for Retail Marijuana sales + Property Appraisals Every Odd Numbered Year; Federal Funds
Target Rate increased .25% on 3/16/2022 first rise since 2018 and potentially 6 more increases are expected
2023 2024 2025 2026 2027
Revenue Sources
Sales & Use Tax Revenue*4%4%4%4%4%
Property Tax Revenue 0%16%0%16%0%
Property Appraisal Data Period+1/1/2021-
6/30/2022
1/1/2021-
6/30/2022
1/1/2023-
6/30/2024
1/1/2023-
6/30/2024
1/1/2025-
6/30/2026
All Other Revenue Sources 2%2%2%2%2%
Expenditure Uses 4%3.5%3%3%3%Page 162 of 226
Sales & Use Taxes
60.2%
Property Tax 8.0%
Franchise Fees 6.8%
Charges for Services 5.4%
Intergovernmental Revenue 4.7%
Recreation Program Fees 4.1%
Licenses & Permits 3.6%
Contribution from Component Units 3.1%Other Revenue 4.2%
General Fund Revenue
All Other Revenue
Specific Ownership Tax 1.1%
Hotel/Motel Tax 0.0%
Library Fines 0.0%
Fines & Forfeitures 1.4%
Interest Income 0.5%
Other Income 1.2%
Total 4.2%
* 2017 Actual to 2021 Unaudited
* 2017 Actual to 2021 UnauditedPage 163 of 226
Revenue History & Forecast
$27.9 $30.7 $31.4 $31.8 $34.0 $33.8 $35.5 $36.9 $38.4 $39.9 $41.5 $43.2
$3.4 $4.0 $4.0 $4.6 $4.6 $5.2 $5.2 $5.2 $6.0 $6.0 $7.0 $7.0 $15.5 $16.6 $16.1 $17.3 $17.3 $16.5 $16.5 $16.9 $17.2 $17.5 $17.9 $18.3
$-
$17.5
$35.0
$52.5
$70.0
2017
Actual
2018
Actual
2019
Actual
2020
Actual
2021
Unaudited
2022
Budget
2022
Estimate
2023
Forecast
2024
Forecast
2025
Forecast
2026
Forecast
2027
Forecast
Sales and Use Tax Property Tax All Other Revenue
2022 Revised Sales and Use Tax Estimate from $33.8M to $35.5M or ~$1.7M or 5% increase
<< 2022-2027 Compound Annual Growth Rate is 4.26% >>Page 164 of 226
5 Year Average % of General Fund Expenditures
All Other Expenditures
City Attorney's Office 1.8%
Human Resources 1.8%
Communications 1.1%
Legislation 0.7%
Contingencies 0.5%
Total 5.9%
* 2017 Actual to 2021 Unaudited
Police 29.6%
Parks, Recreation and Library
Services 15.1%
Public Works
13.7%
Fire & Emergency Management
Services 13.5%
Information Technology 5.7%
Community Development 5.5%
Finance 3.3%
Debt Service 3.3%
City Manager's Office 2.2%
Municipal Court 2.2%Other Expenditures 5.9%Direct Services –71.9%
•Police
•Parks, Recreation & Library
•Public Works
•Fire & EMS
Non-Direct Services –24.8%
Non-Discretionary –3.3%
•Debt Service
Page 165 of 226
General Fund Expenditures (in millions)
$43.3 $44.6 $46.9
$51.1 $53.2 $55.5
$60.2 $59.4 $61.5 $63.3 $65.2 $67.1
$-
$17.5
$35.0
$52.5
$70.0
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Unaudited
2022
Budget
2022
Estimate
2023
Forecast
2024
Forecast
2025
Forecast
2026
Forecast
2027
Forecast
2022 Est vs Bud change includes Budget Supplemental #1 of $121,700 plus $2.9M for COPs payoff
and approximately $1.7M for salary/benefits compensation survey and inflationary impacts
<< 2022-2027 Compound Annual Growth Rate is 3.86% >>Page 166 of 226
General Fund Expenditure Categories
$-
$17.5
$35.0
$52.5
$70.0
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Unaudited
2022
Budget
2022
Estimate
2023
Forecast
2024
Forecast
2025
Forecast
2026
Forecast
2027
Forecast
Component Units Debt Service Capital Contractual Commodities Personnel
2022 Est vs Bud change includes Budget Supplemental #1 of $121,700 plus $2.9M for COPs payoff
and approximately $1.7M for salary/benefits compensation survey and inflationary impacts
<< 2022-2027 Compound Annual Growth Rate is 3.86% >>Page 167 of 226
2023-2027 Fund Balance Forecast
Page 168 of 226
General Fund
Sources and Use of Funds Year Over Year Comparison
$40.0
$47.5
$55.0
$62.5
$70.0
2017
Actual
2018
Actual
2019
Actual
2020
Actual
2021
Unaudited
2022
Budget
2022
Estimate
2023
Forecast
2024
Forecast
2025
Forecast
2026
Forecast
2027
Forecast
Sources Uses
+Revised Sales/Use Tax Estimate 5% increase *Includes 2022 Budget Supplemental #1 of $121,700 plus $2.9M for
COPs payoff and approximately $1.7M for salary/benefits compensation survey and inflationary impactsPage 169 of 226
General Fund Operating Surplus/Deficit (in millions)
$3.5
$6.7
$4.7
$2.7 $2.6
$-
$(3.0)
$(0.5)
$0.1 $0.1 $1.1 $1.3
$(4.0)
$(2.0)
$-
$2.0
$4.0
$6.0
$8.0
2017
ACTUAL
2018
ACTUAL
2019
ACTUAL
2020
ACTUAL
2021
UNAUDITED
2022
BUDGET
2022
ESTIMATE
2023
FORECAST
2024
FORECAST
2025
FORECAST
2026
FORECAST
2027
FORECASTPage 170 of 226
General Fund
Fund Balance Composition (in millions)
$-
$6.5
$13.0
$19.5
$26.0
2017
Actual
2018
Actual
2019
Actual
2020
Actual
2021
Unaudited
2022
Budget
2022
Estimate
2023
Forecast
2024
Forecast
2025
Forecast
2026
Forecast
2027
Forecast
TABOR Reserve LTAR LoanARPAUnrestricted Reserve Unassigned Fund BalanceUnrestricted Reserve @ 16.7%Page 171 of 226
2022 vs 2021 Estimated Year End Balances for Other Funds
Page 172 of 226
Special Revenue Funds (in millions)
Conservation
Trust Fund
$2.3
Donors Fund $0.4
Parks & Recreation Trust Fund $0.1
Malley Center Trust Fund $0.4
Open Space
Fund $2.4
2022 Estimated
Conservation
Trust Fund
$2.3
Donors Fund $0.7
Parks & Recreation Trust Fund $0.1
Malley Center Trust Fund $0.5
Open Space
Fund $2.5
2021 Unaudited
No Significant Year Over Year Changes in Estimated Fund BalancesPage 173 of 226
Debt Service Funds
Estimated Fund Balance (in millions)
Recreation GO
Bonds $0.1
Police HQ GO
Bonds $0.1
2022 Estimate
Recreation
GO Bonds
$0.1
Police HQ GO
Bonds $0.2
2021 Unaudited
Reducing the 2022 Property Tax Mill Levy which draws down the Police GO Bond
Fund Balance to a desired level of ~$100k. Page 174 of 226
Internal Service Funds
Estimated Funds Available Balance (in millions)
Servicenter Fund $0.1
Capital
Equipment
Replacement
Fund $2.0
Risk
Management
Fund $1.4
Employee Benefits
Fund $0.4
2022 Estimate
Servicenter Fund $0.8
Capital
Equipment
Replacement
Fund $4.2
Risk
Management
$1.6
Employees
Benefits Fund $0.7
2021 Unaudited
No Significant Year Over Year Changes in Estimated Fund Balances except for the CERF with the intentional
reduction in the fund balance to off set department contributions for vehicle and equipment replacementsPage 175 of 226
Enterprise FundsEstimated Funds Available Balance (in millions)
Water Fund
$14.4
Sewer Fund $8.8
Storm Drainage
Fund $17.2
Golf Course Fund $0.7
Concrete Utility Fund $1.8
Housing Rehabilitation Fund $0.9
2022 Estimate
Water Fund
$22.3
Sewer Fund
$7.7
Storm Drainage
Fund $11.8
Golf Course Fund $1.8
Concrete Utility Fund $1.8
Housing
Rehabilitation
Fund $1.2
2021 Unaudited
The estimated capital investment reduces the Water, Sewer, Stormwater Drainage and Golf Course funds
available while planned WIFIA and State Loan proceeds increases the funds availablePage 176 of 226
Capital Projects Funds
Public Improvement Fund (PIF):
•Generates approximately $4-$5 million from the following sources:
Vehicle Use Tax
Building Use Tax
Arapahoe County Road and Bridge Tax
Transfer In from the General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance
Capital Projects Fund:
•Transfers In from General Fund or Public Improvement Fund depending on
available funds
Page 177 of 226
Capital Projects Funds
Capital Projects Funds (CPFs)
Public
Improvement
Fund
Capital Projects
Fund Totals
2022 Estimated Fund Balance 18,032,243$ 2,989,379$ 21,021,622$
Project Completion Designated Funds 16,026,894$ 2,770,005$ 18,796,899$
Unappropriated Fund Balance 2,005,349$ 219,374$ 2,224,723$
* Reminder: Until the annual financial audit is finalized, the Jan 1, 2022 unaudited
amounts are subject to change due to year end adjustments
A B C 1=A+B-C
Current Forecast
Jan 1, 2022 Budget Budget Dec 31, 2022
Balance*Sources Uses Balance
Capital Projects Funds
30 Public Improvement Fund 18,870,874$ 4,360,000$ 5,198,631$ 18,032,243$
31 Capital Projects Fund 2,924,379$ 1,405,000$ 1,340,000$ 2,989,379$
34 Police Building Construction Fd 3,044,149$ -$ 220,600$ 2,823,549$
Totals 24,839,402$ 5,765,000$ 6,759,231$ 23,845,171$
GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPE (Fund Balance* = Total Assets - Total Liabilities)Page 178 of 226
Capital Projects Funds –Major Revenue Sources
$2.2 $2.3 $2.1 $2.5 $2.3
$2.4 $1.8 $2.0 $2.6 $1.8
$0.2 $0.2 $0.2
$0.2
$0.2
$1.0 $3.1
$10.5
$0.0
$4.0
$8.0
$12.0
$16.0
2018
Actual
2019
Actual
2020
Actual
2021
Unaudited
2022
Budget
Vehicle Use Tax Building Use Tax Arapahoe County Road and Bridge Tax Net Transfer InPage 179 of 226
Capital Projects Funds
$-
$10.0
$20.0
$30.0
$40.0
$50.0
2018 2019 2020 2021
Unaudited
2022
Budget
2023
Forecast
2024
Forecast
2025
Forecast
2026
Forecast
2027
Forecast
CPFs Appropriation CPFs Forecast Revenue Total Sources
Policy Discussion -Alternative Financing Options for Capital Projects in Excess of Current Funding Level (~$4-$5M)Page 180 of 226
Questions
Page 181 of 226
Continuation of Fund Balance Reserve Policy Discussion
Page 182 of 226
2021 Fund Balance –Preliminary and Unaudited
ARPA: American Rescue Plan Act
LTAR: Long-Term Asset Reserve
Unassigned Fund Balance is available for appropriation
2021 General Fund Changes in FB (Unaudited)
2021 Preliminary and
Unaudited
Original
Budget
Amended
Budget
Unaudited
Actuals
Variance
(Un)Favorable
Revenue 52,535,850$ 52,535,850$ 55,753,441$ 3,217,591$
Expenditures 54,521,582$ 58,708,792$ 53,029,309$ 5,679,483$
Net Rev(Exp)(1,985,732)$ (6,172,942)$ 2,724,132$ 8,897,074$
Other Financing Sources and Uses
Transfer In 130,521$ 184,839$ 184,839$ -$
Transfer Out 3,000,000$ 11,079,765$ 11,079,765$ -$
Net Sources (Uses)(2,869,479)$ (10,894,926)$ (10,894,926)$ -$
Net change in Fund Balance (4,855,211)$ (17,067,868)$ (8,170,794)$ 8,897,074$
Beginning Fund Balance 24,935,935$ 24,935,935$ 24,935,935$
Est Ending Fund Balance 20,080,724$ 7,868,067$ 16,765,141$
Fund Balance Composition
TABOR Emergency Reserve 1,720,000$ 1,720,000$ 1,720,000$
ARPA Restricted -$ -$ 688,641$
LTAR Committed 4,994,869$ 94,869$ 94,869$
Unrestricted Reserve @ 16.7%8,773,487$ 8,773,487$ 9,310,825$
Designated Fund Balance 15,488,356$ 10,588,356$ 11,814,335$
Unassigned Fund Balance 4,592,368$ (2,720,289)$ 4,950,806$ Page 183 of 226
2021 General Fund Changes in FB (Unaudited)
2021 Preliminary and Unaudited
Unaudited
Actuals
Operating Revenue $ 55,753,441
Fund Balance Composition
TABOR Emergency Reserve 1,720,000$
ARPA Restricted 688,641$
LTAR Committed 94,869$
Unrestricted Reserve @ 16.7%9,310,825$
Designated Fund Balance 11,814,335$
Unassigned Fund Balance 4,950,806$
Fund Balance 16,765,141$
Ratcheting and Sliding Levels for Consideration
Unrestricted Reserve as a % of Operating Revenue
25.0%13,938,360$
16.7%9,310,825$
12.0%6,690,413$
10.0%5,575,344$
8.0%4,460,275$
The fund balance change is the result of operating surpluses
and deficits plus the net of other sources and uses of funds
A positive Unassigned Fund Balance indicates that all
reserve levels are met and that these additional funds may be
appropriated for operations and/or transferred to the Capital
Projects Funds
A negative Unassigned Fund Balance indicates that not all
reserve levels have been met. Following is the usage priority
of designated amounts:
1.Unrestricted Reserve
2.Committed Amounts
3.Restricted Amounts to offset transactions that meet the
requirements
4.TABOR Emergency Reserve
Page 184 of 226
Next Steps…
Date Process Step
Apr 25,
2022
Joint Review with Board, Commission and Committee Members of
the Preliminary 2023-2027 (5-Year) Capital Improvement Plan
Requests and Consider Alternative Financing Options
Jun 20,
2022
City Council and Staff 2023 Budget Workshop to discuss the
following for each Department:
•Priorities/Initiatives
•Operational Requests
Personnel/FTE Changes
Program/Service Changes
Rate or Fee Changes
•Capital Requests
Jun 9,
2022
P&Z Commission’s and other Boards’, Commissions’ and
Committees’ provide recommended Capital Improvement Plan
Project List to City Manager
Apr
May
Jun
Page 185 of 226
Questions
Page 186 of 226
Reference Section Page 187 of 226
General Fund
5 Year Revenue History
5 Year Average Data
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 5 Yr Ave 2022 2022 $ Change % Change $ Change % Change
General Fund - Revenue
Actual Actual Actual Actual Unaudited
Actuals
2021 vs 2020
$ Change
2021 vs 2020
% Change
%
of Total
Budget Estimate Annualized
5 Yr Ave
5 YR
CAGR
Annualized
3 Yr Ave
3 YR
CAGR
Property Tax $3,378,299 $4,014,748 $4,018,337 $4,605,878 $4,644,335 $38,457 0.8%8.0%$5,171,000 $5,171,000 $253,207 8.28%$208,666 7.51%
Sales & Use Taxes 27,921,007 30,662,739 31,436,477 31,848,763 33,989,735 2,140,972 6.7%60.1%33,779,000 35,467,950 1,213,746 5.04%851,086 3.98%
Franchise Fees 3,543,428 3,478,660 3,471,056 3,601,590 3,807,912 206,322 5.7%6.9%3,665,000 3,665,000 52,897 1.82%112,285 4.74%
Licenses & Permits 1,798,989 1,755,377 1,914,067 1,649,101 2,217,580 568,479 34.5%3.6%1,828,950 1,828,950 83,718 5.37%101,171 7.64%
Intergovernmental Revenue 1,881,476 2,049,682 1,711,783 4,208,746 2,270,337 (1,938,409) -46.1%4.7%1,377,761 1,377,761 77,772 4.81%186,185 15.17%
Charges for Services 2,618,423 2,980,526 2,896,977 2,809,931 2,742,327 (67,604) -2.4%5.4%3,400,696 3,400,696 24,781 1.16%(51,550) -2.71%
Recreation Program Fees 2,488,575 2,440,086 2,288,140 997,687 2,360,173 1,362,486 136.6%4.1%2,618,955 2,618,955 (25,680) -1.32%24,011 1.56%
Contribution from Component Units 1,521,799 1,609,972 1,356,827 1,698,745 1,762,006 63,261 3.7%3.1%1,700,000 1,700,000 48,041 3.73%135,060 13.96%
Specific Ownership Tax 573,622 538,793 577,106 527,933 523,484 (4,449) -0.8%1.1%530,000 530,000 (10,028) -2.26%(17,874) -4.76%
Hotel/Motel Tax 19,641 23,279 25,933 19,762 27,878 8,116 41.1%0.0%20,000 20,000 1,647 9.15%648 3.68%
Library Fines 15,305 16,508 8,750 2,413 3,371 958 39.7%0.0%8,700 8,700 (2,387) -31.49%(1,793) -37.93%
Fines & Forfeitures 633,061 817,572 720,474 880,569 513,068 (367,501) -41.7%1.4%522,900 522,900 (23,999) -5.12%(69,135) -15.61%
Interest Income 66,670 261,941 491,630 454,347 (72,518) (526,865) -116.0%0.5%54,500 54,500 (27,838) 0.00%(188,049) 0.00%
Other Income 364,589 596,394 663,142 498,394 963,753 465,359 93.4%1.2%806,069 806,069 119,833 27.51%100,204 20.55%
Other Revenue Subtotal 15,525,578 16,568,791 16,125,885 17,349,218 17,119,371 (229,847) -1.3%31.9%16,533,531 16,533,531 318,759 2.47%331,162 3.03%
Total Revenue $46,824,884 $51,246,278 $51,580,699 $53,803,859 $55,753,441 $1,949,582 3.6%100.0%$55,483,531 $57,172,481 $1,785,711 4.46%$1,390,914 3.97%Page 188 of 226
General Fund
5 Year Expenditure History
5 Year Average Data `
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Actual Actual Actual Actual Unaudited 2021 vs 2020 2021 vs 2020 5 Yr Ave Budget $ Change % Change $ Change % Change
Actual $ Change % Change % of Total
Annualized
5 Yr Ave
5 YR
CAGR
Annualized
3 Yr Ave
3 YR
CAGR
General Fund - Expenditures
Legislation 378,831$ 290,290$ 316,503$ 297,750$ 284,541$ (13,209)$ -4.4%0.7%322,445$ (18,858)$ -6.9%(10,654)$ -0.7%
City Manager's Office 475,263 723,575 870,620 1,110,691 1,084,660 (26,031)$ -2.3%1.8%1,130,972 121,879$ 22.9%71,347 14.4%
City Attorney's Office 812,393 836,953 837,637 832,971 923,402 90,431$ 10.9%1.8%1,091,765 22,202$ 3.3%28,588 3.3%
Municipal Court 928,801 998,002 1,074,700 1,048,016 1,133,465 85,449$ 8.2%2.2%1,510,159 40,933$ 5.1%19,588 4.3%
Human Resources 607,745 844,519 829,867 947,880 1,100,167 152,287$ 16.1%1.8%1,545,536 98,484$ 16.0%90,100 9.2%
Finance 1,793,832 1,387,486 1,577,082 1,557,161 1,548,270 (8,891)$ -0.6%3.3%2,090,113 (49,112)$ -3.6%(9,604) 3.7%
Information Technology 1,598,072 2,245,656 2,771,600 3,523,544 3,533,129 9,585$ 0.3%5.7%3,648,473 387,011$ 21.9%253,843 16.3%
Community Development 1,894,657 2,196,051 2,379,527 3,578,411 2,946,427 (631,984)$ -17.7%5.4%3,007,235 210,354$ 11.7%188,967 10.3%
Public Works 6,057,247 5,839,814 6,027,224 7,341,229 7,437,384 96,155$ 1.3%13.7%7,809,159 276,027$ 5.3%470,053 8.4%
Police 13,889,727 13,848,526 14,392,735 14,453,146 15,378,660 925,514$ 6.4%30.1%15,830,638 297,787$ 2.6%328,642 3.6%
Fire & Emergency Management Services 5,763,574 6,110,792 6,270,077 6,850,511 7,247,222 396,711$ 5.8%13.5%7,545,058 296,730$ 5.9%325,715 5.9%
Parks, Recreation and Library Services 7,054,876 7,110,946 7,346,455 6,778,237 7,848,068 1,069,831$ 15.8%15.1%8,606,932 158,638$ 2.7%167,204 3.3%
Communications 316,360 368,811 412,464 862,329 727,633 (134,696)$ -15.6%1.1%763,984 82,255$ 23.1%105,056 25.4%
Contingencies 191,215 215,936 217,074 336,370 292,776 (43,594)$ -13.0%0.5%469,158 20,312$ 11.2%25,234 10.7%
Debt Service-Civic Center 1,441,334 1,441,261 1,442,137 1,431,597 1,437,095 5,498$ 0.4%3.0%- (848)$ -0.1%(1,681) -0.1%
Debt Service-Other 117,033 120,272 125,927 134,375 131,355 (3,020)$ -2.2%0.3%134,122 2,864$ 2.9%1,809 3.0%
Contribution to Component Units - - - - 100,000 100,000$ 0.0%0.0%- 20,000$ 0.0%33,333 0.0%
Total Expenditure 43,320,959$ 44,578,888$ 46,891,629$ 51,084,218$ 53,154,254$ 2,070,036$ 4.1%100.0%55,505,749$ 1,966,659$ 5.2%2,087,542$ 6.0%Page 189 of 226
CPI –All Urban Consumers
Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO
Series Id:
Series Title:
Area:
Item:
Base Period:
Years:
Annual
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 % Change HALF1 HALF2
2012 224.568 222.960 226.177
2013 230.791 229.142 232.439 2.8%2.8%2.8%
2014 237.200 235.736 238.664 2.8%2.9%2.7%
2015 239.990 238.086 241.895 1.2%1.0%1.4%
2016 246.643 245.191 248.095 2.8%3.0%2.6%
2017 258.614 254.995 252.760 257.230 3.4%3.1%3.7%
2018 259.907 260.595 262.150 261.707 263.723 263.679 261.958 260.790 263.127 2.7%3.2%2.3%
2019 260.942 264.332 266.280 267.285 270.974 271.142 266.999 264.147 269.850 1.9%1.3%2.6%
2020 270.952 270.120 271.379 275.589 273.860 271.837 272.207 271.264 273.149 2.0%2.7%1.2%
2021 272.156 0.1%274.430 0.8%280.154 2.1%285.268 1.8%286.186 0.3%289.621 1.2%281.845 276.290 287.400 3.5%1.9%5.2%
2022 293.580 1.4%7.9%< Jan 2022 vs 2021
Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO
All items
1982-84=100
2012 to 2022
CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
Original Data Value
CUURS48BSA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
All items in Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO, all urban Page 190 of 226
National Economic Indicators
Source: Colorado Legislative Council Staff March 2022 Economic & Revenue Forecast, March 17, 2022, page 62Page 191 of 226
General Government
Debt Service
2017
Actual
2018
Actual
2019
Actual
2020
Actual
2021
Unaudited
2022
Estimate
2023
Forecast
2024
Forecast
2025
Forecast
2026
Forecast
2027
Forecast
General Fund
COPs $1,442,89 $1,445,02 $1,444,06 $1,436,59 $1,442,06 $2,881,86
Recreation
GO Bonds $1,107,43 $1,105,62 $1,110,80 $1,112,75 $1,103,80 $1,104,40 $621,000
Police HQ
GO Bonds $1,215,61 $2,213,69 $2,216,01 $2,221,71 $2,218,96 $2,218,96 $2,221,46 $2,216,21 $2,192,46 $2,191,71 $2,192,96
$-
$1,750,000
$3,500,000
$5,250,000
$7,000,000
Page 192 of 226
Estimate Alternative Financing Option (1)
Debt Financing –Consider issuing NEW General Obligation (GO) Bonds for identified projects at a
fixed levy of 1.21 Mills for 20 or 25 years based on interest rates ranging from 2% to 4%
Scenario
Project
Funds
Est.
Interest
Rate
Est.
Period
Mill Levy
Based on
2021
Assessed
Value
Annual Tax on
Residential
Property Worth
$400,000
Annual Tax on
Non-Residential
Property Worth
$400,000
$19,735,000 2%20 1.210 $34 $126
$17,910,000 3%20 1.210 $34 $126
$16,295,000 4%20 1.210 $34 $126
$24,100,000 2%25 1.210 $34 $126
$21,390,000 3%25 1.210 $34 $126
$19,085,000 4%25 1.210 $34 $126
1
2
Page 193 of 226
Estimate Alternative Financing Option (2)
Public Improvement Levy –Consider assessing two mills dedicated to fund general
government capital projects
Charter. Article X. Part 1. Section 96: Public Improvement Levy.
The Council may levy annually a tax of not more than two mills to be assessed upon the valuation within the City at the
same time as the regular annual taxes for City expenses for the benefit of a fund to be known as the "Public Improvement
Fund".
Based on the 2021 Arapahoe County Taxable Assessed Valuation, the annual 2 Mills for a Public Improvement
Levy would generate approximately $1,798,000
Arapahoe County Taxable Assessed Valuation X 2.0 Mills / $1,000 = Estimated Property Tax Revenue
$898,784,638 X 2.0 / $1,000 = $1,797,569
Estimated Taxpayer Annual Property Tax Impact of 2 Mills Levy
Property Tax Calculation = Actual Value x Assessment Rate x Mill Levy / $1,000
Residential Real Property: $400,000 X .0715 X 2.0 / $1,000 = $57.02
Nonresidential Real Property: $400,000 X .2900 X 2.0 / $1,000 = $232.00Page 194 of 226
Estimate Alternative Financing Option (3)
Consider dedicating a property tax mill levy and/or rate increase to the local sales and use tax rate to
fund specific programs, services and/or capital projects
A) Public Improvement Levy -Based on the 2021 Arapahoe County Taxable Assessed Valuation,
one (1) Mill Levy would generate approximately $900,000
Arapahoe County Taxable Assessed Valuation X 1.0 Mill / $1,000 = Estimated Property Tax
Revenue
$898,784,638 X 1.0 / $1,000 = $898,784
B)Sales and Use Tax Increase -2021 Unaudited Sales and Use Tax Revenue -$33,989,735 and
the current, local sales and use tax rate is 3.5%
Rate Increase Est Revenue Rate Increase Current Local Rate Revised Local Rate
10% Increase $3,398,974 .350%3.50%3.850%
5% Increase $1,699,487 .175%3.50%3.675%
1% Increase $339,897 .035%3.50%3.535%Page 195 of 226
Fund Types
Function/
Activity
Fund Type Fund Type Description
Governmental General Fund The primary operating fund. It accounts for all financial resources of the general government, except those
required to be accounted for in another fund.
Special Revenue
Funds
Account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are legally restricted for expenditures of specified
purposes.
Debt Service
Funds
Account for the accumulation of resources and payment of general obligation bond principal and interest from
governmental resources and special assessment bond and loan principal and interest from special
assessment levies when the government is obligated in some manner for payment
Capital Projects
Funds
Account for financial resources to be used for the acquisition and/or construction of major capital facilities other
than those financed by the proprietary funds.
Proprietary Enterprise
Funds
Operate in a manner similar to private business. The costs (expenses, including depreciation) of providing
goods or services are recovered primarily through user fees/charges.
The Colorado Constitution defines an enterprise as a “government-owned business authorized to issue its
own revenue bonds and receiving under 10% of annual revenue in grants from all Colorado state and local
governments combined.”
Internal Service
Funds
Account for the financing of goods or services provided by one department or agency to other departments or
agencies of the City on a cost-reimbursement basis. Page 196 of 226
General Fund Revenue Sources
Taxes:
•Sales and Use Tax: Sales and use taxes are the most important and volatile revenue sources for the City. Sales and use taxes
generate approximately 79 percent of all taxes and 58 percent of total revenues collected. Sales tax is calculated by multiplying the
sales price of taxable goods times the sales tax rate of 3.5 percent. Use Tax, is the tax imposed on taxable goods stored, consumed or
used in the City that were purchased at retail outside the City limits or when sales tax is owed, but is not collected at the point of sale.
•Property taxes: These taxes are collected based on the assessed value of all the properties in the City and the mill levy assessed on
the property. In 2001, voters approved an additional mill levy for principal and interest payments on the City’s general obligation debt
issued for certain parks and recreation projects, construction of Pirates Cove and remodeling of the Englewood Recreation Center and
the Malley Senior Recreation Center. In 2016, the voters approved a dedicated mill levy for the construction of a new Englewood Police
Headquarters building. The additional property tax mill levy varies based on the debt service payment of the City’s general obligation
debt.
•Franchise Fees: The City collects a number of taxes on various utilities. This includes franchise tax on water, sewer, and public
services, as well as occupational taxes on telephone services.
•Specific ownership: These taxes are based on the age and type of motor vehicles, wheeled trailers, semitrailers, etc.
•Cigarette Taxes: The State of Colorado levies a $.20 per pack tax on cigarettes. The State distributes 46 percent of the gross tax to
cities and towns based on the pro rata share of state sales tax collections in the previous year. These taxes have fallen significantly in
the past and continue to fall after the 2009 federal tax increase of approximately $.62 per pack went into effect. This federal tax increase
funds the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).
•Hotel/Motel Tax: This tax is levied at two percent of the rental fee or price of lodging for under 30 days duration.Page 197 of 226
General Fund Revenue Sources (cont.)
Charges for Services:
•Charges for Services: This includes general government, public safety, fees for the administration of the utilities funds, court
costs, highway and street and other charges.
•Recreation Program Fees: This category of revenue includes the fees and charges collected from customers to participate in
the various programs offered by the Parks and Recreation Department.
Intergovernmental Revenues:This revenue source includes state and federal shared revenues, grant allocations and payments
in lieu of taxes.
Licenses and Permits:This revenue category includes business licenses and building permits.
Contribution from Component Units:This represents the net rental proceeds from the Englewood/McLellan Reservoir
Foundation (EMRF).
Fines and Forfeitures:
•Library Fines: This revenue source includes library fines for materials checked out but returned past the due date.
•Fines and Forfeitures: This revenue source includes court, traffic violation, and other fines.
Interest:This is the General Fund’s proportional amount earned on the City’s pooled cash investments.
Other:This revenue category accounts for those revenue sources that do not fit in any of the above categories.Page 198 of 226
Property Tax Overview
Actual vs Assessed Valuation -The assessor determines the actual (market) value for all real and personal property and property appraisals are completed every odd year. The assessment rate is multiplied by the actual value to determine the assessed value. The residential assessment rate for single family home and multi-family residence is 6.95% and 6.8% respectively.
For all other properties including commercial, personal property, vacant land and agricultural land, the assessment rate is 26.4%.
In the November 2020 election, voters approved Amendment B, which repealed the Gallagher Amendment from the state constitution. As a result, the General Assembly is no longer required to set the residential assessment rate (RAR) to maintain the 45/55 ratio between residential and nonresidential assessed values.
In 2021, Senate Bill 21-293 passed and temporarily reduced residential and non-residential assessment rates for 2022 and 2023 (collections in 2023 and 2024 respectively)
•Residential assessment rate reduced from 7.15% to 6.95%
•Multi-Family Residential assessment rate reduced from 7.15% to 6.8%
•Non-Residential assessment rate reduced from 29% to 26.4%
Mill Levy is the "tax rate" that is applied to the assessed value of a property. One mill is one dollar per $1,000 dollars of assessed value.
The mill levy is established by each taxing authority such as a school, county, local government, and districts such as fire,water, sanitation, library, and parks and recreation.
Property Tax Calculation: Actual Value x Assessment Rate x Mill Levy/1,000
General Fund Mill Levy Property Tax Calculation Example:
Residential: $100,000 X .0695 X 5.88/1,000 = $40.87
Multi-Family Residential: $100,000 X .0680 X 5.88/1,000 = $39.98
Nonresidential: $100,000 X .2640 X 5.88/1,000 = $155.23Page 199 of 226
Temporary assessment rate reduction for 2022 and 2023 Property Tax Years collected in 2023 and 2024 respectively (unless not otherwise reduced by an initiated measure)
Senate Bill 21-293
•Residential assessment rate reduced from 7.15% to 6.95%
•Multi-Family Residential assessment rate reduced from 7.15% to 6.8%
•Non-Residential assessment rate reduced from 29% to 26.4%
Property Tax Overview Continued
Page 200 of 226
Assessment rate reduction commencing on or after January 1, 2023 collected in 2024
Potential 2022 Ballot Initiative
•Residential assessment rate reduced from 7.15% to 6.5%
•Non-Residential assessment rate reduced from 29% to 26%
Property Tax Overview Continued
Nov 2, 2021 Election Results –Proposition
120 Property tax cut initiative was defeated
Page 201 of 226
General Fund –Fund Balance
Fund Balance
Composition
Description
Designated
Taxpayer’s Bill of
Rights (TABOR)
Emergency
The TABOR Amendment, passed by the voters in 1992, requires at least 3% of fiscal year
spending, excluding bonded debt service, be kept in the TABOR Emergency Reserve.
The reserve can only be used for non-fiscal emergencies, such as natural disasters and must be
replenished in the fiscal year after money is withdrawn.
Long-Term Asset
Reserve (LTAR)
During the 2008 Budget cycle, the City Council approved Resolution No. 90 Series 2007, that
created the LTAR and provided that funds from the sale, lease, or earnings from long-term assets
should be used in a careful, judicious and strategic manner.
The funds can only be expended if the funds are appropriated in the annual budget or by
supplemental appropriation.
American Rescue
Plan Act (ARPA)
Restricted per the ARPA requirements.
Unassigned Fund
Balance Unrestricted balance that is available for City Council Appropriation.Page 202 of 226
2022 Budget Overview
Page 203 of 226
Budget Basics: Purpose of Budget
The budget is…
•an important financial planning tool and it shapes the financial health and direction of
the government
•a visioning document that allocates funding to Council priorities and strategic plan
goals
In government, the expenditure budget or “appropriation,” is the legal authority for
management to provide a given level of services. (It’s actually illegal to spend more than
the budget appropriation)
To increase the original budget appropriation, the governing body is required to authorize
such increase before additional spending is permitted; except in the case of an
emergency where the authorization can occur after the factPage 204 of 226
Budget Basics: What is a fund?
Private sector may set up separate companies for legal liability or tax purposes
Public sector set up separate funds to account for certain activities in order to
show accountability
A specific revenue source may be legally restricted, if so, it is reported in a
separate fund to demonstrate that the revenue is spent only for the intended
purpose (Conservation Trust Fund-use of shared State Lottery Funds)Page 205 of 226
Budget Goals
Throughout the budget process, continue to:
•Provide relevant and current information to City Council
•Work toward greater transparency
•Review regularly budget priorities with Council
•Foster discussion regarding community desired results
•Make information easily accessible to the public
•Engage the public
Page 206 of 226
Boards & Commissions Budget Planning Process Input
Planning and Zoning Commission
•Charter. Article VIII, Part 2, §58
…”The Commission shall submit annually to the City Manager, not less than ninety days prior to the submission of the budget, a list of recommended capital improvements, arranged in order of preference, which in the opinion of the Commission are necessary or desirable to be constructed during the forthcoming five-year period.”…
Budget Advisory Committee
•Englewood Municipal Code. Title 2, Chapter 14, §2-14-5(F)
“Once the budgets have been reviewed and have incorporated requests for new programs and/or personnel authorized by the City Manager, the Budget Advisory Committee shall submit a written report of its findings and recommendations (BAC Report) at least annually.”
Water and Sewer Board
•Charter. Article VIII, Part 4, §62
…”The Board, in cooperation with the City Manager, shall submit annually to Council a capital expenditure budget; such budget may provide for a contingency fund never to exceed two percent (2%) of the gross receipts of the domestic water and sanitary sewer systems for the previous year.”…Page 207 of 226
1. General Fund
Budget
Sources
and
Uses
General Fund
•Englewood’s primary operating fund
•Accounts for all financial resources of the general
government, except those required to be accounted
for in another fund
Page 208 of 226
General Fund 2022 Budget (in millions)
Major SOURCES (+)$%Major USES (-)$%
Sales & Use Taxes $33.8 61 DIRECT SERVICES
Police and Fire & Emergency Management
($23.4 / 41%)
Parks, Recreation, Library & Golf ($8.6 / 16%)
Public Works ($7.8 / 14%)
Community Development ($3.0 / 5%)
$42.8 76
Property Tax $5.2 9
Franchise Tax $3.7 8
Charges for Services $3.4 6
Cultural & Recreation Program Fees $2.6 5 Information Technology $3.7 7
EMRF Net Rental Proceeds $1.7 3 Finance $2.1 4
Intergovernmental Income $1.2 2 Debt Service $0.1 0
Licenses & Permits $1.8 3 Municipal Court $1.5 3
Other Income $ .8 1 Human Resources $1.5 3
Interest Income $ .1 0 Administration $1.1 2
Fines & Forfeitures $ .5 1 City Attorney’s Office $1.1 2
Specific Ownership, Cigarette & Lodger’s
Taxes
$ .7 1 Communications $ .8 1
Legislation $ .3 1
Other Financing Sources $ .1 0 Contingency $ .5 1
Other Financing Uses $0.0 0
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS $55.6 100 TOTAL USES OF FUNDS $55.5 100Page 209 of 226
2. Special Revenue Funds
Special Revenue Funds
•Legally restricted funds for specified
purposes only
Budget
Sources
and
Uses
Page 210 of 226
Special Revenue Funds
Special Revenue Funds Major SOURCES (+)Major USES (-)
Conservation Trust Fund Colorado State Lottery Parks & Recreation Projects
Donors Fund Donations/Contributions Parks, Recreation & Library, Police
Services and Finance Designated
Uses
Parks & Recreation Trust Fund Contributions Parks & Recreation Projects
Malley Senior Recreation Center
Trust Fund
Contributions Malley Senior Center Projects
Open Space Fund Arapahoe County Open
Space Tax
Open Space Maintenance
Page 211 of 226
3. Debt Service Funds
Debt Service Funds
•City is obligated in some manner for payment of
principal and interest on general obligation bond
Budget
Sources
and
Uses
Page 212 of 226
Debt Service Funds
Recreation Related GO Bonds Fund –Debt Issued 2001 and Expires in 2023
Police Headquarter GO Bonds Fund –Debt Issued 2017 and Expires in 2036
Debt Service Funds Major SOURCES (+)Major USES (-)
Recreation General Obligation (GO)
Bonds
Property Tax Debt Service for GO Bonds
financing Recreation and Pirates
Cove Construction Projects
Police Headquarters General
Obligation (GO) Bonds
Property Tax Debt Service for GO Bonds
financing the Police Headquarters
Building Construction and Safety
related equipment
Page 213 of 226
4. Capital Projects Funds
Capital Projects Funds
•Funds for construction of major capital facilities
other than those financed by the proprietary
funds
Budget
Sources
and
Uses
Page 214 of 226
Capital Projects Funds
Capital Projects Funds Major SOURCES (+)Major USES (-)
Public Improvement Fund Vehicle Use Tax
Building Use Tax
Arapahoe County Road and
Bridge Tax
Capital outlay for public use
infrastructure
Capital Projects Fund Transfers In from the General
Fund or Public Improvement
Fund
Capital outlay for government
functions
Police Headquarter
Construction Fund
2017 GO Bond Proceeds Construction of Police headquarter
building and safety equipment
Page 215 of 226
5. Enterprise Funds
Enterprise Funds
•Funds operate in a manner similar to private business
•Costs recovered primarily through user fees/charges
and used for a specific purpose such as for the Broken
Tee Golf Course
Colorado Constitution defines an enterprise as a
“government-owned business authorized to issue its
own revenue bonds and receiving under 10% of annual
revenue in grants from all Colorado state and local
governments combined”
Budget
Sources
and
Uses
Page 216 of 226
Enterprise Funds
Enterprise Funds Major SOURCES (+)Major USES (-)
Water Fund Water Utility Fees and Usage Rates Water Treatment Process and Distribution
System Maintenance
Sewer Fund Sewer Utility Fees and Usage Rates Sanitary Sewer Treatment Process and
Collection System Maintenance
Storm Water Drainage
Fund
Storm Water Utility Fees and Rates Storm Water Drainage System Maintenance
Golf Course Fund Broken Tee Golf Course 18-Holes, 9-
Holes and Par 3-Holes Rounds and
Cart Rental Fees
Broken Tee Golf Course Operations and
Maintenance
Concrete Utility
Fund
Concrete Utility Fee Concrete Sidewalks, Curbs and Gutters
Maintenance
Housing Rehabilitation
Fund
Community Development Block Grants Qualified Home Energy, Efficiency
Englewood (E3) GrantsPage 217 of 226
6. Internal Service Funds
Internal Service Funds
•Financing of goods or services on a cost-
reimbursement basis provided by one department to
other departments of the City
Budget
Sources
and
Uses
Page 218 of 226
Internal Service Funds
Internal Service Funds Major SOURCES (+)Major USES (-)
Servicenter Fund Department Chargeback Fees Fleet Service Garage Operation and
Maintenance
Capital Equipment
Replacement Fund
Department Chargeback Fees Replace Vehicles and Equipment as
scheduled or where keeping asset is
cost prohibitive
Risk Management Fund Department Chargeback Fees Property & Casualty and Workers
Compensation Insurance Premiums
and Claims Payments
Employee Benefits Fund Department Chargeback Fees Health,Dental, Vision, Life, etc.
Insurance Premiums and Claims
PaymentsPage 219 of 226
Strategic Plan Link to Desired Outcomes/Results
Results
Strategic Plan
Annual Council Goals
Department Line Item Budget & Performance Metrics
Neighborhoods Infrastructure
&
Transportation
Economy SustainabilitySafety Community
Wellbeing
Governance
Page 220 of 226
Surrounding Parks and Recreation District Mill Levy Rates
District
District
County
O&M
Mill
Levy
Debt
Mill
Levy
Total
Mill
Levy
City of Englewood- (5.88 Mill Levy All General Fund
Services; 1.417 Mill Levy Recreation GO Bonds; 2.279
Mill Levy Police HQ GO Bonds)Arapahoe 5.880 3.696 9.576
Arapahoe Park & Recreation District Arapahoe 4.000 2.140 6.140
Foothills Park & Recreation District Arapahoe 20.592 4.694 25.286
South Suburban Park & Recreation District Arapahoe 7.417 0.912 8.329
Apex Park & Recreation District Jefferson 3.597 1.004 4.601
Hyland Hills Metropolitan Park & Recreation District Adams 5.092 - 5.092
Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA)
https://dola.colorado.gov/lgis/taxEntityAlpha.jsf
City of Englewood
2021 Park and Recreation District Mill Levy Comparison
Page 221 of 226
EXECUTIVE SESSION MOTION FORM
(Note: 2/3 quorum present must vote yes to pass any motion to go into executive session; and an
executive session may only occur at a regular or special meeting of the body.)
If 7 members are present 5 members must vote yes
If 6 members are present 4 members must vote yes
If 5 members are present 4 members must vote yes
I MOVE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TONIGHT:
____1____ For a conference with the City attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal
questions under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b);
Present at the executive session are the following persons:
Mayor Othoniel Sierra
Mayor Pro Steven Ward
Council Member Rita Russell
Council Member Joe Anderson
Council Member Chelsea Nunnenkamp
Council Member Jim Woodward
Council Member Cheryl Wink
City Manager Shawn Lewis
City Attorney Tamara Niles
May I have a second? VOTE We will now exit this meeting and reconvene in the Community Room on
the 2nd floor.
Page 222 of 226
ANNOUNCEMENT 1
BEFORE EXECUTIVE SESSION COMMENCES
ANNOUNCEMENT TO BE MADE BY PRESIDING OFFICER AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
EXECUTIVE SESSION (MAKE SURE THE TAPE RECORDER IS TURNED ON; DO NOT IT OFF
DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION UNLESS SO ADVISED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY)
TURN ON RECORDING
When all are present Ask: City Attorney Tamara Niles, can you please begin the recording of this Exec.
Session?
Today’s date is April 11, 2022, and the time is ______________________.
For the record, I am Mayor Othoniel Sierra. As required by the Open Meetings Law, this executive session is
being electronically recorded
Also present at this executive session are the following persons:
Mayor Othoniel Sierra
Mayor Pro Steven Ward
Council Member Rita Russell
Council Member Joe Anderson
Council Member Chelsea Nunnenkamp
Council Member Jim Woodward
Council Member Cheryl Wink
City Manager Shawn Lewis
City Attorney Tamara Niles
This is an executive session for the following purpose:
For a conference with the City attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions
under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402(4)(b);
If at any point in the executive session any participant believes that the discussion is going outside the proper
scope of the executive session, please interrupt the discussion and make an objection
Page 223 of 226
ANNOUNCEMENT 2
ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED INFORMATION
ANNOUNCEMENTS TO BE MADE AT THE BEGINNING OF EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR LEGAL
ADVICE, OR FOR THE DISCUSSION OF LEGAL ADVICE DURING AN EXECUTIVE
SESSION WHOSE STATED PURPOSE IS A SUBJECT OTHER THAN LEGAL ADVICE
By City Attorney:
As City Attorney, it is my opinion that the discussion of the matter announced in the motion to go into executive
session constitutes a privileged attorney-client communication. I am therefore recommending that no further
record be kept of this executive session, unless or until the privileged communication is concluded.
By Presiding Officer:
The City Attorney has recommended that no further record be kept of this executive session. The time is
now__________ and I am turning off the tape recorder
(turn off tape recorder at this time)
(If the attorney-client communication has finished, but the executive session continues, TURN THE TAPE
RECORDER BACK ON)
By Presiding Officer:
The time is now ________________and I have turned the tape recorder back on because the privileged attorney-
client communication is concluded.
(AT THE END OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, MAKE SURE ANNOUNCEMENT NO. 2 IS MADE
BEFORE TURNING OFF THE TAPE RECORDER)
ANNOUNCEMENT 3
Page 224 of 226
CONCLUDING AN EXECUTIVE SESSION
ANNOUNCEMENT TO BE MADE BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER BEFORE CONCLUDING THE
EXECUTIVE SESSION (WHILE THE TAPE RECORDER IS RECORDING).
I hereby attest that this recording reflects the actual contents of the discussion at the executive session and has
been made in lieu of any written minutes to satisfy the recording requirements of the Open Meetings Law.
The tape will be retained by the City for a 90-day period.
The time now is _______________, and this executive session is concluded. The Governing Body will now
return to the open meeting
(turn off recording and return to open meeting)
Page 225 of 226
ANNOUNCEMENT 4
RETURN TO OPEN MEETING
STATEMENT TO BE MADE BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER UPON RETURNING TO THE OPEN
MEETING
The time is now ____________________and the executive session has been concluded.
Present at the executive session are the following persons:
Mayor Othoniel Sierra
Mayor Pro Steven Ward
Council Member Rita Russell
Council Member Joe Anderson
Council Member Chelsea Nunnenkamp
Council Member Jim Woodward
Council Member Cheryl Wink
City Manager Shawn Lewis
City Attorney Tamara Niles
I move to close the executive session; may I have a second? VOTE
For the record, if any person who participated in the executive session believes that any substantial discussion
of any matters not included in the motion to go into the executive session occurred during the executive session,
or that any improper action occurred during the executive session in violation of the Open Meetings Law, I would
ask that you state your concerns for the record
Page 226 of 226