►
From YouTube: 2.23.2021 Organized Residential Waste and Recycling Collection Citizen's Committee Meeting
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
B
A
C
A
C
C
D
C
A
No
okay,
felicia
she's.
I
try
to
go
ahead
and
look
at
all
the
members,
so
let
me
get
felicia
in.
D
C
A
A
F
A
F
A
E
A
B
Yeah
so
I'll
do
the
the
roll
and
the
any
votes
we
had
tonight.
Steve
thank.
E
A
A
E
Good
evening
this
is
a
meeting
of
the
organized
residential
waste
and
recycling
collection
citizens
committee.
It
is
tuesday
february
23rd
at
6
02
p.m.
I'm
stephen
ward,
chair
of
this
committee,
we'll
begin
with
the
role.
E
A
E
Thank
you,
director,
d'andrea
ordinarily
minutes
will
be
the
next
item
of
business.
However,
I
do
not
see
that
appearing
on
our
agenda,
so
I
assume
the
minutes
from
our
last
meeting
have
not
been
prepared,
which
brings
us
to
our
next
order
of
business
public
comment.
E
E
H
Can
you
hear
me?
Okay,
I
attended
all
three
of
the
town
hall
conferences
that
were
held
on
single
hauler
trash
in
2019..
Most
of
the
people
sitting
near
me
wanted
to
at
least
give
single
holler
trash
a
try
as
a
nurse.
One
of
the
reasons
I
support
single
holler
trash
is
because
of
air
pollution
with
four
different
trash
companies.
That
means
four
times
the
air
pollution
per
week.
To
pick
up
trash,
there
is
no
safe
level
of
air
pollution.
H
Short-Term
explosion
will
have
cumulative
effects.
One
of
the
air
pollution
pollutants
most
concerning
is
called
particulate
matter.
Particular
matter
of
10
micro
meters
in
diameter
is
visible,
such
as
dust,
particulate
matter
of
2.5,
micrometers
or
smaller
is
called
fine
particulate
matter.
There
are
studies
being
done
on
ultra
fine
particulate
matter
smaller
than
0.1
microns,
and
the
results
are
quite
alarming.
H
Particulate
matter
is
created
from
the
streets
with
heavy
trucks
driving
up
and
down.
Also
from
the
truck
tires
as
particles
break
off
and
from
fuel
used
by
the
the
trucks
ultra
fine
particulate
matter
can
be
inhaled
deep
into
the
lungs
where
it
is
picked
up
by
blood
circulating
and
is
then
carried
to
all
the
organs
of
the
body.
Embedding
in
your
heart,
brain
kidneys,
liver
blood
vessels,
like
I
said
it
can
have
an
accumulative
effect
such
as
forming
plaques
in
your
blood
vessels
or
in
your
heart.
H
H
H
Our
trash
trucks
are
contributing
to
the
formation
of
ozone.
Air
pollution,
as
all
forms
of
transportation
that
use
fossil
fuels
do
ozone,
contributes
to
all
diseases
that
result
in
death.
In
general,
a
trash
truck
equals
a
thousand
cars
per
day
on
the
roads.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
give
public
comment.
E
Thank
you,
ms
brown.
Does
the
committee
have
any
questions
for
ms
brown?
I
see
marcy,
you
have
your
hand
raised.
Please
go
ahead.
C
H
E
E
I
I
It
is
definitely
proven
across
the
country
to
improve
waste
diversion
and
increase
recycling,
but
what
I
think
is
really
attractive
for
cities
is
that
it
allows
you
to
offer
a
very
low
cost
alternative
in
the
program.
So
in
arvada
we
were
able
to
get
the
cost
as
low
as
11.
For
that
initial,
smallest
cart
and
then.
Lastly,
I
wanted
to
just
mention.
I
I
know
the
minimum
service
fee
or
the
opt
out
is
often
the
most
controversial
piece
of
the
the
puzzle
and,
unfortunately,
is
fundamental
to
the
economics
of
making
this
program
work
from
the
hauler
perspective.
Every
household
contributes
and
therefore
you're
able
to
get
the
best
rates
as
the
community
as
a
whole.
So
in
summary,
these
types
of
city-wide
contracts
for
organized
waste
and
recycling
have
been
highly
successful
across
colorado
and
look
forward
to
englewood
implementing
this
policy.
I
These
services,
this
type
of
contract,
is
actually
used
by
70
of
cities
across
the
u.s.
Either
have
municipally
run
trucks
or
this
type
of
program,
so
it
is
absolutely
proven
policy
across
the
u.s,
and
I
fully
support
your
efforts
and
would
also
encourage
you
to
look
to
the
front
range
waste
diversion
fund
for
funding
to
stand
behind
your
efforts
as
well.
So
thank
you
for
your
time.
I
Sure
we
are
a
non-profit
recycling
organization,
we
started
actually
the
first
curbside
recycling
program
in
colorado
back
in
1976
and
we
have
been
in
the
business
of
recycling.
Since
then
we
operate
a
materials,
recovery
facility
or
a
murph
where
curbside
recyclables
come
and
then
our
we
break
them
up
into
the
cardboard,
the
aluminum
plastic
bottles
and
we
sell
them
to
markets.
We
also
run
a
fleet
of
trucks,
collect
recycling
from
businesses.
I
G
I
I
So
I
like
that
pay
as
you
throw
a
program
because
for
a
lot
of
people,
eleven
dollars
is
going
to
be
cheaper
than
what
they're
paying
now
substantially
cheaper.
We
found
a
lot
of
people
in
nevada,
were
paying
25
or
30
dollars
for
trash
and
recycling,
and
now
we'll
get
that
service
for
as
low
as
eleven
dollars.
I
If
they
choose
the
smallest
cart,
so
I
find
that
to
be
a
great
option
for
seniors
those
on
a
fixed
income,
those
who
are
just
good
recyclers,
so
that
was
yeah
just
wanted
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
that.
G
Thank
you,
and-
and
we
had
a
couple,
questions
that
I'm
not
sure
what
our
latest
is,
but
in
regard
to
the
structure
of
boulder,
it
sounds
like
you
know,
quite
a
bit
about
that,
so
you
guys
are
providing
recycling
for
boulder.
Is
that
for
the
municipality
or
just
portions
of
it
businesses?
Or
what
do
you
know
about
that?.
I
Sure
happy
to
talk
to
about
boulder
eco
cycle
just
provides
commercial
services,
so
we
just
pick
up
recycling
from
businesses
throughout
boulder
county.
The
city
of
boulder
does
require
that
all
residents
have
recycling.
They
do
that
through
a
city
ordinance
that
requires
any
hauler
who
operates
in
the
city
to
provide
recycling
and
composting
collection.
I
This
is
a
little
different
than
the
contract
approach.
That
englewood
is
pursuing
boulder
and
fort
collins
are
the
only
two
cities
in
the
state
that
have
this
type
of
ordinance
and
unfortunately,
one
of
the
side
effects
of
the
ordinance
is.
It
doesn't
have
the
competitive
bidding
process
that
a
citywide
contract
has
so
boulder
and
fort
collins
pay
the
highest
rates
for
trash
and
recycling
services
of
any
cities
across
the
state.
F
J
Oh
thank
you
for
joining
us.
Miss
bailey.
I
am
there's
been
a
lot
of
developments.
It
seems
over
the
last
several
years
as
far
as
recycling,
whether
it
be
the
china
embargo
or
a
lot
of
problems
or
fraud
or
waste
or
not
recycling,
things
that
should
be
recycled.
J
I'm
wondering
if
as
an
expert
in
the
field,
if
you
can
kind
of
update
us
on
the
state
of
recycling
in
colorado
and
perhaps
any
additional
improvements
going
forward
and-
and
you
know
this
committee
is
really
trying
to
determine
whether
recycling
is
a
good
thing
to
pursue,
to
divert
waste
throughout
the
community
because
from
what
we
can
tell,
we
have
a
fairly
low
recycling
rate.
I
I
I
So
you
think
about
your
soda
bottles,
your
milk
jugs.
Those
are
very
recyclable.
That
being
said,
there
are
a
lot
of
types
of
plastic
packaging
that
are
not
recyclable
and
that's
where
there's
been
a
lot
of
challenges.
There's
been
some
fishy
things
going
on,
especially
with
exports
to
china,
but
I
want
to
sort
of
you
know
understand
that
those
problems
with
plastics
are
not
reflective
of
problems
with
recycling
overall
in
general,
recycling
has
struggled
the
past
few
years.
I
Investment
in
recycling
systems,
recycling
infrastructure,
recycling
policy
across
the
country.
It
is
definitely
something
that
communities
governments,
businesses
are
turning
toward
not
turning
away
from
in
mass,
and
so
we
are
seeing
great
investments
like
the
front
range
waste.
Diversion
grant
fund
here
in
colorado
to
really
drive
more
communities
to
invest
in
recycling
colorado
as
a
whole.
I
You've
probably
heard
we're
terrible
at
recycling
because
we
don't
make
it
convenient
for
residents.
Recycling
really
has
to
be
as
convenient
as
trash
service.
So
this
type
of
program,
where
every
resident
has
a
recycling
cart
next
to
their
trash
cart,
is
a
pivotal
to
improving
recycling
rates
across
the
state.
J
Understood-
and
could
you
perhaps
just
elaborate
very
briefly
on
the
front
range
waste
diversion
grant
program
apologize
for
my
baby
in
the
background.
I
Yeah
the
so
we
worked
extensively
to
help
pass
that
policy
a
couple
of
years
ago.
It
targets
just
the
front
range
which
of
course
includes
englewood
includes
about
85
percent
of
the
population
in
colorado
and
as
a
result
about
85
percent
of
our
waste
stream
and
what
it
did
was
it
added
a
small
fee
to
our
trash.
It
ended
up
to
be
about
two
dollars
per
ton
on
the
trash
that
we
send
to
landfills
and
that
money
is
earmarked
for
improving
recycling
composting
and
waste
diversion
programs
in
front
range
communities.
I
They
did
give
500
000
to
the
city
of
arvada
recently
to
help
purchase
recycling
carts
to
help
roll
out
their
program,
so
that
helped
reduce
the
cost
to
residents.
It
is
available
for
education
funding
infrastructure.
It
can
pay
for
some
staff
time.
It's
a
pretty
robust
fund,
it's
going
to
be
a
couple
million
dollars
a
year
and
once
it
hits
its
max
is
going
to
be
about
10
million
dollars
a
year
so
great
to
keep
in
mind
for
this
project
as
well.
J
C
Mercy
hi
miss
bailey.
Thank
you
for
coming
tonight
and
speaking.
You
are
a
wealth
of
information.
My
question
is:
is
I
have
been
following
arvada
pretty
closely
these
past
few
months?
Can
you
tell
me
how
the
citizens
welcomed
the
idea
of
a
single
trash
hauler.
I
Great
question
mercy:
I
always
caution
communities
that
trash
is
more
controversial
than
you
would
have
expected.
It's
something
that
people
are
paying
to
get
take.
You
know
people
are
paying
for
this
to
go
away
and
yeah.
It's
never.
I
It's
always
surprising
how
much
trash
and
recycling
create
more
controversy
than
one
would
have
expected,
and
you
know
we've
seen
that
play
out
for
a
number
of
years
right,
we've
seen
lafayette
and
louisville
were
some
of
the
first
communities
to
adopt
these
programs
back
in
2007,
so
we've
got
nearly
15
years
under
our
belt
of
watching
these
programs
in
place.
I
Generally
change
is
hard
right
and
and
trash
service.
Changing
is
it's
a
change
and
that's
what
it
is,
and
so
it's
difficult
the
first
couple
months
you
know
going
through
the
the
rfp
processes
challenge,
has
its
challenges
when
the
carts
first
hit
the
street
and
everybody's
adjusting
to
the
new
day
and
the
new
cart
and
all
that
stuff.
I
They
appreciate
the
trucks
off
the
street,
they
appreciate
often
the
extra
services
like
bulky
item,
collection,
yard,
waste
collection
and
they
just
adjust
to
this
way
of
doing
things
and,
as
I
mentioned,
70
percent
of
the
country,
does
it
this
way,
and
so,
when
I
speak
around
the
country-
and
I
talk
about
what's
happening
in
colorado-
it's
kind
of
look
at
me
funny,
like
whoa.
We
just
have
this
kind
of
trash
service
for
decades
in
other
places,
so
you
know
we
we
do
have
a
fair
amount
of
controversy
around
it.
I
E
E
I
do
just
have
one
question
regarding
the
agenda
director
d'andrea,
the
new
business
looks
like
it
may
actually
be
time
sensitive.
Is
it
possible
that
we
can
handle
that
before
we
move
on
to
the
old
business.
B
Absolutely
I
also
wanted
to
just
note
that
member
quantity
joined
at
606
pm.
E
E
All
right,
so,
under
new
business
we
had
some
information
that
was
forwarded
to
us
from
member
fraser
regarding
potential
grant
opportunities.
E
B
B
You
know
like
miss
bailey
mentioned,
and
I
think
we've
talked
about
this
before
that
arvada
was
able
to
obtain
funding
for
their
recycling.
Bins
are
currently
the
the
rfp
is
is
requires
that
the
hauler
provide
both
the
garbage
and
the
recycling
bins,
just
as
an
example.
So
if
we
wanted
to
change
routes
like
that,
but
the
the
elements
that
go
with
that
are
then
managing
those
carts.
B
So
even
if
we
were
successful
with
the
grant,
then
we're
staff
we
you
know,
would
likely
need
additional
staff
space
at
the
service
center
to
manage
those.
So
I
think
it's
a
larger
policy
question
than
just
applying
using
that
one
as
an
example,
but
if
there
were
other
ideas
with,
I
thought
we
could
talk
about
that
tonight
and
then
consider
the
other
grant,
which
I
think
is
due
later
in
the
month
of
march.
E
Sounds
great
so
I'll
I'll
give
the
floor
to
member
frazier
who
submitted
this
information
to
the
committee,
and
perhaps
you
can
elaborate
on
on
your
thoughts
relative
to
the
grant
funding
jeff.
J
Yeah,
I
thought
I
learned
about
it
last
week
and
obviously
we're
at
a
point
in
our
process
where
we're
not
like.
We
haven't
selected
a
hauler
or
anything
like
that.
I
think
it
may
be
worth
reaching
out
to
some
of
the
administrators
of
these
grants
to
determine
you
know
if
we
applied
now
and
then,
if
we
didn't
go
forward
with
you
know
any
single
hauler
program
potentially
like
can
we
work
with
you
on
that?
It's
just.
If
we
were
to
go
forward
and
leave
you
know
arvada
I
got.
J
I
think
I
think
it
was
a
staggering
sum
of
like
500
thousand
dollars
and
miss
bailey
shared
that
this
fund
is
going
to
be
as
high
as
10
million
dollars
that
if,
if
we
do
decide
to
go
forward
and
get
good
bids,
a
grant
like
that
could
massively
offset
some
of
the
costs
here
and
also
could
fund
some
of
the
other
things
we're
talking
about.
J
Like
education
programs,
you
know
perhaps
even
a
low
income
assistance-
I
I
don't
I'd,
have
to
look
at
the
specifics
of
the
grants,
but
I'd
be
more
than
happy
to
volunteer
to
reach
out
and
just
just
to
inquire
about.
J
Is
it
possible
for
a
municipality
in
our
position
that
has
made
no
firm
determination,
one
way
or
another,
and
maybe
they
say
no
and
if
we
get
farther
along
in
the
process,
maybe
you
know
maybe
there'd
be
an
opportunity
to
apply
at
the
next
at
the
next
grand
deadline,
perhaps
which
I
don't
know
if
it's
annual
or
I'd
have
to
check
on
that.
But
I
did
see
it
and
then
saw
these
deadlines
coming
up
of
march
1st
and
march
15th
and
said
we
gotta,
we
gotta
at
least
look
at
this.
E
So
I
have
one
other
question
relative
to
that
director
d'andrea.
I
think
this
would
probably
be
in
your
wheelhouse
relative
to
grants
and
grant
funding
at
what
point
is
consent
of
the
council
required.
B
Yeah
we've
we've
talked
a
little
bit
about
that
internally.
We've
staff
has
moved
forward
with
grants
before
so
typically
the
way
that
a
grant
works
is
once
you
receive.
B
Let's
say
we
were
successful
in
a
grant
and
if
there's
a
matching
requirement,
let's
say
from
the
city,
then
we
would
go
back
to
council
at
that
time,
so
we
wouldn't
accept
the
grant
until
there's
consensus
or
approval
from
the
council
to
commit
those
matching
funds
and
that's
kind
of
the
trigger
for
that.
So
we
have
been
moving
forward
with
grant
applications
subject
to
that
condition.
If
we
get
them.
E
And
the
second
question
I
have-
which
we
may
not
actually
have
enough
time
to
investigate
is
whether
or
not
this
is
actually
something
that
falls
in
this
committee's
jurisdiction.
You
know
we
have
a
fairly
strict
charter,
as
I
understand
it,
which
is
to
investigate
single
haulers,
and
I'm
I'm
not
sure
how
this
well.
I
guess
it's
somewhat
connected,
but
directly
connected
to
that
particular
question.
Whether
or
not
we
should
even
be
meddling
around
in
that.
B
Well,
I
think
it's
a
good
suggestion.
We've
heard
it
from
citizens
have
contacted
us
too
about
it.
At
least
one
has
reached
out
to
mayor
protem
sierra
who
passed
that
on
to
me,
so
I
think
we're
as
as
staff
we're
certainly
investigating
this,
and
if
it's
applicable,
then
we
will
likely
put
something
in
for
the
march
15th
one,
if
only
maybe
education
around
this
topic
for
our
community.
J
Yeah
I
actually
took
it
down
then
re-raised
it
just
because
I'm
getting
real
fancy
over
here
now.
My
point
was
on
on
the
grants.
You
know
the
part
of
the
committee's
purview
is,
as
I
understand
it,
to
make
recommendations
to
council
and
even
one
of
those
recommendations.
If
we
were
to
move
forward,
you
know
to
me
it
all
comes
down
to
what
comes
back
in
the
bids,
but
could
be
to
explore
and
apply
for
these
grants
before
rolling
out
any
new
potential
program
to
offset
cost
get
education
funding
whatever
it
may
be.
J
E
So
I
don't
necessarily
know
that
we
as
a
community-
this
is
an
item
that
we
need
to
vote
on,
but
I
will
say
I
welcome
any
opportunity
for
the
city
to
get
money
that
doesn't
come
from
my
pocket
directly.
E
So
when
there's
state
funds
that
could
be
going
to
another
municipality
to
be
had,
let's
do
whatever
we
can
to
get
them,
and
I
don't
know
if
any
other
members
have
anything
to
contribute.
You
can
go
ahead
and
raise
your
hand
now
I'll
call
on
you.
Otherwise,
we'll
move
to
the
next
agenda
item.
B
All
right
so
we're
going
to,
I
know
at
the
last
meeting
we
had
talked
about
some
of
these
items,
but
I
don't
think
we
ever
actually
made.
There
were
no
formal
motions
on
these,
so
we
are
want
to
talk
tonight
again
about
tipping
fees
or
at
least
get
some
direction
from
the
committee
on
that.
I
think
there
were
was
some
discussion
on
alternatives,
but
we
wanted
to
reevaluate
that
or
come
back
to
that
again
and
then
the
annual
increases
to
the
contract
pricing.
B
B
As
I
say
there,
and
so
what
we
had
put
in
the
original
rfp
was
that
we
were
going
to
exclude
that
from
the
pricing
that
was
provided
by
the
haulers
in
their
proposals
and
that
we
would
pay
that
directly
to
the
oxford
transfer
station.
Based
on
the
amount
of
materials
that
were
deposited
there.
The
idea
came
from
a
hauler
to
me
and
the
idea
was
that
that
would
prevent
waste
management
from
modifying
their
tipping
fees
or
giving
them
an
unfair
advantage.
B
So
I
think
just
for
we
had
estimated
this
so
just
guessing,
but
that
the
entire
city,
if
we
were
to
go
to
organized
collection,
would
collect
from
everybody
over
a
year,
10
000
tons,
which
would
equate
to
350
000
or
an
additional
cost
to
the
households
per
month
of
3.12
cents.
And
when
we
were
looking
at
those
total
prices.
I
included
this
312..
So
again,
that's
just
an
estimate.
B
But
I
don't
know
if
that's
a
big
factor
in
this
and
it
might
be
better
in
the
long
run,
to
have
a
better
estimate
from
the
haulers
because
they
might
well
have
a
different
idea
of
how
this
might
be
service,
not
taking
it
to
oxford
transfer
station
and
getting
it
just
a
better
handle
on
this
price.
B
G
Yeah,
just
when
we
were
talking
about
that
last
time,
I
guess
maybe
it
didn't
hit
the
point
of
emotion,
but
I
know
at
least
it
was
discussed
to
put
in
the
rfp
to
allow
them
to
include
the
tipping
fee
or
not
because
oh.
G
Way,
if
you
know,
if
one
hauler
has
a
weight,
you
know
they.
Basically
it
just
encourages
us
getting
the
best
deal
as
citizens.
You
know
if
they
can
do
a
better
deal
than
been
great.
If,
if
not,
then
you
know
then
we'll
be
able
to
see
what
the
best
deal
is,
but
I
mean
I,
I
don't
see
why
we
wouldn't
allow
them
to
do
whatever
they
can
do
to
reduce
the
cost
that
goes
to
us
and
the
deal.
E
E
B
I
I
don't
think
there
was
so,
but
if
you're
come,
if
the
committee
is
comfortable
with
that
direction,
we'll
certainly
take
that
back
and
work
that
back
into
the
new
proposal.
C
C
B
I
think
we
might
make
a
little
bit
more
if
we
went
to
an
organized
collection,
the
way
that
it
was
originally
written
and
that's
because
we
required
the
haulers
in
the
previous
rfp
to
go
to
the
oxford
transfer
station.
So
we
wouldn't
necessarily
get
any
of
the
tipping
fees.
It
would
all
go
there,
but
because
all
of
the
trash
now
would
go
to
oxford
station
right
now,
your
hauler
might
take
it
to
another
location.
B
You
know
somewhere
else
and
out
of
the
city
and
therefore
we
wouldn't
get
that
surcharge
so
by
requiring
it
to
go
to
the
oxford
station.
All
of
the
trash
generated
with
an
angle.
Wood
would
go
there
and
so
there's
might
be
an
an
increase
in
that
waste
transfer
surcharge,
but
we
wouldn't
receive
any
of
the
tipping
fees.
F
Director
andre,
can
you
help
me
understand
if
how
we
were
discussing
it
before
is
going
to
work
as
far
as
an
rfp
and
considering
the
rfp?
In
other
words,
respondents
would
have
the
ability
to
either
include
it
or
not
include
it,
and
are
you
pretty
comfortable
that
we
would
be
able
to
sort
apples
to
apples
in
that
case
if
they,
if
they
don't,
include
it,
and
they
don't
have
another
proposed
place
to
take
it?
Do
we
insert
default
values.
B
Yeah
I'll
have
to
I'll
I'll
have
to.
I
was,
I
think,
thank
you
for
that
member
brinker.
I
think
that
was
my
question
is
just
trying
to
think
in
my
head.
How
we
might
do
that,
so
I
think
to
try
and
get
to
that.
We'd
probably
have
more
response.
That's
text
to
describe
how
they're
going
to
dispose
of
the
waste
where,
where
most
of
the
materials
would
be
taken
to
and
then
basically
require
all
of
them.
B
E
I
think
that's
it
for
race
hands
back
to
you,
director,
d'andrea.
B
All
right,
so
I
think
that's
thank
you
for
that
additional
direction.
I
appreciate
that
and
that
helped
me
think
through
it
too,
so
alternatives.
Do
you
recall
where
we
landed
here
or
do
you
need
more
discussion
around?
B
I
know
that
had
come
up
as
a
previous
comment
or
two
from
the
public
about
offering
this
to
apartment
homes,
any
basically
anything
larger
than
you
know
what
we,
what
I
had
originally
proposed,
was
going
up
to
triplexes
and
that
if
we
had
a
multi-family
dwelling
larger
than
that,
it
would
probably
be
more
of
a
one
of
those
dumpster
types
of
things
and
it
would
likely
require
a
different
type
of
vehicle.
But
we
could
certainly
include
that
in
the
proposal.
J
Yeah,
so
on
the
multi-family
dwellings,
I
learned
some
more
information
on
this
from
colorado
state
law
today
that
I
think
is
worth
everyone
knowing.
I
think
I
think
I
think
director
d'andrea
shared
that
attachment
with
the
whole
committee
and
it's
going
to
be
in
the
next
agenda
as
part
of
the
public
record,
but
I
learned
that
colorado
state
law
actually
prohibits
municipalities
from
mandating
that
units
multi-family
apartment
buildings
with
eight
or
more
units,
seven
or
under
you're
good
from
mandating
what
hauler
or
waste
provider
they
they
select.
J
But
I
thought
it
was
a
pretty
important
piece
of
information
that
colorado
state
law
prohibits
us
from
forcing
units
with
eight
or
more
apartments
and
probably
some
other
commercial
properties
as
well
from
mandating
how
they
who
they
select
to
use
for
waste
services.
J
So
you
can
mandate
recycling
any
number
of
ways
for
those
facilities,
but
you
can't
force
eight
or
more
apartments
into
you
know
what
would
be
essentially
a
single
single
hauler
program
based
on
case
law
or
based
on
a
statute
which
I
do
not
have
in
front
of
me.
It
was
3015.,
you
should
have
it
in
your
emails
and
it'll
be
a
part
of
the.
J
E
G
I
had
noticed
in
one
of
the
things
remember
frazier
said
it
talks
about,
so
it's
it's
an
encourage,
I'm
not
really
sure
exactly
what
the
background
of
this
is,
but
the
extended
producer
responsibility
it
seemed
like
it
was
something
that
the
state
is
encouraging:
different
municipalities
to
push
towards,
and
some
of
the
things
that
stuck
out
to
me
on
page
23
of
that
it
said
apartments
and
businesses
throw
away
roughly
twice
as
much
waste
as
single-family
residents
and
often
lack
adequate
recycling
services
city
of
boulder
increased
its
city-wide
diversion
rate
by
more
than
10
percent
since
2015,
when
the
city
adopted
its
universal
zero
waste
ordinance
and
required
recycling
and
composting
services
for
all
businesses
and
multi-family
properties,
and
then
the
other
part
of
that
or
the
other
two
parts
of
that
that
really
stood
out
to
me
is
so.
G
These
are
state
colorado,
state
encouragements
toward
at
least
this
is
my
understanding
and
remember
frasier.
You
might
be
able
to
describe
that
better,
but
what
I
got
out
of
this
was
it
was
state
recommendations
to
municipalities
and
counties
that
are
addressing
you
know:
waste
recycling,
composting
programs
and
another
big
point
was
to
require
construction
and
demolition
debris,
recycling
and
then
another
one
was
require
mmp
reporting,
which
is
there's
a
standard
around
the
way
diversion
can
be
reported,
quantities
of
trash
recycling.
G
Composting
can
be
tracked
and
reported
and
there's
a
whole
recommended
standard
around
that,
and
I
don't
know
director
d'andrea
if
you
have,
if
you're
aware
of
whatever
the
structure
of
the
mmp
state
recommended
reporting
is
or
not,
but
that
seems
like
something
that
if
we
are
moving
towards
a
you
know,
a
single
hauler
type
program
pushed
by
inglewood.
G
We
should
be
thinking
about
these
things
that
the
state
is
encouraging
and
if
the
bulk
of
like
more
than
twice
as
much
waste
and
recycling
comes
from
multi-fan
or
you
know
the
apartments
and
businesses,
then
to
me,
that's
all
the
more
reason
for
us
to
consider
figuring
out
a
way
to
incorporate
those.
You
know,
I
guess
maybe
within
the
limits
of
what
member
fraser
just
told
us
of
that,
we
can't
force
more
than
seven
unit
dwellings,
but
anyway,
I
think
this
is
all
stuff
that
we
need
to
take
into
account.
That's
important.
F
So
I'm
kind
of
hearing
two
parts
to
this
and
the
first
part
it.
I
wonder
if
we
could
discuss
including
multi-family
buildings
with
up
to
seven
units
since
that's
below
that
state
threshold.
F
I
thought
I'll
get
to
the
second
part
later,
the
second
part
being.
How
can
we
address
multi-family
units
that
are
greater
than
eight?
Are
there
any
other
options
given
that
they
couldn't
be
included
in
a
single
hauler
program?
But,
first
of
all,
I
wonder
the
rest
of
the
committee's
thoughts
on.
Should
we
stick
with
single
family,
duplex
and
triplex,
or
should
it
be
moved
up
to.
F
E
All
right,
brenda.
D
E
C
Yeah,
I
guess
this
is
a
question
for
member
fraser.
I
definitely
agree
that
these
multi-dwellings
should
also
be
included.
I
guess
the
limit
is
seven
from
my
understanding,
but
my
question
is
that
a
lot
of
people
who
do
rent
don't
they
pay?
E
F
C
F
I
think
dane,
though,
probably
had
a
comment
on
renting
because
he
said
he
rented
at
city
center
a
few
years
ago.
K
I
did
so
I
I
lived
at
whatever
it
used
to
be
called
the
election
at
city
center
and
they
actually
had
what
they
called
a
concierge
trash
service
that
they
charged
you
for.
Instead
of
having
to
take
your
garbage
down
to
the
actual
dumpster,
they
charged
you.
So
you
could
just
put
your
garbage
outside
your
door
once
a
week,
and
so
I'm
not
sure
that
they're
really
charging
them
they're
garbage
they're
charging
them
for
essentially
a
concierge
service
kind
of
a
bs
thing.
But
it's
not
elective.
It
is
a
required
fee.
C
K
D
E
D
Can
hear
you
sorry
about
that?
It's
only
ever
this
meeting
anyway.
Hey
I
just
wanted
to
bring
up
about.
Multifamily
is
keep
in
mind
the
the
two
things
that
have
already
been
discussed
tonight,
one
it
would
require
a
different
truck
and
two
that
we're
getting
there's
a
lot
of
wish
list
that
we're
adding
on
that
will
increase
the
cost,
and
this
sounds
like
a
real,
complicated
thing
to
throw
into
the
mix
that
could
really
extend
the
life
of
our
project.
D
I
would
be
against
adding
multi-family
dwellings
simply
because
it
there
is
so
many
complications
and
it's,
like
you
said,
we'll
be
chasing
down
some
landlords,
a
different
truck
and
that'll
defeat.
The
purpose.
If
we've
got
different
kinds
of
trucks
back
out
on
the
street,
I
mean
there
will
be
anyway,
but
keep
this
in
mind
is
if,
if
somebody
wins
this
contract
and
they've
got
a
lot
of
the
business
they'll
be
able
to
offer
probably
a
lower
cost,
because
they'll
already
have
trucks
there.
D
C
E
Thanks
brenda
carson
you're
up
next.
G
I
mean,
I
don't
we
haven't
seen
numbers
I
mean
I
would
like
to
know
if
it's
absolutely
accurate
and
true,
remember
frazier's
research
on
knowing
that
or
that
we
can't
require
multi-family
more
than
seven
units,
but
I
mean
a
bulk
of
the
goal
is
of
this
whole
thing
is
environmental
benefits,
and
if
we
know
that
I
mean
we
know
that
the
number
of
multi-family
dwellings
has
it's
massively
increased
recently.
G
It
continues
to
increase,
and
if
those
are
the
places
that
produce
more
than
twice
the
amount
of
waste
and
recycling
compared
to
residents,
then
that's
an
important
factor,
and
if
and
like
I
said,
the
overall
contract
could
make
it
more
increased
incentive
to
give
a
better
deal.
Overall
and
personally,
I
don't
you
know,
I.
I
think
that
this
whole
thing
is
sensitive
and
something
that
shouldn't
be
rushed.
I
don't
feel
like.
We
should
be
in
a
rush
in
general
to
get
this
done.
J
J
So
that's
pretty
clear
cut
on
you
know
that
the
eight
units
being
kind
of
a
hard
and
fast
line
as
far
as
mandating
participation
in
you
know
a
government
contracted
or
provided
single
single
hauler
program.
Just
on
the
point,
some
of
the
questions
raised
about
apartment
and
traffic,
how
that
works?
It's
all.
J
It's
it's
all
over
the
map.
Basically,
landlords
can
approach
it.
However,
they
want,
they
can
include
it
in
the
rent,
perhaps
charge
a
premium
for
the
rent.
They
can
charge
a
flat
fee,
provided
my
understanding
is
as
long
as
they're
not
profiting
off
of
that
flat
fee,
because
then
they'd
be
essentially
functioning
as
a
utility.
They
can,
you
know,
say
you
go
coordinated
if
it's,
if
you're
renting,
like
a
single
family
unit,
perhaps
I've
seen
that
concierge
service
trash
program
at
my
company
from
properties
that
had
it
existing.
J
We
purchased
it
not
a
good
idea
when
it
comes
to
pests
with
everyone
putting
trash
in
their
hallway
and
sometimes
people
putting
it
out
several
days
early,
don't
recommend
it
at
all
and
but
all
over
the
map.
You
know
I've
seen
flat
fees,
I've
seen
as
a
part
of
your
entire
utility
scheme,
so
it's
kind
of
there's,
no
one
mandated
way
for
how
landlords
at
multi-family
units
charge
for
trash.
J
If
the
goal
is
to
include
increase
recycling
or
perhaps
mandate
recycling
at
multi-family
units,
I
think
you
know
that
can
be
done.
Many
municipalities
have
done
it.
It
just
wouldn't
be
via
single
hauler
program.
J
It
would
be
via
a
code
changing
the
code
likely
there's
one
other
thing
I
wanted
to
mention,
but
it's
escaping
my
minor.
Oh,
these
seven,
seven
units,
whether
we
include
that
or
not
legally,
we
could
go
up
to
a
multi-family
of
seven
units
that
probably
encompasses
a
good
amount.
I
know
on
in
my
area
there's
a
handful
of
like
three
apartment
unit
areas,
but
I
wouldn't
you
know,
might
be
something
I'd
be
very
curious
how
it
would
impact
the
numbers
I
I
could
see
it
potentially
increasing
it.
J
K
Maybe
what
we
can
do
is
make
a
recommendation
to
counsel
in
terms
of
saying.
Yes,
we
want
to
encourage
recycling
and
we
want
to
encourage
businesses
to
do
it,
so
we
want
to
encourage
them
to
change
the
statute
so
that
it
is
mandated
by
every
business
of
a
certain
size
or
or
really
of
any
multi-dwelling
unit
that
is
excluded
from
the
single
hauler
would
be
required
to
recycle
at
a
base
minimum
type
of
thing,
just
as
an
option.
E
Thanks
christine,
I
think,
is
next.
F
I
wonder
if
we're
ready
to
discuss
emotion
with
what
dane
just
said
about
recommending
to
city
council
that
they
consider
requiring
multifamily
over
eight
units
and
commercial
properties
they
consider
requiring
to
offer
recycling.
F
G
Well
from
one
of
the
things
I
read,
I
think
it
was
from
one
all
the
things
that
remember
frazier
sent
and
I
I
think
the
person
who
presented
from
ecocycle
mentioned
it
as
well
as
it.
It
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
be
a
an
ordinance
that
addresses
the
businesses
and
multi-family
dwellings.
G
So
I
think
that
there's
a
couple
different
ways
to
approach
that-
and
I
guess
if
we
were
going
to
make
a
recommendation
for
city
council
to
consider
making
that
a
requirement,
I
mean
they
could
investigate
options
on
that,
whether
it's
a
change
to
the
requirements
for
licensing
which
I
would
think
would
be
easier
to
implement
than
a
a
new.
You
know
a
new
law
that
you
know
creates
new
requirements
for
all
of
the
businesses
and
multi-family
dwelling.
E
Dane
your
hand
is
still
up.
Did
you
have
something
to
add.
F
J
No
worries,
I
would
just
say
exactly
what
christine
said
in
that
city
council
would
require
that
recycling
be
mandatory
and
multi-family
dwellings
via
whatever
mechanism
they
see
most
appropriate,
whether
that
be
licensing
or
code
changes.
E
All
right
so
there's
a
motion
on
the
floor.
That's
been
seconded
director
d'andrea.
Did
you
get
that
motion?
I
did
good.
G
K
E
G
B
No,
my
understanding.
Well,
yes,
excuse
me
for
all
multi-families,
but
not
commercial.
So
it's
my
understanding
from
the
discussion
is
that
we
do
have
the
ability
to
through,
like
a
code,
change
or
licensing
which
the
motion
says,
whatever
you
know
would
be
best
for
the
city
that
that
would
require
all
multi-family
is
the
way.
I
understood
that.
G
B
F
G
Would
think
if
it's
a
high
number
that
that
would
be
to
me
that
would
lean
towards
figuring
out
a
way
to
include
it,
because
if
it's
a
high
number,
then
it
could
very
well.
First,
it's
more
trash
and
recycling
that
we
can
potentially
improve.
You
know
environmental
numbers
around,
and
secondly,
it
could
be
enough
that
it
actually
incentivizes
the
provider
to
because
it's
a
bigger
contract
and
you
know
to
give
a
better
deal
overall.
A
Yeah,
I
was
just
wondering
if
we're
keeping
a
list
of
the
questions
that
we're
going
to
be
asking
these
hollers,
because
I
think
this
would
be
one
of
those
points
of
inquiry
to
them
in
my
vote.
Would
there
would
be
dependent
upon
their
their
answer
to
that
rate,
because
I'd
assume
that
some
of
these
haulers
are
already
servicing
some
of
these
multi-family
units,
so
they're
already
equipped
to
do
that.
B
In
response
to
that
question,
if
you
recall
member
quantity,
we
had
created
a
list
of
questions
that
the
two
responded
or
the
two
proposal
respondents
had
responded
to
in
writing.
So
we
can
dust
those
off
and
certainly
add
this
one
to
that.
E
F
So
it
sounds
like
we're
putting
aside
this
question
until
we
get
more
data
on
how
many
buildings
there
are
that
have
between
four
and
seven
units
and
then
also
pending
a
discussion
with
the
haulers
to
kind
of
get
a
sense
of
that
costs.
Savings
versus
cost
expenditures
is
that
right.
G
Person
I
would
say
that
that
should
be
on
our
list
of
questions
for
talking
to
the
haulers
too.
I
mean
it.
I
get
that
there.
You
know
that
there's
probably
a
massive
amount
of
complication
around
dealing
with
commercial,
but
it'd
be
nice
to
hear
what
their
responses
are
in
regard
to
that
too,
because
they're,
probably
the
same
ones,
servicing
them
now
and
hearing
their
response,
whether
it's
biased
or
not
as
to
whether
inclusion
of
that
could
potentially
make
a
a
better
deal
overall,
would
be
interesting.
G
G
But
if,
if
we
had
one
big
deal,
that
was
you
know
providing
the
best
deal
for
you
know
residences
as
multi-family
dwellings,
commercial,
because
it's
a
giant,
you
know
pool
of
customers
that
could
potentially
without
x,
without
excluding
commercial
businesses
or
larger
multi-family
dwellings
from
doing
their
own
things
separate,
which
wouldn't
that
get
around
the
legal
requirement,
if
we're
not
forcing
them
to
use
something,
but
by
offering
it
as
an
available
thing
within
you
know
this
overall
pool
of
customers
potentially
a
better
deal.
J
Yes,
we
that's
legally
permissible
absolutely
under
the
statute.
You
just
can't
say
you
have
to
do
this.
E
I
I
think
that
would
be
helpful
director
gandra.
B
Yeah
and
that's
the
I
do
want
to
set
a
little
time
aside
at
the
very
end
of
the
meeting.
That's
on
our
new
business
as
well
just
talk
about
the
logistics
around
those
interviews.
But
yes,
definitely,
when
I
reach
out
to
them
and
invite
them
to
participate
that
I
can
ask
them
for
any
questions
for
us
that
we
can
be
contemplating
and
be
able
to
respond
to
or
ready
to
respond
to.
B
All
right
great,
so
it's
maybe
been
about.
I
think
it
was
in
mid
january,
reached
out
to
some
of
the
other
communities
near
and
around
us
just
to
see
how
they
had
structured
their
annual
increases.
So
you
can
see
here
that
of
the
five
communities
a
lot
of
them
are
set
similar
to
us
with
some
nuances.
B
So
you
can
see
here
the
edgewater
used
the
consumer
price
index
for
the
urban
consumer,
so
that
was
the
water
sewer
and
trash
collection,
u.s
city
average.
So
I
think
that
was
what
one
of
our
respondents
was
referring
to.
Is
they
preferred
that
measure?
And
it
was
the
lesser
of
that
number
or
three
percent
annually?
B
Lakewood
was
two
and
a
half
percent
per
year
increase,
and
this
was
interesting
up
to
a
maximum
of
five
percent
over
the
five-year
contract
period,
so
they're
setting
a
top
end
of
that
five
year.
Now
again,
lakewood
has
not
moved
forward
with
service,
but
that
was
the
way
they
had
structured
their
proposal
initially,
so
that
did
not
go
through
with
their
city
council.
So
they're
still
going
back
to
the
drawing
board.
B
If
you
will
on
offering
organized
collection
golden
has
offered
it
for
a
number
of
years,
they're
getting
ready
to
modify
or
go
out
for
new
proposals,
either
later
this
year
or
early
2022,
and
they
had
the
lesser
of
the
three
percent
of
the
cpi,
which
denver
boulder
greely,
which
is
a
different
cpi.
We
were
using
the
denver,
aurora
lakewood
one
similar
to
sheridan
and
then
each
of
the
three
increases
during
those
that
three
year
let
period
were
approved
at
three
percent.
B
So
they
never
used
the
cpi
because
it
sounds
like
it
was
higher
than
the
three
percent
arvada
which
recent,
which
passed
last
june.
B
They
had
put
in
there,
the
lesser
of
the
denver,
boulder
greeley,
similar
to
greenwood
or
golden
or
three
and
a
half
percent,
and
then
had
that
cap
again
of
eight
percent
over
their
seven
year
contract
and
then
sheridan.
The
first
two
years
were
basically
no
increases,
and
then
years
three
through
five
of
their
five-year
contract
was
the
lesser
of
three
percent
or
the
denver
were
a
lakewood
cpi.
B
So
this
was
very
similar
to
the
way
I
awarded
it,
except
for
not
the
first
two
years
were
set,
so
lots
of
nuance
there,
as
you
can
imagine
so
just
going
to
open
that
up
again
for
discussion
is
going
back
to
this.
Should
we
consider
keeping
it
at
the
denver,
aurora
lakewood
cpi,
going
to
this
urban
consumer
idea
and
then
would
there
be?
B
E
Awesome
carson.
G
I
mean,
I
guess,
I'm
curious
as
to
how
it's
automatically
assumed
assumed
it
has
to
go
up.
I
this
meeting
when
you
guys
were
just
discussing
this,
was
when
I
was
really
sick
and
I
listened
to
it
and
I
appreciated
that
member
frazier
brought
up
pushing
for
the
lower
increase
rate.
I
mean
you
know
if
there's
a
recession
or
a
crash,
or
you
know
anything
like
does
cpi,
I
don't
know
much
about
cpi,
does
it
always
go
up?
G
Does
it
indefinitely
just
go
up,
and
why
are
we
automatically
doing
increases
and
I
definitely
think
we
should
do
a
a
cap,
but
I
I
wonder
if
you
know
like
if
there
was
some
massive
recession
or
whatever,
and
then
our
contract
says
it's
going
up,
it
just
doesn't
make
sense
to
me.
I
don't
understand
why
we're
automatically
raising
it.
J
Yeah,
so
I
agree,
a
cap
is
a
good
idea.
I
have
negotiated
a
number
of
private
trash
hauling
contracts
anywhere
from
three
to
seven
years
in
different
states
across
the
country
and
from
a
number
of
different
haulers
I've
seen
three
percent
as
a
pretty
consistent
number.
I
don't
believe
any
of
those
have
been
chained
to
cpi,
but
my
understanding
is
at
least
for
the
last
decade.
J
Minimum
cpi's
been
increasing
pretty
rapidly,
and
some
of
these
costs
could
go
up,
especially
if
we,
you
know,
find
ourselves
in
an
inflation
environment
even
higher,
and
to
me
that's
what
I
see,
which
is
entirely
likely
if
we,
especially
with
trillions
of
dollars
being
spent,
potentially
that
we
end
up
in
a
situation
like
that.
That's
what
I
honestly
see
capping
these
increases
as
one
of
the
biggest
benefits
of
this
program,
because
yeah
you
could
have
a
hauler
offer
you
whatever
it
may
be.
J
F
My
two
cents,
but
if
that
index
to
inflation
is
probably
three
cents
by
now,
is
that
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
tie
it
to
inflation
rather
than
a
so-called
arbitrary
amount.
I,
I
would
think
the
cpi
for
urban
consumer,
the
water
sewer
and
trash
collection
services,
because
that
seems
the
most
tied
to
the
reality
of
costs
that
they're
actually
facing
this,
doesn't
give
them
the
opportunity
to
just
jack
up
the
cost
at
will.
F
It
ties
it
to
what's
actually
happening
out
in
the
economy,
so
I
would
lean
slightly
towards
that
one
or
at
the
very
least,
just
the
regular
cpi,
and
my
thought
on
that.
I
could
be
convinced
otherwise,
but
my
thought
is
that
if
we
don't,
if
we
cap
it
at
you,
know
two
and
a
half
percent
or
something
three
percent-
that
the
providers
would
cover
themselves
through
higher
ongoing
rates,
monthly
rates
per
household
and
I'd
rather
see
those
rates
lowered
and
see.
K
Yeah,
I
guess
I
just
I
do
think
we
need
to
have
try
and
have
some
sort
of
maximum,
because
if
you
start
saying
three
percent
per
year,
you
know,
especially
if
we
end
up
going
with
like
a
10-year
sort
of
thing,
and
that
compounds
three
percent-
three
percent-
three
percent.
You
know
it
can
go
up
pretty
substantially,
so
I
do
think
we
need
to
cap
it,
especially
with
these
longer-term
contracts.
K
My
only
one
concern
is
that
you
know
if
we
say
three
percent
cap
and
the
maximum
is
eight-
is
the
first
three
years
they're
going
to
up
it
by
the
maximum
that
they
can
and
just
let
that
go
over
time,
and
you
know
maybe
somebody
else
can
speak
to
that
in
terms
of
like
you
know.
Maybe
we
should
try
and
lock
in
our
price
initially
for
two
years,
like
the
sheridan
setup
and
then.
K
D
Hi
yeah,
so
we
were.
I
thought
we
were
going
to
talk
this
about
this,
like
I
think
in
january,
when
I
did
all
my
research
on
cpi,
so
it's
not
as
fresh
in
my
head
right
now,
but
you
know,
the
consumer
price
index
is
a
common
among
almost
all
city
contracts.
I've
read
and
one
of
this
you
know
it's
based
on
consumer
goods
and
services
that
go
up
with
inflation
of
the
year.
D
So
it's
kind
of
like
saying
we're
good
we're
going
to
give
this
trash
guy
a
job,
and
then
he
gets
a
raise
because
he
should
you
know
over
time,
make
more
money
as
wages
as
as
costs
go
up
for
consumer
goods.
You
know.
So
this
is
a
fair
thing
for
us
to
do.
I
don't
see
them
raising
the
price
just
because
they
can,
because
they
will
have
a
contract
and
we're
kind
of
doing
this
pay,
as
you
go
right
now
on
those
bin
prices,
so
we're
we're
kind
of
set
on
that.
D
I
agree.
I
like
the
way
maria
had
it
written
anyway
about
the
three
percent
sounded
fine.
We
have
to
be
able
to.
We
have
to
expect
that
we'll
pay
more
for
groceries
and
services
over
time,
so
I'm
really
pretty
agreeable
into
any
of
these
that
you
all
want
to
do.
Although
I,
I
think
that
sheridan
one
does
seem
the
most
attractive
and
I
would
use
the
cpi-
I
don't
know
these
two
there's
also
a
cpi
that
the
waste
management
company
I
thought
had
a.
I
tried
to
look
it
up.
D
I
see
api
specifically
for
waste
management.
I
you
know
I
tried
to
find
it.
I
think
I
might
have,
but
it
didn't
seem
to
be
much
different
than
overall
cpi
for
all
consumer
goods
and
services.
D
Anyway,
I'd
say
we
just
pick
one
that
you
all
like.
E
Thanks
brenda
now's
a
good
time
to
talk
about
management
of
raised
hands.
There
are
three
hands
still
raised,
so
two,
so
I'll
weigh
in
here
just
putting
on
my
budgetary
wonk
hat
briefly.
E
I
I'm
a
big
fan
of
the
cpi,
I'm
no
economist,
but
it
seems
to
establish
a
fairly
fair
method
of
ensuring
that
rates
can
go
up
at
a
fixed
level
and
a
reasonable
level,
and
I
think
everybody
benefits,
because
when
we
enter
the
contract
we
know
that
the
rate
is
going
to
increase.
But
we
also
know
by
how
much
looking
back
at
some
previous
contracts
that
the
city's
entered
into
on
a
long
term
basis.
The
denver
fire
contract
is
probably
the
best
example
of
this.
E
E
So
I
like
cpi
mercy.
C
Yeah,
I'm
kind
of
more
on
the
cautious
side
here
I
you
know
who
knows
if
we're
gonna
have
a
recession,
I
don't
know
how
much
longer
this
economy
can
stand
of
all
the
raising
of
prices
and
everything
that
the
government
is
doing
right
now
so
boy.
I
just
really
am
in
a
quandary
here
because
on
one
hand
I
certainly
agree
with
vice
chair
greene
that
anything
could
happen
in
the
next
year
or
two.
C
E
E
On
the
screen
right
now,
you'll
see
the
way
other
cities
do
it
and
a
number
of
them
have
the
lesser
of
cpi
or
three
percent
fixed.
So
in
the
event
that
we
were
experiencing
an
economic
collapse
and
we
had
massive
deflation,
the
cpi
would
be
less
than
three
percent
theoretically,
which
would
then
make
the
number
for
the
increase
less
than
the
three
percent.
F
Any
of
these
are
consumer
protection
method,
so
we
can't
go
too
wrong
because
right
now,
companies
can
increase
that.
However
much
they
want
to
this
at
least
limits
or
sets
the
term
for
how
much
they
can
increase
it
and
ties
it
to
inflation,
which
is
to
say
high,
is
it
do
the
economy
is
actually
happening
now,
at
least
the
cpi
ones,
but
then
next
I
I
wanted
to
see
if
we
could
get
director
andrea's
opinion
on
this.
B
I
do
like
the
idea
of
adding
a
maximum
in
there,
and
so
if
we
were
to
go
to
either
a
seven
or
a
ten-year
contract,
doing
something
that
sets
a
maximum
for
that
so
again
to
chair
ward's
price
point:
we
can
actually
calculate
each
year
what
that
the
higher
end
would
be,
but
really
I
I
think
I
could
be
comfortable
with
any
of
these
options
in
terms
of
either
the
cpi
or
you
know,
either
for
a
local
kind
of
a
thing,
denver,
boulder
greeley
or
the
denver
aurora
lakewood
or
going
with
this
urban
consumer
option
and
I
think
either
way
what
we
would
do
for
the
cpi
is
list
the
website
and
the
location
where
we
would
check
this.
B
So
there's
no
question
about
like
oh
well,
I'm
seeing
this
number
you
know
or
this
number,
and
so
we
would
actually
define
the
location
where
you
we
so
we're
on
the
same
page,
and
then
I
think
it's
really
up
to
you.
You
know:
what's
that
balance?
Is
it
three
percent
or
two
and
a
half
percent
like
lakewood?
B
I
guess
so.
What
I'm
saying
is,
I
think
we
could
go
anyway.
A
Kanji
yeah:
this
is
a
question
for
anybody.
Actually,
but
what's
the
differential
between
the
cpi
for
the
urban
consumer
versus
metropolitan
areas
versus
like
denver
boulder
relay?
Is
it?
Is
it
a
big
split.
B
I
have
not
looked
up
the
urban
consumer
one,
but
I
did
check
the
cpi
for
another
contract
that
we
had.
That
was
worded.
Similarly
for
the
denver
aurora
liquid
cpi
and
last
year
it
was
3.1.
E
E
You
know
four,
you
know
1.5.
So
it's
not
not
a
tremendous
range,
usually.
F
I
was
interpreting
that
this
cpi,
for
denver
boulder
greely,
would
be
essentially
all
prices
for
whatever
you're
buying,
say,
you're,
buying
a
big
mac
or
you're
buying
gas,
but
that
the
urban
consumer
one
was
specific
to
water,
sewer
and
trash
nationwide.
F
E
F
E
There's
a
lot
of
granularity
to
the
data
it
just
depends
on
which
granules
you
want
to
pick
up
so
yeah
there's
combinations.
It's
a
pretty
interesting
website.
I
think
the
bureau
of
labor
statistics.
E
Probably
denver
metro
cpi
would
be
what
I
would
choose
just
in
general,
so
that
the
rate
moves
more
in
accordance
with
the
way
other
things
are
moving.
G
I
mean
I
was
just
gonna:
throw
out
potentially
even
having
to
be
among
all
three,
the
cpi
for
urban
consumer
or
three
percent,
the
lesser
of
that
or
denver
aurora,
liquid
cpi
or
three
percent
annually,
then
we're
just
taking
into
account
all
three
of
them.
On
the
lesser
I
don't
know
what
we
would
put
in
as
a
cap
I
think
doing
a
cap
is
a
good
idea,
but
it
seems
like
that
would
depend
on
the
length
of
the
contract
we
end
up
with.
F
Inflation
rate
the
cpi,
essentially
is
its
own
cap,
because
how
much
inflation
is
is
how
much
inflation
is
and
that's
the
most
that
they
could
do,
and
if
we
put
a
cap
of
some
certain
amount,
then
the
trash
haulers
to
cover
themselves
will
just
put
higher
monthly
rates
per
household.
That's
where
you
might.
E
K
K
K
K
Yes,
yeah,
I
don't
I'm
not
sure
exactly
how
that
would
work
out.
You
know,
because
I
kind
of
think
if
it's
three
percent
and
and
the
actual
cpi
goes
up
every
every
year
by
three
percent.
In
theory,
we
could
hit
that
you
know
over
a
ten-year
period.
We
could
hit
it
in
four
years
and
you
know
that's
if
everything
goes
bonkers.
Cpi's
up
three
percent
is
our
cap
per
year.
K
In
theory,
we
could
hit
ten
percent
in
four
years,
but
it
would
stay
then
for
the
next
six.
If
we
went
till
ten
till
ten
year
contract,
but
at
least
we'd
be
limiting
ourself
at
some
point,
because
I
don't
know,
I
just
don't
know
how
else
to
limit
it.
B
It's
really
up
to
the
individual
department
how
they
want
to
to
structure
this.
We
do
sometimes
get
input
from
finance,
but
I
would
say
it's
pretty:
we
haven't
created
one
where
there's
a
maximum,
so
it's
if
we're
comparing
it
to
cpi,
it's
typically
denver,
aurora,
lakewood,
cpi
or
the
lesser
of
three
percent.
G
I
like
what
remember
borman
suggested
that
makes
sense
and
seems
like
a
structure
that
would
work.
I
would
just
put
in
my
two
cents
that
I
do
think
that
the
way
sheridan
did
it
with
you
know
the
first
two
years
being
a
set
price
so
that
it's
not
increased
right
away.
I,
I
think,
that's
a
good.
I
would
like
to
see
that
I'd
like
to
see
you
know
whatever
price
they're
giving
us
be
fixed
for
at
least
espec.
G
You
know
if
it's
10
years,
I
wonder
if
that
shouldn't
be
three,
but
you
know
a
fixed
price
for
at
least
the
first
couple
years
and
then
with
the
increases.
As
you
know,
we've
discussed
with
the
caps
like
member
borman
said
to
me
seems
the
most
reasonable.
C
Yeah,
probably
no
one's
going
to
agree
with
me
on
this,
but
my
feeling
is:
aren't
we
kind
of
jumping
the
gun
here
a
little
bit,
because
we
don't
know
how
long
the
contract
is
going
to
be
right?
We
haven't
said:
is
it
going
to
be
two
five
ten
years
and
wouldn't
that
kind
of
make
a
difference
once
we
have
figured
out
how
long
this
contract
is
going
to
be
before
we
make
this
decision.
J
Yeah,
so
I
I
think
that's
kind
of
exactly
what
we're
discussing
what
remember
green
and
bourbon
are
hitting
on
here.
I
think
my
recollection
is
that
we've
asked
the
haulers
to
provide
bids
for
five
seven
and
ten
year
intervals.
Is
that
correct?
I
believe.
J
I
I
like
the
idea,
as
member
green
was
mentioning
we're
on
the
same
wavelength
today
today
by
the
way
of
these
two
year
or
year,
initial
price
guarantees.
J
You
know,
I
think,
there's
a
way
you
could
structure
that,
for
you
know
maybe
two
years
for
a
five
year,
maybe
two
to
three
years
for
a
seven
year,
and
maybe
three
even
four
years-
probably
probably
maxing
it
at
three,
because
otherwise
you
might
be
juicing
up
your
initial
rate,
but
I
think
there's
a
combination
of
that
combined
with
I
think
the
lesser
of
three
percent
or
cpi
is
a
reasonable
measure,
because
if
that
recession
hits
and
cpi
goes
down,
then
you'll
get
the
lesser
and
have
that
as
your
option
for
non-rate
guaranteed
years.
J
I
don't
know,
I
don't
know
what
the
reasonable
level
of
a
rate
guarantee
or
how
many
years
is
getting
a
little
starting
to
impact
just
your
initial
rate
overall,
but
I
would
we
I
agree
with
member
borman.
We
shouldn't
lose
sight
of
that
right
now.
J
D
I'm
not
going
to
make
a
motion
just
it
was
just
amazing:
I'm
not
a
contract
expert
on
cpi.
That's
for
sure
it's
a
none
of
mine,
but
I
will
just
offer
that
the
the
caller's
biggest
cost
is
probably
going
to
be
fuel,
and
we
can
guess
just
based
historically
on,
what's
going
to
happen
to
fuel
over
the
next
five,
seven
or
ten
years.
D
It's
probably
gonna
go
up
and
it's
probably
gonna
go
up
more
than
three
percent,
so
I
think
three
percent
lesser
or
three
percent
is
right,
where
we
need
to
hit
and
also
but
and
by
keeping
it
at
three
percent,
I'm
hoping
that
this
will
incentivize
our
haulers
to
go
with
an
electric
vehicle,
because
then
they
would
really
enjoy
not
having
the
cost
of
that
of
fuel.
E
F
I'm
not
sure
about
that,
because
that
seems
so
much
less
than
the
inflation
general
inflation
rate
of
somewhere
around
three
percent
that
seems
like
that
would
be
somewhere
around
one
percent.
So
I'm
not
sure
about
that.
But
maybe
you
could
put
a
next
next
motion
after
this
one.
For
that.
K
D
I
was
gonna
second,
this
and
just
point
out
that
this
is
an
annual
contract
increase
and
that's
I
don't
know
how
to
get
out
of
writing
the
language
like
that
unless
maria
knows,
but
it's
an
annual
contract
increases.
What
we're
voting
on
regardless
of
whether
it's
five,
seven
or
ten
years
and
all
the
other
cities
are
like.
You
said
that
I
would.
D
I
will
just
go
ahead
and
make
a
motion
that
would
go
with
or
just
second
promotion
on
sheridan
that
christine
said.
E
There
so
the
motion-
that's
been
moved
by
member
brinker
and
seconded
by
member
hubka,
is
to
adopt
the
sheridan
model
in
the
rfp,
which
is
the
first
two
years
said
an
initial
price
and
increases
in
years
three
through
five
at
the
lesser
of
three
percent
or
the
denver
aurora
lakewood
consumer
price
index
maria.
When
you're
ready,
you
can
call
the
roll.
J
A
A
E
All
right,
so
that
covers
the
portion
on
annual
increases
to
contract
pricing.
I
think
maria
now
would
be
a
good
time
to
move
over
to
scheduling,
although
I
do
see
a
couple
of
raised
hands
at
the
moment.
So
let's
handle
those
first
christine.
E
Yeah
hold
off
on
that
brenda.
Carson
has
his
hand
raised.
G
Yeah
in
response
to
member
brinker
saying
that
it
seemed
like
it
was
only
one
percent
a
year.
It's
cumulative
though,
and
that's
why,
like
on
the
arvada
they've,
got
a
cap
total
of
eight
percent
over
seven
years,
because
if,
if
they
do
push
that
up
in
the
first
year
or
the
second
year,
I
mean
that's,
it's
cumulative
increase.
So
it's
not
just
one
percent.
It's
it's
a
lot!
That's
why
I
feel
like.
So.
K
E
G
It's
the
max.
They
can
go
up.
They
don't
have
to
go
up
in
that
third
year
and
and
the
or
the
fourth
year
but
yeah
once
they
hit
five.
If
they
can
justifiably
based
on
cpi
the
lesser
of
three
percent
or
cpi
go
up
then,
but
once
they
hit
five
percent,
then
it's
done
on
a
five
year
once
they
hit
seven
on
it's
done
on
seven
and
once
it
hit
ten,
it's
done
on
ten
whenever
they
get
to
that.
Based
on
the
lesser
of
three
or
cpi,.
E
E
So
we
have
an
item,
that's
moved
and
seconded
I'll
need
the
mover
or
the
secondary
to
withdraw
that
motion
so
that
we
can
reconsider
the
previous
motion
instead
in
order
to
comply
with
parliamentary
procedure.
G
E
So
now
I'm
going
to
move
that
we
reconsider
the
previous
motion,
which
was
the
sheridan
model
and
instead
of
adopting
the
sheridan
model.
What
I
will
propose
is
that
we
take
the
sheridan
model,
which
is
first
two
years
at
a
fixed
price
increases
in
three
to
five
capped
at
the
lesser
of
three
percent
for
the
denver
aurora
liquid
consumer
price
index,
with
the
maximum
total
increase
in
five
years
of
five
percent,
seven
years
of
seven
percent
and
ten
years
of
10,
which
essentially
combines
the
two
motions.
Second
to
one.
E
E
Okay,
so
I'll
be
the
movement
and
carson
has
the
second
on
this.
So
this
will
be
a
reconsideration
with
the
replacement
motion
and
director
d'andrea
when
you're
ready.
You
can
call
the
roll
on
this.
G
K
E
E
Against
all
right
does
anybody
else
have
anything
to
consider
on
rates.
G
We
just
one
question,
since
you
didn't
specify
it
in
your
motion:
did
we
go
with
the
oh?
No,
I
guess
we
did.
It
was
the
denver
aurora
liquid
cpi,
not
the
urban
compute
consumer
pricing,
one
right.
E
A
B
So
our
plan
excuse
me.
B
Our
plan
was
to
potentially
invite
the
waste
haulers
in
on
march
8th,
so
that
would
be
two
weeks
from
yesterday.
I
was
thinking
that
we
were
going
to
get
through
all
of
the
discussion.
We
still
haven't
gotten
through
the
policy
items
which
there
were
about.
Let's
look
here
I'll,
just
pull
up
that
presentation,
so
we
still
have
to
talk
about
the
administrative
fee,
the
use
of
collected
penalties
and
dive
a
little
bit
into
that
senior
citizen
low
income
program.
B
Go
back
to
the
the
schedule
here,
so
we
could
then
push
the
meetings
with
the
waste
haulers
out
two
further
weeks
so
march
22nd
and
then,
instead
on
march,
8th
talk
about
these
policy
issues
and
then
over
these
next
few
weeks.
That
would
allow
me
to
kind
of
finalize
the
draft
for
your
review
to
get
that
back
to
the
committee
with
the
hope
then-
and
this
would
also
then
give
us
more
time,
maybe
at
the
next
meeting,
also
to
formulate
those
questions
I
can
put
that
list
together.
B
The
one
thing
I
would
like
to
know
is:
just
do
you
want
to
meet?
Have
all
the
haulers
in
the
same
meeting
or
do
you
want
to
have
like
a
half
an
hour
with
each
one
who
responds,
but
now
we're
basically
under
two
weeks.
So
I
would
mail,
you
know
letters
out
and
it
might
be
kind
of
short
at
this
point.
B
So
I
would
recommend
that
we
use
the
march
8th
meeting
to
talk
about
the
policy
issues
and
then,
on
march,
22nd
actually
had
the
meeting
with
the
waste
haulers
and
talk
to
them
about
questions
that
we
might
have
and
I'll
leave.
It
up
to
you
to
discuss
if
you
want
to
meet
talk
with
them
individually
or
as
a
group.
E
All
right
couple
of
raised
hands
marcy
was
the
first.
C
Yeah,
thank
you.
I
agree
with
director
d'andrea
that
let's
can
we
move
this
to
the
22nd.
I
think
there's
a
lot
to
talk
about
with
policy
and
get
maybe
forming
our
questions
and
as
far
as
meeting
with
the
other
haulers,
I
don't
know
I'll
go
along
with
what
the
group
wants.
E
J
Yeah,
I'm
fine
with
that
as
well
as
for
I
don't
think
we
should
have
a
free-for-all
where
all
the
haulers
are
meeting
with
us
all
at
once.
I
think
that
would
not
be
as
productive
as
separating
out
different
haulers
meeting
with
us,
so
we
can
focus
on
one
at
a
time
and
kind
of
compare
and
contrast
a
little
bit
easier.
A
D
Yeah
these
meetings
are
public,
so
I
don't
want
the
the
I
agree
with
jeff.
We
don't
want
the
trash
haulers,
all
on
the
same
call
competing
for
different
answers
and
trying
to
vote
for
our
business.
Really
the
first
one
goes
to
speak.
Everybody
else
will
be
able
to
hear
them
because
these
meetings
are
public,
so
they'll
be
at
a
disadvantage.
But
yes,
let's
please
I
like
the
schedule.
This
is
fine
on
the
22nd,
let's
start
with
one
hour
at
a
time.
We
have
like
three
that
way.
Two,
I
don't
know.
E
I,
like
the
22nd
as
well
a
couple
of
notes
on
on
these
holler
meetings.
Oftentimes,
you
know
the
people
who
respond
to
these
are
are
members
of
the
sales
staff
for
the
you
know,
public
policy
staff
and
they
have
presentations
that
they
want
to
give.
E
My
preference
would
be
to
keep
those
as
short
as
possible
and
to
to
have
as
much
time
as
possible
for
open
dialogue.
You
know
if
they
have
read
materials
that
they
haven't
already
submitted.
A
E
Anybody
else
have
any
comments
on
holler
meetings.
I
think
we
may
have
consensus
to
set
those
for
the
22nd.
B
Thank
you,
yeah
and
I
think
yeah
half
an
hour
each
and
pre-arrange
those
times
and
yeah,
we'll
send
we'll
ask
them
to
limit
or
have
no
presentation
and
any
presentation
materials
can
be
provided
in
advance,
which
will
be
provided
to
the
to
the
applicants
or
to
the
committee
members.
So,
at
the
next
meeting
on
march,
8th
I'll
bring
back
that
list
of
questions
and
add
an
agenda
item
so
that
you
can
debate
of
what
we
want
to
send
to
them
in
advance
to
so
that
they
can
prepare.
F
I
have
to
probably
miss
the
meeting
on
march
8th,
so
I'm
glad
that
that's
not
the
one
we're
discussing
with
the
haulers
but
forward
I'll,
be
gone
then,
but
if
we
do
discuss
the
remaining
policy
items
on
the
8th
one
thing
we
had
left
on
our
list
was
the
use
of
penalties,
and
I
think
we
discussed
that
one
already,
maybe
when
director
andrew
was
out,
but
I
also
had
a
further
thought
on
the
penalty.
So
I'm
sorry
I'm
going
to
miss
it
on
the
8th.
E
Not
really,
okay,
not
only
agenda
right
now,
so
what
I
would
suggest
is
if
you
can't
attend
that
meeting
and
you
have
something
to
share
with
the
committee,
use
the
same
method
that
we've
been
using
and
just
email
it
to
the
clerk
and
have
it
okay
put
it
in
the
packet.
K
E
Thought
I
do
think
a
lot
of
them
have
probably
been
following
what
we've
been
doing
so
far,
but
having
that
information
would
certainly
be
helpful,
and
I
believe
we
saw
an
overview
of
that
in
our
last
meetings
packet,
but
see
no
harm
in
repeating
that.
B
Yeah
can
certainly
yeah
we'll
update
that
with
these
new
motions
and
have
that
in
the
agenda
packet
and
then
have
a
question
to
some
effect
of
here's.
The
you
know
things
that
the
committee
has
already
recommended.
Please
be
prepared
to
speak
to
these,
where
you
think
there
might
be
additional
costs
or
the
elements
that
the
committee
hasn't
considered
or
something
like
that.
E
B
Nope
this
is
this
is
a
fluid,
so
was
just
trying
to
give
you
a
timeline
there
when
we
might
be
looking
at
some
sort
of
action,
so
we
are
tentatively
scheduled
also
on
april
12th,
to
bring
this
back
our
recommendations
to
council
based
on
all
of
the
discussions,
so
that
date
is
still
fluid,
so
don't
feel
like
we
have
to
meet
that,
but
at
least
it
gives
you
some
sort
of
a
timeline
because
we
do
want
to
look
at
if
we
were
to
move
forward.
B
We
don't
want
to
implement
the
containers
in
the
field
over
the
winter
time,
so
I
think
we're
laid
out
fairly
well
here
that
we
would
be
hitting
next
spring
if
we
were
to
move
forward,
but
and
if
we
moved
out
even
a
little
bit
further,
you
know
then
we're
hitting
the
summer
and
fall
months,
so
I
think
we're
still
good
there.
B
I
think
one
of
the
other
considerations
when
we
do
go
back
to
council
with
the
rfp
recommendations
is,
we
would
also
bring
up
for
consideration
by
the
city
councils.
Do
they
want
to
consider
this
for
the
as
a
ballot
initiative
in
the
fall,
because
that
decision,
I
believe,
would
need
to
be
made
about
june
or
july
of
this
year
to
get
it
on
the
november
ballot.
E
That
fills
out
the
scheduling,
discussion,
I'll
just
move
on.
We,
I
believe,
have
members
choice
at
the
end
of
this
agenda.
Does
anybody
have
anything
to
contribute
at
this
time
for
members,
choice
raise
your
hand.
E
All
right,
I
don't
see
any
hands.
I
just
have
one
thing
under
chairman's
choice,
we've
been
doing
pretty
well
maintaining
order
in
these
meetings.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that,
for
the
sake
of
keeping
everything
from
descending
into
chaos,
it's
really
important
to
use
the
raise
hand
function.
This
is
a
large
panel
and
I
don't
want
to
be
addressing
interruptions
or
other
things
like
that.
E
If,
if
that
can
be
avoided
so
as
much
as
possible,
if
we
can
adhere
to
the
rules,
that
would
be
awesome,
and
I
think
that's
everything
so
I'll
see
you
all
in
two
weeks,
it's
804
and
this
meeting
is
adjourned.
Thank
you.
Everybody
thank.