Hey Denver, it's time for this biweekly meeting of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of Denver City Council.

Join us for the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee starting now.

It doesn't look like we're on the air yet.

Oh, there we are.

Good afternoon, and welcome to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Today is Wednesday, December 3rd.

My name is Chantel and Lewis, and I serve as your Denver City Council Person for District 8.

And I'm excited to chair this committee.

We'll start with a round of introductions, and we'll start with the folks who are online.

I understand we have at least two folks online.

Kevin Flynn, Southwest Denver Snowden District 2.

Welcome, Kevin.

Good afternoon, Diana Romero Campbell, Southeast Denver District 4.

Thank you.

And then we'll go into the room, Councilwoman.

Councilman Flora Vitras had lucky district seven.

Good afternoon, Paul Cashman, South Denver District 6, neither Schleet nor Snow.

No, the dark never mind.

I won't just I won't agree with that because things will stop me.

We only have one thing on our agenda in terms of action items, and that is from uh CASAR.

And so you all can introduce yourselves and jump in.

Thank you.

Uh I'm Jonathan Wachtel.

I'm the deputy executive director for the Office of Climate Action Sustainability and Resiliency.

And Justin Sykes, uh budget management office director.

You all are very sick of me by now.

And Madam Chair, we're never uh we're here today to discuss updating the disposable, the allowable uses for the disposable bag fee special revenue fund.

So I have a brief presentation, and we also have staff from CASER and some other agencies available to answer questions if um if you have them and uh they bring a lot of subject matter expertise.

Um so with that I will I will jump right in.

Uh I want to start by just uh quick reminder of the disposable bag fee, the disposable bag fee uh program that exists currently.

Um, and then I'll talk a little bit about the current allowed uses and the proposed changes, and then we can take questions.

Uh so to start, I'll um just do the quick overview of what what what the disposable bag fee is.

And I want to just um flag that this was really a um uh a program that was led by city council.

It's very forward thinking.

Uh there were some other communities that had programs like this, but Denver definitely joined um in a group of of early cities um addressing disposable bags and the pollution and environmental impacts from that.

And so in 2021, council adopted a fee on all uh disposable bags that were being provided at checkout in retail stores in the city and county of Denver.

Um and that's a 10 cent fee per bag, of which 60 percent of that or six cents of that dime comes to the city, remitted to the city, and 40 percent or four cents is main is kept by the business to cover the cost of administering that um for their business.

Uh we were back uh to city council in 2024 to update some of the nuanced language of that ordinance after the state of Colorado passed uh you know uh legislation that banned plastic bags, um, and specifically that actually had an end date on when stores could no longer provide disposable plastic bags.

So there was a brief update.

Um, and just so that everyone's on the same page.

Your paper bags now are still allowed, but also still but do require that 10 cent fee.

Why was this put in place?

The real intent as we went back to the records and really looked at the discussion that council had at the time.

Um the real intent here was to create a financial signal and incentive to help change behavior to reduce the number of people that were using single-use bags, uh help people start really being diligent about bringing their own bags or passing on the bag.

Um, and it has been highly effective.

So uh we've seen a 50% reduction in the total disposable bags being used in the city of County Dent.

We're talking over 50 million plastic bags that have been avoided because of this program.

So this has been highly effective, and I want to make sure to be really clear that none of the proposed changes we're bringing forward would do anything to put at risk the continued administration education outreach and support that's resulted in this type of effective program.

Uh, quick snapshot of what the revenues have looked like.

Um, you know, this started in 2021, and we needed to build.

And because the behavior change is occurring, we're seeing declining revenue, and that's okay.

That's the whole intent here.

Um, and we anticipate it to continue to decline in future years.

So I talked about the 50% reduction in total disposable bag usage.

We've seen 99% compliance.

That's also amazing.

This has been a highly successful program.

Keep saying that, but I think it's really uh should feel good for city council to know that that their policy has really led to measurable impact here.

Um, and we've used funds to do education to do outreach to provide free reusable bags to cut down costs for residents and to pilot innovative programs for additional support for reducing and minimizing the use of single-use disposable products.

So programs like when you've gone to venues and you've had a reusable cup instead of a disposable cup for a beverage, things like that we've been able to pilot.

So highly impactful.

What we're here today to discuss is expanding the pretty narrow set of allowed uses so that we can continue, since we have revenue available through this program to continue to support the priorities of the community and of city council and the city on diverting our waste and finding end markets and reducing the generation of waste in the first place.

So this is a simplified summary of the current allowed uses.

You can see it's heavily focused on the administration of the program, education, and really specific to the reusable bags a bit about other single-use plastics, which was part of the intent.

The updates that we're proposing would, as I mentioned, main allow us to maintain the existing level of administration and support, uh, but would expand the allowable uses to cover to enable us to do outreach and education and provide programs in support of other city priorities, including the universal recycling and composting ordinance that was the citizen ballot initiative that you're familiar with as waste no more.

So if you recall, we went through a lot of that process lately.

There were a lot of recommendations on things the city could do to support uh businesses and multifamily buildings, and this would enable us to use some of these funds to actually help implement that program, which would be highly um beneficial and helpful uh to staff.

Um and it would also enable us to support kind of one-time big catalytic investments when we're trying to change systems that align with our um zero waste circular economy and waste diversion goals.

Um, and so one example of that is um Dotti's curbside composting expansion, and in 2025's budget, so in November of 2024, as the long bill was approved, uh council approved a transfer from this fund to support the variable-based pricing program.

And so these changes are necessary to support that transfer, that one-time transfer.

I'll just flag that one time component.

Uh, some additional proposed allowable uses, it would expand our ability to use these funds to look at studies on waste reduction, on reuse, on recycling systems, material flows.

Um, don't think I need to read all of this, but it really expands to be a little bit more holistic on our uh priorities around circularity.

And I think what's really important here is that the avoidance of these products in the first place going into the waste stream is different than diversion once they've already been used and trying to then try to keep them out of the landfill.

And our long-term vision is really that holistic view of like what is the flow of materials into our community through our community, and how do we keep make sure those have a useful end of life and multiple uses before we ever have to think about how to avoid sending things to the landfill.

And so this really would support support that process.

Um, probably a redundant slide, but maybe if you would like specific examples, and I'm almost done here of what that would look like, continued implementation or supporting implementation of the universal recycling and composting ordinance, so ways that we can help make sure there's compliance, provide incentives and uh materials and education at a deeper level to make sure that we're successful with that.

Additional studies, as I mentioned, advancing more reuse and repair programs, you know, so we can keep materials and market, understanding what's necessary to support end markets.

If we think about things like all the construction demolition waste coming out of the built environment now, thanks to our universal recycling, composting recycling ordinance.

You know, how do we make sure we have end markets so that all that repurposed material can actually find someone to process it, sort it, get it back out into the marketplace.

These are things that need investment and thought.

So we're excited about the opportunity to leverage funds we're already bringing in.

And then I mentioned this also would support that budget transfer that was approved by city council in the 2025 budget.

And if you have specific questions about that decision and the purpose for that, um that's why we have Justin Sykes here from Department of Finance.

So with that, I'll take questions or field them to uh, you know, send those questions to other experts that are here.

So thank you so much for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

We have a few folks in the queue.

Um kicking out with Councilman Hines and then Councilman Cashman.

Thank you, committee chair.

Sure, I bless you.

Um thank you for the presentation.

Thank you for the conversation before this conversation.

Um, as uh as I mentioned, uh, it was Kendra Black and I who were the sponsors of the of the bag fee.

And um uh one kind of um I I think you captured the uh the original intent.

Um I think one thing that uh uh that was also part of the intent that I'll just share for the record is that the the plan was also to um as opposed to having an outright um ban on uh disposable bags because we were a leader.

I mean, we uh beat the the state by a few years.

Um the idea was rather than an outright ban, we were trying to make it um uh it would um we used uh it was called nudge uh nudge legislation.

Um we were nudging people uh into doing the right thing.

The reason that why I hesitated is there was this um uh national syndicated um uh journalist.

I don't think they were journalists actually because they're part of Fox and Friends.

Um and uh and I was mentioned by name by saying that first it's a nudge and then it's a headlock.

Um and uh uh but no, that wasn't the uh that was the the um uh I think Fox and Friends are more opinions, and then their journalists are also uh, you know, somewhere else.

But um, but yeah, it was interesting to uh to get uh um someone on the national stage to to say that I was trying to put my constituents in a headlock.

Um but the intent was really actually to not have a headlock.

The intent was to create choice to encourage people to do what we want, but if they really feel strongly about something, then they can uh uh they can use black bags, and um we were hoping for and I thought we um maybe initially saw an 80% reduction, but I think that once people realize that it wasn't an outright ban, that they could still use plastic bags at the time now now uh because state law we don't have plastic bags as an option, but um uh I think you know, perhaps uh people have uh not found as many reusable bags as they were looking, you know, looking for.

I know that I try to be the change I want to see in the world, and um I have like 30 different reusable bags, like maybe too much.

I don't know, but I would say um that uh that my constituents are still very interested in reusable bags.

When we um print some up with the uh with the you know perfect 10 logo, uh people will grab them, you know, uh all day.

Um CASR printed some reusable bags, um, the green ones uh a while ago, and um people will uh people to take those too.

So um, so I while I recognize that um you've spent some money on reusable bags and there's still money in the banana stand, um, you could you could still I think there's still an appetite for additional reusable bags just for for what it's worth.

Um I am uh I'm a bit concerned about and related activities, um, as the you know, as the uh I'm looking at the um the proposed ordinance and um and it says and related activities, which may include the following specific uses, and there are uh 14 um may include uses, but may include as opposed to shall include means it could be used for anything, including these 14 things or for something else, and um and so I I'm concerned about the the broad nature of um, I mean, I think some of these are great.

Um, you know, the uh the idea is reduce reuse recycle.

Um so if we can reduce, that's more important than reusing, so you know, disposable bags uh are great because we're reusing them.

If maybe people just don't take a bag at all, like and they can just hold it in their arms, like that would be better than um because eventually you're gonna reuse that bag and then you're not, and that will still have to go somewhere in landfill or wherever.

So um, but my my concern is just the um the broad nature of and related activities, um, particularly given uh the um uh I was in a crash in August of 2008, um joined the disability community at that time, uh had um vision zero been a thing in 2008.

I would be a vision zero statistic.

So I pay attention to some of the you know transportation things, and we have a transportation and mobility uh special revenue fund, and there is concern that 200,000 of this um special revenue fund was spent to remove uh cyclist safety infrastructure, and um and the the response at the time was that well that's a related activity, that is an allowable use.

And so, you know, as a as a legislator, I'm starting starting to look into should we limit those uh allowable uses?

But when I see and related activities, I'm concerned that that is such a broad definition.

I like many of the bullets that are the you know the letters that are below.

Um, but I don't want to I don't want to look at these and say, hey, these are great uses, and then and related activities is just really broad, and and I'm concerned about how it might be um, you know, just overly interpreted or overly broadly interpreted.

I think that's a really good flag.

Thank you for bringing that up, counselor.

Um, I don't the intent here is to add the and was to add the and related activities to expand from only the disposable bag fee program to this list, and is still supposed to be only this list.

So um that is the intent.

It was is not to create a uh uh, you know, open a door to another world here.

So I think we can check with um our the attorney that supported this this work and just make sure that you know we clarify that it's intended that that clause the analytic activities is expanding on the disposable bag fee program, but but this list is the list of now the allowable uses specifically.

Would that would that address the concern?

Yeah, okay.

So um the phrase immediately after and related activities says which may include the following specific uses.

Um as opposed to May, it may not.

Um, you know, the uh I would I would encourage the drafter to look at May and see if that's a it could be a shall or there's another way to kind of tighten that up because may include we could use it to you know buy a pump jack somewhere and start drilling for oil.

I mean, that's you know, may or may not.

So anyway, I'm yeah, it.

It's good to know that that's um that your intent um is to is to limit to these 14 uses.

Uh and that makes me feel better.

I believe that's actually a carryover from the original language, so it hasn't the may the may include is from the original, but I still think we could talk to them about strengthening that if that would make it more important.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Catherine.

Chair.

Yeah, the one thing that jumped out out at me on slide 13, you don't need to call it up under potential future programs.

There's the last bullet point is one-time transfer for citywide compost rollout.

Thought we'd already done that.

Let me speak to that, Councilmember.

So as part of the 2025 budget that was approved about a year ago, this was included as uh part of that proposed budget.

It was included in the long bill.

It was contingent, though, on a change to the allowable uses of the disposable bag fee revenue in city code.

We had intended to run that as a companion ordinance to the 2025 long bill about a year ago in discussions with the city attorney's office.

They had recommended delaying that for uh further review.

That review was done earlier this year, and so in effect, we are trying to carry forward that change, which should have happened as part of a companion to the 2025 long bill.

So it was budgeted, correct.

It wasn't transferred because you mean because you had to wait for that work to get done.

So this would simply free up the money that's already been budgeted.

Is that money still there waiting?

It is.

And what we specified in the long bill is per Denver revised municipal code.

So the intent had been to move both the long bill, which authorized that transfer and this code change that's being brought forward now simultaneously, a little over a year ago.

Um, kind of in the thick of the budget process when the city attorney's office said, hold up here, we want to spend a little bit more time reviewing this.

We we proced that, and I think in an ideal world would have brought this forward much earlier.

Um it took a little time for that review to happen.

There were some questions around a fee study.

We we worked with various agencies to try to understand what those costs were, make sure there were no issues under Tabor.

Um and so that work has happened, and I think there's just been a lot of other things going on.

Yeah, how much is it?

Uh, in terms of the cost, great question.

So, um, and I'll be honest, these are kind of estimated numbers because we um it's very difficult to precisely say how much a cost how much it costs for a plastic bag in the sewer system or in the park system.

But what we uh estimated from talking to agencies is that there's a cost of between two and five million dollars of uh all sorts of costs, so whether that's park rangers picking up bags, whether that's the five million.

I think the question was the amount being transmitted.

Uh so the yes, so I think the balance in the fund is um I believe a little over six million dollars right now, and so the proposed transfer in the long bill uh for the 2025 budget would be to transfer 4.7 million of that to the volume-based pricing fund.

And then that balance one six or something like that.

Yeah, we have a slide.

If we want to pull up the slide, we can show it.

Would just go into the general fund.

So, uh it would stay in the disposable bag fund and and so then CASAR would be able to continue to use the remaining revenue and then the future revenue for the work that's already been ongoing, as well as for things like the universal recycling and composting ordinance.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, madam chair.

Absolutely.

Councilwoman L.

V.

Thank you so much.

Um I appreciate this.

Uh, I do feel like it's been very successful and have changed.

I know it was very resistant.

It's it's funny to think about change when it first happens, people are enraged, and then they get over it, but it takes political courage.

So thanks to the people that were here and helped that pass.

I think it's been great for our city.

Um, when it comes to just changing the uses, it makes sense um that we could maybe use more funding, obviously, especially for composting.

Um, but one of my questions is how will the expanded use of this fee contribute to the greenhouse gas reduction specifically linked to single-use items per the slide, and will we be tracking and reporting on how we're spending and the results?

That might be maybe you.

Yeah, no, thank you.

That's a that's a great question.

Uh greenhouse gas emissions and waste reduction are it's a complex equation.

Um, there's a lot of different ways we can measure it, and so I am looking forward if this change goes through to the expanded ability to use funds to actually model and study, you know, how these programs are actually reducing emissions because we're also measuring like the avoided emissions from generating new products if we're reusing things and going to durables instead of single use uh programs.

Uh, we're also continuing, plan to continue many of the programs that are in a we're in kind of like a pilot phase for these reusables.

So uh Caster has developed and had a lot of success in pilot versions of reuse programs, supporting you know, arts and venues and using reusable cups, looking working with businesses and you know, restaurants and uh piloting the use of durables and making sure the infrastructure is there so that we don't rely on single-use plastics.

Um, it's only you know, we're four or five years into this program.

We had to see what revenue was coming in, figure out how to administer the program, do the education and outreach for the core function of administering the bag fee, and then we turned our attention to expanding into these.

Hey, how could we additionally work on avoiding the single use plastics?

And so, um, we're in that journey.

We've had some really successful programs that uh we'd love to scale up, and so that will be absolutely part of how we continue to use funds.

Throughout this whole process from the beginning, when I wasn't even here, um, have there been ongoing conversation with stores?

Because one of my concerns is, you know, I think you know, Walmart King Supers have been great, but the local carneseria, you know, or uh local smaller stores, maybe are not implementing in the same way, maybe don't have the same support, and I do think I wouldn't want to see a reduction in funding supporting them.

I don't know if we're we're supporting them or how we're supporting them, but I am concerned um about that.

How are we educating them and bringing them along this journey and continuing to provide the you know few bags that we do provide while expanding what we can do with the funds?

I think that's a fantastic question.

If I could invite um Castor staff up to yeah, Natalie, you want to.

Yeah, come up to the mic, you can introduce yourself and maybe address councilwoman Vidrez's question.

Hi, my name is Natalie.

I'm the program administrator for the disposable bag fee.

And I've spent the past three almost four years uh administering the fee and working with businesses to make sure that they have the resources that they need for implementation.

Um so we've worked hand in hand with Gutney City S and other small businesses in Denver to ensure that they understand the program and that they have the resources they need for implementation.

So we have quarterly returns that the businesses remit to us, and that's kind of how we track our compliance and the implementation of the program.

So we have a quarterly check-in with all of these businesses, and we're receiving the returns, they seem to be good.

Um, and a lot of gardening series, for example, that I've worked with and I've spoken with have actually chosen to stop providing disposable bags at their businesses because their customers are now bringing their own bags, or they'll use boxes or other alternative items to help customers transfer their goods.

Um, but yeah, we we have really great resources that are always available to these businesses, and I'm always happy to support as well.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

I definitely think we have some work to do in district seven, and I would love to like see if there's been conversations had and maybe how we can support to um just making that transition.

So, um just to, you know, qualm one of my concerns is that that kind of education and like your position will still be funded and that type of work, right?

That will continue to be the first priority for the use of this revenue fund.

I mean, that is its core function.

So we will in no way sacrifice the core purpose of this.

It will be with funds that are beyond, you know, those programs that we have the available ability now to actually put them to use for some of these other priorities.

I mean, we could find a lot of ways to use the funds.

So it's about, you know, trying to expand what we can do so that, for example, like the universal recycling ordinance right now is a pivotal time to deploy that, so that might be a focus of some of these funds for a short, you know, for a period of time, and then we can continue to evaluate.

Yeah, and I'm curious.

I know we want it to go down, and it is going down.

Um, I'm curious in the long term.

Have we been having conversations with like the bigger stores?

Um, and what does that look like?

Could we potentially charge 25 cents later on with inflation?

Because I would hate to see this funding source go away.

I think it's a better, in my opinion, funding source, and like a sales tax, um, which is not by choice, but this is I'm choosing not to bring a bag or not to carry my things, and so I'm paying for that choice that I'm making.

If I can't afford it, I can just figure out something else.

So that's one thing I really appreciate about this.

I'm not aware of any conversations about increasing the fee.

Um, I don't know if you're aware of any.

There are other cities that do charge a higher rate for disposable bags, but we haven't made any movements towards that.

That's all I have.

And before you sit down, do you wanna um adjust Councilmember Hines question about the uh bags that we're providing to the community and those programs?

Because I think you've continued to be working in that.

Yeah, absolutely.

Um, so last summer we did a series of events where we invited community members to bring in their plastic bags, and in exchange, we gave away about 2,000 reusable bags.

Um before that, we did a much larger campaign to give away about 40,000 disposable bags.

Um, I mean reusables, excuse me.

Um, but yeah, we also have quite a large stock of reusable bags that we plan to continue to give away throughout various events.

Um, we provided, I think, many reasonsable bags for different parades and events that are hosted by multiple agencies.

Um, so we're happy to absolutely continue that effort.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, I got you.

Um, Council President Sandoval.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, so thank you all for this.

As I'm reading through the ordinance, um, I wanted to get a better understanding on the need for Section J maintenance of a public website and educational program and resources.

Um, I feel like that's something that should already be done with our um people who um update our public websites.

So can you explain that to me?

I don't quite understand why we would use this for a maintenance of a public website.

Yeah, thank you, uh counselor.

Um that is the original language in the ordinance included that use, so we have not removed it.

We simply made uh some changes uh for consistency in the in the wording, but that was one of the original allowable uses that council approved.

So we've just left it in the ordinance.

Uh yeah.

Circularity and citywide waste policy.

So that was not in there.

We just updated the language so that it's the let me back up so and clarify.

So um the allowable use that said these funds could be used for maintaining a website was part of the original ordinance.

We've simply changed the language so that the description of what that website would do matches the updated allowable uses from the rest from this update.

So that's that was the intent.

And then I also have concerns about um section I studies on waste reduction, reuse, and recycling systems.

Can you explain more?

I feel like sometimes our studies don't lead us anywhere.

So I'm not interested in spending in money on studies.

I'm interested in K programs, policy events, L, programs, policies, infrastructure, um, and special and catalytic investments.

So can you explain I?

Yeah, I'd be happy to.

And I can maybe uh give a couple examples of what this could look like.

Um, if we are thinking about how to best provide resources uh to the community as they go to um work on implementation of the universal recycling and composting ordinance or the the ordinance that came forward from the waste no more initiative.

Um, we don't have a clear picture of even baseline amount of volumes of materials coming out of all of our multifamily buildings coming out of uh commercial buildings um and so one request that came through that process was how will we even measure the impact of this and how much diversion and how do we know what kind of contamination we see what the challenges look like to set up a system in a multifamily building if the whole sit building was designed for with one trash shoot right like how what are these different systems look like what are the best practices on how we can support the building owner or building property manager and actually setting up a system so that's an example of one very specific type of study to support a um existing policy that is a community priority that this would enable another example um looking at end markets and material flow is understanding just how much let's just say untreated lumber is getting diverted from construction and demolition waste and is not going to landfills we know we don't have capacity currently um in facilities to handle all of the amount of that material coming out of of our buildings or at least we don't think we do because we don't even know what that volume looks like once if we can do a we may want to do a study this is just an example to understand what that volume looks like what type of materials that actually is because untreated wood could come in a lot of different forms understand then based on that information what type of reuse opportunities exist can those things go back into construction is it are they not suitable because of engineering standards or other limitations does it really something that should be used for flooring or fencing or some other purpose and how do we then support that from like an economic development lens you know to really build the circularity so if we want to be leaders in understanding what materials exist how we can basically re mine for lack of a better term our existing built environment and find use for all of these materials that have all those natural resources that have already been processed all the embodied carbon that's gone into that and really figure out how to create circularity we don't we can't just do that without having certain amount of information um and so this would enable us to support some of that strategic policy develop you know program development track the impact um with these funds because that would be part of creating a function you know a high functioning uh program so that's those are just a couple examples of what that could look like I I still have concerns about I I don't I still don't feel comfortable with that with this with this fee feels like it's a stretch of the original intent like this we're turning the um this bag fee into the waste no more implementation ordinance and if that's the case we should just name that I agree because I don't I think that that's that's what this is and so I I feel like going around that and not naming that and so but that's that's what I feel like all of these additions are so if that's what it is I think we should just name that and we had community support and we had council member support on that so we should just say that um instead of calling it the disposable bag fee fund um we should say that we're using this to implement all of the other policies such as waste no more or the circular economy I can't remember the name um and rename the fund because it's not necessarily the city disposable back fee fund anymore with all of these additions.

So my one last question is to Justin if we're taking 4.7 million from this fund into the long bill to help us with the it's the composting and the recycling program that we're offsetting is that correct that we're currently charging the residents at Denver for it.

That is correct, Council president.

So does that mean that the fee won't get raised in 2026?

That's also correct.

So in the 2026 budget, there is no increase to the rates that would be charged to residential consumers.

I think that's something that we look at each year.

Um and because of this transfer that would allow us to not increase rates.

I think something else that we're anticipating in late 2026 is the extended producer responsibility revenue turning on.

So that was a state law that was passed, I believe, in 2022 that is intended to offset the costs of offering recycling services.

And so I think that's another shoe that we are waiting to have drop before we contemplate um possibly making any changes to the current rate structure for volume-based pricing.

Thank you.

That's great.

I didn't know that information, so I support that.

So with that off with the five 4.7 million, is there any I know you're not you're not the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Are we hearing anything about bringing back recycling weekly?

I am getting so many complaints in my council district about the um inconsistency of recycling pickup, inconsistency of um composting pickup, and lack of trash pickup weekly.

Are there any discussions with this transfer of the 4.7 million of bringing that back on back online?

Council President, I don't believe so, but uh Shane O'Neal, the finance director for the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure is here, and so I welcome him to speak to that if there's anything else to add.

Yeah, no worries.

Uh thank you.

Members of council, good afternoon, Shane O'Neal.

Um, director of budget and capital finance for Department of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Sorry.

A little bug going around.

There have been no conversations about adjusting the current levels of service to Justin's point previously.

We're still waiting to see how the uh EPR component comes back into play before we make any long-term changes to the system operations.

Okay, I just have to say on the record, I get the number one complaint I'm getting in my council office is inconsistency with trash pickup, inconsistency with recycling pickup and composting.

Um I know I'm on a border, right?

My my border Adams County.

I will tell you for people who live outside of Denver jurisdiction, they don't get their trash doesn't get missed.

Their composting doesn't get missed and the recycling doesn't get missed.

And somehow we have not figured that out in Denver.

And so with a transfer of 0.4.7 million, I'm glad that the cost won't go back up because I think um the constituents in council district one would be outraged.

But I do want to have a conversation with Dottie when I voted on um charging the residents of Denver.

I voted on a on a bill that gave the residents of Denver composting weekly, recycling weekly, and trash weekly.

I did not vote on something where um it was not going to be picked up weekly, and it was not going to be composting and recycling picked up bi-weekly um being able to meet our carbon goals, like councilwoman Alvidres said.

I still don't understand how we are meeting any of our goals by having bi weekly, even with the transfer of the these dollars.

So I'll just go back to my concern with the to thank you.

That's that's all I have to say about the transfer funds.

But madam chair, I do have a problem with section two-428 purposes and allowed use of monies for the city disposable bad fee fund.

I don't feel like that's that's this is the the back fee fund.

I feel like this is a fund for all of our other sustainability goals, which I'm okay with, but it should be named that.

We should call things what we're using them.

I don't like um opening this up and opening it up for waste no more for our trash and recycling fee.

So I would want to propose an amendment to change the name of this fund.

Um, I know Councilmember Hines, you worked on this, and I would want to work with you all and see if that's the intent, but I just don't feel comfortable with adding all of these uses in there with that name, the way it is.

And I still I'm gonna just be honest, I don't feel comfortable with the I studies on waste reduction.

I feel like that could be added later.

I feel like we need to focus on policies and programs and events to get this up and running, and then these studies first.

Um, because it doesn't leave much in the fund.

If we only have six million some chains in there and we're transferring 4.7 out to help but trash, and that's not even like hardly that's not the bag fee plan.

So um that's just my two cents on this action item.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you.

Um council presidental, and I actually echo a lot of the things that you've said.

Um, and I will allow Justin because it looks like he wants to be able to speak to that, um, and then I'll maybe kick it over to Bryland to maybe respond to Council President's um uh ask for an amendment.

Um and and so just uh for Council President Sannibal for for members, there is a separate ordinance that actually created this fund.

And so in many cases, the ordinance itself is what defines the allowable sources of revenue, the allowable uses of revenue.

And so just want to flag that if there were to be a change to the section of city code that references this fund, uh, there would also need to be a change to that separate ordinance.

Uh, but that is something that if council were to want to go that direction, uh, we we would be glad to work with you all on uh in order to align the ordinance that created this fund with the section of city code that is before us today here at committee.

Yeah, um councilman Hines, I think you're back in the queue.

Uh thank you uh committee chair.

I um I I wanted to give you uh potentially an apology uh because we did have a briefing in advance, and I did not look at the proposed ordinance in advance.

So um I I don't know if that's because it wasn't available at the time of the briefing, but um, but just uh you were kind enough to uh to give me the opportunity to um to you know comment on the slides uh in advance and and the proposal.

So um so I'm sorry that the first time you heard some of my concerns about overly broad, was enough, you know, recorded public forum.

So um, but uh I to council president's point, um the decision to switch to biweekly recycling.

I know we have a Dottie representative, but uh you're not making you didn't make the call on um on recycling going back to biweekly.

But um I did um in committee uh share my uh in a briefing with Director Ford, um privately, um I said we should stakeholder any change before making a change to recycling.

I know this isn't this isn't you, but um, but since council president brought it up, I think it's important to mention um and uh and they made the change they I'm not sure exactly who I guess uh director Ford uh made the change the following week without any sort of stakeholder engagement and uh to council president's point, I think that there would be a lot of district 10 constituents as well as um clearly district one uh that would have been um frustrated with the idea of moving to bi weekly recycling.

So um since that's there, I want to make sure that I um since council president brought up the comment, I just want to make sure that I um you know share that comment as well.

And I did bring up Director Ford was sitting right there in that chair in uh committee the week after when she made the announcement that we were moving to bi-weekly recycling.

So I did tell her directly this isn't as in someone should go clip this and share it whether because um uh this is something she already knows.

So um uh I think that um particularly the residents of Congress Park are frustrated because they were told on a Thursday that starting the next week, um, the trash collection that they had had for in the alley for 100 years.

Um starting the following week that they would have to um put all of their trash uh at the street.

Um so that was a huge change, and there I'm still I emailed Director Ford today a survey that Congress Park Arno um gave to me today about frustrations with um the change of trash collection from the alley to the street.

So this is uh uh and and it was made without any sort of stakeholder engagement or input.

So um thank you for um for you know having some engagement in advance of the.

I guess this is an ordinance change, so you're gonna have to ask us, but um, uh, but I that's another example of um how I might be concerned with overly broad um language uh just given changes that seem to be uh without like part of the reason why government moves slowly is because we stakeholder everything um and there are uh a few things that we did not stakeholder that even though that change was made I don't know three four years ago I'm still hearing about it.

Even got an email this morning about it.

So uh it's important for us to have stakeholder engagement.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, really appreciate it.

Uh council president Pro Tim.

Oh, Council for Tim, Real Mary Campbell, you're up next.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um, and I just wanted to echo and appreciate the um comments of council president Sandoval.

I agree, and I had a similar line of questioning.

Um but I think in addition to those questions that um council president raised, uh thinking about how the if this fund is used to offset the waste diversion program and the revenues that we expect to decrease over the years, how or when will or do we believe that the waste diversion program will be sustainable?

Or are we going to constantly be relying on um what is currently a bag fee?

I can uh thank you.

Uh counselor um so I want to flag a couple things.

One is that the updated proposed language specifically says one time catalytic investments.

So this in no way uh we would uh from Castor's lens, we would not be in support of the bag fee fund becoming the way to cover um you know funding challenges for Dotti's curbside program.

Um, but the rollout of compost across the city is a catalytic um beneficial program that really advances our waste goal.

So it seems like a uh a strong way to support that change.

But um I will turn it over to the Department of Finance or to um to Shane from Dotti to talk about the long-term approach for um addressing the volume-based pricing model, because this is not gonna be the way that we can you know do it in the long term.

Yes, I I would echo that.

And I I just want to clarify, Council President Protam uh Romero Campo, are you looking at the sustainability of the disposable bag fee revenue itself and the fact that as the um people in Denver get more used to bringing reusable bags that that revenue is going down, or are you focused on the volume-based pricing program?

Uh just want to clarify.

Well, I appreciate that you asked for clarification.

Um, I don't remember what slide it was on, but where we saw the slide where the revenue we expect to be decreasing because people are bringing their own bags, um, so the dollars coming in, but we also know that there's an increasing cost as we expand our um recycle and composting.

So I think in sort of the disposable bag fee revenue, uh the there is now a ban on disposable plastic bags.

There is not a ban on disposable paper bags, and so I think at some point there may be um so few people using those that that revenue would kind of dissipate and go away.

Um but it it doesn't appear to be what we're seeing currently, uh, where I think that is really the forecasted kind of um I don't want to say in perpetuity, but but at least for now, unless we see much more drastic behavior change, it does appear that there would be at least some continued revenue from consumers who choose to use the disposable paper bags in terms of the volume-based pricing fund.

I think you you're absolutely correct that there um, you know, in some ways, the the better we do, the more people that we get to recycle, the more people that we get to compost, uh, the financially more challenging that program is because the tipping fees for recycling for composting are more expensive than they are for trash.

Where I I shane could speak to the exact details, but I believe it's 30 or 40 dollars for composting and recycling, 10 or 15 dollars for trash there about, and and so in some ways, uh that is something that we've acknowledged through the continued support of the general fund for the volume-based pricing program.

So in I think 2023, the first year that this program rolled out, the general fund transfer was 22 million dollars to support this program, 9 million dollars in 2024.

It's 11 million dollars this year.

It's budgeted to be 11 million dollars next year.

And so I think there is this uh belief that for the time being, unless there are changes to the economics or the operations, uh potentially one of those being the extended producer responsibility revenue streams coming online that this program uh will continue to require general fund support.

Um, go ahead.

Oh, I am I was just clarifying so you know it we can't see the future, but we can try to anticipate the trends in terms of the revenue coming into the disposable bag fee fund, and so we do anticipate that we'll decline.

We're not sure if we're gonna kind of flatten out at a certain point, but um where you know, in the first few years we were bringing in between one and two million dollars.

Uh, we are now below the million dollar a year threshold, and we're anticipating the next couple years being closer to half a million dollars and still declining in our best effort to project out towards like 2030, dropping into several hundred thousand, maybe three to four hundred thousand dollar mark where we think it might flatten out, but obviously if we can continue to do a great job administering it, maybe we can get that down even more.

And back to some of the earlier discussions, I want to just emphasize like administering this program is the first priority, continuing the outreach, providing the bags, the education will be number one.

Uh the question before us is if there is a surplus of funds from this program, can we use it to also support these other circular um economy and zero waste um programs?

And so I think that's really the question before council.

And I did want to make one other um clarification.

Studies are uh the the study part is all you know, the the allowable use to conduct studies is also in the original language from city council.

It was limited to studies of disposable bag usage and the impact of the disposable bag fee.

So the expansion, once again, similar to the website language, really just says we can also use it to study these new potential changed uses.

So that's not a value statement on whether council wants to support that, but just to clarify that it's not a new um use to allow the studies to take place, it just expands what we could what we can study to align with these changes.

So if that's helpful.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um thank you for that clarification.

Um and thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't have any other questions.

Great.

Thank you.

Um, really appreciate you all taking the time uh to do the briefings, but also to um come give us this presentation.

I do have a few questions that are still left outstanding um based on the conversation that we've had thus far.

And so regarding updating the language, what are the similar ordinances ordinances that the slide mentions?

Are those ordinances of ours or are those ordinances from other jurisdictions that have that may have a bag fee ordinance?

Um when we said to align the language, uh yeah.

Um thank you for that question.

Um, that is to align the language with other city and county of Denver special revenue fund um language in the our municipal code.

So um just the tense and the the phrasing to align it with the other language that's to be consistent across our own codes.

Or the special revenue, particularly.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Um, so what's the remainder of the 6.2 million for after the 4.7 million is withdrawn?

It'll be right around 1.6 million left in the bag fee fund right now, and then we'll have additional revenue coming in.

Yeah, what what will you use it for?

Thank you for uh the clarification.

I apologize.

That's it.

Uh first, uh right now, the primary use will be to continue full-time administration of the program.

Okay.

Uh the work that uh Miss Lada who came up and spoke uh shared that she does.

So those will continue to be our programs and continuing to build upon the pilot programs and expand those to support reusables and durable goods.

So all aligned with the existing allowable uses.

Uh next tier after we do that would be to support um the immediate um work in front of us to support the universal recycling ordinance um as we need to have that ready to be rolled out by September of 2026.

And so whether or not we can use these funds will just um have an impact on the type of the level of support um that we might be able to potentially provide to affected parties.

Um so that will be a decision we would make based on this um decision.

Otherwise, we will maintain the existing programs and likely um while we hope we would be able to ramp up some of those pilots potentially in the future, we probably would not immediately be able to deploy that full amount in 2026.

And so it would just carry over?

It would carry over to enable us to continue to build though.

I mean, we have plenty of potential uses for those funds.

Okay.

The answer is that if we are limited to the existing uses, we will build out to a greater extent some of the programs to help support uh avoiding the use of reusable single-use materials in the community, not just the bag fees, but like single use disposables in restaurants and and other programs like that, which is under the current allowable uses.

If we're able to, I'm I'm not answering your question well.

Maybe.

Okay, yeah.

The original intent of the ordinance is to help keep those plastic, you to reduce the amount of single-use disposable bags and other single-use disposable materials.

So those are our plastic cups, our plastic bottles, our utensils, all of those types of things.

Serviceware.

Um so we will continue to build out those programs.

You know, that is an important area of our work to avoid generation of waste.

That's kind of separate than what Dotti does, which is try to divert the waste we have created and keep it out of the landfill and send it other places.

We're looking at that upstream use.

How can we avoid people even using a single use disposable in the first, you know, product in the first place?

So we will continue that work with these funds and increase and ramp up those pilot programs that are successful and try to continue to build those out.

So that is keep going.

Um so that's what we would do under the current allowable uses.

We also have other priorities the community has come to us with and that council has come to us with, like the universal uh recycling ordinance and other circularity-related programs, right?

Like this bigger picture of how we repurpose materials and create end markets, and so this the changes really from CASRE's lens would expand kind of the possibilities of all the types of programs that all connect.

It's very similar about how materials are hopefully not even used in the first place, or we use more durable things that last longer and how at the end of life, you know, they have additional uses.

So we would just expand our work in this idea of circularity of materials instead of a one-way system where we use something for a few minutes and send it either to recycling or the landfill.

So it's it's very related, but the way the allowable uses are now is pretty narrow just to the single use disposables, and so this would enable us to just take a wider purview of the types of programs we can put in place.

I hope that helps you.

Understood.

So let me ask it in this way.

As you all are thinking about what when you say we have a lot of um when you say that we have use for the dollars.

Is do you have the largest percentage of use for the dollars as it's currently written, or do you have use for the percentage of the dollars in which you all proposing right now and and how it's written before us?

Because it sounds like it's maybe in this pot, and if it's in this pot, then I think it is worth us having a larger conversation about what that expansion looks like because then I think it maybe isn't a part, it isn't in its it isn't the original intent.

Um, I think that's a okay.

I understand the question.

I think it's it's a really good question.

I think it's hard to separate the parts here, you know, it because if we really want to take a view of circularity, it's the whole flow of materials.

And I think the avoidance of the single use plastics is a key or single use materials is a key component and so as I mentioned you know this is only been a uh something that was adopted in 2021 you know it's 2022 before we really understood revenue coming in we had to stand up the administration deploy the education resources and then we started to try to build out these other programs that would also support the reduction of single use materials a lot of those have been successful ramping those up still takes time right to like expand those and build them up at the same time we have these other also high priority pieces of this puzzle for the work that we do in CASER in terms of avoiding waste generation and circularity and so as we look at things like we've been charged with in terms of supporting um implementation of the universal recycling and composting ordinance we have other demands as well so I think the question is you know where should we we have limited staff and you know only a certain amount of dollars so you know the question is do we want more um leeway or you know like a wider range of ways still within some constraints on how we can prioritize this work and support all of these important priorities or do we want to keep these funds specific to this original use in which case you know we will continue to build out those programs the reason I couldn't answer directly like is in this year can we ramp all those up they take time to build up and until we know the answer to how we will proceed with these funds you know it's it's it's challenging to plan out all of that so we certainly have a lot in the works that could be scaled up for the existing uses or in support of these other high priority okay I have a few more questions but it sounds like you might have a question that's in line with where we are flowing now so I'll let you pop in.

Yeah thank you chair so yeah I realized as we're chatting here in committee that I had the assumption that we had fully exhausted our thought process of of using the fund as it is currently designed.

But as I think I hear your answer if say this doesn't go through um we would lean more into more education um more disposable bags like there is an opportunity for us to lean more into like part of me at first wanted to put you on the spot and say what other ideas you have but I'm not gonna get to um I am curious about you know what other ideas uh exist to make sure because the what um my thought process was in 2021 was I want to make sure that we um really focus on uh uh reusable bags and get rid of single use bags and um and when I did the analysis of pure cities as as as a sponsor um I thought we were gonna get an 80% reduction so now that I'm hearing we have a 50% reduction it seems that that is and the reason why I thought we were going to get an 80% reduction is because that's what other cities reported when they um when they did similar uh um similar uh bag fees so um so it suggests to me somehow either and I would say I haven't done the research since 2021 so maybe other cities have um have also no longer um are seeing the 80% um you know reduction that they that they once had and uh and I would I put it out there I totally hope this fee goes away because that means that everyone's using reusable bags so um I hope we put ourselves out of business with this uh with this particular fund um but do we have more things that we could be doing with this fund as it is currently intended to be used.

I I think that's a really good question.

I mean, there is a there are guardrails on the allowable uses of what we can do.

So within that, I think that's what I've been um trying to answer is that we can continue to do bag giveaways, do education.

We have a 99% compliance rate in terms of the way you know businesses, so we're at a high level.

So a lot of this is additional user behavior education.

As far as the single use disposable bags, we can also continue to build programs that address other single use items, even though those do not have a fee associated with them because it was part of the original intent.

So that would be these kind of serviceware items or other things.

Those are programs that we have to that we've rolled out.

And I can see if the uh team wants to talk about the success of those, but often those are pretty high um demand in terms of staff time to support that in you know, individual businesses investing in those materials.

So that is a um kind of an incremental high touch area until we can figure out how to really deploy it at scale.

So I think the fundamental question is we can continue to do that work.

Absolutely, like these are um it's a good I'm glad we have funds to like try to make this decision, right?

Because like these are all good things.

I think the question maybe before you is do we want to continue in that with that as the main priority?

And I'm not saying it would ever go away, but as the only, you know, as almost the main priority, because or is this give us an opportunity for funds we do not have elsewhere to support many of the recommendations that you all also discussed as part of these other programs.

Right now we're talking about the universal recycling and composting, but that's not forever the only one of these types of you know, high priority programs that will come before us in this area of trying to address our waste systems and how materials flow through.

So I think these are a good, it's a good discussion.

It's like a good problem to have, but that's really the questions.

Like, how do we want to keep it narrow?

Do we want to give ourselves a little more leeway?

Um, I like the and, but I understand, you know, we'll take direction.

So, yeah, I hear I you're right.

I think that we're an hour into committee, and I'm realizing that this is a different question that I'm being asked to answer than I thought an hour and a half ago.

The hour and a half ago, I was thinking we've fully expended all our resources on um on the you know the current uh use of the bag fee, and we're just gonna keep collecting this, you know.

Some dragons gonna continue to sit on this pot of gold because we can't we can't spend the gold at all.

Um but I think now what I'm understood is that that was a question I thought I was being asked to answer.

Now it's a it's a question of priority.

Um we could, we still have uh opportunities to lean more into uh getting people off single use plastics and and single use bags.

Uh, do we want to expand allowable uses?

Um, and maybe we've understaffed um the bag fee as it is currently designed, because now we've got this big pot of gold, and and uh, and if only we had uh the the bandwidth to really lean more into that, then um then we could have we could have gotten that that uh adoption percentage about 50 percent.

So it's a just it's a different question.

So one other question for you, um uh brought up by by council member Flynn.

Um, is this something that we have to pass this year to balance the budget?

Um for the lot of the discussion we are having right now is not time-sensitive.

However, the I'll go to Justin for the 2025 approved allocation of this transfer to Dotti, I think is does have a time.

So transfer that was approved in the long bill would lapse.

The authority to make that transfer would lapse on December 31st of this year, and so if this ordinance change were not to pass, um, we would not be able to make that transfer.

And so what happens to uh if the if the like because um if we were to give the executive branch more time to think about, you know, and give us more time as well to think about the different question, um, and we were to delay this to the next committee meeting or in January, then that would mean this doesn't pass.

So what how is the budget just uh screwed?

So I think the um sorry we scratched that.

Uh what we've seen is that um not I can let Shane speak to this more, but is that the migration that we anticipated from people uh downsizing essentially their carts has has not occurred to the same degree in some of those areas that already had composting.

And so the um the amount of revenue that we thought we would have in 2025 just from the rate that residential customers are paying is a little bit higher than we thought it would be.

Um I think the year is not over yet, and so that's where uh we don't know for certain what the expenditures and the revenues will be for the bank fee fund, uh, or excuse me, for the volume-based pricing fund, but uh that is where if this weren't to pass, we couldn't make that transfer, and it's possible that that balance could go negative.

I think the current projections are that it would not.

Um I'll let Shane maybe add any context or perspective if you would like, but um that's that's kind of the budget side of this.

So where that the um is that so how much is that in the long bill that five point seven?

It's a proposed or it's a four point seven million dollar transfer that is appropriated, um, but it's contingent uh we believe on changing the allowable uses.

I think uh you flagged uh really interesting aspect of the language about May.

I think that is not how we looked at it.

Uh, or uh we looked at it as this would need to be something that was explicitly authorized in City Code in order to make that transfer to support the volume-based price.

So if you don't get the 4.7 million dollars to move over to volume-based pricing, you may be in the black, you may be in the red.

Don't know.

Would the 4.7 million dollars for sure be in the black?

Um, not necessarily in the black, right?

You could you not move the money from a different uh different bucket, and then if we decided that in January, if we were going to postpone this, that you could fill it on the back end, so it's not that it would just be an empty bucket, yeah.

Could you look at another place in the budget?

So all transfers of cash from one fund to another fund would require the approval of city council, and so uh what city council approved as part of it.

It doesn't have to be this, it doesn't have to be this transfer in this way in order to be able to fund 2025 in the way in which you all like 2025 wasn't contingent on us expanding the allow allowable uses.

In the proposed budget, if it was so in the proposed budget.

How you all thought about it, but not how you presented it to council.

You all are presenting it to council with the expansion of the allowable uses now, but that's not our unless I'm missing something that I don't recall you all proposing to us that in order for us to approve that 4.7 million in the budget for 2025, that it was contingent on us expanding the allowable uses.

This is the first time we're having the conversation about the expansion of the uh allowable uses in conjunction with the 4.7.

That is correct.

Uh so I think what in the budget that was adopted for 2025, we contemplated was just an expansion of allowable uses to authorize that transfer from the disposable bank fee fund to the volume-based pricing fund.

I think when it didn't go through as a companion ordinance to the long bill, that allowed for the opportunity uh for the universal recycling and composting ordinance to pass, uh, for which we unfortunately don't have uh the resources likely needed to fully implement that to the degree that the community is expecting.

And so in partnership with CASER, uh we we look more broadly than just the expansion of the allowable use to authorize that transfer from the disposable egg fee fund to the volume-based pricing fund.

And so, so uh in that sense, yes, you're absolutely correct that um what was contemplated in the budget from last year for this year was much narrower than where we're at right now.

So you'd be off by maybe one or two million if you were in the red.

Is that because you you're you say you're right on that on the border?

I'm sorry, I'm asking.

I'll let Shane uh speak to his the closest.

Shane on the old value finance director, we'd be right around 1.2 million is where the fund balance would land at the end of 2025 with current projections.

But that's good.

Um how much do we have left in contingency about two million?

Uh about uh so we have 20.6 million in contingency uh if the supplemental appropriation ordinance that was on first reading on Monday night were to be approved.

If it were to be approved, so we've got 20 million and a maybe a one 1.2 million or two million dollar gap.

And I would just flag that I think really what we're um intending to do, what the goal is for that amount of contingency that would be preserved, is that if it lapses, it goes to fund balance.

And so I think we are reliant on that, we believe to stay above that 10% of 2025 expenditure fund balance threshold.

And so, in in last year, for example, um, we spent all but about a million dollars of the I think roughly 34 million dollars of contingency.

This year we would spend a much lower percentage of that, and and that's really by design, because we are trying to preserve that amount to have it lapse to fund balance so that we stay above 10 percent.

And I guess to the committee chair's point, I didn't realize we'd have to consider this financial tetris to close out, including this proposed ordinance to close our 2025, and so I want to make sure that we can close our 2025 balance because that is our state mandate.

Um, and I see that we can do that.

We might be in a little bit of a stickier situation in 2026 at least, but it doesn't it doesn't mean that if we move this to January that because maybe in January we pass it and we you know we clean up a little bit of the the words, but we pass it in the funds transfer.

But I just don't want to feel held hostage, you know, the legislative branch um that we can't close 2025 without making sure that this passes in 2025.

That's that's that's my concern.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

Thanks.

I have a few more questions, but it looks like Councilman Flynn only has one question, so I'm gonna let him in the queue first.

And he's online.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I've been sitting here tearing my hair out after our Southwest member.

Uh if we do not pass the for the uh uh the ordinance that allowed that expands the allowable use at least to this transfer that's in the land bill that we approved as part of the 2025 budget, we will hit our fund balance again, uh, as justin said, even if it came from contingency, it wouldn't go back into the fund balance.

So either way, it's extremely damaging not to pass this enabling legislation for the approved 2025 budget.

So my suggestion is at least pass out of this committee the current bill striking every allowable use that obviously everyone else wants to discuss in January, other than the transfer from the bag fee to the trash fee fund so we can balance that out and and meet our commitments to the 2025 budget.

I think that'd be easy enough.

I don't know if John's in the room.

I didn't see, but I think it'd be easy enough by noon tomorrow to strike every every other new allowable use other than this transfer.

But please God, let's just get this transfer this one transfer done.

Uh it's uh we have to be responsible with this budget.

Thank you.

I thought he asked the question of maybe the attorneys, but maybe not.

So if not, then I will uh jump in with finishing some of the questions that I had.

Um, so during the briefing that I had, um well, actually, I would love to hear you all respond to to councilman Flynn's um separation of the 4.7 million and striking out the allowable uses.

So I think when we had contemplated bringing this as a companion ordinance to the long bill last year, we were narrowly focused on just changing the allowable uses to authorize that transfer.

I think in in talking with CASR, uh they brought forward uh what were identified as really critical other uses.

Um and I feel like I'm probably not the right person to speak to those other uses.

I think what we had intended to bring as a companion to the 2025 long bill was something to um, and I should clarify what we also had contemplated in the 2025 budget uh was using about $300,000 dollars of the disposable bag fee fund, not transferring it, but spending it out of the fund on the Waste No More Education campaign.

And that is something that ended up being delayed because of the uh finalization of that ordinance that I think didn't happen until August or September.

And so that is something that pushed out the start date.

And so, so my apologies.

There were really those two uses that were contemplated in the 2025 budget, which was expanding the allowable uses of the disposable bag fee revenue to support education and outreach associated with waste no more, what's now known as the universal recycling and composting ordinance, as well as the transfer of the disposable bank fee.

Okay, thank you.

Um I think I'll hold off on on the rest of my questions and maybe open it up to the rest of the committee because folks seem like they may not go and we may want to move forward until we can have some open discussion, Adam.

I'm just here to ask too many windows open.

I would like to propose that we uh amend this bill here in committee and strike, and we asked the administration to file it with us tomorrow, and we will file it by noon, striking every other new allowable use other than this transfer that we authorized in the long bill a year ago, and let's get that done so we don't mess with balancing the uh the budget at the last minute here, the the current budget that we're in, and then discuss all these other expanded uses because it seems to me the CASER uh with its desire to look at new expanded uses, in addition to this one that we've already authorized in the budget, has ended up delaying our process, and that's why we're looking at it at the last minute because it took this long to get all these new uses that we want to discuss more uh with the one that we absolutely need to do this year.

I don't want to see our fund balance go anywhere closer to 10% than it already is.

Uh so I make that suggestion and uh happy to engage in discussion on it.

Thank you.

I and I appreciate that, and I appreciate your words, and I and I I disagree to some extent because I think oftentimes council puts on other council members a responsibility of the budget or the fund balance or when things are coming to us and things are coming to us when agencies are bringing it to us.

And so we're having this discussion about the additional allowable uses, and the last conversation that we had with with uh the Department of Finance or with CASER um with the approval of the 4.7 million was not attached to what we're having a discussion with now.

And so when we talk about things coming late and us being unable to balance the budget, I don't think that's the sole responsibility of one, this committee or council members.

I think that has to be a shared responsibility when you all bring us these things not early enough.

When we get a chance to start to be able to dialogue and have discussions about them, and they don't we don't, you know, um stamp them in the way put our stamp of approval without our um insights or opinions or the our discussions, sometimes that happens, and I think we have to get creative potentially about um how we how we solve for the 4.7 million dollars potentially if council members decide to use their council authority to postpone.

Um, with that, I'll go to Council President Zanaval.

Thank you.

Um sorry, I'm don't have my camera on.

Um so Justin and the um finance person for Dotty.

Is there not another revenue special revenue that can balance this without using contingency?

Is there another way, Justin, to use another revenue source to be able to for the I think I I heard 1.2 million?

So I think um uh what would be required to do that would be some kind of council action.

So we cannot question.

I think you would have I would vote count for that.

So you would have my word that I would vote count to make sure that we uh got 2025 balanced out.

My question is do you think that there's an opportunity for you all to find the 1.2 million um that would be missing so that we can have this conversation?

I understand council member Flynn's concern about wanting to balance the 2025 budget.

I also want to balance the 2025 budget.

I just not I just haven't heard this before.

I wish that this portion would have been brought early and then we could have had this conversation, and then once the universal recycling um could have come, then we could have had a another conversation.

This is just I unless I'm mistaken, Justin.

Had we been briefed on this, I I know councilwoman Lewis had mentioned this.

Had we been briefed on the need to move the 4.7 million before today.

So I think as part of the 2025 budget process in those budget hearings, it was something we spoke to.

Um it was something that we had intended to run as a companion to the long bill, ended up not doing that to allow for more legal review.

Um take full responsibility.

I I apologize to to all the members of council for the delay in bringing this forward.

Um council member or Chair Lewis.

I think you make a completely fair point that uh it's not fair to you all to be backed into a corner.

Uh and and so I think on that account, um, that's on me, that's on us in the budget management office.

In terms of another source, Council President Sandoval to your question, I don't know that there is another one.

I think what would likely happen is we would see how the year closes out for the volume-based pricing fund.

Uh, it's possible that that fund ends with more revenues than expenditures.

Um it's also possible that that that doesn't occur and we have more expenditures in that fund than we do uh revenues, in which case we would need to in 2026 uh identify a way to balance that fund.

And so um, I don't know that there's an alternative source.

There is ratepayer revenues, and there's revenues from Denver Public Schools going into that fund.

There's the 11 million dollar general fund transfer.

And so I think what we would do is wait and see uh where the year closed for that fund uh and whether those revenues that came into the fund were adequate to offset the expenses.

If we so I if I remember correctly, the books don't close out until March, and if we were able to get this amended and to have a better conversation and to you the first part of January, would that be enough time for us to have this conversation, or do we need to have it passed by?

I know we would like to have it passed by the 31st.

I'm asking what is our requirement?

Like, could we have this conversation early January and have it passed by the end of January?

Because the books won't even be closed out by the end of January, if I'm not mistaken.

You are absolutely correct about that, Council President Sandoval.

Uh the challenge is that we as a city are on a modified accrual basis of accounting, and so we look at what costs were incurred uh within the year.

And so if something didn't happen until 2026, it could still make that fund whole, uh, but for the 2025 budget, as reflected in the city's annual comprehensive financial report, it's possible that the volume-based pricing fund would show a negative balance for the 2025 fiscal year.

How about this?

How about could we meet in the middle?

Could we transfer if if I heard correctly and tell me if the numbers are inaccurate, could we transfer 1.5 million dollars instead of the 4.7 and then fix this later on so that we don't we have a balanced budget?

I don't hear you saying you need the full 4.7 million.

And I'm not saying that we couldn't transfer it out, but I do want to have be fiscally responsible.

I just once again, I was having a hard time tracking everything.

I don't remember having this conversation.

If you had had this conversation, Justin, please forgive me.

I apologize.

I really do my best to make sure that I have all my briefings and all of the material I need.

I didn't when I got the um understanding of this and the slide deck of this, I didn't realize that it was attached to the 2025 fund balance of trend for the recycling fee.

That's that's I'll take that full responsibility.

No, and and I think um I know briefings were offered, but it was a long time ago that we talked about this.

Um to your specific question, Council President Sandoval about the amount of the transfer, the amount authorized in the long bill, that 4.7 million is the maximum amount.

So I don't know that um I can speak to that.

I think that is something that um so the executive director of CASER is the expending authority over this fund.

Um, but but I do think that is something, practically speaking, that would be possible where rather than making the full 4.7 million dollar transfer, we would only make a portion of that.

Um, but but I think because so the long bill just authorizes how much up to we could go and I'll refer Liz as the expending authority over the disposable bank refund.

Thank you, Justin.

Um I'm Liz Babcock, the executive director of CASR.

Um, thank you all for the discussion, really appreciate it.

Um, and I think a couple things.

One, um, our team is very, very focused on delivering for the community on the universal recycling ordinance, and we think it's um very beneficial to have some flexibility.

Would love to continue that conversation and again continue to focus on the original intent of the ordinance.

The source of the funding is from a fee on bags, and so we will continue to to focus on that.

I appreciate your comments, Justin.

I'm happy to be flexible in how we approach um making sure that we can be fiscally responsible as well as continue to have the conversation that you all want to have on this topic.

I think there's a way for us to balance all of the concerns and good ideas that have been brought forward today to come up with something successful and give ourselves time as well to continue this larger conversation on the importance of zero waste and circularity.

So happy to do that um and happy to work with you all on that.

Okay, so how do you all want to proceed?

What do you need?

1.5 mil.

I'm I'm comfortable with that, but the rest of the folks.

Council.

I'll do yeah.

What is the the comfort?

Well, uh the one point five the proposal that uh council president put on the table um in order to be able to Justin, you explain it on that.

So we move 1.5 million instead of 4.7.

I think that I mean, um at the end of the day, this is something where council has full authority, whether or not to make this change or not.

Um I think that is something that um I don't know that I'm in a position to commit to, but I think uh we could certainly talk to it it sounds like Liz would be comfortable with that as the executive director of CASER, and so uh if council were to authorize the allowable use of those catalytic investments, uh such as the C.

I'm just gonna cut you off because we have no time.

Uh and I wanted to know if we can amend this between now and the floor or on the floor.

Yes.

You can do both.

Okay.

So I think we should move this forward and then we can continue discussions between now and the time it comes to the floor.

What's the difference?

Like if we amended it now.

So we don't pass it with 1.7.

Yeah, today, or else you'll have to do an amendment on the floor.

Could you amend it now with the 1.7 instead of the 4.7?

That's I don't think we could do that.

That's not in this ordinance.

So so that's actually already appropriate in the long bill, but that is just giving the authority to transfer up to that amount.

So I think that would be an agreement with the administration.

Okay, I might have messed up what Sandoval had on the table, so I do apologize.

Sandoval, please tell us.

So I would take what council member Flynn said, and strike all of the other uses.

Uh-huh.

Move forward with the allowable use for the recycling and trash and move 1.5 million instead of the 4.7.

And council president, could we do that between now and the floor, or do we have to do that right now?

I would say that we make the motion now so that we have clarity amongst our council members.

Um I think I would have to do that.

That's okay.

We still have corn.

Can as our attorney there to speak up.

Yes, she is walking in the project.

Any by lady assistant city attorney.

I know how to amend for all the uses to strike.

I'll be honest, I don't know how to amend for the 1.7.

We can or it could be an agreement, I think, with the administrative to just not avail itself of the full authority of the transfer.

Okay.

I'll be honest, I do not know how to do that in committee.

I know we can do the amendment for the uses.

I'm not sure how to do the um money uh amendment in committee.

We can definitely do that on the floor if needed, though.

Are you okay?

Are you willing to take that direction because you have the discretion for CASAR funds, right?

I am willing yes, I am willing to take that direction.

If that is the if that's the direction that we all agree upon, then yes, we can go in that direction.

I would like to just um offer a friendly suggestion that um perhaps we could continue to talk about those additional allowable uses.

I'm deeply concerned about the impact to our team's ability to deliver on the universal recycling ordinance without being able to access the funding for that purpose.

And so I do understand that there is a desire to have more conversation.

I would just perhaps ask that we um discuss that before we strike because I I um we have a work plan in place for 26 and we have a very aggressive timeline to get this work done, and we would love to be able to utilize a portion of those additional fund balance for the Universal Recycling Ordinance.

And I think without these dollars, it will be very, very difficult for our team, even if we were to come back in Q1 of next year.

Uh that that timeline is is very difficult.

We have to be done by September of 2026 with rules and regulations.

So um just putting that out there for consideration.

Thank you.

Councilman Catcher.

Um, I would move we move this forward.

Um, we can continue discussion, you know.

The uh our attorney needs to iron some things out that we apparently are not prepared to do today.

So I'd I'd move this forward.

We can discuss uh in the next few days.

Um all kinds of legalese if we need to, we can postpone a week additionally on the floor, whatever, but I don't see how we move other than this right now.

As is, is that what you're saying?

Or the proposal that's I mean, I understand uh Councilman Flynn's proposal sounds great to me.

Um, our attorney says I'm not aware of how to do it in committee.

So uh I would move this as is right now with the understanding that we're gonna try to do what council president and councilman Flynn have proposed.

Okay, and then I'll just go back to thank you, Councilman Cashman, Councilman Flynn, Council President Xandoval, and then Councilman Hines, if you all can chime in and then we can wrap this up.

Yes, thank you.

Uh Madam uh Chair.

Uh I guess I'm I'm agreeable with moving the whole thing forward and then amending it on the floor, but we can amend it in committee.

We can direct uh we can authorize the filing of this bill with the deletion of every other allowable use, uh expanded allowable use other than uh the uh uh transfer to the the line based pricing fund.

We can move it forward that way, and uh all the city attorney has to do is strike those other allowable uses, file the bill by noon tomorrow, and I could support that.

Council President Sannibal.

Uh I'm open to whatever the committee feels best.

Liz, I just want to acknowledge I understand um your concern.

I just want you to understand that this is no longer the disposable bag fee fund, and so I feel like the the companion ordinance and the name of it needs to change, and I'm happy to do that.

I'm not saying I don't have, I'm not okay with that use.

I'm just saying that this is no longer the disposable bag fee fund, it's just not, and so we should just name that.

We should be honest about what this fund is.

Yeah, I appreciate that comment, and Sandoval.

Happy to have that discussion with you.

I do think you know the original ordinance had multiple uses outside of bags, including single-use plastics, community cleanups, and other things.

So this is expanding it to recycling and composting uh, you know, uh uses as well.

Um happy to have that discussion.

I just I'm worried about the implementation and delivering for the voters on on the ordinance.

I agree, but recycling is you know, you know my sister Kendra.

Recycling is a different use.

It's not single use plastics, it's just not it.

Recycling is recycling of cardboard, recycling of clothes, this recycling deconstruction ordinance, which this would go to use for, which I'm um I'm good with, but it just should be named that.

So we should have done more work and renamed this fee to say disposable bag and include these other intents.

This the source funding is a bag fee.

So I think that our intent was just to keep that as it was because the source of the funding actually comes from the payment of the fee, and then being very clear in the updates about what is allowed that you know what what you can spend that fee on in the ordinance.

That was the that was the intent of the update there.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you.

So with that, I did everybody got a chance to welcome Council President Sandoval and Councilman Heinz on to the meeting.

I do apologize for that.

Obviously, they've been here in this discussion.

Um with that, uh, it sounds like the proposal is to move it forward as is with the opportunity to be able to work with you all to update it.

Uh with that, Alyssa, can you do a roll call vote?

Um I'm gonna move around a second.

Oh, that's right.

Sure.

Thanks.

Oh, there we go.

And the opposite.

I know I will I'm happy to move forward as is I will be a no on the floor if this does not change.

Council members Blyn.

I'm so sorry, sir.

Was that an aye?

No, no, I uh, um Madam President Sandoval.

Council Member Heinz, Councilmember Cashman.

Uh Nay.

No.

Four eyes.

Thank you.

All right, passes.

And with that, oh, we have seven items on consent.

No one has pulled anything off unless you want to change your mind, please don't.

And we are adjourned.