Broomfield staff outlines options to reimburse residents' trash-cart cancellation fees; council weighs targeted aid

Broomfield City staff on the study-session agenda presented options for reimbursing cancellation or cart-removal fees that some residents face when they cancel private trash service to join the city's new residential collection program. Staff said they can model reimbursements that would cover 100%, 75% or 50% of documented fees, or a targeted 100% for households meeting low‑income or senior criteria; they did not ask council to adopt a policy tonight but requested direction on whether to develop a program and how to pay for it.

The item matters because the city is about to begin deployment of carts and start service under a five‑year contract with Waste Connections of Colorado. Staff told council the program automatically enrolls roughly 9,600 single‑family and small multifamily households for service beginning March 31; some residents who cancel existing private service have been charged cart‑removal or cancellation fees by their current haulers.

Staff presenter Allison Harvey said city staff traced the problem to two national haulers: Waste Management told staff it charges a flat cart removal fee for its roughly 3,000 non‑HOA Broomfield customers and staff used a $75 estimate for budgeting (Waste Management told staff it had quoted $65 to some customers); Republic Services charges per cart but told staff it will credit customers who cancel to join the city's program. Harvey said, “Republic Services ... will be issuing a credit to any Broomfield customers who are canceling Republic services because they need to join the city's program.”

Staff modeled several reimbursement scenarios and their staffing impacts. A 100% reimbursement for all affected households would cost roughly $225,000 on a maximum‑impact basis, staff said; 75% and 50% scenarios fall to about $169,000 and $112,000 respectively. A narrower option that targets households at or below 60% AMI and seniors 65+ was estimated at about $67,500. Harvey warned these amounts are maximum estimates and could decline if the Waste Management fee is $65 rather than $75 or fewer residents apply for reimbursement. She told council the program would require new short‑term staffing to process claims: staff estimated about 1,500 hours of work for wide eligibility options and roughly 900 hours for the targeted option.

City Attorney Trey Rogers cautioned against a proposed alternative that had come from the Advisory Committee for Environmental Sustainability: a flat payment to the operator to cover removal fees. Rogers said that approach creates legal and operational risks because the city would be stepping into the private contracts between haulers and customers and could become responsible for disputes; he told council, “this side contract wouldn't negate those agreements, and I fear that doing what ACES had recommended ... would put Broomfield in the center of that consumer relationship with this vendor.”

Sustainability manager Garrett McDaniel described an administrative approach staff would use if council asked them to implement reimbursements: an online form plus invoice/receipt, staff eligibility review, and a credit to water bills (or alternative payment for non‑water customers). McDaniel said staff estimates “roughly 45 per application for us to process.” He and Harvey said fees and the number of applicants will determine final budget and staffing needs.

Council members asked whether opt‑out fees and other existing budget items could offset costs. Staff later reported 793 households had opted out and that revenue from opt‑out fees at current participation would be about $99,918 annually; staff said that revenue was not included in the 2025 budget. Several council members voiced preference for a targeted program for lower‑income households and seniors (the presentation called that the partial property‑tax refund alignment), while others opposed any city reimbursement pending better information and the rollout.

No formal motion or vote occurred. Multiple council members asked staff to return after carts are deployed with more precise counts and recommended next steps; several asked staff to open discussions with the contractor about specific operational exceptions (for example, large agricultural lots or multiple bins), noting that any change to the contract could require reopening negotiations with Waste Connections and create knock‑on effects on contractor pricing.

Staff said any reimbursement program is not included in the approved 2025 budget and would require a budget amendment or re‑allocation of other sustainability program funds if council directs action. The Advisory Committee for Environmental Sustainability had recommended 100% reimbursement for affected households, but staff and the city attorney said that option raises operational questions that would need further work.

Next steps: staff will return with updated counts and cost estimates after cart deployment begins and after council indicates whether it wants staff to develop a formal reimbursement mechanism. No binding decision was made at the study session.