As part of our survey, we asked the municipalities about trash collection and curbside recycling programs in their communities. As is frequently the case with independent minded Colorado cities and towns, municipal trash collection and recycling programs show a great deal of variety in their organization and financing. It is clear that this variety of programs results from the particular needs and preferences of each community. In many ways this diversity and variety is a strength because it gives the municipalities an extensive array of programs to study as they review their own programs.

Some communities provide municipal trash hauling services directly as a local utility or enterprise type of governmental program. Others provide the service as a municipal service through private contracts let out through a competitive bid process. Still other communities rely on private contracting arrangements made between residents and trash haulers. What became clear in the responses is that there is no observable predicter as to which communities are likely to fall into any one of the three categories. There are very large cities, medium size cities and very small cities represented in each category. Moreover, there is no observable geographic preference for one category over another. Communities that provide contract service or rely on private parties to arrange the service exist either side-by-side or in close driving proximity to cities that provide the service as a municipal service. A good example is that Denver, Commerce City and Arvada are in very close proximity to one another, but each uses a different arrangement.

The survey was distributed to 271 municipalities, which are listed in the Colorado Municipal League directory. Not all communities are members of the Municipal League, but those that do not belong are very small with part time public servants administering their needs. Of the surveys distributed, we received an 81.9% response. The following highlights are based on those responses:

Of the 271 municipalities surveyed, 47 (17.3% of the communities) reported that they provide municipal trash service as a municipal service like utilities, public works or other municipal services. These communities collectively serve 1,076,484 Colorado citizens, or 31.9% of the municipal population. Bear in mind that we did not survey the unincorporated areas of Colorado. Population statistics were secured from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs.

Of the 271 municipalities surveyed, 44 (16.2% of the communities) reported that they provide municipal trash service as a municipal service through a contract with one or more private trash haulers. These communities collectively serve 126,133 Colorado citizens, or 3.7% of the municipal population.

Collectively, the 91 municipalities that reported that they either provide trash services directly or through contract service 1,202,617 Colorado citizens, about 35.6% of the municipal population.

By far and away, the majority of the cities responding (131 or 48.4% of the municipalities) reported that they rely upon the private market place to bring residents and trash haulers together in some type of contractual arrangement. These communities are home to 2,104,955 Colorado citizens, about 63.6% of the municipal population.

There were 49 communities that received surveys but did not respond. We are in the process of providing an on-line updating feature to make it easier for all municipalities to update their information. As we receive updated information, we will revise all of our data and information.

The following table displays the summarized data (for a community-by-community listing, please refer to the tables under Survey Results):

Category of Response	# of Municipalities Responding	% of All Municipalities in Survey	% of Responding Municipalities	Population Served	% Population of All Municipalities in Survey	% of Population of Responding Municipalities
Trash Service is a Municipal Service	47	17.3%	21.3%	1,076,484	31.9%	32.5%
Trash Service is a Municipal Service Through Contract	44	16.2%	19.9%	126,133	3.7%	3.8%
Trash Service is Provided Through Private Contracts	131	48.4%	59.0%	2,104,955	63.6%	62.4%
Did not Respond	49	18.1%		65,740	1.9%
Total (percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding)	271	99.8%			99.9%

Assessing Collection Options

The provision of trash collection services, and by implication recycling, is in many ways a business decision for the community. While trash collection service is important for the health and quality of life of the residents, it is not a service that generally has been a governmental service - as are police protection, fire protection, and municipal utilities. A community that desires to provide trash hauling and recycling services has several options available to it, as has been shown by the mix of arrangements used by Colorado's municipalities.

Our survey focused on residential trash and recycling services, and was not designed to gather data about commercial, industrial, special venue applications or other kinds of waste generators in a community. The information provided to us was largely about single-family residential communities. While some communities provide trash service to multi-family complexes, these services tend to be very specific and focused. For example, a community might provide trash service to duplexes and four-plexes, but not to large multi-family apartment complexes. Some communities might provide trash service to townhouse complexes that resemble single-family residential but not to condominium complexes that resemble apartment complexes. We did collect some information from the communities about such venues, but our survey instrument was not sophisticated enough to generate good data. We will review how we might get better data as we move into future surveys.

A lesson that has been learned from the survey is that there is not one best alternative for all communities. In fact, communities may wish to utilize a combination of options with each option targeted to a particular waste generation need. For example, a community may decide to provide a municipal trash collection service to its single-family community, and contract with one or more private haulers to service multi-family, retail/commercial and light industrial generators. There is no inherent reason why multiple strategies cannot be employed if that would meet the needs of the community.

There is also no inherent reason why communities could not join together on a regional basis to provide trash collection services to secure economies of scale and scope. While we did not see a wide use of this regional approach strategy in the survey responses, there were a couple of communities that contract with each other for trash service. In some ways, the preference for use of private customer/hauler arrangements is a form of regionalization since the larger scale trash haulers serve several communities within their area of operations.

As part of our supplemental research to the survey, we reviewed a sample of municipal codes to learn what requirements the communities have placed on the accumulation of trash and debris on property, what kinds of container requirements they might have and similar information. This was not an exhaustive review, but there were some highlights worth noting.

The municipal codes that we reviewed generally have provisions that govern the cleanliness of property throughout the community. Frequently, these codes include requirements for the size and placement of trash cans. Increasingly, municipalities which have an abundance of wildlife are establishing requirements for making trash cans inaccessible to hungry bears, raccoons and other wildlife known for their affinity for human food remnants. Many of these codes also include requirements that govern set out, how long the cans can be left out before being returned to their storage area and related requirements. To the extent that these communities are served by private providers, the codes apply to their operations.

While we did not specifically ask the question, it appears that most residential trash service collection is performed on a "set-out" basis with the household placing the trash can (note: we use the term "trash can" generically and mean it to include other receptacles such as trash bags) at the street curb or in the alley for the crews to access. There may still be some older communities that use backyard collection, but it is believed that such arrangements are rare in Colorado. There was a small number of municipalities, generally very small, that provide a central collection point where residents can bring their trash for disposal.

We did not ask the municipalities about the frequency of collection, which will vary based upon need. However, there are a few points of interest about collection frequency. We specifically asked about special services (such as large items, seasonal clean up programs, etc.) and learned that many communities provide special collection options for certain nonrecurring items. For example, 76 municipalities provide some type of special arrangement pick up service for large items such as furniture, appliances and other items that are too large to be handled with normal trash service. The specific arrangements are quite diverse as far as scheduling, fees, special preparation requirements and so on.

Special program options also included Christmas tree disposal, household hazardous waste collection, spring and fall clean ups, fall leaf collections, grass clipping and yard debris, and certain specific items such as auto batteries and motor oil. For a complete list of these special programs by community, please refer to our table on special programs in the Survey Results section.

Public Information

Although we did not include questions on the survey related to keeping the community informed about municipal trash and recycling programs, we did see numerous examples of continuing public education programs. Many communities provide regular newsletters - both print and electronic - and we observed several articles about trash service, recycling programs and special events such as fall leaf drops. We also observed several community websites that had considerable information for the public. In our tables, we have provided links to the websites of communities where we were able to confirm a website and a URL for them.

Other means of public information that we observed were flyers (often available on the municipality website as a PDF for easy printing), articles in local newspapers, inserts in utility bills and community public service announcements. The higher the rate of turnover in a residential neighborhood, the more the residents need to be kept informed. An example would be a college community where there is a high turnover of students living off campus in residential areas. These communications efforts are also a way of educating the public about the municipal trash service and recycling services to reinforce the goals and objectives of the program.

Good public information that is complete and timely is very beneficial not only to the residents but also to the trash hauler. Considerable time, effort and resources can be saved if residents are knowledgeable about set-out and separation requirements, and the need to keep undesirable materials such as motor oil, paint, antifreeze, large items and household hazardous wastes out of the regular trash service.