The Shopping Cart Debate
The issue came back before the Pueblo City Council with two separate concerns.
Council President Mark Aliff questioned whether the City's shopping-cart recovery fee - up to $95 per cart - could ultimately be passed along to consumers.
Councilwoman Dianne Dante raised a different issue: whether the City administration should provide retailers with information about companies that can provide shopping-cart security.
Both questions deserve examination because they address different parts of the same problem.
One concerns the cost of recovering a cart after it has already left a retailer's property. The other concerns whether the City should become involved as a consultant to private businesses in selecting a method for preventing that from happening.
Pueblo's Shopping Cart Problem Is Not New
Pueblo adopted regulations addressing abandoned shopping carts after city officials documented the number of carts being collected throughout the community.
In September 2024, city officials reported that 4,306 shopping carts had been collected between January 2023 and September 2024. Officials estimated that collecting, disposing of, or returning those carts cost the City approximately $24,000 to $50,000 per year.
The City also reported that some retailers were replacing substantial numbers of carts. According to city officials quoted at the time, some stores were ordering 70 or more carts per month. The average shopping cart was estimated at approximately $200 to $300, although the price varies considerably depending upon the type and quality of cart purchased.
That last point is important because the cost of a shopping cart is not fixed.
Commercial shopping carts can be purchased at substantially different prices. Basic carts can be available for roughly $125, while higher-quality or specialized commercial carts can cost $1,100 or more.
The precise replacement price, however, is not really the central issue.
The central issue is that the cart represents a cost to the retailer whether the retailer pays a private company to recover it, pays the municipality a recovery fee, or eventually has to replace it.
What Does the Recovery Fee Actually Change?
The City's cart regulations establish a system under which the retailer responsible for the cart can be held responsible when its cart is recovered by the City.
The purpose is not simply to generate another municipal charge. The City's stated rationale has been that city employees and resources are being used to recover property belonging to private businesses.
That raises the issue Council President Mark Aliff identified: if the retailer is charged as much as $95 for recovering a cart, could that cost eventually be reflected in the price consumers pay?
The answer is that it could.
But that observation applies to all the retailer's other costs as well.
A retailer does not operate without expenses. labor, rent, utilities, insurance, transportation, inventory losses, equipment, maintenance and hundreds of other costs are part of the cost of operating a business.
The fact that an expense is not specifically identified as a "$95 shopping-cart fee" does not mean the business does not have to account for it.
Consider two scenarios.
In the first, a shopping cart leaves a retailer's property and is recovered by the City. The retailer is charged the applicable recovery or impoundment fee, up to the $95 maximum under discussion.
In the second, the cart is never recovered or is no longer usable. The retailer must purchase another cart.
The second expense can be substantially greater than $95.
If a retailer chooses a $125 cart, the replacement cost is already greater than the City's maximum recovery fee.
If the retailer chooses a $1,100 cart, the replacement cost is more than eleven times the $95 recovery fee.
Either expense is ultimately a business expense.
The distinction is therefore not really between a cost that could affect consumers and a cost that cannot.
The more relevant question is - how the retailer can minimize the cost in the first place?
The Better Solution Is Preventing the Cart From Leaving
The most effective shopping-cart recovery program would presumably be the one that does not require the cart to be recovered.
The City's own regulations recognize this principle by placing responsibility on retail establishments for managing and securing their carts.
That makes practical sense.
A shopping cart is the retailer's property. The retailer has a direct financial interest in keeping that property on its premises, maintaining it and replacing it when necessary.
There are multiple technologies and procedures available to retailers for accomplishing that goal, including cart containment systems, locking systems and other cart-management technologies.
The retailer is in the best position to determine which system works for its particular location.
A large grocery store, a small retailer, a store with a large parking lot and a store with a relatively small parking area may have very different security needs.
The cost of a prevention system also has to be considered against the cost of losing carts.
If a business is losing enough carts to require frequent replacement, investing in a system designed to keep those carts on the property may make economic sense even without a municipal fee.
That is ultimately a business decision.
Dante's Proposal Raises a Different Question
Councilwoman Dianne Dante's request that the City administration provide retailers with information about companies that can provide shopping-cart security addresses the prevention side of the problem.
There is nothing inherently unusual about a government agency providing information about regulations or explaining the types of technology that may assist a business in complying with those regulations.
The question becomes different if the City moves from providing information to recommending particular private companies or products.
A retailer that owns the carts is responsible for deciding how best to protect them.
If the City tells retailers that certain types of systems are available, the City is providing information.
If the retailer believes the City is recommending a particular company or security system, the relationship becomes different.
A business could choose to rely upon that recommendation. If the recommended system subsequently failed and the business suffered losses, the business could potentially pursue a claim against the City.
That does not mean that such a claim would necessarily be filed, that the City would necessarily be liable, or that a business would necessarily prevail. It simply identifies a potential consequence of the City moving beyond explaining the requirements and into recommending a private commercial solution.
There is a practical reason for the distinction.
The City establishes and enforces its requirements.
The retailer owns the shopping carts.
The retailer knows its property, parking lot, employees, customers and operating practices.
The retailer can therefore evaluate competing security systems, obtain prices, review warranties and service agreements, and determine which system it believes is appropriate.
That keeps the purchasing decision where it ordinarily belongs: with the owner of the property being protected.
Information Is Different From Endorsement
There is a reasonable middle ground between doing nothing and recommending a particular company.
The City could provide retailers with information explaining the types of cart-management systems available and the requirements retailers must meet under the City's ordinance.
It could tell businesses where they can find vendors and what kinds of technologies are available.
It could explain that cart containment systems, wheel-locking technology, retrieval systems, RFID, GPS, surveillance and other technologies exist.
But the actual selection of a vendor and system could remain the retailer's responsibility.
That distinction protects both sides.
Retailers remain responsible for protecting their property.
The City remains responsible for administering its ordinance.
And taxpayers are not placed in the position of having the City potentially become involved in private commercial purchasing decisions.
The Consumer-Cost Argument Cuts Both Ways
This brings the discussion back to Council President Aliff's concern about the $95 fee.
If the concern is that a retailer might ultimately pass the $95 fee along to consumers, that is a legitimate economic consideration.
But the same reasoning applies to the cost of replacing lost carts.
A retailer that loses shopping carts does not receive replacement carts for free.
Whether the retailer pays $125 for a basic replacement cart, several hundred dollars for a more substantial commercial cart, or more than $1,100 for a higher-end cart, that expense is part of the retailer's cost of doing business.
The retailer has to absorb the cost somehow.
The question is therefore not whether there is a cost.
There is.
The question is which approach produces the lowest overall cost.
Preventing the cart from leaving the property eliminates the recovery problem before it occurs.
If prevention fails, recovering the cart may cost less than replacing it.
And if the cart is never recovered, the retailer may have to purchase another one.
Viewed from that perspective, the $95 fee is not necessarily the largest financial issue associated with an abandoned cart.
It may be the smallest.
The City's Cost Matters Too
There is another party in this equation: taxpayers.
When City employees recover shopping carts, the City incurs labor, vehicle, fuel, administrative and other costs.
City officials estimated those costs at approximately $24,000 to $50,000 annually when the ordinance was being considered.
Those expenses exist whether or not the City charges retailers for recovering the carts.
Without a recovery fee, the cost is borne by the City's taxpayers.
With a recovery fee, at least some of that cost can be shifted back toward the businesses that own the carts.
That is an important part of the discussion when evaluating whether a $95 charge is reasonable.
The question should not be limited to:
"Will the retailer pass the $95 on to consumers?"
It should also include:
"Who pays if the City continues recovering private property without recovering the cost from the property's owner?"
And:
"What is the least expensive way to prevent the problem from occurring?"
Responsibility Should Follow Ownership
There is a straightforward principle underlying the entire issue.
The shopping carts belong to the businesses.
The businesses benefit from having the carts available to their customers.
The businesses also suffer the financial loss when carts disappear.
That gives retailers a direct financial incentive to prevent their carts from leaving their property.
The City, meanwhile, has an interest in preventing public and private property from becoming cluttered with abandoned carts and in avoiding the continued expenditure of public resources recovering them.
Those interests do not necessarily conflict.
The City can establish reasonable rules.
Retailers can comply with those rules and protect their property.
The City can recover reasonable costs when it is required to retrieve a retailer's abandoned property.
And retailers can select whatever prevention method they determine is appropriate for their business.
The Real Question
The shopping-cart debate should therefore be more than an argument over whether $95 is too much.
If a $95 recovery charge is ultimately reflected in consumer prices, that is a cost worth recognizing.
But the alternative costs should also be recognized.
A retailer can lose a cart.
The City can spend public money recovering it.
The retailer can pay a recovery fee.
The retailer can replace the cart.
Or the retailer can invest in a system designed to prevent the cart from leaving the property.
Each choice has a cost.
The most direct way to reduce all of those costs is to prevent the cart from leaving in the first place.
That responsibility belongs primarily with the businesses that own the carts.
And while the City can provide information about the requirements and the general types of security systems available, whether the City should recommend specific private security companies is a separate question - one that deserves careful consideration before government becomes involved in a private retailer's purchasing decision.
The issue ultimately comes down to a relatively simple question:
If the cart belongs to the retailer, who should be responsible for keeping it on the retailer's property?
