BUDGET WORKING PAPER
TO: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
FROM: Bruce Heflin, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Curbside Residential Refuse Collection
DATE: May 3, 2000
At their initial discussion of the budget working paper titled “Curbside Residential Refuse Collection” on April 12, 2000, the Town Council raised several issues for follow-up information discussed below.
#1 – Discuss various cart sizes
As noted in the original budget working paper, the cost analysis was based on use of 68-gallon containers, at a unit cost of $55. We indicated that, while options for different sized containers exist, we would realize the greatest cost advantages if we ordered one size of container only; if we were to select various sizes of containers, we likely would have to pay relatively higher unit costs.
We also believe that the selection of container size should accomplish a dual purpose—it should be sufficiently large to accommodate an average household, while, at the same time, it should not be too large that incentives for solid waste management (e.g., recycling) are minimized.
When we implemented the pilot curbside collection program in September, 1991, we used 90-gallon containers. The pilot area consisted of 585 homes as follows: a complete residential route of 515 homes in Colonial Heights, Mt. Bolus, Elkin Hills and Iron Woods, and 70 homes in the residential route serving the North Street/Cobb Terrace area. We have attached two documents for your information related to this pilot project. The first is a staff analysis dated February 13, 1992 (Attachment II); the second is a consultant’s analysis of survey results (Attachment III). This follow-up analysis based on survey results released in March, 1992, discussed the matter of container size. Most respondents (73%) indicated that the container used was the right size, while 18% believed it was too large and 3% believed it was too small. More than one-third (38%) of households with six or more people said the container was too small.
Given the available mix of recycling services presently used by Chapel Hill households, and the possible future adoption of some type of “Pay-As-You-Throw” system (PAYT), we believe the 68-gallon size will be satisfactory for most households. If a family finds that such a container is too small, then alternatives could be available under a PAYT system to handle larger quantities.
We will have various sizes of containers available at the Council Chambers so that visual comparisons may be made.
#2 – Discuss on-the-job injuries
The attached table (Attachment IV) presenting on-the-job injury data for the Sanitation Division indicates that disproportionately high percentages of injuries and number of days lost due to such injuries generally occur within the Sanitation Division relative to other departmental divisions. This experience is consistent with national findings that curbside collection relative to rear yard service is safer. When we reported on injuries in the early nineties as part of the analysis of curbside, we found that Lexington, KY had a one-third reduction in on-the-job injuries that resulted in lost time subsequent to their change from rear yard to curbside service.
We note that, during our experience in 1991-92, the year of our pilot curbside program, neither of the two lost-time injuries in the Sanitation Division occurred to employees participating in the program.
The recently published document titled “Collection Efficiency – Strategies for Success”, published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and dated December 1999 (Attachment V) cites reduced injury risks as a key benefit to more automated municipal solid waste collection (such as that under consideration by the Town of Chapel Hill). On page 5, it notes the following:
· “Reduced injury risk: Increased automation typically reduces work-related lifting injuries as well as puncture wounds and lacerations.”
EPA’s companion document (“Getting More for Less-Improving Collection Efficiency”) to that cited above also is attached for your information (Attachment VI). This document, released in November 1999, discusses impacts of use of automated collection systems on worker safety on pages 28-29. One example involved Rochester, NY, which converted from backyard to semi-automated curbside (cf., that under consideration here). Results of such change included the following:
· Decrease in miles walked and tons lifted by average collector per day from 13 miles and 6 tons to 6.6 miles and practically no lifting of heavy set-outs
· Decrease in worker days lost due to injuries of 4.5%
· Reduction in workers’ compensation costs over a one year period of 52%
#3 – Discuss twice weekly curbside service
Twice, rather than once, weekly curbside collections were evaluated when we presented a comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits of various residential refuse collection options to the Town Council in the early 1990’s. Relative to once per week service, we found that twice weekly collections would be more costly and less productive. While the level of service would be higher with twice weekly service, more personnel and trucks would be required relative to the once weekly system.
We refer once again to the recent EPA study (Attachment V). One of the main themes of this analysis related to efficiency in collection of MSW is the relative advantage to reducing collection frequency. Under the section “Cost-Cutting Strategies” on page two of this document, the following observation is made:
“The growing trend, even in the hottest climates, is to eliminate the second municipal solid waste (MSW) collection day or replace the second collection day with a recyclables or yard-trimmings collection.”
On page three of this same document, under the caption “Collection Frequency: Less Is Often Best”, advantages cited for weekly collections relative to twice weekly include the following:
· Decreases costs
· Decreases vehicle and labor needs
· Reduces environmental impacts
· Provides opportunities for new or expanded services
· Increases waste diversion
· Balances workload
#4 – How will houses with rear yard collections be identified?
Each driver would have a computer print out in his/her truck identifying the houses authorized for rear yard service. Given the practice of assigning crew members to specific routes in the pilot program, we found that individual drivers and collectors quickly learned which houses were to be collected from rear yards. We believe this was possible in large part because the 6.5% exemption rate requested within the pilot project areas was relatively small.
We also note that the exempted residences would be serviced by crews that would use a scooter for collections. The personnel would be relatively stable and likely would readily learn where the exempted residences were throughout Town.
#5 – Will those serviced by scooter trucks continue to have such
service?
We would discontinue use of scooters as presently operating; rather, we would dedicate the scooter trucks for collecting from residences for which exemptions have been authorized. We propose that exemptions be restricted to those physically unable to get their refuse to the curb for collection.
#6 – How long or steep would a driveway have to be to qualify for rear
yard service?
We would recommend that the physical layout of a driveway alone not be used to determine eligibility for exemption. As suggested above, the physical ability of a resident would be the primary determinant of an exemption, although the difficulty of moving the cart to the curb would likely be part of the determination of abilities of a specific resident.
#7 – What is the age limit for curbside? Rather, will the standard relate to a resident’s physical fitness? Would a doctor’s note be required to verify physical limitations?
In our previous analysis of curbside options submitted in the early 1990’s, we suggested that citizens 65 years in age or older could be considered for exemptions if they requested. We also noted that, based on national experience, many senior citizens do not request exemptions. In fact, we found that the national average for exemptions in curbside programs was less than 5%. In the cited EPA reports (Attachments V and VI), noted exemption rates have ranged from one to six percent. Most programs grant exemptions based on physical limitations of residents. For example, the Town of Carrboro requires a signed request for an exemption, accompanied by a statement from the resident’s physician verifying the physical limitation and its likely duration (cf., temporary or permanent). The City of Durham requires that route supervisors visit each resident requesting an exemption to verify the existence of the resident’s physical limitations. The supervisor may require a physician’s statement if doubt exists. We would propose that a citizen would have to request an exemption in writing, indicating the basis for the request. We would follow-up with a meeting with each resident to verify the claimed need for such exemption.
#8 – Discuss how the program would be phased in. Would there be orientation meetings within neighborhoods?
We have suggested a phased implementation over two fiscal years, starting in the seventh month of each of the two succeeding fiscal periods for half of the Town in each year. Such a schedule would allow for a comprehensive public orientation that would include meetings in individual neighborhoods to discuss operational aspects of the service change. We also would have a broad time period for the transition to the new system so that residents could prepare for such change. This schedule would provide needed time for re-routing, staff training and other operational needs during the transition periods.
#9 – Would carts with large quantities of recyclable materials weigh more than those containers without glass, newspapers, etc.?
Such carts likely would be heavier, because newspaper, mixed paper and glass are generally heavier than the other elements of household refuse. All roll carts would be emptied at the curb using automated equipment, so the weight would not be as significant a factor from the perspective of the collector.
We note that residents presently bring their materials to the curb for recycling collections. Under the weekly curbside collection program, we would anticipate continued use of contracted recycling services as presently constituted. To the extent that residents would divert recyclable materials out of the MSW carts, the weight of materials contained in such carts would be reduced accordingly.
#10 – What were the survey results after the pilot curbside program?
The attached section from FGI’s report “Town of Chapel Hill – Weekly Curbside Garbage Collection Attitude Survey Summary Report” dated March 25, 1992 (Attachment II), indicates most significantly that 74% of survey respondents favored the curbside system, while 19% were opposed. This favorable response was up from the initial 51% favorable rating at the beginning of the program. The attached staff analysis of the pilot program (Attachment II) found that actual exemptions were 6.5%, compared to a rate of 7.5% assumed when the pilot program was designed.
#11 – Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of curbside service relative to the current system of rear yard collections.
1. Increasing annualized savings
2. Potential for future savings through conversion to two-person crews
3. Less absenteeism; likely reduction in turnover; promotes longevity
4. Likely fewer complaints about missed collection because carts on curb are highly visible
5. Least labor intensive and significantly reduces likelihood of personal injuries
6. Less intrusive regarding private property
7. Allows reduction of both personnel (through attrition) and equipment
8. Carts easily rolled, even when full, as opposed to moving cans
9. Would not require any change in type of equipment used (assuming carts bought are compatible with present or modified cart dumpers)
10. Curbside is most efficient point of collection
11. Amenable to phased implementation
12. Affixed lids eliminate varmint or wind-induced littering
13. Carts normally last 10 – 12 years
14. Tends to place a level of responsibility on each resident for his/her own garbage and likely will cause a focus on quantity, resulting in positive effect on recycling
15. Experience in other cities shows that initial public resistance typically wanes as public becomes accustomed to using carts (cf., we found this to be true during our pilot program)
1. Decreased service level to residential public
2. Carts relatively expensive
3. Carts at curbside may be seen as aesthetically unpleasant
4. Cart repairs performed by Town employees (cf., added work)
5. Resident would be required to replace cart damaged due to negligence or misuse as determined by Town staff
6. Requires an exemption policy for residents unable to take the cart to the streeet
7. Roll carts must be removed from curb by resident following collection
8. Eventual Town cost of replacement of carts
We note that twice per week curbside service would have the same advantages and disadvantages relative to the status quo rear yard service with the following exceptions:
1. Twice weekly collections would be less of a service reduction compared to once weekly service
2. Twice weekly collections would cost more than weekly service and, thus, overall savings would be less; this results from the fact that fewer personnel and trucks could be eliminated with two collections per week.
#12 – Discuss residential service in other neighborhoods/developments, including Southern Village.
Gimghoul Road – Residents on the north side of Gimghoul Road use Evergreen Lane, which backs along their properties, for location of residential refuse for collection services by the Town. First, Evergreen Lane is a Town-maintained right-of-way; second, and of equal importance, containers located there are accessible to the Town’s collection equipment. Once weekly collection service using carts could be provided on Evergreen Lane.
Southern Village currently is receiving once a week pickup of residential garbage from a private company. Most of Southern Village has private service alleys that were not built to Town standards. The current provider of garbage collection utilizes a smaller residential rear loader to service those stops in the alleys. Homes that do not have alleys are serviced at the curb.
If the Council decides to annex Southern Village effective July 1, 2001, there are options as to how to provide garbage collection service to the area.
Current Collection System (twice-weekly)
Under the present system of collection, we would provide twice weekly, curbside service to Southern Village. This service would be curbside, since the original Special Use Permit stipulated that public refuse collection services for Southern Village would be made at the curb. The current use of the private service alleys for private refuse collection services did not require approval by the Town.
If we were to provide service twice weekly with our crews, we would need to add an additional collection crew (1 operator and 2 collectors) and equipment at an additional cost of $117,000. This crew would need to be added before the end of next fiscal year to allow time for recruitment and training. We estimate the additional cost for the FY 2000-2001 budget to be $34,000.
In addition, under NC Statutes Sec. 160A-49.3, the Town is required to pay any refuse collection contractor providing service to the annexed area the equivalent of one year of lost income resulting from annexations, or contract with the service provider for a two-year period. Based on data provided by Chatham Disposal, which presently services residences in Southern Village, the 385 homes now served cost $14.75 per residence per month, for an annual unit cost per household of $177. The total current annual cost would be about $68,000. The projected data at the time of annexation would be 450 homes at $15.75 per month, for an annual total of $85,000.
Alternatively, the Town could contract with the current provider to continue the service now provided (once per week, combination of alley and curbside collection). We do not know the cost of such a contract, but we can assume that it would exceed the current price, due to insurance and bonding requirements, plus other contractual stipulations we would likely require. We believe it would not, though, exceed the $117,000 needed to provide twice weekly, curbside service. After the end of the two year contract, we would need to decide how to proceed with collection in Southern Village.
Curbside System
If the Council decided to implement curbside service town-wide, and we were to provide service with our forces, we would provide weekly curbside collection, as elsewhere in Town. This service could be provided without an additional collection crew. We would thus not have to add the $34,000 to the FY 2000-2001 budget, nor the $117,000 to the following year’s budget. We would still have to pay the current contractor approximately $85,000, per State statute, or could contract with them for two years.
Additional Considerations
If additional resources are not added to provide collection service, we anticipate the possible need to add resources upon the complete build out of Southern Village. The number of personnel and equipment that might be needed will depend on such variables as total workload town-wide, including that related to in-fill growth, level of service related to yard waste and special waste collection and the success of the use of two-, rather than three-person collection crews.
There are other possible options for collections in Southern Village that we have not had adequate time to fully consider. We can provide additional information if the Council requests it.
ATTACHMENTS
6. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “Getting More for Less-Improving Collection Efficiency” released November 1999 (begin new page 1)
Because #2 – 6 of these attachments could not be posted on the Town web-site, copies are available for the public to read at the Clerk’s Office in Town Hall and at the Chapel Hill Public Library.