AGENDA #2h(3)

BUDGET WORKING PAPER

TO: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

FROM: Bruce Heflin, Public Works Director

SUBJECT: Curbside Follow-up Information

DATE: May 17, 2000

The information provided below is in response to questions raised at the Budget Work Session on May 3, 2000.

#1 Assess possibilities of running a dual refuse/recycling collection on the same day

Under the present systems for residential garbage service and recycling service, there are 26 garbage routes based on twice weekly service, four days per week and 13.5 recycling routes based on once a week collections at the curb, five days each week. Under these collection cycles, less than half of Chapel Hill residents receive their recycling pickups on one of their two garbage collection days. Given the difference in weekly collection frequencies between the two types of service, we do not believe that it would be cost efficient or logistically feasible to reconcile the two collection cycles so that the goal could be achieved.

Under once weekly service for both programs, we believe that the goal of same day service would be more likely to be achieved. Such coordination would require revision of both garbage and recycling routes and close cooperation with the County’s recycling contractor and the Carrboro Department of Public Works.

#2 Assess how Public Works employees would determine if someone is disabled in order to qualify for a curbside garbage exemption

We have not identified all the details for establishing a valid exemption under the curbside program under consideration. We suggest that residents would request exemptions. A supervisor within the Solid Waste Services Division could then visit a resident to discuss the exemption request. We believe that, in most cases, eligibility could be established withoutdifficulty. In those cases where the Town employee would have questions, we would request as certification from the resident. We would develop more specific procedures that would recognize the need for equity and consideration for the individual resident’s situation and privacy.

#3 Propose a method by which citizens could receive rear yard refuse collection for an extra fee

We believe that a company that specializes in market research could conduct some form of preference survey among Chapel Hill residents to determine a mix of residential refuse collection preferences. We would need such information prior to calculating various fees to recover the costs for optional services different from the basic collection level of service. For example, the number and location of residents who prefer other than standard service and the amount they would be willing to pay would determine the routing, scheduling and, ultimately, costs for overall solid waste collections. Even a relatively small number of residents constituting a specialized route would, if they were widely scattered, result in relatively inefficient routing with resultant higher costs.

#4 Report on various types of injuries incurred by Public Works (Sanitation) employees

The information below identifies specific injuries among Sanitation personnel over the past 2 years.

1999-2000

-collector twisted ankle while exiting truck

-collector strained lower back while lifting

-collector experienced body trauma due to being struck by private vehicle

-collector experienced chest/muscle pains

-collector experienced head injury

-collector twisted ankle

-driver strained back

1998-1999

-collector injured eye

-collector experienced needle prick

-collector strained muscles lifting

-collector had eye injury due to bee sting

-driver strained arm muscles

-driver experienced repetitive motion injury

-driver twisted ankle

-collector sprained foot

-driver experience hand strain

#5 Assess the possibility of designating a special tax district for those desiring to contract for special refuse collection services

This matter has been referred to the Town Attorney to research its legal aspects.

#6 Assess the flexibility of leaving bags at the curb versus use of carts

A system of collection that utilized the placement of bags at curbside would be feasible in terms of collection efficiency. We believe, though, that there are likely concerns with this method. Among the concerns would be problems caused by animals tearing bags open, with concomitant issues of responsibility for cleaning up the resultant garbage. Loose bags likely would increase spillage of garbage and resultant liquids during the collection process, with cleanup responsibilities falling upon the collectors, which would compromise collection efficiency and add to the sanitary issues of the job. Bags with very light loads would be subject to blowing in high winds. There would also be placement issues similar to curbside carts in many areas. In addition, there would be appearance issues with the placement of loose bags along the town’s streets.

#7 Provide cost estimates for each size of cart

Once a cart size(s) is/are selected, we would solicit bids as previously indicated. Our use of $55 per unit for 68-gallon containers was based on recent contact by a specific vendor based on acquisition of a certain estimated quantity and one size only. If we were to solicit bids for smaller quantities at various sizes, we believe unit costs would be greater, resulting in a higher total cost. We believe the threshold for quantity discounts is about 10,000 carts of the same size. We believe that the smaller the size, the lower the cost of a cart. We do not know how a mix of cart sizes, some with lower prices but without the quantity discount, would compare in total price to a larger number of a single size cart. We believe that we would likely not definitively know unless we bid the carts that way.

#8 Include topography exemptions in a potential curbside system

We believe it would be difficult to set a blanket general policy that would qualify certain topographical features for an exemption. Rather, we recommend that flexibility be built into the system to allow management to grant such an exemption on a case-by-case basis. We believe the suggested flexibility should consider the layout of the street, the physical abilities of the resident and available options for placement of the cart.

#9 Assess the feasibility of neighbors having rollout carts of varying sizes

We believe this issue relates to #7 above. Using different size(s) of carts would affect program costs, as discussed in #7. In addition, there would be administrative issues concerning how residents would choose their size of cart, how subsequent changes would be processed, and how to handle surplus carts if a large number of residents opted to change their cart size after some experience with a smaller or larger cart. We are aware of some cities in which the latter issue has arisen, with the affected municipalities being left with more of one cart size than their residents wanted. We note that we have already been approached by some residents who have asked if more than one cart could be acquired for a single residence.

Assuming that different sized carts were specified to all be compatible with our tipping equipment, there should be limited operational effects of having more than one size in use.