|
AGENDA #3b BUDGET WORKING PAPER TO: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager FROM: Bruce Heflin, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Responses to Council Members’ Questions Regarding Curbside Refuse Collection Service DATE: June 5, 2000 We recently received a list of questions from Council Members related to curbside refuse collection. #1 How many garbage collection routes are there and which routes generate the most garbage and which the least? There currently
are twenty-six residential refuse collection routes serviced by six and
one half crews operating either on a Monday/Thursday or a Tuesday/Friday
weekly collection schedule. Based on a recent sight count, these routes
collect from about 9,700 residences. The routes with the typical greatest
quantities of refuse operate on Tuesdays/Fridays and serve the areas that
include the following neighborhoods: Laurel Hill, Morgan Creek, #2 Approximately how many households currently put their garbage at the curbside, either in cans or bags? While we do not know the exact number, we estimate that it is less than 10 percent of total households served. #3 Which are the neighborhoods where large numbers of households currently place garbage at the curbside for collection? The following neighborhoods typically have more containers at the curbside for collection: Ironwoods, Parkside, Homestead Village, Windhover and Springcrest. #4 Why do some neighborhoods already put garbage at the curbside? If this is not known, how could this be determined? While we have some ideas as to why certain residents voluntarily bring their garbage to the curb for collection, we have not conducted any specific survey to determine the exact number that does so, nor the reasons behind such placements. Some residents began the practice when we conducted the curbside pilot program several years ago. Other residents have chosen to place their refuse at curbside because they grew accustomed to doing so where they formerly lived. A survey of such households by a private firm specializing in public surveys would be the best approach to obtain this information. While we have not included funds for such a survey in next year’s base budget, we could proceed with development of specifications for such a survey and solicitation of a firm to conduct it, along with cost information and options for payment, if the Council were to request such a survey. #5 How have the areas where a majority of households put their garbage at the curb differed in the following: 1) the time it takes to collect the garbage; 2) numbers of complaints from citizens; and 3) numbers of problems for collectors? While we have not completed a specific survey as indicated in #4 above, we do know the following: 1) it takes the collection crew considerably less time to empty garbage left at curbside because such refuse does not have to be emptied into an orange barrel at the rear of one house, carried from house to house until that orange barrel has been filled and then taken to the garbage truck to be emptied; 2) there are few, if any, instances of missed garbage because the refuse is present at curbside for the collectors to see and, hence, there are minimal citizen complaints about missed garbage; we have had fewer complaints of all types from citizens placing their refuse at the curb relative to complaints received from residents receiving rear yard service; and 3) rather than presenting problems for collectors, refuse left at the curb is easier for them to collect more efficiently, requiring less time, and in a manner that is relatively safe. Within each of these neighborhoods, those residents wanting rear yard service are collected twice weekly at the rear yard. #6 In the latest landfill garbage sort, how much residential garbage that can be recycled is currently being landfilled? According to the Orange County recycling staff, an estimated 62 percent of residential mixed solid waste that could be recycled is being disposed at the landfill. This is based on data from an analysis of waste handled within Orange County, of which the Town of Chapel Hill is a portion. The specific data were not readily available for the Town only. About 22% of the waste stream was determined to be recyclable at the curb (i.e., primarily paper, plastics and glass); the remaining 40% could be recycled through options other than curbside, primarily through composting of organic food wastes, use of drop off sites, at the landfill, etc. #7 What happens to the garbage containers that residents currently are using for garbage collection if the Town buys roll-out carts for each household, particularly those households with limited space for such storage? Does this have the potential for these cans to be landfilled? Is there some way of recycling such cans if we go to a Town owned cart system? Each resident would have to decide what to do with his/her present container(s). Those made of plastic may not be recyclable, while the relative few that are metal could be. We could coordinate with the Orange County Solid Waste Department as to how disposal might be handled. Some residents might use their containers to put yard waste at the curb for collection. #8 Why spend tax dollars for carts when some citizens already are using their own containers (whether bags or cans) for curbside collection? The use of carts would allow semi-automated collection of residential waste, which would be one major step in the direction of overall service efficiency. Additional future cost savings could be possible with these containers if we find that two- rather than three-person crews could function satisfactorily. In addition, uniform containers with attached and latching lids would have added advantages related to aesthetics and cleanliness. The option of having the Town provide the cart is a matter primarily of convenience to the homeowner in that he/she would not have to locate, obtain and pay for such a container. #9 Which neighborhoods would have the most difficulty with a curbside collection system and what are those difficulties or obstacles? While we believe that most, and likely all, neighborhoods within Town could be changed to curbside service, some neighborhoods would have relatively greater problems with slopes overall and some neighborhoods might contain a small number of residences that could present such topographical problems. However, we do not know of any neighborhood that could not be collected based solely on physical characteristics. Most, if not all situations, could be accommodated. The neighborhoods selected for the pilot program in September, 1991, included a variety of topographical characteristics and a broad range of demographics in terms of the residents served. The pilot areas included Colonial Heights, Mt. Bolus, Elkin Hills, Ironwoods and the North Street/Cobb Terrace neighborhood. We did not attempt to select neighborhoods in which curbside service would have a disproportionate likelihood of success. Rather, our aim was to select representative neighborhoods that would result in valid and reliable data for an analysis of program results. We generally found that curbside service was feasible throughout all test areas (cf., at all but one location) and that the actual exemptions requested were 6.5%, rather than the assumed 7.% rate when the program was designed. #10 What sort of Town-wide survey has been conducted to identify neighborhoods that could pose problems for a curbside collection system? We have not had such a survey to identify such variables as topographical characteristics and driveway lengths Town-wide, but could do so if the Council were to request such an undertaking. As discussed above, we did have an analysis made of the pilot curbside program following one year of program implementation in the early 1990’s. We learned from the consultant’s analysis of survey results that the curbside program basically was successful in both pilot areas. The proportion of survey respondents who said that they were in favor of curbside collection changed from the beginning of the program to the end from 51% to 74%. The number of exceptions to the curbside service was lower than anticipated. #11 Could this not be the basis for exemptions as well as physical disabilities? In previous documents, we have suggested a combination of the following as criteria for establishing exemptions: · Physical limitations of individual residents · Geographical conditions at individual residences · Options (or lack thereof) available for placement of containers #12 What sort of actual Town-wide survey has been done to determine citizens with special needs? As previously noted, such a survey has not been conducted; however, we could proceed with one as indicated above. As previously noted, the survey of the pilot program indicated an exemption rate of 6.5%; we had assumed the rate would be 7.5%. #13 If such a survey were conducted, how would it be done and who would establish the criteria for special needs? If the Council indicates an interest in such a survey, we could prepare a recommended set of specifications that the Council could approve before we would solicit private quotes for such a survey. We would include options for the Council’s consideration that would relate to possible criteria for determining eligibility for physical handicap exemptions. |