AGENDA #3c

BUDGET WORKING PAPER

TO:                  W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

FROM:            Pat Thomas, Personnel Director

Bruce Heflin, Public Works Director

SUBJECT:       Response to Questions from Mr. Charles Tanquary Regarding Curbside Refuse Collection Service

DATE:             June 5, 2000

The following report responds to a list of questions presented to Council Members on May 13, 2000, by Mr. Charles Tanquary on behalf of Ms. Eunice Brock. Please see attachment #1.

1.      Of the four 10-hour days which sanitation workers are scheduled to work, how many hours do they actually work on the average?

Based on an analysis completed last year of employees on residential routes that work on the task system, we found that there is a wide variation in actual hours worked based mainly on such factors as day of week (cf., Mondays and Tuesdays generally take longer than Thursdays and Fridays); time of the year; speed which each crew chooses to maintain; and individual route on which specific employees work.  Accordingly, the derivation of an arithmetic average should be considered as a representative number only, with many employees working a greater or lesser number of hours that such a process yields.  Notwithstanding these qualifications, we found that the average number of hours per week that an employee assigned to a residential route works is 28.

2.      Do workers punch time clocks to record time on the job?

The sanitation personnel do not use time clocks.  A system has been in place for many years in which one of the supervisors records on a daily basis the start time and end time for every route.  This base record is used to certify weekly and bi-weekly payrolls, which are signed both by the supervisor(s) and the superintendent.

3.      Are they paid overtime if they work beyond 8 hours on a given day even if they remain at or below 40 hours per week?

Employees assigned to residential collection routes work on a task system based on four 10-hour days per week, not 8.  As required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Town uses procedures for payment of overtime consistent with this national legislation.  All recorded overtime is paid as required.  The rate at which such overtime is compensated is determined by actual hours of credited time worked in a declared work cycle (i.e., one week). Completion of a garbage route brings ten hours of credited time. 

For example, before any employee receives time-and-one-half pay for an hour worked, that hour must exceed the number of hours in a declared work cycle, 40. If a residential collector turns in a weekly time sheet with 41 hours, that one extra hour would be paid time-and-one-half only if the first 40 hours were credited work time under the task system. Otherwise, it would be compensated at a straight time rate.

4.      What is the effective hourly rate when calculated for the time actually worked?

Sanitation employees are paid to get the job done in a true task system, not strictly by the hour. The faster they work, the higher their effective hourly rate. The weekly pay rates for a collector range from a minimum of $426 to a maximum of $495.

Since the inception of the task system many years ago, classification and pay grades for sanitation personnel have been established based on competitive annual salaries for similar work.  We have not calculated average hourly rates based on hours worked by specific residential personnel.  Such rates would have the same problems as noted in #1 above.  Individual employees would work varied hours depending on his/her route, refuse quantities, time of year, etc.

5.      Are sanitation workers required to enter side yards and backyards where hazards exist?

Generally, an employee is not required to expose himself/herself to such hazards as loose dogs, for example.  Some employees call such situations in to the main office by radio and indicate why a resident’s refuse is not being collected.  If that citizen calls to complain about a missed collection, then our office staff has the necessary information to relay to the citizen so that the problem may be solved and prevented in the future. Hazards such as holes in the ground, loose dogs not visible or audible from the street, or tools or toys left out cannot be known by the collector before he/she enters the yard.  Please see related information in questions #6 and #7 below.

6.      Are they issued printed forms or tickets which they can check and leave with residents to inform them of problems (hazardous conditions, spilled garbage, overflowing trash)?

The attached form occasionally is checked by collection personnel or a supervisor when a resident does not have his/her refuse collected as scheduled for a specific reason. On such occasions, the form is left at the residence.

7.      What happens if a sanitation worker refuses to enter an area because he judges it to be unsafe, and how frequently does this occur?

Collectors typically do not enter yards with loose dogs. Other reasons why a collector may not initially collect from a rear yard include presence of a new fence, steps and placement of cans. Occasionally, a supervisor may visit a particular site to determine the justification, or lack thereof, for missed collections.  While we do not keep accurate records as to how often a collector independently decides to refuse a collection because of a safety concern, based on complaints we receive over a period of time we do not believe the number of such instances is significant.

8.      How many injuries occurred to sanitation workers in 1999?

There were nine on-the-job injuries in 1998-99 and 7 through the first nine and one-half months of 1999-2000.

9.      How many of the injuries were lost-time accidents?

In Fiscal 1998-99, two of the nine were lost time, for a loss of forty-two days; thus far in 1999-2000, three of the seven have resulted in a loss of twelve days.

10.  What hospitalization, physical therapy and other health-care benefits did the injured employees receive?

If an employee receives a non-emergency injury, then necessary Workers’ Compensation forms are completed and that individual is referred to the Town’s physician.  At this point, he/she either is treated and released, or scheduled for follow-up treatment.  Claims under the Town’s Workers’ Compensation policy are processed by the Personnel Department on behalf of the individual. Employees are eligible to receive all services provided by the Town.

11.  What was the total cost to the Town of the injuries in paid expenses (not covered by insurance) and paid absences?

Using an average hourly rate for Sanitation personnel, the cost in salaries and benefits for the lost fifty-four days noted above was $8,300.

12.  Raleigh offers twice-a-week backyard collection of garbage and trash, partly through the municipal sanitation department and partly through sub-contracting to private companies.  How do our work-related injuries and health-care costs for injured workers compare with Raleigh’s?  How do we compare on collection costs, pay rates, recruiting problems, absenteeism and other issues?  How does the pay scale of the private collection companies in Raleigh compare with that of the Town?

We have not collected such specific data from the City of Raleigh and have not had sufficient time to complete the required research during this budget cycle.  We understand that sub-contracting is limited to recently annexed areas and is a relatively small portion of their overall collection workload.

13.  Where do workers in the Sanitation Division live?

Sanitation employees, like the general Town workforce, commute into Chapel from a variety of locations:

14.  What is the racial composition of the present Sanitation workforce, and the composition of the workforce in other departments?

According to how employees would identify their own racial background, the racial composition of the workforce is as follows:

15.  Mr. Tanquary asked about recruitment efforts in the division, especially for “Latino’s”, and about language skills and other factors related to employment of Latino’s.

The Town recruits extensively for employees through a variety of sources and methods, including:

-           promotions of existing employees

-           word of mouth and internal postings within the departments

-           direct contact with potential candidates through “Applicant Interest Cards” filled out by the candidate (so we can notify them when a position becomes vacant)

-           newspaper advertisements

-           advertisements on web pages

-           paper mailings of the Employment Opportunities List to 110 sources, and e-mail distribution of the list to 40 sources

-           advertisements in professional journals and direct mailings to professional           organizations

We have attempted to post job openings in locations frequented by the Hispanic population, but some locations are reluctant to post job announcements unless they are written in Spanish.  We do not currently have staff with the capability to write Spanish announcements on a regular basis.

Although fluency in English is not a prerequisite to employment with the Town, some facility in English is needed in order to understand instructions and safety regulations.  Some worksite materials have been or are being translated into Spanish, and some employees throughout the Town are fluent in Spanish; also, some supervisors have taken Workplace Spanish courses.  However, any workplace is difficult for those for whom English is a rudimentary second language, and the Town is no exception.

16. Asking department heads to cut their proposed budgets by a fixed percentage is a standard approach to setting priorities and identifying non-essential spending. One Town Council member asked what would happen if the managers were asked to cut 2%, and she was told that the cut would result in firing people and cutting essential services.  She replied that department heads at UNC were asked to cut their budgets by 5%, and they accomplished this without reducing the work force.  Why cannot Chapel Hill follow this same approach, which is standard in most businesses and non-profit organizations, and in many governmental agencies?

In budget working papers dated May 17, 2000, Town department heads presented various options identifying possible cuts from the amount in the “Manager’s Recommended Budget for Fiscal 2000-01.”  For the Public Works Department, none of these percentage reductions involved a reduction in filled positions that would necessitate layoffs. We believe that any reduction involving positions could be accommodated through attrition.  Most of the higher priority cuts were identified in operational and/or capital accounts.  In the first set of options, the cuts amounted to a hold-the-line budget for next year equal to that in the current year for operations and capital outlay.  In the second set of options, we identified cuts that would result in a total that would be 2% less than we had at the start of the current fiscal year.  This cut would equate to a 7% reduction in our operations and capital appropriations next year relative to the amount in the recommended budget.

17.       Many communities charge extra for residents who choose side yard/backyard pick-up rather than curbside.  How much would Chapel Hill have to charge if this were offered as an option?

We do not know this amount.  We would have to calculate the cost based on the relationship between basic service and deviations from the basic service.  For example, the cost differential for side or rear yard service primarily would depend on the number of such customer requests. We could not estimate accurately the number of customer requests without a professional market survey.

18.              If two-thirds of the total waste collected by Chapel Hill comes from commercial outlets and multi-family housing, can fees be levied on these to offset the cost of single-family residential waste collection?

While most of the waste comes from commercial and multi-family sources, most of the cost is generated by residential collections. The cost per ton collected is considerably higher for waste collected twice weekly in the rear yard than for waste collected from dumpsters. The annual collection cost per ton for commercial mixed solid waste is about $32 compared to $196 for residential.

As we understand it, State law requires that fees for municipal services be set no higher than the cost to provide those services. Therefore, we believe it would be illegal to subsidize the cost of rear yard collection by fees charged to those whose waste is collected from dumpsters.

19.       Residents have expressed willingness to move trash cans to the head of their driveways on pick-up days to insure the absence of hazards to sanitation workers.  How much would this reduce the injury rate and increase the efficiency of collection?  (What about changing to) once-a-week pick-up . . .

In the budget working paper on curbside service dated April 12, 2000, excerpts from two recent publications by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency were attached to emphasize the basic themes that opportunities for improved efficiency in residential refuse collections relate to the following features:

·        Reducing the frequency of collections

·        Collecting at the street using semi- or fully-automated systems

In fact, collection of residential mixed solid waste at rear yards was not even mentioned when cost efficient options were being discussed, because of the significant relative costs for such a system.  We believe that the greatest efficiency gains possible here in Chapel Hill are not unlike those everywhere else in the country.  Weekly collection of refuse at the curb provides the most potential for improved productivity and, concurrently, lower costs.  The same quantity of residential waste can be collected using fewer personnel and fewer trucks, necessitating lower costs.

In terms of worker safety, a recent study by the National Institute of Safety and Health lists sanitation collection services as the seventh most hazardous of all jobs surveyed.  The cited EPA studies emphasize repeatedly that systems that are semi- or fully-automated have lower safety risks to collection employees.  Chapel Hill is not unlike every other locality nationwide in this respect.  Our employees would be subject to fewer safety risks if we collected residential mixed solid waste once a week at the curb.

Nevertheless, we would expect that changing the present system to collection at the house end of the driveway, rather than behind or beside the house, would reduce safety hazards an unknown amount. We do not believe that it would improve efficiency because of the change in collection patterns it would require.

Currently a collector takes his large cart behind a house and dumps the garbage cans into it. Then he usually moves across the side yard to the next house and does the same thing until his collection barrel is full. Depending on the layout and terrain of the lots and the volumes of refuse collected, a collector can now loop behind several houses before having to come back out to the truck in the street. If garbage were collected from the house end of the driveway in order to reduce hazards to the collector, then the collectors would no longer be able to collect from several houses before returning to the truck. Hence, distance traveled actually would be increased and efficiency would be reduced rather than improved.

This same pattern is the key as to why once weekly rear yard makes only minimal improvements to efficiency and costs.

Once-weekly Rear Yard Service

We have reported to the Council in the past about once-weekly rear yard service.  We have analyzed this option and concluded that there are not significant savings to be realized through a change from twice weekly to once-weekly rear yard service.  Although there are some marginal gains in staff time spent in collecting once per week, they are not sufficient to realize the reduction of a full route, which would be the only way to effect savings.  In addition, “forcing” the reduction of a route (one operator and two collectors, plus truck) would compromise yard waste collection service, because the “savings” would be taken from our back-up residential workforce, which is the yard waste collection workforce. 

We believe that our analyses of the relative productivity related to the various methods of collection are based on hard data.  We have experience with once weekly curbside service from our pilot program and data from the many other communities that use it.  We have data from our present system. We have extensive experience with once-weekly rear yard service because that is the service provided during several holiday weeks each year.  We have observed our workforce in each of these collection modes and have collected overall route productivity data, time and motion data and have interviewed the collectors and drivers and analyzed their observations.

The central issue that determines the time savings or lack thereof for once-weekly rear yard collection is the distance traveled by the collector from house to house.  With twice weekly service, the collector travels from house to house behind houses, sometimes cutting through from street to street to collect multiple residences in his pull cart.  With once-weekly service, the collector is forced to return to the truck more often, which increases the time required to complete each discrete route segment.  In some cases, the collector can no longer complete several houses on one street and cut through to another due to the need to empty the cart before he can proceed.

We can demonstrate this with overall route timing.  With the current system, each residential route is collected twice each week in a total of about 14 hours. This figure includes one trip each day to the landfill.  Each route is configured so that it only requires a single trip to the landfill.  For a three-person crew, the total staff hours required to service a route twice each week is about 42.

When we collect residential routes once per week during ten holiday weeks, we change several features.  Most of the time, we add a fourth crew member.  We also use supervisory staff to shuttle empty trucks to the field to the crews as they fill up their trucks.  This allows the crews to continue their collections without a second landfill trip.  With adding these resources, we still struggle to complete the heaviest routes before the landfill closes at 4:00.  The average day in these instances is about 9 hours.  Thus, there are about 36 staff hours required to provide the weekly service to the route.  The 36 hours do not include the additional landfill trip.  If we were to implement once-weekly service as the standard service level, we could not afford to divert supervisory staff to shuttle trucks full-time.  Thus, we would add about a half hour on average to each route (some slightly less, some more, depending upon their point of departure from the route to the landfill).  This would mean an additional 2 hours per crew.  The total weekly staff requirement would thus be 38 hours for once-weekly rear yard service.  This means about a 9.5% net gain in time over the 42 hours required for twice weekly rear yard service.

As we have stated in earlier reports, in order to effect a reduction of a full route, we would need to reduce our work hours by 16%.  We believe that once-weekly rear yard service would reduce work hours by about 9.5%.  In addition, we know from experience and by employee interviews that once per week service is the most physically demanding and difficult for the collection staff.  We believe in particularly heavy collection periods, we could have difficulty in being able to complete routes in time to dump our loads at the landfill before it closes, thus necessitating parking loaded trucks, which are fire hazards.  Finally, we now are able to achieve only the occasional 9-hour day (when we have holiday weeks) with the task system.  Requiring the collection staff to work 9 or more hours every day would effectively end the task system, which would further erode productivity.  We could end up with significantly more hours per route.

20.       A Town Council member suggested conducting a survey to determine the attitudes of residents toward side yard/backyard pick-up versus curbside pick-up, and their willingness to modify their disposal habits…and pay extra in taxes or fees to retain the present system. Has such a study been authorized, and, if so, when will it be completed?

The Town Manager indicated at one of the budget work sessions that firms exist that specialize in public survey techniques to determine service preferences of community residents.  While we have not budgeted such a study, we could proceed to prepare specifications for acceptance by the Council and solicit quotes based on such specifications.  The timing of such a study could be determined by the Council within the overall work schedule during Fiscal 2000-01.

ATTACHMENTS

1.         Correspondence dated May 13, 2000 from Mr. Charles Tanquary to Town Council Members and Town Manager titled “A Request from Citizens for Answers to Questions Relating to the Present and the Proposed Systems for the Collection of Residential Solid Waste”

2.         Sanitation Division “NOTICE”