Long-Term Solid Waste Management Strategic Plan€¦ · Long-Term Solid Waste Management Strategic...

Long-Term Sol id Waste Management S t ra teg ic P lan

Presented to:

C i t y o f K a n s a s C i t y , M i s s o u r i

Public Works Department

Solid Waste Division 23rd Floor, City Hall 414 East 12th Street

Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Presented by:

S C S E N G I N E E R S 10975 El Monte, Suite 100

Overland Park, Kansas 66211 (913) 451-7510

February 12, 2008

File No. 08207016.01

Offices Nationwide www.scsengineers.com

In Association With

MCE Services, LLC

L o n g - T e r m S o l i d W a s t e M a n a g e m e n t S t r a t e g i c P l a n

L O N G - T E R M S O L I D W A S T E M A N A G E M E N T S T R A T E G I C P L A N

Presented To:

C i t y o f K a n s a s C i t y , M i s s o u r i Public Works Department

Solid Waste Division 23rd Floor, City Hall

414 E. 12th Street Kansas City, MO 64106

Presented By:

S C S E N G I N E E R S 10975 El Monte, Suite 100 Overland Park, KS 66211

(913) 451-7510

In Association With:

Franklin Associates A Division of ERG

4121 W. 83rd Street, Suite 108 Prairie Village, KS 66208

(913) 649-2225

Timlis Arketekcher, Inc. 4609 Paseo Boulevard, Suite 100

Kansas City, MO, 64110 (816) 861-4900

Mustardseed Cultural and Environmental Services

606 East 66th Street Kansas City, Missouri 64131

(816) 333-2480

Valdés & Moreno, Inc. 1600 Genesee, Suite 630 Kansas City, MO, 64102

(816) 221-6700

Jane Mobley Associates 4116 West 3rd Street, Suite 102

Kansas City, MO, 64105 (816) 472-1930

February 12, 2008


i

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s Section Page Definitions...........................................................................................................................................................ix Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................ xix

Waste Management Needs ..............................................................................................................xix Waste Management Alternatives.....................................................................................................xix Implementation of Recommended Alternatives ............................................................................xxvi

1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 2 Summary of Current Waste Management Programs and Facilities......................................... 2-5

Current Waste Management Programs .........................................................................................2-5 Kansas City Solid Waste Management Programs ............................................................2-5

Refuse Collection.......................................................................................................... 2-5 Recyclables Collection................................................................................................. 2-5 Leaf and Brush Collection........................................................................................... 2-6 Bulky Item Collection ................................................................................................... 2-6 Neighborhood Cleanup Assistance Program.......................................................... 2-7 Tire Collection ............................................................................................................... 2-7 Organics Collection ..................................................................................................... 2-7 Freon Collection............................................................................................................ 2-8 Illegal Dumping Abatement ....................................................................................... 2-8 Dead Animal Collection .............................................................................................. 2-8

Area Municipal Solid Waste Management Facilities...................................................................2-8 Missouri Area Landfills............................................................................................................2-8

Courtney Ridge Landfill .............................................................................................. 2-8 Lee’s Summit Landfill ................................................................................................... 2-8 Show Me Regional Landfill ........................................................................................ 2-8 St. Joseph Landfill ........................................................................................................ 2-9

Kansas Area Landfills..............................................................................................................2-9 Johnson County Landfill .............................................................................................. 2-9 Hamm Quarry Landfill ................................................................................................ 2-9

Area Municipal Solid Waste Processing Facilities.............................................................2-9 Deffenbaugh Industries ............................................................................................... 2-9 Lafarge Alternate Solid Fuels Facility...................................................................... 2-9 Missouri Organic Recycling Facility ........................................................................2-10

Missouri Area Transfer Stations ......................................................................................... 2-10 3 Future Municipal Solid Waste Management Needs .................................................................3-11

Residential Municipal Solid Waste.................................................................................... 3-11 Commercial Municipal Solid Waste .................................................................................. 3-11 Total Municipal Solid Waste .............................................................................................. 3-12 Composition of Municipal Solid Waste Disposed........................................................... 3-12

4 Overview of Alternatives Considered .........................................................................................4-19 Analysis of Options ......................................................................................................................... 4-19 The “Status-Quo” Option................................................................................................................ 4-20

5 City policies.......................................................................................................................................5-21


i i

Establish a Diversion Goal ............................................................................................................. 5-21 Current and Historical Diversion Rates.............................................................................. 5-21 Recommended Goal............................................................................................................. 5-22 Measurement Toward Progress.......................................................................................... 5-22

Internal Recycling Program............................................................................................................ 5-22 City Waste Reduction Policies....................................................................................................... 5-23 Procurement of Recycled Products and Environmentally Preferable Purchasing................. 5-24

Recycled Products ................................................................................................................. 5-24 Environmentally Preferable Purchasing ............................................................................ 5-24 Kansas City Environmentally Preferable Procurement Policy ....................................... 5-25

Use of Recovered Materials in City Projects .............................................................................. 5-28 6 City Ordinances ...............................................................................................................................6-31

Special Event Recycling .................................................................................................................. 6-31 Mandatory Recycling Ordinance.................................................................................................. 6-32

Current City Program........................................................................................................... 6-32 Mandatory Source Separation of Recyclables ............................................................... 6-34

Residential Ordinances .............................................................................................6-34 Multi-family, Commercial, and Institution Recycling Ordinances.......................6-36

Public Perception of Mandatory Recycling...................................................................... 6-40 Implementation Issues ........................................................................................................... 6-40

7 Education, Promotion, and Technical Assistance Program ........................................................7-43 Current Education Program............................................................................................................ 7-43 Public Perception of Education program..................................................................................... 7-43 Alternative Option........................................................................................................................... 7-43

Description of Programs ...................................................................................................... 7-44 Public Education and Outreach ...............................................................................7-44 Businesses Education and Outreach........................................................................7-45

Technical Assistance.............................................................................................................. 7-47 Staffing................................................................................................................................... 7-48 Program Costs ....................................................................................................................... 7-49

Methods of Financing and Funding.........................................................................7-50 Advantages and Disadvantages ....................................................................................... 7-51

Advantages.................................................................................................................7-51 Disadvantages............................................................................................................7-51

8 Curbside Collection of recyclables...............................................................................................8-53 Current Curbside Collection System – KC Recycles................................................................... 8-53 Public Perception of the KC Recycles Program.......................................................................... 8-54

Public Opinion Survey.......................................................................................................... 8-54 Focus Group Discussion ........................................................................................................ 8-54 Glass Recycling ..................................................................................................................... 8-54

Current System ...........................................................................................................8-54 Public Perception of Glass Container Collection..................................................8-54

Collection Alternative...................................................................................................................... 8-55 Implementation Issues ...................................................................................................................... 8-56

9 Recycling Drop-off Facilities ..........................................................................................................9-57


i i i

Public Perception of Drop-Off Facilities...................................................................................... 9-58 Recommended Changes ................................................................................................................. 9-58

10 Electronics Recycling Program .................................................................................................... 10-61 Introduction......................................................................................................................................10-61

Federal and State Initiatives ............................................................................................10-61 State of Missouri Initiatives ...............................................................................................10-62

Current Electronics Collection Program......................................................................................10-63 Public Perception of an Electronics Recycling Program ..........................................................10-63 Collection Options for Electronic Waste....................................................................................10-63

Special Event Collection.....................................................................................................10-63 Permanent Collection Program.........................................................................................10-64 Curbside Collection.............................................................................................................10-65

Alternative Collection Option for Kansas City .........................................................................10-65 Implementation Issues ....................................................................................................................10-66

Federal Requirements ........................................................................................................10-66 State Requirements.............................................................................................................10-67

11 Food/Organics Collection ........................................................................................................... 11-69 Current Program ............................................................................................................................11-69 Public Perception of Residential Food Waste Collection .......................................................11-69 Collection Alternative....................................................................................................................11-71 Other Jurisdictions..........................................................................................................................11-73

Supplemental Residential Food Waste Collection Experience...................................11-75 Implementation ...............................................................................................................................11-77

12 Glass Container Collection.......................................................................................................... 12-79 Current Collection System ............................................................................................................12-79 Collection Alternative....................................................................................................................12-79 Other Jurisdictions..........................................................................................................................12-81 Implementation Issues ....................................................................................................................12-81

13 Commercial Sector Recycling...................................................................................................... 13-83 Current System ...............................................................................................................................13-83 Commercial Collection in Other Jurisdictions ............................................................................13-84 Commercial Collection Program for Kansas City.....................................................................13-84

14 Leaf and Brush Collection............................................................................................................ 14-87 Current Program ............................................................................................................................14-87 Public Perception of Leaf and Brush Collection........................................................................14-87 Recommended Changes ...............................................................................................................14-87

15 Leaf and Brush Drop-Off Facilities............................................................................................ 15-89 Current Program ............................................................................................................................15-89 Public Perception of the Current Program ................................................................................15-90 Recommended Changes ...............................................................................................................15-90

Fees .......................................................................................................................................15-90 Additional Location.............................................................................................................15-92


i v

16 Recyclables Sorting Facility ........................................................................................................ 16-93 Potential Location...........................................................................................................................16-93 Equipment and Labor Needs.......................................................................................................16-94

17 Residential Refuse Collection...................................................................................................... 17-97 Current Collection System ............................................................................................................17-97

City Services ........................................................................................................................17-97 Collection Methods .............................................................................................................17-98

Trash Cart Pilot Program..............................................................................................................17-98 Pilot Program Results..........................................................................................................17-98 Public Perception of Pilot Cart Program ........................................................................17-99

Public Perception of Refuse Collection Program................................................................... 17-100 Recommended Collection Program ......................................................................................... 17-101 Other Jurisdictions....................................................................................................................... 17-105 Implementation ............................................................................................................................ 17-106

18 Bulky Item Collection ..................................................................................................................18-109 Current Program ......................................................................................................................... 18-109 Public Perception of Bulky Item Collection Program ............................................................ 18-110 Recommended Changes ............................................................................................................ 18-110

19 City Facility Collection ...............................................................................................................19-113 Current Program ......................................................................................................................... 19-113 Recommended Change.............................................................................................................. 19-113

20 Illegal Dumping Abatement ......................................................................................................20-115 Current Program ......................................................................................................................... 20-115 Public Perception of Illegal Dumping Abatement Program................................................ 20-115 Recommended Changes ............................................................................................................ 20-115

21 Dead Animal Collection .............................................................................................................21-119 Public Perception of the Dead Animal Collection Program ................................................ 21-119 Recommended Program Change............................................................................................. 21-119

22 Debris Management...................................................................................................................22-121 Develop a Debris Management Plan...................................................................................... 22-121 Establish Locations for Emergency Staging and Temporary Storage of Debris Generated by Natural Disasters ........................................................................................................................ 22-121

23 Transfer of Waste/Processing of Recyclables......................................................................23-125 Transfer of Waste ...................................................................................................................... 23-125

Current Program .............................................................................................................. 23-125 Alternative Program........................................................................................................ 23-126

Direct Haul..............................................................................................................23-126 Transfer Station.....................................................................................................23-127 Direct Haul Costs versus Transfer Haul and Station Costs.............................23-128

Public Perception of the Transfer Station Option ...................................................... 23-129 Processing of Recyclables ......................................................................................................... 23-130

Current Program .............................................................................................................. 23-130


v

Alternative Program........................................................................................................ 23-131 Public Perception of Recyclables Processing Alternative ......................................... 23-131

Kansas City Eco Center.............................................................................................................. 23-133 Processing Concept and Layout .................................................................................... 23-134

Waste Stream .......................................................................................................23-134 Process Design .......................................................................................................23-137 Architectural Design..............................................................................................23-138 Site Layout .............................................................................................................23-138 Site Rendering .......................................................................................................23-139

Kansas City Eco Center Costs ........................................................................................ 23-139 Capital Costs .........................................................................................................23-139 Operating and Maintenance Expenses ............................................................23-139 Debt Service ..........................................................................................................23-139 Income Statement..................................................................................................23-140

24 Conversion Technologies............................................................................................................24-151 Overview of Technologies......................................................................................................... 24-151

Hydrolysis.......................................................................................................................... 24-151 Gasification....................................................................................................................... 24-151 Anaerobic Digestion ........................................................................................................ 24-152 Plasma Arc ........................................................................................................................ 24-152

Comparative Aspects of Technologies.................................................................................... 24-153 Capital and Operational Costs..................................................................................... 24-153

Prior Studies................................................................................................................................. 24-154 State of California........................................................................................................... 24-155 Los Angeles County.......................................................................................................... 24-155 City of Los Angeles.......................................................................................................... 24-155 New York City .................................................................................................................. 24-156

Public Perception of Facilities to Create Energy from Waste............................................ 24-156 Recommendation......................................................................................................................... 24-156

25 Incineration/Waste-to-Energy .................................................................................................25-159 Facility Types............................................................................................................................... 25-159

Mass Burn Facilities.......................................................................................................... 25-159 Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Facilities ............................................................................. 25-159 Fluidized-Bed Combustion Facilities ............................................................................. 25-159 Modular Combustion ....................................................................................................... 25-159

Basic Combustion System........................................................................................................... 25-160 Components....................................................................................................................... 25-160 Stages of Combustion ..................................................................................................... 25-160 Waste-to-Energy Solid Waste Combustors................................................................ 25-161 Products of Combustion................................................................................................... 25-162

Energy Markets ........................................................................................................................... 25-163 Steam ................................................................................................................................. 25-163 Electricity ........................................................................................................................... 25-164

Environmental Requirements ..................................................................................................... 25-164 Economics...................................................................................................................................... 25-165 Other Jurisdictions....................................................................................................................... 25-166


v i

Public Perception of Facilities to Create Energy from Waste............................................ 25-166 Recommendation......................................................................................................................... 25-167

26 Landfill Disposal..........................................................................................................................26-169 Current Program ......................................................................................................................... 26-169 Public Opinion ............................................................................................................................. 26-169 Landfill Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 26-169

Landfill Size ...................................................................................................................... 26-170 General Landfill Costs .................................................................................................... 26-170

Pre-Development Costs........................................................................................26-170 Site Capital Costs .................................................................................................26-171 Construction Costs .................................................................................................26-171 Operational Costs.................................................................................................26-172 Closure Costs..........................................................................................................26-172 Post-Closure Costs.................................................................................................26-172 Summary of Capital Costs...................................................................................26-173 Annualized Costs ...................................................................................................26-173

Ownership Options.......................................................................................................... 26-174 Landfill Siting Considerations ........................................................................................ 26-175 Landfill Permitting Considerations ................................................................................ 26-175

Alternative Landfill Technologies ............................................................................................. 26-175 Recommendation......................................................................................................................... 26-176

27 Projected City Expenditures for New Programs...................................................................27-177 Solid Waste System Analysis ................................................................................................... 27-177

System Credit ................................................................................................................... 27-177 Kansas City Eco Center................................................................................................... 27-177

Projected General Fund Impact ............................................................................................... 27-177 28 Financing.......................................................................................................................................28-185

General Obligation Bond Offering ........................................................................................ 28-185 Revenue Bond Offering............................................................................................................. 28-185 Revenue Bond Offering with an Annual Appropriation Pledge ........................................ 28-185 Cash from the General Fund .................................................................................................... 28-186

29 Implementation ............................................................................................................................29-187 Implementation Schedule........................................................................................................... 29-187 Procurement Options .................................................................................................................. 29-187

Architect/Engineer (A/E) Approach ............................................................................. 29-189 Turnkey Approach ........................................................................................................... 29-190 Full-Service Approach..................................................................................................... 29-190

Procedures for Conducting the Procurement Process ........................................................... 29-190 Competitive Sealed Bidding.......................................................................................... 29-191 Multiple-Step or Simultaneous Negotiations Method................................................ 29-191 Competitive Negotiation ................................................................................................ 29-191 Sole-Source Negotiation ................................................................................................ 29-192

Procurement Plan for the Transfer Station/Material Recovery Facility ........................... 29-193


v i i

L i s t o f F i g u r e s

No. Page Figure 1. Waste Management Hierarchy ........................................................................................... 1-2 Figure 2. Kansas City Residential Trash Management....................................................................3-15 Figure 3. Garbage Tag used by Seattle ..........................................................................................6-35 Figure 4. Westchester County Enforcement Stickers........................................................................6-36 Figure 5. Location of Existing Community Recycling Centers .........................................................9-57 Figure 6. Responses Regarding Recycling of Organics/Food.................................................... 11-70 Figure 7. MARC Survey Result – Question 10 ............................................................................... 11-70 Figure 8. Location of Leaf and Brush Drop-Off Facilities............................................................ 15-89 Figure 9. City-Owned Warehouse - Interior ................................................................................. 16-93 Figure 10. City-Owned Warehouse - Exterior ..................................................................... 16-94 Figure 11. Example of a Six-Man Sorting Station ............................................................... 16-94 Figure 12. Example of an Eight-Man Sorting Station.......................................................... 16-95 Figure 13. Desire for a City-Wide Trash Carts Program .................................................17-100 Figure 14. City of Olathe, Kansas, Automated Collection Vehicle..................................17-106 Figure 15. Bulky Item Collection Zones.................................................................................18-109 Figure 16. Alternative Landfills and Transfer Stations ......................................................23-125 Figure 17. Kansas City Transfer Station...............................................................................23-130 Figure 18. Kansas City Material Recovery Facility and Glass Processing Facility ......23-132 Figure 19. Relative Capital Costs..........................................................................................24-154 Figure 20. Public Opinion of Waste-to-Energy/Conversion Technology.......................24-156 Figure 21. Typical Waste-to-Energy Facility Schematic ...................................................25-162 Figure 22. Public Opinion of Waste-to-Energy/Conversion Technology.......................25-167 Figure 23. Solid Waste System – Implementation Plan ....................................................29-188

L i s t o f T a b l e s No. Page Table 1. Residential Solid Waste Collected for Disposal, Recovered for Recycling and

Composting, and Generated in Kansas City, Missouri, 2000 – 2006 ....................................3-13 Table 2. Projected Residential Solid Waste Collected for Disposal, Recovered for Recycling

and Composting, and Generated in Kansas City, Missouri, 2006 – 2030 ............................3-14 Table 3. Commercial Solid Waste Collected for Disposal, Recovered for Recycling, and

Generated in Kansas City, Missouri, 2000 – 2006....................................................................3-15 Table 4. Projected Commercial Solid Waste Collected for Disposal, Recovered for Recycling,

and Generated in Kansas City, Missouri, 2006 – 2030............................................................3-16 Table 5. Solid Waste Collected for Disposal, Recovered for Recycling and Composting, and

Generated in Kansas City, Missouri, 2000 – 2006 (1)(2).........................................................3-16 Table 6. Municipal Solid Waste Composition as Determined by Regional Waste Sort Studies

(Percent by weight of total sample)...............................................................................................3-17 Table 7. Kansas City Residential Diversion Rate ............................................................................5-21 Table 8. Federal Procurement Guidelines........................................................................................5-27 Table 9. Kansas City LEED Silver Standard Policy .........................................................................5-29


v i i i

Table 10. Recyclables in Kansas City Residential Waste Stream.......................................6-33 Table 11. Residential Education Program Components.........................................................7-46 Table 12. Kansas City NAICS Codes........................................................................................7-47 Table 13. Administrative Costs: Education, Promotion, Technical Assistance Program...7-50 Table 14. Summary of Curbside Recycling Expenditures and Revenues ...........................8-53 Table 15. First Year Cost Estimates for Curbside Recycling.................................................8-56 Table 16. First Year Cost Estimates for Residential Organics Collection ........................ 11-72 Table 17. Reasons for Non-Participation.............................................................................. 11-76 Table 18. First Year Cost Estimates for Glass Container Collection ................................ 12-80 Table 19. Summary of Expenditures and Revenues – Trash Collection .......................... 17-97 Table 20. Cost Estimates for Different Refuse Collection Technologies ........................17-102 Table 21. First Year Cost Estimates for Automated Collection .......................................17-104 Table 22. Comparison of Automated and Manual Collection Costs..............................17-105 Table 23. Alternative Solid Waste Disposal Facilities .....................................................23-126 Table 24. Relative Direct Haul Cost.....................................................................................23-127 Table 25. Costs to Transfer Waste ......................................................................................23-128 Table 26. Transfer Versus Direct Haul Comparisons.........................................................23-129 Table 27. Example Calculation of Cost Sharing................................................................23-131 Table 28. Material Receipts Anticipated at the Facility ..................................................23-134 Table 29. Material Recovery Facility Throughput Units ...................................................23-136 Table 30. Recyclables and Revenue Summary..................................................................23-137 Table 31. Kansas City Eco Center-Opinion of Probable Cost ........................................23-139 Table 32. Projected Operation and Maintenance Expenses ..........................................23-141 Table 33. Income Statement..................................................................................................23-142 Table 34. General Overview of Conversion Technologies..............................................24-153 Table 35. Estimated Landfill Capital Costs ........................................................................26-173 Table 36. Estimated Landfill Cost (per ton) ........................................................................26-174 Table 37. Solid Waste System Implementation Costs - Summary..................................27-178 Table 38. Budget impact .......................................................................................................27-180 Table 39. Typical Project Responsibilities by Procurement Approach ..........................29-189 A p p e n d i c e s Appendix A: “Status Quo” Option, City Expenditures for Solid Waste Management, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2027

Appendix B: Kansas City Environmentally Preferable Procurement Policy

Appendix C: Summary of Annual Costs for Alternative Programs

Appendix D: Direct Haul/Transfer Station Costs

Appendix E: “Solid Waste System” Options, City Expenditures for Solid Waste Management, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2027


i x

DEF IN I T IONS

Automated Collection - the use of mechanical devices to lift and empty solid waste containers into solid waste collection vehicles. Automated collection consists of semi-automated, fully-automated collection of residential solid wastes and recyclables and front-end loader collection.

Bans - a term used to describe an act, normally by legislation or regulation, that forbids certain materials from being received and processed by a solid waste management facility. For example, the State of Missouri has a ban on the disposal of yard waste in landfills.

Bin or Container - common terms for storage containers for residential, commercial, institutional or industrial solid waste and recyclables (see also Cart and Dumpster).

Bioreactor Landfill – engineered landfill or landfill cell, where liquid and gas are actively managed in order to accelerate or enhance biostabilization of waste.

Box - a common term used for roll - off containers.

Business - any commercial enterprise, such as restaurants, hotels, offices, retail stores, and warehouses.

Bulky Waste (Bulky Items) - large items of solid waste, other than white goods, which because of their bulk/size, require special collection and management. Examples include stumps, furniture, large auto parts, hot water heaters, furnaces, and perhaps remodeling materials from residential sources. Bulky wastes are normally generated by residential sources.

Capital Financing - financing used to pay for the development of capital assets, e.g. in solid waste management, fixed assets would be solid waste management facilities and, in some cases, equipment. Local governments raise capital primarily by bonds (general obligation, project, or revenue bonds) and private for - profit organizations use loans, stock issues or industrial bonds.

Cart - a common term for storage containers used in semi - automated and fully - automated residential solid waste and recyclables collection systems. Carts are equipped with wheels to enable them to be rolled to the curb to be emptied.

Cart Dumper - a mechanical device used in semi - automated and fully - automated collection to lift and empty carts. Also called flippers and tippers.

Collection - the act of removing accumulated solid waste from the point of collection and transporting it to a solid waste management facility; collection may also occur at centralized points where generators deliver their solid waste.

Collection Frequency - the number of times per week that collection service is provided.

Collection/Service Stop - a term used to describe a unique address that is a point of collection and requires collection services, i.e., a geographical point within a service area that requires the collection vehicle to stop and collect solid waste and/or recyclables, or other materials.


x

Collection System - a combination of the various components that are necessary to provide a collection service, including the system design, equipment and human resources, point of collection, frequency, system costs, and method of financing.

Commercial Collection - the collection of solid waste and recyclables from a business or industrial complex (generators of commercial, institutional and industrial, nonprocess, non - hazardous solid waste) generally using specialized containers and collection vehicles.

Commercial Solid Waste - solid waste generated by businesses, institutions, general health care wastes from health care facilities and health care providers, and solid waste from industries, that is similar in characteristics to that generated by businesses.

Compost - an organic soil conditioner that has been stabilized to a humuslike product that is free of viable human and plant pathogens and plant seeds, that does not attracts insects or other vectors (organisms that transmit pathogens), that can be handled and stored without nuisance, and that is beneficial to the growth of plants. Construction & Demolition Wastes (C&D Wastes) - solid waste materials resulting from the construction, remodeling, repair, or demolition of buildings, bridges, pavements, and similar structures. Normally consists of nonhazardous materials such as asphalt, concrete, brick, lumber, wallboard, roofing material, ceramics, and plastics resulting from construction, deconstruction, remodeling, repair, cleanup, or demolition operations. Contractors - see Service Providers and Haulers.

Convenience Center - see Drop - Off Center.

Curbside Collection - the collection of solid waste, recyclables, or other materials placed in front of the property (curbside) by the generator who then returns the container to their normal location after they have been emptied. Curbside collection is generally used in the collection of residential solid wastes and recyclables, or other materials. It is not normally used in commercial, institutional or industrial solid waste collection.

Direct Costs - direct costs are all expenditures which are directly attributable to providing a solid waste management service(s) that would be eliminated if the service(s) were discontinued.

Direct Haul - the hauling of collected solid waste in the collection vehicle from its point of collection to a solid waste management facility (materials recovery, mulching, composting, waste - to - energy or landfill facilities).

District(s) - geographical areas within a solid waste collection service area that divides the service area into a number of routes to equalize the number of stops served, the hours necessary to provide service to all stops, or the amount of solid waste to be collected. Frequently, physical characteristics of a service area, such as traffic corridors, rivers, or other physical barriers also help define districts.

Diversion - a term used to describe the act of diverting one or more designated materials from a solid waste stream. Diversion typically occurs at the point of generation. Normally, diversion is used to divert recyclables for separate collection, but if may also be used to prevent certain materials from being managed with the rest of a solid waste stream.


x i

Diversion Rate - the amount of material being diverted for recycling, compared to the total amount that was previously generated prior to diversion.

Drop - Off Centers (also called Convenience Centers) - one of the two basic designs for a residential collection system. A drop - off center is a site where solid wastes, recyclables, or other materials are taken by generators and deposited into designated containers.

Dumpster - a common term used to describe storage bins (containers) for commercial, institutional, and industrial solid waste.

Enterprise Funds - a fund for specific purpose that is self supporting from the revenues generated.

Fleet - a term commonly used to denote a large group of collection vehicles belonging to a particular solid waste collection service provider.

Flipper - a hydraulic powered device used in semi - automated collection to lift and empty a wheeled cart into a hopper.

Franchise - an exclusive right granted by a governing political body to a public, or more often, a private service provider, to collect and/or manage solid waste for a local government.

Front - End Loader Collection Vehicle - a collection vehicle with two forks on front arms to lift a container to empty the solid waste into a hopper at the top of the compaction body. Compaction of solid waste is from the front to the rear of the compaction body. This body type is used primarily for the collection of commercial, institutional and industrial solid wastes. However, it has been adapted for the collection of residential solid waste and recyclables.

Front - End Loader Container - a solid waste storage container specially designed for use with a front - end loader collection vehicle. Frequently referred to as a "bin" or a “dumpster.”

Fully - Automated Collection - a method of collecting solid waste where the generator places the storage container at the point of collection and collection is done without the operator leaving the collection vehicle. The collection vehicle is equipped with special mechanical devices that are hydraulically extended to grasp, lift, empty and then replace the storage container back to the point of collection. Normally, the point of collection for fully automated collection is curbside or alley.

Full Costs - full costs related to a solid waste management service, or unit operation; services include direct, indirect, and/or outside contractor costs.

Future Value of Money - the value of money at some future time based on an assigned or assumed interest rate.

General Fund - in local government financial management, those funds raised by jurisdiction-wide taxes (e.g., property and sales taxes).

General Obligation Bonds - general obligation (GO) bonds are secured by a government’s taxing powers and are often used to finance capital projects.


x i i

Generation - The total amount of waste produced by a facility, event, or jurisdiction generator. The basic formula is disposal plus diversion equals generation. Grabber a hydraulic powered device used in fully - automated collection to lift and empty a wheeled cart into a hopper. Green Building - Designing for resource-efficient use of materials in facility demolition, construction, and operations. For example, the U.S. Green Building Council issues voluntary industry standards known as the LEED Green Building Rating System™. Green Wastes (Yard Wastes) - a generic term used to define organic wastes from lawn, tree, horticultural and landscaping services including leaves, grass clippings, tree prunings, large cut waste timber and stumps, and other materials which are generated by commercial or nonresidential activities, as well as similar materials generated by homeowners from their lawns and gardens.

Hauler - a term universally used in North America to describe any organization (publicly or privately owned and operated) that collects solid waste. Most often used however, to describe a privately owned organization.

HDPE – high-density polyethylene, a plastic used to make a variety of products including milk jugs and landfill liners. HDPE containers are often identified by the number “2” inside the recycling arrows stamped on the container.

Household Hazardous Wastes - solid waste generated by residential generators that exhibit the characteristics of a hazardous waste as established by USEPA hazardous waste regulations. These wastes are exempt from the RCRA hazardous waste regulatory requirements, but may be included in state regulations.

Igloo Container - a storage container frequently used for storing recyclables at drop - off centers which draws its name from its shape, which resembles an ice igloo.

Indirect Costs - independent of direct costs, indirect costs relate to support services such as general administration, human resources, accounting, etc. Often, these services are provided by other governmental departments to a solid waste management service organization.

Industrial Solid Waste - solid waste, which is similar in physical, chemical and biological characteristics to commercial and residential solid waste, is non - hazardous, non - process related, and would normally be generated by offices, warehouses, cafeterias and shipping activities in industrial operations. Frequently referred to as "light industrial" solid waste.

Institutional Solid Waste - solid waste generated by social, charitable and educational activities.

Invitation for Bid (IFB) - a document used to solicit competitive bids for a service or work to be done that requests firm, nonnegotiable, fixed prices. Jurisdiction - A city, county, a combined city and county, or a group of cites or counties. License - see Permits.


x i i i

Local Government - an incorporated, or unincorporated jurisdiction below the state or provincial level of government including cities, municipalities, towns, townships, boroughs, districts, special purpose districts, authorities, counties or similar local government entities, which has been established by state, provincial, or local government law for the purposes of serving a designated segment of population within a state or province, or interstate/interprovincial areas.

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) - a solid waste stream composed of the following distinct solid waste streams:

• Residential Solid Waste: solid wastes generated by single and multifamily residences/dwellings/households (residence is a place, especially the house in which a person[s] lives or resides, a dwelling place, or home; residential is characterized by private homes; and household is the people of a house collectively.

• Commercial Solid Waste: solid wastes generated by commercial enterprises(offices, stores, retail and wholesale outlets, office buildings, markets, theaters, hospitals[non - infectious solid waste) and other commercial enterprises that would generate solid wastes similar in characteristics as the enterprises listed.

• Industrial Solid Waste: solid wastes, which are similar in physical, chemical and biological characteristics to commercial and residential solid waste, are non - hazardous, and non - process related and would normally be generated by offices, warehouses, cafeterias and shipping activities in industrial operations. Frequently referred to as "light industrial" solid waste.

• Institutional Solid Waste: solid wastes generated by social, charitable, and educational activities.

Managed Competition - the process of competitive selection of solid waste service providers where local government service providers compete against private service providers.

Manual Collection - a method of collecting solid waste where the operator and/or collector(s) leaves the collection vehicle and manually empties the container(s). Storage containers may be brought to the point of collection by the generator or a member of the collection crew.

Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) - a term used for a facility that separates mixed (commingled) recyclables into various components and processes those components for sale as secondary materials.

Municipal Solid Waste Resource Recovery - Municipal solid waste resource recovery is the recovery and utilization of resources (energy or materials) from municipal solid wastes.

Operational Funding - funding for the direct and indirect operation costs for a solid waste collection and/or transfer system.

Participation Rate - the percentage of generators on a residential collection route who participate in a residential recyclables collection service by providing (setting - out) recyclables for collection. Participation rates vary since generators may not set out recyclables every time


x i v

collection is provided. To establish a participation rate, some time frequency must be established, i.e., once per month, etc. Permits - formal authorization issued by a local government to a for - profit business venture to provide a service within the legal jurisdiction of that local government, also called licenses. Permits may be as simple as authorization to do business, to very complex with many conditions governing how the permitted business operates. In most instances, there is a fee for issuing a permit. PET – polythylene terephthalate, a plastic commonly used to make containers such as soft drink bottles. PET containers are often identified by the number “1” inside the recycling arrows stamped on the container. Point of Collection - a geographical point on a generator’s property where storage containers are placed for collection service. Post-consumer material - end product that has completed its life cycle as a consumer item and, if not recycled, would otherwise be disposed as a solid waste.

Pre-consumer material - recovered material other than postconsumer, including manufacturing trimmings, unsold scrap, and reprocessed or converted feedstock materials.

Rear Loader Collection Vehicle - a solid waste collection body where the hopper for loading the solid waste is at the rear of the compaction body. Compaction of solid waste is from the rear to the front of the compaction body. This body type is used primarily for residential solid waste collection. However, it has been adapted for the collection of commercial, institutional, and light industrial solid wastes. Recycled Content - listed on product labels, meaning the product contains some percentage of post-consumer and/or pre-consumer recycled materials. This differs from "recyclable," which means that the material could possibly be recycled. Recycling of Materials from Solid Waste - the diversion or removal of materials from a solid waste stream, and the use of those materials in one of the following ways:

• for the same purpose as it was originally designed, or

• for use in its original form, but for another purpose, or

• the return of production line process wastes into main stream production line feedstock, or

• the treatment and reconstitution of the materials from one product to produce secondary raw materials for other products, and/or

• other productive uses.

Residential Recyclables - materials in the residential solid waste stream designated to be diverted for the purposes of recycling.


x v

Residential Solid Waste - solid waste generated from single and multifamily sources; frequently called household solid waste, or household wastes.

Residential Storage Container - a container used to store residential solid waste and/or residential recyclables. These containers may be constructed of metal, plastic, or paper and are either of hard-, or soft-side construction (see Cart).

Resin Identification Code - The Society of the Plastics Industries, Inc. (SPI) introduced its voluntary resin identification coding system in 1988 to identify the resin content of bottles and containers commonly found in the residential waste stream. Plastic household containers are usually marked with a number that indicates the type of plastic. The resin identification codes are generally found inside recycling arrows and located on the bottom of the container:

Code Abbreviation Plastic Type 1 PETE Polyethylene terephthalate 2 HDPE High-density polyethylene 3 PVC Polyvinyl chloride 4 LDPE Low-density polyethylene 5 PP Polypropylene 6 PS Polystyrene 7 OTHER This code indicates that the product is made with a resin other

than the six listed above, or is made of more than one resin used in combination.

Request for Proposals (RFP) - a document used to solicit technical and cost proposals from potential service providers.

Request for Qualifications (RFQ) - a document used to obtain statements of qualifications (including experience, references, financial stability and condition, and availability of equipment) from bidders prior to issuance of a final solicitation.

Revenue Bonds - bonds used to finance capital projects which are secured only by the revenues generated by the funded project.

Route - a round of stops to collect solid waste; a path regularly visited by a collection vehicle.

Routing - the process which physically defines the route a collection vehicle follows as it goes stop - by - stop collecting solid waste or recyclables.

Roll - Off Container - a container used for the storage, collection and transport of commercial, institutional or industrial solid waste. The container is pulled onto the tilt - frame of the collection vehicle with a cable by winch, reeving cylinders, or by hooks and taken to a solid waste management facility for emptying. Normally, an empty roll - off container is delivered to a customer at the time of collection, rolled off and left for future use. Frequently referred to as a "box".

Roll - Off Service - a system for storing and collecting solid waste. The container used for storage is transported to the point of collection by a special collection vehicle. The roll - off container is then "rolled off" the collection vehicle and left for filling. When it is ready to be serviced, an


x v i

empty container is delivered to the point of collection, rolled off and the full container is loaded onto the collection vehicle and taken to a solid waste or recyclables management facility.

Sanitary Landfill/Landfilling - A sanitary landfill is as a land area where solid waste is disposed in a manner that protects human health and the environment.

Semi - Automated Collection - a method of collecting solid waste where the generator places the storage container at the point of collection and the collection is done by a collection vehicle which requires the operator or collector to leave the collection vehicle and manually connect the container(s)to a hydraulic lifting device (flipper or tipper) fastened to the mainframe or hopper of the collection vehicle. Normally, the point of collection for semi - automated collection is curbside, or alley.

Service Area - a geographic area provided solid waste collection service, service areas are normally divided into districts to provide collection services.

Set - Out Rate - the percentage of generators on a residential collection route who provide (or set - out) solid waste and/or recyclables for collection. Normally, the set - out rate is calculated based on the frequency of collection. As an example, if the collection frequency is once per week, the set - out rate is calculated by dividing the number of generators on the route that set - out their containers by the total number of service stops on that route. If twice per week service is provided each service has its own set - out rate; separate set - out rates are determined for the second service.

Side Loader Collection Vehicle - a solid waste collection body where the hopper for loading the solid waste is at the side of the collection vehicle in the front of the compaction body. Compaction of solid waste is from the front to the rear of the compaction body. This body type is used primarily for one person semi - automated and fully - automated collection of residential solid wastes.

Solid Waste Management - the systematic organization and administration of activities which provide for the planning, financing, and operational processes for managing solid waste. Operational processes include storage, separation, collection, transport, treatment, diversion for other management purposes, recycling, composting, combustion, and landfilling of solid waste.

Solid Waste Management Facility - transfer stations, composting and mulching facilities, materials recovery facilities, combustion facilities and landfills that receive solid waste and/or recyclables for management.

Solid Waste Management Infrastructure - the basic framework of a system to manage solid waste, including institutional, financial, regulatory, operational, and organizational processes.

Source Reduction - Source reduction is any action that reduces the amount of solid waste to be collected and managed. It includes:

• reducing the amount of solid wastes generated at the source;

• redesigning of products or packaging so that less material is used, resulting in fewer discarded materials;


x v i i

• voluntary or imposed behavioral changes in the use of materials which results in the selection of products and materials which last longer, or reduce the amount of materials discarded;

• increasing the durability and reusability of materials which result in longer lasting products; or

• design, manufacture, purchase, or use of materials to reduce their quantity or toxicity before they reach the solid waste stream.

Storage Container - a term used to identify a container used to store solid waste. Storage containers are used in residential, commercial, institutional and industrial applications. In each case, the containers are designed for their particular use. Frequently, generators use other non - specially designed containers to store solid waste.

Tipper - a hydraulic powered device used in semi - automated collection to lift and empty a wheel cart into a hopper. The tipper places a container on its wheels at the beginning and end of the lifting cycle to eliminate wear along the container bottom.

Tipping fee – fee charged for accepting materials at a solid waste management facility (such as a transfer station, material recovery facility, or landfill).

Transfer - supplemental transportation systems employed to reduce hauling costs by using semi - trailers, railroad cars, or barges to haul from a central point(s) within a jurisdiction to one or more distant solid waste management facilities. The act of transfer includes unloading collection vehicles at the transfer station, loading solid waste from the transfer station to the transfer vehicles, and hauling the solid waste to distant solid waste management facilities.

Transfer Station - a facility where the transfer of collected solid wastes from collection vehicles to transfer vehicles takes place.

Transfer Vehicle - a transportation unit which is used for the long haul of solid waste from a transfer station to a distant solid waste management facility.

Unit - a term commonly used by collection vehicle sales vendors to designate a complete ready - to - work solid waste collection vehicle. User Fees - fees directly billed to individual generators (home and business owners) for solid waste management services. Waste Analysis - classifying and quantifying waste materials disposed by a facility to determine what kinds of source reduction and recycling programs are feasible to implement. Also known as waste characterization, waste sorting, or waste sampling. Waste Audit - an examination of a facility's work processes and products that generate solid waste to determine how they can be restructured to use less material, use materials with recycled content, reuse or recycle materials, and safely dispose of wastes that cannot be diverted.


x v i i i

Waste-to-Energy - an incineration process in which the organic fraction of solid waste is combusted, and the released heat is utilized to generate hot water, steam, and electric power, leaving the inorganic fraction (ash) as a residue.

Waste Reduction - a term encompassing all solid waste management methods for source reduction, recycling, and composting that result in the reduction of solid waste going to a combustion facility or landfill.

White Goods - used to denote large household appliances such as refrigerators, stoves, ranges, air conditioners, dryers, and washing machines.

Yard Wastes - See Green Wastes.


x i x

EXECUT IVE SUMMARY

Kansas City residents generate more than one million pounds of trash per day. Landfilling has been the traditional disposal option for the Kansas City region. However, permitted landfill capacity in the area is decreasing.

When local landfills close, Kansas City will have to ship its trash farther away, which means more money is spent on fuel, driver salaries, and general truck maintenance. As a result, the City estimates trash collection costs could increase anywhere from 45 percent to 73 percent. This could lead to the elimination of programs and services as well as to additional disposal fees for area residents and businesses.

The purpose of this Long-Term Solid Waste Management Strategic Plan is to evaluate alternatives for future management of the City’s waste. This document consists of two parts. The first part is the Background Document: Long-Term Solid Waste Management Strategic Plan. This separate document sets the stage for the planning process and the evaluation of alternative solid waste management methods. The Background Document provides readers with an understanding of solid waste management issues. The Long-Term Solid Waste Management Strategic Plan builds upon the foundation established by the Background Document and evaluates alternative methods for managing the City’s waste. W A S T E M A N A G E M E N T N E E D S

While the City has programs in place and facilities are available for management of the current waste stream, the quantity of waste generated in the City will change with time. This means that the City’s programs will be required to change in response. To provide the City with an understanding of these projected changes, it was necessary to document current waste generation and project future waste generation. Based on assumptions developed in this document, the City’s residents could be generating more than 225,000 tons of waste annually by the year 2030. As discussed in the Background Document, the costs and revenues with managing the City’s waste for the next 20 years were estimated, assuming that the City makes no changes to its current program. The analysis assumes certain changes associated with closure of local landfills and increasing disposal fees. The analysis is called the Status-Quo Option and provides a baseline for comparison to other alternative options. W A S T E M A N A G E M E N T A L T E R N A T I V E S

This plan examines numerous options for management of Kansas City’s solid waste including policy changes, ordinances, collection programs, processing and transfer facilities, and disposal facilities: City Policies (Section 5): To promote effective solid waste management in the community, Kansas City should be prepared to lead by example. Following are programs that address


x x

internal City programs and policies for waste reduction and recycling that are evaluated in this plan:

• Establish a diversion goal for the City. Such a goal can help establish a benchmark for measuring success and provide a focal point for planning.

• Expand the City’s internal recycling program. Kansas City should provide all employees the opportunity to recycle. Kansas City will need to design a system to collect the recyclable materials, identify key staff to make decisions and resolve problems, notify employees regarding the recycling program, and train staff.

• Establish waste reduction policies. Through numerous, small choices employees make each day, large reductions in the quantities of waste can be achieved. Employees should be encouraged to learn more about waste reduction practices and work toward implementing and promoting such practices.

• Monitor compliance with existing policies and procedures for environmentally preferable purchasing and the procurement of recycled products. Kansas City has adopted a policy is to support markets for recycled and other environmentally preferable products by affirmatively encouraging city departments, offices, agencies and contractors to buy and use such products whenever practicable and to encourage vendors to make such products available in the marketplace. Kansas City should strive to implement and enforce compliance with this policy.

• Develop new policies and implement existing policies for use of recovered materials in City projects. The City has adopted a policy that new buildings and renovations should attain a U.S. Green Building Council LEED green building rating of “Silver.” Kansas City should make every effort to fully implement this policy. The City could begin by using landscaping products (e.g., mulch and compost) created from material collected from leaf and brush collection (both curbside and drop-off).

City Ordinances (Section 6): The City Council could consider adopting ordinances aimed at increasing the level of recycling in the City such as at special events and mandatory recycling for residences, multi-family units, and businesses.

• Special Events. The City could follow the lead of other cities across the country and pass an ordinance to make recycling services mandatory at special events.

• Mandatory Recycling. Even though the City’s diversion rate has grown consistently, there is still opportunity for continued growth. More than 61,000 tons per year of recyclable paper grades, steel and aluminum containers, and #1 and #2 plastic bottles are disposed by residents, even though the City provides curbside recycling for these materials. If participation in the City’s voluntary program does not increase in the future and other measures fail to increase participation, the City may consider adopting a mandatory residential recycling ordinance. An ordinance


x x i

requiring multi-family and commercial recycling could be used to increase the overall level of recycling in the City.

Education, Promotion, and Technical Assistance Program (Section 7). During the public participation efforts conducted during the development of this plan, it was consistently noted that the City needs to expand its education and outreach efforts. To become fully involved and play an effective role in many of the new waste management alternative explored by this plan, the public must be informed of their role and responsibility, and what opportunities are available to them. Education provides factual information to the public to assist them in making responsible choices. Promotion is designed to inform residents of an event, program, or project in which they may choose to participate. Technical assistance provides direct aid to residents/businesses in implementing their choices. Cost information was developed for the administration of an effective Public Education, Promotion, and Technical Assistance Program. Such a program is estimated to cost the City approximately $185,000 per year. This results in a cost of approximately $1.32 per household per year or $0.11 per household per month. Savings of approximately $13,000 could be realized due to avoided disposal of recyclables.

Curbside Collection of Recyclables (Section 8). As an alternative to the contracted curbside recycling program, the provision of the same service using City collection crews was analyzed. Under this alternative, the level of service would remain the same. Based on the assumptions discussed further in Section 8, the annual curbside collection costs for the first year of operation are $4,243,289 or $29.02 per household per year.

Recycling Drop-Off Facilities (Section 9). Over the past few years, some of the Community Recycling Centers have closed and have been moved to different locations (e.g., Bannister Mall and UMKC). This occurs because the facilities are located on private property and Bridging the Gap must sometimes close a facility at the request of the property owner. A new facility is opened when an alternative location is found. The City owns numerous properties throughout the City. The City should consider the use of City-owned properties for these facilities.

Electronics Recycling Program (Section 10). As the production and use of electronic products continues to grow, the challenge of recovery and disposal is becoming significant. The average life span of a personal computer is currently about 2-3 years. Electronics that break often are not repaired due to the relatively low price of replacement equipment. When the equipment breaks or becomes obsolete, it is commonly discarded. It is recommended that the City provide periodic collection events for electronics. Two semi-annual collection events are estimated to cost the City approximately $7,900 the first year. However, the collection events could be expected to divert approximately 63 tons of material from landfilling; saving the City approximately $1,600 per year in avoided disposal costs.

Food/Organics Collection (Section 11). Food waste represents a large portion of the solid waste stream. A recently completed waste sort at the Johnson County Landfill showed that food waste accounted for almost 19 percent of the residential waste stream being disposed in the landfill. An alternative that collects residential food waste and soiled paper combined with yard waste on a weekly basis was analyzed. The first year’s costs for an organics collection system are estimated to be almost $3.9 million. The annualized cost for the vehicles is about $285,000 and the annualized cost for the curbside carts is over $988,000. The City could expect avoided


x x i i

disposal costs of approximately $222,000 for food disposal. If this option is implemented, the City could eliminate curbside collection of leaves and brush, as well as leaf/brush drop-off facilities. Elimination of these two programs would save the City an estimated $1.1 million annually.

Glass Container Collection (Section 12). As an alternative to the City’s current drop-off system, the addition of glass-only drop-off sites was analyzed for use by City businesses to increase the amount of glass collected and processed by the City. The first year program costs are estimated at about $175,000. The annual cost per household is $1.23 ($0.10 per month) and $253.77 per ton of glass recycled.

Commercial Sector Recycling (Section 13). In the future, Kansas City may consider expanding recyclables collection services to the commercial sector. Recovery of commercial sector recyclable materials in the Kansas City metropolitan region is currently controlled by the private sector. Some small business establishments may use the drop-off recycling system but the quantity recovered through this system is small compared to the privately collected material. In implementing a commercial recyclables collection program, the City should anticipate intense competition from established recyclers and brokers.

Leaf and Brush Collection (Section 14). The City should consider monthly curbside service for leaves and brush. Extending collection to a year round service will provide residents the opportunity to have brush collection in the winter, which is often a need because of winter storms. Requiring residents to schedule an appointment will allow the City to develop a cost-effective route to make best use of existing equipment and manpower.

Leaf and Brush Drop-Off Facilities (Section 15). The City currently does not charge residents for use of these facilities. City code allows the division to establish a schedule of fees, appropriate for the size and type of vehicle or load, of not more than $25.00 per vehicle load for disposal of leaves and brush. At least three other communities in the metropolitan region operate drop-off facilities for leaves and brush and charge residents and businesses for use of the facilities.

Recyclables Sorting Facility (Section 16). If the City proceeds with plans to require recycling at special events and festivals, more recyclables will be generated that will require sorting and processing by the City. Since these recyclables are being currently collected, the City requires an interim processing facility until a permanent facility can be built, as discussed later in this document. The City should investigate potential sites and costs of an interim processing facility.

Residential Refuse Collection (Section 17). As an alternative to the City’s current manual collection system, fully-automated collection of solid waste was analyzed. For this type of collection system, residents are provided a standardized container into which they place their waste. Residents must place their cart at the curb on collection day. During collection, the driver positions the collection vehicle beside the cart. Using controls inside the cab of the vehicle, the driver maneuvers a side-mounted arm to pick up the container and dump its contents into the hopper of the vehicle. The driver then uses the arm to place the container back onto the curb. Under this type of collection system, the driver is able to service the entire route; the need for manual labor is eliminated. The savings in personnel and worker’s compensation costs, as


x x i i i

well as the increase in crew productivity for automated collection, are well documented throughout the solid waste industry.

Based on assumptions discussed in Section 17, the annualized collection costs for the first year of operation are estimated to be $13,102,941 or $6.51 per household per month. The capital costs are estimated to be $5,400,000 for automated side loaders, $1,650,000 for manual rear loaders, and $6,250,000 for carts. The costs do not include costs for administration, disposal, the home association rebate, or the apartment rebate.

This section also recommends that the City consider raising the rate charged for collection of additional materials. In 2008, the City estimates receiving $806,706 in trash tag revenues (equating to 806,706 additional bags of trash). Assuming that each bag holds 40 pounds of trash, the additional bags equate to over 16,000 tons of trash. The estimated cost for collecting and disposing of this amount of trash equals more than $1,027,000; leaving the City with a shortfall of approximately $220,000 to manage this trash. Raising the rate to a minimum of $2.50 per bag should allow the City to cover its collection and disposal costs.

Bulky Item Collection (Section 18). The City collects waste through its bulky item collection routes that could be easily collected during normal trash collection routes. Residents appear to be using bulky item collection as a means to dispose of regular trash, such as bags or boxes of smaller items or loose materials, without paying the additional $1 per bag fee. Assuming that 10 percent of the bulky waste set out for collection in 2008 (24,897 tons) is actually trash (2,490 tons), the City is potentially losing over $124,000 in trash tag revenues (assuming that each bag holds approximately 40 pounds of trash).

It is recommended that Kansas City also implement an appointment-based system for bulky item collection. The reasons for this recommendation are two-fold. First, when scheduling the appointment, the customer service representative taking the call can inquire about the nature of the item being scheduled for collection. If the resident is requesting collection of an item that does not fit the definition of bulky waste, the resident can be told to purchase a tag and set the item out for regularly scheduled trash collection.

Second, scheduling appointments for the collection of bulky waste will also allow the City to be more efficient with its collection; allowing for the development of routes, rather than requiring collection vehicles to travel every street in the collection zone looking for bulky items to collect. More efficient use of its collection resources may allow the City to offer bulky item collection monthly, as opposed to every other month as offered in some zones. Potential savings realized by switching to appointment-based bulky item collection are approximately $640,000.

City Facility Collection (Section 19). The City owns over 300 facilities and most use their own contracts for waste hauling and disposal. The Solid Waste Division should evaluate the cost effectiveness of providing trash collection services directly to City agencies and facilities. This will require the Division to purchase front-loading equipment capable of servicing the facilities. As with other collection programs, city facility collection could be phased-in over a period of time. This approach will allow Division staff to work directly with City facilities to minimize the amount of waste produced and create opportunities for recycling on the part of the City.


x x i v

Illegal Dumping Abatement (Section 20). To address illegal dumping in general, it is recommended that the Solid Waste Division have its own enforcement unit to enforce trash, illegal dumping, and waste permit programs. Such an enforcement function within a city sanitation group is not uncommon in larger cities. Solid Waste also should have primary responsibility for abatement activities, which will provide cost savings through more efficient resource management and elimination of duplication of efforts. The anticipated first-year salary requirement for this unit (including fringe benefits) is approximately $1,815,000. The City also should plan to budget for other direct costs, such as mileage, supplies, contractual services, in the amount of at least $237,000. This equates to $0.84 per household per month.

Dead Animal Collection (Section 21). The City is responsible for collecting dead animals from streets, public right-of-ways, and residences. Occasionally, the City receives a request to collect dead livestock. If the City desires to continue to provide services for the collection of dead livestock, it is recommended that the City charge a fee. This fee would not apply to small domestic animals (dogs and cats) and wildlife removed from public thoroughfares.

Debris Management (Section 22). In the aftermath of a disaster, the primary focus of government response teams is to restore and maintain public health and safety. As a result, debris diversion programs such as recycling and reuse can quickly become secondary. The City should be prepared to manage the debris generated by a natural disaster by developing a Debris Management Plan and identifying locations for the temporary storage of debris.

Transfer of Waste/Processing of Recyclables (Section 23). This Section consists of three subsections:

Transfer of Waste: Johnson County Landfill is the current destination for approximately two-thirds of the City’s waste with the remainder going to Courtney Ridge Landfill. Estimates of Johnson County Landfill’s remaining life anticipate closure of the currently permitted area in 2023. A permit expansion under development may extend the life several years beyond 2024 to the City of Shawnee’s closure date in 2027. Several existing landfills in Missouri and Kansas have the capacity to handle the City’s waste after that time. The issue the City will face after closure of the local landfills is how to most economically deliver collected waste to one of these new facilities.

This section evaluates alternatives to direct hauling of waste to these alternative disposal facilities. The two alternatives examined are: 1) direct hauling using existing collection vehicles and 2) constructing a transfer station and transferring waste to larger-capacity over-the-road hauling vehicles. Costs associated with hauling waste in 25 cubic yard collection vehicles and in 100 cubic yard transfer trailers were developed. When total transfer costs are compared against the direct haul costs, it appears that a transfer station:

• Would not be economical to serve Courtney Ridge Landfill alone.

• Marginally economical to serve Johnson County Landfill.

• Significantly economical to serve Hamm, or Show-Me Landfills because the transfer costs are significantly less than direct haul costs.


x x v

Processing of Waste: Rather than relying on the private sector to provide processing and marketing of collected recyclables and determine the revenues received by the City, the City could take on this function itself. This option requires the City to construct and operate a material recovery facility (MRF). A MRF is a site at which recyclable materials are separated by type of material and prepared for transportation to final markets.

Kansas City Eco Center: This subsection develops a conceptual design for a combined transfer station/material recovery facility. This section also presents a financial feasibility study of its capital and operating costs. Capital costs associated with this facility are estimated at $46 million, annualized at $372,000 per year (30 year period). Annual operating costs are estimated at approximately $8 million per year. However, the facility is expected to generate revenues of approximately $13 million per year resulting in a net income of approximately $1.4 million per year. It is recommended that the City finance the project through a General Obligation bond offering.

The City has identified potential locations to site the facility in the Front Street corridor. Each of the locations needs to be evaluated, including a cost analysis for each. The one selected should be the most advantageous location from both technical and cost standpoints.

It is further recommended that the City procure the services of an architect/engineering firm for designing and preparing the plans and specifications and certain design details for this facility. These materials can then be distributed by the City as part of an advertised competitive-bid process.

Conversion Technologies (Section 24). Conversion technologies include an array of emerging technologies that are capable of converting post-recycling residual solid waste into useful products and chemicals, including ethanol and biodiesel, and energy. The technologies may be thermal, chemical or biological. These technologies have been used successfully to manage MSW in Europe and Asia, but not all have progressed to commercial development in the United States. The risks associated with conversion technologies can be substantial. As such, these techologies are not recommended at this time for Kansas City. However, the City may want to track the progress of pilot studies and those plants that have been or will soon be operating.

Incineration/Waste-to-Energy (Section 25). Incineration is a thermal process for reducing the volume and weight of solid waste prior to disposal. These facilities are often designed to produce steam and electricity. A waste-to-energy facility is not recommended for Kansas City due to the high capital and operating costs and the availability of lower cost options.

Landfill Disposal (Section 26). Given current technology, landfills are and will remain a necessary and important component of waste management for Kansas City. Source reduction and recycling can divert significant portions of the waste stream, but not all components of the waste stream are recyclable. Therefore, the City will be required to continue to secure disposal capacity or create additional capacity locally. With this in mind, a landfill alternative was evaluated.

It is recommended that Kansas City continue to pursue long-term, cost-effective alternatives for solid waste disposal through the private sector. While it is expected that the local privately-


x x v i

owned landfills will close within the timeframe addressed by this plan, there are two regional landfills that will have capacity well beyond the timeframe addressed by this plan (Hamm Quarry and Show Me Regional Landfill). It is further recommended that the City construct a transfer station (as discussed earlier in this document) to economically haul waste to these regional landfills.

I M P L E M E N T A T I O N O F R E C O M M E N D E D A L T E R N A T I V E S

The capital and operating expenses to implement the solid waste system recommendations discussed above were developed for a 20-year period (see Appendix E). Table 37, in Section 27, illustrates the projected impact possible to the general fund with implementation of several recommendations.

The implementation of the recommendations contained in this plan can begin upon approval of the plan by City Council. The schedule for implementation is included as Figure 19 in Section 29. The schedule may require revision as circumstances change or if the objectives of the City change. As indicated, some recommendations may be implemented within a few months, for other recommendations implementation may span years.


1 - 1

1 INTRODUCT ION

Kansas City residents generate more than one million pounds of trash per day. Landfilling has been the traditional disposal option for the Kansas City region. However, permitted landfill capacity in the area is decreasing. In the past, Kansas City has relied on three available landfills: Forest View, Courtney Ridge and Johnson County. Forest View closed in 2006, three years earlier than was expected. The closing of a landfill creates a domino effect. In this case:

• The trash that was going to Forest View started going to Johnson County and Courtney Ridge.

• When a landfill in nearby Lee’s Summit closes (as early as 2014), that trash will likely go to Courtney Ridge.

• When the Johnson County Landfill closes, some of that trash will go to Courtney Ridge and some will go to Hamm Quarry in Kansas.

Courtney Ridge has been projected to remain open past 2026, but with the increase in new trash coming in, it may close sooner.

Typically, it takes 10-15 years to site and build a new landfill. Currently no new local landfills are planned in the region. The next two closest landfills are privately owned – Show Me Regional in Warrensburg, Missouri, and Hamm Quarry located outside Lawrence, Kansas.

When local landfills close, Kansas City will have to ship its trash farther away, which means more money is spent on fuel, driver salaries, and general truck maintenance. As a result, the City estimates trash collection costs could increase anywhere from 45 percent to 73 percent. This could lead to the elimination of programs and services as well as to additional disposal fees for area residents and businesses.

Long-range planning is essential for achieving a cost-effective solid waste management system.

The State of Missouri has developed a statewide solid waste management plan that establishes the framework upon which solid waste systems are administered and implemented throughout the state. Local plans should be consistent with the goals and policies presented in the state plan.

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have developed policies that rank the most environmentally sound strategies for management of solid waste (see Figure 1):

• First, Reduce – Efforts to prevent the creation of waste should precede other waste management options that deal with the waste after it is generated, as in recycling. The underlying thought is that solid waste that is not produced does not require management.

• Second, Reuse, Recycle, Compost – The next level includes reuse, recycling and composting. These techniques have the potential to divert large amounts of waste


1 - 2

from disposal and turn them into valuable products. Through these techniques, waste materials can potentially go through several cycles of use, conserving raw materials and energy in the process.

• Third, Energy Recovery – This level of the hierarchy also uses waste as a resource, but essentially the material can only be used once. The highest use becomes energy production.

• Fourth, Disposal – After the first three levels of the hierarchy are maximized, there may be residual solid waste left to manage. This material must be disposed of in an environmentally safe manner, through incineration or landfilling at a permitted facility.

The alternatives ultimately selected for implementation by Kansas City should be consistent with this ranking.

F i g u r e 1 . W a s t e M a n a g e m e n t H i e r a r c h y The purpose of this Long-Term Solid Waste Management Strategic Plan is to evaluate alternatives for future management of the City’s waste. This document consists of two parts. The first part is the Background Document: Long-Term Solid Waste Management Strategic Plan. This separate document sets the stage for the planning process and the evaluation of alternative solid waste management methods. The Background Document provides readers with an understanding of solid waste management issues. The Background Document:

• Characterizes the quantity of municipal solid waste generated in Kansas City and projects the amount of municipal solid waste that will require management for the next 20 years.

• Provides an overview of the Federal, State, and Local rules, regulations, statutes, codes, ordinances and policies governing how solid wastes are managed.

• Describes the existing collection, processing, transfer, and disposal infrastructure.

Source Reduction and Reuse

Recycling/Composting

Energy Recovery

Incineration/Landfilling

Most Preferred

Least Preferred


1 - 3

• Summarizes expenditures and revenues for the various solid waste and recyclables collection programs operated by the City. The document also projects future solid waste management costs that could be experienced by the City as landfills in the region begin to close.

• Compares the City’s solid waste management programs and services to six other comparable municipalities.

• Provides an overview of the public involvement strategies that were used to gather information on public perceptions and opinions regarding current solid waste management programs and future options.

The Long-Term Solid Waste Management Strategic Plan builds upon the foundation established by the Background Document and evaluates alternative methods for managing the City’s waste. This document is organized as follows:

• Section 2 of this document provides a summary of the existing collection, processing, transfer, and disposal infrastructure.

• Section 3 provides a summary of the characterization of the City’s waste stream, both current and projected.

• Section 4 provides an overview of the alternatives that are considered, how they are evaluated, and establishes the “status quo” scenario as the basis for comparison.

• Sections 5 though 25 present the analyses for the various alternatives considered.

• Section 26 illustrates the effect on the City’s solid waste management costs if certain recommendations are implemented.

• Section 27 provides a discussion of financing options for one of the alternatives.

• Section 28 discusses implementation options.


1 - 4


2 - 5

2 SUMMARY OF CURRENT WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AND FAC I L I T I ES

C U R R E N T W A S T E M A N A G E M E N T P R O G R A M S

This section provides a brief summary of the current programs offered by the City and private companies in the region. For more information, please refer to the Background Document.

K a n s a s C i t y S o l i d W a s t e M a n a g e m e n t P r o g r a m s

The following is an overview of the solid waste management programs offered by Kansas City.

Refuse Collection

The City provides weekly residential trash collection to over 140,000 residences. Collection is limited to single-family homes, duplexes, and other housing units in buildings that contain six or fewer units. City crews provide collection services to over 48,000 homes located in the central area of the city. A private hauler, under contract to the City, collects trash from the remaining eligible residences (91,000 homes) in the northern and southern areas of the City.

Currently, each eligible household is limited to pickup of two bags of trash per week. Additional bags require trash tags; at a cost of $1 per bag. The City holds two “trash amnesty” days, when the City will provide unlimited collection.

Provisions are made for disabled persons who are incapable of placing their solid waste at the street and are unable to obtain assistance from others. In such cases, their solid waste is collected at the front of the house through special arrangements.

In March of 2007, the City began a trash cart service pilot program for selected neighborhoods using semi-automated collection and 68-gallon carts. The program is designed to test the impact of trash carts on neighborhood cleanliness and on improving safety for the City crews that handle trash collection. Six thousand households from nine neighborhoods are included in the program.

A limited number of homeowners associations have contracted with private haulers for trash collection. These homeowners associations are eligible for a rebate of collection costs from the City. Buildings containing seven or more units must contract with a private hauler for services. The owner or manager is reimbursed for this service based on the number of occupied units in the building or complex. Recyclables Collection

Recyclables are collected at the curb, through drop-off facilities located within the City, and at special events.


2 - 6

Curbside Collection – KC Recycles The City provides weekly curbside collection of recyclables from eligible residences through a private hauler under contract to the City. Residents are provided a 22-gallon bin and recyclables are collected on the same day as trash. Materials collected at the curb include aluminum and steel cans, plastic bottles (#1 and #2), mixed paper, and cardboard. The recyclables are collected in a “single stream” and taken to a privately owned material recovery facility where they are sorted and sold. The City has a revenue sharing agreement with the facility owner and receives revenue based on: 1) a percentage of the current market value of the recyclables and 2) the amount of monthly recyclables collected.

Drop-Off Facilities In addition to curbside recycling, four drop-off sites are located throughout the City which are operated under contract to the City. The staffed drop-off centers collect materials, in addition to the curbside-collected materials, such as glass, aluminum foil, electronics, compact fluorescent light bulbs, clothing, household batteries, scrap metal, Styrofoam blocks, and toner cartridges.

Special Event Recycling Kansas City launched an event recycling program in 2007 to provide recycling services at special events and festivals. Recycling rates have averaged about 40 percent for the program’s first six events, including the Rhythm and Ribs festival, Gospel Jazz Festival, 18th Street Festival, Downs Syndrome Annual Buddy Walk, KC Charities Rally Kick-off Carnival and the Hispanic Festival. City staff attends special events where recycling is provided by the City to educate residents about the City’s curbside recycling program.

Leaf and Brush Collection

The City offers two options for collection of leaves and brush.

Curbside Collection The City collects up to 20 sacks or bundles of leaves and brush (excluding grass clippings) from residences at curbside, in the spring and fall.

Drop-Off Sites The City provides leaf and brush drop-off sites from mid-March through mid-January at two locations. The staffed sites are open on Saturdays and are free for residents of City of Kansas City, Missouri. Only leaves, yard waste and brush (including tree trimmings) are accepted. Grass clippings are not accepted. A private contractor is responsible for managing the sites, chipping the material that is received, hauling material to the composting site, and marketing the organic materials.

Bulky Item Collection

The bulky item collection program is for disposal of large household items that can't be handled as part of the weekly trash pickup. A bulky item is an item more than four feet long or weighing more than 40 pounds. Bulky items are collected by zone. Each zone receives service every month or every other month. Service is more frequent in areas where citizens use the service more frequently.


2 - 7

Neighborhood Cleanup Assistance Program

The goal of this program is to assist City residents and interested parties by providing assistance in cleaning and maintaining environmentally safe and aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods.

The City is expected to spend $185,000 on this program in Fiscal Year 2008 which includes revenues of approximately $22,000 for dumpster rental. This program cost equals $0.11 per household per month, but represent approximately $589.00 per ton of material collected.

Components of this program include the dumpster program, blue bag program, and the multi-neighborhood cleanup program.

Dumpster Program Large trash containers are provided from April through October to recognized neighborhood organizations or groups. They are available on a first come first serve basis. There are a preset number of trash containers available each weekend. They are made available through this program to neighborhood organizations at a supplemented fee of $50 each (each dumpster costs the City $300; the City pays $250 of that amount). The requesting neighborhood must reserve the trash containers at least three weeks in advance. The program is not available to individuals, companies, contractors or those involved in renovating, cleaning or remodeling personal or potential income properties.

Blue Bag Program Blue bags are provided to residents that pick up trash in organized neighborhoods as part of cleanup efforts. Participants must register. The bags are picked up on regular trash collection days, and they do not count toward the two trash bag limit that residents can set out. These bags are available from area community “FOCUS Centers” throughout the city.

Multi-Neighborhood cleanup This program offers assistance with planning cleanups within specified areas. The needs and services that will be provided by the program are identified by the cleanup committee from the neighborhoods.

Tire Collection

Tires are not collected with residential trash. The Solid Waste Division offers a waste tire drop-off program. Residents of the City can drop off waste tires at the Environmental Campus the first Saturday of each month from March through November. A fee of $1.50 is collected for each rimless automobile tire. Fees are higher for tires on rims, larger tires, and for tires that are excessively muddy. Neighborhood groups conducting clean ups may bring in tires for free, with advance notice to the City. In Fiscal Year 2008, it is anticipated that the City will receive just over $2,000 in fees.

Organics Collection

Beginning March 1, 2008, the City will begin collecting food waste generated from certain City facilities, such as City Market, for composting. The City is expecting to spend approximately $89,000 on this program in Fiscal Year 2008.


2 - 8

Freon Collection

Federal Law requires that Freon be removed from appliances such as refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners, and dehumidifiers prior to disposal. The City is responsible for removing Freon from appliances collected in the bulky item collection program, before they can be recycled. The City is expecting to spend approximately $49,000 on this program in Fiscal Year 2008.

Illegal Dumping Abatement

The Division of Solid Waste is responsible for collecting waste from illegal dumping activities.

Dead Animal Collection

The City is responsible for collecting dead animals from streets, public right-of-ways, and residences.

A R E A M U N I C I P A L S O L I D W A S T E M A N A G E M E N T F A C I L I T I E S

The following is an overview of the solid waste management facilities located in the Kansas City metropolitan area.

M i s s o u r i A r e a L a n d f i l l s

Courtney Ridge Landfill

Allied Waste Industries owns and operates this landfill in Sugar Creek, Missouri, which takes about 2,000 tons per day of solid waste and has about 27 years of capacity remaining. The company is not looking to expand landfill capacity in the near term.

Lee’s Summit Landfill

The City of Lee’s Summit via its Public Works Department owns and operates a landfill. The landfill, averaging about 325 tons per day disposed, has an anticipated life span of seven to nine years (to 2014 to 2016). Currently the City has hired a consultant to evaluate potential sites for a new regional landfill. Both Jackson and Cass Counties are being investigated as potential sites for a regional landfill of 120 to 160 acres and 750 tons per day capacity.

Show Me Regional Landfill

Allied Waste Industries owns and operates this landfill near Harrisonville, Missouri, and takes 700 tons per day solid waste. The estimated life span is 22 years.

In addition to this location, Allied Waste has a permitted landfill site about 20 miles south of Harrisonville that is currently “mothballed.” It can be opened when there is sufficient waste to justify the extra capacity.


2 - 9

St. Joseph Landfill

The St. Joseph, Missouri, landfill is publicly owned and operated. The landfill is currently accepting 900 tons per day, which is about 300 tons per day higher than a year ago. This increase is due to private haulers delivering solid waste to the facility from outside of the City. Although the City has accepted this additional daily tonnage, a City representative reported that the City is not looking to expand their operations much beyond what is necessary to service their own residents and to keep the landfill operations economically viable.

No future large scale solid waste management facilities in the St. Joseph area could be identified

K a n s a s A r e a L a n d f i l l s

Johnson County Landfill

The Johnson County Landfill (located within Johnson County) is owned and operated by Deffenbaugh Industries. This landfill is the largest in the region, as well as in the state of Kansas. The landfill is currently taking about 5,000 tons per day of solid waste including construction and demolition debris (C&D). The landfill is scheduled to close no later than 2027 under an agreement with the City of Shawnee.1 The landfill, however, could close sooner.

Hamm Quarry Landfill

The Hamm Quarry Landfill, located in Jefferson County, Kansas, is owned and operated by N.R. Hamm Quarry, Inc. Currently, the landfill is accepting approximately 1,500 tons per day and has an anticipated life span of over 70 years. Total site size is 570 acres and the permitted landfill footprint is 360 acres. The landfill permit does not specify a daily disposal limit.

A r e a M u n i c i p a l S o l i d W a s t e P r o c e s s i n g F a c i l i t i e s

Deffenbaugh Industries

Deffenbaugh Industries, Inc. owns and operates the only large materials recovery facility (MRF) in the Kansas City region. It is located in Wyandotte County, Kansas, and is located close to the Johnson County Landfill. This MRF is a facility that processes mixed recyclable materials collected from “single stream” curbside collection programs, including Kansas City’s.

Lafarge Alternate Solid Fuels Facility

In November 2007, Lafarge North America completed construction of an alternate solid fuels (ASF) facility at the organization’s Sugar Creek, Missouri, cement plant. The 22,000 square foot facility houses a primary and a secondary shredder that have the combined capacity to process up to 40,000 tons per year of solid wastes into an alternative fuel blend. At capacity the alternative fuel blend will replace about 45,000 tons of coal.2

1 Shawnee Planning Commission, Meeting Minutes, August 19, 2002. 2 50,000 metric tons.


2 - 1 0

Systech Environmental Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lafarge North America, is responsible for the acquisition and processing of the waste materials. Systech is currently focusing on procuring high energy value industrial wastes such as plastics, paper, wood, rubber, and textile scrap for fuel blending. The primary target market area includes industrial clients within a 100 mile radius of Kansas City, Missouri.

Missouri Organic Recycling Facility

Missouri Organic Recycling (MOR) is a private composting firm located in the Northeast portion of the Kansas City region. The composting facility, located on about 1,700 acres, is the largest composting facility in the region. The active composting site is located on about 5 acres.

In 2005, MOR began composting food waste. They are currently composting about 4,000 tons of food waste per year from several governmental, commercial, industrial, and institutional clients. This annual tonnage is expected to increase to 9,000 tons by 2008.

In early 2008, MOR will be collecting food waste from the City Market. Also in 2008, the company anticipates expanding their food waste collection service to local grocery stores and restaurants.

M i s s o u r i A r e a T r a n s f e r S t a t i o n s

According to 2006 MARC Solid Waste Management District data, five privately owned Missouri transfer stations are located in the Kansas City Metropolitan Region. According to the waste flow data collected by MARC for data year 2005, the following tonnages were estimated for the five Missouri transfer stations:

• Manchester Transfer and Recycling Facility: 4,000 tons per month • Willey’s Material Recovery and Transfer Station: 4,000 tons per month • Recycle Transfer Station: 2,500 tons per month • Town and Country Disposal: 5,000 tons per month • Roll-Off Service: less than 100 tons per month.


3 - 1 1

3 FUTURE MUNIC IPAL SOL ID WASTE MANAGEMENT NEEDS

While the City has programs in place and facilities are available for management of the current waste stream, the quantity of waste generated in the City will change with time. This means that the City’s programs will be required to change in response. To provide the City with an understanding of these projected changes, it was necessary to document current waste generation and project future waste generation. Provided below is a brief overview. The reader is referred to Section 2 of the Background Document for a full explanation of the methodology used.

R e s i d e n t i a l M u n i c i p a l S o l i d W a s t e

Waste collection and recycling data were collected from City staff as well as from private solid waste and recyclable material haulers and processors to estimate the quantity of municipal solid waste collected for disposal and recycling from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2007. Generation of solid waste for each year was then estimated by summing disposal plus recycling and composting (solid waste collected for disposal plus recovered materials collected for processing equals generation). Generation estimates were calculated in tons per year and converted to pounds per person per day. Table 1 shows the residential portion of the solid waste stream.

Projected quantities of residential solid waste collected for disposal and for recovery through recycling and composting were forecast for the years 2010 to 2030 for the evaluation of future MSW management needs, including interim years of 2012, 2017, 2022, and 2027. These projections assume that the FY 07 recovery through recycling and composting rate of 18 percent remains constant for future years. These projections are provided in Table 2 and are shown graphically in Figure 2. Based on these assumptions, the City’s residents could be generating more than 225,000 tons of waste annually by the year 2030.

C o m m e r c i a l M u n i c i p a l S o l i d W a s t e

Commercial solid waste is handled by private industry waste haulers and recycling organizations. It is virtually impossible to obtain actual data from these organizations despite efforts to do so. Therefore, the development of the commercial waste disposal, recovery through recycling, and generation estimates in Kansas City, Missouri, was based on a number of other factors. Table 3 summarizes the commercial portion of the MSW stream for 2000 to 2006.

Projections of commercial solid waste collected for disposal, recovered through recycling, and generation were carried out for 2010, 2012, 2017, 2020, 2022, 2027 and 2030.

Similar to the methodology used to estimate the quantity of commercial solid waste collected for disposal from 2000 to 2006, the method to develop commercial projections was also based on a factor developed from the residential solid waste collected for disposal.

Using the same assumptions for projecting residential municipal solid waste, the commercial municipal solid waste collected for disposal is projected to increase at the same rate as the residential solid waste collected for disposal. The commercial recycling rate was held constant at


3 - 1 2

the 2006 level (31.3 percent) for all years. Table 4 shows that holding the recycling rate constant results in a 30 percent increase between 2006 and 2030 in each category (commercial solid waste collected for disposal, recovered through recycling, and generated).

T o t a l M u n i c i p a l S o l i d W a s t e

Table 5 combines data from Tables 1 and 3 for total municipal solid waste disposal, recovery through recycling and composting, and generation.

C o m p o s i t i o n o f M u n i c i p a l S o l i d W a s t e D i s p o s e d

In 2006 and 2007 there were waste sorts at three landfills in the Kansas City area. These sorts covered both residential and commercial waste from Missouri cities. Table 13 displays the municipal solid waste composition as determined by these recently conducted waste sort studies.

The residential waste sorts of Missouri waste at the Johnson County, Courtney Ridge, and Lee’s Summit landfills show very similar patterns (Table 6). Paper averages about 34 percent of the total residential solid waste that is sent to landfills. Much of this paper could be recycled – especially newspapers, office paper, corrugated paper (boxes), and magazines. (The influence of the City’s curbside program could not be evaluated directly, but there is certainly a significant amount of paper still available in the waste stream even with the curbside program in place.)

The amount of paper, plastics, glass, and metals constitutes about 60 percent of the total amount of wastes disposed.

The analysis of commercial solid waste loads at the Johnson County Landfill showed that Missouri commercial solid waste is nearly 50 percent paper. As expected, office paper and corrugated paper (boxes) are dominant constituents of paper. While plastics are similar to residential waste, metals and glass are significantly lower. The potential for more paper recovery is significant.


3 - 1 3

T a b l e 1 . R e s i d e n t i a l S o l i d W a s t e C o l l e c t e d f o r D i s p o s a l , R e c o v e r e d f o r R e c y c l i n g a n d C o m p o s t i n g , a n d G e n e r a t e d i n

K a n s a s C i t y , M i s s o u r i , 2 0 0 0 – 2 0 0 6

Calendar Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 City Fiscal Year FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 Solid Waste Collected for Disposal (tons) City Core - City collection 51,970 52,381 52,467 51,595 41,302 33,838 30,727 North of River - Deffenbaugh 41,740 44,015 43,759 42,742 35,790 33,031 33,979 South KC - Deffenbaugh 36,170 43,368 41,781 39,422 33,838 30,732 29,293 Bulky trash 9,342 14,110 18,062 16,775 21,030 24,944 23,141 Illegal Dumping NA NA NA 1,876 3,358 2,633 2,724 Homes Associations (1) 7,665 7,665 7,665 7,665 7,540 7,540 7,540 Total City Collected and Contracted 146,887 161,539 163,734 160,075 142,858 132,718 127,404 Commercial collection - multi-family household trash (2) 16,417 16,297 15,975 15,291 14,816 14,419 15,020 Total City and Commercial Collection 163,304 177,836 179,709 175,366 157,674 147,137 142,424

Solid Waste Collected for Recycling and Composting (tons) Curbside collection - contract 0 0 0 600 11,204 17,493 18,987 Drop-off sites (3) 4,500 5,946 6,574 8,100 10,200 8,752 8,866 Yard waste collected for composting NA NA NA 2,916 2,354 1,711 3,473 Total Recycling and Composting 4,500 5,946 6,574 11,616 23,758 27,956 31,326

Solid Waste Generation (tons) (4) Generation - City Service Area 151,387 167,485 170,308 171,691 166,616 160,674 158,730Generation - Total Residential 167,804 183,782 186,283 186,982 181,432 175,093 173,750 Recycling Rate - Total Residential 2.7% 3.2% 3.5% 6.2% 13.1% 16.0% 18.0%

City Service Area Generation 151,387 167,485 170,308 171,691 166,616 160,674 158,730 Population 401,565 403,092 404,619 406,146 407,673 409,200 410,727 Generation (5) Lb/person/day 2.07 2.28 2.31 2.32 2.24 2.15 2.12

Total Residential Generation 167,804 183,782 186,283 186,982 181,432 175,093 173,750 Population 441,545 442,780 443,523 443,384 443,754 444,314 447,306 Generation (5) lb/person/day 2.08 2.27 2.30 2.31 2.24 2.16 2.13

(1) Quantity of solid waste collected for disposal calculated at 2.25 pounds per person per day. (2) Quantity of solid waste collected for disposal calculated at 2.25 pounds per person per day. Multi-family households with six or more units per dwelling. (3) Estimated from limited drop-off collection site data. (4) Generation equals disposal plus recycling and composting. (5) 365 days per year. Note: Fiscal Year is May 1 to April 30. Calendar year data is for year before FY, e.g., FY 04 is treated as equal to 2003 calendar year data.


3 - 1 4

T a b l e 2 . P r o j e c t e d R e s i d e n t i a l S o l i d W a s t e C o l l e c t e d f o r D i s p o s a l , R e c o v e r e d f o r R e c y c l i n g a n d C o m p o s t i n g , a n d G e n e r a t e d i n

K a n s a s C i t y , M i s s o u r i , 2 0 0 6 – 2 0 3 0

2006 2010 2012 2017 2020 2022 2027 2030 Solid Waste Collected for Disposal (tons) Total City Collected and Contracted (1) 127,404 138,540 140,990 147,290 151,180 153,820 160,580 164,780 Commercial collection - multi-family household trash (2) 15,020 17,200 17,500 18,280 18,770 19,090 19,930 20,450 Total City and Commercial Collection (3) 142,424 155,740 158,490 165,570 169,950 172,910 180,510 185,230

Solid Waste Collected for Recycling and Composting (tons) (4) Total Recycling and Composting

31,326 34,190 34,790 36,340 37,310 37,950 39,630 40,660 Solid Waste Generation (tons) (5) Generation - City

Service Area 158,730 172,730 175,780 183,630 188,490 191,770 200,210 205,440 Generation - Total Residential

173,750 189,930 193,280 201,910 207,260 210,860 220,140 225,890 Recycling Rate - Total Residential

18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% City Service Area Generation 158,730 172,730 175,780 183,630 188,490 191,770 200,210 205,440 Population 410,727 416,839 418,487 422,605 425,075 426,646 430,574 432,930 Generation (6) Lb/person/day 2.12 2.27 2.30 2.38 2.43 2.46 2.55 2.60

Total Residential Generation 173,750 189,930 193,280 201,910 207,260 210,860 220,140 225,890 Population 447,306 458,340 460,151 464,679 467,396 469,124 473,442 476,033 Generation (6) lb/person/day 2.13 2.27 2.30 2.38 2.43 2.46 2.55 2.60

(1) Solid waste collected for disposal equals total solid waste collected for disposal minus solid waste collected from multi-family households. (2) 2006 solid waste collected for disposal from Table 2-4. 2010 through 2030 solid waste collected for disposal based on per capita generation rate applied to population in multi-family households. Population in multi-family households equals the difference between total population projections (Table 2-2) minus population subject to city collection contracts (Table 2-3). Generation per capita factor was applied since these households do not have access to curbside collection of recyclable materials. (3) Solid waste collected for disposal equals solid waste generation minus solid waste collected for recycling and composting. (4) Recovery through recycling and composting held constant at the 2006 rate of 18 percent. (5) Growth of per capita generation 2006 - 2030 at national residential projected rate of 0.68% applied to population. (6) 365 days per year. Note: Calendar year data for 2006 represent fiscal year (FY) 2007.


3 - 1 5

F i g u r e 2 . K a n s a s C i t y R e s i d e n t i a l T r a s h M a n a g e m e n t (tons per year from 2000 to 2030)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

Generation

Collection

Recycling/Composting

T a b l e 3 . C o m m e r c i a l S o l i d W a s t e C o l l e c t e d f o r D i s p o s a l , R e c o v e r e d f o r R e c y c l i n g , a n d G e n e r a t e d i n K a n s a s C i t y ,

M i s s o u r i , 2 0 0 0 – 2 0 0 6

Calendar Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 City Fiscal Year FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 Solid Waste Collected for Disposal (tons) Private Collection 184,151 200,540 202,652 197,752 202,620 207,609 212,720

Solid Waste Collected for Recycling (tons) Private Collection 72,154 80,976 81,785 83,160 84,704 90,680 96,969

Solid Waste Generation (1) (tons) Total Commercial 256,305 281,516 284,437 280,912 287,324 298,289 309,689 Recycling Rate - Total Commercial

28.2%

28.8%

28.8%

29.6%

29.5%

30.4%

31.3%

Population 441,545 442,780 443,523 443,384 443,754 444,314 447,306 Generation (2) lb/person/day 3.18 3.48 3.51 3.47 3.55 3.68 3.79

(1) Generation equals disposal plus recycling and composting. (2) 365 days per year.


3 - 1 6

T a b l e 4 . P r o j e c t e d C o m m e r c i a l S o l i d W a s t e C o l l e c t e d f o r D i s p o s a l , R e c o v e r e d f o r R e c y c l i n g , a n d G e n e r a t e d i n K a n s a s C i t y ,

M i s s o u r i , 2 0 0 6 – 2 0 3 0

T a b l e 5 . S o l i d W a s t e C o l l e c t e d f o r D i s p o s a l , R e c o v e r e d f o r R e c y c l i n g a n d C o m p o s t i n g , a n d G e n e r a t e d i n K a n s a s C i t y ,

M i s s o u r i , 2 0 0 0 – 2 0 0 6 ( 1 ) ( 2 )

Calendar Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 City Fiscal Year FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 Solid Waste Collected for Disposal (tons) City plus Private Collection

347,455

378,377

382,362

373,117

360,295

354,746

355,144

Solid Waste Collected for Recycling and Composting (tons) City and Private Collection

76,654

86,922

88,359

91,860

106,108

116,925

124,821

Solid Waste Generation (tons) Total Residential plus Commercial

424,109

465,299

470,721

464,977

466,404

471,670

479,965

Recycling Rate – Residential plus Commercial

18.1%

18.7%

18.8%

19.8%

22.8%

24.8%

26.0% Population 441,545 442,780 443,523 443,384 443,754 444,314 447,306 Generation lb/person/day 5.26 5.75 5.81 5.74 5.76 5.82 5.88

(1) Residential plus commercial. (2) Tables 2-4 and 2-9.

Calendar Year 2006 2010 2012 2017 2020 2022 2027 2030 Solid Waste Collected for Disposal (tons) Private Collection 212,720 232,608 236,715 247,290 253,832 258,253 269,604 276,653 Solid Waste Collected for Recycling (tons)

Private Collection 96,969 106,036 107,908 112,728 115,711 117,726 122,900 126,114 Solid Waste Generation (1) (tons)

Total Commercial 309,689 338,644 344,623 360,018 369,542 375,978 392,504 402,767 Recycling Rate - Total Commercial

31.3% 31.3% 31.3% 31.3% 31.3% 31.3% 31.3% 31.3%

Population 447,306 458,340 460,151 464,679 467,396 469,124 473,442 476,033 Generation (2) lb/person/day 3.79 4.05 4.10 4.25 4.33 4.39 4.54 4.64

(1) Generation equals disposal plus recycling and composting. (2) 365 days per year.


3 - 1 7

T a b l e 6 . M u n i c i p a l S o l i d W a s t e C o m p o s i t i o n a s D e t e r m i n e d b y R e g i o n a l W a s t e S o r t S t u d i e s ( P e r c e n t b y w e i g h t o f t o t a l s a m p l e )

Material Category

Johnson County Landfill, Inc.

Missouri Commercial

Waste Loads (1)

Johnson County Landfill, Inc.

Missouri Residential

Waste Loads (1)

Courtney Ridge Landfill (2)

Lee's Summit Landfill

(2) Newspaper 2.80 6.13 5.60 6.20 Office Paper 12.13 2.19 8.00 5.96 Corrugated Containers 14.47 6.99 8.86 8.00 Magazines 4.65 3.35 3.07 4.23 Other Paper 15.34 16.26 8.64 9.29 TOTAL PAPER PRODUCTS 49.39 34.92 34.17 33.68 PET #1 2.17 2.05 2.72 2.34 HDPE #2 1.08 1.83 2.01 2.12 Film and Bags 6.04 4.83 5.13 3.55 Other Plastics 5.60 6.49 6.97 8.27 TOTAL PLASTICS 14.89 15.21 16.83 16.28 Steel 0.85 2.08 3.48 2.41 Aluminum 1.18 1.64 1.79 1.44 Other Metals 0.22 1.03 1.75 0.87 TOTAL METALS 2.26 4.76 7.02 4.72 Glass Containers 2.85 6.23 5.99 4.11 Other Glass 0.04 0.41 0.15 0.24 TOTAL GLASS 2.89 6.64 6.14 4.35 Diapers 2.39 3.34 7.31 5.47 Food 18.19 18.75 13.15 18.15 Textiles/Rubber/Leather 4.75 7.87 4.42 6.11 Wood 0.65 1.23 0.74 1.56 Yard Waste 4.59 7.28 * * TOTAL ORGANICS 30.57 38.47 30.30 34.73 TOTAL INORGANICS ** ** 3.48 4.52 SPECIAL WASTES ** ** 2.06 1.70 TOTAL 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

* Not reported in this sampling program. ** Not reported in this sampling program. (1) Engineering Solutions & Design, Inc. "Johnson County Solid Waste Analysis Final Report". September 15, 2007. http://jced.jocogov.org (2) MSW waste sort data Fall 2006 and Spring 2007. Preliminary tables. Provided by Midwest Assistance Program. September 2007.


3 - 1 8


4 - 1 9

4 OVERV IEW OF ALTERNAT IVES CONS IDERED

The following sections (Sections 5 through 24) examine numerous options for management of Kansas City’s solid waste including policy changes, ordinances, collection programs, processing and transfer facilities, and disposal facilities. In general, the options are evaluated based on feasibility for implementation and effects on overall disposal. Where the City is likely to experience significant expenses associated with implementation of an alternative, cost information is provided (including capital, annual, cost per household, and cost per ton),

A N A L Y S I S O F O P T I O N S

Each option evaluation, where appropriate, is organized as follows:

• A description of the City’s current program is provided, along with the costs for operating the program presented as cost per household and cost per ton of material collected.

• An overview of public perception regarding the current program is provided as well as discussion on perceptions of alternative options. This information was gathered from the public opinion survey and focus group discussions. For more information on this process, please see Section 7 of the Background Document.

• A brief description for each alternative option is presented to give the reader an insight in the anticipated operation and scope of the program. In some cases, specific information, such as the number of households served or type of materials collected, is presented.

• Cost estimates were developed for many of the programs and facilities examined. These estimates are based on available information and conceptual design and implementation scenarios. Implementation of plan components will require detailed engineering cost estimates and breakdowns for construction and operating costs prior to implementation.

- Cost estimating efforts required certain assumptions at this conceptual stage:

- The cost of land was not included for facilities, except for the transfer station/material recovery facility and landfill options.

- Projected equipment needs would be fulfilled with new purchases rather than with leased or used equipment.

- Some costs are based on current City expenditures and operating procedures.

- Costs are based on 2007 dollars.

- Each program is assumed to reach full implementation during the first year of operation.


4 - 2 0

- Cost estimates are made for capital costs, annual costs, costs per household, and costs per ton of material handled. Capital costs generally include site development work, permitting, engineering, design work, construction of buildings, and the purchase of equipment and vehicles needed for each option.

- Annual costs consist of annualized capital costs, personnel costs, and operation and maintenance costs. Personnel costs were based on the use of City employees at current pay scales, including fringe benefits.

- Costs per ton were calculated from the total annual costs and the tonnages handled by the specific options. In addition, the net system costs were calculated based on the annual costs and revenues generated by the alternative.

- A twenty-year analysis was developed for the years 2008 through 2027.

• Other pertinent information, such as systems used in other cities or implementation issues, is provided where necessary.

This plan quantifies the major cost factors of the City’s solid waste system, including collection, recycling, and disposal. The cost estimate and analyses presented in this plan provide reasonable and sound information for decision-making purposes. Actual costs may vary from those indicated, but the overall impact of such variations should not significantly alter the relative comparisons.

Financing and interest expenses are included in this analysis; however, there may be alternative approaches to funding the various capital expenditures in the analysis through City reserves or other financial mechanisms.

Unknown changes in solid waste generation, disposal, or management practices in the City or the region can affect the operational and capital cost requirements for the City’s solid waste system. The results of the cost analyses presented in this plan should be carefully reviewed in light of the assumptions presented.

T H E “ S T A T U S - Q U O ” O P T I O N

As discussed in the Background Document, the costs and revenues with managing the City’s waste for the next 20 years were estimated, assuming that the City makes no changes to its current program. The analysis assumes certain changes associated with closure of local landfills and increasing disposal fees. The analysis also assumes an inflation rate of four percent per year. The analysis is called the Status-Quo Option and provides a baseline for comparison to other alternative options assessed in the following sections. Additional information on the development of the Status-Quo Option is provided in Section 5 of the Background Document. The full analysis of costs and revenues for the Status-Quo Option is provided in Appendix A.


5 - 2 1

5 C ITY POL IC I ES

To promote effective solid waste management in the community, Kansas City should be prepared to lead by example. Following are programs that address internal City programs and policies for waste reduction and recycling:

• Establish a diversion goal for the City.

• Expand the City’s internal recycling program.

• Establish waste reduction policies.

• Monitor compliance with existing policies and procedures for environmentally preferable purchasing and the procurement of recycled products.

• Develop new policies and implement existing policies for use of recovered materials in City projects.

Each of these options is discussed below.

E S T A B L I S H A D I V E R S I O N G O A L

C u r r e n t a n d H i s t o r i c a l D i v e r s i o n R a t e s

In Fiscal Year 2006-2007, an estimated 18 percent of the City’s residential waste was diverted from disposal through recycling and composting. Historically, the City’s diversion rates have been increasing, as shown in Table 7.

T a b l e 7 . K a n s a s C i t y R e s i d e n t i a l D i v e r s i o n R a t e

Calendar Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Fiscal Year FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 Residential Waste Generated (tons) 167,804 183,782 186,283 186,982 181,432 175,093 173,750

Recycling and Composting (tons) 4,500 5,946 6,574 11,616 23,758 27,956 31,326 Residential Recycling Rate 2.7% 3.2% 3.5% 6.2% 13.1% 16.0% 18.0%

When recycling efforts are included that have been undertaken by the commercial sector (and estimated 31.3 percent recycling), the City’s diversion rate is estimated at 26 percent.

In comparison, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the national 2006 recycling rate was 32.5 percent. Additionally, Missouri’s goal is to achieve a statewide diversion rate of 40 percent, which was established by Senate Bill 530 that was signed into law in 1990. In May 2006, the State estimated that 46 percent of the State’s waste was diverted from landfills in 2005.


5 - 2 2

R e c o m m e n d e d G o a l

It is recommended that the City establish a diversion goal. Such a goal can help establish a benchmark for measuring success and provide a focal point for planning. In keeping with the City’s Phase II Climate Protection Plan, the City could establish the diversion rate at 80 percent by the year 2020. Attaining such a goal will require the City to “look beyond” the residential waste stream and establish programs for commercial waste and construction and demolition debris.

M e a s u r e m e n t T o w a r d P r o g r e s s

The standard methodology used for calculating diversion is:

Total MSW Diverted

MSW Diversion Rate (%) = X 100

Total MSW Generated*

*Total MSW Generated = Total MSW Diverted + Total MSW Disposed of

The diversion rate is calculated by dividing the total amount of MSW recycled (including offsite composting) in the measurement year (the previous calendar year) by the total amount of MSW generated. MSW generation is equal to the total amount of MSW recycled plus the total amount of MSW disposed of, in tons.

Collecting the information necessary to measure diversion also can assist the City in:

• Identifying trends in waste generation and diversion within the City.

• Making changes in City operations for diversion programs (e.g., route schedules, equipment needs, and crew needs for recycling collection).

• Assessing and choosing among future waste management options based on the amount and type of waste and recyclable materials.

• Determining the viability and capacity of solid waste recycling facilities.

I N T E R N A L R E C Y C L I N G P R O G R A M

Kansas City should provide all employees the opportunity to recycle. Kansas City will need to design a system to collect the recyclable materials, identify key staff to make decisions and resolve problems, notify employees regarding the recycling program, and train staff.


5 - 2 3

C I T Y W A S T E R E D U C T I O N P O L I C I E S

Certain workplace practices can help prevent waste before it is created. Many practices can reduce local government costs through avoided disposal fees and can also save natural resources. By implementing waste reduction programs in their own offices and facilities, local governments not only reduce their own waste but also show their commitment to such programs. They can use their own waste reduction experiences to illustrate the benefits of source reduction when developing similar programs in the commercial and residential sectors of their communities.

Through numerous, small choices employees make each day, large reductions in the quantities of waste can be achieved. Employees should be encouraged to learn more about waste reduction practices and work toward implementing and promoting such practices. Such practices by Kansas City employees should be implemented whenever practicable and cost-effective. Examples include encouraging the use of:

• Electronic communication.

• Double-sided photocopying and printing.

• Copiers and printers capable of duplexing (printing on both sides of the paper).

• Electronic forms and applications.

• Rechargeable batteries.

• Streamlining and computerizing forms.

• “On-demand” printing of documents and reports as they are needed.

• Product leases, when service agreements support maintenance and repair, rather than new purchases (e.g., carpets).

• Sharing equipment and occasional use items.

• Durable products rather than disposable products.

• Reducing product weight or thickness when effectiveness is not jeopardized in products such as paper and plastic liner bags.

• Buying in bulk, when storage and operations exist to support it.

• Reusing products such as file folders, storage boxes, office supplies, and furnishings.

• Mulching pruned material from parks and using on site.

The City’s employees are most knowledgeable about ways that waste can be reduced or even eliminated and their ideas are essential. Adopted policies should be reinforced through employee incentives for outstanding performance.


5 - 2 4

Other factors to consider in changing workplace practices are energy, water, disposal, and labor costs as well as toxicity, safety, and training changes. For example:

• Energy requirements of different products can result in measurable cost changes for the organization. Energy for lighting, heating water and running appliances can vary between products.

• Water usage may also change with different procedures or products.

• Labor costs may also change with product or procedure changes.

Safety and training are two other factors that come into play with product or procedure changes. The alternative product must be at least as safe as the old one. Sometimes, additional staff training is required to implement the reduction action. P R O C U R E M E N T O F R E C Y C L E D P R O D U C T S A N D E N V I R O N M E N T A L L Y P R E F E R A B L E P U R C H A S I N G

Local, state, and federal government can and do use their tremendous purchasing power to influence the products that manufacturers bring to the marketplace. R e c y c l e d P r o d u c t s

In the last decade or so, efforts have focused on encouraging procurement of products made from recycled content. A major goal of these procurement programs has been to create viable, long-term markets for recovered materials. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed a list of designated products and associated recycled-content recommendations for federal agencies to use when making purchases. These are known as Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines.3 To date, EPA has developed more than 60 comprehensive procurement guidelines that fall into the general categories of construction products, landscaping products, nonpaper office products, paper and paper products, park and recreation products, transportation products, vehicular products, and miscellaneous products. For example, federal agencies are instructed to buy printing or writing paper that contains at least 30% post-consumer recycled content. EPA has already designated or is proposing to designate the products listed in Table 8 and has developed specific recycled-content recommendations. E n v i r o n m e n t a l l y P r e f e r a b l e P u r c h a s i n g

More recently, purchasing efforts have expanded beyond “buy-recycled” programs and policies (discussed above) to “Environmentally Preferable Purchasing.” In fact, the federal government has been directed by Executive Order 13101 to identify and give preference to the purchase of products and services that pose fewer environmental burdens. Federal agencies are now 3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines. Available at www.epa.gov/cpg.


5 - 2 5

encouraged to consider a broad range of environmental factors in purchasing decisions. Environmentally preferable products typically are defined as products that have a lesser or reduced effect on human health and the environment when compared with competing products that serve the same purpose. They include products that have recycled content, reduce waste, use less energy, are less toxic, and are more durable. K a n s a s C i t y E n v i r o n m e n t a l l y P r e f e r a b l e P r o c u r e m e n t P o l i c y

Kansas City has adopted this policy which is codified in Chapter 2 – Administration, Article XI – Finances, Division 10 (provided in Appendix B). The purpose of this policy is to support markets for recycled and other environmentally preferable products by affirmatively encouraging city departments, offices, agencies and contractors to buy and use such products whenever practicable and to encourage vendors to make such products available in the marketplace. Decisions relating to the implementation of this policy are made by the specifying department with the understanding that the purchase of recycled and environmentally preferable products is an affirmative policy of the City. Kansas City should strive to implement and enforce compliance with this policy. Research may be necessary to determine the types of recycled content products that are available, their specifications, performance, and cost. Much of this research is available to purchasing agents, however. For example, Kansas City could draw upon the extensive work completed by EPA and include its guidelines in purchasing decisions. Another tool available to Kansas City is the Missouri Market Development Program’s Recycled Products Directory. The directory can help Kansas City staff locate vendors of recycled-content products that are being manufactured and distributed in Missouri. The entire directory is available on line at: dnr.mo.gov/eiera/mmdp-recycled-products-directory.htm. Also, published research results are available through other municipalities such as King County, Washington (www.metrokc.gov/procure/green/index.htm). Government purchasing agents often have concerns about the quality and price of recycled-content products. Careful testing and selection of recycled content products can minimize concerns about product quality. Certain recycled-content products may have a higher initial purchase cost, but may require less maintenance or long-term costs over the life of the product. Cost concerns can be addressed by considering short-term and long-term costs (life cycle costs) in comparing product alternatives. Given the number of products that local governments typically purchase, it can be challenging to determine which products to substitute for more environmentally friendlier ones. Use of organic landscaping products created by mulched and composted Kansas City yard waste could represent a good starting point. The City pays a local contractor to haul and manage leaf and brush waste collected at the curb and brought to leaf and brush drop-off sites. The City should purchase products created by this local contractor for use in City parks and landscaping projects. Not only will the City “close the loop,” but could potentially reduce the rate paid to the contractor for management of the materials by creating a guaranteed end market. Additionally, computer products can be a good candidate for Kansas City to consider for environmentally preferable purchasing because of the potential environmental impacts associated


5 - 2 6

with the manufacture, use, and end-of-life management of computers. Electronic waste is often identified as one of the most significant waste problem, with respect to management costs and potential environmental impacts. Furthermore, electronic waste has become a primary concern as a result of the increase of new electronic products combined with their rapid obsolescence, low recycling rate and their potential to contain hazardous materials. Kansas City could develop environmentally preferable purchasing criteria for computers and electronics (such as CPUs, monitors, keyboards, printers, fax machines, and copiers) which might include:

• Compliance with federal Energy Star guidelines • Reduced toxic constituents • Reduced toxic materials used in manufacturing process • Recycled content plastic housing • Pre-installed software and on-line manuals • Designed for recycling/reuse • Upgradeable/long life • Reduced packaging • Manufacturer provided product take-back service • Manufacturer demonstrated corporate environmental responsibility

Adoption of environmentally preferable purchasing practices allows government agencies to reduce the harmful environmental impacts of their activities as well as promotes the development of products that have improved environmental performance. However, these practices require staff to review products that they are currently purchasing. Staff may be comfortable with the products that they are using and familiar with application procedures and performance expectations. Additional guidance on implementing an environmentally preferable purchasing policy, developed by Alameda County, California, can be found at www.stopwaste.org.


5 - 2 7

T a b l e 8 . F e d e r a l P r o c u r e m e n t G u i d e l i n e s

CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS

DESIGNATED PROPOSED Building insulation products Carpet (polyester) Carpet cushion Cement and concrete containing: • Coal fly ash • Ground granulated blast furnace slag • Cenospheres • Silica fume Consolidated and reprocessed latex paint Floor tiles

Flowable fill Laminated paperboard Modular threshold ramps Nonpressure pipe Patio blocks Railroad grade crossing surfaces Roofing materials Shower and restroom dividers/partitions Structural fiberboard

Nylon carpet and nylon carpet backing

LANDSCAPING PRODUCTS DESIGNATED PROPOSED

Compost made from yard trimmings or food waste Garden and soaker hoses Hydraulic mulch Lawn and garden edging Plastic lumber landscaping timbers and posts

Compost made from manure or biosolids (Revision) Fertilizers made from recovered organic materials

NONPAPER OFFICE PRODUCTS DESIGNATED PROPOSED

Binders, clipboards, file folders, clip portfolios, and presentation folders Office furniture Office recycling containers Office waste receptacles

Plastic desktop accessories Plastic envelopes Plastic trash bags Printer ribbons Toner cartridges

None at this time.

PAPER AND PAPER PRODUCTS DESIGNATED PROPOSED

Commercial/industrial sanitary tissue products Miscellaneous papers Newsprint Paperboard and packaging products Printing and writing papers

None at this time.

PARK AND RECREATION PRODUCTS DESIGNATED PROPOSED

Park benches and picnic tables Plastic fencing Playground equipment

Playground surfaces Running tracks

None at this time.

TRANSPORTATION PRODUCTS DESIGNATED PROPOSED

Channelizers Delineators Flexible delineators

Parking stops Traffic barricades Traffic cones

None at this time.

VEHICULAR PRODUCTS DESIGNATED PROPOSED

Engine coolants Rebuilt vehicular parts

Re-refined lubricating oils Retread tires

None at this time.

MISCELLANEOUS PRODUCTS DESIGNATED PROPOSED

Awards and plaques Bike racks Blasting grit Industrial drums Manual-grade strapping

Mats Pallets Signage Sorbents

None at this time.


5 - 2 8

U S E O F R E C O V E R E D M A T E R I A L S I N C I T Y P R O J E C T S

As the environmental impact of buildings becomes more apparent, a new field called “green building” is gaining momentum. Green buildings incorporate principles of energy and resource efficiency, practical applications of waste reduction and pollution prevention, good indoor air quality and natural light to promote occupant health and productivity, and transportation efficiency in design and construction, during use and reuse. Green construction methods can be integrated into buildings at any stage, from design and construction, to renovation and deconstruction. Buildings located in the region that used recycled materials during their construction and incorporate other green building principles include:

• EPA Region 7 building in Kansas City: For building materials, recycled content products were used wherever possible. For example, foundation materials containing fly ash (a byproduct of coal combustion) were used throughout construction. In addition, nearly all the interior finish contains recycled or environmentally friendly content. The ceramic tiles, for example, were made from over 70 percent postindustrial recycled waste glass, while much of the carpet consists of 25 percent recycled material.4

• Johnson County Sunset Drive Office Building: In many applications, the building design uses materials that have been reclaimed or salvaged and have a high recycled material content. For example, reclaimed wood from a local deconstructed building is used. In addition, most materials used are themselves highly recyclable.5

The City has adopted a policy that new buildings and renovations should attain a U.S. Green Building Council LEED green building rating of “Silver” (see Table 9). Kansas City should make every effort to fully implement this policy. Specifications for incorporating environmentally friendly materials, including recycled products, into building projects are available commercially. Additional tools available to Kansas City are the Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines developed by EPA. Several guidelines have been developed for construction products containing recycled materials. A specific example of where the City may use green building specifications is discussed later in this document in the discussion of a proposed City-owned solid waste transfer and processing center, the Kansas City Eco Center. In the interim, the City should be using locally-created mulch and compost for City projects as discussed earlier.

4 More information available at Greening EPA website: http://www.epa.gov/greeningepa/facilities/kansascity-hq.htm 5 More information available at the Johnson County Facilities Management website: http://facilities.jocogov.org/pdfs/SUNSET_PRESS%20RELEASE_low.pdf


5 - 2 9

T a b l e 9 . K a n s a s C i t y L E E D S i l v e r S t a n d a r d P o l i c y

Sec. 2-1604. LEED silver standard. (a) Policy. It is the policy of the city that the design, construction, and operations of new facilities and renovations selected by the LEED standards committee with 5,000 square feet of occupied area, for which a request for proposals for design services is issued after the date of the enactment of this section, shall conform to the silver rating of the most recent version of the USGBC LEED green building rating system. (b) Establishment of LEED standards committee. The city manager shall appoint a LEED standards committee composed of one representative from each of the following: the environmental management commission, the water services department, the parks and recreation department, the environmental management department, the public works department, the aviation department and the capital improvements management office. (c) Contracts. Each contract for the design, construction, remodeling or renovation of a city-owned or operated building or facility shall contain provisions determined by the LEED standards committee to be sufficient to require the designer and constructor to make good faith effort for compliance with the LEED silver standard at a minimum and submit documentation to USBC for their independent third-party review process. (d) Projects in process. Projects with sites that pertain to paragraph (a) and design underway prior to the enactment of this ordinance, and programs with funding authorized before July 24, 2002 shall comply with the LEED silver standard to the extent possible without compromising the current project budget, necessary programmatic components of the project, and the current schedule for project completion. (e) Exemptions. For a given project, the LEED standards committee may select the most appropriate version of LEED and apply the silver standard, and/or require compliance with select credits, and/or set a lifecycle cost/benefit ratio for budget increases related to green building costs, and/or exempt a construction project from any LEED compliance requirements. (f) Rules and regulations. The city manager shall adopt rules and regulations to facilitate the LEED standards committee review and determination process. (Ord. No. 041222, § 1, 11-18-04)


5 - 3 0


6 - 3 1

6 C ITY ORD INANCES

The following section identifies ordinances that the City Council could consider adopting to increase the level of recycling in the City. This section discusses special events and mandatory recycling for residences, multi-family units, and businesses.

S P E C I A L E V E N T R E C Y C L I N G

Activities at venue and events can generate a significant amount of waste in a short period of time. Results released in 2006 of a study of 25 different venues and events in California indicated that on average 2.44 pounds of waste is generated per visitor, per day. As a result of this study, California passed a state law that requires large venues and large events to plan and implement waste reduction programs. Also included are requirements for specified venues and events to report waste diversion information to the local jurisdiction in which they are located.

Kansas City launched an event recycling program in 2007 to provide recycling services at special events and festivals. The City provided services at six events, including the Rhythm and Ribs festival, Gospel Jazz Festival, 18th Street Festival, Downs Syndrome Annual Buddy Walk, KC Charities Rally Kick-off Carnival and the Hispanic Festival. Organizers of special events held within the City are not, however, required to provide recycling opportunities.

The City could follow the lead of other cities across the country and pass an ordinance to make recycling services mandatory at special events. Efforts are currently underway to revise chapter 64-508 of the City’s Code of Ordinances to require recycling at festivals, neighborhood block parties, parades, or other activities requiring a street closure. This effort should continue.

The approach taken by other cities generally requires development of a recycling plan as part of the special event permit process. For example, San Francisco, New York City, Pittsburgh, and Madison (Wisconsin) use this approach for requiring recycling at special events:

• San Francisco’s ordinance requires planners to submit a recycling plan with their permit application. This applies to street fairs, athletic events, or any other event requiring temporary use or occupancy of a public street at which beverages will be dispensed or a large amount of other materials will be generated.

• New York City has a mandatory recycling ordinance that requires recycling in the city, including at all special events. The department of sanitation has issued rules setting requirements for different types of events. For example, the department requires the sponsors of the more than 5,000 street fairs held in the city each year to meet with a department staff member prior to the event to review recycling procedures. The city requires all street fair recycling programs to collect, at a minimum, corrugated cardboard. At events in which vendors sell food and/or beverages, the program must also collect metal cans, glass bottles and jars, plastic bottles, and aluminum foil.

• Pittsburgh’s City Code requires persons to separate white office paper, corrugated cardboard, plastic containers, and aluminum from waste generated at community


6 - 3 2

activities. The city developed further guidelines for special events that are expected to draw more than 200 individuals per day. The guidelines require event planners to have a solid waste plan that includes recycling as a condition for receiving an event permit. The city also offers recycling assistance, such as providing recycling containers and small trailers for major events. The city has about 100 containers available for loan. In addition, the city offers to make arrangements for collecting the materials after the event, but event organizers are responsible for providing volunteers or staff for proper maintenance and supervision of the containers during the event.

• The ordinance passed by the City of Madison requires that event coordinators develop a recycling plan and have it approved by the city’s recycling coordinator in order to receive a permit to hold the event. The plan must describe the recyclables that the event will generate, how they will be collected from the public and vendors, and arrangements for transporting the materials to a recycling facility. The ordinance does not authorize fines. Rather, it states that if the recycling coordinator disapproves a recycling plan, he or she will work with the organization to develop an approvable plan. Madison’s recycling office currently owns 110 collapsible bins that are available for loan and plans to add another 50 to accommodate an increased demand now that recycling is mandatory for all events.

The city of San Diego has included enforcement provisions in its ordinance. Code Enforcement Officers will conduct inspections based primarily on complaints received and event site visits. A sliding scale of enforcement provisions was implemented:

• First and Second violation: Issue notice to responsible person advising of recycling requirement, the availability of technical assistance, and provide contact information.

• Third violation: Issue $100 Administrative Citation, advise responsible person of the availability of technical assistance, and provide contact information.

• Fourth and any Subsequent violations: Issue next level Administrative Citation ($250, $500, $750 or $1,000 depending on magnitude of violation), advise responsible person of the availability of technical assistance, and provide contact information.

• If no compliance after issuance of a $1,000 Administrative Citation, refer case to City Attorney's Office.

After the first violation, a code enforcement officer will re-inspect containers at the next event held in the City by the same responsible person. After the second violation, an $88 re-inspection fee will be charged to cover costs.

M A N D A T O R Y R E C Y C L I N G O R D I N A N C E

C u r r e n t C i t y P r o g r a m

Participation in the City’s residential curbside recycling program currently is voluntary. Participation is encouraged by limiting the amount of trash that will be picked up weekly from


6 - 3 3

each eligible residence (i.e., two-bag limit). Multi-family units and businesses are not required to recycle.

In a voluntary recycling program, such as Kansas City’s, householders/businesses choose whether or not they participate; in a mandatory program, they are legally obligated to participate.

Even though the City’s diversion rate has grown consistently, there is still opportunity for continued growth. The waste composition studies conducted at the Johnson County, Courtney Ridge, and Lee’s Summit landfills indicate that significant amounts of recyclable materials are still being disposed by residents (see Section 2 of the Background Document for more information). In 2006, the City collected approximately 31,000 tons of material for recycling and composting. However, there are still more than 61,000 tons per year of recyclable paper grades, steel and aluminum containers, and #1 and #2 plastic bottles in the residential waste disposal stream (see Table 10). Curbside recycling is provided by the City for these materials.

T a b l e 1 0 . R e c y c l a b l e s i n K a n s a s C i t y R e s i d e n t i a l W a s t e S t r e a m

Recyclables Disposed Curbside Collection Material Category

Percentage of Disposed Waste

Stream (1)

Tons Disposed by Kansas City Residents (2)

Newspaper 5.98 8,517 Office Paper 5.38 7,662 Corrugated Containers 7.95 11,323 Magazines 3.55 5,056 Other Paper 11.40 16,236 TOTAL PAPER PRODUCTS 34.26 48,794 PET #1 2.37 3,375 HDPE #2 1.99 2,834 TOTAL PLASTICS 4.36 6,210 Steel 2.66 3,788 Aluminum 1.62 2,307 TOTAL METALS 4.28 6,096 TOTAL 42.90 61,100 (1) average percent by weight from waste composition studies at Johnson County, Courtney Ridge, and Lee’s Summit landfills (2) Waste disposed (142,424 tons) multiplied by percent by weight

Capturing these recyclables could save the City approximately $1.7 million in annual disposal fees, as well as earn the City additional revenues from their sale.

If participation in the City’s voluntary program does not increase in the future and other measures fail to increase participation, the City may consider adopting a mandatory residential recycling ordinance. An ordinance requiring multi-family and commercial recycling could be used to increase the overall level of recycling in the City.


6 - 3 4

M a n d a t o r y S o u r c e S e p a r a t i o n o f R e c y c l a b l e s

Several communities have enacted ordinances that require citizens and/or businesses to separate recyclable materials from their trash. These mandatory recycling ordinances typically require generators to separate certain materials for recycling collection or a certain percentage or number of the materials they generate. If recyclable items are discovered in residential trash, violators may be fined or collection refused. Multi-family and commercial ordinances generally require that a recycling plan and documentation be submitted to the city, since most cities do not directly provide services to those sectors. Most cities pass ordinances that cover both residential and commercial recycling, however, they have been presented separately here.

Residential Ordinances

A few residential examples include:

• Seattle, Washington: In 2005, the city passed an ordinance requiring separation of recyclables. Starting in 2006, Seattle Public Utilities began enforcing the ordinance. Garbage collectors “eyeball” the contents of the trash can and will not collect trash where recyclable paper, cardboard, as well as aluminum, steel, glass and plastic bottles and jars are found to be more than 10 percent of the container (by volume). They will leave a notice on the can and the resident will need to remove recyclables from the container before the garbage will be collected the following week. An example of the tag used is provided in Figure 3. The city budgeted $1.5 million for an education program before enforcement began.

• Westchester County, New York: The County enacted a source separation law in 1992, but just recently began enforcement of the law. Every waste generator in Westchester County (both residential and nonresidential) is responsible for the source separation of solid waste and recyclables at the point of generation. Enforcement of residential requirements is conducted through a multi-step program ranging from warnings (following inspections) to violation notices and ultimately to fines. Starting January 7, 2008, garbage and recyclables that were not properly separated were tagged with a yellow sticker. Then, starting February 1, garbage will not get picked up if recyclables are not separated out and a red sticker will be left. Copies of the stickers used are provided in Figure 4.


6 - 3 5

F i g u r e 3 . G a r b a g e T a g u s e d b y S e a t t l e


6 - 3 6

F i g u r e 4 . W e s t c h e s t e r C o u n t y E n f o r c e m e n t S t i c k e r s

Multi-family, Commercial, and Institution Recycling Ordinances

Occupants of apartments, condominium complexes and high rise structures that house multiple families usually generate the same types of materials as those living in single family units. For this reason, multi-family recycling ordinances generally require recycling of the same materials that are collected curbside.

Recycling at commercial establishments and institutions presents a different challenge. A bakery generates wastes that are different from a bookstore. Often, business recycling ordinances will take this into account when developing the list of materials that must be recycled by businesses.

A few examples of these types of ordinances include:

• New York City: All residences, businesses, city agencies, and institutions in the city are required by law to recycle. The city’s ordinance establishes the materials that must be separated from trash and establishes fines for noncompliance. The following must be separated:

- Residences (including multi-family), most businesses, and city agencies/institutions receiving city collection services are required to separate glass bottles and jars; metal cans; plastic bottles and jugs; beverage cartons; aluminum foil, aluminum foil products and metal items (i.e., items 100 percent metal or predominantly metal); newspapers; magazines; catalogs; phone books; corrugated cardboard; and mixed paper (i.e., junk mail, smooth cardboard, white and colored paper, manila folders, envelopes, and soft cover books).


6 - 3 7

- All food or beverage service establishments must separate the following materials for recycling: glass bottles and jars; metal cans; plastic bottles and jugs; aluminum foil and aluminum foil products; corrugated cardboard; metal components of bulk waste; and construction waste, excluding plaster, wall coverings, drywall, roofing shingles, wood and lumber, and glass window panes.

- All businesses other than food or beverage services establishments must separate the following materials for recycling: high grade office paper; newspapers; magazines; catalogs; phone books; corrugated cardboard; metal components of bulk waste; construction waste, excluding plaster, wall coverings, drywall, roofing shingles, wood and lumber, and glass window panes; and textiles generated by establishments whose solid waste stream routinely contains at least 10 percent textiles.

• Seattle, Washington: In addition to the mandatory residential recycling requirements:

- Apartments, townhouses and condominiums whose garbage containers are filled with more than 10 percent recyclable paper, cardboard, aluminum and tin cans -- as well as glass and plastic bottles and jars -- will be tagged with warning notices by Seattle Public Utilities inspectors. After a third notice, a $50 charge will be added to the garbage account.

- Recyclable paper, cardboard and yard debris are not allowed in commercial garbage. Businesses will be tagged with warning notices by Seattle Public Utilities inspectors if large amounts of these recyclables are dumped in the garbage. After a third notice, a $50 fine will be added to the garbage account. Street containers that receive waste from the public are exempted.

• Arlington County, Virginia: Arlington’s recycling ordinance requires each multi-family residential property in the County to provide its tenants with an on-site recycling program for newspapers, metal food and beverage cans (aluminum and tin/steel), and glass bottles and jars. The ordinance requires that the manager of each multi-family residential property submit a recycling plan within 30 days from the date of first occupancy by a tenant. The ordinance also requires new recycling plans in February of every third year. All commercial properties in Arlington are required to recycle the top two materials generated annually in the greatest quantity. The recycling collection system must be separate from trash/ refuse collection. Each business must file a recycling plan within 30 days of receiving a certificate of occupancy, submit an updated plan annually, and inform employees and business tenants about the program.

• Miami-Dade County, Florida: There are over 10,000 apartment and condominium buildings in Miami-Dade County. The Department of Solid Waste Management estimates that each year, these multi-family establishments produce 700,000 tons of solid waste -- just under 25% of the total waste generated in the County. To maximize the amount of waste that is diverted from disposal, Miami-Dade County has a law


6 - 3 8

that requires all rental property owners and condominium associations to provide recycling programs. All condominium and rental units must recycle the following:

- Glass, food and beverage containers; - Aluminum cans; - Newspapers, without their plastic delivery bags; - Household plastic containers; - Steel cans.

• Washington, D.C.: The District of Columbia enacted the “DC Solid Waste Management and Multi-Material Recycling Act of 1988,” which took effect March 16, 1989. Recycling is required in all commercial establishments. These include office buildings, churches, retailers, warehouses, apartment buildings (with four or more units), service companies, cooperatives, condominiums, bars and restaurants, as well as museums, associations, non-profit organizations, schools and universities. Violations of the District’s recycling laws are subject to tickets and fines ranging from $25 to $1000. All businesses located in the District of Columbia must submit a recycling plan, every two years, and implement an ongoing recycling program. A commercial recycling program includes separation of recyclables from other solid waste, ensuring an adequate number of containers for separated recyclables and hiring a licensed, registered recycling hauler to regularly pick up recyclables (or, in certain circumstances, establishing a system where an entity may haul away its recyclables on its own). Mandatory recyclable materials include:

- Paper products - Aluminum, steel and tin cans - Brown, green and clear glass bottles and jars - Plastic food containers and beverage bottles are optional

• Austin, Texas: The following must provide onsite recycling: 1) apartments and multi-family communities within the city limits with 100 units or more, 2) businesses within the city limits with 100 employees or more onsite, and 3) office buildings within the city limits with 100 employees or more onsite. The following are the recycling program requirements:

- A plan must be on file with Solid Waste Services. New businesses, multi-family complexes and office buildings have 14 days from the start of operations to file the plan form.

- New employees and tenants must be informed about the recycling program. All employees and tenants must be re-educated about the program at least annually.

- There must be adequate outdoor collection containers.

- Apartments and multi-family communities must provide onsite recycling of any four of the following materials: aluminum cans, tin/steel cans, glass


6 - 3 9

containers, plastic bottles, newspaper, cardboard, kraft paper bags, and home office paper.

- Businesses and office buildings must provide onsite recycling of any two of the following materials: aluminum cans, tin/steel cans, glass containers, plastic bottles, newspaper, mixed office paper, and cardboard.

- A volume report must be filed quarterly. Recycling haulers may file volume reports for their clients.

• Fairfax County, Virginia: The county has requirements for both multi-family units and businesses:

- Apartments and condominiums built before July 2007 are required to recycle mixed paper and cardboard. The owner or management company must provide a recycling system for these materials, according to Chapter 109.1 of the County Code. Apartments and condominiums built after July 2007 are required to recycle mixed paper and cardboard, as well as glass bottles, metal food and beverage containers, plastic bottles and scrap metal such as appliances. According to Chapter 109.1, the owner or management company must provide a recycling system for these materials. All nonresidential buildings (businesses, schools, hospitals, etc.) in Fairfax County are required to recycle mixed paper and cardboard.

- Nonresidential buildings or complexes that generate 100 tons of waste per year must also recycle their principal recyclable material. The principal recyclable material varies according to business type. By definition, it is the recyclable material that occurs in the highest quantity by weight in the waste stream. If county staff determines that the principal recyclable material for the facility is cardboard and/or paper, no additional recycling will be required. It is the responsibility of the owners and/or managers of commercial buildings to provide the recycling system for employees or occupants.

• Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Recycling is mandatory for every resident, business, office and institution in the City of Pittsburgh (City Code 619):

- Residential and apartments (5 or fewer units): All residents must separate recycle items from household trash and package them for bi-weekly recycling curbside collection or take them a City recycling drop-off center.

- Business, institution, apartments (6 or more units) and commercial recycling: The operator of every business establishment located within the city must establish a program to recycle high grade office paper, plastic bottles, corrugated cardboard, aluminum cans and leaf waste, where applicable.


6 - 4 0

P u b l i c P e r c e p t i o n o f M a n d a t o r y R e c y c l i n g

As part of the public opinion survey, respondents were asked if recycling should become mandatory. Approximately 77 percent of the respondents indicated that it should. Over nine percent of the respondents indicated that it should not be mandatory and the remaining 13 percent were not sure.

Those responding that recycling should be mandatory were then asked what penalties should be used to enforce a mandatory recycling ordinance. More than one response to the question was allowed. The following responses were received:

• Use of fines: 75 percent, • Warnings: 52 percent, • Non-collection of trash: 45 percent, • Public notification of violators: 37 percent.

In general, recycling participation was discussed during focus group meetings. Most participants suggested that residential recycling participation could be influenced more through increased education and incentives. Specific incentive discussed included reducing the City’s per-bag limit to one or providing financial incentives such as rebates on City bills (e.g., water) for those who recycle.

Focus group participants also included individuals living in apartments and condominiums. In general, these individuals find it difficult to recycle because it is not offered through their complexes and it is inconvenient. Participation in recycling requires those living in apartments and condominiums to store recyclables in their unit and then take them to a drop-off recycling center when they have a sufficient quantity to make the trip worthwhile. They believe that there would be more multi-family recycling if building owners/managers would provide recycling services.

I m p l e m e n t a t i o n I s s u e s

If the City chooses to implement a mandatory recycling, Kansas City will need to pass an ordinance requiring recycling and which also covers a number of other points, such as: (l) why trash separation is mandatory; (2) to whom mandatory separation and recycling applies (residences and/or businesses); (3) which items must be separated; (4) what processing is required, such as cleaning or bundling; and (5) penalties for noncompliance. Reviewing the ordinances developed by the cities used as examples above can provide Kansas City with a logical starting point for developing its own ordinances.

The City will also need to budget for education and enforcement of the ordinance. More information on an increased education/technical assistance program is provided later in this document.

It is also recommended that the City phase in mandatory recycling so that the City may provide technical assistance as needed. For example, the City may first choose to make recycling mandatory in multi-family units and work with apartment and condominium owners/managers


6 - 4 1

on implementation, such as reviewing recycling plans and assisting with recycling bin selection and placement. As a second step, the City could implement mandatory recycling in institutions, before addressing the commercial sector.


6 - 4 2


7 - 4 3

7 EDUCAT ION, PROMOT ION, AND TECHNICAL ASS ISTANCE PROGRAM

C U R R E N T E D U C A T I O N P R O G R A M

The city currently provides information about the recycling program on its website and City staff are available to speak at community functions. A few of the educational activities used by the City include:

• Waste management guides • Recycling information on Channel 2 • Action Center dissemination of information • Information included in neighborhood welcome packets • Information booths at community functions • Educational presentations at schools • Presentations to neighborhood groups • Direct mailing for leaf and brush collection

P U B L I C P E R C E P T I O N O F E D U C A T I O N P R O G R A M

A significant amount of time was spent during the focus group meetings discussing participation in recycling programs and motivation for recycling. During these discussions, the point was frequently raised by many participants that they believe that individuals do not recycle because: 1) they don’t understand the need to recycle or 2) they don’t know how/what to recycle. Most participants thought that the city needed to provide more education, in both English and other languages. In the opinion of many participants, there was an initial education campaign during the phase-in of the recycling program, but they believe there have not been sufficient additional educational efforts since that time. Participants believe that increased education will increase participation in the recycling program.

A L T E R N A T I V E O P T I O N

The primary purpose of an Education, Promotion, and Technical Assistance Program is to provide information. This information will then allow citizens and businesses to make sound, well-informed decisions. With regard to solid waste management, education, promotion, and technical assistance is necessary, specifically with waste reduction, reuse, and recycling.

To become fully involved and play an effective role in many of the new waste management alternative explored by this plan, the public must be informed of their role and responsibility, and what opportunities are available to them. Education provides factual information to the public to assist them in making responsible choices. Promotion is designed to inform residents of an event, program, or project in which they may choose to participate. Technical assistance provides direct aid to residents/businesses in implementing their choices.


7 - 4 4

D e s c r i p t i o n o f P r o g r a m s

Residents and businesses will require education for the purpose of understanding their respective roles in solid waste management. The method used to provide that education will vary for these two audiences. Therefore, targeted educational programs for residents and businesses, respectively, are recommended.

Public Education and Outreach

While the City has existing education and outreach programs in support of KC Recycles, the City should consider budgeting for expanded public education efforts for waste reduction and recycling. For example, residents need regular reminders about the “hows” and “whys” of recycling. Examples of methods that can be used to educate residents about these two topics include:

• Brochures: Brochures should explain waste reduction and recycling options. A brochure focusing on recycling should include information on which materials are accepted for recycling, how to prepare the items for collection, and where and when to recycle, but also explain why it is important to recycle and the benefits of recycling.

Brochures can be directly mailed to homes and businesses, however the cost of postage can be prohibitive. Other options include hand delivering, perhaps with the help of a local scout group or similar youth organization. Brochures also can be made available at city offices, schools, libraries and at special events. Brochures are most effective when they are printed in more than one color and have pictures or drawings to emphasize the message.

• Newsletters: Many homeowners associations distribute newsletters to residents. Waste reduction and recycling information, provided by the City, should be included when possible. Article topics should vary and could include general waste reduction and recycling information, as well as proper disposal information for household hazardous waste, special waste (e.g., tires, batteries, appliances, used motor oil, electronics), and yard waste.

• Website: More and more people look for community information on the Internet. It is recommended that more detailed solid waste, waste reduction, recycling, and special waste disposal information be included on the City’s website.

• Television: Kansas City should be able to air public service announcements (PSAs) covering recycling information, on the local public access television channel and local radio stations. Some municipalities have created videos tailored to their communities programs, which can be an effective way to broadcast information to residents.

• Promotional Items: Promotional items, such as pens, magnets, and rulers, are an inexpensive way to get environmental messages out to residents in a way that has the


7 - 4 5

potential to be seen over and over again. Care should be taken, however, not to inundate residents with promotional items, or they may quickly become part of the waste stream.

When designing public education brochures and information pieces, the City should consider using a consistent “look” in all pieces (i.e., use the same font, colors, logo, mascot). Residents will eventually recognize these as waste reduction and recycling (or illegal dumping) information pieces and will hopefully save them and review them when needed.

The City needs to be aware that public information should never stop. It functions to tell new residents, new community leaders, and successive generations about waste reduction and recycling programs while reinforcing the message for those who are already familiar with it.

In addition to educational literature, a public "outreach" program should be implemented. This program consists of public meetings, educational programs at schools, media coverage, information at special events, and speakers at civic, government and special interest group meetings. Several proven tools should be considered for an effective education program directed at the residential sector including those listed in Table 11.

Promotional information provides residents, commercial businesses, and industries with information on specific events or special activities. Promotional activities generally increase a target audience's overall awareness of issues and aids in the education process which allows individuals to make choices. Several proven tools can be used for promotion, including kick-off events, groundbreaking ceremonies, public service announcements, announcements on local grocery store sacks, advertisements, and billboards.

Businesses Education and Outreach

Similar to education programs aimed at residents, Kansas City can develop educational materials for businesses regarding waste reduction and recycling opportunities. Commercial sources often produce a significant portion of the solid waste stream. Focusing waste reduction efforts towards the business sector can have a large impact on the waste stream as a whole.

For outreach, businesses could be targeted by the type of waste they generate. One approach involves categorizing the types of businesses currently operating in the City and their related wastes. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) Codes are used throughout the country to group establishments into broad and specific industries. Industries within the same NAICS code are likely to exhibit similarities in the composition of their disposed waste streams.

For example, steel manufacturing industries typically generate large quantities of metals while printing industries typically generate large quantities of paper. This correlation also exists for commercial businesses such as insurance companies, law offices, and restaurants. Therefore, the City could tailor reduction, reuse, and recycling education to specific NAICS codes as well as provide City businesses with general reduction, reuse, and recycling information.


7 - 4 6

T a b l e 1 1 . R e s i d e n t i a l E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m C o m p o n e n t s

Activity Target Group Materials Needed

News Releases, Editorials, Public Service Announcements, Television News Stories

Adults and Young Adults Staff time, computer, paper, mailing lists of target media, printing, postage.

Fact Sheets, Brochures, and "How to" Guides

Adults and Young Adults Graphics services, staff time to prepare copy, production, printing, postage.

Information Directory

Adults and Young Adults

Staff time to research and coordinate, paper, printing, and mailing materials.

Rotating Educational Display at Libraries, Offices, Buildings, and Nature Centers

Adults, Young Adults, Students

Tabletop display panels, graphics services to develop display panels, staff to coordinate development, and scheduling of display locations.

Reduction/Reuse/ Recycling Programs at Public Libraries

Adults, Young Adults, Children

Staff time to coordinate and present, visual aids, and handouts.

Display Booth for Public Events

Adults, Young Adults, Children

Display booth, graphics services to develop display panels, handouts, visual aids, staff time.

Speaking Engagements

Adults, Students

PowerPoint program, handouts, visual aids.

Teacher Workshops Educators, Students Curriculum material, staff time. Slide Presentations

Adults, Students

Staff time, presentation development, projector.

Newsletters Adults, Students Staff time, computer, printing, postage, paper.

If one industry is particularly prevalent, it might be cost-effective to target businesses in that particular industry first.

Table 12 provides two-digit, NAICS codes and their definitions, as well as the number of establishments in Kansas City. The City could use NAICS codes to assess the prevalence of local industries and use the information to provide insight as to the types of materials most likely to be recovered. By targeting business outreach efforts to just one or two NAICS codes, Kansas City will be able to focus research on materials to just one or two waste streams and focus its education efforts.

Given the information provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, initial efforts could target retail establishments and those classified as professional, scientific, and technical services (e.g., lawyers, accountants, engineers, architects).


7 - 4 7

One particular educational tool for this target audience would be a quarterly newsletter on industrial and commercial reduction, reuse, and recycling activities and information sources which can encourage businesses to reduce and/or recycle their waste. The newsletter should highlight companies which have made significant contributions to City reduction, reuse, and recycling goals.

Additional educational tools for businesses are workshops and seminars. They would feature speakers who present specific information to this target audience. Workshops also allow groups of people to come together to discuss these issues and share ideas.

T a b l e 1 2 . K a n s a s C i t y N A I C S C o d e s

NAICS Code

Description

Number of Establishments in Kansas City

31-33 Manufacturing 498 42 Wholesale Trade 770 44-45 Retail Trade 1,657 51 Information 301 53 Real Estate, Rental and Leasing 544 54 Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 1,504 56 Administrative, Support, Waste Management,

and Remediation Service 644

61 Educational Services 83 62 Health Care and Social Assistance 1,126 71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 148 72 Accommodation and Food Services 1,042 81 Other Services (except public administration) 1,006

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census.

T e c h n i c a l A s s i s t a n c e

Although businesses, industries, and City agencies may be interested in solid waste reduction, reuse, and recycling, they are often reluctant to establish new programs or expand existing ones due to a lack of knowledge. In addition, there could be reluctance to participate because of the uncertainty of the cost which may be incurred, or the amount of time required to implement or maintain a new program. To address these needs, the City could provide industries and commercial establishments with technical assistance.

Most businesses and industries have segments of their waste stream which can be reduced, reused, or recycled. However, reduction, reuse, and recycling programs may entail revising purchasing and operating procedures, training personnel, and modifying manufacturing


7 - 4 8

processes. Therefore, businesses must be aware of the following issues when considering these programs:

• Initial costs. • Recurring costs. • Savings. • Avoided disposal costs. • Product quality considerations.

To assist industries and commercial establishments in evaluating the feasibility of a reduction, reuse, and/or recycling program, the City could provide a waste audit. The audit would identify and characterize waste streams; evaluate production processes responsible for generating each particular waste type; and determine the amount of waste generated. This would assist these establishments in targeting the appropriate materials for reduction, reuse, and/or recycling.

In addition to a waste audit, the City could provide businesses with literature and references on waste reduction, reuse, and recycling techniques which are applicable to that particular type of business. Workshops could be developed to educate and provide technical assistance to larger audiences.

S t a f f i n g

At least two full-time persons would be needed to implement the suggested Education, Promotion, and Technical Assistance Program. Staff would be responsible for the following tasks: Staff Position Responsibilities Education/Promotion Coordinate the writing and production of all educational and Coordinator promotional materials.

Place advertisements in newspapers and on radio. Serve as primary media contact.

Coordinate and attend speaking engagements and public appearances.

Develop mailing lists for targeted mailings.

Coordinate the development of informational booths.

Develop and present workshops.

Coordinate informational services for businesses.

Aid with annual waste generation and recycling reports.


7 - 4 9

Technical Assistance Work with businesses to provide waste audits to identify waste Coordinator reduction, reuse, and recycling alternatives.

Assist with development of informational literature on waste reduction, reuse, and recycling for specific NAICS codes.

Monitor business/industrial waste diversion programs and prepare reports. Assist with coordinating workshops.

Although each staff member would be responsible for overseeing specific programs, the staff should function as a team assisting various entities in the City.

P r o g r a m C o s t s

No capital expenses will be incurred with the institution of an Education, Promotion, and Technical Assistance Program. An estimated cost breakdown for this program is included in Table 13. Estimated annual operating expenses are based on the following.

• The payroll and benefits are provided for two employees: an Education and Promotion Coordinator and a Technical Assistance Coordinator.

• Several necessary elements are included under operations and supplies for an Education, Promotion, and Technical Assistance Program. A few major elements include supplies and postage to mail brochures, fact sheets, directories, and other requested information; mileage to attend speaking engagements, workshops, and waste audits; graphic services to develop publications, displays, and newsletters which cannot be effectively produced in-house; printing associated with all documents; advertising; and miscellaneous expenses such as the purchase of a display booth, slide projector and carousel, camera, screen, visual aids, and workshop expenses.

• In the case of miscellaneous expenses, some of these items are a one-time expense and, therefore, annual costs could decrease.

• As the City receives more exposure and increases contact with the community, miscellaneous expenses such as postage, travel expenses, and copying expenses are likely to increase. A 7 percent annual increase should be expected for years 2 through 5, and a 2 percent annual increase should be expected thereafter.

• General inflation increases at four percent.

• Additional personnel technical assistance personnel will be needed during the planning period.

Based on 2007 costs, administration of an effective Public Education, Promotion, and Technical Assistance Program is estimated to cost approximately $185,000 per year. This results in a cost of approximately $1.32 per household per year or $0.11 per household per month. It was


7 - 5 0

assumed that this program could effectively raise the City’s residential recycling rate to 22 percent by 2023. Based on this increase, the City could save an additional $13,000 in 2009.

The anticipated annual costs associated with an ongoing program are provided in Appendix C.

Methods of Financing and Funding

The primary source of funding will be the City’s general fund. The City may also apply for Missouri grant funding through the Mid-America Regional Council Solid Waste Management District to finance specific activities, such as purchasing educational material for schools, and developing displays and brochures.

T a b l e 1 3 . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o s t s : E d u c a t i o n , P r o m o t i o n , T e c h n i c a l A s s i s t a n c e P r o g r a m

Cost Category

Cost Per Year

Employee Costs Salaries/Benefits: Education/Promotion Coordinator Technical Assistance Coordinator Sub-Total:

$54,000 $54,000

$108,000

Direct Costs Supplies Postage Mileage Publications Graphics Services Printing Advertising Miscellaneous Sub-Total:

$10,000 $15,000 $6,000

$12,000 $10,000 $15,000 $3,000 $6,000

$77,000

Total: $185,000


7 - 5 1

A d v a n t a g e s a n d D i s a d v a n t a g e s

There are many advantages associated with a strong public and business education, promotion, and technical assistance program. Likewise, there are a few disadvantages with this management program. Those advantages and disadvantages are listed below.

Advantages

• Relatively low program costs.

• Necessary component to any successful solid waste management program.

• Program can utilize many existing community communication mechanisms at minimal cost.

• Program is readily available to everyone.

• Program can aid in maintaining a constant awareness about solid waste management to residents, even as programs change.

• Program can be modified or expanded at any time.

Disadvantages

• Program must be administered effectively with respect to a thorough distribution of materials and promotion of services.

• Difficult to measure waste reduction results directly attributable to the program.


7 - 5 2


8 - 5 3

8 CURBS IDE COLLECT ION OF RECYCLABLES

C U R R E N T C U R B S I D E C O L L E C T I O N S Y S T E M – K C R E C Y C L E S

The City provides weekly curbside collection of recyclables from eligible residences through a private hauler under contract to the City. Residents are provided an 22-gallon bin and recyclables are collected on the same day as trash. Materials collected at the curb include aluminum and steel cans, plastic bottles (#1 and #2), mixed paper, and cardboard. The recyclables are collected in a “single stream” and taken to a privately owned material recovery facility where they are sorted and sold. As discussed more in Section 21, the City receives revenues from the contractor for recyclables delivered to the facility based on the schedule established in the contract.

A summary of the annual costs and revenues for the curbside recycling program is provided in Table 14.

T a b l e 1 4 . S u m m a r y o f C u r b s i d e R e c y c l i n g E x p e n d i t u r e s a n d R e v e n u e s

KC Recycles 2006 2007 2008 Salaries $0 $20,308 $102,700 Direct Costs Temporary Services $0 $0 $0 Equipment Maintenance and Fuel $85 $0 $0 Disposal Costs $0 $0 $0 Direct Costs $267,632 $32,996 $153,232 Capital Equipment $0 $0 $0 Contracted Collection $1,461,103 $3,623,698 $3,710,492 Subtotal $1,728,820 $3,656,694 $3,863,724 Subtotal Annual Costs $1,728,820 $3,677,002 $3,966,424 Revenues Sale of Recyclables $0 ($69,698) ($87,000) Sale of Recycling Bins ($42,184) ($25,584) ($55,000) Net Annual Costs $1,686,636 $3,581,720 $3,824,424 Net Unit Costs $/house (month) $1.01 $2.13 $2.27 $/ton (annual) $96.42 $188.64 $171.92

In Fiscal Year 2008, the net costs of the curbside recycling program are expected to be $3.8 million. This equals $2.31 per household and approximately $174.00 per ton of recyclables.

The City has a revenue sharing agreement with the collection contractor. Payment is based on both the monthly tonnage delivered to the facility and the “composite” per ton market value received by the contractor. The City receives approximately 4 percent of the market value of the materials. In 2008, the City projects that it will receive approximately $87,000 for recyclables with a market value of approximately $2.8 million.


8 - 5 4

P U B L I C P E R C E P T I O N O F T H E K C R E C Y C L E S P R O G R A M

The curbside recycling program was discussed during the focus group meetings and was part of the public opinion survey used to gather information as part of the plan development process.

P u b l i c O p i n i o n S u r v e y

Respondents were asked to rank residential services provided to them in order of importance. KC Recycles was ranked second, behind weekly trash collection. Respondents also were asked if they currently participated in the curbside recycling program. Of those responding, 68 percent indicated that they participate every week. The remainder responded as follows: 14 percent participate every other week, one percent participate monthly, and 16 percent did not participate at all. The majority of respondents not participating in curbside recycling indicated that they live in multi-family units and are not eligible to participate. Three respondents wrote comments indicating that curbside recycling was too cumbersome, that they did not like separating trash, or that recycling containers took up too much storage space.

Respondents also were asked if they were willing to pay a fee to maintain or expand the City’s recycling services. Over 65 percent responded “yes,” 24 percent responded “no,” and the remaining 13 percent were “not sure.” Those willing to pay a fee were asked how they preferred to pay such a fee. The responses are as follows: 36 percent prefer a monthly bill, 17 percent prefer an annual bill, 29 percent prefer taxes, and the remaining 29 percent preferred a container purchase fee.

F o c u s G r o u p D i s c u s s i o n

During the focus groups, participants were asked if they recycle and why or why not. As discussed earlier, most participants believed that for recycling to be successful, the City must expand its public education efforts. Others also suggested that there was a need for incentives and refunds. Others were not happy with the open bins, because the wind has a tendency to scatter recyclables. Some participants suggested that recycling should be mandatory.

G l a s s R e c y c l i n g

Current System

City residents have two options for management of glass containers. Glass containers can be recycled at the four City funded drop-off facilities or placed curbside with the trash collected for disposal. Kansas City, like numerous other communities, has a single stream curbside recycling program that does not accept glass containers.

Public Perception of Glass Container Collection

The issue of glass recycling was discussed during the focus groups. Often, participants were confused by the lack of glass recycling opportunities in the region, noting that other communities across the country have access to glass recycling opportunities. Many suggested that Kansas City take steps to offer glass recycling in the future.


8 - 5 5

C O L L E C T I O N A L T E R N A T I V E

As an alternative to the contracted curbside recycling program, the provision of the same service using City collection crews was analyzed. Under this alternative, the level of service would remain the same. When combined with a processing alternative discussed later in this document, however, the City will have the opportunity to expand the types of materials that can be collected for recycling (e.g., glass containers).

A cost analysis was prepared for the City to provide curbside collection using City-owned equipment and City crews. The costs of curbside recycling depend on a number of factors. Some of the major factors that influence program costs include:

• Crew size. • Truck capacity. • Set-out rate. • Crew productivity and routing efficiency. • Distance between stops. • Materials collected (assumes dual stream collection to allow for glass). • Participation rate.

The following assumptions were used for analyzing this alternative for the City:

• The City will begin providing service in 2011.

• Estimated that an average of 60 percent of homes will set out recyclables for collection.

• The City will need to establish 18 recycling routes based on a five-day week and an eight-hour day and assuming an average of six hours per day are spent on route.

• City must purchase 22 trucks (25 cubic yard capacity) by 2011 (which includes four backup units), amortized for seven years, 5 percent interest (based on 2007 truck costs). Trucks are split body, which will allow for collection of glass.

• Fleet replacement at three trucks per year based on a 7-year service life (based on 2007 truck costs).

• Each truck uses three-man crews (1 driver/2 laborers).

• Annual increase for inflation: four percent.

• Overall annual increase in housecount: 0.55 percent, however different areas of the City are expected to grow at different rates. Based on this growth rate, the City will need to add two additional trucks during the planning period.

• Processing fees are not included in total annual costs. Use of a privately-owned facility and minimal revenues.


8 - 5 6

Based on the assumptions discussed above, the annual curbside collection costs for the first year of operation are $4,243,289 or $29.02 per household per year. Results are summarized in Table 15. A summary of the 20-year costs is provided in Appendix C.

T a b l e 1 5 . F i r s t Y e a r C o s t E s t i m a t e s f o r C u r b s i d e R e c y c l i n g

Item Cost Trucks Total cost for trucks $3,300,000 Annualized cost (5% for 7 years) $570,305 Total annual maintenance $708,234 Personnel Driver costs $817,019 Crew costs $853,658 Supervisors/Administrative $386,080 Other direct costs $907,992 Total annual cost $4,243,289 Net Cost per household (annual) $29.02 Net Cost per household (month) $2.42 Net Cost per ton $153.77

I M P L E M E N T A T I O N I S S U E S

Many communities that have implemented single stream curbside recycling have experienced a decrease in the quality of the recovered material stream. In particular, broken glass mixed with paper products often result in a lower market value for paper products. This contamination issue combined with the low value of recovered glass containers has led many communities to discontinue collecting glass containers curbside. This has been the case for the Kansas City metropolitan area. The above analysis assumes that the City uses split body trucks to allow glass to again be collected curbside.

This analysis assumes that the City implements curbside collection within a one-year timeframe. However, the City may consider a phasing in of services, perhaps over three fiscal years. This approach will allow for a reduction in the initial capital investment for vehicles. A transition period also will allow the City to adjust to the changes.

The primary issue for the City to consider when implementing this curbside collection option is determining responsibility for processing and marketing of the collected recyclables. The City can continue to rely on the private sector, using a cost-sharing arrangement similar to that currently in effect, or the City may take on this role. For the City to assume processing and marketing of recyclables will require construction of a City-owned material recovery facility. An option addressing a material recovery facility is discussed later in this document.


9 - 5 7

9 RECYCL ING DROP-OFF FAC I L I T I ES

In addition to curbside recycling, four Community Recycling Centers (drop-off sites) are located throughout the City. The centers are funded by the City, and three are operated by Bridging the Gap under contract to the City:

• Environmental Campus on Deramus Avenue (operated by the City). Hours of operation are Tuesday through Saturday: 8:00 am to 4:00 pm. The center is closed Sundays and Mondays.

• Metro North – Metro North Mall, 400 N.W. Barry Road (northwest parking lot). Hours of operation are Wednesday through Friday: 11:00 am to 5:30 pm; Saturday: 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.

• Midtown - Metro Shopping Center, 1624 E. 63rd St. (Just east of The Paseo). This center was open less than one month before it closed.

• South – 3 Trails/Bannister located in the Wal-Mart Supercenter parking lot, 9051 Hillcrest Road. Hours of operation are Wednesday through Friday: 11:00 am to 5:30 pm; Saturday: 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.

The locations of the Community Recycling Centers are provided in Figure 5.

F i g u r e 5 . L o c a t i o n o f E x i s t i n g C o m m u n i t y R e c y c l i n g C e n t e r s

3 Trails/Bannister

Midtown

Deramus

Metro North


9 - 5 8

The staffed drop-off centers collect materials, in addition to the curbside-collected materials, such as glass, aluminum foil, electronics, compact fluorescent light bulbs, clothing, household batteries, scrap metal, Styrofoam blocks, and toner cartridges.

In Fiscal Year 2008, it is anticipated that Solid Waste will spend approximately $167,000 dollars for the recycling centers. This equates to approximately $0.10 per household per month and $53.00 per ton of recyclables collected. An additional $250,000 is provided to the contractor by the Office of Environmental Quality for education purposes. The total cost to the City for these centers is $492,000. P U B L I C P E R C E P T I O N O F D R O P - O F F F A C I L I T I E S

As part of the public opinion survey, respondents were asked to rank City-provided services in order of importance. Drop-off recycling was ranked sixth (out of eleven).

Respondents also were asked if they were aware that Kansas City operated four drop-off recycling sites. Eighty-eight percent responded that they were aware of the facilities. Twelve percent did not know about the sites.

Respondents were asked if they used a recycling drop-off center in the last year. More than 32 percent did not indicate using such a center. Approximately 27 percent of the respondents had used the centers occasionally (1 to 4 times during the year). The remainder of the respondents had used the centers 5 to 8 times (14 percent), 9 to 12 times (10 percent), or more than 12 times (14 percent) during the past year.

The City’s drop-off centers also were discussed during the focus group meetings. Several participants expressed frustration with the drop-off centers because they are frequently moved to other locations, often with little prior notification or information about the new location. Other participants did not use the centers because they were inconveniently located, offered limited hours of operation, and required sorting by the user.

R E C O M M E N D E D C H A N G E S

Over the past few years, some of the Community Recycling Centers have closed and have been moved to different locations (e.g., Bannister Mall and UMKC). This occurs because the facilities are located on private property and Bridging the Gap must sometimes close a facility at the request of the property owner. A new facility is opened when an alternative location is found.

The City owns numerous properties throughout the City. The City should consider the use of City-owned properties for these facilities. This should lessen the need to close and open new facilities.

Partial requirements for a site include:

• Asphalt or concrete lot with dimensions of approximately 220 feet by 130 feet, • Fenced or easily fenced, • Well lit, and


9 - 5 9

• Ideally, not in a residential area.

While the availability of electricity is desirable for center operations, the City could take advantage of using solar power at future drop-off facilities.


9 - 6 0


1 0 - 6 1

10 E LECTRONICS RECYCL ING PROGRAM

I N T R O D U C T I O N

The past decade has seen swift growth in the manufacture and sale of consumer electronic products. Advances in technology have led to better, smaller, cheaper products. Industry analysts give every indication that the trend toward rapid introduction of new electronic products will continue. As the production and use of electronic products continues to grow, the challenge of recovery and disposal is becoming significant. Computer monitors and older TV picture tubes contain an average of four pounds of lead and require special handling at the end of their lives. In addition to lead, electronics can contain chromium, cadmium, mercury, beryllium, nickel, zinc, and brominated flame retardants.6 Another serious concern associated with end-of-life management is the export of electronic scrap to developing countries that may lack adequate worker safety and environmental standards. While end-of-life electronics7 currently comprise only a small amount of the municipal waste stream, that percentage is expected to grow dramatically in the next few years (estimated to be 1.2% of waste generated in 20068). The average life span of a personal computer is currently about 2-3 years. Electronics that break often are not repaired due to the relatively low price of replacement equipment. When the equipment breaks or becomes obsolete, it is commonly discarded. In 2009, Federal Communications Commission rules will require TV broadcasters to abandon traditional analog broadcasts in favor of digital signals. This change means that most televisions in use today won’t work unless owners purchase converter boxes to receive digital broadcasts or connect their TVs to a cable or satellite service. It is anticipated that declining prices on digital televisions will entice consumers to purchase new digital televisions and discard older analog versions. F e d e r a l a n d S t a t e I n i t i a t i v e s

Development of a national recovery system has been underway that promotes an approach whereby all parties share responsibility for environmental impacts resulting from the manufacture, use, and disposal of obsolete electronics. In 2005, four Representatives formed an ad-hoc E-Waste Working Group. In September 2006, the E-Waste Working Group convened a national stakeholder meeting (industry, retailers, recyclers, states, NGOs) to explore the options for a federal solution that the electronics industry can support. 6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. More information available at www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/recycle/ecycling. 7 End-of-life electronic products are either obsolete for their intended purpose or no longer useful by the current user and lacks any significant market value as an operational unit. Definition used by the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. 8 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2006, Data tables, November 2007.


1 0 - 6 2

Currently, one bill has been introduced in the 105th United States Congress. Introduced January 2007, HR 233 would establish an advanced recycling fee of up to $10 on computers, monitors, laptops and other products as designated by the EPA. EPA would grant the money collected to organizations or individuals (including local governments) for collection, recycling, reuse of products. Nine states have passed e-waste recycling laws. Five states passed laws in 2007: Minnesota, Oregon, Texas, Connecticut and North Carolina. California, Maine, Maryland, and Washington passed laws prior to 2007. All but California have passed laws requiring Producer Responsibility (the product manufacturers take responsibility for their products once they are ready for disposal and pay for collection and recycling of the products). California has passed a law requiring advanced recovery fees from consumers at the time of purchase. Several other states are considering legislation to address electronic waste. S t a t e o f M i s s o u r i I n i t i a t i v e s

While Missouri currently is not considering legislation, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources organized the Electronic Scrap (E-scrap) Stakeholder Workgroup. This workgroup was put in place to develop a framework for disposing, reusing and recycling E-scrap in Missouri in an economically sustainable fashion without threatening the environment. The workgroup consisted of department staff, manufacturers, vendors, recyclers, environmental groups, waste haulers and processors, several Missouri state agencies, federal agencies, local governments and other interested parties.9 This partnership developed a three pronged strategy called e-cycle Missouri:

• Missouri E-cycling Standards, also known as MOEST - A set of Best Management Practices for electronic equipment recyclers and demanufacturers to help assure that these services protect the environment.

• Voluntary Tiered Registration Levels - To promote the adoption of MOEST by companies that collect and process e-scrap, four levels of registration were created. Each level represents an increasing commitment to follow MOEST and adopt additional environmental controls. Individuals or businesses can confidently choose a recycler at the registration level that best meets their needs.

• Education and Outreach - Raising public awareness of the environmental impacts associated with discarded electronics is a key part of the e-cycle Missouri education and outreach activities.

9 More information available at: http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/hwp/escrap/workgroup.htm.


1 0 - 6 3

C U R R E N T E L E C T R O N I C S C O L L E C T I O N P R O G R A M

Three of the City’s Community Recycling Centers, which are operated by Bridging the Gap, accept electronics for recycling. Equipment accepted for recycling includes: computers/electronics monitors, printers, CPUs, keyboards, mice, speakers, scanners, fax machines, televisions (up to 19" diameter), stereo equipment, and boom boxes. CPUs, mice, and keyboards are accepted free of charge. Fees are charged for the following items:

• Monitors and TVs: $15 • Most printers: $5 to $10 • Most microwaves: $10 • VCRS, scanners, DVD/CD players: $5.

Services to remove confidential information from the computer’s hard drive are not provided.

P U B L I C P E R C E P T I O N O F A N E L E C T R O N I C S R E C Y C L I N G P R O G R A M

Focus group participants were asked about their opinions on electronics recycling. Most agreed there was a need for increased recycling of electronics. Most participants were not aware that electronics could be taken to the Community Recycling Centers. Most participants also were supportive of the City offering special collection events for electronics, as long as they were well advertised. Several participants were concerned about fees, and did not believe people would be willing to pay for monitors and television sets.

C O L L E C T I O N O P T I O N S F O R E L E C T R O N I C W A S T E

The City should consider an electronics recycling program. Options for the City to consider include:

• Special event collection • Permanent collection center • Curbside pick-up

S p e c i a l E v e n t C o l l e c t i o n

A special event collection is a program that occurs for a very short period of time, typically, one or two days, four or fewer times per year. Special event collections offer several advantages:

• An opportunity to test how the community will respond to an electronics recycling/reuse program.

• Serve as a “clean-out” of materials in storage and then permit a more predictable ongoing program model.

• Good potential to limit the cost because it is time constrained.


1 0 - 6 4

• A recycler/reuse organization might be willing to operate the collection.

• Opportunities for a sponsor, a retailer for example, who would host or cost-share for a special event.

• Higher tonnages and participation rates are experienced at special events than there would be on any one day at an ongoing or curbside collection program.

• Opportunities to hold special events in conjunction with another event, such as a plant sale, brush drop off, or neighborhood cleanup.

Identifying a suitable collection site is a key consideration. The site should:

• Have the capacity to handle a line of cars and not back up into a roadway. • Available maneuvering space for the transporter. • Offer a location that is familiar to residents.

Special collection events typically run one day, usually over a four-hour period. P e r m a n e n t C o l l e c t i o n P r o g r a m

An ongoing collection program is one that is operated on a regular and predictable schedule. For example, the program is open on the first Saturday of every month, every day that the recycling center is open, etc. Access to these programs often mimics the hours that regular recycling is available. In addition to the collection programs offered at the drop-off facilities offered by Bridging the Gap, an ongoing program could be an appropriate addition to the household hazardous waste collection program or at the material recovery facility discussed later in this document. Ongoing collections advantages include:

• Natural as an “add-on” to current recycling drop-off facilities or household hazardous waste program.

• Extended opportunities for participation.

• Excellent opportunities for public education.

• Flexible model with many variations.

• Opportunities to thoroughly explore different partnerships and funding strategies.


1 0 - 6 5

C u r b s i d e C o l l e c t i o n

It is possible to collect electronics as a curbside commodity, similar to bulky waste. The electronics would be picked up curbside and brought back to a designated electronics sorting and packing area. As with any other recyclable, the public generally prefers curbside. Console televisions are more commonly recycled in curbside programs than at special events or ongoing programs for the obvious reasons of ease of transport. Despite its advantages, curbside collection of electronics should only be implemented as an add-on to the existing bulky waste program. It is not cost-effective to do otherwise. In addition, many curbside collections are offered in combination with other electronics program offerings – such as an annual special event. A drawback to curbside collection is that the material is generally of poor quality by the time it reaches a processor and therefore has less potential for reuse/repair. Materials left at the curb get wet and may not be handled as carefully as material at an ongoing program or special event. Charging a fee for curbside collection is relatively common. It is generally in the form of a sticker purchases. Items will not be collected unless the sticker is placed on the item(s). A L T E R N A T I V E C O L L E C T I O N O P T I O N F O R K A N S A S C I T Y

It is recommended that the City provide periodic collection events for electronics. Many local municipalities have partnered with Surplus Exchange for electronics recycling events to manage the event and assume responsibility for management of the collected materials. This approach has been used by Lee’s Summit, Overland Park, Lenexa, and North Kansas City. Such a partnership may be an option for Kansas City. In general, there are four key areas that will affect costs experienced by Kansas City when implementing an electronics collection event:

• Staff: The cost of staffing for the program will be a function of the number of paid on-site staff. Some programs have contained costs by holding collections only on weekdays.

• Publicity and outreach: Required to “get the word out.”

• Transportation: Using municipal trucks and staff to move materials to the recycler or reuse organization or to a consolidation point can be cost effective.

• Recycling fees: Costs to the City can be contained by requiring users to pay to cover the costs of CRT management.


1 0 - 6 6

An estimated cost breakdown for a semi-annual electronics collection program (special event) was developed using the following assumptions:

• Assumes a partnership with a local organization.

• Assumes partner organization will provide transportation to facility.

• Two, semi-annual events, four hours in length.

• Education/Promotion Coordinator: 5% of total salary.

• Four additional workers.

• Direct costs include: tents, forklift, water, mileage, and advertising.

• Electronics equal 1.2% of total waste stream.

• Average tonnage collected for Overland Park equals 63,000 pounds of electronics per event; assume similar success rate for Kansas City for 2010.

Based on these assumptions, two collection events are estimated to cost approximately $7,900 the first year. However, the collection events could be expected to divert approximately 63 tons of material from landfilling; saving the City approximately $1,600 per year in avoided disposal costs. A summary of annual costs for the program is provided in Appendix C. I M P L E M E N T A T I O N I S S U E S

Federal and State requirements can impact an electronics collection program. F e d e r a l R e q u i r e m e n t s

The cathode ray tubes (CRTs) in color computer monitors and televisions are often hazardous when discarded because of the presence of lead in the CRT. This discussion summarizes current (December 2002) relevant federal regulatory requirements.

• Households: Used electronics, including CRTs, generated by households are not considered hazardous waste and are not regulated by federal law.

• Donation or Resale: CRTs sent for continued use (i.e., resold or donated) are not considered hazardous wastes.

• Small Quantities: The disposal of CRTs and computers by any type of small business or organization (no matter how many employees nor what type of business it is) is not regulated under most federal requirements as long as the business or organization discards less than 100 kilograms (about 220 pounds or less than 5 CRTs) per month of hazardous waste, including used CRTs.


1 0 - 6 7

• Large Quantities: Wastes from facilities that generate over 100 kilograms (about 220 lb.) per month of hazardous waste are regulated under federal law when disposed. CRTs from such facilities sent for disposal (not reuse or recycling) must be manifested and sent as "hazardous waste" to a permitted hazardous waste landfill. CRTs sent for recycling from such facilities are also currently subject to Federal regulation.

S t a t e R e q u i r e m e n t s

States may promulgate their own regulations defining hazardous waste and implementing the federal CRT rule. Missouri is proposing an amendment to 10 CSR 25-4.261 to incorporate by reference the rule published by EPA on July 28, 2006 regarding the management of CRTs. The department is proposing to adopt the federal rule with only two minor modifications. One of these modifications will add language (in 10 CSR 25-4.261) clarifying the applicability of the existing landfill ban prohibiting the disposal of CRTs in a sanitary landfill, except as permitted by section 260.380.3. As discussed earlier, MDNR is implementing a Tiered Voluntary Registration Program, which the City could use to identify a recycler, should the City desire the completely manage the recycling program. As the tier levels increase, so do the fees charged by the State and the amount of governmental regulation the business must follow. MDNR also has developed best management practices for collecting, processing, and transporting e-scrap in Missouri.


1 0 - 6 8


1 1 - 6 9

11 FOOD/ORGANICS COLLECT ION

C U R R E N T P R O G R A M

Currently, residential food waste is managed through two systems: the solid waste collection system and/or the wastewater treatment system. Residents not using in-house disposals (grinders) place food waste with residential trash, which is collected curbside with either manual or semi-automated collection trucks. Residents using in-house food disposals may still place a portion of their food waste curbside for trash collection.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau10, about 75 percent of all housing units in the Kansas City, Missouri-Kansas MSA (metropolitan statistical area) have food disposals. This compares to a national average of 47 percent of households with food disposals11.

The Kansas City, Missouri-Kansas MSA includes areas on both side of the state line beyond the boundaries of Kansas City, Missouri. However, it is an indication that some Kansas City, Missouri neighborhoods have a high percentage of food waste disposals.

Even with the high percentage of area households with food disposals, food waste continues to be a large portion of the solid waste stream. The recently completed waste sort at the Johnson County Landfill12 showed that food waste accounted for almost 19 percent of the residential waste stream being disposed in the landfill.

P U B L I C P E R C E P T I O N O F R E S I D E N T I A L F O O D W A S T E C O L L E C T I O N

The collection of food waste and organics was discussed during the focus groups. A question regarding organics and food waste recycling also was included in the public opinion survey.

Initially, most focus group participants were not comfortable with the idea of food waste recycling. Initially, general concerns included odors and rodents. As discussions progressed, however, and the program was explained; concerns over cart cleanliness became more of an issue. In the end, views over such a program were mixed.

In the public opinion survey, respondents were asked if they would participate in a weekly organic curbside collection program. Over 48 percent of the respondents indicated that they would, 21 percent indicated that they would not, and the remaining 29 percent were not sure. Later on in the survey, respondents were again asked if the City should consider recycling organics/food. As shown in Figure 6, over 45 percent of the respondents (34 out of 74) indicated that they strongly agree. The remaining responses also are provided in Figure 6.

10 “American Housing Survey for the Kansas City Metropolitan Area: 2002” Current Housing Reports. Table 1-4. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. H170/02-27 Issued July 2003. http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/h170-02-27.pdf 11 “Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2008. The National Data Book.” Table 951. U.S. Census Bureau. 12 “Johnson County Solid Waste Analysis Final Report.” Engineering Solutions & Design, Inc. September 15, 2007. http://jced.jocogov.org


1 1 - 7 0

by number of respondents

34 20 17

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Organics/FoodRecycling

Percentage

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

F i g u r e 6 . R e s p o n s e s R e g a r d i n g R e c y c l i n g o f O r g a n i c s / F o o d

A survey conducted by MARC in 2005 shows slightly different results. Respondents were asked to indicate how willing they would be to recycle different types of materials (using a 5-point scale where "5" means very willing and "1" means not willing). Respondents were most willing to recycle paper, plastic, household hazardous waste, and glass. The one item with a low percentage of “willing” to recycle was “food waste, such as kitchen scrap.” The results obtained for this question are provided in Figure 7. 13

F i g u r e 7 . M A R C S u r v e y R e s u l t – Q u e s t i o n 1 0

13 Mid-America Regional Council, Solid Waste Services: Eight-County Community Survey, December 2005


1 1 - 7 1


An alternative that collects residential food waste and soiled paper combined with yard waste on a weekly basis was analyzed. This system was chosen as the most economical and the one with the most potential for waste diversion.

For this type of collection system, residents are provided a 35-gallon wheeled cart for curbside collection. In addition to the food waste and soiled paper, residents can also place yard waste in the container.

Weekly collection was chosen to reduce the time that rapidly decomposing food waste is required to be stored by the residents. Weekly collection has been shown to increase diversion levels over bi-weekly collection because residents tend to place food waste in the trash container in a week when food waste collection is not available. Co-collection with yard waste has been shown to increase participation because mixing food waste with yard waste reduces odors.

On collection day, the carts are collected with automated side loading vehicles except in those areas of the city where maneuverability is limited and then rear loaders with tipping arms are used. The automated system reduces the labor requirement by allowing the driver to service the entire route.

The major advantage of a food waste collection program is an increase in the quantity of material diverted from landfill disposal. However, the diversion experienced by other municipalities is considerably lower than the potential suggested by waste composition studies. The reason for this is that food waste program participation rates are significantly below corresponding recycling program rates. Additionally, it is difficult to alter the habit of using in-house garbage disposals.

The following assumptions were used in the cost analysis prepared for the City to implement a residential food waste collection program:

• The City would provide 35-gallon curbside carts to each single-family resident. The 35-gallon curbside carts would be annualized over seven years; five percent interest assumed.

• The City also provides a box of biodegradable liner bags that have Biodegradable Product Institute (BPI) or other 3rd party certification that product meets ASTM D6400 "Specifications for Compostable Plastics."

• Based on a five-day week, six routes per day are automated sideloader and three routes per day are semi-automated rear loader with tipping arms.

• City would purchase six automated and three semi-automated vehicles, amortized over seven years at 5 percent interest (based on 2007 truck costs).

• A participating household places ten pounds per week of food and soiled paper curbside for collection.


1 1 - 7 2

• A participating household would place approximately 10 pounds per week of yard waste curbside for collection.

• The participation rate is 20 percent.

• Composting facility fee of $17 per ton. This cost may decrease if the City guarantees purchases of compost by City agencies.

• Direct costs include insurance, utilities, security, training, permits, licenses, etc.

• Annual increase for inflation of four percent.

• Annual increase in house count at 0.55 percent.

• The cost of promotional materials prior to startup and ongoing reminders are included in the separate educational budget included in another section of this document.

Based on the assumptions discussed above, the first year’s costs for an organics collection system are estimated to be almost $3.9 million. The annualized cost for the vehicles is about $285,000 and the annualized cost for the curbside carts is over $988,000. The City could expect avoided disposal costs of approximately $222,000 for food disposal. A summary of costs anticipated for this program are provided in Table 16.

T a b l e 1 6 . F i r s t Y e a r C o s t E s t i m a t e s f o r R e s i d e n t i a l O r g a n i c s C o l l e c t i o n

Item Cost Trucks Capital cost for automated side loaders $1,200,000 Annualized cost (5% for 7 years) $207,384 Capital cost for semi-automatic rear loaders $450,000 Annualized cost (5% for 7 years) $77,769 Total annualized costs $285,153 Total annual maintenance $507,000 Personnel Driver costs $307,691 Crew costs $141,024 Supervisors $110,000 Other direct costs $540,000 Cart costs (143,000 carts annualized at 5% for 7 years) $988,529 Compostable cart liners $715,000 Avoided Disposal Cost (food) ($222,396) Total annual cost $3,907,197 Cost per household (annual) $27.41 Cost per household (month) $2.28 Cost per ton $265.64


1 1 - 7 3

A summary of costs anticipated for a 20-year period are provided in Appendix C.

This cost analysis does not take into account that the City could eliminate curbside collection of leaves and brush, as well as leaf/brush drop-off facilities if curbside collection of organics is implemented. Elimination of these two programs would save the City an estimated $1.1 million annually.

This analysis also assumes the purchase of new equipment. If the City makes changes to the bulky item collection program (discussed later in this document), the City could reallocate existing equipment to this program, which could reduce implementation costs by approximately $642,000.

Although this cost analysis assumes a full roll-out of the program to all single-family residents, it is strongly recommended that the City first measure the public willingness to participate in this type of program by first implementing a pilot program. It is possible that residents will use the curbside carts for yard waste only and not include food waste.

It is also anticipated that due to the seasonal nature of yard waste generation, there could be large fluctuations in the number of carts set out for collection.

The assumptions that there would be a 20 percent participation rate and that a participating household would setout 10 pounds of food waste per week results in an estimated 7,280 tons of food diverted from disposal each year (using 2007 house count). The City should weigh the cost and potential diversion of this program against the cost and potential diversion of other programs.

O T H E R J U R I S D I C T I O N S

Although food waste represents a large portion of the residential solid waste disposed, the diversion potential of this material is limited by participation rates. Anecdotal information suggests that residential participation in food waste collection programs is significantly below corresponding recycling participation rates. Low participation rates result in lower quantities of materials being diverted than anticipated from waste composition studies. Lessons learned in other jurisdictions are discussed below.

StopWaste.Org, a public agency combining the Alameda County, California Waste Management Authority and the Alameda County Source Reduction and Recycling Board, supports residential food waste collection by supplying implementation grants to member cities. Fifteen jurisdictions have implemented or are in the process of implementing residential food waste collection programs. These programs combine food waste and soiled paper products with weekly yard waste collection.

Due to the commingling of the food waste and yard waste, monitoring the amount of food waste diverted can be difficult. Any additional diversion realized from the addition of food waste to an existing yard waste collection program is obscured by natural variances in the yard waste quantities.


1 1 - 7 4

StopWaste.Org successfully monitors their programs by “lid flipping” in the field to estimate participation and waste diversion rates. The semi-mature programs (two to three years old) have a participation rate of about 20 percent. Officials have observed that if a resident does not have yard waste to place at the curb, then the food and soiled paper waste is also absent.

Measurement studies have found between 8 and 14 pounds food and soiled paper waste per setout. According to StopWaste.Org staff, the median amount is ten pounds per set out. It is also reported that adding the food and soiled paper waste to an existing weekly yard waste collection program does not nominally increase collection costs.

The Agency’s member cities use 64-gallon and/or 96-gallon wheeled carts to collect the mixed stream with automated trucks. More densely populated areas use the smaller carts; suburban areas with larger lawns use the larger containers.

One member city, Fremont, California, added food and soiled paper waste to their existing yard waste collection program in 2003. A private hauler, servicing 46,500 single-family households, co-collects the food/yard waste and recyclable materials with split body trucks. Of those residents setting out food/yard waste collection carts, 25 percent participate in the food waste program. Seventy-five percent of the carts contain yard waste only.

Fremont has a three cart residential system; a gray cart for recyclable materials, a green cart for food and yard waste, and a dark blue cart for trash. The cost for collecting all three containers is embedded in the cost of trash collection based on a pay-as-you-throw fee structure.

Residents choose from four trash service levels: a 20-gallon container for $23.61 per month, a 32-gallon container for $24.10 per month, a 64-gallon container for $26.35 per month, or a 96-gallon container for $38.69 per month Residents can purchase extra 32-gallon bags for $5.97 per bag.

Another program model is the collection of food and soiled paper separately from yard waste. This type of program is not as common as the combined systems due to the increased cost of labor and equipment for a separate collection system.

One program of this type was identified. Wayzata, Minnesota, a small town located in Hennepin County, about 12 miles from Minneapolis, has collected residential food waste since 2003.14 The disadvantage of this type of program is the high cost to collect and transport a small amount of material. However, the monitoring of participation rates and diversion amounts is easier then programs where food waste is commingled with yard waste.

The weekly set-out rate during a two-year pilot study in Wayzata ranged from 24 to 29 percent. Weekly set-out rate indicates how many households set out their material on a given week. The quarterly participation was estimated at 50 percent. In other words, during that time period, 50 percent of the households participated at least once in the food waste collection program.

14 In addition to food waste, soiled paper products, floral trimmings, houseplants, dryer lint, and vacuum bags are also accepted.


1 1 - 7 5

Data gathered during the pilot study showed that residents placed, on average, 11.6 pounds per household per month food waste at the curb for collection (2.9 pounds per household per week). This average was calculated by dividing the total tons collected by the total number of households (participating and non-participating).

Assuming a 29 percent participation rate (the high end of the weekly setout rate) and the average pounds per household shown above (2.9 pounds per household), then the quantity per participating household equals 10 pounds per household per week. This is the same quantity estimated by StopWaste.Org.

A 2005 financial analysis estimated the cost of the weekly food waste service at $2.56 per household per month for collection only. On a per ton basis, the collection cost equaled $409 per ton.15 Residents pay $5.30 per month for recycling and food waste collection. This mandatory fee is included in the monthly trash rates shown below.

The town’s 3,941 residents have a pay-as-you-throw fee structure in place for trash collection. For weekly service, the monthly household fee structure is $14.20 for a 30-gallon container, $20.20 for a 60-gallon container, and $25.95 for a 90-gallon container. Residents can purchase extra stickers for $2.50 each. Each sticker buys the equivalent of a 30-gallon container.

S u p p l e m e n t a l R e s i d e n t i a l F o o d W a s t e C o l l e c t i o n E x p e r i e n c e

A 2004 survey of Alameda County residents with established food waste collection programs found that the most common food items recycled included fruit and vegetables scraps, leftovers, meat scraps, cheese products, and eggshells. Items also recycled but at lower levels included coffee grounds, pizza boxes, paper food containers and wrappers, and paper beverage cartons.

Of those surveyed, 26 percent reported always participating, 44 percent sometimes participate, and 30 percent never participate. The reasons given for not participating are listed in Table 17 below.

15 “Curbside Collection Of Source-Separated Organics in the City of Wayzata Final Report – Phase 2.” June 2005. http://wayzata.govoffice.com


1 1 - 7 6

T a b l e 1 7 . R e a s o n s f o r N o n - P a r t i c i p a t i o n

Reasons for Non-Participation Percent Responding

Inconvenient 30%

Odor/smell 23%

Rodents/flies/bugs 16%

Composting it 11%

Not clean 11%

Not enough yard waste 10%

Giving food scraps to pets 6%

Put food scraps in garbage disposal 6%

Don’t have enough information 4%

Waste cart is too small 2%

Other 2%

Don’t know 10% “Residential Food Scrap Program Survey Results.” Alameda County Waste Management Authority. The Evans McDonough Co. July 2004 http://www.stopwaste.org/docs/foodscrap-survey.pdf

Additional residential food waste collection program observations include:

• Some programs have seen a decline in participation after the initial start. The cause is unclear.

• Participation rates are lower than rates for other recyclable materials.

• Lack of storage space and cleaning the kitchen and curbside containers are deterrents.

• Participation rates increase during the spring and summer months when yard waste volumes increase.

• If a resident does not have yard waste in a given week, no food waste is put out at the curb.

• There is reluctance to use the large curbside container exclusively for small amounts of food waste.

• The lack of a consistent supply of yard waste in the collection container is a deterrent.

• Yard waste in the curbside container to mix with food waste keeps the container cleaner and reduces the food waste odors (a natural liner).


1 1 - 7 7

• Both participants and non-participants are concerned about odor particularly during hot summer months.

• There is a public perception that the program is unnecessary because of little food waste compared to other materials collected for recycling.

• There is an unwillingness to spend the time and effort to separate another material out of the household trash.

I M P L E M E N T A T I O N

The inherent characteristics that make food waste difficult to manage include a high moisture content, rapid rate of decomposition, potential to generate unpleasant odors, and vector attraction. The problems created by these characteristics must be recognized and addressed in any municipal food waste collection program. The “ick” factor must be overcome.

The addition of soiled paper provides an absorbent material for free liquids, which helps to control odors. Residents could be encouraged to wrap their food waste in newspaper or use approved compostable liners to contain free liquids. Since non-compostable plastic bags are unacceptable for the composting process, the City would need to designate approved liners and provide purchase outlets.

Promotional materials prior to startup and ongoing reminders are critical to the success of a food waste collection program. Education as to how the collected food waste will be used and how it fits into the context of the recycling ethic will improve participation.

It is important that residents understand which paper products belong with the food waste collection and which belong with the recyclables collection so that there is not a reduction in the quantity of paper collected for recycling.

Additional issues for the City to consider when implementing residential food waste collection include:

• Communication with the composting facility to ensure that the program meets facility requirements should occur at the beginning of the process.

• Consider a pilot program before citywide roll-out.

• Realize that areas with a high level of garbage disposal use may have less food waste.

• Participation rates will be lower than recyclable collection rates.

• Participation will fluctuate, which could create employee scheduling and route planning problems.


1 1 - 7 8


1 2 - 7 9

12 GLASS CONTA INER COLLECT ION

C U R R E N T C O L L E C T I O N S Y S T E M

City residents and businesses have two options for management of glass containers. Glass containers can be recycled at the four City funded drop-off facilities or placed curbside with the trash collected for disposal. Kansas City, like numerous other communities, has a single stream curbside recycling program that does not accept glass containers.


As an alternative to the City’s current drop-off system, the addition of glass-only drop-off sites was analyzed for use by City businesses to increase the amount of glass collected and processed by the City. Commercial accounts (e.g., bars, restaurants, etc.) represent an estimated 60% of the total volume of waste glass generated annually, or 48,000 tons.16

For this type of recycling system, businesses (primarily restaurants and bars) will have the opportunity to take glass containers to drop-off sites. These unmanned facilities should be sited to provide convenient locations to recycle glass.

The primary advantages of these types of systems, beside increased diversion, is that a single-material site takes less land area and may be easier to site than larger multi-materials drop-off sites.

The primary disadvantage of this type of collection system is the cost per ton of material collected is higher than drop-off sites that accept multiple material. Additional disadvantages include a higher chance of contamination from unmanned sites and potentially lower diversion rates than sites that accept multiple material types.

A cost analysis was prepared for the City to add 18 glass-only drop-off sites. The following assumptions were used:

• There would be a metropolitan area glass processor/transporter.

• Owens Corning would be a local end user of the mixed glass for insulation manufacturing. This option is not currently available; however, there is considerable regional interest in supplying a usable feedstock to the manufacturer.

• If this end user market does not become viable, then additional recycling containers would need to be purchased for color sorting at an estimated cost of $80,000.

• Each recycling site would have one glass recovery container and two trash receptacles. The trash containers would be decorative plastic shells over 55-gallon drums.

16 MARC 2006 Grant E-2006015 Final Report, Glass Recycling System Development Study, Boulevard Brewing Company


1 2 - 8 0

• The City would purchase a flat bed truck retrofitted with a grapple arm to transport empty containers to the site and to transport full containers back to a consolidation point. The vehicle would be amortized for seven years at five percent interest.

• One driver and truck would service all sites.

• Direct costs include: insurance, utilities, security, training, permits, licenses, etc.

• The City would use a skid loader with a bucket attachment to load the recycled glass into city-owned or market supplied roll-off containers. If existing equipment does not exist, additional capital costs would be incurred.

• The City will be required to purchase 21 recycling containers (including three back up containers) and 36 trash receptacle covers. The recycling containers would be amortized over seven years at five percent interest.

• The recovered glass containers will be taken to the City’s material processing facility discussed in another section of this document.

• This analysis does not take into account any costs to deliver collected glass to an end user market.

Based on the assumptions discussed above, the first year program costs are estimated at about $175,000 (see Table 18). The annual cost per household is $1.23 ($0.10 per month) and $253.77 per ton of glass recycled.

T a b l e 1 8 . F i r s t Y e a r C o s t E s t i m a t e s f o r G l a s s C o n t a i n e r C o l l e c t i o n

Item Cost Total cost for truck $85,000 Annualized cost (5% for 7 years) $14,690 Total annual maintenance $39,000 Driver costs $40,000 Other direct costs $60,000 Recycling container costs (@$2,200 each) assumes 3 spare $46,200 Recycling container costs (annualized at 5% for 7 years) $7,984 Trash receptacles $13,140 Total annual cost (does not include trash receptacles) $161,674 Total first year cost $174,814 Cost per household (annual) $1.23 Cost per household (month) $0.10 Cost per ton $253.77


1 2 - 8 1


The experiences of two other cities that use glass-only drop-off sites for residential purposes are highlighted here for purposes of estimating costs for Kansas City.

Medina County, Ohio serves about 100,000 people with eight glass-only drop-off sites and one multi-material site. Residents color sort their glass containers into three igloo style recycling bins at each site. The labor requirement to service these sites is one driver spending 15 hours per week. The four cubic yard containers hold about 3,500 pounds each. The recycling bins are transported back to the county-owned processing facility, emptied and cleaned of contamination, and loaded into open top roll offs for transport to market.

The Metropolitan Environmental Trust servicing about 700,000 people in the Tulsa, Oklahoma region collects glass containers from 11 multi-material drop-off sites. Staff reported they recovered about 1,000 tons of glass containers in 2007. The authority does not encouraged participation from restaurants and bars because they have experienced a high level of non-container glass contamination from these sources.

Even though they are located only 40 miles from a beneficiation plant that supplies processed cullet to a bottle manufacture; glass recycling still costs the authority about $7,000 per year. Staff reported that they are considering changing their end user market to avoid the high cost of “selling” their recovered glass to the container manufacturing industry. Planned changes will allow the authority to collect the glass color mixed for the construction market. A crusher will be used to produce an aggregate for city and county projects.

I M P L E M E N T A T I O N I S S U E S

The earlier analysis assumes that the City implements a commercial glass container collection within one year. However, the City may consider a phasing in of services to allow for a transition period to judge public acceptance and participation in the program.

Issues for the City to consider when implementing glass container collection include:

• Identification of the end user market and corresponding specifications for selling material to that market

• Siting the recycling containers in easy-to-access areas, and

• Sufficient business education.

The traditional end markets for recovered glass containers include glass bottle and fiberglass manufacturing. Secondary markets include aggregate for the construction industry, abrasives, landscaping, and other specialty markets like countertop manufacturing.

The consolidation of U.S. bottle making plants has impacted the ability of many communities to market their recovered glass containers to this end user due to the cost of transporting long distances. The closest bottle manufacturer to the Kansas City region is in Oklahoma.


1 2 - 8 2

Processing recovered glass containers into aggregate for the construction industry is most cost effective in areas with a shortage in natural sourced aggregates. The Kansas City area has numerous sources for natural aggregate.

The Kansas City metropolitan area does have a fiberglass manufacturer. This manufacturer, Owens Corning, has expressed an interest in obtaining their recycled glass feedstock from the region. Owens Corning insulation has about 35 percent recycled glass content. Recovered glass containers must be processed into a feedstock with consistency in particle size and color distribution. The City may need to partner with other municipalities and Owens Corning to develop this end market for Kansas City.

Glass-only recycling centers need to be located in visible areas with easy access for businesses to recycle their glass containers. Proper signage including a posting of prohibited acts is recommended. Similar to other public programs, education and promotion of the glass collection program is necessary for a successful program.


1 3 - 8 3

13 COMMERC IAL SECTOR RECYCL ING

C U R R E N T S Y S T E M

Commercial waste is derived from businesses, shopping centers, government buildings, schools, colleges, hospitals, retirement homes, other institutions, restaurants, office buildings, and a variety of other sources. Recovery of commercial sector recyclable materials in the Kansas City metropolitan region is currently controlled by the private sector. Some small business establishments may use the drop-off recycling system but the quantity recovered through this system is small compared to the privately collected material.

The region has well established paper and metal recovery programs ran by private recyclers and material brokers. Paper is the largest single component of most commercial waste streams and is generally the largest component recovered. Regional collection of commercially generated paper products for recycling from both sides of the state line is estimated to be between 150,000 to 200,000 tons per year. Due to the proprietary nature of the quantities recovered, an exact estimate of materials recovered from the commercial sector is unavailable. Section 2 of the Background Document estimated commercial recycling of all materials in Kansas City at about 100,000 tons in 2006, most of which was paper products.

Individual commercial establishments contract directly with local haulers for the collection of their recyclable materials. The length of the collection contracts will vary from one to three or more years. The contracting mechanism will vary depending upon the quantity and quality of the materials available for recovery and the ability of the individual procurement officers to negotiate with the local haulers. In some cases, businesses that are part of national chains may be required to use a particular recycler based on national contracts negotiated at the corporate level.

For those commercial establishments contracting at the local level, the recyclable materials collection may be incorporated into the trash collection contract. For other establishments there may be separate contracts for the collection of recyclable materials and trash. One large local commercial establishment reported that they contract separately for the collection of recyclable materials and trash. They also reported that they contract with two local recyclers; one to collect the corrugated containers and a second to collect a commingled paper and containers mix. Unlike the trash collection which has a monthly service fee, they receive payment for their recyclable materials.

A local mid-size company reported that although they are contracting separately for recyclable materials collection and trash collection, they are paying to have their recyclable material (mostly corrugated containers) collected.

Commercial recyclable material contracting is very dynamic. Procurement officers state that they do not hesitate to change recyclers if the economics become more favorable to do so. Competition to collect high quality recyclable materials from large commercial generators is very aggressive in the Kansas City region.


1 3 - 8 4

C O M M E R C I A L C O L L E C T I O N I N O T H E R J U R I S D I C T I O N S

Most of the cities identified as providing commercial recyclable materials collection provide collection to small or mid-size establishments. The reason for this is that these smaller establishments do not generate the quantities necessary to attract private sector collection. The cities provide the service (typically at a cost to the city) in order to increase diversion rates which are often mandated at the state or local level.

One city that actively pursues collection of commercial recyclable materials is Tucson, Arizona. The City’s Solid Waste Management Department provides residential and commercial trash collection services, residential curbside recycling collection, operates 15 neighborhood recycling drop-off centers, and operates the local landfill. The City competes against the private sector for both trash and recyclable materials collection. Less than 10 percent of the City’s 4,300 commercial trash customers participate in the City’s recycling program.

Two commercial recycling programs are currently managed by the City. The first and most profitable is the siting of front loading metal containers or roll-off containers at large and mid-sized establishments. The second provides 30, 60, or 90 gallon plastic automatic collection containers “curbside” for establishments generating smaller amounts. One or two containers are collected free from existing trash customers. This program for smaller generators is not cost effective and is being phased out.

For the larger generators, the City provides 4, 6, or 8 cubic yard front loading containers for $50 per month. If the commercial establishment is a current trash collection customer, the fee is reduced to $25 per month. Some establishments using larger 20, 30, or 40 cubic yard roll off containers are charged $80 per pull ($95 if not currently a trash customer).

Commercial customers can also schedule container maintenance (painting and steam cleaning) through the City.

In order to compete with the private sector, Tucson devotes three FTE staff to soliciting new customers. Staff has found that providing better customer service than the private sector helps them grow their client base. Drivers observing problems with existing customers or potential new customers report back to the sales force.

The solid waste department, set up as an enterprise fund in 2005, is required to operate with full cost recovery.

C O M M E R C I A L C O L L E C T I O N P R O G R A M F O R K A N S A S C I T Y

In the future, Kansas City may consider expanding recyclables collection services to the commercial sector. Some of the factors affecting costs include:

• Number of trucks required • Proximity of commercial establishments being serviced • Containers (type and number) • Drivers required


1 3 - 8 5

• Administrative staff/customer service staff • Sales staff

In implementing a commercial recyclables collection program, the City should anticipate intense competition from established recyclers and brokers.

However, the City could use the following methods to identify and keep commercial customers:

• Identify new customers:

- Provide drivers incentives to bring potential new customer leads back to the sales force (such as coupons for car washes, lunch, movies)

- Monitor new business license applications

- Maintain a dedicated sales force

• Incentives to get/keep business:

- Business tax adjustment.

- A reduced rate on a business license.

- Since businesses will change haulers when the economics become more favorable to do so, the City would need to provide better customer service.


1 3 - 8 6


1 4 - 8 7

14 L EAF AND BRUSH COLLECT ION


The City collects up to 20 sacks or bundles of leaves and brush (excluding grass clippings) from residences at curbside, in the spring and fall.

The costs of curbside collection are expected to be $291,700 for Fiscal Year 2008. This equals $0.17 per household and approximately $85.00 per ton of leaves/brush collected. The City has budgeted an additional $250,000 for storm collection contingencies and an additional $16,000 for neighborhood cleanups.

P U B L I C P E R C E P T I O N O F L E A F A N D B R U S H C O L L E C T I O N

Leaf and brush collection was ranked the fourth most important service by respondents of the public opinion survey. The public opinion survey also asked respondents if they would participate in a monthly, appointment only, leaf and brush curbside collection program. Over 58 percent indicated that they would. Approximately 22 percent of the respondents indicated that they would not participate in such a program and the remaining 18 percent were not sure. Those that indicated that they would participate in the program were then asked if they were willing to pay $1 to $3 per bag. Approximately 51 percent of the respondents indicated they would be willing to pay. Twenty-three percent indicated they would not be willing to pay and the remaining 15 percent were not sure.


The City currently is providing a limited service for leaf and brush management to its citizens. It is not unusual for communities to provide their residents with more frequent collection of yard waste. Often communities will provide weekly curbside collection from March to January.

At a minimum, the City should consider monthly curbside service for leaves and brush. Extending collection to a year round service will provide residents the opportunity to have brush collection in the winter, which is often a need because of winter storms. Requiring residents to schedule an appointment will allow the City to develop a cost-effective route to make best use of existing equipment and manpower.

A separate alternative for weekly collection of organics (food and yard waste) was discussed earlier in this document. If the City proceeds with the new organics collection option, monthly collection of leaves and brush will not be required which would save the City approximately $328.000 annually.


1 4 - 8 8


1 5 - 8 9

15 L EAF AND BRUSH DROP-OFF FAC I L I T I ES


The City provides leaf and brush drop-off sites from mid-March through mid-January at two locations (see Figure 8):

• 1815 N. Chouteau Trafficway • 10301 Raytown Road. F i g u r e 8 . L o c a t i o n o f L e a f a n d B r u s h D r o p - O f f F a c i l i t i e s

The staffed sites are open on Saturdays (8 a.m. to 6 p.m. - March 17 through October, and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. - November through January 15). Residents of Kansas City may use the sites free of charge. Proof of residency such as a driver's license or water bill is required. Grandview and Raytown residents may use the sites with a voucher purchased from their respective municipalities.

Only leaves, yard waste and brush (including tree trimmings) are accepted. Grass clippings are not accepted.

A private contractor is responsible for managing the sites, chipping the material that is received, hauling material to the composting site, and marketing the organic materials. In Fiscal Year

Chouteau Trafficway

Raytown Road


1 5 - 9 0

2008, it is anticipated that the City will spend approximately $651,000 to operate the drop-off program.

P U B L I C P E R C E P T I O N O F T H E C U R R E N T P R O G R A M

Questions regarding the City’s leaf and brush drop-off program were asked in the public opinion survey. When asked to rank residential services, leaf and brush drop-off facilities were ranked nine out of eleven. Respondents also were asked if the City should collect grass as part of the leaf and brush program. Approximately 52 percent responded that the City should include grass. Thirty-one percent responded that the City should not collect grass and the remaining 17 percent were not sure.

When asked if respondents would use a fee-based leaf and brush drop-off facility, 51 percent indicated that they would. Approximately 36 percent responded that they would not and the remaining 12 percent were not sure. Those that said they would use a fee-based program were then asked how much they would be willing to pay. They were offered two options: per bag or per truck fees (more than one response was possible for the question). Seventy-three percent were willing to pay $1 per bag, only 8 percent were willing to pay $5 per bag. Twenty-one percent were willing to pay $10 per truckload while only five percent were willing to pay $15 to $25 per truck load.


F e e s

The City currently does not charge residents for use of the facilities. City code allows the division to establish a schedule of fees, appropriate for the size and type of vehicle or load, of not more than $25.00 per vehicle load for disposal of leaves and brush.17

Several other communities in the metropolitan region operate drop-off facilities for leaves and brush. Three of these cities charge residents and businesses for use of the facilities. They are the cities of Lee’s Summit, Gladstone, and Leavenworth.

Lee’s Summit charges the following fees that their facility:18

• Fees to drop off brush:

- Residents: $5.00/cubic yard - $ 0.52/bag - Non-residents: $12.50/cubic yard - $1.03/bag - Christmas Trees: $1.03 each

• Fees to drop off grass and leaves:

- Residents: $3.86/cubic yard or $ 0.52/bag

17 Section 62-55 (d) of Chapter 62 Solid Waste, Kansas City ordinances. 18 City of Lee’s Summit website: http://www.lees-summit.mo.us/publicworks/Environment9.cfm


1 5 - 9 1

- Non-residents: $5.15/cubic yard or $1.03/bag

Uncovered/Unsecured loads are charged an additional $15.00 fee.

In 2007, the City of Gladstone collected enough material to generate 2,200 cubic yards of mulch. During the year, 2,456 residential and commercial vehicles accessed the site.19 Their fees are as follows:

• Residential:

- $1.00: per bag - $10.00: Up to and including a full size pickup with bed-level loose load - $15.00: Up to and including a full size pickup with cab-level loose load - $20.00: Up to a full size pickup with loose load above cab or built-up sides - $20.00: One-axle trailer with or without sides - $30.00: Two-axle trailer with or without sides - $40.00: Three-axle trailer with or without sides

• Commercial:

- $2.00: per bag - $20.00: Up to and including a full size pickup with bed-level loose load - $25.00: Up to and including a full size pickup with cab-level loose load - $30.00: Up to a full size pickup with loose load above cab or built-up sides - $30.00: One-axle trailer with or without sides - $40.00: Two-axle trailer with or without sides - $50.00: Three-axle trailer with or without sides

Gladstone allows residents two weekends a year to bring material at a reduced rate. The one in May is free and the fall one is half price.

Leavenworth, Kansas also operates a “brush site” that is available to both residents and commercial contractors. Leaves and grass clippings are accepted free-of-charge. All other organic materials are accepted according to the fee schedule. On the 1st Saturday of each month, the brush site is free to residents. The city’s fee schedule is:20

• Automobile Type:

- Car or Van - $2.00 - Pickup - $5.00 - Flat Bed - $15.00 - Single Axle Dump - $15.00 - Dual Axle Dump - $25.00 - Chipper Box - $25.00

19 Personal communication with Chuck Williams, Director of Public Works, City of Gladstone, January 9, 2008. 20 City of Leavenworth website: http://www.lvks.org/egov/docs/119101510689.htm


1 5 - 9 2

• Trailers:

- 1' to 8' - $5.00 - 8' to 16' - $10.00 - Over 16' - $10.00 (plus $1.00 for each additional foot over 16')

Kansas City also should charge for use of its leaf and brush drop-off facilities. These fees should be used to offset the costs of operating the program. An example fee schedule could consist of:

Charge Kansas City Residents Non-Residents No charge First five bags per vehicle per

Saturday

Per bag charge $1.00 per bag (after first five free)

$1.50 per bag per vehicle per Saturday

Per axle $15.00 $25.00 Per Christmas tree $5.00 $5.00 Per cubic yard $4.50 $4.50

A d d i t i o n a l L o c a t i o n

The City’s existing facilities are located in the midtown and southern area of the City. The City could consider an additional facility located in the northern part of the City for easier access for residents in that area.


1 6 - 9 3

16 RECYCLABLES SORT ING FAC I L I TY

The City currently provides recycling services at special events and festivals. The City provided services at six events, including the Rhythm and Ribs festival, Gospel Jazz Festival, 18th Street Festival, Downs Syndrome Annual Buddy Walk, KC Charities Rally Kick-off Carnival and the Hispanic Festival. If the City proceeds with plans to require recycling at special events and festivals (as discussed earlier), more recyclables will be generated that will require sorting and processing by the City. Since these recyclables are being currently collected, the City requires an interim processing facility until a permanent facility can be built, as discussed later in this document. The City should investigate potential sites and costs of an interim processing facility. Operating an interim facility will also allow the City to begin working with other City agencies to establish internal recycling programs and begin providing collection services for those programs.

P O T E N T I A L L O C A T I O N

The City has identified an unused warehouse that may be suitable for this purpose as shown in Figures 9 and 10. The City must first determine if the building is structurally sound and meets City code and zoning requirements (see the Background Document for a discussion of zoning requirements). Also, the building must offer sufficient height to place sorting equipment and allow for movement of equipment.

F i g u r e 9 . C i t y - O w n e d W a r e h o u s e - I n t e r i o r


1 6 - 9 4

F i g u r e 1 0 . C i t y - O w n e d W a r e h o u s e - E x t e r i o r

E Q U I P M E N T A N D L A B O R N E E D S

The City will be required to purchase a sorting line to separate recyclables after they are collected. A manual sorting line typically consists of flat conveyor belts that move recyclables past workers. The workers remove recyclables by hand from the belt as they pass by.

There are several equipment companies that offer above-grade, low-volume, manual, 6- to 16-man sorting stations (see Figures 11 and 1221). Used and rebuilt sorting lines are available on the market with costs ranging from $45,000 to $88,000.

F i g u r e 1 1 . E x a m p l e o f a S i x - M a n S o r t i n g S t a t i o n

21 Trans World Equipment Sales, Inc., http://www.twequip.com


1 6 - 9 5

F i g u r e 1 2 . E x a m p l e o f a n E i g h t - M a n S o r t i n g S t a t i o n

The City also will be required to staff the sorting line when it is needed. Options available to the City include use of temporary laborers or individuals required to perform community service under a court order. The City should plan for at least one permanent employee with responsibilities for overseeing facility operations and personnel.

The City also will need to purchase additional rolling stock to maneuver the material within the facility, such as a skid-steer, and bins to hold loose recyclables, such as gaylords.

The City also should evaluate the economic feasibility of purchasing a baler for baling the recyclables. A baler with a capacity of less than 20 tons per day could be expected to cost approximately $50,000. Additional operation and maintenance costs could be expected to be in the range of 1 to 5 percent of the cost of the baler.

Baling of recyclables reduces the volume and allows for easier handling and transport. Additionally, the revenue paid for baled material generally is higher than for material that is sold loose. The City should compare the price that local markets will pay for loose materials versus baled materials and compare the cost difference with the costs required to purchase and maintain a baler.


1 6 - 9 6


1 7 - 9 7

2005 2006 2007 2008

Residential Refuse Collection Salaries $1,243,854 $1,172,647 $1,106,048 $934,649 Direct Costs Temporary Services $319,618 $521,496 $535,961 $567,768 Equipment Maintenance and Fuel $615,760 $936,832 $913,914 $525,932 Disposal Costs $1,036,941 $702,061 $699,003 $713,832 Direct Costs $383,736 $753,692 $403,451 $608,835 Capital Equipment $267,000 $267,000 $267,000 $267,000 Contracted Collection (rear load) $4,215,647 $6,040,996 $4,685,475 $4,709,567 Contracted Collection (carts) $0 $0 $321,627 $78,880 Subtotal $6,838,703 $9,222,076 $7,826,430 $7,471,814 Home Association Rebate $371,899 $109,528 $89,123 $65,628 Apartment Rebate $1,328,713 $1,344,756 $1,182,423 $1,328,896 Subtotal Annual Costs $9,783,168 $11,849,006 $10,204,025 $9,800,987 Revenues Sale of Refuse Collection Stickers ($321,858) ($663,037) ($698,666) ($806,706) Net Annual Costs $9,461,310 $11,185,969 $9,505,359 $8,994,281 Net Unit Costs $/house (month) $5.75 $6.73 $5.66 $5.34 $/ton (annual) $70.99 $93.56 $81.55 $75.37

17 RES IDENT IAL REFUSE COLLECT ION

C U R R E N T C O L L E C T I O N S Y S T E M

C i t y S e r v i c e s

The City provides weekly residential trash collection to over 140,000 residences. Collection is limited to single-family homes, duplexes, and other housing units in buildings that contain six or fewer units. City crews provide collection services to over 48,000 homes located in the central area of the city. A private hauler, under contract to the City, collects trash from the remaining eligible residences (91,000 homes) in the northern and southern areas of the City.

A limited number of homeowners associations have contracted with private haulers for trash collection. These homeowners associations are eligible for a rebate of collection costs from the City. Buildings containing seven or more units must contract with a private hauler for services. The owner or manager is reimbursed for this service based on the number of occupied units in the building or complex.

A summary of the City’s expenditures to provide trash collection services, as well as reimburse home owner’s associations and apartment owners is provided in Table 19.

T a b l e 1 9 . S u m m a r y o f E x p e n d i t u r e s a n d R e v e n u e s – T r a s h C o l l e c t i o n


1 7 - 9 8

In Fiscal Year 2008, it is anticipated that the City will spend approximately $9 million dollars on these three collection programs. This equates to approximately $5.34 per household per month and $75.00 per ton of waste collected.

C o l l e c t i o n M e t h o d s

Currently, two types of collection are used within the City: manual and semi-automated. With manual collection, workers follow the vehicle and manually retrieve the container (e.g., bag or can) and place the refuse into the rear of the truck. Generally, this service is staffed with three workers; one driver and two collection laborers. The majority of homes in the City (approximately 136,000) receive this type of collection service.

Semi-automated collection vehicles are equipped with mechanical lifting devices and are used to provide service to areas in the pilot trash cart program. Crews wheel the carts to the vehicle, line the cart up with the lifting device, and activate the lifter. The lifting device raises and tips the cart, dumping the contents into the hopper of the collection vehicle. Semi-automated collection decreases demand for manual lifting, but it does not eliminate the need for manual labor. It is typically a slower collection method than manual collection.

T R A S H C A R T P I L O T P R O G R A M

Semi-automated collection is currently used in the pilot trash cart areas using 68-gallon carts. Six thousand households from nine neighborhoods are included in the program. The pilot program neighborhoods are:

• Boston Heights • Center City • Citadel • Columbus Park • Eastern 49/63 • Ivanhoe • N.E. Industrial District • Santa Fe • Washington Wheatley.

P i l o t P r o g r a m R e s u l t s

The trash cart pilot program has been gauged as a success based on the following:

• The litter index in areas receiving trash carts has decreased.

• Trash violations have decreased in these areas.

• Recycling rates did not decrease in areas provided carts, although there was no noticeable increase in recycling rates.

• Neighborhoods with carts strongly support continuation of the program.


1 7 - 9 9

Even with this success, City personnel have indicated that there is room for improvement:

• Bar coding carts for easier cart identification.

• Need for additional enforcement to address residents placing too much trash in carts, not allowing the lid to close property.

• Additional effort required to get residents to remove carts from the curb after they have been serviced.

• The City experienced equipment problems due to retrofitting of existing equipment with mechanical lifting devices. Staff recommends the purchase of vehicles with lifting devices installed during manufacture.

P u b l i c P e r c e p t i o n o f P i l o t C a r t P r o g r a m

The trash cart program was discussed during the focus group meetings and was part of the public opinion survey used to gather information as part of the plan development process.

Respondents were asked if they currently participated in the trash carts program. Eight percent of the respondents indicated “yes,” 74 percent of the respondents indicated, “no,” and the remaining 18 percent answered that they were not aware of the program. The results obtained when asked if the City should consider a city-wide trash cart program are provided in Figure 13.

Of those currently living in an area receiving trash cart service (8 percent), 67 percent of the respondents indicated that the city should implement a city-wide trash cart program. The remaining respondents did not answer the question.

During the focus groups the idea of trash carts was discussed. Some of the reasons participants favored trash carts included:

• Carts are more attractive than bags. • Carts are easy to maneuver. • Carts are sturdier than bags and create less litter. • Carts are easier on workers.

Reasons opposing trash carts included:

• Carts are large and difficult to maneuver. • Carts are more difficult to store between collection times. • People don’t remove carts from the street after collection. • Carts get stolen. • Placement of carts at the curb can present a challenge.


1 7 - 1 0 0

by percentage of respondents

48.60%

21.60%

29.70%

YesNoNot sure

F i g u r e 1 3 . D e s i r e f o r a C i t y - W i d e T r a s h C a r t s P r o g r a m

P U B L I C P E R C E P T I O N O F R E F U S E C O L L E C T I O N P R O G R A M

When asked to rank services in order of importance, weekly trash collection was ranked first.

The public opinion survey asked several questions regarding trash collection services offered by the City. Respondents were asked who should be responsible for arranging for collection, transportation, and disposal of trash. Over 84 percent of the respondents indicated that the responsibility should remain with the City. The remaining responses were as follows:

• Individual users: 14 percent • Landlord/property manager: 10 percent • Private contractor: 9 percent • Neighborhood or homeowner’s association: 6 percent • Not sure: 6 percent.

Respondents also were asked if they were satisfied with their trash collection service. Approximately 77 percent indicated that they were satisfied; the remaining 23 percent were not satisfied. Those that were not satisfied were given the opportunity to explain why they were not satisfied. Most of the individuals making comments indicated they were dissatisfied because they wanted to be able to recycle more materials, wanted more frequent bulky item collection, and were unhappy with missed or partial collections. Some of the individuals expressed dissatisfaction with the City’s current contractor, primarily because of the condition of the collection vehicles used and what is perceived to be an excessive amount of emissions from the vehicles.


1 7 - 1 0 1

Respondents also were asked if they would be willing to pay a fee to maintain or expand the City’s trash collection service. Over 61 percent of the respondents indicated that they would be willing to pay. Approximately 26 percent indicated that they would not be willing to pay and the remaining 13 percent were not sure. Those that were willing to pay were asked how they would prefer to pay a fee and were provided three options (some respondents chose more than one option). There results were as follows:

• Bill monthly: 42 percent • Bill annually: 18 percent • Trash bag purchase: 46 percent.

R E C O M M E N D E D C O L L E C T I O N P R O G R A M

As an alternative to the City’s current manual collection system, fully-automated collection of solid waste was analyzed.

For this type of collection system, residents are provided a standardized container into which they place their waste. Residents must place their cart at the curb on collection day. During collection, the driver positions the collection vehicle beside the cart. Using controls inside the cab of the vehicle, the driver maneuvers a side-mounted arm to pick up the container and dump its contents into the hopper of the vehicle. The driver then uses the arm to place the container back onto the curb. Under this type of collection system, the driver is able to service the entire route; the need for manual labor is eliminated. The savings in personnel and worker’s compensation costs, as well as the increase in crew productivity for automated collection, are well documented throughout the solid waste industry.

Some of the general advantages of automated collection include:

• Increased collection efficiency and volume collected per route.

• Reduced crew requirements; only a driver is needed.

• Improved worker comfort.

• Lessened worker strain and injury which leads to fewer lost workdays and reduces workers’ compensation.

• Decreased litter on collection days because the cart is lidded and therefore, protected from wind.

The primary disadvantage of automated collection is the initial costs of purchasing specialized vehicles and providing carts to homeowners. On average, the capital cost of an automated side loader is 20 percent more than that of a manual rear loader. Additionally, the useful life of an automated vehicle is often less than that of a rear loader. Cart costs generally average $35 to $50 each.

Additional general disadvantages include:


1 7 - 1 0 2

• Automated vehicles require more maintenance than traditional rear loaders and require specialized mechanics.

• Automated trucks sometimes have added mileage because they can only pick up on one side of the street, although some trucks can have “arms” on both sides.

• Homeowners must be educated on where to place bins and what kinds of trash can be collected. Bulky items and items that do not fit in the cart usually require a separate collection.

• Automated collection also does not work well in densely populated areas with on-street parking.

While the capital costs are generally higher, the increased productivity and the cost savings from reduced personnel will offset the difference in capital costs over time. There are also savings produced from labor-related costs such as lower worker’s compensation costs, lower health insurance rates, and less turnover. Other ancillary benefits that are difficult to quantify include reduced wear and tear on streets and reduced air emissions due to the reduced need for trucks.

A recent bulletin prepared by the University of Tennessee, compared the costs of different collection scenarios to provide service to 4,000 customers per week.22 The results that are applicable to Kansas City are provided in Table 20.

T a b l e 2 0 . C o s t E s t i m a t e s f o r D i f f e r e n t R e f u s e C o l l e c t i o n T e c h n o l o g i e s

Collection Method Crew Vehicles Equipment Cost Labor Cost Total

Cost/Year Customer

Cost/Month Semi-automated, rear loader, curbside with cans ~700 customers/day/vehicle

3 2 $22,040 $89,809 $111,849 $2.33

Manual, rear loader, curbside bagged trash (no cans) ~800 customers/day/vehicle

3 1 $18,333 $78,780 $97,113 $2.02

Automated, side loader, curbside with cans ~950 customers/day/vehicle

1 1 $30,800 $22,058 $52,858 $1.10

Assumptions: 1. Labor cost is $505 per week for salary and benefits per crew member. 2. Equipment cost is based on a six-year life cycle, and all costs are prorated to actual equipment use. 3. Costs not addressed, but common to all operations, include supervision, equipment insurance and storage, vehicle operation and maintenance based on vehicle usage, vehicle financing, other debt service, and overhead. 4. Productivity rates (customers served per day) are average figures for most cities and assume a 40 hour workweek of which 30 hours are spent on route. 5. Does not include back up equipment.

The most critical difference among the scenarios presented in Table 20 is due to labor costs, not equipment costs.

22 Chlarson, J., Residential Refuse Collection Technologies, Technical Bulletin, Municipal Technical Advisory Service, the University of Tennessee, February 26, 2007.


1 7 - 1 0 3

The residential collection system ultimately used by Kansas City will likely need to use different methods. A hybrid fleet will be needed consisting of both rear loaders and automated side loaders. There will be areas of the City where use of an automated side loader will be impractical.

A cost analysis was prepared for the City to convert to fully-automated collection. The following assumptions were used:

• The City will convert to fully-automated collection in 2011. Service continues with weekly collection.

• Estimated that 75 percent of the City can be collected with automated vehicles. For purposes of this analysis, the remaining 25 percent of the city will be collected manually using rear loader vehicles.

• Based on a five-day week and an eight-hour day, nine routes per day are manual rear loader, and 23 routes per day are automated, side loader (assuming an average of 5.5 hours per day are spent on route).

• City must purchase 27 automated side loader trucks (33 cubic yard capacity) by 2011 (which includes four backup units), amortized for seven years, 5 percent interest (based on 2007 truck costs).

• City must purchase 11 rear loading vehicles (25 cubic yard capacity) by 2011 (which includes two backup units), amortized for seven years, 5 percent interest (based on 2007 truck costs).

• Fleet replacement at five trucks per year based on a 7-year service life (based on 2007 truck costs). Fleet replacement begins in year three.

• Rear loader collection uses three-man crews (1 driver/2 laborers). Automated collection uses only a driver. System requires nine supervisors.

• Daily work schedule is eight hours with 30 minutes scheduled for breaks.

• Annual increase for inflation: four percent.

• Overall annual increase in housecount: 0.55 percent, however different areas of the City are expected to grow at different rates. Based on this growth rate, the City will need to add two automated trucks during the planning period.

• Disposal fees are not included in total annual costs.

• Direct costs include: insurance, utilities, security, training, permits, licenses, etc.

• The City will be required to purchase 125,000 additional carts, amortized over 7 years (based on 2007 cart costs).


1 7 - 1 0 4

This analysis does not take into account cost increases associated with long-hauling upon closure of local landfills. This analysis assumes the City will construct and operate a transfer station, as discussed later in this document.

This alternative does not eliminate the use of trash tags. However, the City should consider raising the rate charged for collection of additional materials. In 2008, the City estimates receiving $806,706 in trash tag revenues (equating to 806,706 additional bags of trash). Assuming that each bag holds 40 pounds of trash, the additional bags equate to over 16,000 tons of trash. The estimated cost for collecting and disposing of this amount of trash equals more than $1,027,000; leaving the City with a shortfall of approximately $220,000 to manage this trash. Raising the rate to a minimum of $2.50 per bag should allow the City to cover its collection and disposal costs. The cost analysis below assumes that the City raises this rate.

Based on the assumptions discussed above, the capital costs are estimated to be $5,400,000 for automated side loaders, $1,650,000 for manual rear loaders, and $6,250,000 for carts. The annualized collection costs for the first year of operation are estimated to be $13,102,941 or $6.51 per household per month as shown in Table 21. The costs do not include costs for administration, disposal, the home association rebate, or the apartment rebate.

It should be noted that over a 20-year period the costs will vary from year to year but are expected to increase due to inflation and population growth. It is anticipated that at some point the City will need to add two additional trucks to address growth in the city. A summary of the 20-year costs is provided in Appendix C.

T a b l e 2 1 . F i r s t Y e a r C o s t E s t i m a t e s f o r A u t o m a t e d C o l l e c t i o n

Item Cost Trucks Capital cost for automated side loaders $5,400,000 Annualized cost (5% for 7 years) $933,227 Capital cost for manual rear loaders $1,650,000 Annualized cost (5% for 7 years) $285,153 Total annualized costs $1,218,380 Total annual maintenance $1,838,685 Personnel Driver costs $1,440,258 Crew costs $437,773 Supervisors $495,000 Other direct costs $1,440,000 Disposal costs $4,659,690 Cart costs (125,000 carts annualized at 5% for 7 years) $1,060,043 Trash tag revenue ($1,960,222) Total annual cost $12,589,829 Cost per household (annual) $74.56 Cost per household (month) $6.21 Cost per ton $79.84


1 7 - 1 0 5

For comparison purposes, the costs of providing refuse collection using municipal crews and rearloader trucks are provided in Table 22.

T a b l e 2 2 . C o m p a r i s o n o f A u t o m a t e d a n d M a n u a l C o l l e c t i o n C o s t s

Item

Automated Collection

Cost

Manual Collection

Cost Trucks Capital cost for automated side loaders $5,400,000 $0 Annualized cost (5% for 7 years) $933,227 $0 Capital cost for manual rear loaders $1,650,000 $6,600,000 Annualized cost (5% for 7 years) $285,153 $1,140,611 Total annualized costs $1,218,380 $1,140,611 Total annual maintenance $1,838,685 $1,452,788 Personnel Driver costs $1,440,258 $1,675,936 Crew costs $437,773 $875,547 Supervisors $495,000 $495,000 Other direct costs $1,440,000 $2,220,000 Disposal costs $4,659,690 $4,659,690 Cart costs (125,000 carts annualized at 5% for 7 years) $1,060,043 $0 Trash tag revenue ($1,960,222) ($1,960,222) Total annual cost $12,589,829 $13,660,183 Cost per household (annual) $74.56 $82.07 Cost per household (month) $6.21 $6.84 Cost per ton $79.84 $87.53


Numerous jurisdictions around the country use automated refuse collection. Of the six communities that were benchmarked (see Background Document), four use automated collection systems including: Denver, Colorado; Louisville, Kentucky; Nashville, Tennessee; and Raleigh, North Carolina.

Locally, the City of Olathe has begun the process of switching to automated collection (see Figure 14). Each household is provided a city-owned trash cart, a SmartCart. Additional carts may be provided by the city for an additional monthly fee. Olathe also allows residents to set out additional trash in bags that have been purchased from the city.


1 7 - 1 0 6

F i g u r e 1 4 . C i t y o f O l a t h e , K a n s a s , A u t o m a t e d C o l l e c t i o n V e h i c l e 23

I M P L E M E N T A T I O N

The earlier analysis assumes that the City implements city-wide automated collection within a one-year timeframe from onset. However, the City may consider a phasing in of services, perhaps over three fiscal years. This approach will allow for a reduction in the initial capital investment for vehicles. A transition period also will allow the City and its residents to adjust to the changes.

Issues for the City to consider when implementing automated collection include:

• Proper routing • Proper equipment selection • Proper staffing, and • Proper training.

Effective route management can reduce labor and vehicle needs, balance workloads, reduce overtime demands and allow for workload adjustments during periods of seasonal waste variation. Implementation of this alternative may require the City to evaluate current routes and rebalance for equal distribution of homes. For example, several home owner’s associations in south Kansas City, which should be on the current Friday route, are collected on the current Tuesday route. For more efficient use of resources, homes in the same general area should be collected on the same day. The City currently does not have a software program to collect daily operational data and to manage current routes. The City would benefit from a software system for designing the new collection routes that will be required for this alternative. Routing software can be used to define

23 Photo from City of Olathe’s website: http://www.olatheks.org/OMS/Trash/Residential/TrashCollection


1 7 - 1 0 7

individual routes, number of trucks required, and the mileage and labor required to service an area. There are several computer routing software packages on the market. Another issue the City will need to consider is the collection of trash that does not fit inside the cart (for the earlier cost analysis it was assumed that the City would not collect trash not fitting inside the cart). The City may decide to allow residents to continue to use trash bags, which will require the driver to exit the vehicle and manually place the bag into the truck. This practice will most likely reduce the efficiency of automated collection. The experiences of several other communities that have implemented automated collection have been compiled. Some of the anecdotal information provided below may help the City with their decision-making process. Most of what is presented in this section is from comments of solid waste managers that have been involved in a change to automated collection.

• Public Education: In hindsight, most solid waste managers would have provided more public meetings, advertising, literature, and education, and that they would have done it earlier. This was true for all groups including citizens, supervisors, operators, and elected officials.

• Implementation Pace: There seems to be no consensus on how to best implement a change to automation (i.e., pilot programs, phase-in approach, full scale). For as many decision makers that said they would have automated all at once, there are an equal number that said that they would have phased-in the process over a longer period of time.

• Carts: Most solid waste managers give the following recommendations concerning refuse collection carts:

- Purchase carts with flexibility in mind (size and collection method);

- Work out issues of additional containers, replacement, changing sizes, etc. beforehand;

- Investigate cart placement thoroughly; and

- Consider household identification on cart.

• Collection Operations: Most solid waste managers give the following recommendations concerning automated refuse collection operations:

- Develop a plan to service dead-end, one-way, and narrow streets with as much automation as possible;

- Determine whether to automate other services (recycling and yard waste) and the timing of such a switch;

- Consider automating first in the areas that you perceive to have the most potential problems or opposition (will serve as a catalyst for the future);


1 7 - 1 0 8

- Be aware that set out rates will most likely be much higher after automation (close to 100 percent if only once/week service is offered); and

- Look at other services provided (bulky waste, yard waste, special waste collection) and what impacts automation will have, either positive or negative.

• Cost: Consider life-cycle cost factors in determining selection of carts and trucks. Do not sacrifice quality for short term-savings.


1 8 - 1 0 9

18 BULKY I T EM COLLECT ION


The bulky item collection program is for disposal of large household items that can't be handled as part of the weekly trash pickup. A bulky item is an item more than four feet long or weighing more than 40 pounds.

Bulky items are collected by zone (as shown in Figure 15). Each zone receives service every month or every other month. Service is more frequent in zones where citizens use the service more frequently. The collection schedule is as follows (the bulky item zone number indicates the day of the month when that zone is collected and which months it is collected):

• Zones 3*, 5, 7, 17, 19 and 29 - Bi-monthly odd - Bulky items are collected on the corresponding day during odd-numbered months (January, March, May, July, September and November). *The portion of Zone 3 that is in the Winwood/Sunnybrooke Neighborhood is collected monthly. The remaining portions of Zone 3 are collected on odd-numbered months.

• Zones 6**, 8, 10, 16, 18, 26, 28** and 30 - Bi-monthly even - Bulky items are collected on the corresponding day during even-numbered months (February, April, June, August, October and December). **The portion of Zone 6 that is in the Crestview neighborhood and the portion of Zone 28 that is between Rockhill Road and Paseo Boulevard is collected monthly. The remaining portions of Zone 6 and Zone 28 are collected on even-numbered months.

• Zones 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 25 - Monthly - Bulky items are collected on the corresponding day of each month.

F i g u r e 1 5 . B u l k y I t e m C o l l e c t i o n Z o n e s


1 8 - 1 1 0

The costs of bulky item collection are expected to be $2.7 million for Fiscal Year 2008. This is approximately $1.62 per household and $109.00 per ton of material collected.

P U B L I C P E R C E P T I O N O F B U L K Y I T E M C O L L E C T I O N P R O G R A M

Those participating in the public opinion survey were asked how frequently they use the City’s bulky item collection services per year. Approximately 70 percent of the respondents indicated that they use the program one to four times per year. Eight percent of the respondents use the program five to eight times per year, fewer than three percent use the program nine to twelve times per year, and the remaining 18 percent do not use the program at all.

Respondents also were asked if they would participate if bulky item collection were offered monthly and by appointment only. Approximately 80 percent indicated that they would, four percent indicated that they would not, and the remaining 15 percent were not sure.

Several participants in the focus groups expressed dissatisfaction with every other month service. Most believed that 60 days was too long to wait to have a bulky item collected.

Respondents ranked bulky item collection as the third most important waste management service offered by the City (out of 11 services).


The City defines bulky waste as an item that is generally four feet long or weighing more than 40 pounds. The City intends bulky items to be items such as refrigerators, freezers and air conditioning units; metal appliances such as stoves, dishwashers, washing machines, dryers, water heaters, furnaces or metal furniture; furniture such as couches, tables, fencing, chairs, TVs, beds or mattresses; other items such as bathroom fixtures, cabinets, rugs, garage doors, lawn mowers, railroad ties, disassembled swing sets or large car parts; and storm windows and glass panes. Bulky item collection is not intended to be used for piles of “stuff,” bags or boxes of smaller items, or loose or scattered materials.

However, the City collects waste through its bulky item collection routes that could be easily collected during normal trash collection routes. Residents appear to be using bulky item collection as a means to dispose of regular trash, such as bags or boxes of smaller items or loose materials, without paying the additional $1 per bag fee. Assuming that 10 percent of the bulky waste set out for collection in 2008 (24,897 tons) is actually trash (2,490 tons), the City is potentially losing over $124,000 in trash tag revenues (assuming that each bag holds approximately 40 pounds of trash).

It is not uncommon for cities to schedule collection for bulky item collection. Residents must either phone in a request for the service or use an on-line system. Locally, Platte City, Olathe, and Leavenworth (which provide residential collection using municipal crews) require residents to request bulky item collection.

It is also not uncommon for cities to charge residents for this service based on the amount or type of items that are collected. Olathe charges the following fees for collection of bulky items:


1 8 - 1 1 1

• Household items, construction debris or brush = $16 per 15 minutes of loading time • Refrigerated appliances (refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners) = $30 each • Automobile tires = $10 minimum for up to 2 tires; $5 for each additional tire • Truck or tractor tires = $7.50 - $10 each; $16 minimum applies

It is recommended that Kansas City also implement an appointment-based system for bulky item collection. The reasons for this recommendation are two-fold.

First, when scheduling the appointment, the customer service representative taking the call can inquire about the nature of the item being scheduled for collection. If the resident is requesting collection of an item that does not fit the definition of bulky waste, the resident can be told to purchase a tag and set the item out for regularly scheduled trash collection. The City then has the potential to recapture lost trash tag revenue (estimated at over $124,000 in 2008).

Second, scheduling appointments for the collection of bulky waste will also allow the City to be more efficient with its collection; allowing for the development of routes, rather than requiring collection vehicles to travel every street in the collection zone looking for bulky items to collect. More efficient use of its collection resources may allow the City to offer bulky item collection monthly, as opposed to every other month as offered in some zones.

Potential savings realized by switching to appointment-based bulky item collection are approximately $640,000. This is based on an estimated 22,000 tons of bulky waste is set out for collection. The City would be able to eliminate use of nearly six trucks, along with the associated crews and other per-truck direct costs. Additionally, the need for overtime should be reduced with an appointment-based system, since collections will not be scheduled for weekends (the current schedule used by the City has collections scheduled for weekends, which requires crews to work overtime on Mondays). A summary of the costs to provide appointment-based bulky item collection are provided in Appendix C. As discussed earlier, these crews and trucks could be assigned to an organics collection program.

City code allows the division to charge up to $20.00 for up to five items set out for collection, excluding items that contain refrigerant. City code allows the division to charge $20.00 for each item containing refrigerant.24 The City also could evaluate the use of fees for bulky item collection to offset the $2.7 million currently spent annually on the service.

24 Section 62-55 of Chapter 62 Solid Waste, Kansas City ordinances.


1 8 - 1 1 2


1 9 - 1 1 3

19 C ITY FAC I L I TY COLLECT ION


The City owns over 300 facilities and most use their own contracts for waste hauling and disposal.

R E C O M M E N D E D C H A N G E

The Solid Waste Division should evaluate the cost effectiveness of providing trash collection services directly to City agencies and facilities. This will require the Division to purchase front-loading equipment capable of servicing the facilities. As with other collection programs, city facility collection could be phased-in over a period of time.

As was discussed earlier in the technical assistance and City policies sections, this approach will allow Division staff to work directly with City facilities to minimize the amount of waste produced and create opportunities for recycling on the part of the City.


1 9 - 1 1 4


2 0 - 1 1 5

20 I L L EGAL DUMP ING ABATEMENT


In Fiscal Year 2008, Solid Waste is projected to spend approximately $722,000 on cleanups. This averages approximately $0.42 per household per month and $275 per ton of material collected. Illegal dumping activities also are conducted by Parks and Recreation, Streets and Traffic, Water, and Codes Enforcement. Costs for activities conducted by these other departments were not analyzed for this plan.

P U B L I C P E R C E P T I O N O F I L L E G A L D U M P I N G A B A T E M E N T P R O G R A M

When asked to rank residential services, illegal dumping abatement was ranked fifth (out of eleven) by survey respondents. The public opinion survey also asked respondents if they thought the City has a problem with illegal dumping. Over 86 percent of the respondents indicated that they thought the City has a problem. Fewer than three percent did not believe the City has a problem and twelve percent were not sure if the City has a problem.

Respondents also were asked if they thought the City was doing enough to prevent and/or clean-up illegally dumped materials. Over 56 percent of the respondents indicated that they thought the City was not doing enough and 28 percent were not sure. Only 16 percent of the respondents indicated that they thought the City was doing enough to prevent and/or clean up illegally dumped materials.

Those who responded that the City was not doing enough were then asked what the City should do to prevent/decrease illegal dumping violations. Thirty-seven responses were received. The majority of responses indicated that the City should increase investigation efforts, prosecute violators, and increase penalties.


Illegal dumping and city cleanliness have been the subject of several internal City audits:

• Performance Audit: City Cleanliness, March 2007 • Performance Audit: Park Conditions, November 2002 • Follow-Up Audit: Solid Waste Management & Illegal Dumping, April 2000 • Performance Audit: Solid Waste Management & Illegal Dumping, August 1996

To address illegal dumping in general, it is recommended that the Solid Waste Division have its own enforcement unit to enforce trash, illegal dumping, and waste permit programs. Such an enforcement function within a city sanitation group is not uncommon in larger cities. Solid Waste also should have primary responsibility for abatement activities, which will provide cost savings through more efficient resource management and elimination of duplication of efforts.


2 0 - 1 1 6

For example, the District of Columbia has a separate enforcement unit within the city’s sanitation services department. This unit’s mission is to “provide inspection and enforcement services to residents, visitors, and businesses so that they can enjoy a safe and clean environment, free from illegally placed trash and debris.” The city measures its performance in this area with rankings of “city cleanliness” and percent of sanitation enforcement requests resolved within 5 business days. Annually, the city budgets over $5 million for this activity, which includes funding for 64 personnel.25

Louisville Metro also includes an enforcement unit within its solid waste district operations to implement and enforce pertinent ordinances and regulations. The city budgets approximately $305,000 annually for this function for six full-time positions.26

It is suggested that Kansas City fund an enforcement unit at a level which falls somewhere between the two cities discussed above. An appropriate unit for Kansas City could consist of 23 full-time positions:

• Eighteen code officers • Three supervisors • One manager • One administrative assistant

The anticipated first-year salary requirement for this unit (including fringe benefits) is approximately $1,815,000. The City also should plan to budget for other direct costs, such as mileage, supplies, contractual services, in the amount of at least $237,000. This equates to $0.84 per household per month. The annual costs expected with this program are provided in Appendix C.

It would be expected that the amount of funding needed for illegal dumping abatement would decrease over time. This amount, however, is difficult to accurately project.

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) encourages local communities to start their own enforcement program to combat illegal dumping. The department retained the services of a consultant to produce a manual entitled “How to Establish and Operate an Environmental Enforcement Program.” This manual is designed to help local governments start an enforcement program or improve an existing enforcement program to combat illegal dumping.

The MDNR promotes a local approach for three reasons. First, it allows the county or city to take a pro-active step in the appearance of its area, especially recreational areas and areas frequented by tourists. Secondly, in some of the department’s regional offices, there are only one or two solid waste investigators to cover complaints and inspections in up to 24 counties in their regions. With the help of local enforcement programs, more complaints and incidences of illegal dumping can be dealt with, further discouraging this illegal activity. Thirdly, local officials can more effectively enforce against the offenders.

25 District of Columbia, Department of Public Works, proposed budget and financial plan, program descriptions and key results measures. 26 Louisville Metro annual budget.


2 0 - 1 1 7

Kansas City has a unique opportunity to take advantage of skills currently held within the Solid Waste Division in developing an enforcement unit within the Division. The Division’s current manager was a former law enforcement officer who assisted the State of Missouri in developing the illegal dumping enforcement guide.


2 0 - 1 1 8


2 1 - 1 1 9

21 DEAD AN IMAL COLLECT ION

The City is responsible for collecting dead animals from streets, public right-of-ways, and residences. It is expected that the City will spend $57,000 on this program in Fiscal Year 2008.

P U B L I C P E R C E P T I O N O F T H E D E A D A N I M A L C O L L E C T I O N P R O G R A M

Dead animal collection was ranked as the least important service offered by the City by the public opinion survey respondents. When asked if they were satisfied with the City’s collection of dead animals, approximately half of the respondents indicated that they were (50 percent). Approximately 19 percent were not happy and the remaining 30 percent were not sure.

Most respondents further indicated that they would not be willing to pay a fee for the collection of dead animals (55 percent). Slightly over 18 percent indicated a willingness to pay and the remaining 26 percent were not sure.

When asked, however, if the City should charge a fee for the collection of dead livestock, over 49 percent of the respondents indicated yes. Approximately 16 percent did not believe the City should charge for the collection of dead livestock and the remaining 34 percent were not sure.

When the topic was discussed during focus groups, it usually centered on a lack of timeliness in the collection of dead animals from roadways.

R E C O M M E N D E D P R O G R A M C H A N G E

A review of dead animal collection practices used by other jurisdictions found that practices vary widely:

• Most municipalities will collect small animals, such as pets, with prior notification and proper preparation of the remains (usually, placement in a plastic bag). This service is either provided by the solid waste collection department or animal control. Generally, if the service is provided by the city’s animal control department, a fee is charged. If the service is provided by the waste collection department, the service usually is free.

• Most cities will provide collection of dead animals along public thoroughfares.

• The management of dead livestock varies. In most instances, owners of livestock are required to use a private rendering or collection service. Of the few instances where dead livestock collection is provided, it was not unusual to see the city charge a fee. Fees averaged from $75 to $100 per animal.

If the City desires to continue to provide services for the collection of dead livestock, it is recommended that the City charge a fee. This fee would not apply to small domestic animals (dogs and cats) and wildlife removed from public thoroughfares.


2 1 - 1 2 0


2 2 - 1 2 1

22 DEBR IS MANAGEMENT

In the aftermath of a disaster, the primary focus of government response teams is to restore and maintain public health and safety. As a result, debris diversion programs such as recycling and reuse can quickly become secondary. The City should be prepared to manage the debris generated by a natural disaster by developing a Debris Management Plan and identifying locations for the temporary storage of debris.

D E V E L O P A D E B R I S M A N A G E M E N T P L A N

Advance planning, through a Debris Management Plan, can help the City identify options for collecting, handling, storing, processing, transporting, diverting, and disposing of debris. Preparing a plan before an emergency happens can save valuable time and resources when it is needed.

To assist local government agencies in California in preparing debris management plans, the California Integrated Waste Management Board has developed a model debris management plan.27 This model plan includes 17 chapters that cover the various aspects of a debris management strategy. The four major parts of the plan include:

• Government coordination, predisaster planning, and debris management programs.

• The emergency management system.

• Case studies.

• Checklists that summarize the tasks to be undertaken by the local government, primarily the designated debris manager and team.

The City could use the information presented in this document to develop its own disaster management plan.

E S T A B L I S H L O C A T I O N S F O R E M E R G E N C Y S T A G I N G A N D T E M P O R A R Y S T O R A G E O F D E B R I S G E N E R A T E D B Y N A T U R A L D I S A S T E R S

Major natural disasters can generate enormous volumes of debris in short periods of time. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), natural disasters generally create similar types of debris:28

• Tornadoes: debris consists primarily of trees, construction materials from damaged or destroyed structures and personal property.

27 More information available at: http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Disaster/. 28 Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Debris Management Guide – FEMA Publication 325,” available at: http://www.fema.gov/rrr/pa/dmgtoc.shtm.


2 2 - 1 2 2

• Floods: debris consists of sediment, wreckage, personal belongings, and sometimes hazardous materials deposited on public and private property. Additionally, heavy rains and floods may produce landslides; in such cases, debris consists primarily of soil, gravel, rock and some construction materials.

• Earthquakes: debris consists of building materials, personal property, and sediment caused by landslides.

• Wildfires: debris consists of burned out structures, cars and/or other metal objects, ash and charred wood waste.

• Ice Storms or Snowstorms: debris consists of significant amounts of woody debris from broken tree limbs and branches.

One of the first responses to a natural disaster is rapid debris removal from roads and power lines. Debris removal often relies on the availability of suitable temporary debris storage sites, where the debris is temporarily stored until it is reduced in volume (e.g., sorted, chipped, or burned) and/or taken to a permanent disposal location. Identifying these temporary sites before a major natural disaster occurs can expedite debris removal and subsequent volume reduction and disposal actions.

Kansas City should identify potential sites to be used as emergency staging and temporary debris storage sites to be used in the event of a natural disaster. The number of temporary sites ultimately needed by the City for debris storage will vary with:

• Size of the site(s), • Distance of the site(s) from the disaster area, • Speed of reduction (mixed debris is slower than clean woody debris), and • Removal urgency.

Generally, FEMA suggests the following considerations for evaluating potential temporary debris storage and reduction sites:29

• Use public lands first to avoid costly leases. Pre-designated sites should be on public property and consist of between 50-100 acres, depending on anticipated needs. Consider the locations with respect to noise, traffic, and the environment. Use private land only if public sites are unavailable.

• When selecting public or private sites, consider pre-existing conditions that will have to be restored upon site closeout.

• The required size of the site will depend on the expected volume of debris to be collected and planned volume reduction methods. As a general rule, larger sites mean fewer sites and, hence, easier site closeout. However, larger sites may create logistical problems.

29 Ibid, page 12.


2 2 - 1 2 3

• Environmentally sensitive areas (such as wetlands, areas with endangered animal and plant species, critical habitats, well fields and surface water supplies and historic/archaeological sites) should be avoided.

• Whenever possible, avoid locating near residential areas, schools, churches, hospitals and other such sensitive areas.

• Look for sites with good ingress/egress to accommodate heavy truck traffic and a site configuration that allows for an efficient layout.

The Army Corps of Engineers uses the following assumptions to estimate debris storage site size requirements:30 • Debris can be stacked to a height of 10-feet and 1 acre can be used to store 16,117 cubic

yards.31 • 60 percent of the site is for storage the remaining 40 percent provides for roads and safety

buffers. For example, a natural disaster generating 1,000,000 cubic yards of debris will require 62 acres for debris storage only. To provide for roads and buffers, the acreage must be increased by a factor of 1.66 which increases the required site size to 103 acres.

30 Ibid, Appendix A. 31 1 acre = 4,840 square yards 10 foot stack height = 3.33 yards total volume per acre = 4,840 square yards/acre x 3.33 yards = 16,117 cubic yards/acre


2 2 - 1 2 4


2 3 - 1 2 5

23 TRANSFER OF WASTE/PROCESS ING OF RECYCLABLES

T R A N S F E R O F W A S T E

C u r r e n t P r o g r a m

Johnson County Landfill is the current destination for approximately two-thirds of the City’s waste with the remainder going to Courtney Ridge Landfill. Estimates of Johnson County Landfill’s remaining life anticipate closure of the currently permitted area in 2023. A permit expansion under development may extend the life several years beyond 2024 to the City of Shawnee’s closure date in 2027.

Several existing landfills in Missouri and Kansas have the capacity to handle the City’s waste after that time. The locations of these landfills in and around the metropolitan area are shown in Figure 16. Information regarding their current tip fee and life expectancy are provided in Table 23.

The issue the City will face after closure of the local landfills is how to most economically deliver collected waste to one of these new facilities.

F i g u r e 1 6 . A l t e r n a t i v e L a n d f i l l s a n d T r a n s f e r S t a t i o n s

Hamm Quarry

= Existing Transfer Station

Show Me Regional


2 3 - 1 2 6

T a b l e 2 3 . A l t e r n a t i v e S o l i d W a s t e D i s p o s a l F a c i l i t i e s

Facility Name Location Type of

Ownership

Remaining Life1

(years)

Current Tipping Fee2

($/ton)

Estimated Distance3

Estimated Travel time3

Courtney Ridge

Sugar Creek, Missouri Private 18 $27.11 13 20 min

Show Me Warrensburg, Missouri Private 35 $41.00 66 1 hr, 27 min

Hamm Quarry

Lawrence, Kansas Private 133 $29.00 49 57 min

Johnson County

Shawnee, Kansas Private 19 $35.00 25 29 min

1 Source: Mid-America Regional Council, Strategic Directions and Policy Recommendations for Solid Waste Management in the BiState Kansas City Metropolitan Region, 2003. 2 Based on reported contract rates or gate rates; gate rates for Show Me and Hamm lower rates could end up lower depending on waste quantities, and the relationship between the hauler and the owner of the facility. 3 Average one-way distances and travel times from Kansas City’s Deramus Environmental Campus. Actual time and distance will vary depending on route used.

A l t e r n a t i v e P r o g r a m

The purpose of this section is to consider and evaluate alternatives to direct hauling of waste to these alternative disposal facilities. The two alternatives examined are: 1) direct hauling using existing collection vehicles and 2) constructing a transfer station and transferring waste to larger-capacity over-the-road hauling vehicles. Each alternative has specific costs, merits, and disadvantages.

Direct Haul

Direct hauling assumes that the three-crew collection vehicles are driven directly to one of the above landfills, just as waste is currently hauled to Courtney Ridge and Johnson County Landfills. Costs associated with direct haul of materials on a cost per ton-mile basis have been developed in Appendix D. Costs to direct haul to each existing facilities are summarized in Table 24.

Increased costs will be experienced with direct haul based on two factors: 1) reduced amount of time that trucks can collect trash before traveling to the landfill, and 2) increased mileage.

Cost increases also are a function of the number of additional trucks that must be purchased to provide collection services. The need for more trucks is a result of trucks spending less time “on-route” collecting trash and spending more time “off-route” traveling to the distant landfill. Using the assumptions developed for the alternative for automated refuse collection discussed earlier, the City would be required to purchase 13 additional trucks to collect refuse if vehicles were required to spend more time off-route driving to the landfill. The City’s costs could be


2 3 - 1 2 7

expected to increase more than $2 million per year for the costs of the trucks and the additional crew required. This could add an additional $13.00 per year to the cost per household.

Generally, as distance to the chosen landfill increases, the costs associated with transporting the waste from the collection route to the landfill increase. The added distance the vehicles must travel, combined with the difference in tipping fees, will result in higher disposal costs for the citizens of Kansas City. For example, if the waste is direct hauled to Hamm Quarry (versus Courtney Ridge) at today’s costs, the increase in a per household cost would be approximately $23.00 per year (assuming each household disposes of approximately 0.87 tons of residential trash per year). This represents a cost increase of approximately 25 percent (over the $69.00 currently spent per household for residential refuse collection programs).

T a b l e 2 4 . R e l a t i v e D i r e c t H a u l C o s t

Facility Name

Estimated Distance1

Cost per Ton-Mile2

Haul Cost per

Ton3

Tip Fee

(per ton) 4 Cost

per Ton

Cost per Ton

Difference Courtney Ridge 13 $0.94 $12.22 $27.11 $39.33 $0.00

Show Me 66 $0.75 $49.50 $41.00 $90.61 $51.17 Hamm Quarry 49 $0.75 $36.75 $29.00 $65.75 $26.42

Johnson County 25 $0.82 $20.50 $35.00 $55.50 $16.17

1 Distance and times from Kansas City’s Deramus Environmental Campus. 2 Assumes truck operating cost of $93.00 per hour for 3 person crew and other assumptions in Appendix D. 3 Assumes 25 cy packer; 10 tons per load. Also assumes time for unloading at the landfill. 4 Current fees do not reflect increases anticipated with 2009 rebid of disposal contracts.

A combination of the two factors could result in an increase of $36.00 per household for direct hauling of waste (approximately 34 percent), with no increase in the level of service provided by the City.

Transfer Station

Transfer stations introduce a mechanism for controlling these rising costs. A transfer station is a centralized facility where waste is unloaded from smaller collection vehicles and consolidated into larger transfer trailers for hauling. The consolidation tends to increase the efficiency of the system, as collection vehicles and crews remain closer to routes, while larger vehicles, designed for transfer/haul, make the trip the landfill. For example, a packer truck with up to 3 personnel an average of ten tons to the landfill, while a transfer vehicle with one driver would haul up to 21 tons of waste at equal or lower vehicle operating cost.

Transfer stations, by their inherent nature, provide specific benefits associated with solid waste management. Some benefits provided by a transfer station include:


2 3 - 1 2 8

• Increased safety by decreasing the number of vehicles on highways.

• Reduction and/or minimization of direct haul costs of collection vehicles.

• Consolidation of waste into larger capacity long-haul vehicles for the transfer of waste to a final disposal facility, eliminating need for more smaller volume collection vehicles to be on the road.

• The opportunity to separate out recyclables and other materials that do not require transfer to a disposal facility.

• The possible identification of hazardous materials at the source instead of at the disposal location.

• Contractual flexibility with regard to disposal options.

• Opportunities for expanded commercial waste services.

• Drop-off facilities for residents.

The analysis of transfer station alternatives includes consideration of many factors. Factors that have a primary influence on the analysis include distance to the disposal site, operational labor, and throughput tonnage. Capital cost is typically a minor cost factor on a cost per ton basis associated with a transfer station. Cost-effectiveness will vary but transfer stations generally become economically viable when the haul distance to the disposal facility approaches and exceeds 20 miles.

Direct Haul Costs versus Transfer Haul and Station Costs

Costs associated with hauling waste in 25 cubic yard collection vehicles and in 100 cubic yard transfer trailers were developed in Appendix D. A summary of these costs at variable haul distances is provided in Table 25.

T a b l e 2 5 . C o s t s t o T r a n s f e r W a s t e

10 miles 20 miles 30 miles 40 miles 50 miles Direct Haul $9.38 $16.43 $23.48 $30.53 $ 37.58 Transfer Haul $4.30 $6.73 $9.16 $13.12 $14.03

The cost of the transfer station operations are not included in this table, but the table shows that if transfer costs total less than $5 per ton, at 10 miles or $22 per ton, at 50 miles, it is advantageous to consider a transfer station to realize the transport savings. The cost analysis developed in Table 26 can be used to show that costs for the transfer component of this operation are less than $10 per ton.


2 3 - 1 2 9

When total transfer costs are compared against the direct haul costs as developed in Table 24, it appears that a transfer station:

• Would not be economical to serve Courtney Ridge Landfill alone

• Marginally economical to serve Johnson County Landfill.

• Significantly economical to serve Hamm, or Show-Me Landfills because the transfer costs are significantly less than direct haul costs.

T a b l e 2 6 . T r a n s f e r V e r s u s D i r e c t H a u l C o m p a r i s o n s

Destination Landfill

Transfer Station Fee per

Ton1

One-Way Distance to

Landfill

Transport Cost per Ton-mile2

Transport Cost per

Ton

Transfer Total Cost per Ton

Direct Haul Cost per Ton3

Courtney Ridge $10.00 13 $ 0.43 $ 5.59 $15.59 $12.22 Show Me $10.00 66 $0.28 $18.48 $28.48 $49.50 Hamm Quarry $10.00 49 $0.28 $13.72 $23.72 $36.75 Johnson County $10.00 25 $0.34 $8.50 $18.50 $20.50 1 Conservatively estimated based on annualized capital costs for portions of Kansas City Eco Center, annual costs, and annual throughput of 156,000 tons. 2 From Appendix D. 3 From Table 21.

P u b l i c P e r c e p t i o n o f t h e T r a n s f e r S t a t i o n O p t i o n

The potential need for a transfer station was discussed during the focus groups. Most participants were in favor of a facility. Several questioned whether the City should wait until the local landfills close or take advantage of potential costs savings now. Their thought was that it may be cheaper for the City to use the distant landfills (i.e., Hamm Quarry, Show Me Regional) now, since these landfills currently charge less to accept waste.

As part of the public opinion survey, the question was asked whether the City should consider building and operating a transfer station. Respondents were provided five options ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Almost 70 percent of the respondents “strongly agree” and “agree” that the City should build a transfer station (see Figure 17). Thirty percent were “neutral” and one percent “disagree.”


2 3 - 1 3 0


29 22 22

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Transfer Station

Percentage

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

F i g u r e 1 7 . K a n s a s C i t y T r a n s f e r S t a t i o n

P R O C E S S I N G O F R E C Y C L A B L E S

C u r r e n t P r o g r a m

The City provides weekly curbside collection of recyclables from eligible residences through a private hauler under contract to the City and additional recyclables are collected through City drop-off facilities.

The recyclables collected curbside are collected in a “single stream” and taken to a privately owned material recovery facility where they are sorted and sold. The City receives revenues from the contractor for recyclables delivered to the facility based on the schedule established in the contract. Payment is based on both the monthly tonnage delivered to the facility and the “composite” per ton market value received by the contractor. The composite per ton value is the total of the average market value for all materials divided by the total tons received from the City for the month. The contractor apportions the monthly tonnage by estimated “allocation” percentages established in the contract. The monthly quantities collected from the City typically average between 1,400 and 1,700 tons. According to the schedule, the City is generally eligible for revenues ranging from 0% to 4% of the composite market value based on these tonnages. An example of the cost sharing schedule for a month in which 1,800 tons is collected is provided in Table 27.

In Fiscal Year 2007, the City received approximately $69,000 for 18,987 tons recyclables. The City projects revenues of approximately $87,000 for 18,900 tons of recyclables for Fiscal Year 2008.


2 3 - 1 3 1

T a b l e 2 7 . E x a m p l e C a l c u l a t i o n o f C o s t S h a r i n g

A l t e r n a t i v e P r o g r a m

Rather than relying on the private sector to provide processing and marketing of collected recyclables and determine the revenues received by the City, the City could take on this function itself. This option requires the City to construct and operate a material recovery facility (MRF). A MRF is a site at which recyclable materials are separated by type of material and prepared for transportation to final markets. Recyclable materials must be separated from non-recyclable materials, as well as from each other, before becoming marketable commodities. Users of recyclable materials require that such materials be prepared to precise specifications for their manufacturing processing.

The type of processes and equipment used at a MRF depends on the types of recyclable materials handled and the collection method. Materials separation involves both mechanical and manual processes.

P u b l i c P e r c e p t i o n o f R e c y c l a b l e s P r o c e s s i n g A l t e r n a t i v e

The City’s current arrangement for processing of recyclables, along with the alternative of the City building its own MRF, was discussed during the focus groups. Discussion topics chosen by the participants varied widely from group to group. Several themes included:

• Could the City accept glass if it had its own MRF?

• Would the City be making a profit?

• Would the MRF create new jobs?

• Could private companies use the MRF?

• Where would the MRF be located and would there be more than one?

• Would a City-owned MRF compete with the private sector?

Monthly Tons

Allocation

Allocated Tons

Material

Market Value

Extension

Composite Value

1,800 X 65.10% 1,171.80 Newspaper x $70.00 = $82,026.00 X 18.60% 334.80 Mixed x $85.00 = $28,458.00 X 9.30% 167.40 Corrugated x $115.00 = $19,251.00 X 3.50% 63.00 Plastics x $300.00 = $18,900.00 X 2.50% 45.00 Steel x $151.00 = $ 6,795.00 X 1.00% 18.00 Aluminum x $1,685.00 = $30,330.00 $185,760.00 ÷ 1,800 = $103.20/ton

$103.20 (composite per ton value) X 1,800 tons = $185,760.00 X 4% = $7,430.40 received by City


2 3 - 1 3 2


42

37

22

23

11

14

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Glass Processing Facility

Material RecoveryFacility

Percentage

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

• Could the MRF become an educational opportunity for the schools?

In general, most participants were supportive of the City building a MRF and managing its own recyclables.

Two questions regarding a MRF were included on the public opinion survey. The first was whether the City should consider building and operating a MRF. Respondents were provided five options ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Almost 80 percent of the respondents “strongly agree” and “agree” that the City should build a MRF (see Figure 18).

The second question was whether the City should build and operate a glass processing facility (which would be part of the MRF operations). Again, respondents were provided five options ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Over 86 percent of the respondents “strongly agree” and “agree” (see Figure 18).

F i g u r e 1 8 . K a n s a s C i t y M a t e r i a l R e c o v e r y F a c i l i t y a n d G l a s s P r o c e s s i n g F a c i l i t y


2 3 - 1 3 3

K A N S A S C I T Y E C O C E N T E R

The purpose of this section is to develop a conceptual design for a combined transfer station/material recovery facility. This section also presents a financial feasibility study of its capital and operating costs. The conceptual design developed for this facility, named the “Kansas City Eco Center,” includes the following design elements.

Transfer/Material Recovery Building:

• 104,000 square foot operating floor with 30 foot clearance • 4 direct dump transfer hoppers • 200 tons per hour waste processing rate • 25 tons per hour recyclables processing rate • 5 ton per hour glass sorting and processing rate • 9 loading docks for outgoing recyclables • 6,500 square foot parts storage area

Administration Area:

• 30,000 square foot first floor with employee lockers, showers, break room, and public education areas

• 11,000 square foot second floor with staff and administrative offices

Vehicle Parking and Wash:

• Enclosed garage for 96 collection vehicles • Parking for 190 staff • Parking for 54 guest and administrative staff • 3 bay vehicle wash facility

Public Convenience Center:

• Recyclables drop-off facility for 10 materials • Building for transactions with public

The architectural and environmental design features are important to the success of this facility as an important leadership statement to the community for sustainable design. This facility will contribute to the environment both in its form and function. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System™ principles and accreditation process will be incorporated into the design and construction process.

Equally important to the success of this facility in the community are the environmental and economic contributions of the facility to the region. Discussion of the function of the facility design which makes this possible follows.


2 3 - 1 3 4

P r o c e s s i n g C o n c e p t a n d L a y o u t

Currently Kansas City collects approximately 600 tons per day of trash from residential customers for disposal through its various programs. Typical transfer station design standards would suggest that this amount of waste could be handled with one or two transfer hoppers. In this conceptual design however, a premium has been placed on the ability of this center to offer processing of the waste to remove additional recyclables in addition to the typical opportunity for waste transfer.

To process the existing waste stream and to allow flexibility to address new and expanding material streams, it is recommended that the Kansas City Eco Center incorporate the following primary processing components.

• Capability of processing recyclable material currently collected through the single stream curbside collection program

• Capability of processing residential waste currently generated in the three districts to

recover additional recyclable content from discarded materials, including that collected by homes associations and bulky trash

• Glass processing for a future bar and restaurant and glass drop-off program.

Waste Stream

In Section 2 of the Background Document, the waste stream was developed for residential refuse and recyclables (see Section 3 of this plan for a summary). It is anticipated that all residential waste will be brought to this facility. For conceptual design purposes, the facility is assumed to be operational in 2010. Material receipts anticipated at the facility in 2010 are shown in Table 28. Anticipated facility tonnages received at start-up and at design capacity are shown in the second and third columns respectively.

T a b l e 2 8 . M a t e r i a l R e c e i p t s A n t i c i p a t e d a t t h e F a c i l i t y

Source Annual

Throughput (tons)

Initial Design

Throughput* (tpd)

Ultimate Design Throughput**

(tpd)

Total City and Commercial Waste Collection 155,740 600 1,280 Recyclables Curbside Collection 20,762 BTG Drop-off Sites 2,797

Total Recyclables 23,559 91 400 *Based on a five day week. **The facility design allows for expanded operational capacity in future years with the purchase of additional equipment.


2 3 - 1 3 5

Table 29, Throughput Units takes these input values and applies waste characterization data for residential waste and for recyclables to develop estimates of the breakdown of input material for residential waste and for recyclables that are available for processing at this facility.

Estimates of manual sorters required to recover material from both the single stream of recyclables and the processed waste are developed in this table.


2 3 - 1 3 6

T a b l e 2 9 . M a t e r i a l R e c o v e r y F a c i l i t y T h r o u g h p u t U n i t s

Waste Category Waste

Composition (%)

Residential Waste (tpd)

(%)

Recovery (tpd)

(lb/hr)

Number of Sorters

Curbside Recyclables: Paper Cardboard 0.07 42 1 29 8,400 11 Mixed 0.28 168 0 50 28,800 37 Total 0.35 Plastic HDPE 0.01 6 1 3 857 2 PET 0.02 12 1 6 1,714 4 Other 0.12 72 0 14 4,114 9 Total 0.15 Metal Aluminum 0.02 9 1 6 1,800 NA Tin and Ferrous 0.02 12 1 11 3,086 NA Non-ferrous Metals 0.01 3 0 1 343 1 Total 0.04 Glass 0.06 36 0 9 2,571 Other (organics) 0.40 240 0 0 Total 1.00 600 131 46 Residential Refuse: Paper Cardboard 0.12 11 1 10 2,718 4 Mixed 0.47 42 1 38 10,873 14 Total 0.58 Plastic HDPE 0.02 2 1 1 388 1 PET 0.03 3 1 3 777 2 Other 0.20 18 1 16 4,660 10 Total 0.25 Metal Aluminum 0.03 2 1 2 583 NA Tin and Ferrous 0.03 3 1 3 777 NA Non-ferrous Metals 0.01 1 1 1 194 1 Total 0.07 Glass 0.10 9 0 2 647 Other 0.00 0 0 0 Total 1.00 91 76 64

Assumptions: 500 (lb/hr/sorter) plastic sort, 800 (lb/hr/sorter) paper sort, 800 (lb/hr/sorter) metal sort,7 (hr/day) operation


2 3 - 1 3 7

Table 30, Recyclables and Recyclables Revenues, estimates the quantity of materials which could be anticipated to be recovered through the processing the two incoming material streams (curbside recyclables and refuse) and the glass processing equipment. The overall recovery from processing the waste is conservatively set at 22 percent. Recyclable material is present in the waste to support higher recovery if markets conditions warrant. Using current pricing for recyclables, annual revenues for the recovered recyclables are also estimated in Table 30.

T a b l e 3 0 . R e c y c l a b l e s a n d R e v e n u e S u m m a r y

Materials Refuse (tpd)

Residential Curbside

(tpd)

Daily Throughput

(tpd)

Loose Density (lb/cy)

Daily Volume

(cy)

Daily Bin

Changes Annual

Tonnage

Unit Revenue ($/ton)

Annual Revenue

Material Processed 600 91 691 350 3,946 Material Recovered Paper Cardboard 29 10 39 300 259 3 10,118 $115.00 $1,163,535 Mixed 50 38 88 875 202 2 22,999 $85.00 $1,954,896 Plastic HDPE 3 1 4 25 349 4 1,133 $300.00 $340,016 PET 6 3 9 35 498 6 2,267 $300.00 $680,031 Other 14 16 31 75 819 9 7,985 $0.00 $0 Metal Aluminum 6 2 8 62 269 3 2,168 $1,685.00 $3,653,211 Tin and Ferrous 11 3 14 150 180 2 3,515 $151.00 $530,730 Non-ferrous Metals 1 1 2 150 25 0 489 $40.00 $19,548 Glass 9 9 18 1,000 36 0 4,696 $70.00 $328,713 Other 0 0 0 Total Recovered 131 82 213 55,369 $8,670,679

Total Disposed 470 8 478 124,190

Assumptions: 2,400 cy/bin

Process Design

Exhibit 1 shows the conceptual design for the operating floor for the Kansas City Eco Center. The arrangement provides four transfer hoppers located in the middle of the facility with access to the direct dump hoppers from both the north and south sides of the operating floor.

The waste processing will occupy the north side of the building. The concept shown allows for recovery of ferrous metal and aluminum through overhead magnets and edy current separators respectively on each of four 20 ton-per-hour processing lines. Manual stations for positive sorting recovery is provided for

• Corrugated • Mixed Paper • Glass


2 3 - 1 3 8

• PET • HDPE

Rejects remain on the conveyor belt until they are discharged to the hoppers and the transfer trucks positioned below.

Single stream recyclables processing, located on the south side of the operating floor, allows for sorting of fibers via an overs/under screen. The unders, then have automated removal of ferrous and tin followed by hand sorting of HDPE and PET. The overs have stations to recover corrugated, and various high grades or can allow for a mixed paper grade to be negatively sorted off of the fiber line.

The positive sorting allows for materials to be dropped from elevated sorting lines into storage bunkers dimensioned to hold material in excess of one bale. Material is pushed to a 150 foot long, in-floor feed conveyor by small rubber tired loaders. A single, two cylinder baler is the mechanical heart of both sorting systems. A second bailer is also provided for direct use for fiber rich loads and for redundancy of the primary baler.

Architectural Design

The building will incorporate architectural treatments to make the Kansas City Eco Center aesthetically pleasing and a leading environmentally responsible facility for the area. The operating floor will be enclosed in a pre-engineered building with unobstructed clearspan of 220 feet by 510 feet. Exterior treatments will include levered, concrete tilt-up walls.

Other features to be incorporated in the final design include

• Photovoltaic panels • Roof gardens on Administration Building • Rain garden/fountains • Pervious pavers

Exhibits 2 and 3 illustrate conceptual building elevations and conceptual site layout. Site Layout

Approximately 20 acres is required to provide the operating and ancillary facilities identified for the Kansas City Eco Center. The layout shown in Exhibit 3 shows how the components could be situated on such a 20 acre piece of property. The City has several properties available, or that could be purchased, meeting the requirements of this facility. The City is focusing on the Front Street corridor, which is a light industrial area with easy access to major highways.

In addition to the onsite needs of such a facility, it is important to have adequate queuing for transfer and collection vehicles entering the scale house. The particular needs of the site and surrounding traffic must be considered together to make this determination.


2 3 - 1 3 9

Site Rendering

An architectural rendering of this conceptual facility is provided in Exhibit 4.

K a n s a s C i t y E c o C e n t e r C o s t s

The costs associated with a transfer station include capital costs, operating costs, and the costs to haul the waste to a landfill and pay for disposal. These costs, as they pertain to the Kansas City Eco Center, are discussed below.

Capital Costs

Concept level costs for the facility discussed above are presented in Appendix D and summarized in Table 31.

T a b l e 3 1 . K a n s a s C i t y E c o C e n t e r - O p i n i o n o f P r o b a b l e C o s t

Element Cost Site Acquisition $2,178,000 Sitework $3,296,400 Material Recovery/Transfer Station Building $13,934,574 Material Recovery/Transfer Equipment $7,682,000 Administrative Building $6,180,548 Scalehouse $514,687 Collection Vehicle Storage Building $4,382,420 Vehicle Wash Building $477,963 Subtotal $37,646,592 Contingency (20% ) $7,729,318 $46,375,910

Operating and Maintenance Expenses

Annual operating and maintenance expenses are estimated for the concept presented in Table 32. Significant costs include personnel costs associated with the sorters and the hauling and disposal costs for the material transferred. The Disposal costs are dependent upon the amount of material disposed of annually. Insurance is estimated to cost $0.15 per $100 insured value on structures.

Debt Service

The capital costs, presented above, were annualized over a 20-year period for purposes of this analysis.


2 3 - 1 4 0

Income Statement

Table 33 shows projected annual income for the facility. Revenues from recyclables sales as developed in Table 30 are shown. This income statement also shows that the annual operating and capitalized cost of the new facility when combined are of the same order of magnitude as the revenues anticipated from sale of recyclables. The final line of Table 33 shows the total cost per ton to operate this facility including transport and disposal of rejects. Given that landfill costs are initially inputted at $35 per ton, a net cost of $11 per ton to process, transport and dispose of rejects makes the addition of such a facility to the system attractive. While Table 33 only shows the initial 10 years of operation, this facility will show increasing benefits in controlling system costs in future periods as disposal options become more remote.


2 3 - 1 4 1

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Units of Service MSW Input 130,341 131,490 132,640 132,151 133,321 134,491 135,660 136,830 138,039 139,228 Recables Input 32,585 32,873 33,160 35,129 35,440 35,751 36,062 36,373 36,694 37,010 Recyclables Recovered 55,558 56,048 56,538 58,076 58,590 59,104 59,618 60,132 60,663 61,185 Composted Materials 13,260 13,260 13,260 13,260 13,260 13,260 13,260 13,260 13,260 13,260 Rejects 94,108 95,055 96,002 95,945 96,911 97,878 98,844 99,811 100,810 101,792Other Variables Haul Distance (miles) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Disposal Cost $35.00 $40.00 $40.00 $40.00 $40.00 $40.00 $40.00 $40.00 $40.00 $40.00 Compost Cost ($/ton) $15 $15.30 $15.61 $15.92 $16.24 $16.56 $16.89 $17.23 $17.57 $17.93

Personel Cost Administrative Facility Manager $70,000 $71,400 $72,828 $74,285 $75,770 $77,286 $78,831 $80,408 $82,016 $83,656 Administrative Assistant $50,000 $51,000 $52,020 $53,060 $54,122 $55,204 $56,308 $57,434 $58,583 $59,755 Clerical $40,000 $40,800 $41,616 $42,448 $43,297 $44,163 $45,046 $45,947 $46,866 $47,804 Equipment Operators Front end loaders $60,000 $61,200 $62,424 $63,672 $64,946 $66,245 $67,570 $68,921 $70,300 $71,706 Skid loaders $60,000 $61,200 $62,424 $63,672 $64,946 $66,245 $67,570 $68,921 $70,300 $71,706 Balers $60,000 $61,200 $62,424 $63,672 $64,946 $66,245 $67,570 $68,921 $70,300 $71,706 Truck drivers $30,000 $30,600 $31,212 $31,836 $32,473 $33,122 $33,785 $34,461 $35,150 $35,853 Mechanic $40,000 $40,800 $41,616 $42,448 $43,297 $44,163 $45,046 $45,947 $46,866 $47,804 Floor and Tunnel Managers $90,000 $91,800 $93,636 $95,509 $97,419 $99,367 $101,355 $103,382 $105,449 $107,558 Hourly Laborers Sorters Cost per hour $10.50 $10.82 $11.14 $11.47 $11.82 $12.17 $12.54 $12.91 $13.30 $13.70 Sorters per shift 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 Hours per shift 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Shifts per day 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Days per year 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 260 Total Sorter Cost $2,096,640 $2,159,539 $2,224,325 $2,291,055 $2,359,787 $2,430,580 $2,503,498 $2,578,603 $2,655,961 $2,735,640

Benefits (20% of wages) $419,328 $431,908 $444,865 $458,211 $471,957 $486,116 $876,224 $902,511 $929,586 $957,474

Total Personnel Cost $3,015,968 $3,009,647 $3,095,754 $3,184,361 $3,275,541 $3,369,370 $3,841,449 $3,952,075 $4,065,927 $4,183,101

Disposal/Composting Cost Transportation $811,205 $967,116 $1,013,538 $1,053,926 $1,104,629 $1,157,702 $1,213,254 $1,271,397 $1,332,584 $1,396,456 Disposal $3,293,792 $3,802,208 $3,840,082 $3,837,791 $3,876,453 $3,915,116 $3,953,778 $3,992,440 $4,032,390 $4,071,688 Composting $198,900 $202,878 $206,936 $211,074 $215,296 $219,602 $223,994 $228,474 $233,043 $237,704 Total Cost $4,303,898 $4,972,202 $5,060,555 $5,102,791 $5,196,378 $5,292,420 $5,391,025 $5,492,311 $5,598,017 $5,705,847

Facility CostsEquipment Operating Costs Fuel $20,800 $21,632 $22,497 $23,397 $24,333 $25,306 $26,319 $27,371 $28,466 $29,605 Baling Wire $100,000 $104,000 $108,160 $112,486 $116,986 $121,665 $126,532 $131,593 $136,857 $142,331Equipment Maintenance $60,000 $62,400 $64,896 $67,492 $70,192 $72,999 $75,919 $78,956 $82,114 $85,399Site Maintenance $200,000 $208,000 $216,320 $224,973 $233,972 $243,331 $253,064 $263,186 $273,714 $284,662Utilities Electricity $150,000 $156,000 $162,240 $168,730 $175,479 $182,498 $189,798 $197,390 $205,285 $213,497 Gas $150,000 $156,000 $162,240 $168,730 $175,479 $182,498 $189,798 $197,390 $205,285 $213,497 Water/Wastewater $5,000 $5,200 $5,408 $5,624 $5,849 $6,083 $6,327 $6,580 $6,843 $7,117 Telephone $5,000 $5,200 $5,408 $5,624 $5,849 $6,083 $6,327 $6,580 $6,843 $7,117General and Administrative Insurance Facility $69,564 $72,346 $75,240 $78,250 $81,380 $84,635 $88,020 $91,541 $95,203 $99,011 Other $10,000 $10,400 $10,816 $11,249 $11,699 $12,167 $12,653 $13,159 $13,686 $14,233 Total Facility Costs $770,364 $801,178 $833,226 $866,555 $901,217 $937,265 $974,756 $1,013,746 $1,054,296 $1,096,468

Total Expenses $8,090,229 $8,783,027 $8,989,535 $9,153,707 $9,373,136 $9,599,055 $10,207,230 $10,458,132 $10,718,240 $10,985,417

T a b l e 3 2 . P r o j e c t e d O p e r a t i o n a n d M a i n t e n a n c e E x p e n s e s


2 3 - 1 4 2

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Inco

me:

Disp

osal

Fee

s fr

om C

olle

ctio

ns($

4,56

1,93

3)($

4,60

2,16

3)($

4,64

2,39

3)($

4,62

5,30

1)($

4,66

6,23

9)($

4,70

7,17

7)($

4,74

8,11

5)($

4,78

9,05

3)($

4,83

1,35

4)($

4,87

2,96

5)Re

cycl

able

s Sa

les

($8,

670,

679)

($8,

930,

800)

($9,

198,

724)

($9,

474,

685)

($9,

758,

926)

($10

,051

,694

)($

10,3

53,2

45)

($10

,663

,842

)($

10,9

83,7

57)

($11

,313

,270

) T

otal

Rev

enue

($13

,232

,612

)($

13,5

32,9

63)

($13

,841

,117

)($

14,0

99,9

87)

($14

,425

,165

)($

14,7

58,8

71)

($15

,101

,359

)($

15,4

52,8

94)

($15

,815

,111

)($

16,1

86,2

34)

Ope

ratin

g Ex

pens

es T

rans

fer/

Disp

osal

/Com

post

ing

$4,3

03,8

98$4

,972

,202

$5,0

60,5

55$5

,102

,791

$5,1

96,3

78$5

,292

,420

$5,3

91,0

25$5

,492

,311

$5,5

98,0

17$5

,705

,847

Fac

ility

Ope

ratio

ns$3

,786

,332

$3,8

10,8

25$3

,928

,980

$4,0

50,9

16$4

,176

,758

$4,3

06,6

35$4

,816

,205

$4,9

65,8

21$5

,120

,224

$5,2

79,5

69 T

otal

Exp

ense

s$8

,090

,229

$8,7

83,0

27$8

,989

,535

$9,1

53,7

07$9

,373

,136

$9,5

99,0

55$1

0,20

7,23

0$1

0,45

8,13

2$1

0,71

8,24

0$1

0,98

5,41

7

Ope

ratin

g In

com

e($

5,14

2,38

3)($

4,74

9,93

6)($

4,85

1,58

2)($

4,94

6,27

9)($

5,05

2,02

8)($

5,15

9,81

6)($

4,89

4,12

9)($

4,99

4,76

2)($

5,09

6,87

0)($

5,20

0,81

7)

Deb

t Ser

vice

$3,7

21,3

23$3

,721

,323

$3,7

21,3

23$3

,721

,323

$3,7

21,3

23$3

,721

,323

$3,7

21,3

23$3

,721

,323

$3,7

21,3

23$3

,721

,323

Net

Inco

me

($1,

421,

060)

($1,

028,

613)

($1,

130,

259)

($1,

224,

956)

($1,

330,

705)

($1,

438,

493)

($1,

172,

806)

($1,

273,

439)

($1,

375,

547)

($1,

479,

494)

Tons

Pro

cess

ed13

0,34

113

1,49

013

2,64

013

2,15

113

3,32

113

4,49

113

5,66

013

6,83

013

8,03

913

9,22

8N

et O

pera

ting

Cos

t ($/

ton)

$11

$8$9

$9$1

0$1

1$9

$9$1

0$1

1

T a b l e 3 3 . I n c o m e S t a t e m e n t


2 4 - 1 5 1

24 CONVERS ION TECHNOLOGIES

This section provides an overview of some of the emerging technologies and other new programs and policies that are being planned and implemented that increase solid waste diversion and decrease disposal.

Conversion technologies include an array of emerging technologies that are capable of converting post-recycling residual solid waste into useful products and chemicals, including ethanol and biodiesel, and energy. The technologies may be thermal, chemical or biological. These technologies have been used successfully to manage MSW in Europe and Asia, but not all have progressed to commercial development in the United States.

O V E R V I E W O F T E C H N O L O G I E S

Technologies appearing amenable for converting organic and other materials into energy, ethanol, and other products include hydrolysis, gasification, anaerobic digestion, and plasma arc. The following sections briefly describe these technologies.

H y d r o l y s i s

Hydrolysis is a chemical decomposition process that uses water to split chemical bonds of substances. There are two types of hydrolysis, acid and enzymatic. Feedstock that may be appropriate for acid or enzymatic hydrolysis typically are plant-based materials containing cellulose. These include forest material and sawmill residue, agricultural residue, urban waste, and waste paper.

G a s i f i c a t i o n

Gasification is a process that uses heat, pressure, and steam to convert materials directly into a gas composed primarily of carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Various gasification technologies differ in many aspects, but all rely on four key engineering factors:

• Gasification reactor atmosphere (level of oxygen or air content). • Reactor design. • Internal and external heating. • Operating temperature.

Typical raw materials used in gasification are coal, petroleum-based materials, and organic materials. The feedstock is prepared and fed, in either dry or slurried form, into a sealed reactor chamber called a gasifier. The feedstock is subjected to high heat, pressure, and either an oxygen rich or oxygen-starved environment within the gasifier. Most commercial gasification technologies do not use oxygen. All require an energy source to generate heat and begin processing.

There are three primary products from gasification:

• Hydrocarbon gases (also called syngas).


2 4 - 1 5 2

• Hydrocarbon liquids (oils). • Char (carbon black and ash).

Syngas is primarily carbon monoxide and hydrogen (more than 85 percent by volume) and smaller quantities of carbon dioxide and methane. Syngas can be used as a fuel to generate electricity or steam, or as a basic chemical building block for a multitude of uses. When mixed with air, syngas can be used in gasoline or diesel engines with few modifications to the engine.

A n a e r o b i c D i g e s t i o n

Anaerobic digestion is the bacterial breakdown of organic materials in the absence of oxygen. This biological process produces a gas, sometimes called biogas, principally composed of methane and carbon dioxide. This gas is produced from feedstock such as biosolids, livestock manure, and wet organic materials, and has been used in the wastewater treatment field for decades.

The anaerobic digestion process occurs in three steps:

1. Decomposition of plant or animal matter by bacteria into molecules such as sugar 2. Conversion of decomposed matter to organic acids 3. Organic acid conversion to methane gas

Anaerobic processes can occur naturally or in a controlled environment such as a biogas plant. In controlled environments, organic materials such as biosolids and other relatively wet organic materials, along with various types of bacteria, are put in an airtight container called a digester where the process occurs. Depending on the waste feedstock and the system design, biogas is typically 55 to 75 percent pure methane.

P l a s m a A r c

Plasma arc technology is a non-incineration thermal process that uses extremely high temperatures in an oxygen-starved environment to completely decompose waste into very simple molecules. Plasma arc technology has been used for many years for metals processing. The heat source is a plasma arc torch, a device that produces a very high temperature plasma gas. A plasma gas is the hottest, sustainable heat source available, with temperatures ranging from 2,700 to 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit. A plasma arc system is designed specifically for the type, size and quantity of waste material to be processed. The very high temperature profile of the plasma gas provides an optimal processing zone with the reactor vessel through which all input material is forced to pass. The reactor vessel operates at atmospheric pressure.

The feedstock can be almost completely gasified, while non-combustible material, including glass and metal, is reduced to an inert slag. The product gas typically has a heating value approximately 1/4 to 1/3 the heating value of natural gas (natural gas has a value of approximately 1000 BTU/standard cubic foot); therefore, it may be used as an efficient fuel source for industrial processes, including the generation of electricity, and the production of methanol and ethanol. The slag can be used in the construction industry or for road paving. All


2 4 - 1 5 3

Syngas

Compost

Ethanol

Biogas, Compost

Syngas

Syngas

Product

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Commercial Readiness

NoneMed./HighAerobic Digestion

Slag/ Blowdown

Waste water, ash

FiltrateWater

Ash/Slag

Char/Ash/Tar/Oil

By-Product

Claims Low

High

Med./High

Med.

High

Pre-Processing

Plasma Gasification

Hydrolysis

Anaerobic Digestion

Gasification

Pyrolysis

Process

Syngas

Compost

Ethanol

Biogas, Compost

Syngas

Syngas

Product

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Commercial Readiness

NoneMed./HighAerobic Digestion

Slag/ Blowdown

Waste water, ash

FiltrateWater

Ash/Slag

Char/Ash/Tar/Oil

By-Product

Claims Low

High

Med./High

Med.

High

Pre-Processing

Plasma Gasification

Hydrolysis

Anaerobic Digestion

Gasification

Pyrolysis

Process

other byproducts, such as scrubber water and cyclone catch material, can be recycled into the process for reprocessing to alleviate disposal requirements.

C O M P A R A T I V E A S P E C T S O F T E C H N O L O G I E S

Some of these technologies are relatively new, while other have been known for many years. Their application to the solid waste industry is, however, more recent and not as well developed. Some of the anticipated benefits include the ability to manage excess biomass and organic wastes, ability to maintain local control over disposal, ability to locally produce renewable energy and green fuels, and promotion of energy independence from foreign oil.

Table 34 provides a very general comparative overview of these technologies.

T a b l e 3 4 . G e n e r a l O v e r v i e w o f C o n v e r s i o n T e c h n o l o g i e s

C a p i t a l a n d O p e r a t i o n a l C o s t s

The capital and operations costs associated with conversion technologies are dependent on a variety of factors, including the following:

• Plant Capacity • Power Production / Quality & Quantity of Syngas • Air Emissions & Treatment


2 4 - 1 5 4

• Market for By-Products • Residuals / Quality & Quantity • Downtime / Equipment Reliability • Pre-processing Requirements • Operator Experience • Compatibility with Municipal System • Financial Contributions by Vendor • Tipping Fee • Contractual Obligations

Based on studies conducted by the County of Los Angles, the relative capital costs of conversion technology facilities range from a low of $90 per 1,000 tons of capacity to a high of $460 per 1,000 tons of capacity:

• Pyrolysis/Gasification: $150 to $460 per ton • Plasma Gasification: $30 to $460 per ton • Chemical Hydrolysis: $90 to $245 per ton • Anaerobic Digestion: $90 to 245 per ton

These cost ranges are shown in Figure 19 for waste-to-energy (WTE), biological processes, and thermal processes.

F i g u r e 1 9 . R e l a t i v e C a p i t a l C o s t s

P R I O R S T U D I E S

Much work has been accomplished in California in relation to the study of conversion technologies. New York City also has investigated conversion technologies. Below are highlights from a number of studies that have evaluated these technologies in depth, as well as


2 4 - 1 5 5

other studies that have included conversion technologies as part of an integrated solid waste management planning process.

S t a t e o f C a l i f o r n i a

In 2005, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) completed a Conversion Technologies Report to the Legislature.32 The purpose of the research was to determine what technologies would be best suited for materials that have traditionally been landfilled while at the same time ensuring that the existing recycling and composting infrastructure is maintained. Although never officially adopted by the Board, due to disagreements on a number of issues, the Report included a number of recommendations, including changes and clarification to statutory definitions, further research on emissions, impact of China on the demand for recycled materials, and consideration of diversion credit for biochemical technologies.

In 2006, a Bioenergy Plan was completed by the California Energy Commission.33 This plan included a discussion of new technologies for the conversion of municipal solid waste to energy. The CIWMB has also convened a number of workshops and working groups to discuss alternative solid waste technologies, including the Emerging Technology Forum held in April 2006. The Forum included presentations on local government efforts, health issues, emissions and residuals. Detailed information on these and other California conversion technologies efforts can be found on the CIWMB website at: www.ciwmb.ca.gov/organics/conversion.

L o s A n g e l e s C o u n t y

In 2005, Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Task Force adopted the Conversion Technology Evaluation Report, which identified viable technology categories, suppliers, and possible partnerships between suppliers and local MRF/transfer station operators.34 The Report details a plan to develop a conversion technology demonstration facility in southern California, co-located with a MRF. Five technologies are being considered for the final demonstration project, including anaerobic digestion, thermal depolymerization, pyrolysis and gasification. The County hopes that construction on a demonstration facility will begin in 2008. More information can be found at: http://ladpw.org/epd/tf/conv_tech.cfm.

C i t y o f L o s A n g e l e s

Concurrent with the County effort, the City of Los Angeles also undertook an evaluation of alternative technologies. The City evaluated dozens of technologies which resulted in the prequalification of select vendors to partner with the City on a future project. In early 2007 the City issued a request for proposals to develop a partnership to finance, design, build, own and operate an alternative treatment facility. More information can be found at www.lacity.org/SAN/solid_resources/strategic_programs/alternative_tech. 32 Conversion Technologies Report to the Legislature, February 2005. Draft, presented at January 2005 CIWMB Board meeting. 33 Recommendations for a Bioenergy Plan for California, prepared for the Bioenergy Interagency Working Group, April 2006, CEC-600-2006-004-F. 34 Conversion Technology Evaluation Report, prepared for the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works and the Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force’s Alternative Technologies Task Force Subcommittee, URS Corporation, April 2005.


2 4 - 1 5 6


31 26 14

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Waste-to-Energy Facility

Percentage

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

N e w Y o r k C i t y

New York City undertook an evaluation of new and emerging waste management and recycling technologies as part of its ongoing planning efforts. The city issued Requests for Information to gather consistent information from companies offering these new and emerging technologies. Using a specific methodology, 43 technologies were evaluated through three levels of increasing scrutiny to focus efforts on the most promising technologies. The study concluded that only anaerobic digestion and thermal processing (gasification) were the only technologies that could be considered for application by the city.

P U B L I C P E R C E P T I O N O F F A C I L I T I E S T O C R E A T E E N E R G Y F R O M W A S T E

The public survey asked respondents if the City should consider constructing and operating a waste-to-energy or conversion facility. Approximately 31 percent of the respondents “strongly agreed” (see Figure 20).

F i g u r e 2 0 . P u b l i c O p i n i o n o f W a s t e - t o - E n e r g y / C o n v e r s i o n T e c h n o l o g y

During the focus groups, however, participants were skeptical of the City’s ability to own and operate such a facility and recommended that if this option were to be pursued that the City contract with a private entity.

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

The risks associated with conversion technologies can be substantial. As such, these techologies are not recommended at this time for Kansas City. However, the City may want to track the progress of pilot studies and those plants that have been or will soon be operating. Technologies that may be particularly of interest to the City would be anaerobic digestion and hydrolysis.


2 4 - 1 5 7

These technologies have been proven to be successful in the processing of municipal solid waste and organics, and particularly in the case of biosolids.

The following criteria can be used by the City in the future to assess a particular conversion technology:

• Degree and Scale of Operating Experience – Some technologies have only been proven in pilot or laboratory operations, or with raw materials other than municipal solid waste. Other technologies have only been commercially operated in small facilities and the scale up to larger sized plants may result in unforeseen problems;

• Reliability to Dispose of Municipal Solid Waste -: The technology selected must be able to dispose of solid waste in a reliable manner without frequent downtime resulting in diversion of such waste to landfills;

• Energy and Material Market Compatibility - The technology must be capable of recovering energy and materials for which markets are available;

• Environmental Acceptance - The technology must meet all permitted environmental requirements established by regulatory agencies; and

• Cost to the City - The technology must dispose of the City’s solid waste at a price the City can afford and be comparable in cost and benefits to alternative means of disposal.


2 4 - 1 5 8


2 5 - 1 5 9

25 INC INERAT ION/WASTE -TO-ENERGY

Incineration is a thermal process for reducing the volume and weight of solid waste prior to disposal. These facilities are often designed to produce steam and electricity.

F A C I L I T Y T Y P E S

Municipal waste incineration facilities are designed to meet specific local needs, so there are variations in designs. There are, however, some basic facility types.

M a s s B u r n F a c i l i t i e s

In a mass burn facility, the solid waste is not preprocessed except for recyclables removal and/or removal of items too large to be fed into the unit. Mass burn facilities usually have two or three combustor units which can range in capacity from 50 to 1,000 tons per day (tpd). Plant capacities generally range from 100 to 3,000 tpd. These facilities are field-erected at the site.

R e f u s e D e r i v e d F u e l ( R D F ) F a c i l i t i e s

Several types of RDF combustors are used. Most differ by the type of RDF burned and whether the facility co-combusts other materials such as wood and coal. Individual RDF combustors range in capacity from 300 to 1,000 tpd. RDF facilities typically have two to four combustion units which can range in capacity from 600 to 4,000 tpd. Several types of RDF facilities exist and are often classified by the types of preprocessing employed. Common types include:

• Coarse, which results from minimal processing and typically refers to shredding. Materials that do not pass through a 6-inch screen are considered too coarse to be RDF.

• Prepared or recovered, which refers to coarse RDF that has been processed further to remove metals, glass, fine materials, ceramics, sand, and grit.

• Fluff, which is a shredded material, 95 percent by weight of which passes through a 2-inch square mesh screen.

• Densified, which is produced by the compaction of fluff material into cubes, pellets, or similar forms. Densified RDF is less costly to transport.

F l u i d i z e d - B e d C o m b u s t i o n F a c i l i t i e s

This is a developing technology that burns processed municipal solid waste in a heated bed of non-combustible material (such as sand). Existing and planned fluidized-bed combustion facilities have capacities ranging from 250 to 1,000 tpd.

M o d u l a r C o m b u s t i o n

A modular incinerator is a type of mass-burning unit, which is prefabricated on a standardized modular basis in a factory. Such units are shipped to the site in modules, ranging in design capacity from 10 to 200 tons per day, where they are installed. Several modules can be grouped


2 5 - 1 6 0

together at a single location. These “off the shelf” units can often be less costly to fabricate than the larger mass-burn facilities which require field erection.

Modular combustion units offer a lower capital cost and simplicity to communities considering waste-to-energy systems than the larger field-erected mass-burning systems. These systems are generally reliable and are backed by many years of successful operating experience.

B A S I C C O M B U S T I O N S Y S T E M

The following discussion describes the basic subsystems, which are the principal components of a solid waste combustion system.

C o m p o n e n t s

The combustion of solid waste is accomplished in a furnace equipped with grates. A solid waste combustion system with energy recovery includes:

• Some type of structure to house the furnace and its appurtenances;

• A "tipping floor" where the solid waste from collection and transfer vehicles is deposited;

• A storage pit or floor to store the solid waste delivered (solid waste combustion is a seven-day per week, twenty-four hour per day operation; storage space is provided to enable this continuous operation);

• A charging system which mixes the various solid wastes received to develop a somewhat uniform material and then lifts it from the storage pit or floor and feeds (charges)the furnace;

• One or more furnace subsystems (sometimes referred to as combustion trains), which receive and burn the solid waste;

• Air pollution control subsystems to clean up the combustion gases; and

• An ash handling subsystem to manage the fly ash and bottom ash produced from the combustion of solid waste.

S t a g e s o f C o m b u s t i o n

Solid waste normally has a moisture content of 20-25 percent by weight. To successfully burn solid waste in a furnace, this moisture must be evaporated. Generally, most solid waste combustion units have three stages of reaction:

• Drying -moisture driven off.

• Ignition -solid waste ignited.


2 5 - 1 6 1

• Burnout -solid waste is gradually moved through the furnace by the grate subsystem where the combustible organic fraction of the solid waste is burned out.

Successful combustion of solid waste is accomplished by controlling the “3 Ts of Combustion"-Time, Temperature and Turbulence.

• Time - the period taken for solid waste to pass from the charging hopper until the bottom ash is discharged at the end of the grate subsystem (usually 45-60 minutes);

• Temperature -usually exceeds 1,800°F within the furnace and is directly proportional to the residence time. If there is insufficient time in the furnace, the combustion reaction cannot proceed to completion and temperature declines; and

• Turbulence -provided by the grate subsystem moving the solid waste downward through the furnace to expose it to and mix it with air.

Normally, solid waste combustors reduce the original weight of the solid waste by 75+ percent and the volume by 90+ percent.

W a s t e - t o - E n e r g y S o l i d W a s t e C o m b u s t o r s

In a waste-to-energy (WTE) solid waste combustor, the energy released from combustion in the form of heat is used to generate steam in a boiler. The common method of capturing this released energy is either through refractory or waterwall furnace systems. The major difference between these two designs is the location of the boiler.

• Refractory units -This design consists of boilers located downstream of the combustion (furnace) chamber. The hot combustion gases pass through the boiler tubes to create steam.

• Waterwall units -This design has the furnace constructed with water tube membrane walls to recover the heat energy directly from the furnace unit. Waterwall designs are more commonly used because their thermal efficiency is higher than refractory units.

Boilers convert the heat released to steam, which can be used to either generate electricity or for industrial steam applications (if a customer is nearby). Turbine-driven generators driven by the steam generate electricity. A schematic of a typical WTE facility is provided in Figure 21.


2 5 - 1 6 2

F i g u r e 2 1 . T y p i c a l W a s t e - t o - E n e r g y F a c i l i t y S c h e m a t i c

P r o d u c t s o f C o m b u s t i o n

Other than the release of energy in the form of heat, the products of combustion of solid waste are fly ash and bottom ash. Fly ash is carried in the combustion gas, which also contains a number of contaminants, including acid gases, and other products of incomplete combustion. The gases are typically passed through a variety of air pollution control devices for cleanup before being discharged out of the stack into the atmosphere.

Bottom ash is the non-combusted material, which is discharged at the end of the grate subsystem. The bottom ash, as it is discharged from the grates, is still burning and is normally quenched by water. In the United States, the two ash streams -fly ash and bottom ash, are normally combined for management. The two combined ash streams are commonly referred to as solid waste combustor ash, or just ash.

The common methods of managing ash are either reutilization or landfilling. Ash can be reutilized for a number of useful purposes, including road-building materials and the manufacture of Portland cement. Metals from the bottom ash can be recovered for recycling. Ultimately, whether some reutilization is practiced or not, some portion of the ash will have to be landfilled. Landfilling is either achieved by co-disposal with solid waste or mono-filled in specially-dedicated landfill cells. The most common method of landfilling combustor ash in the U.S. is by co-disposal with solid waste.


2 5 - 1 6 3

E N E R G Y M A R K E T S

The primary objectives of any proposed WTE project are to dispose of solid waste in an economically efficient and environmentally acceptable manner. Although the derived energy from the combustion of municipal solid waste in a WTE project is a secondary benefit, the revenues gained through the sale of electricity, steam, or recovered materials help offset the cost of solid waste disposal. By turning solid waste into useful energy and materials, WTE projects are able to compete against other waste disposal options which are much less capital intensive. The financial viability of any WTE facility, therefore, is in large measure dependent on its ability to supply energy to a long-term customer. This section explores some of the issues to be considered in investigating the energy and materials markets for any WTE.

S t e a m

Typically, steam from WTE facilities in the United States is transported to industries at temperatures ranging from 250 degrees F to 750 degrees F and pressures ranging from 150 to 650 pounds per square inch. Pipelines transporting steam are short, rarely longer than two to three miles to minimize energy losses and capital investment. When steam is transported it experiences a drop in pressure and temperature. Steam losses from such systems are estimated to be about 30 to 40 pounds per square inch per mile of transmission line. Consequently, the location of the energy customer is an important factor in the siting of a WTE facility.

Steam is the most desirable form of energy from solid waste, if an appropriate long-term steam customer can be located. The revenues or savings to be derived are dependent on the cost of the existing energy service; the steam needs; and the reliability of the steam produced by the WTE facility. The highest values for steam are from facilities which can continuously produce steam on a schedule that matches the customer. Most facilities are unable to produce a guaranteed steam supply, and thus produce a limited steam supply requiring the customer to have a backup steam source. Consequently, the value of this steam to the customer is lower.

In summary, the following are critical factors in the use of steam from WTE facilities:

• Siting: The WTE facility should be close in proximity to the steam customer(s).

• Price: The steam produced must be delivered at a cost competitive (less than) the user’s existing primary source.

• Operating Schedule: Steam must be produced at a level matching the needs of the user.

• Availability of Fuel: Enough waste must be available to produce the contracted quantity of steam.

• Cost of Connecting Facilities: The cost of installing steam lines, acquiring the rights-of-way, and installing condensate return lines between the facility and the steam user must be considered.


2 5 - 1 6 4

• Steam Quality: Keeping contaminants out of the steam lines and meeting the user’s steam quality must be included.

• Contracts: “The steam user should be in a position agree to a long-term take-or-pay contract with provisions for shutdown or default.

E l e c t r i c i t y

Long-term steam users for a WTE facility may be unavailable in many areas. In that instance, the conversion of solid waste into electricity may be a feasible alternative. The electricity generated by the facility can be utilized for internal needs of the project with surplus power being input to the electricity grid or sold to industrial users.

E N V I R O N M E N T A L R E Q U I R E M E N T S

Emissions from municipal waste combustion facilities are a mixture of pollutants with health-related risks. Pollutants of greatest concern include:

• Particulates. • Acid gases (sulfur oxides, hydrogen chloride, and hydrogen fluoride). • Nitrogen oxides. • Trace metals. • Dioxins and furans.

Modern WTE facilities are equipped with air pollution control equipment that reduces air emissions and adverse environmental impacts. Emission controls include:

• Combustion control. Control of combustion conditions (time, temperature, turbulence, and combustion air) will generally control emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, dioxins, and furans.

• Particulate matter control. Fabric filters (baghouses) and electrostatic precipitators are used to control particulate emissions.

• Acid gas control. Acid gas control units are referred to as scrubbers, which use a lime slurry to react with the acid gases. This process causes the acid gases to react and become neutralized by the lime slurry. The lime slurry could then be classified as hazardous waste and require disposal as a hazardous waste.

WTE facilities are primarily regulated under the federal Clean Air Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The Clean Air Act requires plants to obtain permits whose provisions are based on plant size and technology. Federal and state regulators enforce emissions limits for sulfur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, particulates, cadmium, lead, mercury, and dioxins. Operating conditions, monitoring, reporting, training and safety requirements are also specified in the Clean Air Act.


2 5 - 1 6 5

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requires testing of the plants’ ash residue to determine whether the ash is a hazardous waste.

Missouri also has specific permitting requirements for incinerators. An overview of these requirements is provided in Section 3 of the Background Document.

E C O N O M I C S

Depending on the location, size, and other factors, the capital costs have been reported to range from $110,000 to $140,000 per daily ton of capacity by industry sources.35 However, recent research on the estimated capital cost for typical new “greenfield” WTE facility, conducted for the Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Authority, resulted in the following ranges of cost per ton of installed capacity:36

Source Cost per Installed Ton (2007 dollars)

City of Spokane, WA 800 TPD WTE Facility $144,925

American Ref-Fuel Statement to House Subcommittee

$155,000

Barton and Loguidice Estimate of 750 TPD WTE Cost from Escalated 1980’s Historic Facility Data

$157,500

OCCRA Syracuse, NY 900 TPD WTE Facility $153,846

Average Cost per Installed Ton $152,817

Note: The costs for Spokane and OCCRA WTE facilities have been converted to 2007 dollars.

A plant that processes 400 tons of waste per day (operating 365 days per year), an appropriate size for Kansas City, could cost approximately $68 million to construct. Amortizing these costs for 20 years at 5 percent interest would result in annual costs of $5.3 million.

Operating and maintenance costs include personnel, services, materials and supplies and the cost of disposal of ash. The same study for the Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Authority reported the following costs:

35 The Waste-to-Energy Research and Technology Council (WTERT) website: http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/wtert/what.html 36 Waste to Energy Analysis Report, Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Authority, June 21, 2007, http://www.ohswa.org/docs/report_wasteToEnergy.pdf


2 5 - 1 6 6

Source Facility Size O&M Cost

per Received Ton

Spokane WTE 800 TPD $46

OCCRA WTE 900 TPD $40

Barton and Loguidice 750 TPD (from historic data)

$48

Oswego County 200 TPD $47

Note: Does not include ash disposal costs

Based on the estimated annual throughput, the City could expect annual costs to range from $5.8 to $7.3 million annually. Based on an ash generation rate of 25 percent of the raw feed tonnage, the ash disposal costs could be approximately $5.1 million per year for non-hazardous wastes and based on a disposal of $35 per ton. It could be expected that the City would need to include $1 million per year for capital improvements. Based on these figures, annual operating costs are estimated at a minimum of $11.9 million per year.

This facility could be expected to generate revenues. Based on a conservative value of $0.04 per Kwh and 475 Kwh per ton, electricity revenues could average $2.8 million per year. Additional revenues could be anticipated from the recovery of ferrous metals.

Based on the above analysis, the total annual costs (net) of the facility would be expected to be approximately $17 million. This averages $116.44 per ton of waste processed.


In 2007, there were 87 WTE plants operating in 25 states.37 The majority these facilities are located in New England and the Mid-Atlantic regions, with less than one-tenth located west of the Rocky Mountains. Several are located in the Upper Great Lakes region. Most of these facilities range from 500 to 3,000 tons per day and were built in the period of 1980-1995.

P U B L I C P E R C E P T I O N O F F A C I L I T I E S T O C R E A T E E N E R G Y F R O M W A S T E

The public survey asked respondents if the City should consider constructing and operating a waste-to-energy or conversion facility. Approximately 31 percent of the respondents “strongly agreed” (see Figure 22).

37 The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste-to-Energy Plants, Integrated Waste Services Association, http://www.wte.org/


2 5 - 1 6 7


31 26 14

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Waste-to-Energy Facility

Percentage

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

F i g u r e 2 2 . P u b l i c O p i n i o n o f W a s t e - t o - E n e r g y / C o n v e r s i o n T e c h n o l o g y

During the focus groups, however, participants were skeptical of the City’s ability to own and operate such a facility and recommended that if this option were to be pursued that the City contract with a private entity.


A waste-to-energy facility is not recommended for Kansas City due to the high capital and operating costs and the availability of lower cost options.


2 5 - 1 6 8


2 6 - 1 6 9

26 LANDF I L L D ISPOSAL


The City currently relies on the private sector to provide landfill disposal capacity. The two landfills used by the City include:

• The Johnson County Landfill (located in Shawnee, Kansas) that is owned and operated by Deffenbaugh Industries. This landfill is the largest in the region as well as the state of Kansas. The landfill is currently taking about 5,000 tons per day of solid waste including construction and demolition debris (C&D). The landfill is scheduled to close no later than 2027 under an agreement with the City of Shawnee.

• The Courtney Ridge Landfill (located in Sugar Creek, Missouri) that is owned and operated by Allied Waste Industries. The landfill currently takes about 2,000 tons per day of solid waste and has about 27 years of capacity remaining.

P U B L I C O P I N I O N

As part of the public opinion survey, respondents were asked if they were aware that their trash was transported to a landfill. Over 98 percent of the respondents were aware that trash was sent to a landfill; slightly over one percent of the respondents were not aware that trash was being sent to a landfill. The survey then posed the question of whether the City should build and operate its own landfill as area landfills reach capacity and close. Approximately 52 percent of the respondents indicated that the City should build and operate its own landfill. Approximately 20 percent did not believe that the City should build and operate a landfill. The remaining 28 percent were not sure.

The issue of landfills was discussed during the focus group meetings. While participants understood the need for landfills, they were divided on whether the City should own and operate one. Many believed it was better for the City to rely on the private sector. Those taking the opposite view believed that the City should take complete responsibility for its trash, including responsibility for operating the final disposal site. Most of the participants were doubtful, however, that the City would be able to find a site on which to locate a new landfill.

L A N D F I L L A L T E R N A T I V E

Given current technology, landfills are and will remain a necessary and important component of waste management for Kansas City. Source reduction and recycling can divert significant portions of the waste stream, but not all components of the waste stream are recyclable. Therefore, the City will be required to continue to secure disposal capacity or create additional capacity locally. With this in mind, a landfill alternative was evaluated.


2 6 - 1 7 0

L a n d f i l l S i z e

It is important that a landfill be sited, designed, permitted, and constructed to provide the City with sufficient disposal capacity. Taking into account the projected population increases, it is anticipated that at a minimum the landfill should be capable of accepting 182,000 tons per year (the annual generation projected for the year 2027). Therefore, costs were developed for a 700 ton per day landfill (assuming that operations occur five days per week).

G e n e r a l L a n d f i l l C o s t s

For this analysis, the landfill will be assumed to be in Missouri and need to meet the requirements of and be permitted by MDNR. These requirements include, but are not limited to:

• The establishment of a groundwater monitoring system to determine if leachate has been released from the landfill.

• The construction of a composite bottom liner (i.e., 2 feet of recompacted soil and a flexible membrane liner) to protect groundwater and underlying soil from leachate releases.

• The establishment of a gas monitoring system and ultimately a gas collection and control system.

• The construction of stormwater control, retention, and discharge structures.

• The construction of a leachate control system to maintain less than 12 inches of liquids on the liner system and to remove leachate from the landfill for treatment and disposal.

• The establishment of operating practices which include compacting and covering waste frequently with several inches of soil to help reduce odor and control litter, insects, and rodents.

There are five phases associated with the life of a landfill as follows:

• Pre-development. • Site Capital Costs. • Construction. • Closure. • Post-closure.

The costs of these phases are used to determine the cost per ton at the landfill and are discussed in more detail below.

Pre-Development Costs

Pre-development costs are those associated with expenses required prior to the construction of the landfill. The cost items include:


2 6 - 1 7 1

• Siting study. • Legal services. • Financial services. • Community/government relations. • Land purchase. • Surveying. • Hydrologeologic characterization. • Preliminary engineering. • End use planning. • Solid waste permits. • Other permits.

For this analysis, it was assumed that the landfill would be operational for a 30-year period and that the City would be required to purchase a minimum of 125 acres of land (assuming a “square” shape, 40-foot fill depth, 80-foot fill height above ground, 1,650-foot side length at the base, and over 300 feet for buffers).

The pre-development costs are highly dependent on the purchase price of the required land. For purposes of this report, land acquisition costs are expected to be $40,000 per acre. Pre-development (and other) costs for the landfill are expected to be approximately $7,150,000.

Site Capital Costs

Initial site capital costs include the following:

• Clearing and grubbing. • Leachate pumping, transfer, and storage equipment. • Surface water controls. • Roads and structures. • Scales. • Gates and fences. • Equipment. • Engineering design.

The site capital costs are estimated to be approximately $5,057,000.

Construction Costs

Construction costs are based on the final design developed for the landfill. However, general construction items include:

• Clearing and grubbing. • Excavation and stockpiling. • Liner/leachate collection system installation. • Liner installation. • Seeding, fertilizing, and mulching.


2 6 - 1 7 2

• Groundwater monitoring well installation. • Gas monitoring probe installation. • Construction management/engineering. • Construction quality assurance.

Landfill construction costs will be incurred annually in the initial years but not throughout the 30 year life of the landfill. Costs are initially estimated to be approximately $1,274,000 for the first year, averaging $1,079,000 per year thereafter.

Operational Costs

The day-to-day operation of a landfill requires accounting for numerous items. Operational cost items will include the following:

• Equipment operation and maintenance. • Personnel (manager, equipment operators, scale operator, laborers, mechanic). • Leachate management and treatment. • Groundwater sampling and analysis. • Contract services (e.g., laboratory, reporting, engineering). • Community relations. • Permit fees.

The operational costs are estimated to be approximately $1,115,000 the first year, and a net present value cost of $1,560,000 per year (based on a four percent discount rate).

Closure Costs

Closure costs include those costs associated with final closure of the landfill. These costs typically occur throughout the life of the facility in that monies are set aside on a regular basis to cover these costs when the landfill is actually closed. Closure cost items include:

• Final cover/cap. • Surface water controls. • Seed, fertilizer, mulch. • Construction management/engineering. • Construction quality assurance.

Closure costs are projected to be incurred annually and are estimated to be approximately $333,000 the first year, and a present value cost of $466,000 per year thereafter.

Post-Closure Costs

Post-closure costs are those costs associated with the maintenance of the landfill for a 30-year period after closure. As a general rule, these costs are also set aside throughout the life of the facility and expensed beginning the year after closure. Post-closure care items include:

• Leachate management and treatment.


2 6 - 1 7 3

• Groundwater sampling and analysis. • Gas monitoring. • Contract services. • Inspections. • Maintenance (cap, fencing, stormwater controls).

Post-closure costs are estimated to be approximately $460,000 in the first year of post-closure, and a net present value cost of $112,000 per year.

Summary of Capital Costs

Development of a landfill requires significant upfront capital costs as well as ongoing capital commitments. Table 35 summarizes the anticipated capital costs for a City-owned and operated landfill.

T a b l e 3 5 . E s t i m a t e d L a n d f i l l C a p i t a l C o s t s

Description of Capital Costs Estimated Cost Pre-Development Cost $7,150,000 Site Capital Cost $5,057,000 Annual Construction Cost $1,274,000 Annual Closure Cost $466,000 Annual Post-Closure Care Cost $112,000

Annualized Costs

Capital costs presented above were annualized over the 30 year life of the site and these annualized costs were combined with annual operation and maintenance, closure, post-closure and administrative costs. The resulting total annual costs can be allocated on a per ton basis as shown in Table 36.


2 6 - 1 7 4

T a b l e 3 6 . E s t i m a t e d L a n d f i l l C o s t ( p e r t o n )

Description of Annualized Costs Cost Pre-Development Cost $519,000 Site Capital Cost $367,000 Construction Cost $1,079,000 Operating & Maintenance Cost $1,560,000 Closure Cost $466,000 Post-Closure Cost $112,000 Total Annual Cost $3,991,000 Tons of Waste Managed Annually 182,000 Cost in Dollars Per Ton $21.93 MDNR Fee $2.11 Total Cost per Ton $24.04

Based on the costs discussed above, the anticipated costs for a 700 ton per day facility is expected to be approximately $24.04 per ton of waste received.

O w n e r s h i p O p t i o n s

There are many arguments for and against, who should own and manage a landfill: public or private entities. The pros for public ownership and management focus around control of day-to-day operations. The pros for private ownership and management center on flexibility, efficiency, and potential returns to citizens. Three basic structures for ownership and operation of a landfill are presented below:

• Public Ownership with Public Operation: Public ownership and operation of a new landfill would require Kansas City to design and build the landfill, procure equipment, provide financing, and operate and maintain the landfill using City employees. Public ownership and operation would provide Kansas City with the greatest amount of control and flexibility and would provide the City with the revenue generated from tip fees. Disadvantages of this approach include the need for the City to provide capital financing and the length of time necessary to process capital expenditures.

• Public Ownership with Private Operation: Under this ownership approach, Kansas City would contract with a private firm to design, build, operate, and maintain the landfill through a long-term service contract. Kansas City would be responsible for capital costs. An advantage of private operation can be increased efficiency, however, operating costs can increase to support profit requirements. Depending on contractual arrangements, Kansas City may be able to retain control of rates.

• Private Ownership with Private Operation: Under this arrangement, Kansas City would contract with a private company who would design, build, finance, operate,


2 6 - 1 7 5

and maintain the landfill under a long-term agreement. This arrangement would not allow the City to retain as much control over day-to-day operations. Again, depending on contractual arrangements, Kansas City may be able to maintain control of rates.

L a n d f i l l S i t i n g C o n s i d e r a t i o n s

According State of Missouri regulations, landfill development is restricted in areas including wetlands, unstable soils such as Karst terrain or poor foundation conditions, fault areas, seismic impact zones, land in the 100 year floodplain, or in proximity to an airport. Except for fault zones, landfills are not prohibited from these areas, but they would be subject to special siting restrictions and/or performance standards.

L a n d f i l l P e r m i t t i n g C o n s i d e r a t i o n s

To begin the process of building a new landfill, the City must first begin with a comprehensive siting study to identify suitable locations. Once a site has been identified, the City should plan on the State-permitting process lasting a minimum of 60 months. This estimate used by MDNR includes 15 months to complete a detailed site investigation and 12 months for site construction. In addition to the MDNR solid waste facility permit, the landfill will require zoning permits, and MDNR air permit, and a NPDES discharge permit.

A L T E R N A T I V E L A N D F I L L T E C H N O L O G I E S

Bioreactors are a new landfill technology currently being tested around the country for waste disposal. The primary function of a bioreactor is to accelerate the degradation of municipal solid waste. The increase in waste degradation and stabilization is accomplished through the addition of liquid and, in some cases, air to enhance microbial processes. Bioreactors are a new approach to landfill design and operation that differ from the traditional "dry tomb" municipal landfill approach.

There are three different general types of bioreactor landfill configurations:

• Aerobic - In an aerobic bioreactor landfill, leachate is removed from the bottom layer, piped to liquids storage tanks, and re-circulated into the landfill in a controlled manner. Air is injected into the waste mass, using vertical or horizontal wells, to promote aerobic activity and accelerate waste stabilization.

• Anaerobic - In an anaerobic bioreactor landfill, moisture is added to the waste mass in the form of re-circulated leachate and other sources to obtain optimal moisture levels. Biodegradation occurs in the absence of oxygen (anaerobically) and produces landfill gas. Landfill gas, primarily methane, can be captured to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and for energy projects.

• Hybrid (Aerobic-Anaerobic) - The hybrid bioreactor landfill accelerates waste degradation by employing a sequential aerobic-anaerobic treatment to rapidly degrade organics in the upper sections of the landfill and collect gas from lower sections.


2 6 - 1 7 6

Operation as a hybrid results in the earlier onset of methanogenesis (landfill gas generation) compared to aerobic landfills.

Potential advantages of bioreactors include:

• Decomposition and biological stabilization in years vs. decades in “dry tombs.”

• Lower waste toxicity and mobility due to both aerobic and anaerobic conditions.

• A 15 to 30 percent gain in landfill space due to an increase in density of waste mass. This recovered airspace can offer landfill operators the opportunity to extend the operating life of the landfill.

• Significant increased landfill gas generation that, when captured, can be used for energy use onsite or sold.

• Reduced post-closure care.

Research has shown that municipal solid waste can be rapidly degraded and made less hazardous (due to degradation of organics and the sequestration of inorganics) by enhancing and controlling the moisture within the landfill under aerobic and/or anaerobic conditions. Leachate quality in a bioreactor rapidly improves, which leads to reduced leachate disposal costs.

Currently, the routine use of bioreactors is limited by current federal and state regulations, which generally are written to keep liquids out of landfills. Experimental and demonstration projects can be approved under the federal Research Development and Demonstration (RD&D) provisions of 40 CFR 258.4. This regulation allows states that have adopted the rule to issue research permits for three years (renewable four times) to landfills that want to demonstrate the technology.

While still experimental, bioreactor technology may show promise for future landfill designs. Kansas City may wish to monitor developments and incorporate these features if a new landfill is planned in the future.


It is recommended that Kansas City continue to pursue long-term, cost-effective alternatives for solid waste disposal through the private sector. While it is expected that the local privately-owned landfills will close within the timeframe addressed by this plan, there are two regional landfills that will have capacity well beyond the timeframe addressed by this plan (Hamm Quarry and Show Me Regional Landfill). It is further recommended that the City construct a transfer station (as discussed earlier in this document) to economically haul waste to these regional landfills.


2 7 - 1 7 7

27 PROJECTED C I TY EXPEND ITURES FOR NEW PROGRAMS

A summary of the capital and operating expenses to implement the solid waste system recommendations over the next 20 years are summarized in Table 37. Actual budgets to implement the recommendations will vary from year to year as specific programs are defined and refined.

S O L I D W A S T E S Y S T E M A N A L Y S I S

A full analysis of the proposed solid waste system is provided in Appendix E. This analysis uses the same assumptions that were used to develop the Status-Quo Option with the following exceptions.

S y s t e m C r e d i t

Often, implementation of a new program will affect a program for which no changes have been recommended by lowering the cost of the existing program. These anticipated cost savings have been identified as “system credit” on the budget analysis. For example, the creation of an Enforcement Unit within the Solid Waste Division would be expected to decrease the number of illegal dumping sites that must be addressed by the City. Therefore, the system credit applied to this program reflects the decreasing costs anticipated by the Illegal Dumping Abatement program.

K a n s a s C i t y E c o C e n t e r

With all disposal costs shifted from other programs to this facility, the addition of the Kansas City Eco Center when fully operational would have a net impact to the current Solid Waste Budget. Significant assumptions affecting the impact to the budget include:

• Revenues from Recyclables sales are assigned to the facility

• Transportation and Disposal costs have been assigned to this facility

• Capital cost for this facility will be covered by general obligation bonds

P R O J E C T E D G E N E R A L F U N D I M P A C T

Table 38 illustrates the projected impact possible to the City’s general fund with implementation of several recommendations.


2 7 - 1 7 8

T a b l e 3 7 . S o l i d W a s t e S y s t e m I m p l e m e n t a t i o n C o s t s - S u m m a r y

Cost Recommended Alternative Summary

Year 1 Year 10 Year 20 Expense

Type Internal Recycling Program Not calculated Existing City Waste Reduction Not calculated Existing Procurement of Products Not calculated Existing City Policies

Use Recovered Materials Not calculated Existing Special Event Recycling Ordinance Part of Education Program Labor

City Ordinances Mandatory Recycling Ordinance

Part of Education Program Labor

Education and outreach Education, Promotion and Technical Assistance Technical assistance

$182,300 $327,300 $565,300 Labor, Services, Materials

Curbside Collection of Recyclables Municipal crews $4,136,700 $5,494,500 $7,953,900 Equipment,

Labor

Recycling Drop-Off City-owned property Not calculated Existing Land

Electronics Recycling Special collection events $6,300 $8,500 $12,200 Labor

Food/Organics Recycling Curbside collection $4,399,900 $4,314,400 $3,464,100

Labor, Services, Equipment

Glass Drop-Off Residential/commercial facilities $189,500 $198,600 $278,700 Labor, Equipment

Commercial Recycling Commercial facilities Not calculated Labor, Equipment


Appointment-based, monthly collection Not calculated Existing

Leaf and Brush Drop-Off

Collection of fees/additional location Not calculated Existing,

Land Recyclables Sorting Facility

Investigate facility locations and costs Not calculated

Existing

Residential Refuse Collection

Automated collection, municipal crews $10,629,000 $11,734,000 $14,285,000 Labor,

Equipment

Bulky Item Collection Appointment-based, monthly collection, fees for service $2,208,000 $2,972,000 $3,800,000 Existing

City Facility Collection Municipal crews Not calculated Labor, Equipment

Illegal Dumping Abatement Enforcement unit $1,422,000 $2,183,800 $3,479,000 Labor,

Supplies Dead Animal Collection Fees for collection of livestock Not calculated Existing

Debris Management Develop plan/establish staging area Not calculated Labor,

Land

Processing and Transfer Build and operate facility $6,441,100 $6,998,300 $8,568,700

Labor, Land, Equipment, Services

Conversion Technologies Monitor technology improvements

Not calculated Labor


2 8 - 1 8 5

28 F INANC ING

The following presents options for financing the transfer station/material recovery facility (Kansas City Eco Center) recommended by this plan.

G E N E R A L O B L I G A T I O N B O N D O F F E R I N G

In a general obligation bond offering (GO), bonds are backed by the full taxing authority of the City, and interest and principal are paid through the general fund. GO offerings are used for projects that will serve the entire community but will not generate enough revenue to pay for their own financing.

Since GO bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the City, they are considered safer, and generally pay a lower interest rate, than revenue bonds. Therefore, financing costs will he lower through a GO issue than other types of bond offerings. Further, there is no need to create a debt service reserve fund or purchase a surety bond with a GO issue, which frees up more money for the project.

Because the proposed Solid Waste Facility will not generate enough revenue to service its debt, coupled with the benefit of eliminating the need for a reserve fund or surety bond, it is recommended that the City finance the project through a GO bond offering.

R E V E N U E B O N D O F F E R I N G

In a revenue bond offering, revenues generated by the project are used to pay for the financing. Revenue bonds are not backed by the full taxing authority of the City, which makes them less safe than GO bonds. Because of this, revenue bonds will generally carry a higher interest rate than GO bonds, increasing financing costs.

Because the proposed Solid Waste Facility will not generate enough revenue to cover its debt service, financing with a revenue bond offering is not recommended.

R E V E N U E B O N D O F F E R I N G W I T H A N A N N U A L A P P R O P R I A T I O N P L E D G E

This is a hybrid form of financing where the primary source of funds to pay for financing comes from revenue generated by the project. However, if revenue is not sufficient, the City pledges to cover the shortfall though its general fund. This kind of financing is appropriate if a project is expected to generate revenue to cover its financing costs, but investors want an extra layer of protection against default.

The annual appropriation pledge gives the City the right, but not the obligation, to make general funds available to shore up debt payments. Therefore, this type of bond is considered safer than a straight revenue bond but less safe than a GO offering. An annual appropriation pledge would generally make the cost of the financing less expensive than a revenue offering but still more expensive than a GO offering.


2 8 - 1 8 6

Because the facility will need a significant amount of general fund financing every year, this form of financing for the project is not recommended.

C A S H F R O M T H E G E N E R A L F U N D

The City could use cash from its general fund to pay for the Solid Waste Facility. Because of the scope of the City’s current obligations, this is not a realistic alternative. Also, the use of cash creates a moral dilemma. The City’s current tax base would be asked to shoulder the entire expense of building the new facility, even though the facility would be in use for decades. It may be more appropriate to finance the project over a number of years, which will allow taxpayers who will use the facility 10, 15 or 20 years from now to share in the cost of the project.


2 9 - 1 8 7

29 IMPLEMENTAT ION

The following section is intended to provide the City with guidance on implementing the major system components recommended in this document.

I M P L E M E N T A T I O N S C H E D U L E

The implementation of the recommendation contained in this plan can begin upon approval of the plan by City Council. The schedule for implementation is included as Figure 23. The schedule may require revision as circumstances change or if the objectives of the City change. As indicated, some recommendations may be implemented within a few months, for other recommendations implementation may span years.

P R O C U R E M E N T O P T I O N S

This section discusses some of the general approaches and procedures used to procure solid waste facilities, such as the transfer station/material recovery facility (Kansas City Eco Center) recommended earlier. The procurement approach determines the manner by which engineering, design, construction, start-up, and operations services are acquired. The procurement procedure also dictates the method by which such services can be acquired under the legal mandates of the government.

The process selected to procure a facility can be approached in three different ways:

• Architect/Engineer (A/E) Approach; • Turnkey Approach; and • Full-Service Approach

Table 39 identifies some of the project responsibilities which are typically undertaken by government representatives, contractors, and the architect/engineer in solid waste facility projects.


2 9 - 1 8 8

F i g u r e 2 3 . S o l i d W a s t e S y s t e m – I m p l e m e n t a t i o n P l a n

Year Recommended Alternative Summary

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Internal Recycling

City Waste Reduction

Procurement of Products

City Policies

Use Recovered Materials

Special Event Recycling Ordinance

City Ordinances Mandatory Recycling Ordinance

Education and outreach

Education, Promotion and Technical Assistance Technical assistance

Curbside Collection of Recyclables Municipal crews

Recycling Drop-Off City-owned property

Electronics Recycling Special collection events

Food/Organics Recycling Curbside collection

Glass Drop-Off Commercial drop-off facilities

Commercial Recyclables Collection

City collection of recyclables


Appointment-based, monthly collection

Leaf and Brush Drop-Off

Collection of fees/additional location

Residential Refuse Collection

Automated collection, municipal crews

Recyclables Sorting Facility

Investigate facility location and costs

Bulky Item Collection

Appointment-based, monthly collection, fees for service

City Facility Collection Municipal crews

Illegal Dumping Abatement Enforcement unit

Dead Animal Collection

Fees for collection of livestock

Debris Management Develop plan/establish staging area

Processing and Transfer Build and operate facility

Conversion Technologies

Monitor technology improvements

Planning period

Implementation period

Ongoing


2 9 - 1 8 9

T a b l e 3 9 . T y p i c a l P r o j e c t R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s b y P r o c u r e m e n t A p p r o a c h

Procurement Approaches Project Responsibilities A/E Turnkey Full Service Planning, Investigations, Site Selection G or E G or E G or E Plant Design E C C Drawings E C C Specifications E C C Construction Supervision C C C Construction Oversight E E C Construction and Equipment Installation C C C Startup G or C G or C C Operation G or C G or C C Ownership G G G or C

G = Government; E = Engineer; and C = Contractor A r c h i t e c t / E n g i n e e r ( A / E ) A p p r o a c h

The A/E approach is the one most generally used for large public benefit projects in the U.S. For a typical project, the government agency first procures the services of an A/E firm which is then responsible for designing and preparing the plans and specifications and certain design details. These materials are then distributed by the owner as part of an advertised competitive-bid process.

Once the winning bidder is selected, the A/E firm that prepared the project specifications and plans, or another similar type of firm, is retained by the owner to monitor the construction of the project, prepare operating manuals, and assist in the start-up and acceptance testing of the project. Once the project is accepted by the A/E and owner as meeting contractual obligations, the owner is then responsible for either operating the project itself or contracting out this responsibility to a private firm. This approach requires multiple contracts between the owner and its A/E, general construction contractor, and equipment suppliers.

The conventional A/E approach has been modified slightly by some local governments in their procurement of solid waste facilities. Unlike the traditional A/E approach of bidding each individual piece of equipment for the project, the entire process line and equipment, is bid as a single package. The A/E firm is still responsible for designing the ancillary facilities. This approach has the advantage of minimizing the number of potential vendors that the owner must deal with, while providing a mechanism for sharing the risk of project performance with a private entity (the equipment supplier).


2 9 - 1 9 0

T u r n k e y A p p r o a c h

The turnkey approach differs from the A/E approach in that a single firm is responsible for the design, construction, and startup of the project. Under this approach, the turnkey contractor is responsible for acquiring the necessary equipment and supplies for the project as well as ensuring that the architectural and engineering design work is prepared. Once startup and acceptance testing is completed, however, the turnkey contractor turns over the responsibility for operating the project to the owner. This approach may make perfect sense for owners who have the technical capabilities to operate solid waste facilities. Other owners desiring to retain the option of public operation may modify this approach by negotiating a short-term initial operating agreement which would require the contractor to solve design and operational problems after acceptance testing before turning over full operation to a municipal workforce.

Due to the nature of solid waste facility projects, owners typically retain an engineer/consultant who is experienced with facility systems to provide technical and operational support throughout the project. These services include planning, investigations, engineering and design, conceptual development of procurement documents, including performance specifications and evaluation criteria, assisting in evaluating the proposals and in negotiating a contract, providing support during construction, and start-up.

F u l l - S e r v i c e A p p r o a c h

A modification of the turnkey approach is for an owner to assign total responsibility to a private firm for the conduct of the project, including the design, construction, startup, testing, operation, and possibly the ownership and project financing responsibilities. The full-service approach can enable the owner to acquire the services of the desired facility without the responsibility for its long-term, day-to-day operation and maintenance. Normally, the owner still needs to retain a qualified engineer/consultant to assist in planning the facility project, developing the Request for Proposal (RFP), and evaluating the proposals.

P R O C E D U R E S F O R C O N D U C T I N G T H E P R O C U R E M E N T P R O C E S S

A basic tenet of procurement policy in the U.S. is that fair and open competition minimizes the costs of goods and services. Competition is believed by many to improve the quality of the goods and services purchased, increase the choices available, and foster innovation among vendors. In addition to these goals, there is a general public belief that competition reduces favoritism and inspires greater confidence in the governmental procurement system.

Discussed in the paragraphs below are four general procurement methods which have been recommended by the American Bar Association. Not all these procedures are applicable for use with the procurement approaches available for solid waste facilities, as previously discussed. For example, the competitive sealed bidding procedure is not appropriate in turnkey or full-service procurement processes because factors like vendor experience, technology, guarantees, and financial capability are considered along with price to select the winning contractor.


2 9 - 1 9 1

C o m p e t i t i v e S e a l e d B i d d i n g

Competitive sealed bidding or formal advertising is the standard procurement contracting method used by governments for acquiring equipment and services for public benefit projects. Typically, the owner or its consultant prepares the Invitation for Bid (IFB) which is used to solicit bids for the specific project. Contractors prepare their bids based upon the specifications in the IFB with no discussions with the purchasing official or contracting officer. These sealed bids are usually opened in public at a time and place stated in the IFB. Generally, the bid is promptly awarded to the bidder submitting the lowest price, provided this bidder can satisfy the contractual standards of the owner and is responsive with all terms of the IFB.

Competitive bidding can be used in the procurement of a solid waste facility, provided that the following project conditions are present:

• Definitive plans and specifications have already been prepared for the facility;

• Price or some other factor is the only criterion of choice; and

• More than one response to the IFB can be expected.

M u l t i p l e - S t e p o r S i m u l t a n e o u s N e g o t i a t i o n s M e t h o d

This multiple-step procedure, sometimes called "simultaneous negotiation”, has been utilized by the federal government for the procurement of advanced engineering and operational systems for which detailed specifications had not yet been prepared by the purchasing agency. These multiple-step procedures incorporate components of competitive bidding and competitive negotiation. In summary, the competitive bidding process is most useful when plans and specifications are complete for a facility and price alone is the only factor for choosing the best overall vendor.

C o m p e t i t i v e N e g o t i a t i o n

Competitive negotiation is quite different than the competitive-sealed bidding process used for conventional public works projects. In many communities, this process has been reserved for the procurement of specialized services, such as architectural, planning and engineering services, where discussions between the offering agency and vendor can help clarify the reasonableness of proposals. Consequently, competitive negotiation differs from the competitive sealed bidding process in two basic respects:

• Price is only one of the criteria for selection. The use of other factors helps the offering agency to determine which proposal is most advantageous to the offering agency; and

• Discussions are held with vendors after the submittal of proposals to evaluate important technical, financial and management interrelationships of each proposal.

At the outset of the procurement, an RFP is advertised requesting the submittal of an un-priced or priced technical proposal which is evaluated by a selection committee upon receipt. Some


2 9 - 1 9 2

governments have used an RFQ as a method to limit the number of proposers which receive the RFP. At this stage, discussions are held with proposers to determine the type of materials and services offered, and to allow proposers to make changes in their proposals to enable them to be responsive to the solicitation document. These discussions are concluded with the offering agency requesting a “best and final” offer on a common cutoff date by vendors. These final offers are then reviewed and evaluated, and the contractor whose proposal provides best value is selected.

Under this procedure, the government solicits proposals, not bids, with documents termed Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and Request for Proposals (RFP). In some cases, governments release a single procurement package, which contains both the RFQ and RFP, to speed up the procurement process. Typically, this procurement process can begin with the offering agency advertising the release of a RFQ or RFP to system vendors. This document contains specifications on system performance, procurement schedule, desired technology, and financing requirements. In most cases the RFQ or RFP requires vendors, who desire to prepare proposals on the project, to submit specific technical, experience, managerial and financial qualifications regarding their undertaking of the project. Experience may include operational data from commercial reference plants utilizing the specified technology.

On RFQs, once these submittals are analyzed, vendors deemed qualified to undertake the project receive a copy of the RFP package which contains detailed performance specifications for the project. This document describes specific criteria to evaluate the proposals. Shortly after the RFP is released, a pre-proposal conference may be scheduled to brief the potential proposers on information contained within the RFQ; provide clarifications to proposer’s questions; and review the procurement schedule. As a result of this conference and subsequent written questions submitted by proposers, changes in the RFP may be needed and amendments to the RFP can be issued.

Following receipt of proposals, and their detailed technical evaluations, the owner may begin discussions with either the top-ranked proposer or enter into simultaneous negotiations with two or more of the top-ranked proposers. This option of simultaneous negotiation should be specifically described in the RFP document. These discussions may cover any items contained within the proposals, as long as the information derived by one proposal is not disclosed to other competing proposers. Following these discussions, each proposer is offered the opportunity to revise its proposal and submit a “best and final offer” to the community. After evaluation of these final offers, an award is made based on best value.

S o l e - S o u r c e N e g o t i a t i o n

A sole-source, negotiated procurement involves no competition, and is usually restricted to cases where the time factor for procurement is critical or where there is only one source of supply for the desired facility. Under sole source procurement, a vendor either submits an unsolicited proposal or one in response to an RFP. Upon receipt of this proposal the owner evaluates the proposal and negotiates the terms and conditions of the award of the project. Sole-source procurement is often open to criticism on the basis of favoritism and high cost due to the absence of market competition.


2 9 - 1 9 3

P R O C U R E M E N T P L A N F O R T H E T R A N S F E R S T A T I O N / M A T E R I A L R E C O V E R Y F A C I L I T Y

The City has identified potential locations to site the facility in the Front Street corridor. Each of the locations needs to be evaluated, including a cost analysis for each. The one selected should be the most advantageous location from both technical and cost standpoints.

A recommended implementation plan for the transfer station/material recovery facility is outlined below using the A/E approach. First the City should select a qualified architect/engineer to perform the following tasks:

1) Design the facility;

2) Conduct detailed site investigations and prepare construction plans for site development and utility connections.

3) Prepare procurement documents for the solicitation of a contractor/equipment supplier. The procurement documents should include:

a. Site Survey

b. Site development and utility connection plans

c. Contract requirements

d. Equipment performance standards

e. Materials standards

f. Total project performance standards

g. Schedule for design and construction deliverables

h. Requirements for an operation and maintenance manual

i. Start-up and training requirements

j. Proposal evaluation criteria

k. Base security and work requirements

4) Evaluate the proposals submitted and provide a recommendation for a contractor;

5) Assist the City in contract negotiations with the selected contractor;

6) Provide construction administration services to verify the contractor’s conformance to the contract requirements.


2 9 - 1 9 4

7) Provide technical assistance to the City in soliciting proposals from qualified contractor/suppliers, including being available to respond to questions during procurement process, providing advice to the City, etc.

8) Evaluate proposals received, participate in interviews (if conducted), provide advice to the City’s contracting officer and others, provide a recommendation for a contractor, and support the City in negotiations with the selected contractor.

9) Review the contractor’s project design and equipment/material submittals for conformance to the contract.

10) Provide oversight during construction/installation of the facility.

11) Assist in project start-up and testing.

12) Provide consulting support during the early stages of operation.


A P P E N D I X A

“ S t a t u s Q u o ” O p t i o n C i t y E x p e n d i t u r e s f o r S o l i d W a s t e M a n a g e m e n t

F i s c a l Y e a r s 2 0 0 9 t h r o u g h 2 0 2 7

Status Quo Option Long-Term Solid Waste Management Strategic Plan

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Residential Refuse Collection Salaries $972,035 $1,010,916 $1,051,353 $1,093,407 $1,137,143 $1,182,629 $1,229,934 $1,279,131 $1,330,296 $1,383,508 $1,438,849 $1,496,403 $1,556,259 $1,618,509 $2,346,838 $2,440,712 $2,538,340 $2,639,874 $2,745,469 Direct Costs Temporary Services $590,479 $614,098 $638,662 $664,208 $690,777 $718,408 $747,144 $777,030 $808,111 $1,171,761 $1,218,631 $1,267,376 $1,318,072 $1,370,794 $1,987,652 $2,067,158 $2,149,844 $2,235,838 $2,325,272 Equipment Maintenance and Fuel $825,000 $858,000 $892,320 $928,013 $965,133 $1,003,739 $1,043,888 $1,085,644 $1,129,069 $1,174,232 $1,221,202 $1,270,050 $1,320,852 $1,373,686 $1,991,844 $2,071,518 $2,154,379 $2,240,554 $2,330,176 Disposal Costs $869,892 $895,412 $903,318 $1,093,468 $1,103,237 $1,113,006 $1,122,776 $1,132,545 $1,256,546 $1,267,626 $1,278,484 $1,289,787 $1,301,019 $1,312,251 $1,203,442 $1,213,929 $1,224,416 $1,234,903 $1,245,390 Direct Costs $633,188 $658,516 $684,857 $712,251 $740,741 $770,371 $801,185 $833,233 $866,562 $901,225 $937,274 $974,764 $1,013,755 $1,054,305 $1,528,743 $1,589,892 $1,653,488 $1,719,627 $1,788,413 Capital Equipment $267,000 $267,000 $267,000 $267,000 $267,000 $267,000 $267,000 $267,000 $267,000 $267,000 $267,000 $267,000 $267,000 $267,000 $267,000 $267,000 $267,000 $267,000 $267,000 Contracted Collection (rear load) $4,897,950 $5,093,868 $5,297,622 $5,799,751 $6,031,742 $6,273,011 $6,523,932 $6,865,359 $7,139,973 $7,425,572 $7,722,595 $8,031,499 $8,352,759 $8,686,869 $11,506,627 $11,966,892 $12,445,568 $12,943,390 $13,461,126 Contracted Collection (carts) $82,035 $85,317 $88,729 $96,085 $99,928 $103,925 $108,082 $115,259 $119,870 $124,664 $129,651 $134,837 $140,230 $145,840 $193,179 $200,906 $208,943 $217,300 $225,992 Subtotal $8,165,544 $8,472,210 $8,772,508 $9,560,776 $9,898,558 $10,249,460 $10,614,007 $11,076,069 $11,587,131 $12,332,080 $12,774,836 $13,235,313 $13,713,686 $14,210,745 $18,678,487 $19,377,296 $20,103,637 $20,858,613 $21,643,368 Subtotal Annual Costs $9,137,579 $9,483,126 $9,823,860 $10,654,183 $11,035,701 $11,432,089 $11,843,941 $12,355,201 $12,917,428 $13,715,589 $14,213,685 $14,731,716 $15,269,945 $15,829,254 $21,025,325 $21,818,007 $22,641,977 $23,498,487 $24,388,837 Revenues Sale of Refuse Collection Stickers ($775,535) ($779,800) ($784,089) ($788,401) ($792,738) ($797,098) ($801,482) ($805,890) ($810,322) ($814,779) ($819,260) ($823,766) ($828,297) ($832,853) ($837,433) ($842,039) ($846,670) ($851,327) ($856,009) Net Annual Costs $8,362,044 $8,703,326 $9,039,771 $9,865,781 $10,242,963 $10,634,991 $11,042,459 $11,549,311 $12,107,105 $12,900,810 $13,394,424 $13,907,949 $14,441,648 $14,996,401 $20,187,892 $20,975,968 $21,795,307 $22,647,160 $23,532,828 Net Unit Costs $/house (month) $4.94 $5.12 $5.28 $5.74 $5.92 $6.12 $6.31 $6.57 $6.85 $7.26 $7.49 $7.74 $7.99 $8.25 $11.05 $11.42 $11.80 $12.19 $12.60 $/ton (annual) $68.02 $68.77 $70.81 $76.61 $78.83 $81.13 $83.51 $86.58 $89.99 $95.05 $97.85 $100.71 $103.67 $106.73 $142.43 $146.71 $151.14 $155.71 $160.44

Rebate Programs Home Association Rebate $68,253 $70,983 $73,823 $76,775 $79,846 $83,040 $88,554 $92,096 $95,780 $99,611 $103,596 $107,740 $112,049 $116,531 $154,357 $160,532 $166,953 $173,631 $180,576 Apartment Rebate $1,342,185 $1,355,607 $1,369,163 $1,382,855 $1,396,683 $1,410,650 $1,424,756 $1,439,004 $1,453,394 $1,467,928 $1,482,607 $1,497,433 $1,512,408 $1,527,532 $1,542,807 $1,558,235 $1,573,817 $1,589,556 $1,605,451 Subtotal Annual Costs $1,410,438 $1,426,590 $1,442,985 $1,459,630 $1,476,530 $1,493,690 $1,513,311 $1,531,100 $1,549,174 $1,567,539 $1,586,203 $1,605,173 $1,624,457 $1,644,063 $1,697,164 $1,718,767 $1,740,770 $1,763,187 $1,786,027 Net Annual Costs $1,410,438 $1,426,590 $1,442,985 $1,459,630 $1,476,530 $1,493,690 $1,513,311 $1,531,100 $1,549,174 $1,567,539 $1,586,203 $1,605,173 $1,624,457 $1,644,063 $1,697,164 $1,718,767 $1,740,770 $1,763,187 $1,786,027 Net Unit Costs $/house (month) $0.83 $0.84 $0.84 $0.85 $0.85 $0.86 $0.87 $0.87 $0.88 $0.88 $0.89 $0.89 $0.90 $0.90 $0.93 $0.94 $0.94 $0.95 $0.96 $/ton (annual) $62.46 $61.38 $61.54 $61.71 $61.87 $62.04 $62.31 $62.50 $62.69 $62.88 $63.09 $63.29 $63.49 $63.71 $65.19 $65.45 $65.72 $66.01 $66.30

Leaf and Brush Collection Salaries $168,168 $174,895 $181,891 $189,166 $196,733 $204,602 $212,786 $221,298 $230,150 $239,356 $248,930 $258,887 $269,242 $280,012 $291,213 $302,861 $314,976 $327,575 $340,678 Direct Costs Temporary Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Equipment Maintenance and Fuel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Disposal Costs $46,800 $48,672 $50,619 $56,693 $58,961 $61,319 $63,772 $71,425 $79,996 $83,196 $86,523 $89,984 $93,584 $97,327 $101,220 $105,269 $109,480 $113,859 $118,413 Direct Costs $88,400 $91,936 $95,613 $99,438 $103,415 $107,552 $111,854 $116,328 $120,982 $125,821 $130,854 $136,088 $141,531 $147,192 $153,080 $159,203 $165,572 $172,194 $179,082 Capital Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contracted Collection $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $135,200 $140,608 $146,232 $156,131 $162,376 $168,871 $175,626 $187,753 $200,977 $209,016 $217,377 $226,072 $235,115 $244,519 $254,300 $264,472 $275,051 $286,053 $297,495 Subtotal Annual Costs $303,368 $315,503 $328,123 $345,297 $359,109 $373,474 $388,412 $409,051 $431,127 $448,372 $466,307 $484,959 $504,357 $524,532 $545,513 $567,333 $590,027 $613,628 $638,173 Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Annual Costs $303,368 $315,503 $328,123 $345,297 $359,109 $373,474 $388,412 $409,051 $431,127 $448,372 $466,307 $484,959 $504,357 $524,532 $545,513 $567,333 $590,027 $613,628 $638,173 Net Unit Costs $/house (month) $0.18 $0.19 $0.19 $0.20 $0.21 $0.21 $0.22 $0.23 $0.24 $0.25 $0.26 $0.27 $0.28 $0.29 $0.30 $0.31 $0.32 $0.33 $0.34 $/ton (annual) $87.96 $83.89 $86.49 $90.23 $93.01 $95.88 $98.85 $103.21 $107.85 $111.18 $114.61 $118.16 $121.85 $125.65 $129.53 $133.54 $137.68 $141.97 $146.39

Leaf and Brush Drop-Off Salaries $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Direct Costs Temporary Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Equipment Maintenance and Fuel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Disposal Costs $1,742 $1,812 $1,884 $2,110 $2,195 $2,282 $2,374 $2,659 $2,765 $2,876 $2,991 $3,110 $3,235 $3,364 $3,499 $3,638 $3,784 $3,935 $4,093 Direct Costs $679,120 $706,285 $734,536 $763,918 $794,474 $826,253 $859,303 $893,676 $929,423 $966,600 $1,005,263 $1,045,474 $1,087,293 $1,130,785 $1,176,016 $1,223,057 $1,271,979 $1,322,858 $1,375,773 Capital Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $680,862 $708,096 $736,420 $766,028 $796,669 $828,536 $861,677 $896,334 $932,188 $969,475 $1,008,254 $1,048,584 $1,090,528 $1,134,149 $1,179,515 $1,226,695 $1,275,763 $1,326,794 $1,379,865 Subtotal Annual Costs $680,862 $708,096 $736,420 $766,028 $796,669 $828,536 $861,677 $896,334 $932,188 $969,475 $1,008,254 $1,048,584 $1,090,528 $1,134,149 $1,179,515 $1,226,695 $1,275,763 $1,326,794 $1,379,865 Revenues Leaf & Brush Drop-off Fees ($3,621) ($3,949) ($3,984) ($4,018) ($4,054) ($4,090) ($4,126) ($4,161) ($4,197) ($4,235) ($4,272) ($4,309) ($4,346) ($4,383) ($4,422) ($4,461) ($4,500) ($4,538) ($4,577) Net Annual Costs $677,241 $704,148 $732,437 $762,010 $792,615 $824,446 $857,552 $892,173 $927,990 $965,240 $1,003,982 $1,044,275 $1,086,181 $1,129,765 $1,175,093 $1,222,234 $1,271,263 $1,322,255 $1,375,288 Net Unit Costs $/house (month) $0.40 $0.41 $0.43 $0.44 $0.46 $0.47 $0.49 $0.51 $0.52 $0.54 $0.56 $0.58 $0.60 $0.62 $0.64 $0.67 $0.69 $0.71 $0.74 $/ton (annual) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Page 1 of 5


2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Bulky Item Collection Salaries $1,551,014 $1,613,055 $1,677,577 $1,744,680 $1,814,467 $1,887,046 $1,962,528 $2,041,029 $2,122,670 $3,077,872 $3,200,987 $3,329,026 $3,462,187 $3,600,675 $3,744,702 $3,894,490 $4,050,270 $4,212,280 $4,380,771 Direct Costs Temporary Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Equipment Maintenance and Fuel $529,890 $551,086 $573,129 $596,055 $619,897 $644,693 $670,480 $697,300 $725,192 $754,199 $784,367 $815,742 $848,372 $882,306 $1,279,344 $1,330,518 $1,383,739 $1,439,088 $1,496,652 Disposal Costs $769,499 $792,074 $799,067 $886,666 $894,588 $902,509 $910,431 $918,353 $982,413 $991,075 $999,564 $1,008,401 $1,017,183 $1,025,965 $975,842 $984,345 $992,849 $1,001,352 $1,009,856 Direct Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Capital Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $1,299,390 $1,343,160 $1,372,196 $1,482,721 $1,514,484 $1,547,202 $1,580,912 $1,615,653 $1,707,604 $1,745,275 $1,783,932 $1,824,143 $1,865,555 $1,908,271 $2,255,186 $2,314,863 $2,376,588 $2,440,441 $2,506,508 Subtotal Annual Costs $2,850,404 $2,956,215 $3,049,773 $3,227,401 $3,328,952 $3,434,248 $3,543,440 $3,656,682 $3,830,274 $4,823,147 $4,984,918 $5,153,170 $5,327,742 $5,508,946 $5,999,888 $6,209,353 $6,426,857 $6,652,721 $6,887,279 Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Annual Costs $2,850,404 $2,956,215 $3,049,773 $3,227,401 $3,328,952 $3,434,248 $3,543,440 $3,656,682 $3,830,274 $4,823,147 $4,984,918 $5,153,170 $5,327,742 $5,508,946 $5,999,888 $6,209,353 $6,426,857 $6,652,721 $6,887,279 Net Unit Costs $/house (month) $1.68 $1.74 $1.78 $1.88 $1.92 $1.97 $2.03 $2.08 $2.17 $2.71 $2.79 $2.87 $2.95 $3.03 $3.28 $3.38 $3.48 $3.58 $3.69 $/ton (annual) $111.13 $111.97 $114.50 $120.12 $122.80 $125.57 $128.44 $131.40 $136.46 $170.33 $174.55 $178.86 $183.32 $187.93 $202.90 $208.17 $213.61 $219.24 $225.06

Neighborhood Cleanup Salaries $77,564 $80,667 $83,893 $87,249 $90,739 $94,369 $98,144 $102,069 $106,152 $110,398 $114,814 $119,407 $124,183 $129,150 $187,268 $194,758 $202,549 $210,651 $219,077 Direct Costs Temporary Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Equipment Maintenance and Fuel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Disposal Costs $12,480 $12,979 $13,498 $14,850 $15,444 $16,062 $16,704 $17,372 $19,457 $20,235 $21,045 $21,887 $22,762 $23,673 $24,619 $25,604 $26,628 $27,694 $28,801 Direct Costs $126,880 $131,955 $137,233 $142,723 $148,432 $154,369 $160,544 $166,965 $173,644 $180,590 $187,813 $195,326 $203,139 $211,265 $306,334 $318,587 $331,330 $344,584 $358,367 Capital Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $139,360 $144,934 $150,732 $157,573 $163,876 $170,431 $177,248 $184,338 $193,101 $200,825 $208,858 $217,213 $225,901 $234,937 $330,953 $344,191 $357,959 $372,277 $387,168 Subtotal Annual Costs $216,924 $225,601 $234,625 $244,822 $254,615 $264,799 $275,391 $286,407 $299,253 $311,223 $323,672 $336,619 $350,084 $364,087 $518,221 $538,950 $560,508 $582,928 $606,245 Revenues Neighborhood Dumpsters ($17,354) ($18,048) ($18,770) ($19,586) ($20,369) ($21,184) ($22,031) ($22,913) ($23,940) ($24,898) ($25,894) ($26,930) ($28,007) ($29,127) ($41,458) ($43,116) ($44,841) ($46,634) ($48,500) Net Annual Costs $199,570 $207,553 $215,855 $225,236 $234,246 $243,615 $253,360 $263,495 $275,313 $286,325 $297,778 $309,690 $322,077 $334,960 $476,763 $495,834 $515,667 $536,294 $557,745 Net Unit Costs $/house (month) $0.12 $0.12 $0.13 $0.13 $0.14 $0.14 $0.14 $0.15 $0.16 $0.16 $0.17 $0.17 $0.18 $0.18 $0.26 $0.27 $0.28 $0.29 $0.30 $/ton (annual) $607.67 $607.67 $607.67 $576.36 $576.36 $576.36 $576.36 $576.36 $537.69 $537.69 $537.69 $537.69 $537.69 $537.69 $735.88 $735.88 $735.88 $735.88 $735.88

Freon Appliance Salaries $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Direct Costs Temporary Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Equipment Maintenance and Fuel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Disposal Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Direct Costs $50,960 $52,998 $55,118 $57,323 $59,616 $62,001 $64,481 $67,060 $69,742 $72,532 $75,433 $78,451 $81,589 $84,852 $88,246 $91,776 $95,447 $99,265 $103,236 Capital Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $50,960 $52,998 $55,118 $57,323 $59,616 $62,001 $64,481 $67,060 $69,742 $72,532 $75,433 $78,451 $81,589 $84,852 $88,246 $91,776 $95,447 $99,265 $103,236 Subtotal Annual Costs $50,960 $52,998 $55,118 $57,323 $59,616 $62,001 $64,481 $67,060 $69,742 $72,532 $75,433 $78,451 $81,589 $84,852 $88,246 $91,776 $95,447 $99,265 $103,236 Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Annual Costs $50,960 $52,998 $55,118 $57,323 $59,616 $62,001 $64,481 $67,060 $69,742 $72,532 $75,433 $78,451 $81,589 $84,852 $88,246 $91,776 $95,447 $99,265 $103,236 Net Unit Costs $/house (month) $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.06 $/ton (annual) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Page 2 of 5


2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Public Facility Collection Salaries $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Direct Costs Temporary Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Equipment Maintenance and Fuel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Disposal Costs $8,100 $8,424 $8,761 $9,636 $9,636 $9,636 $9,636 $9,636 $9,636 $10,021 $10,422 $10,839 $11,273 $11,724 $12,193 $12,680 $13,188 $13,715 $14,264 Direct Costs $92,560 $96,262 $100,113 $104,117 $108,282 $112,613 $117,118 $121,803 $126,675 $183,678 $191,026 $198,667 $206,613 $214,878 $223,473 $232,412 $241,708 $251,377 $261,432 Capital Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $100,660 $104,686 $108,874 $113,753 $117,918 $122,249 $126,754 $131,439 $136,311 $193,700 $201,448 $209,506 $217,886 $226,601 $235,665 $245,092 $254,896 $265,092 $275,695 Subtotal Annual Costs $100,660 $104,686 $108,874 $113,753 $117,918 $122,249 $126,754 $131,439 $136,311 $193,700 $201,448 $209,506 $217,886 $226,601 $235,665 $245,092 $254,896 $265,092 $275,695 Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Annual Costs $100,660 $104,686 $108,874 $113,753 $117,918 $122,249 $126,754 $131,439 $136,311 $193,700 $201,448 $209,506 $217,886 $226,601 $235,665 $245,092 $254,896 $265,092 $275,695 Net Unit Costs $/house (month) $0.06 $0.06 $0.06 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.07 $0.08 $0.11 $0.11 $0.12 $0.12 $0.12 $0.13 $0.13 $0.14 $0.14 $0.15 $/ton (annual) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

KC Recycles Salaries $106,808 $111,080 $115,524 $120,144 $124,950 $129,948 $135,146 $140,552 $146,174 $152,021 $158,102 $164,426 $171,003 $177,843 $184,957 $192,355 $200,049 $208,051 $216,373 Direct Costs Temporary Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Equipment Maintenance and Fuel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Disposal Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Direct Costs $159,361 $165,736 $172,365 $179,260 $186,430 $193,887 $201,643 $209,709 $218,097 $226,821 $235,894 $245,329 $255,143 $265,348 $275,962 $287,001 $298,481 $310,420 $322,837 Capital Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contracted Collection $3,858,912 $4,013,268 $4,173,799 $4,340,751 $4,514,381 $4,694,956 $4,882,754 $5,078,065 $5,281,187 $5,492,435 $5,712,132 $5,940,617 $6,178,242 $6,425,372 $6,682,386 $6,949,682 $7,227,669 $7,516,776 $7,817,447 Subtotal $4,018,273 $4,179,004 $4,346,164 $4,520,011 $4,700,811 $4,888,843 $5,084,397 $5,287,773 $5,499,284 $5,719,255 $5,948,026 $6,185,947 $6,433,384 $6,690,720 $6,958,349 $7,236,683 $7,526,150 $7,827,196 $8,140,284 Subtotal Annual Costs $4,125,081 $4,290,084 $4,461,688 $4,640,155 $4,825,761 $5,018,792 $5,219,543 $5,428,325 $5,645,458 $5,871,276 $6,106,128 $6,350,373 $6,604,388 $6,868,563 $7,143,306 $7,429,038 $7,726,199 $8,035,247 $8,356,657 Revenues Sale of Recyclables ($89,804) ($97,926) ($98,785) ($99,644) ($100,532) ($101,420) ($102,308) ($103,196) ($104,084) ($105,010) ($105,936) ($106,862) ($107,778) ($108,695) ($109,657) ($110,620) ($111,582) ($112,544) ($113,507) Sale of Recycling Bins ($7,713) ($7,755) ($7,798) ($7,841) ($7,884) ($7,927) ($7,971) ($8,015) ($8,059) ($8,103) ($8,148) ($8,193) ($8,238) ($8,283) ($8,329) ($8,374) ($8,420) ($8,467) ($8,513) Net Annual Costs $4,027,564 $4,184,403 $4,355,105 $4,532,670 $4,717,345 $4,909,444 $5,109,265 $5,317,115 $5,533,316 $5,758,164 $5,992,044 $6,235,318 $6,488,372 $6,751,585 $7,025,320 $7,310,044 $7,606,197 $7,914,236 $8,234,637 Net Unit Costs $/house (month) $2.38 $2.46 $2.55 $2.64 $2.73 $2.82 $2.92 $3.02 $3.13 $3.24 $3.35 $3.47 $3.59 $3.72 $3.85 $3.98 $4.12 $4.26 $4.41 $/ton (annual) $164.68 $156.91 $161.89 $167.03 $172.30 $177.75 $183.38 $189.20 $195.21 $201.35 $207.70 $214.26 $221.06 $228.09 $235.25 $242.66 $250.31 $258.22 $266.39

Recycling Centers Salaries $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Direct Costs Temporary Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Equipment Maintenance and Fuel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Disposal Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Direct Costs $176,800 $183,872 $191,227 $198,876 $206,831 $215,104 $223,708 $232,657 $241,963 $251,642 $261,707 $272,175 $283,062 $294,385 $306,160 $318,407 $331,143 $344,389 $358,164 Capital Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $176,800 $183,872 $191,227 $198,876 $206,831 $215,104 $223,708 $232,657 $241,963 $251,642 $261,707 $272,175 $283,062 $294,385 $306,160 $318,407 $331,143 $344,389 $358,164 Subtotal Annual Costs $176,800 $183,872 $191,227 $198,876 $206,831 $215,104 $223,708 $232,657 $241,963 $251,642 $261,707 $272,175 $283,062 $294,385 $306,160 $318,407 $331,143 $344,389 $358,164 Revenues Tire Disposal Fee ($2,290) ($2,519) ($2,771) ($3,048) ($3,353) ($3,688) ($4,057) ($4,463) ($4,909) ($5,400) ($5,940) ($6,534) ($7,188) ($7,906) ($8,697) ($9,567) ($10,523) ($11,576) ($12,733) Net Annual Costs $174,510 $181,353 $188,456 $195,828 $203,478 $211,416 $219,651 $228,194 $237,054 $246,241 $255,767 $265,641 $275,875 $286,479 $297,463 $308,840 $320,620 $332,813 $345,431 Net Unit Costs $/house (month) $0.10 $0.11 $0.11 $0.11 $0.12 $0.12 $0.13 $0.13 $0.13 $0.14 $0.14 $0.15 $0.15 $0.16 $0.16 $0.17 $0.17 $0.18 $0.18 $/ton (annual) $50.60 $48.22 $49.67 $51.17 $52.70 $54.28 $55.90 $57.58 $59.30 $61.06 $62.86 $64.73 $66.65 $68.63 $70.63 $72.70 $74.82 $77.00 $79.24

Page 3 of 5


2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

Illegal Dumping Abatement Salaries $362,086 $376,570 $391,633 $407,298 $423,590 $440,533 $458,155 $476,481 $495,540 $515,362 $747,275 $777,166 $808,252 $840,582 $874,206 $909,174 $945,541 $983,363 $1,022,697 Direct Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Temporary Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Equipment Maintenance and Fuel $264,160 $274,726 $285,715 $297,144 $309,030 $321,391 $334,247 $347,617 $361,521 $375,982 $545,174 $566,981 $589,660 $613,247 $637,776 $663,287 $689,819 $717,412 $746,108 Disposal Costs $81,226 $83,608 $84,347 $93,593 $94,429 $95,266 $96,102 $96,938 $103,700 $104,614 $105,510 $106,443 $107,370 $108,297 $103,006 $103,904 $104,802 $105,699 $106,597 Direct Costs $16,640 $17,306 $17,998 $18,718 $19,466 $20,245 $21,055 $21,897 $22,773 $23,684 $34,342 $35,715 $37,144 $38,630 $40,175 $41,782 $43,453 $45,191 $46,999 Capital Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $362,026 $375,640 $388,060 $409,455 $422,926 $436,902 $451,403 $466,452 $487,994 $504,280 $685,026 $709,140 $734,174 $760,173 $780,958 $808,973 $838,074 $868,302 $899,704 Subtotal Annual Costs $724,112 $752,210 $779,693 $816,753 $846,516 $877,435 $909,558 $942,933 $983,534 $1,019,642 $1,432,301 $1,486,305 $1,542,427 $1,600,756 $1,655,163 $1,718,147 $1,783,615 $1,851,665 $1,922,401 Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Annual Costs $724,112 $752,210 $779,693 $816,753 $846,516 $877,435 $909,558 $942,933 $983,534 $1,019,642 $1,432,301 $1,486,305 $1,542,427 $1,600,756 $1,655,163 $1,718,147 $1,783,615 $1,851,665 $1,922,401 Net Unit Costs $/house (month) $0.43 $0.44 $0.46 $0.47 $0.49 $0.50 $0.52 $0.54 $0.56 $0.57 $0.80 $0.83 $0.85 $0.88 $0.91 $0.94 $0.97 $1.00 $1.03 $/ton (annual) $267.44 $269.90 $277.32 $287.98 $295.83 $303.94 $312.33 $321.00 $331.95 $341.13 $475.12 $488.72 $502.79 $517.34 $530.26 $545.69 $561.63 $578.10 $595.13

Dead Animal Removal Salaries $59,484 $61,863 $64,338 $66,911 $69,588 $72,371 $75,266 $78,277 $81,408 $84,664 $88,051 $91,573 $95,236 $99,045 $103,007 $107,127 $111,412 $115,869 $120,503 Direct Costs Temporary Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Equipment Maintenance and Fuel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Disposal Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Direct Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Capital Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Annual Costs $59,484 $61,863 $64,338 $66,911 $69,588 $72,371 $75,266 $78,277 $81,408 $84,664 $88,051 $91,573 $95,236 $99,045 $103,007 $107,127 $111,412 $115,869 $120,503 Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Annual Costs $59,484 $61,863 $64,338 $66,911 $69,588 $72,371 $75,266 $78,277 $81,408 $84,664 $88,051 $91,573 $95,236 $99,045 $103,007 $107,127 $111,412 $115,869 $120,503 Net Unit Costs $/house (month) $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.04 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.05 $0.06 $0.06 $0.06 $0.06 $0.06 $/ton (annual) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Administration

Salaries $478,763 $497,914 $517,830 $538,544 $560,085 $582,489 $605,788 $630,020 $655,221 $681,429 $708,687 $737,034 $766,515 $797,176 $829,063 $862,226 $896,715 $932,583 $969,887 Code Enforcement (2005 only) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Direct Costs Temporary Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Equipment Maintenance and Fuel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Disposal Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Direct Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Capital Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Annual Costs $478,763 $497,914 $517,830 $538,544 $560,085 $582,489 $605,788 $630,020 $655,221 $681,429 $708,687 $737,034 $766,515 $797,176 $829,063 $862,226 $896,715 $932,583 $969,887 Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Net Annual Costs $478,763 $497,914 $517,830 $538,544 $560,085 $582,489 $605,788 $630,020 $655,221 $681,429 $708,687 $737,034 $766,515 $797,176 $829,063 $862,226 $896,715 $932,583 $969,887 Net Unit Costs $/house (month) $0.28 $0.29 $0.30 $0.31 $0.32 $0.33 $0.35 $0.36 $0.37 $0.38 $0.40 $0.41 $0.42 $0.44 $0.45 $0.47 $0.49 $0.50 $0.52 $/ton (annual) $2.67 $2.67 $2.76 $2.84 $2.93 $3.02 $3.11 $3.21 $3.31 $3.41 $3.52 $3.63 $3.74 $3.86 $3.98 $4.10 $4.23 $4.36 $4.49

Subtotal Annual Costs for all Programs $19,419,118 $20,148,763 $20,878,358 $22,207,137 $23,008,960 $23,841,870 $24,709,297 $25,696,847 $26,817,569 $29,047,806 $30,487,343 $31,609,043 $32,774,361 $33,985,162 $40,316,241 $41,832,741 $43,408,792 $45,046,766 $46,749,131

Revenues Sponsor Contributions ($6,000) ($6,000) ($6,000) ($6,000) ($6,000) ($6,000) ($6,000) ($6,000) ($6,000) ($6,000) ($6,000) ($6,000) ($6,000) ($6,000) ($6,000) ($6,000) ($6,000) ($6,000) ($6,000)Net Annual Costs for all Programs $19,413,118 $20,142,763 $20,872,358 $22,201,137 $23,002,960 $23,835,870 $24,703,297 $25,690,847 $26,811,569 $29,041,806 $30,481,343 $31,603,043 $32,768,361 $33,979,162 $40,310,241 $41,826,741 $43,402,792 $45,040,766 $46,743,131

Page 4 of 5


2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027Housecount 141,006 141,782 142,562 143,346 144,134 144,927 145,724 146,525 147,331 148,142 148,956 149,776 150,599 151,428 152,261 153,098 153,940 154,787 155,638Unit CostsCost per ton (all waste) City collected tonnage 34,796 35,816 36,133 36,449 36,775 37,100 37,426 37,752 38,077 38,413 38,742 39,084 39,425 39,765 40,115 40,464 40,814 41,163 41,513 Contractor collected tonnage 65,568 67,491 68,087 68,683 69,297 69,910 70,524 71,137 71,751 72,384 73,004 73,649 74,291 74,932 75,591 76,249 76,908 77,567 78,225 Homeowners 7,753 7,981 8,051 8,122 8,194 8,267 8,339 8,412 8,485 8,559 8,633 8,709 8,785 8,861 8,939 9,017 9,094 9,172 9,250 Apartment 14,827 15,262 15,397 15,532 15,670 15,809 15,948 16,087 16,225 16,368 16,509 16,655 16,800 16,945 17,094 17,243 17,392 17,541 17,689 Subtotal Residential 122,944 126,551 127,668 128,785 129,936 131,086 132,237 133,388 134,538 135,725 136,887 138,097 139,300 140,503 141,738 142,973 144,208 145,443 146,678 Bulky 25,650 26,402 26,636 26,869 27,109 27,349 27,589 27,829 28,069 28,316 28,559 28,811 29,062 29,313 29,571 29,829 30,086 30,344 30,602 Illegal Dumping 2,708 2,787 2,812 2,836 2,861 2,887 2,912 2,938 2,963 2,989 3,015 3,041 3,068 3,094 3,121 3,149 3,176 3,203 3,230 Total Tons 151,301 155,740 157,115 158,490 159,906 161,322 162,738 164,154 165,570 167,030 168,461 169,950 171,430 172,910 174,430 175,950 177,470 178,990 180,510 $/ton (annual) $90.01 $90.76 $93.14 $99.18 $101.77 $104.44 $107.19 $110.55 $114.59 $125.14 $130.76 $134.30 $137.97 $141.75 $174.59 $179.54 $184.66 $189.95 $195.41 $/house (annual) $96.58 $99.69 $102.65 $109.66 $112.90 $116.25 $119.71 $123.86 $128.78 $141.09 $147.88 $152.39 $157.05 $161.86 $200.02 $206.34 $212.88 $219.65 $226.64 $/house (month) $8.05 $8.31 $8.55 $9.14 $9.41 $9.69 $9.98 $10.32 $10.73 $11.76 $12.32 $12.70 $13.09 $13.49 $16.67 $17.20 $17.74 $18.30 $18.89

Cost per ton (recyclables/yard waste)Tons Recyclables and Leaf/Brush 31,354 34,190 34,490 34,790 35,100 35,410 35,720 36,030 36,340 36,663 36,987 37,310 37,630 37,950 38,286 38,622 38,958 39,294 39,630 $/ton (annual) $165.29 $157.51 $162.49 $167.74 $173.01 $178.45 $184.07 $190.02 $196.19 $202.33 $208.67 $215.23 $222.02 $229.05 $236.21 $243.60 $251.25 $259.15 $267.31 $/house (annual) $36.75 $37.98 $39.31 $40.71 $42.13 $43.60 $45.12 $46.73 $48.39 $50.07 $51.81 $53.61 $55.48 $57.40 $59.39 $61.45 $63.58 $65.79 $68.07 $/house (month) $3.06 $3.17 $3.28 $3.39 $3.51 $3.63 $3.76 $3.89 $4.03 $4.17 $4.32 $4.47 $4.62 $4.78 $4.95 $5.12 $5.30 $5.48 $5.67

Recyclables (only) Tons collected curbside 24,456 26,668 26,902 27,136 27,378 27,620 27,862 28,103 28,345 28,597 28,850 29,102 29,351 29,601 29,863 30,125 30,387 30,649 30,911 Tons collected dropoff 3,449 3,761 3,794 3,827 3,861 3,895 3,929 3,963 3,997 4,033 4,069 4,104 4,139 4,175 4,211 4,248 4,285 4,322 4,359 $/ton (annual) $150.58 $143.47 $148.02 $152.71 $157.52 $162.49 $167.62 $172.93 $178.41 $184.01 $189.80 $195.78 $201.97 $208.38 $214.90 $221.65 $228.62 $235.82 $243.26 $/house (annual) $29.80 $30.79 $31.87 $32.99 $34.14 $35.33 $36.57 $37.85 $39.17 $40.53 $41.94 $43.40 $44.92 $46.48 $48.09 $49.76 $51.49 $53.28 $55.13 $/house (month) $2.48 $2.57 $2.66 $2.75 $2.85 $2.94 $3.05 $3.15 $3.26 $3.38 $3.50 $3.62 $3.74 $3.87 $4.01 $4.15 $4.29 $4.44 $4.59

Leaf/Brush (only) Tons collected 3,449 3,761 3,794 3,827 3,861 3,895 3,929 3,963 3,997 4,033 4,069 4,104 4,139 4,175 4,211 4,248 4,285 4,322 4,359 $/ton (annual) $284.32 $271.12 $279.54 $289.35 $298.30 $307.55 $317.10 $328.32 $340.00 $350.51 $361.38 $372.61 $384.25 $396.29 $408.55 $421.23 $434.33 $447.88 $461.88 $/house (annual) $6.95 $7.19 $7.44 $7.72 $7.99 $8.27 $8.55 $8.88 $9.22 $9.54 $9.87 $10.21 $10.56 $10.92 $11.30 $11.69 $12.09 $12.51 $12.94 $/house (month) $0.58 $0.60 $0.62 $0.64 $0.67 $0.69 $0.71 $0.74 $0.77 $0.80 $0.82 $0.85 $0.88 $0.91 $0.94 $0.97 $1.01 $1.04 $1.08

All Programs Tons managed 179,207 186,169 187,811 189,453 191,145 192,837 194,529 196,221 197,913 199,660 201,379 203,156 204,921 206,686 208,505 210,324 212,143 213,962 215,781 $/ton (annual) $108.33 $108.20 $111.13 $117.19 $120.34 $123.61 $126.99 $130.93 $135.47 $145.46 $151.36 $155.56 $159.91 $164.40 $193.33 $198.87 $204.59 $210.51 $216.62 $/house (annual) $137.68 $142.07 $146.41 $154.88 $159.59 $164.47 $169.52 $175.33 $181.98 $196.04 $204.63 $211.00 $217.59 $224.39 $264.75 $273.20 $281.95 $290.99 $300.33 $/house (month) $11.47 $11.84 $12.20 $12.91 $13.30 $13.71 $14.13 $14.61 $15.17 $16.34 $17.05 $17.58 $18.13 $18.70 $22.06 $22.77 $23.50 $24.25 $25.03

Page 5 of 5


A P P E N D I X B

K a n s a s C i t y E n v i r o n m e n t a l l y P r e f e r a b l e P r o c u r e m e n t P o l i c y


DIVISION 10. RECYCLED AND ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE PRODUCTS Sec. 2-1871. Environmentally preferable procurement policy. (a) Purpose. This section shall be known as the "Kansas City environmentally preferable procurement policy." Its purpose is to support markets for recycled and other environmentally preferable products by affirmatively encouraging city departments, offices, agencies and contractors to buy and use such products whenever practicable and to encourage vendors to make such products available in the marketplace. It is the city's long term objective to integrate environmentally preferable policies into all city purchases. Decisions relating to the implementation of this policy shall initially be made by the specifying department with the understanding that the purchase of recycled and environmentally preferable products is an affirmative policy of the city. (b) Definitions. The following terms shall have the assigned definitions for all purposes under this policy: (1) Compost products means mulch, soil amendments, ground cover, or other landscaping material derived from the biological or mechanical conversion of cellulose-containing waste materials. (2) Environmentally preferable products means products that have a lesser or reduced effect on human health and the environment when compared with competing products that serve the same purpose. This comparison may consider raw materials acquisition, production, manufacturing, packaging, distribution, reuse, operation, maintenance, and disposal of the product. (3) Post-consumer recycled material means only those products generated by a business or consumer which have served their intended end uses, and which have been separated or diverted from the solid waste stream for the purposes of collection, recycling and disposition. (4) Practicable means sufficient in performance and available at a reasonable price. (5) Price preference means a percentage by which offered prices for recycled or environmentally preferable products are temporarily reduced solely for purposes of bid evaluation and comparison. (6) Recyclable product means a product which, after its intended end use, can demonstrably be diverted from the city solid waste stream for use as a raw material in the manufacture of another product. (7) Recycled material means material and byproducts that have been recovered or diverted from solid waste and that can be utilized in place of raw or virgin material in manufacturing a product. It is derived from post-consumer recycled material, manufacturing waste, industrial scrap, agricultural waste, and other waste material, but does not include material or byproducts generated from, and commonly reused within, an original manufacturing process. (8) Recycled product means a product containing recycled material. (9) Life cycle costing means the identification and inclusion of all direct and indirect costs associated with a particular product or material. This includes the initial cost of purchase, anticipated maintenance and repair and the direct and indirect disposal costs associated with disposal or removal of the product at the end of its useful life. Wherever practicable, a full cost accounting methodology shall be applied in life cycle costing.


(10) Full cost accounting means the identification and inclusion of all direct and indirect costs associated with providing a particular service or program. (11) Contractor means any person, group or group of persons, consultant, association, partnership, corporation or other business entity that has a contract with the city (including suppliers) or serves in a subcontracting capacity with an entity having a contract with the city for the provision of goods or services. (c) Policies. (1) The mayor, city manager and city council shall strongly support and aggressively implement the Kansas City environmentally preferable procurement policy. (2) All department, offices and agencies shall, whenever cost effective and to the extent reasonably practicable, use and require their contractors and consultants to use, environmentally preferable products with the maximum amount of recovered materials. (3) The commissioner of purchases and the environmental management department with the guidance of the coordinating committee on environmentally preferable procurement shall maintain minimum content standards for the purchase of certain designated products, such as a minimum post-consumer recycled content or specific limitations on hazardous materials. (4) The commissioner of purchases shall establish a price preference of up to 15 percent for recycled and other environmentally preferable products. This price preference shall be established in advance of any bid and may be modified from time to time in the discretion of the commissioner of purchases with the objective of maximizing the city's purchase of environmentally preferable products to the extent practicable. Varying price preferences may be established for different products and for the same product from time to time, subject to the maximum 15 percent limitation. (5) All departments, offices and agencies shall make every reasonable effort to ensure that their contractors use recycled paper in printed materials, and that it bears the imprint identifying the recycled content whenever practicable, and that such contractors use both sides of paper sheets whenever practicable. (6) Departments, offices and agencies may specify recycled content or other environmentally preferable standards higher than the minimum standards established by this policy. (d) Coordinating committee on environmentally preferable procurement. There is hereby created a coordinating committee on environmentally preferable procurement, to serve without compensation. It shall be the duty of the coordinating committee on environmentally preferable procurement to meet not fewer than ten times each year for the purpose of developing environmentally preferable procurement practices, coordinating the implementation of this environmentally preferable procurement policy and recommending to the city council, the commissioner of purchases, and the environmental management director the ways and means of improving environmentally preferable procurement by the city, its departments, offices, agencies and contractors. The committee shall consist of: one member of the city council; one member of an environmental organization with offices in the city; one representative of a city business committed to environmentally preferable purchasing practices; and the directors of four city departments with significant purchasing responsibilities, or their designated representatives; all of whom shall be appointed by, and serve at the pleasure of, the mayor. In addition the following shall also serve on the committee:


(1) The city manager or a designated assistant who shall serve as chairperson; (2) The commissioner of purchases or a designated representative; (3) The director of environmental management or a designated representative; (4) One member of the environmental management commission designated by that commission; (5) The Jackson County purchaser or a designated representative. The director of environmental management shall be the secretary and shall provide administrative support for the committee. (e) Responsibilities of environmental management department. The environmental management department shall: (1) Serve as a resource to the commission of purchases and the coordinating committee to provide environmental expertise and to assist the purchasing division in the exercise of its responsibilities under this policy. (2) Serve on such committees and task forces as may reasonable be requested by the commission of purchases or otherwise required to aid in the implementation of this policy. (3) Provide a resource to the commission of purchases and city departments, offices and agencies to develop and maintain information about environmentally preferable products and recycled products and to encourage the implementation of this policy throughout city departments. (4) Develop and maintain information about environmentally preferable products and recycled products containing the maximum practicable amount of recycled materials available for purchase by departments, offices and agencies whenever possible. Initially, these shall include the products designated in paragraph (h) of this section. (5) Assist the commissioner of purchases, as requested, in gathering information necessary for the submission of an annual report to the city council as provided in section (f)(5) hereof. (6) Publicize the progress of policy implementation. (f) Responsibilities of commissioner of purchases. The commissioner of purchases shall: (1) Develop and maintain information about environmentally preferable products and recycled products containing the maximum practicable amount of recycled materials, available for purchase by departments, offices and agencies whenever possible. Initially, these shall include the products designated in paragraph (g) of this section. The commissioner of purchases may modify this list as the commissioner determines to be appropriate. (2) Inform departments, offices and agencies to review policy requirements and new procurement opportunities, and to monitor the status of policy implementation product research results. (3) Disseminate information on recycled and environmentally preferable product procurement opportunities, specifications, and performance to departments, offices and agencies. (4) Communicate with departments, offices and agencies to review policy requirements and new procurement opportunities, and to monitor the status of policy implementation product research results. (5) Submit an annual report to the city council reflecting the implementation status of the procurement program, including:


(i) A compilation of procurement data collected from all departments and other parties charged with implementation responsibility under this policy, (ii) An account of the current status of product evaluations conducted by departments, (iii) An assessment of procurement program effectiveness, an evaluation of program goals, and projections of future procurement opportunities, and (iv) Recommendations for changes in procurement policy. (6) Provide a readily accessible opportunity for other city departments, offices and agencies to provide input, feedback and recommendations for changes to the city environmentally preferable procurement policy and its implementation. (7) Require that vendors utilized by the purchasing division maintain and report to the city the quantity and quality of recycled and environmentally preferable products purchased through the purchasing division during each fiscal year. (g) Responsibility of all other city departments, offices and agencies. Each city department, office and agency shall: (1) Survey existing service and product specifications to determine whether existing requirements require the use of products manufactured from virgin materials or in any manner exclude recycled, refined, remanufactured, reusable or renewable products or materials and to report the results of such survey to the commissioner of purchases and environmental management director. (2) Evaluate each recycled or environmentally preferable product designated by the commissioner of purchases to determine the extent to which the product may be practicably used by the department, office or agency and its contractors. (3) Purchase recycled products with the maximum amount of recycled materials practicable. (4) Ensure that contracts issued by the department, office or agency require recycled and environmentally preferable products wherever practicable. (5) Ensure that contracts issued by the department, office or agency for recycled products require the maximum practicable amount of recycled material and that contractors provide certification of this content and report amounts used. (6) Ensure that all printing by city departments, offices or agencies use recycled paper and bear the chasing arrow logo or other imprint identifying it as such, wherever practicable. (7) Whenever recycled content products are used, reasonable efforts shall be undertaken to label the products to indicate that they contain recycled material. (8) Use both sides of paper sheets whenever practicable in printing and copying. (9) Ensure that requests for bids and proposals issued by the city require that, whenever practicable, contractors use recycled paper and both sides of paper sheets. (10) As requested by the commissioner of purchases, report the progress of policy implementation by the department to the commissioner of purchases, including the status of product evaluations conducted by the department and types of environmentally preferable products purchased by the department and its contractors; and specifically address problems, satisfactions and recommendations. (11) Report total purchases of environmentally preferable, recycled, and nonrecycled products by the department and its contractors annually to the commissioner of purchases.


(12) Reporting requirements under this policy shall be addressed by the department, office or agency ordering or requesting the product and not the department, office or agency to whom it is shipped or which uses the product to produce an item requested by another department, office or agency. (h) Environmentally preferable products. The commissioner of purchases shall periodically designate certain products or product lines as targets for environmentally preferable city purchases. The environmental management director, the coordinating committee and all city departments shall cooperate with the commissioner of purchases to examine purchases within those targeted lines and explore alternative environmentally preferable products to the fullest extent reasonably practicable. The following product lines are initially designated as areas of focus for environmentally preferable purchases: (1) Paper and paper products. (2) Compost products. (3) Horticultural mulch made with recycled land clearing and other wood debris. (4) Construction aggregates made with recycled content concrete, glass or asphalt. (5) Cement and asphalt concrete containing glass cullet, recycled fiber or plastic, tire rubber, or fly ash. (6) Lubricating oil and hydraulic oil with re-refined oil content. (7) Antifreeze. (8) Recycled plastic products. (9) Remanufactured tires and products made from recycled tire rubber, including rubber mats and play field surfaces. (10) Insulation products. (11) Paint. (12) Remanufactured laser printer toner cartridges. (13) Alternative fuels and automotive products. (14) Cleaning products. (15) Other products as designated by the Commissioner of Purchases. (Admin. Code 1967, § A11.89; Ord. No. 900775, 2-7-91; Ord. No. 990168, § 1, 2-22-99)


A P P E N D I X C

S u m m a r y o f A n n u a l C o s t s f o r A l t e r n a t i v e P r o g r a m s


A P P E N D I X D

D i r e c t H a u l / T r a n s f e r S t a t i o n C o s t s


100,

000.

00$

10

0,00

0.00

$

77

10,0

00.0

0$

10,0

00.0

0$

55

50,0

00.0

0$

100,

000.

00$

7

75,

000.

00$

10,0

00.0

0$

55

12,0

00.0

0$

12,0

00.0

0$

1010

80,0

00.0

0$

40,0

00.0

0$

120,

000.

00$

80

,000

.00

$

0

010

1015

1540

30AV

ERAG

E YE

ARLY

MIL

EAG

E10

,000

AVER

AGE

YEAR

LY M

ILEA

GE

10,0

00

3.20

$

3.

20$

4.

04.

00.

80$

0.

80$

0.

10$

0.10

$

0.20

$

0.

20$

0.

10$

0.

12$

1.

20$

1.

22$

-

$

-$

1.

20$

1.

22$

SALV

AGE

VALU

E, $

CO

ST O

F D

EBT,

%B

OD

Y

SPAR

E EQ

UIP

MEN

T FO

R D

OW

N T

IME,

%

SALV

AGE

VALU

E, $

CO

ST O

F D

EBT,

%TR

UC

K A

ND

BO

DYAN

NU

AL

FIXE

D C

OST

S-M

ANU

AL

CAP

ITAL

INVE

STM

ENT,

$/U

NIT

ESTI

MAT

ED S

ERVI

CE

LIFE

, YEA

RS

TRU

CK

AVER

AGE

UN

LOAD

ING

TIM

E, M

IN

LIC

ENSE

S, P

ERSO

NAL

PR

OPE

RTY

TAX

, & IN

SUR

ANC

E

OVE

RH

EAD

VAR

IAB

LE C

OST

S PE

R M

ILE

AVER

AGE

PAYL

OAD

, TO

NS/

LOAD

AVER

AGE

SPEE

D O

F TR

UC

K, M

PH

VAR

IAB

LE C

OST

S PE

R M

ILE

FUEL

: ($/

mile

)O

IL, L

UB

E, S

ERVI

CE,

ETC

.TI

RES

: 20,

000

MI/S

ET

SALV

AGE

VALU

E, $

CO

ST O

F D

EBT,

%

TRU

CK

REP

AIR

SSU

BTO

TAL

LAB

OR

CO

ST IN

CLU

DIN

G S

UPE

RVI

SON

:2-

PER

SON

CR

EW3-

PER

SON

CR

EWO

VER

HEA

D, %

CAP

ITAL

INVE

STM

ENT,

$/U

NIT

ESTI

MAT

ED S

ERVI

CE

LIFE

, YEA

RS

ANN

UAL

FIX

ED C

OST

S-AU

TOM

ATED

TRU

CK

CAP

ITAL

INVE

STM

ENT,

$/U

NIT

ESTI

MAT

ED S

ERVI

CE

LIFE

, YEA

RS

CO

ST O

F D

EBT,

%TR

UC

K A

ND

BO

DY

LIC

ENSE

S, P

ERSO

NAL

PR

OPE

RTY

TAX

, & IN

SUR

ANC

ESP

ARE

EQU

IPM

ENT

FOR

DO

WN

TIM

E, %

BO

DY

CAP

ITAL

INVE

STM

ENT,

$/U

NIT

ESTI

MAT

ED S

ERVI

CE

LIFE

, YEA

RS

SALV

AGE

VALU

E, $

VAR

IAB

LE C

OST

S PE

R M

ILE

AVER

AGE

PAYL

OAD

, TO

NS/

LOAD

AVER

AGE

UN

LOAD

ING

TIM

E, M

INAV

ERAG

E SP

EED

OF

TRU

CK

, MPH

VAR

IAB

LE C

OST

S PE

R M

ILE

FUEL

: ($/

mile

)O

IL, L

UB

E, S

ERVI

CE,

ETC

.TI

RES

: 20,

000

MI/S

ETTR

UC

K R

EPAI

RS

SUB

TOTA

LO

VER

HEA

D

LAB

OR

CO

ST IN

CLU

DIN

G S

UPE

RVI

SON

:1-

PER

SON

CR

EW2-

PER

SON

CR

EWO

VER

HEA

D, %

FUEL

: ($/

gal d

iese

l)FU

EL: M

ileag

e (M

PG)

FUEL

: ($/

gal d

iese

l)FU

EL: M

ileag

e (M

PG)


ANN

UAL

FIX

ED C

OST

S2-

PER

SON

CR

EW3-

PER

SON

CR

EW1-

PER

SON

CR

EW2-

PER

SON

CR

EW

$14,

285

$14,

285

$11,

905

$11,

905

$5,9

52$5

,952

$11,

905

$11,

905

$12,

000

$12,

000

$12,

000

$12,

000

$32,

237

$32,

237

$35,

810

$35,

810

$3,2

24$3

,224

$3,5

81$3

,581

$80,

000

$120

,000

$40,

000

$80,

000

$115

,461

$155

,461

$79,

391

$119

,391

$0$0

$0$0

$115

,461

$155

,461

$79,

391

$119

,391

$12,

000

$12,

000

$12,

200

$12,

200

$127

,461

$167

,461

$91,

591

$131

,591

$70.

81$9

3.03

$50.

88$7

3.11

TRU

CK

BO

DY

CAP

ITAL

CO

STS:

LIC

ENSE

S, P

ERSO

NAL

PR

OPE

RTY

TAX

, AN

D IN

SUR

ANC

E

FIXE

D C

OST

per

hou

r (18

00 e

ffect

ive

hour

s pe

r yea

r)

OVE

RH

EAD

TOTA

L AN

NU

AL F

IXED

CO

ST

FIXE

D D

IREC

T-H

AUL

CO

STS

FOR

25Y

D3 P

ACK

ER

ANN

UAL

VAR

IAB

LE C

OST

TOTA

L C

OST

SUB

TOTA

L

SPAR

E EQ

UIP

MEN

T FO

R D

OW

NTI

ME

LAB

OR

CO

STS

(INC

LUD

ING

SU

PER

VISI

ON

)

SUB

TOTA

L

REA

R L

OAD

ING

MAN

UAL

SYS

TEM

AUTO

MAT

ED S

IDE

LOAD

ING

SYS

TEM


MIL

ES P

ER T

RIP

(ON

E W

AY)

10.0

020

.00

30.0

040

.00

50.0

0

15.0

030

.00

45.0

060

.00

75.0

0

5.31

8.85

12.3

915

.93

19.4

7

2.40

4.80

7.20

9.60

12.0

0

7.71

13.6

519

.59

25.5

331

.47

0.77

0.68

0.65

0.64

0.63

6.98

11.6

316

.28

20.9

325

.58

2.40

4.80

7.20

9.60

12.0

0

9.38

16.4

323

.48

30.5

337

.58

0.94

0.82

0.78

0.76

0.75

VAR

IAB

LE C

OST

, $/T

ON

TOTA

L C

OST

, $/T

ON

-MIL

E

THR

EE P

ERSO

N C

REW

FIXE

D C

OST

, $/T

ON

DIR

ECT-

HAU

L C

OST

SU

MM

ARY

FOR

A 2

5YD

3 REA

R-L

OAD

ING

PA

CK

ER

TOTA

L C

OST

, $/T

ON

TOTA

L C

OST

, $/T

ON

-MIL

E

VAR

IAB

LE C

OST

, $/T

ON

TOTA

L C

OST

, $/T

ON

ON

E-W

AY T

RAV

EL T

IME,

MIN

TWO

PER

SON

CR

EW

FIXE

D C

OST

, $/T

ON


TRAC

TOR

FUEL

: 4

MPG

0.24

$

CAP

ITAL

INVE

STM

ENT,

$/U

NIT

65,0

00.0

0$

OIL

, LU

BE,

SER

VIC

E, E

TC.

0.01

$

ESTI

MAT

ED S

ERVI

CE

LIFE

, YEA

RS

5TI

RES

: 20,

000

MIL

ES/

SET

0.30

$

SALV

AGE

VALU

E24

,000

.00

$

TR

ACTO

R R

EPA

IRS

0.16

$

CO

ST O

F D

EBT,

%9

SUB

TOTA

L0.

71$

TRAI

LER

OVE

RH

EAD

0.11

$

CAP

ITAL

INVE

STM

ENT,

$/U

NIT

40,0

00.0

0$

VAR

IAB

LE C

OST

S PE

R M

ILE,

$0.

82$

ESTI

MAT

ED S

ERVI

CE

LIFE

, YEA

RS

10

SALV

AGE

VALU

E5,

200.

00$

CO

ST O

F D

EBT,

%9

MIL

ES P

ER O

NE-

WAY

TR

IPR

ESU

LTIN

G T

RIP

S PE

R D

AY

LIC

ENSE

S, P

ERSO

NAL

PR

EOPE

RTY

TAX

, AN

D IN

SUR

ANC

E12

,000

.00

$

10

6

BAS

E AL

LOW

ANC

E FO

R S

PAR

E TR

ACTO

RS

$

5

,000

.00

204

ALLO

WAN

CE

PER

AD

DIT

ION

AL

TRIP

$

200

.00

303

ALLO

WAN

CE

FOR

SPA

RE

TRAI

LER

S $

2,0

00.0

0 40

2

LAB

OR

PER

UN

IT $

4

0,00

0.00

50

2

TRAI

LER

REP

AIR

S, P

ER T

RIP

PER

D

AY1,

200.

00$

OVE

RH

EAD

, %15

AVER

AGE

PAYL

OAD

, TO

NS/

LOAD

18

AVER

AGE

SPEE

D O

F TR

UC

K, M

PH40

AN

NU

AL

FIXE

D C

OST

S, $

TRAN

SFER

HAU

L C

OST

DA

TA VAR

IAB

LE C

OST

S PE

R M

ILE,

$

REP

RES

ENTA

TIVE

TR

AVEL

VAL

UES


MIL

ES P

ER T

RIP

-ON

E W

AY10

2030

4050

TRIP

S PE

R D

AY6

43

22

CAP

ITAL

CO

ST P

ER T

RAC

TOR

, $/

YEAR

11,7

00.1

6$

11,7

00.1

6$

11,7

00.1

6$

11,7

00.1

6$

11,7

00.1

6$

LIC

ENSE

S, P

ERSO

NAL

PR

OPE

RTY

TA

X, A

ND

INSU

RAN

CE,

$/Y

EAR

12,0

00.0

0$

12,0

00.0

0$

12,0

00.0

0$

12,0

00.0

0$

12,0

00.0

0$

ALLO

WAN

CE

FOR

SPA

RE

TRAC

TOR

S, $

/YEA

R $

6,2

00.0

0 $

5,8

00.0

0 $

5,6

00.0

0 $

5,4

00.0

0 $

5,4

00.0

0

CAP

ITAL

CO

ST P

ER T

RAI

LER

, $/

YEAR

3,60

0.00

$

3,60

0.00

$

3,60

0.00

$

3,60

0.00

$

3,60

0.00

$

ALLO

WAN

CE

FOR

SPA

RE

TRAI

LER

S,

$/YE

AR2,

000.

00$

2,

000.

00$

2,

000.

00$

2,

000.

00$

2,

000.

00$

LAB

OR

PER

UN

IT, $

/YEA

R40

,000

.00

$

40

,000

.00

$

40

,000

.00

$

40

,000

.00

$

40

,000

.00

$

TRAI

LER

REP

AIR

S, $

/YEA

R7,

200.

00$

4,

800.

00$

3,

600.

00$

2,

400.

00$

2,

400.

00$

SUB

TOTA

L, $

/YEA

R82

,700

.16

$

79

,900

.16

$

78

,500

.16

$

77

,100

.16

$

77

,100

.16

$

OVE

RH

EAD

, $/Y

EAR

12,4

05.0

2$

11,9

85.0

2$

11,7

75.0

2$

11,5

65.0

2$

11,5

65.0

2$

TOTA

L AN

NU

AL F

IXED

CO

ST, $

$

95

,105

.18

$

91

,885

.18

$

90

,275

.18

$

88

,665

.18

$

88

,665

.18

CO

ST P

ER D

AY, $

(260

DAY

/YEA

R)

$

365

.79

$

353

.40

$

347

.21

$

341

.02

$

341

.02

FIXE

D C

OST

, $/T

ON

$

3.39

$

4.9

1 $

6.

43

$

9

.47

$

9.47

FIXE

D T

RA

NSF

ER H

AUL

CO

ST S

UM

MA

RY


MIL

ES P

ER T

RIP

-ON

E W

AY10

2030

4050

TRIP

S PE

R D

AY6

43

22

VAR

IAB

LE C

OST

PER

RO

UN

D T

RIP

, $16

.40

$

32

.80

$

49

.20

$

65

.60

$

82

.00

$

VAR

IAB

LE C

OST

PER

TO

N, $

0.91

$

1.82

$

2.73

$

3.64

$

4.56

$

MIL

ES P

ER T

RIP

-ON

E W

AY10

2030

4050

TRIP

S PE

R D

AY6

43

22

FIXE

D C

OST

, $/T

ON

3.39

$

4.91

$

6.43

$

9.47

$

9.47

$

VAR

IAB

LE C

OST

, $/T

ON

0.91

$

1.82

$

2.73

$

3.64

$

4.56

$

TOTA

L C

OST

PER

TO

N, $

4.30

$

6.73

$

9.16

$

13.1

2$

14.0

3$

TOTA

L C

OST

PER

TO

N-M

ILE

(ON

E W

AY),

$ $

0.

43

$

0

.34

$

0.31

$

0.3

3 $

0.

28

VAR

IAB

LE-T

RAN

SFER

HAU

L C

OST

TRAN

SFER

HAU

L C

OST

SU

MM

ARY


FAC

ILIT

Y SI

ZE, T

ON

S/D

AY15

00AN

NU

AL U

TILI

TIES

ALL

OW

ANC

E, $

20,0

00.0

0$

DAY

S O

F O

PER

ATIO

N E

ACH

YEA

R26

0AN

NU

AL IN

SUR

ANC

E AL

LOW

ANC

E,

$9,

500.

00$

BU

ILD

ING

AN

D S

ITE:

ALLO

WAN

CE

FOR

CO

RPO

RAT

E TA

XES:

DEV

ELO

PMEN

T C

OST

6,00

5,00

0.00

$

FE

DER

AL T

AX R

ATE,

%0

SER

VIC

E LI

FE, Y

EAR

S20

STAT

E TA

X R

ATE,

%0

CO

ST O

F D

EBT,

%9

MAI

NTE

NAN

CE

CO

STS

(% O

F IN

ITIA

L C

OST

)2

NVE

STO

R R

ETU

RN

ON

ASS

ETS

(RO

A0

LAN

D:

CO

ST (1

0 AC

RES

/1,0

00TP

D@

$20,

000/

ACR

E)30

0,00

0.00

$

AMO

RTI

ZATI

ON

PER

IOD

, YEA

RS

30PO

SITI

ON

NU

MB

ERAN

NU

AL S

ALAR

Y EA

CH

CO

ST O

F D

EBT,

%9

SUPE

RVI

SOR

127

,000

.00

$

TRAN

SFER

STA

TIO

N M

OB

ILE

EQU

IPM

ENT:

EQU

IPM

ENT

OPE

RAT

OR

S6

25,0

00.0

0$

CO

ST $

30

0,30

0.00

SC

ALE

OPE

RAT

OR

S2

20,0

00.0

0$

SER

VIC

E LI

FE, Y

EAR

S5

LAB

OR

ERS

415

,000

.00

$

SALV

AGE

VALU

E (%

OF

INIT

IAL

VALU

E)10

CO

ST O

F D

EBT,

%9

FRIN

GE

BEN

EFIT

S AL

LOW

ANC

E (%

O

F AN

NU

AL S

ALAR

Y)35

MAI

NTE

NAN

CE

CO

ST (%

OF

INIT

IAL

CO

ST)

3

TRAN

SFER

TR

ACTO

RS:

CO

ST/E

ACH

60,0

00.0

0$

SER

VIC

E LI

FE, Y

EAR

S5

SALV

AGE

VALU

E (%

OF

INIT

IAL

VALU

E)10

CO

ST O

F D

EBT,

%9

MAI

NTE

NAN

CE

CO

ST (%

OF

INIT

IAL

CO

ST)

3

INPU

T D

ATA

FOR

TR

ANSF

ER S

TATI

ON

CO

ST

ANN

UAL

CO

STS

FOR

LAB

OR


POSITION NUMBER ANNUAL SALARY (EACH) SALARY

SUPERVISOR 1 27,000.00$ 27,000.00$

EQUIPMENT OPERATORS 6 25,000.00$ 150,000.00$

SCALE OPERATORS 2 20,000.00$ 40,000.00$

LABORERS 4 $ 15,000.00 60,000.00$

SUBTOTAL 277,000.00$

FRINGE BENEFITS ALLOWANCE (35% OF SALARY) 96,950.00$

TOTAL LABOR COST 373,950.00$

LAND $29,200.91

BUILDINGS AND SITE DEVELOPMENT $657,826.58

STATION MOBILE EQUIPMENT $82,222.65

STATION YARD TRACTOR $16,428.10

STATION UTILITIES $ 20,000.00

BUILDING AND SITE MAINTENANCE $ 120,100.00

STATION MOBILE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE $ 9,009.00

STATION YARD TRACTOR MAINTENANCE 1,800.00$

INSURANCE ALLOWANCE 9,500.00$

TOTAL 1,320,037.24$

STATION LABOR


City of Kansas City MRF/Transfer Station 01/08/08PRE-CONCEPTUAL ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE by:

Site Acquisition $2,178,000General Requirements $0Sitework $3,296,400Material Recovery/Transfer Station Building $13,934,574Material Recovery/Transfer Equipment $7,682,000Administrative Building $6,180,548Scalehouse $514,687Collection Vehicle Storage Building $4,382,420Vehicle Wash Building $477,963

Subtotal $38,646,592Contingency (20%) $7,729,318

$46,375,910

Quantity Units Unit Cost Total CostSite Acquistion 20 acres $108,900.00 $2,178,000

Geneneral RequirementsMobilization 0Supervision 0Temporary Facilities 0Temporary Utilities 0

Total - General Requirements

SiteworkClear and Grub 20 acre $3,000.00 $60,000Demolition 1 lump sum $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000Site Grading 653,400 sq yd $1.00 $653,400Surfacing $1.00 $0 Asphalt 48,400 sq yd $20.00 $968,000 Concrete curb and gutter 5,000 lin ft $15.00 $75,000 Handicap ramp 1 each $3,000.00 $3,000 Concrete walks 200 sq yd $100.00 $20,000 Marking and signing 1 lump sum $20,000.00 $20,000Guard Posts 10 each $400.00 $4,000Fencing Chain Link 3,000 lin ft $20.00 $60,000 Gates 2 each $1,000.00 $2,000Storm Drainage Catch Basins 4 each $4,000.00 $16,000 Area Inlets 4 each $2,000.00 $8,000 Drainage Pipe 18" RCP 3,000 lin ft $40.00 $120,000Yard piping Sewer, 12 " PVC 1,000 lin ft $35.00 $35,000 Potable water - 8 " 1,000 lin ft $40.00 $40,000 - 6 " 1,000 lin ft $30.00 $30,000 - 4 " 1,000 lin ft $20.00 $20,000 Fire hydrant and valve 2 each $2,000.00 $4,000 Yard Hydrant, 1-1/2" 8 each $1,000.00 $8,000Landscaping 1 lump sum $50,000.00 $50,000Electric yard Lighting 1 lump sum $100,000.00 $100,000

Total - Sitework $3,296,400


Material Recovery/Transfer Station BuildingEarthwork Structural Excavation 62,500 cu yd $10.00 $625,000 Compacted Fill 50,000 cu yd $7.00 $350,000Concrete, cast in place Slab on grade 4,644 cu yd $800.00 $3,715,556 Vertical walls and supported 1,099 cu yd $1,000.00 $1,098,519Metal building 110,000 sq ft $30.00 $3,300,000Tilt up walls 42,700 sq ft $25.00 $1,067,500Rolling steel doors 16' by 25' 6 each $15,000.00 $90,000 14' by 14' 6 each $13,000.00 $78,000 12' by 18' 9 each $10,000.00 $90,000Finishes Painting 1 lump sum $100,000.00 $100,000 Metalic floor topping 22,000 sq ft $20.00 $440,000Mechanical Heating and ventilating 110,000 sq ft $5.00 $550,000 Plumbing 110,000 sq ft $3.00 $330,000 Fire suppression 110,000 sq ft $5.00 $550,000Electrical 110,000 sq ft $5.00 $550,000 Photovoltaic Cells 1 lump sum $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000

Total Material/Recovery/Transfer Station Building $13,934,574

Material Recovery/Transfer Equipment20 tph Dirty Processing System, complete 2 each $900,000.00 $1,800,00048" infloor conveyor 150 lin ft $2,000.00 $300,00020 tph Clean Processing System, complete 1 each $2,700,000.00 $2,700,000HRB Centurion conveyor 2 each $400,000.00 $800,000In floor conveyor 1 each $150,000.00 $150,000Glass processing equipment 1 each $60,000.00 $60,000

Subtotal MRF Equipment $5,810,000Equipment Installation (20 %) $1,162,000

$6,972,000Rolling stock Articulated loader 1 each $300,000.00 $300,000 Bobcats 4 each $25,000.00 $100,000 Rolloff bins 10 each $3,000.00 $30,000Below grade 10' by 70' scales 4 each $70,000.00 $280,000

Total Material Recovery/Transfer Equipment $7,682,000

Administrative BuildingEarthwork Structural Excavation 1,385 cu yd $10.00 $13,852 Compacted Fill 1,108 cu yd $7.00 $7,757Concrete, slab on grade 739 cu yd $600.00 $443,259Building 1st Floor 29,920 sq ft $120.00 $3,590,400 2nd Floor 11,200 sq ft $120.00 $1,344,000Finishes 41,120 sq ft $5.00 $205,600Heating and ventilating 41,120 sq ft $5.00 $205,600Plumbing 41,120 sq ft $5.00 $205,600Fire protection 41,120 sq ft $3.00 $123,360Electrical 41,120 sq ft $1.00 $41,120

Total Administrative Building $6,180,548


ScalehouseEarthwork Structural Excavation 250 cu yd $10.00 $2,500 Compacted Fill 200 cu yd $7.00 $1,400Concrete, slab on grade 46 cu yd $800.00 $37,037Building 1,875 sq ft $150.00 $281,250Finishes 1,875 sq ft $5.00 $9,375Heating and ventilating 1,875 sq ft $5.00 $9,375Plumbing 1,875 sq ft $5.00 $9,375Fire protection 1,875 sq ft $3.00 $5,625Electrical 1,875 sq ft $10.00 $18,750Below grade 10' by 70' scales 2 each $70,000.00 $140,000

Total scalehouse $514,687

Collection Vehicle Storage BuildingEarthwork Structural Excavation 2,963 cu yd $10.00 $29,630 Compacted Fill 2,370 cu yd $7.00 $16,593Concrete, slab on grade 1,580 cu yd $800.00 $1,264,198Building 64,000 sq ft $25.00 $1,600,000Finishes 64,000 sq ft $5.00 $320,000Heating and ventilating 64,000 sq ft $5.00 $320,000Plumbing 64,000 lump sum $5.00 $320,000Fire protection 64,000 sq ft $3.00 $192,000Electrical 64,000 sq ft $5.00 $320,000

Total Collection Vehicle Storage Building $4,382,420

Vehicle Wash Building

Earthwork Structural Excavation 185 cu yd $10.00 $1,852 Compacted Fill 148 cu yd $7.00 $1,037Concrete, slab on grade 123 cu yd $600.00 $74,074Metal building 4,000 sq ft $30.00 $120,000Rolling steel doors 12' by 20' 6 each $13,000.00 $78,000

Finishes 4,000 sq ft $5.00 $20,000Heating and ventilating 4,000 sq ft $5.00 $20,000Plumbing 1 lump sum $50,000.00 $50,000Wash equipment 3 lump sum $30,000.00 $90,000Fire protection 1,000 sq ft $3.00 $3,000Electrical 4,000 sq ft $5.00 $20,000

Total Wash Building $477,963


A P P E N D I X E

S o l i d W a s t e S y s t e m O p t i o n s C i t y E x p e n d i t u r e s f o r S o l i d W a s t e M a n a g e m e n t

F i s c a l Y e a r s 2 0 0 9 t h r o u g h 2 0 2 7

Long-Term Solid Waste Management Strategic Plan€¦ · Long-Term Solid Waste Management Strategic...

Documents

Transcript of Long-Term Solid Waste Management Strategic Plan€¦ · Long-Term Solid Waste Management Strategic...