ric

Proceedings from SWANA’s

9th Annual Waste Reduction, Recycling and Composting

Symposium (K

2nd Annual Collection Symposium

Tempe, Arizona May 1 1 15, 1998

~~

~~

SWANA: Advancing the practice of environmentally and economically sound municipal solid waste management in North America.

FOREWORD

SWANA is pleased to present the Proceedings from its 9th Annual Recycling Symposium on Waste Reduction, Prevention, Recycling and Composting and the 2nd Annual Collection Symposium. The Proceedings include papers on a broad range of topics of interest to professionals in the recycling and collection sectors of the municipal solid waste management field.

Technical Sessions on the following subjects were presented at the symposia:

Getting More For Less: Collection Efficiency

MRFs and Technology

Economics and Recycling

Public Education and Outreach

Changing Market Conditions

Regulatory Compliance

Automated and Semi-Automated Collection Issues

Managed Competition

Collection of Topics

Transfer Station and MRF Compatibility

SWANA would like to acknowledge and thank the individuals who prepared papers for this year’s Proceedings. SWANA takes pride in being able to offer timely and relevant information on important subjects such as recycling and waste reduction. We believe that these Proceedings will make a significant contribution to the professional literature in the solid waste field.

John H. Skinner, Ph.D. Executive Director and CEO

- i i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Collection Efficiencies

Managed Competition for Collection Services in the City of Chesapeake, Virginia Thomas Westbrook, City of Chesapeake, VA ........................................................... 1

Consents to Assignment of Franchise Agreements Constance Hornig, Constance Hornig Law Off ices ................................................... 3

MRFs and Technoloqv

Development and Operation of a Materials Recovery Facility for McKinley Fiber Company, Albuquerque, NM Jack Chappelle, Engineering Solutions and Design ............................................... 15

Sumter County Solutions: Innovative, Integrated MSW Composting and Recycling Mitch Kessler, TIA Solid Waste Management Consultants ..................................... 25

The City of Flagstaff's New Recycling Program Providing a Feasible Solution for Long Term Planning Louis Perez, Norton Environmental ........................................................................ 35

Modifying an Existing MRF When New Construction Is Not an Option Patrick Carroll, SWA of Palm Beach County, FL .................................................... 39

Economics and Recycling

Public Ownership/Public Operation: Cost Control of Recyclables Processing Constance Hornig, Constance Hornig Law Off ice ................................................... 45

Variable Rate Pricing for Residential Communities Stephen Connolly, SCS Engineers Esther Bowring, Montgomery County, MD .............................................................. 51

Cost Curve: How Much More Does Reaching Aggressive Goals Cost and What is Realistic? Lisa Skumatz, SERA ............................................................................................... 57

Evaluating the Impact of Recycling Collection Programs Sharyn Dickerson, Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County, GA .................. 61

Public Education and Outreach

L.A. Confidential: What You Don’t Know About Recycling Can Hurt Your Bottom Line Karen Higgins, City of Los Angeles, CA ................................................................. 71

Creative Public Education and Community Events: Taking the Action to the People Katie Fritz, City of College Station, TX ..................................................................... 75

A Great New Recycling Program and Personalized Customer Service Garners 92% Approval Rating in Los Angeles Daniel Hackney, City of Los Angeles, CA ............................................................... 79

Minimizing Cost While Maximizing Exposure Susan Patane, NORCAL ........................................................................................ 89

Automated and Semi-Automated Collection Issues

Automated Residential Production Continuous Improvement Program Pete Klimoski, City of Mesa, AZ .............................................................................. 93

Automating Collection of Green Wastes Lynn Merrill, City of San Bernardino, CA .............................................................. 105

Collection of Topics

Marketing Mesa William Black, City of Mesa, AZ ............................................................................ 113

A Participatory Process for Rate Reform in a Regional Integrated Solid Waste Management System Douglas Anderson, Metro, Portland, OR Harvey Gershman, Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. ....................................... 1 19

Competitive Bidding for Waste Services: Using Free Market Forces to Cut Costs Allen Bonini, West Cook County Solid Waste Agency, IL ..................................... 129

Speaker Contact Listinq

9th Annual Waste Reduction, Recycling and Composting Symposium Speakers ......................................................................... 137

2nd Annual Collection Symposium Speakers .................................. 139

- i t

Getting More For Less: Collection Efficiencies Workshop

-

i

i 1 !

MANAGED COMPETITION FOR COLLECTION SERVICES IN THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA

Thomas H. Westbrook, PE Department of Public Works

City of Chesapeake Chesapeake, Virginia

ABSTRACT The City of Chesapeake competed with private industry for the collection of residential solid waste fiom approximately one- fourth of the city. A managed competition process in lieu of conventional bidding was utilized to solicit cost proposals fiom private industry and fi-om the Solid Waste Management Division of the Public Works Department. Managed competition levels the playing field for conmetition between private industry and the public sector.

BACKGROUND In 1995 the City Council directed that the Public Works Department contract with private industry for the collection of residential solid waste in the Western Branch Area of the city. Contracting with private industxy for professional service, road maintenance, road construction, drainage construction, building construction, and solid waste collection at city and city school buildings have been an ongoing practice of the Public Works Department. Placing under contract with private i n d m the collection of residential solid waste would be a new undertaking for the department.

Based upon infomal conversations with private industry, the department was of the opinion that the current costs of city collection was comparable to that of private industry. This opinion was based on the fact that the collection effort for household solid waste had evolved from three-person rear loaders, to one-person side loaders, to automated side loaders. In addition the department had cost data dating to 1980.

MANAGED COMPETITION APPROACH Since informal conversations had indicated that the department’s cost was competitive with private industry, the department advised the City Manager that it would compete with private industry. At a conference sponsored by the Innovations Group, the department learned of the experiences of the City of Charlotte, North Carolina and the City of Indianapolis, Indiana in competing with private industry. Both cities had approached the delivery of service on the basis of the lowest total cost to provide that service. In that approach, the private industry cost proposal (bid) is one component in determining the lowest total cost.

F m the beginning the managed competition was designed for

fairness to both the private industry and to the Solid Waste Management Division while demanding a high level of integrity.

The department retained the services of Malcom Pirnie, Inc. of Newport News, Virginia to assist in designing the managed Campetition process and in developing a managed competition Request for Proposals. In order to maintain a high level of integrity, the department also retained the Services of Gashman, Bricker & Bratton, Inc. (GBB) of Fairfax, Virginia to assist the Solid Waste Management Division in preparing its cost proposal. Two teams of city personnel were created. The first team worked with Malcom Pimie in developing the request for proposals and in evaluating the cost proposals submilted. The second team worked with GBB in developing the city’s cost proposal.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND EVALUATION TEAM Working on the concept that competition is a powerful force and that managed competition is the most competitive of the procurement processes, the Request for Proposal Preparation andEvduation Team (RFP Team) designed the RFP to ensure that the lowest cost for the service delivery was achieved. That design also considered, at City Council’s suggestion, a risk factor for making a change in the service delivery.

In designing the RFP, the RFP Team found that the level of service exceeded the service level described in the City Code. The que&on that arose was what level of service will become

preparing the RFP was whether or not Solid Waste Management Division personnel and equipment would return to the Western Branch Area to provide any service. The

~ ~

~~

the basis for obtaining the cost in the RFP. Another factm in - -~ -~

1

decision was that if the Western Branch Area was awarded to private industry, then the current seMce level was to be provided entirely by contract.

To address the concerns of private industry about the cost of service delivery, the RFP Team determined that the cost proposals would be evaluated using the “...Total Annual Net Proposal Cost.. .with adjustments for transition and differential and other costs associated with service delivery options ...( and) shall include a percentage adjustment (10 percent of the difference between proposals after transition and differential cost adjustments) in favor of retaining in-house provision of services.’’ This required the Cost Proposal Team to fully allocate the costs within the city to provide the service.

In addition to the Total Annual Net Proposal Cost, the RFP Team determined that the proposals would be evaluated “...using the following criteria: qualifications and experience, financial strength and stability, references, commitment to hire displaced City employees, and past and pending legal matters. The City is deemed to fulfill all qualifications criteria ....”

COST PROPOSAL TEAM Based on the fact that the cost proposals would be evaluated on the Total Annual Net Proposal Cost with adjustments, the cost proposal team began the process of evaluating the current methods of service delivery. With the assistance of GBB, four different configurations of service delivery were developed. Based upon the city’s history of costs, the cost of delivering service with each contiguration was estimated. In an effort to have an estimate of what the competitions’ cost proposal might be, GBB prepared for comparison an estimate of what private industry would submit as a cost proposal.

Once that information was available, the City tested four possible configurations of service delivery in the Western Branch Area. The testing was accomplished by dividing the Westem Branch Area into four areas, each area representing a collection day for the four collection days of the week as required by the RFP.

The results of the testing was that any of the configurations delivered service. However, none of the configurations appeared to be competitive with the estimated cost proposal expected from private industry.

Since the cost configurations did not appear to be competitive, the Cost Proposal Team explored other possibilities of reducing costs. Brainstonring discussions with GBB lead to the concept of using one truck, a split packer rear loader, to collect yard waste and residential solid waste not placed in the automated containers in lieu of two rear loader trucks-one truck for yard waste and a second truck for the residential solid waste overflow. This confi@on’s cost was below the costs of other configurations that had been tested in the field.

The configuration for service delivery in the cost proposal included:

1. Three automated trucks with operator.

_-- 2. Three bulk collection (grapple) trucks with operator.

3. Two split packer rear loaders with operator and collection worker.

4. Back-up equipment would be rented fiom the existing fleet for the automated and grapple trucks. An additional split packer rear loader would be purchased for backup since none were in the fleet.

While developing the cost proposal, the Cost Proposal Team also developed the transition and differential costs that would be used in the evaluation of the cost proposals. Transition costs are those costs that are incurred in preparing the RFP, cost proposals, evaluating the proposals, and other similar costs. Differential costs are those costs that will not disappear or are additional costs if an award is made to private industry.

RESULTS The RFP Team received three cost proposals from private industry and the City’s cost proposal. The cost proposals received were as follows:

1. Area Container $ 1,238,822.72 2. BFI Waste Systems 973,629.60 3. Waste Industries Inc. 1,471,275.42 4. City Proposal (Audited) 1,103,290.56

Atter adjustments for transition and dSerential costs, the five- year Net Present Value (WV) of the City’s proposal was $3,481,044 compared to BFI’s NPV of $ 4,846,543. The private industry cost proposal for the term of the contract period was 39% higher than the cost configuration contained in the City’s cost proposal.

CONCLUSION Even though the Solid Waste Management Division had reduced costs over the years, the managed competition process forced a new look at the methods of providing a cost eff delivey of service. The changes in the service delivery for the Western Branch Area are envisioned to be extended into the remaining areas of the City.

~

~~

~

2

CONSTANCE HORNIG, ESQ. Law Offices

1415 Victoria Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90019

Telephone 213 934-4601 * Telefax 213 934-3742

SWANA 9TH ANNUAL WASTE REDUCTION, RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING SYMPOSIUM

Monday, May 11,1998 Tempe, AZ

CONSENTS TO ASSIGNMENT OF FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS

While some national companies (like Waste Management and BFI) have been divesting themselves of local operations, others (like Republic and USA Waste) have been acquiring companies. If your franchised hauler is a relatively small, family-held concern, it may be a target, but your collection franchise agreements or solid waste codes may contain provisions which give you the right to consent to the acquisition of your franchisee and the assignment of the franchise to the purchasing company. This presentation begins by suggesting how you might structure (or strengthen) such consent provisions in anticipation of takeover requests. It next lists factors you should consider in granting or denying such requests and outlines investigative due diligence measures. Lastly it proposes some terms that you might propose as conditions of consent and previews negotiating issues.

I. FORM OF CONSENT PROVISIONS

Define “Assignment” Broadly. “Assignment” should not only cover its common meaning, but by definition embrace every possible permutation of merger and acquisition, whether stock or assets, which results in changed control and management of your franchisee. For example:

“For the purpose of this Section, “Assign” (or “Assignment”) includes:

( I ) selling, exchanging or otherwise transferring to a thirdparty effective control of Contractor management (through sale, exchange or other transfer or outstanding common stock of Contractor or otherwise) or any of Contractor’s assets dedicated to Performance Obligations, unless such assets are promptly replaced with assets of greater or equal value and equivalent function;

(2) issuing new stock or selling, exchanging or otherwise transferring ten percent or mqre of the then outstanding common stock of Contractor to a Person other than the shareholders owning said stock as of the date hereox

3

(3) any dissolution, reorganization, consolidation, merger, re-capitalization, stock issuance or re-issuance, voting trust, pooling agreement, escrow arrangement, liquidation or other transaction which results in a change of Ownership or control of Contractor;

(4) any assignment by operation of law, including insolvency or bankruptcy, making assignment for the beneJt of creditors, writ of attachment of an execution, being levied against this Agreement, appointment of a receiver taking possession of any of Contractor’s property, or transfer occurring in the event of aprobate proceeding; and

(5) any combination of the forgoing (whether or not in related or contemporaneous transactions) which has the effect or any such transfer or change of Ownership or change or control of Contractor.

Ownership (or “Own” or any variation thereo$ means ownership as deJined in the constructive ownership provisions of Section 31 8(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as in effect on the date here, provided that ( I ) IO percent shall be substituted for 50 percent in Section 31 8(a)(2) (C) and in Section 31 8(a)(3) (C) thereox and (2) Section 31 8(a)(5)(C) shall be disregarded. For purposes of determining ownership under this paragraph and constructive or indirect ownership under Section 31 8(a), ownership interest of less than I O percent shall be disregarded andpercentage interests shall be determined on the basis of the percentage of voting interest or value which the ownership interest represents, whichever is greater. ”

Where your franchisee is closely held, you may want to specifically provide that transfer of stock by a named individual or individual constitutes “assignment”. Contrariwise, if your franchisee is a local family business, you might accommodate their trust and estate plans by excluding specified intra-family transfer from trigger “assignment”.

Reserve Right to Consent in Municipality’s Sole Discretion. Although it may seem reasonable to agree that you will be reasonable, this is an important instance where you do not want to be second-guessed in court as to whether or not your denial was reasonable. For example, it may be important to your elected officials and citizens that you do business with locally owned and managed haulers. If the proposed acquiring hauler shows billions in assets and credit lines, millions of residential and commercial accounts and many thousands of municipal contracts, a court may find your denial is unreasonable. The bankruptcy court denied the California City of 1000 Oak’s petition to deny its franchise transfer.

Reserving the right to consent, in your sole discretion, is preferable, although it may be one of the top-ranked issues (along with term and scope of indemnification) for haulers in franchise negotiations. Understandably, a hauler wants a liquid asset, i.e. the franchise. Although trucks and a maintenance yard have value, the bulk of a hauling companies value lies in its service contracts. Yet from the public interest perspective, reserving sole discretion may be equally compelling. For example:

4

“Contractor may only assign its rights or delegate or otherwise transfer its obligations hereunder to another Person only with Municipality consent given or withheld in Municipality’s sole discretion. Any such assignment without Municipality consent shall be void. Municipality shall not be obligated to consider any proposed Assignment by Municipality if Contractor is in breach of this Agreement at any time during the period of such consideration. Contractor shall make any request for consent to Assignment in the form and manner prescribed by the Municipality. ”

Some franchises continue with a list of documentation that the acquiring company must submit covering the concerns listed in following Section 111. Although including a list may not weaken the municipality’s straightforward, contractual and legal right to grant or deny consent in its sole discretion, it may create political or practical constrains on exercising that discretion. The acquiring company may produce documentation demonstrating compliance or reasonable satisfaction of every item on the list, making it difficult to raise unlisted or less quauntifiable concerns. If the municipality reserves sole discretion, presumably the acquiring company will be cooperative in providing requested documentation to facilitate consent, whether or not the documentation is itemized in the franchise agreement or merely in a due diligence request letter.

11. DUE DILIGENCE

When your franchisee first requests your consent to assign the franchise agreement, it may deliver a package of materials to introduce you to the proposed acquiring company. You might supplement those materials with a list of requested additional materials to facilitate your due diligence research.

Review Securities Filings and Notes to Audited Financials. Many acquiring companies will be publicly traded and file quarterly, annual and other reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These include audited financials. (If you cannot access the public filings, ask the company to provide the financials, e.g. audited financial statements for the immediately preceding three operating years, which should indicate that the Municipality the proposed assignee’s financial status is equal to or greater than franchisee’s.) Of course, these give you a good picture of the financial creditworthiness of the acquiring company. But furthermore, both the reports and the footnotes to the financials are a good preliminary source of litigation and regulatory action disclosure.

Request Litigation List. Ask the acquiring company for a list of pending litigation nationally, as well as regionally, plus a list of regulatory actions. You will doubtless see many cases related to vehicular accidents for hauling companies, and often related insurance claims. Large companies may also have large numbers of labor and personnel related suits.

-

On one level, adverse outcomes to pending actions may adversely impact the financial health of the company due to damage payments or imposed cleanup costs. But perhaps more importantly, you may be able to ascertain a pattern of litigation that troubles you. Some communities may be concerned about environmental regulatory violations, so strong compliance-with-law covenants

5

and clear default and termination provisions may become a condition of consent. Others may be sensitive to unethical conduct, and “bad-boy” provisions may be required. (See Section IV below.) Others may worry about litigation against municipalities and consequently strengthen indemnity provisions. Still others may care about flow control. For example, Stanislaus County and the City of Modesto are partners in a waste-to-energy facility, so they have vital fiscal interest in securing waste delivery to their plant. Flow control litigation by an acquiring company may prompt them to pursue in depth discussions of intent with the acquiring company and to secure additional delivery commitments (and damages for breaches) as condition to their granting the assignment.

In sum, the existence of litigation does not necessarily determine that you will withhold your consent, but it may prompt you to condition your consent on amended or added franchise provisions.

Contact Municipal References. This states the obvious. Other municipalities may have already conducted due diligence and almost always share their materials in a gracious and collegial manner. Hearing their experiences can prepare you for issues that may be raised in your community.

Surf the Net. Due diligence just got easier. Helpful sites include “Edgar”, which lists securities filings, related news articles and analysts’ reports: http://www. Edgar-online.com. Your can also access news articles for papers located in the relevant local jurisdictions, e.g. http://www. Latimes.com. McGraw Hill offers its “Focus” reports on industries, including date of founding, employees, shareholders, subsidiaries, revenues, officers, directors, auditors, banks, news items including new offerings and mergers and acquisitions), as well as litigation lists.

111. CONSIDERATIONS IN GRANTING CONSENT

Require Financial Creditworthiness. likely provide superior financial strength as compared to a local hauler. However, as a consequence of rapid expansion, they may have incurred debt to fund acquisitions and be highly leveraged. You might ask your Treasurer or outside financial advisor to review their financial statements. (See Secure Parent Guaranties in Section IV below.)

Acquiring companies, especially national ones, will

Evaluate Experience. In most instances the acquiring company will be in the waste business. You will want satisfactory proof that the proposed assignee has at least [ten] years of municipal solid waste management experience on a scale equal to or exceeding the scale of operations conducted by franchisee. If you procured your existing franchise pursuant to a competitive RFQ/RFP you might review the experiential requirements, e.g. number of years in similar business, generally, and type of service, specifically (e.g. types of curbside or source separated programs, types of equipment such as automated vehicles, etc.); number of accounts; recycling/diversion performance, etc. As you look forward to renegotiating the franchise with the acquiring company in the future, you may be interested in the terms of a sampling of its other franchises.

6

Review Compliance with Law. Look for satisfactory proof that in the last [five] years, the proposed assignee has not suffered any citations or other censure from any federal, state or local agency having jurisdiction over its waste management operations due to any significant failure to comply with state, federal or law (including antitrust and securities laws as well as solid waste management law and regulation). Ask for a complete list of such citations and censures.

Establish Environmental Record. Look for satisfactory proof that the proposed assignee has at all times conducted its operations in an environmentally safe and conscientious fashion, particularly in accordance with sound waste management practices in full compliance with all federal, state and local laws regulating the collection and disposal of waste, including hazardous waste.

Ascertain Acquisition Strategies: monopolistic pricing and vertical integration. Review stock analysts reports. They can illuminate whether your community will be vulnerable to price increases for haill-ing and/or disposal if you consent to assignment. For example, an acquiring company’s strategy might be to select a market with local companies; acquire integrated businesses (e.g. hauling and landfill); eliminate redundant overhead and reduce costs; gain market share from small, undercapitalized competitors; raise prices.

Raise Local Concerns. Counties owning landfills or processing facilities may be concerned about waste delivery commitments and disposal competition. Some communities may want MBE participation. Others may want assurances that particular services (like backyard collection or “free” governmental services) are assured. You will have your particularized list.

IV. CONDITIONING CONSENT

Secure Parent Guaranties. Depending upon the results of your financial due diligence, you may require that the regional or national parent corporation provide a financial and performance guaranty and/or revisit levels of performance bondshnsurance requirements. Because realizing performance bonds are fraught with potential untimeliness and uncertainty, increasingly we are allowing substitute performance security, including letters or lines of credit. Note: one strategy for sizing performance instruments is to calculate how long it would take you to give franchisee notice of a default, allow for the cure period, deliver notice of termination, conduct administrative hearings (if any), and procure new services. Size your bond based upon the estimate the costs you would incur during such time period to secure substitute services, plus your reprocurement costs.

Add Criminal Conduct Provision. The format of this ‘bad boy” clause will certainly be the subject of negotiations. Geographic scope as well as remedy will be issues. National companies will worry that prohibited activity by an employee a continent away from your community could subject their local franchise to termination. The acquiring company will want the remedy of firing the offending employee, but you may worry that major officers and directors will merely be reassigned and want the remedy of franchise termination. One example which tries to limit the geographical reach by tracing chains of command, follows:

7

Triminal or Unfair Business Activiq. COLLECTOR shall immediately noti& MUNICIPALITY if

(i) COLLECTOR (i.e. the localfianchisee) or any ofits oflcers, directors or administrative or management employees,

(ii) any corporation having an ownership interest in COLLECTOR, including a regional holding company, or any of its oficers, directors or administrative or management employees directly or indirectly responsible for administration and management of COLLECTOR, and

(iii) [parent company] or any of its oflcers, directors or administrative or management employees directly or indirectly responsible for administration and management of COLLECTOR

have a criminal conviction, mandatory or prohibitory injunction, or fine from a court, public entity, municipality or regulatory agency of competent jurisdiction with respect to the following events, or make an admission of guilt or pled nolo contendere with respect

fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, procuring or performing a public or private agreement, including this Service Agreement; or

bribery or attempting to bribe a public officer or employee of a local, state, or federal agency in that officer or director’s or COLLECTOR’S employee ’s official capacity; or

embezzlement, extortion, racketeering, false claims, false statements, forgery, falsification or destruction of records, obstruction of justice, receiving stolen property, the@, or misprision failure to disclose) of a felony; or

any other crime or business practice indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty; or ~~

~

unlawful disposal of hazardous or designated waste; or

violation of antitrust laws or unfair trade practices, or conspiracy to eliminate competition or to inflate waste collection, hauling or disposal fees.

Upon occurrence of such events with respect to the COLLECTOR and those persons described in (a)(i) above, MUNICIPALITY; in its sole discretion, may terminate this Service Agreement upon thirty days written notice to COLLECTOR or may impose such

8

other sanctions (which may include financial sanctions, temporary suspensions or any other condition deemed appropriate short of termination) as it shall deem proper. Upon occurrence of such events or circumstances with respect to any corporation having an ownerships interest in COLLECTOR or with respect to [parent company] and those persons described in (a) (ii) and (iii) above, the MUNICIPALITY may terminate this Service Agreement following thirty days written notice to COLLECTOR if COLLECTOR does not remove the applicable oflcer, director or employee from his or her ofice or employment, any other ofice or employment, as the case may be, with Related Parties, as described below, and any position of influence and responsibility within such thirty day period.

Related Parties means all Persons which are directly or indirectly related to COLLECTOR by virtue of direct or indirect Ownership interests or common management, including a business in which COLLECTOR Owns a direct or indirect Ownership interest, a business which has a direct or indirect Ownership interest in COLLEC‘fOR and/or a business which is also Owned, controlled or managed by any Person (whether a business or individual) which has a direct or indirect Ownership interest in COLLECTOR. ”

These provisions are increasingly common in new franchise agreements, regardless of the historical record of the franchisee.

Name Key PersonneVIiranchise Administrator. Some acquiring companies may leave the local staff, with whom you have established possibly long term relationships, in place. Others will remove them as part of their strategy to stream line administration and reduce costs. You may want to require that they obtain your consent to replace named key personnel or franchise administrators. However, since the franchisee cannot force key persons to remain in their employment they may seek to limit your ability to veto their staff assignments. A compromise may be that you allow new staff a getting-to-know you period, after e.g. three to six months, after which you can ask for substitutions. However, a more stringent position might be as follows:

“COLLECTOR acknowledges that its obligations to provide services under this Service Agreement are personal in nature, and that the identlJcation of key personnel responsible for assuring complete and timely performance of COLLECTOR s services was a signijkant factor in MUNICIPALITY’S consent to the merger with [proposed acquiring company] and execution of this Service Agreement. Key positions include COLLECTOR s general manager and Integrated Waste Management Act coordinator, and the local and regional corporate representatives of [parent corporation]. COLLECTOR shall not change any such key personnel without the prior written consent of the MUNICIPALITY; which, in MUNICIPALITY’S sole discretion, may be withheld [alternatively: which shall not unreasonably be withheld], unless any such personnel shall be deceased, in which event MUNICIPALITY’S consent shall be reasonable. ”

Provide Probationary Term. If your franchise features an evergreen term it may be a prime subject for takeover. An evergreen term allows the franchise to continue rolling forward, year

9

after year, unless you garner sufficient political consensus to affirmatively terminate it, often many years in advance. Evergreen terms are valuable fiom the perspective of the franchisee, who views them as a virtually guarantied revenue source. But they can be problematic for a municipality. First, if the quality of service is deteriorating but the franchisee is not blatantly in breach, it can be difficult and expensive to terminate the franchise and you may be forced to live with deteriorating service during a lengthy period (e.g. seven, eight, nine etc. years) following a municipal entity’s giving affirmative notice of non-renewal subsequently effective only at the far end of the stated evergreen term (e.g. ten years). Furthermore, evergreen contracts are administratively more cumbersome (e.g. notice, possibly public hearing etc.) than fixed terms. Evergreen terms may politicize the franchise process as compared to a fixed term which requires no vote of the local government’s elected body. “Termination” rather than “non-extension” may be viewed as opprobrious, even though the intent is to secure competitive price bids.

As a condition of consenting to the assignment, especially if you are uncomfortable with litigation history, you might change an evergreen term (with rights to automatic extensions) to a fixed term. (Look at the existing franchisee’s present amortization schedule. Five years is reasonable for trucks, as is reflected in the State’s statutory notice-of-termination provision with respect to exclusive contracting. Some automated containers may be on a longer table, but you can offer to purchase them for unamortized value at term’s end.) As compromise, you might allow for performance based extensions. For example:

“Preconditions. The Service Agreement shall automatically expire on January 1, 2002, 20004 and 2006, respectively, if COLLECTOR has not satisJied following preconditions to sole satisfaction of MUNICIPALITY; as evidenced by written acknowledgment of MUNICIPALITY; during each the term hereofi

I . Complaints. COLLECTOR shall have outstanding and unresolved complaints numbering less than two and one half tenths of one percent (0.25%) of the total annual stops for the prior year the number of unresolved complaints during the periods commencing on September 21, 1997 through December 31, 2001; January I , 2002 through December 31, 2003; and January I , 2004 through December 31, 2005 (“Measurement Periods ’7, which complaints have been substantiated and verified to the reasonable satisfaction of WNICIPALITX

Recvcling diversion. COLLECTOR shall have collected and divertedfiom disposal [xxxlpercent (xxx%) by weight of the solid waste it collectsfiom disposal, where “diverted” means to have diverted from landJill or incineration, pyrolysis, distillation, gasipcation or biological conversion (other than compostina) facilities through recycling and composting activities, all within the meaning of Section 41 780 of the California Integrated Waste Management Act, and “recycling” meansthe process of sorting, cleansing treating, and reconstituting materials that would otherwise become solid waste, and returning them to the economic mainstream in the form of raw material for new, reused or reconstituted

~

2.

~

___ - - -~

10

products which meet the quality standards necessary to be used in the marketplace. The total amount of waste which COLLECTOR collects shall be based upon weigh records of waste and recyclable materials which COLLECTOR delivers to the Collector Designated Disposal Facility and any other transfer, processing or disposal facility plus recycled materials sales invoices, and the total amount of recyclable materials which COLLECTOR diverts shall be based upon recyclable materials sales invoices, which weight data COLLECTOR shall provide to MUNICIPALITY within five business days of MUNICIPALITY’S requests therefor.

3. Recvclinnparticipation. COLLECTOR shall achieve participation in COLLECTOR ’S residential curbside recyclable program from time to time in effect of no less than [xxx] percent xxx% of [residential premises], as measured by set-outs for collection.

4. Recvcling contamination. COLLECTOR shall achieve contamination levels of [ninety five percent] (95%) or less of recyclable materials its collects in its curbside residential recyclingprogram from time to time in effect, where contamination includes, without limitation, materials which are not listed as part of such program S collected materials and such contamination is measured by [sorting of no less than xxx percent of set- outs during the last week of June, September, December and March of each year, which sort shall be conducted at expense of COLLECTOR. MUNICIPALITY shall have a right to observe such sort and make comments on the protocol and conduct thereoJ which comments COLLECTOR shall use reasonable efforts to incorporate.]

5. Litter. COLLECTOR shall pick up litter along all streets and alleys within a five hundred yard radius of its transfer station, whether or not COLLECTOR’S trucks caused such litter, at least one each day following end of receiving hours.

6. Rate increases. COLLECTOR shall not have received a service fee increase in excess of [xxxlpercent (xxx%) in the aggregate measured over the contract term to date.

7. Compliance with franchise and law. COLLECTOR shall be in compliance with the terms andprovisions hereof and of the Modesto Municipal Code and all federal, state or local laws, ordinances, rules or regulations pertaining, directly or indirectly, to the COLLECTOR ’s operations under this Service Agreement; provided, however, that MUNICIPALITX in its sole discretion, may waive any failure to comply that it deems to be minor and determines that such waiver is in the public interest. ”

11

Strengthen Franchise Performance Guaranties. Depending on your existing franchise agreement, SRRE’s and diversion programs, you may want to strengthen recycling commitments. In particular, franchisee’s promise to indemnifjr communities for AB 939 fines is only as valuable as the franchisee’s credit and may be subject to enforceability challenges (i.e. void for vagueness if waste stream volume is not clearly allocated, impossibility of performance if recyclables content drops, etc.). You may want to bolster indemnities with quauntifiable diversion guaranties: fixed percentages (like item #2 in the preceding section) with corresponding compensatory damages equal to excess hauling and disposal costs for materials which should have been recovered but were disposed.

Recoup Due Diligence Costs. Condition consent on recovering your costs for the instant assignment, and consider adding provision for future instances:

“Contractor shall compensate MUNICIPALITY in the minimum, non-refundable amount of a ten thousand dollars ($1 0,000) assignment fee therefor plus any additional MUNICIPALITY’S Reimbursement Costs incurred in excess thereof for considering such request, including time spent by consultants, attorneys and MUNICIPALITY s t a - Contractor shall further pay MUNICIPALITY its MUNICIPALITY‘S Reimbursement Costs for attorneys’fees and investigation costs necessary to enjoin or otherwise enforce this provision within thirty days of MUNICIPALITY’S request therefor. ’’

V. NEGOTIATIONS

Recognize the Potentially Divergent Interests of Assignor and Assignee Companies. The existing franchisee/assignor wants to maximize his sale price, whereas the proposed franchisee/assignee may want to reduce that price. As discussed above, term may be an issue in the assignment, and the purchase price is dependant on the term.

Remember that Term is Money. You may open discussions on assignment with respect to term as well as some or all of the other conditions noted above. As negotiations progress, you may be willing to move from e.g. a five year fixed term to e.g. a seven or ten year term in exchange for additional performance Commitments. Term may be a significant bargaining chip.

Beware of Losing Grandfathered Provisions. If you amend your agreement to include terms discussed above, you may want to make clear that it is not a restatement with a new date, but that the old date is retained. This will ensure that any existing provisions (e.g. indemnification) which may have subsequently become illegal are grandfathered and preserved.

~

~~

In conclusion, if your franchise asks you to consent to assignment, you may view it as an opportunity to update and strengthen your franchise agreement. At a minimum, consider conditioning your consent on inclusion of provisions which address concerns that may be raised following due diligence of the acquiring company.

12

Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) and Technology

THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF A MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY FOR McKINLEY FIBER COMPANY

IN ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO

Jack P. Chappelle, P.E. Engineering Solutions & Design

Albuquerque, New Mexico

INTRODUCTION McKinley Fiber Company (McKinley) began as a wholly- owned subsidiary of the AMCOR Company of Australia. McKinley’s purpose was to produce liner board for AMCOR clients in the United States. To meet this goal, McKinley located a paper mill in New Mexico to produce liner board from old corrugated cardboard (OCC). The mill’s construction was completed in 1995 and it began full production in 1996. As part of the mill’s overall operation scheme, McKinley identified the need for a feed source. McKinley decided to develop recycling facilities within New Mexico and neighboring states that would collect and process OCC for use by the paper mill. McKinley’s first facility was to be located in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

McKinley mangers determined early in the process that the facility in Albuquerque should be a showcase for the company. This became one of the driving forces for the facility. To meet this showcase goal, McKinley managers made the following decisions:

1.

2.

3.

4.

The facility in Albuquerque must be built from the ground up. Remodeling an existing facility was unacceptable.

In order to best serve the mill, the facility should be located along the rail line that traversed the city through the center of town.

The facility should be acceptable to its neighbors and should be enclosed’as much as possible to minimize blowing debris.

To maintain continuity in operation and maintenance, the equipment within the facility should be supplied by one manufacturer or, at a minimum, the sorting equipment supplied by one manufacturer and the baler unit by another manufacturer.

5 . The facility should have ample storage in order to maintain an adequate OCC supply for the mill to utilize should a shortage of OCC from other suppliers occur.

6 . The facility should have an operating capacity of 300 tons per day.

Based on these decisions and directives the McKinley Recycling Facility in Albuquerque, New Mexico was developed.

FACILITY DEVELOPMENT The development of the recycling facility began with identifying a site. As directed, the site needed to located along the railroad. The Burlington Northern - Santa Fe Railroad divides Albuquerque in a north-south direction. Because property along the railroad is heavily developed, vacant land is at a premium. After an extensive search McKinley identified a parcel of property in the southern portion of the city.

The identified parcel of property was relatively narrow. The maximum width of the site was 340 feet; the maximum length of the site was 1000 feet. This parcel of property was utilized as a storage and dumping area for a brick manufacturer. No previous structure had been placed at this site.

Upon identification of the site the facility layout process began. The layout process involved two distinct considerations. First was maximizing of the site for storage of OCC bales. Second was traffic flow about the site. Thus the recycling building size and location were dependent on traffic flow and storage capacity.

15

It was determined that the storage capacity of the site be a minimum of 2500 bales. Since the site narrowed in the western portion, it was decided that this area would be utilized for storm water retention and bale storage.

The types of vehicles that would visit the site ranged from small pickup trucks to large tractor-trailers. A rail spur would also be needed at the site. Because the longest portion of the property was perpendicular to the mainline of the railroad and the railroad could only install northbound switches, it was decided to bring the rail spur in on the north side of the property.

Once the rail spur location was determined, the building was located to allow for the direct loading of rail cars from the building as well as from the storage area. With the north side of the building set adjacent to the rail spur, it was necessary to route all vehicular traffic around the remaining three sides of the building.

The building shape was finalized based on two considerations. The first consideration was traffic flow around and through the building; the second consideration was the optimal configuration of the sorting, screening and baler within the building. At first it was thought that a portion of the initial sorting could be conducted outside the

-Imilding. This approach would allow for direct dumping next to the sort line feed belt. This concept was eliminated once it was determined that wind conditions at this site would cause significant amounts of fugitive material further causing a detrimental impact on adjacent properties. It was decided to have all of the sorting and tipping operations enclosed.

It was necessary to then determine the amount of area required for tipping and operation of the sort lines. Utilizing scaled cutouts of the sort lines and baler, the design team proceeded with identifying two elements of the building. First was the optimal layout and second was the configuring and sizing the building. This process involved three separate meetings. The first meeting involved utilizing cutouts placed on a blank piece of paper to identify an optimal arrangement of the sort lines and baler. Once an optimal layout was identified, tipping area limits were ascertained. Finally, the working area around each sort line and the baler were determined.

At the conclusion of the first meeting, the design team scaled off the area of the optimal layout and identified the dimensions of the building. The first building size was well over 50,000 square feet. The building consumed almost three-fourths of the narrow dimension of the property and limited traffic flow.

The second meeting began with determining an optimum traffic flow. Traffic flow considered vehicles delivering material, vehicles collecting bales of material and vehicles that both unloaded materials and loaded bales of materials. Based on one of the initial decisions of an operating capacity of 300 tons per day, an estimate was made as to the number and type of vehicles that would be anticipated during a typical day. The number of each type of vehicle anticipated each day was based on existing data. For example, a number of individuals, utilizing pickup trucks, collect OCC from local commercial establishments. The number of pickup trucks can be substantial. In addition, there are a number of communities that have curbside recycling in place. Side loaders are typically utilized for collecting these materials. The collection times and amount of materials vary significantly from day-to-day . From this information, the traffic count was further divided into number of pickup trucks, side loaders, and other vehicles anticipated at the facility.

To better control the flow of materials at the facility, it was determined that only tractor-trailer vehicles and rail cars would be utilized to transport baled material from the site. These vehicles would be loaded from either the loading dock that would be utilized to load rail cars or with the use of portable docks. These vehicles would also be limited to either loading at the front of the building at the end of the rail loading dock or at the back of the site where there would be a large area for maneuvering these vehicles.

Including the traffic flow information regarding these various vehicles it was determined that at least 75 to 130 feet of area must be allowed for the vehicles to pass on the side of the building opposite the rail spur. This determination was based on spacing of vehicles, queuing of vehicles, and the space required to allow for safe passing of vehicles. Further, it was determined that forklift truck traffic would also likely occur on this side of the building. With these limitations in place, the building dimensions developed during the first meeting decreased in the north- south direction. ~

At the conclusion of the second meeting, the design team had identified the north-south limits of the building. This north-south limit resulted in a significant change to the optimum layout of the building. In particular, it eliminated maximum spacing around each sort line and eliminated the option of parallel sort lines. The only other option was to place the sort lines perpendicular to each other.

~

~

~

~

The third meeting addressed two issues. First, the east- ____ -~ west limits of the building were determined. Then the

optimum layout for the equipment was reevaluated. Limitations on the east-west dimensions were the size of the

16

storage area and the setback requirements of the local building codes. Taking these limitations into consideration, the east-west dimensions were set. The resulting dimensions of the building were 150 feet by 200 feet and a building size of 30,000 square feet.

The new dimensions of the building were then scaled onto a piece of paper and cutouts of the sorting equipment and the baler were utilized to position this equipment. A number of configurations were tried until a final configuration was agreed upon. Although distinctly different from the original, optimal layout, the final layout still offered a significant working area as well as a sizeable area for tipping delivery vehicles.

In addition to the length and width dimensions of the building, the height of the building was also set. The height of the building was determined based on the maximum tipping height anticipated for a truck delivering to the facility. Truck, that would actually be utilized to deliver materials to the site were measured to determine this tipping height.

Finally, given the limited size of the building, it was determined that for maximum operating efficiency the interior of the building should include no columns. This resulted in clear spans of 150 feet.

Once the main recycling building was set, the ancillary buildings were identified and set. These buildings included an administration building and a scale house. The design team considered these buildings as one combined structure as well as two separate structures. It was the desire of the McKinley staff to combine the two buildings. This would allow for better security and the centralizing of administrative staff.

As with the main building, a number of layout options were utilized to determine the location of the administratiordscale building. The limiting factor with this building was the narrow north-south dimensions. Further, the existing road that would be utilized to access the site was rather narrow and could be very restrictive to tractor trailer vehicles except near the southeast corner of the site. Based on these considerations, it was determined that the best location for the entrance/exit to the site would be in the southeast corner of the property.

Once the entrance and exit to the site were established, the location of the administration/scale building could be set. This building size included space for the scale operation and a five-office, one-conference-room administration building. After a number of attempts to fit the building on the site and maintain a smooth traffic flow, it was

determined that the administration building and the scale house would need to be separated.

With sperate structures the scale house was sized to allow for the placement of two scales, one on each side of the scale house. Two scales would allow for minimal queuing area. This was important as queuing space on the site was at a premium and with the narrow access street and limited room to widen the street, queuing on the street would also be restricted.

With the split buildings, the administration building was located as close to the scale house as possible but with a large enough drive area to allow for the maximum passage of vehicles. Further, the administration building was located to allow for adequate parking and to be further utilized as a buffer between the street and the main building.

With the building locations set, the storage area identified, and traffic patterns determined the development of the facility focused on the finalizing the selection of the sorting and baling equipment, design of the building, and site design.

EQUIPMENT SELECTION McKinley coordinated identifying and purchasing the equipment. To meet the anticipated needs of the facility, McKinley determined that there would be a need for two types of sort lines and one baler. The sort lines would be a large star screen system that would allow for maximum sort of the OCC. The other line would include a small star screen and a sorting line. Both lines would discharge materials out the end for either disposal or final baling.

The baler would be required to produce between 30 and 40 tons per hour. The baler would also be required to meet certain operation requirements as well as be reliable. Given the building size limitations, it was necessary to have only one baler. This further added to the need for a reliable piece of equipment.

After careful thought and consideration, the equipment McKinley elected to utilize was Bulk Handling Systems sort equipment and a Lindemann baler. The selection process included visits to the manufacturers as well as to locations where equipment was installed. Further, the equipment was evaluated based on history of utilization, ease of installation and operation, maintenance needs,

~

~

reliability, and finally cost. -

Once the equipment was identified, the manufacturer was required to supply specifications for equipment including

17

dimensions, support requirements, electrical requirements, and any other unique requirements. This information was utilized in the final design of the facility.

FACILITY DESIGN At this stage in the project, McKinley management decided that the engineer should be responsible for the complete development of the facility. This responsibility included scheduling, financial monitoring, and design development. Management of the project would entail a significant level of effort.

The management of the project involved developing project tools that would be utilized to track schedule, financial progress, and milestones. To ensure that the project efforts were coordinated between McKinley and the engineer, a preset meeting program was implemented. These meetings corresponded to milestones of the project. Meetings were scheduled at least once every four weeks in case milestone durations were longer than this period. The engineer utilized existing software such as Microsoft Project and also developed new software specifically for this project. This meshing of software allowed for an optimal utilization of time and control of cost.

The design of the facility progressed utilizing the scheduling approach. Some of the key factors of the design included:

a.

b.

C.

d.

Given the utilization of the site as a dumping area for the adjacent brick factory, it was determined that drilled piers would provide the best support for the structure. The drilled piers also reduced the potential for settlement of the building and cracking of the floor.

With the number of vehicles anticipated to bring materials to the site, McKinley was concerned about the continual opening and closing of doors, to the recycling building. To eliminate this concern, the entire west side of the building was left open. This eliminated wear and tear on doors and allowed for maximum flexibility in unloading vehicles.

The baler unit's installation specifications required very little differential in the floor supports. Grade beams and additional piers were utilized to control settlement and eliminate differential in the floor supports.

The height and clear span requirements required added strength to the lower portion of the roof trusses. This increased truss support also resulted in

e.

f.

g.

h.

i.

j .

the ability to support the fire system, lighting and HVAC from these trusses; moving them out of the way of operation.

The railroad loading dock was designed to allow for the loading of trucks and rail cars simultaneously. The dock was also designed to allow for loading and unloading to the storage area. The dock design allowed for loading from either the storage area or directly from the building simultaneously.

All storm drainage generated on the site was retained on site by county code. This required the design of a retention pond that would contain storm drainage but would not reduce the storage area capacity.

All power and air lines were delivered to each piece of recycling equipment through tray systems buried in the floor. This eliminated overhead hazards and allowed for ease in repairing or replacing lines.

Bollards were placed around each building column as well as at each door opening and electrical control box.

Heating and cooling were provided to the sort line through forced air units and radiant heaters. The HVAC system was directed to those areas requiring heat and cooling.

Security cameras were placed within the building as well as at the scale house and on the site. These cameras were designed for both security and safety.

Design of the facility was completed in August 1996. The review process as well as the permitting of the site and receipt of all building codes were completed in September 1996. This review and permitting process involved a number of activities including:

1.

2.

3.

The State of New Mexico requires a solid waste

permit required submittal of a detailed application, review and acceptance of the application by the New Mexico Environment Department, and a public hearing.

The City of Albuquerque and Bernallilo County both require a complete drainage plan for the site and approval of this plan.

A site development plan must be approved by a development review board and it must be accepted by

~ permit for the operation of a recycling facility. This -~

~

-~ "

~

18

the local neighborhood association. This process also includes a public hearing.

4. A building permit was required for the construction of the facility. The building permit included review and acceptance of the design documents as well as approval from six city and five county departments.

Once the state permit, the drainage plan, and the site development plan were approved, McKinley approved the bidding of the construction project. Five firms had been prequalified to bid on this project. The firms were sent construction documents of use in the bidding process. In addition, a pre-construction meeting and site visit were held to allow the contractors an opportunity to visit the site and ascertain the conditions of the site.

Bids were opened on October 27, 1996, and Klinger Constructors, Inc. of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was selected as the low bider . Once all contract documents were signed, the first step was the fialize acquiring the building permit. The building permit was obtained 30 days after the contracts were signed. The contractor began work at the site in early November 1996.

Construction of the project was completed in three stages. The first stage was site clearing and grading; second was the construction of the main building and ancillary structures; the final step was site improvements including the installation of utilities and paving.

The first stage was accomplished in five weeks. This work involved clearing the site of all materials not related to the project and bringing the site to design grades. The work included removing over 4,500 cubic yards of debris the adjacent brick factory had buried on the site. This material was stockpiled on site.

With the completion of the first stage, the contractor began construction of the buildings. The main building construction began with the installation of 45 drilled piers. These piers varied in diameter from 24 inches to 54 inches. The depth of the piers varied from 15 feet to over 35 feet depending upon soil conditions and the amount of additional debris encountered during the drilling.

Once the piers were in place, grade beams were installed. These beams were key to the structural integrity of the building and were critical to the support of the structure. The grade beams were installed utilizing a relatively new tie device which allowed for continuous reinforcing over an extended length of beam. This was a significant cost savings to the project in both material cost and labor.

The drilled piers and grade beam installation took over six weeks to complete. During this time, plumbers and electricians were on site to begin burying conduits for use in bringing power and other utilities into the building. The loading dock area was excavated and the retaining wall portion of the dock was constructed during this stage. __

Once the grade beams were in place, the floor slab was installed. This slab, which covered 30,000 square feet, was designed to have less than 1/100 of an inch differential throughout the entire floor. This design was critical for proper installation of the equipment and the baler. Utilizing a laser guidance system, the floor was laid in 40- foot wide sections. The width of 40 feet was based on both grade beam locations as well as the elimination of any joints occurring at door openings. By eliminating any joints at door openings, the potential for differential settlement was further reduced.

The floor was allowed to set for two weeks before the installation of the building columns began. The building frame and skin were prefabricated. This allowed for ease of installation and faster building construction. The contractor elected to assemble the columns and building frame simultaneously. This allowed for the building construction to be performed in a production-line manner. The building was divided into five &foot long sections. The columns were installed first and then the remaining frame. Once this was completed, all roof trusses were placed and the roof installed. Once the roof was in place the electricians were allowed to install all of the lighting fixtures and the fire system installer could hang his sprinkler system supports.

After the first two 40-foot sections were installed, the skin of the building was installed. Once the skin was in place, the intemal work in each section was performed. Utilizing the utility trays installed during the floor installation, the electricians and plumbers installed wiring and air lines to serve the various pieces of recycling equipment.

By March 1997 the building skin was in place and the

structure was complete. During the construction of the building frame, the contractor was delayed only two days by weather conditions. All materials and equipment arrived on time.

~~ doors of the structure were installed. The building ~~

From March through April the contractor worked on the

from the project due to cost constraints). During this time,

~~

intemal portions of the building plus the construction of the scale house (the administrative building was eliminated

the third stage three of the project began with the installation of the site utilities. By mid-April the recycling

~~

19

equipment had arrived and by the end of April the equipment was installed.

Quipment installation was conducted over a period of two weeks. Duriig this time the two sort lines were installed as was the baler. The baler unit was installed utilizing two 40-ton cranes and was accomplished in a two-day time period. The two sort lines were delivered in pieces and were installed over a period of two weeks. The supports for the sort lines were all concrete. The concrete supports would also act as storage bins for sorted materials. These concrete supports included embedded steel plates to protect the concrete during operation. In addition, the corners of the supports were chamfered to minimize chipping and abrasion and also had steel plates installed for added protection.

Once the equipment was installed, final electrical, HVAC, and plumbing activities within the main building were conducted. At the same time this work was proceeding, the site work was well underway. This site work included finalizing the utility installation, installing the scale, and site paving. Only one scale was installed rather than the originally planned two for cost savings reasons and because McKinley determined that the initial operating level of the facility would not require two scales.

The site work was completed in early May 1997. The fmal cleanup and punch list work was concluded soon after and the building occupancy was granted in mid-May 1997. McKinley held a grand opening for the facility in late May and the facility began operation soon after.

OPERATION The facility began operation in early June 1997. The facility accepted materials from four sources; McKinley collection vehicles, City of Albuquerque collection vehicles, Waste Management, Inc. collection vehicles, and from small private collection vehicles. Once the facility was under operation, the staff noticed a few areas that could be improved. First, guard rails were added to the bollards to allow for further protection of the building. This minimized the concern of forklift trucks puncturing the building skin.

Third, the staff identified the need for on-site fueling. The original plan called for the fork lift trucks and other vehicles to be fueled either from fuel trucks brought to the site or by taking the vehicles to nearby fueling stations. After a few weeks of facility operation, it was determined that this original concept would not be acceptable. A fuel tank and a propane tank storage unit were built at the site.

Fourth, by utilizing bales and jersey barriers the staff established tipping bays for the delivery of recyclables. The use of these types of materials were visualized during the design process. By providing the operating staff a wide open tipping floor it offered them the opportunity to identify the best setup procedures for the tipping areas. In addition, by utilizing bales and jersey barriers the operating staff had maximum flexibility in rearranging the tipping floor as material deliveries and operations changed.

PRESENT STATUS After 9 months of operation the facility continues to operate with relative ease. The facility presently employees 10 operations personnel and an additional 7 administrative personnel and drivers. The facility produces approximately 110 tons of OCC per day. This supplies approximately 20 percent of the daily needs of the McKinley mill. An additional 20 tons of other recycled materials are also produced by the facility each day.

The majority of the materials brought to the facility are from Waste Management, Inc. and the City of Albuquerque. McKinley estimates that at present the facility takes in approximately 50 percent of the recycling stream of the city.

The recycling equipment has performed very well throughout the first 9 months of operation. None of the equipment has broken down and no loss days have occurred due to equipment failure.

The only problems that have occurred at the site involve the failure of a phone cable. The present manager of the site indicated that the facility exceeds his expectations and is very satisfied with the facility. The only need of the facility is more product.

Second, a trailer for staff to utilize for breaks and a trailer for the administrative personnel to work from were brought to the site. The original construction project included provisions for siting such facilities; however, the actual building or buildings were not included. These trailers were fabricated to McKinley specifications to further meet the specific needs of the site.

20

i; :n . *- ;;I

21

.,:

,+-- E

I 6 !J

i i .--. . -

22

c g

-. 1 i

4 ? A-01 , , '* :1- I I .-

23

f ? " t

24

SUMTER COUNTY SOLUTIONS: INNOVATIVE, INTEGRATED MSW COMPOSTING AND RECYCLING

Faced with rising landfill costs and more demanding State-mandated recycling goals, communities in Florida and elsewhere are struggling to divert a larger portion of the municipal waste stream from landfills by recovering more of that waste stream through recycling and composting. Sumter County has designed a “state-of-the-art” system to do what communities everywhere want to do: recover more of the waste stream. This high-tech system takes full advantage of integrated solid waste management technology to consolidate recycling and composting activities at one location. The facility’s innovative design has already gained widespread attention in the industry.

Sumter County developed its newly-constructed facility to maximize the recovery of materials by combining up-frmt recycling with composting. The new state-of-the-art facility is designed to handle 100 tons of MSW per day and includes a materials recovery facility (MRF) for the initial processing of recyclables and a compost digester system for processing the remaining materials. The County’s current objective is to meet or exceed County and State solid waste and recycling goals by recovering, either as recyclables or compost, approximately 75 percent of incoming MSW.

During initial up-front processing, recyclable materials are both mechanically and manually removed. The MRF is equipped with the latest processing and recycling technologies, including an automated

debagging system, a residue disc screen, and an eddy current separator. Materials remaining in the waste stream after MRF processing are introduced in an aerobic digester for composting. The digester, an enclosed, rotary vessel that serves as a biomechanical pre-processing composter, was selected for its ability to eliminate odor and leachate and to accelerate the composting process.

The County’s compost digester system also offers an effective alternative for managing the community’s animal wastes and biosolids. The County’s digester system is designed to handle 50 tons of MSW compost feedstock per day, and for every 50 tons of MSW compost feedstock, 25 tons of nitrogen source materials are added to support the composting process. Thus, the County processes 25 tons per day of animal wastes and biosolids in the production of high quality compost.

After finishing, the compost produced by the County’s system can be marketed for agricultural and horticultural applications. High quality compost serves as a valuable soil amendment to improve moisture retention, conserve water, and increase resistance to pests and diseases.

Sumter County’s new facility has already gained widespread recognition because its design integrates materials recovery and composting processes and because of its projected high materials recovery rates. It is the only operating MSW composting facility in Florida and was selected as a tour site for the NRC Congress in September 1997. Because integrated solid waste management systems offer MSW managers substantial benefits, other communities are looking to the Sumter County facility as a national model.

25

MSW COMPOSTING: Is it for Everybody. ?

Mitch Kessler, President TIA Solid Waste Management Consultants, Inc.

I

0

0

0

0

0

INITIAL ANALYSIS What are your objectives?

Do you know your costs?

What are your risks and role?

Who are the players?

Are the system components balanced?

m b

0 pllr

28

PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS

a Existing Programs and Infrastructure a Po lit ical Environment

Level of Competition

0 Locationhpecifications of Markets

a State and Local Mandates a Types and Quantities of Wastes

0 0

PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

Siting;

Financing

Technology

Management

POLICY CHALLENGES

Customer Satisfaction

e Economically Sustainable Systems

Environmentally Sound Approaches

Efficient and Effective Management

FUTURE TRENDS Increased Economic Scrutiny

Program Efficiency-Accountability

One-Stop Shopping

Regionalization

Increased Composting and C&D Recycling

WHO ARE YOU?

Commingled ? . WetDry '? . Automation

0 Split Carts '? . DirtyMFW 3 . Curb Sort

Co-Collection . Mixed Wastes Bi-Weekly

'? 0 MiniMRF ? BlueBag Euro-MFW ?

THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF'S NEW RECYCLING PROGRAM PROVIDING A FEASIBLE SOLUTION FOR LONG TERM PLANNING

Louis W. Perez Vice President, Marketing

Norton Environmental 6200 Rockside Woods Boulevard

Independence, Ohio 44 13 1

ABSTRACT

The city of Flagstaff, Art ma, has contracted with Norton Environmental for the development of a new "commingled" Material Recovery Facility (MRF). The proposed paper will describe the recycling program established by the City of Flagstaff and detail the MRF's operation. The paper will also explore why the city has elected to implement a commingled collection program and review the benefits derived from the program.

TEXT

Evolution in Recycling With a growing population exceeding some 57,000 residents, the city of Flagstaff, Arizona, was searching for a solution to a growing problem. The problem facing Flagstaff is one that is facing several U.S. communities -- what to do with the growing volume of solid waste. Like most communities, however, the initial solution is to dispose of the material at the local landfill. Although, the landfill is a resource with limited space and the Flagstaff community issued a strong support for an alternative solution.

Flagstaff maintains a proactive environmental conscious community with concerns on the long term dependency of landfill disposal. The community is strongly motivated in preserving the natural beauty that surrounds Flagstaff and northern Arizona. In general, most of Flagstaffs residents feel that landfill disposal is not the most feasible long term solution and would prefer the option of an effective recycling program. Moreover, the City's Public Works Department has a vested interest towards extending the life of the Flagstaff landfill. As the population continues to increase, preserving the life of the landfill will provide the City with disposal stability and long term control of disposal cost.

In order to address these issues, and implement recycling, the City of Flagstaff first embarked on the development of a drop-off recycling program for the residential sector. For the past seven years the city has been running its drop-off program with five drop-off stations. Materials such as OCC, newspaper, glass, and metallic cans are captured through the program. The drop-off program was an effective tool in order to initiate the city's recycling objective. Although, the program is limited and does not extend to the commercial sector.

The City's overall objective with solid waste is to reduce the volume of material going to the landfill. Preserving the landfill for hture generations is at the forefront, and accomplishing this goal would require the implementation of a new recycling

recycling program is to take recycling in Flagstaffto a new level and divert a significant volume of recyclable material from the landfill.

program. A new program would need to address recycling for both the residential and commercial sectors. The direction of the ~~

___ _."-

35

Initiation of a new recycling program: The City of Flagstaff collects solid waste for both residential and commercial customers. Currently, there are some 12,000 households and 588 commercial accounts serviced by the City. In order to initiate high landfill diversion the City understands the need for an effective program.

The program's first order of business was to develop recycling collection for the residential and commercial sector. Residential recycling is very common for most communities, but commercial recycling is traditionally reserved for the private sector. It is uncommon for a municipality to initiate a commercial recycling program. Flagstaff, however, has the unique opportunity for the implementation of a city wide recycling program. It is no secret that the commercial waste stream generated a high concentration of recyclables and an effective city wide program will be able to target these materials. Flagstaffs commercial program will first target accounts that normally generate high concentrations of fiber. Accounts such as office buildings, schools, government offices, and shopping areas will direct their entire waste stream to a new Material Recovery Facility for processing. Other commercial accounts generating a medium concentration of recyclables will receive two six yard containers (depending on the account); one for trash the other for targeted commingled recyclables.

For the residential sector, the City will initiate automated (commingled) collection with Rapid Rail collection vehicle. Flagstaffs residents will receive two 90 gallon containers; a brown container for trash and a green container for commingled recyclables. The program will provide twice a week collection; one day for commingled recyclables the other for trash. After curbside program implementation, the City plans to expand commingled recycling to multi-family dwellings, local university and commercial accounts. With the residential and commercial recycling program in place the city is looking towards diverting 30% - 35% from the landfill.

Targeted Commingled Recyclables The following is a list of materials accepted at the Flagstaff Commingled MRF:

+ BulkyNews + Loose News + Mixed Residential Paper + Junk Mail + HighGradePaper . + Magazines + occ + Ferrous (cans) + Ferrous Scrap + AluminumCans + Aluminum Scrap + HDPE + PET + Glass

It is no secret that the recycling industry has been searching for new methods of reducing collection costs while increasing the volume of collected recyclables. In the effort towards reducing collection costs, and improve .overall efficiency, most curbside collection programs are shifting to automated commingled collection. Although, shifting to commingled collection is one half of the battle, processing the recyclables is the other spectrum of the equation.

Processing Recyclables Upon collection, the materials are routed to the FlagstaffMRF equipped with commingled processing technology. In order to process the recyclables from a commingled collection program a more advanced MRF configuration is required. Advances in MRF technology have forged new hybrid commingled (co-collection) MRFs with the ability to provide more aggressive processing. Overall, new MRF technology has evolved from the traditional twin line process (one for containers the other for

36

fiber) to the more advanced single line system. Due to a reduction of floor space and man power single line MRF systems have been able to demonstrate an advantageous scale of economics.

Flagstail's new single line MRF is currently under construction and is expected to begin operations in early June of 1998. The facility will process five to eight tons per hour of residential commingled recyclables and commercial material from the City's recycling programs. The facility consists of a 34,000 square foot split face block masonry building. The building is a clear span structure with insulated metal siding and an attractive appearance. The building's layout, structural design and appearance were modeled from Norton's existing Mixed Waste Processing Facility in Medina, Ohio. Norton's intention was to provide a facility that will interface in harmony with existing surroundings. Proper landscaping is also provided to give the facility a professional appearance.

The entire facility will be under roof and separated into two wings. The first Wing is the tipping area for unloading recyclables and commercial waste. The second Wing is the main processing area and baling area for recovered recyclables. Baled recyciables will be loaded on to waiting transport trailers and sent to their final markets. Vehicles entering the facility will enter the tipping area fkom the backside of the building, shielding the street side fkom any truck queues. The following is a layout for the Flagstaff MRF:

I

I I I I I

I

I

I

I

I

i I

i i I

I I I I

L-

L

I

I 1 I I I I I I I I

NORTON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. COMINGLED RECYCLING FAClLlM

37 _...-----.

Social Worth To The Community The MRF's design features a drop-off area for the residential community. County residents that daily commute to Flagstaff will be able to dispose of their recyclables in the provided roll-off boxes. The facility will also feature a conference room with an observation window. Tours may be arranged in order to educate school groups, and social groups on the value of recycling. The City's Public Works Department will help to coordinate field trips €or the school groups. Norton will also continue to work closely with the Flagstaff communities and help promote recycling. The company will make its conference room available to community groups during scheduled hours and effectively help to increase residential participation.

~

Conclusion In order to govern the control of landfill diversion one needs to govern and control of the waste stream. The City of Flagstaff does govern the landfill and controls the lion's share of the Flagstaffwaste stream. Recycling is a vital subject matter for the Flagstaff community and the City views recycling as an essential component for landfill diversion. In order for the City of Flagstaffto reach its recycling objective the City has taken steps towards implementing a comprehensive recycling program for both the residential and commercial sectors. The program will feature automated commingled collection for the residential sector and an aggressive commercial program.

Once collected, the materials will be directed to a new material recovery facility. The MRF features advanced processing technology for both material streams and a conference center that will support the City's educational program.

38

MODIFING AN EXISTING MRF WHEN NEW CONSTRUCTION IS NOT AN OPTION

Patrick D. Carroll Department of Recycling

Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County West Palm Beach, Florida

Abstract

With many of the more mature curbside programs reaching the end of their second decade, the facilities which serve them are, in many cases operating far in excess of the design capacity, and are suffering a serious decline in processing &ciency. After fostering a hugely successful curbside program for over ten years Palm Beach County found itself in this very predicament. These capacity issues were magnified by the hghly seasunal nature of the area’s population which swells from 1 million to over 3 million residents during the winter months.

The SOW Waste AuthmIy appropriated h d s far a new facility to handle the overflow, and began the search for an appropriate site. This paper focuses on the advantages of modifying an existing facility when all other options have been expended, and describes the experiences of the Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority as an example of successful application.

Introduction

The Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority is located in West Palm Beach in central palm Beach County. The SWA instituted a voluntary curbside collection program in 1988. Over the past ten years the program has seen tremendous growth in the number of households served Today nearly 500,000 units are served by the program, and the types of materials collected, starting with the basic 5 progressing to the 13 different items currently includedinthe program.

In 1989 the SWA contracted with RRT to design and construct a new state of the art MRF. In the Spring of 1990 the MRF went on line with the capacity to handle 70,000 TPY of O W and commingle containers. Like many south Florida jurisdictions Palm Beach County must deal with a large seasonal population which swells from one to over three million during the winter months. The program quickly outgrew the facility and by late in 1996 peak season flows were as high as 600 TPD, far in excess of what the facility could comfortably handle.

Recognizing the problem several years earlier the Authority began searching for a site to build a new facility. A site was purchased in Delray Beach Fl., which is located in southern Palm Beach County. A zoning dispute with the City resulted in the sale of the site by the Authority and a renewed search for an appropriate site. The capacity problems at the facility were exacerbated by double digit growth in the tonnage being received at the fitcility.

It became apparent very quickly that the political climate was not conducive to finding a new site in the southern or any other part of the County. Without sigmficant increase in the processing capacity the program was in danger of being adversely affected. A quick solution was needed, the Authority expended a tremendous amount of time and energy examining many Merent options.

39

Searching For Options

Modification of the existing facility was actually one of the first options considered, this ideas was quickly dismissed, primarily due to the rather unusual location of the existing facility. Because of the desire to centrally locate all Authority facilities, and the tremendous amount of landfill space at the current site, the facility was constructed within the footprint of the future landfill. Despite the approximate ten year life span of the facility it was assumed that it would be impossible to just@ the high expenditures necessary to gain the needed capacity.

Several other options were explored such as leasing and modification of commercial warehouse space, or contracting with a private sector operator to handle part or all of the material.

A mutual decision by the Authority and the facility operator to terminate the operations contract provided the perfect opportunity to formally survey the industry for new operations proposals as well as creative and innovative solutions to our capacity problems.

To accomplish this the Authority embarked upon and R F Q m process to first sualify interested parties and then evaluate the proposals submitted by the qualified candidates. In asking €or proposals to address the facility issues great care was taken to put as few conditions as possible on the proposers in order to promote creative solutions.

The winner developed a plan to expand the fiicility and improve the commingle and fiber processing capacity. The modifications included the addition of an employee break", bathroom facilities, and maintenance storage and work areas. As well as a proposal to in essence pay for the modifications through a reduced tipp fee Over the life of the contract. It was an offer the Authority could not rekse, and a contract was negotiated.

WHY MODIFY?

Modifcation is often an overlooked option when planning future programs modification of an existing facility offers many advantages Over the construction of a new facility. In many cases the outcome can offer similar results in terms of increases in processing capability and operating ef€iciency. The following are particular areas which should be closely examined when contemplating an expansion decision.

cost

In general, the costs associated for modifiMtions even major ones is far less than constructing a new facility. Most of the savings are realized by avoiding the siting of the facility and all the preconstruction activities associated with new construction. In addition to the actual capital costs associated with adding structures and equipment, the cost and aggravation factor associated with interruptions in service can be greatly reduced by choosing a modification over new construction.

Siting

Sighting of a new recycling or solid waste handling facility can be one of the most daunting tasks faced by any Solid Waste Management district. The absence of suitable land, along with well organized and well funded citizen opposition groups can make the task impossible. Politicians struggling to make good policy decisions are forced to weigh the overall needs of the community against the wishes of their constituents.

In PaIm Beach County a city zoning variance was used to deny a construction permit for a sorely needed facility which was strongly opposed by citizens near the proposed construction site. Once the court upheld the zoning decision made by the city, the chances for siting in any other part of the County became remote.

40

Siting considerations can be the single largest deciding factor in choosing to explore modification as an alternative to new construction.

Desiga Considerations: This is an area in which si&canL problems can be encountered in a modification versus a new construction job. Existing support structures, utility lines, along with a variety of other site conditions can raise serious design difficulties, which can easily increase the cost of this portion of the project,

MODIFICATION CONSIDERATIONS

Once a decision has been made to mod@ your facility, several decisions must be made concerning exactly what is to be done to the facility. In many cases this is somewhat dictated by budgetary constraints, but in any case a prioritized list of improvements must be completed an evaluated. In the case of Palm Beach County this was a relatively simple exercise for two reasons, first, most mature MRF's are experiencing problems in the same general areas. Second the MRF operators at most of the older facilities have had lots of time to identlfy the problem areas at the facility , and in many cases have formulated solutions which are waiiLg for an opportunity to implement then. Some specific areas which should be considered are as follows:

Tipp Floor: At many facilities the area used to accept incoming materials were seriously undersized from the start or have become so due to program growth . They rarely have sufficient surge capacity to handle periods of equipment down time or in the case of Palm Beach County , the surges caused by seasonal population growth each year . This should be very lligh on the list when considering major modifications.

Bale Storage: Another area which in many facilities tends to be undersized is the area used for storage of finished materials. With quality concerns coming to the forefiont in today's market place, keeping bales clean and dry has become paramount to obtaining top prices. At the Solid Waste Authority we utilize a just in time shipping schedule which helps to keep hale inventory as low as possible. If the most refined shipping schedule occasionally has problems which require sufficient bale storage for at least two days production.

Equipment Size/Efficiency: In planning facility modifications replacement of key pieces of equipment as well as entire systems should be carefully considered. Many systems are currently operating well below their rated efficiency due primarily to the fact that they are overwhelmed. Components such as eddy currents, balers, glass sorting systems, and other key pieces of equipment must be evaluated for upgrade or replacement. As part of the modifications to the West Palm Beach Facility we choose to replace the entire commingle processing system in tavor or a much larger system. In addition two new paper sorting lines were installed.

Employee Facilitiedergonomics: Employee Facilities such as "icient bathroom, locker, and breakroom facilities are often sorely needed and usually overlooled areas for improvement. Many older facilities which were designed to operate with 30-40 employees are now working with twice that number. Make shift sorting stations designed to solve operational problems and address product quality issues are often constructed with little or no consideration given to ergonomic issues. During our modification project additional bathroom capacity was added for both male and female employees, and a new breakroom was added to accommodate the over 70 full time employees at the facility.

41

Conclusions

Despite recent reports that have alleged a less than promising outlook for the W e of cwbside recycling in this Country, many jurisdictions including Palm Beach County are experiencing increased participation and steady growth. This type of growth is putting a huge strain on what in most cases is an aging infrastructure for dealing with residentially generated recyclables.

Over the next several years many if not most of the more established systems will be forced to make major decisions regarding upgrading or replacing recyclables processing capacity . Many will opt to build new facilities, many will find that either the political climate or the financial outlook is not conducive to siting and constructing a new state of the art recycling facility

Major facility modifications will become a more popular option. The 4.4 million dollar modification completed by the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County was designed to address all of the major areas of concern described above. Upon completion it will provided the County with an expansion large enough to accommodate the current shortfalls and handle all materials projected to be generated over the next ten years.

The project provided a quick, relatively low cost, long term sdutiofi to the County’s processing capacity problems. The &-oject has demonstrated the viability of plant m6dificatons as a ldyig term solution which should be considered in any solid waste system capital facilities planning Scheme.

42

Economics and Recycling

CONSTANCE HORNIG, ESQ. Law Offices

1415 Victoria Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90019

Telephone 213 934-4601 * Telefax 213 934-3742

~~~ ~~~~~-

SWANA 9TH ANNUAL WASTE REDUCTION, RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING SYMPOSIUM

Tuesday, May 12,1998 Tempe, A 2

PUBLIC OWNERSHIP/ PRIVATE OPERATION: COST CONTROL OF RECYCLABLES PROCESSING

Frequently private haulers which collect recyclables for municipalities also provide processing and marketing services. This presentation explores how your public ownership (and financing) of the processing facility operated pursuant to agreement with your private hauler (or other private operator) can lower capital costs, retain negotiating leverage to secure cost-wise renewals at expiration of the operating agreement term, and increase negotiating leverage when directing program changes. (This is especially true if you competitively secure the operation agreement.)

COST CONTROL ADVANTAGE #1: LOWER CAPITAL COST. Municipalities have access to tax exempt financing of the capital cost of constructing and equipping their publicly owned processing facilities on terms unavailable to private companies. Governmental entities can finance MRFs with the proceeds of municipal bonds, which will usually be less expensive than a private company’s taxable debt (e.g. corporate bonds or bank loans) or equity subject to each company’s prescribed rate of return’. For example, if tax-exempt bonds bear interest at 8%2, a bond holderhaxpayer in an hypothetical 50% tax bracket would have to get a 16% return on a taxable bond in order to retain the same earnings. Therefor an investor is willing to accept a lower interest rate on municipal bonds when he can keep all the interest earnings without netting

‘Note that although private companies can qualifl for tax exempt private activity bonds for privately owned solid waste facilities meeting Internal Revenue Code requirements (including limited and therefor extremely competitive volume cap allocation), private activity bonds are subject to the alternative minimum tax, and their interest costs may consequently be relatively higher than governmental bonds.

2The interest rate on municipal bonds depends on the underlying credit of the issuer (or on the credit support of a letter of credit or bond insurance), which in the case of solid waste management-related bonds is increasingly the financial creditworthiness of the solid waste enterprise fund.

45

out tax liabilitie~.~

Sometimes your elected officials may feel that they cannot politically support your

financing. But remember that your municipality nevertheless pays for private financing through the service fee which will contain the private contractor’s capital recovery component. And your municipality will likely pay more for private financing indirectly through the service fee than paying for public financing directly.

municipality’s incurring debt because it is more popular to turn to the private sector to provide .~

COST CONTROL ADVANTAGE #2: RETAIN NEGOTIATION LEVERAGE TO SECURE OPERATING FEE REDUCTIONS AT TERM’S END. It is easier to bring a new operator to your publicly owned facility than it is for you to take your materials to a new privately owned facility with possibly longer transportation costs or even capital costs of green field development. Ownership is leverage when the time comes to renegotiate operating fees.

Renegotiation With Existing Operator at End of Fixed Term. At the end of the fixed term of your operations agreement you may have experienced small or large friction and dissatisfaction with your existing operator and want to bring in a new operator. In such event you probably would want to competitively procure a new operator. But if you are basically happy with existing service yet feel that it’s time to negotiate a new price, especially if you have been escalating your originally negotiated operations fee and feel the index has veered far from contractor’s actual costs, then you may want to return to the negotiating table with your existing operator. The leverage is largely on your side, because if you don’t reach agreement with the existing operator you can easily bring in another. It’s a virtual certainty that there are more private waste companies willing to come to your community to run a MRF than there are MRFs in your community.

Public Owner Term Extension Options. Especially if you procure your operation agreement through a competitive bid process, you may be able to retain your option to extend the operations agreement for one/two/five etc. year options on the same terms and conditions (usually including continuing escalation of the operations fee). If you are being well served and the operating fee you pay is still acceptable, extension delays the time and expense of a new procurement. When it’s your facility you may have more leverage to secure this option. (On the other hand, in order to give your operator incentive to increase recovery, marketing and diversion, you might reward

31n some jurisdictions, a consequence of securing public financing may be that workers in the MRF must be paid prevailing wages, which results in increased operating costs over the term of a operating agreement as compared to non-prevailing wages which might have been paid by a

~

private contractor providing service at its privately financed and owned facility under a service agreement. You must then compare the present value of the capital cost savings in the public

-~ - ~~

financing/ownership scenario to the present value of labor cost savings in the private financing/ownership option. (However, sometimes municipalities require private contractors to pay prevailing wages as a policy position, regardless of whether the law requires it.)

46

it with term extension rights based on super-performance over and above basic performance guaranties . )

Termination for Convenience. Termination for convenience allows you to pay your operator a pre-agreed sum to end your contractual relationship. You may wish to do this because you have been experiencing deteriorating service quality but find termination for default fraught with argument, even costly litigation. Or you may wish to do so in order to take over operations yourself or to reduce or change the scope of operations. For whatever the reason, having a termination for convenience right increases your options and may keep your operator keen to perform well, knowing that you can replace it. When you own the facility you need not compensate your operator for his unamortized capital costs, but only for some level of wind- down costs and lost profits. (The level of lost profits may be minimized if made part of a competitive bid along with the base operating fee.)

COST CONTROL ADVANTAGE #3: INCREASE NEGOTIATION LEVERAGE WHEN DIRECTING SERVICE CHANGES.

Fluctuating Materials Volume and Additional Capital Investment. You know for a certainty that your waste volume will vary with the general state of the economy, rapid development and population growth or delivery of additional materials by neighboring municipalities. Owning your own facility gives you greater flexibility to increase and decrease materials volume. (The degree to which you want to develop excess physical capacity in order to process merchant waste- just like a private operator- and achieve economies of scale to reduce the per ton cost of processing your own waste, is a policy decision.)

When you bring your materials to a privately owned facility you may pay a service fee on a stepped up scale, with lower per ton fees as your volume increases due to increased economies of scale which spread fixed costs (e.g. capital, administrative) over larger tonnage. However, at certain tonnage stepped increases, your service provider may have to invest in additional capital equipment as well as labor. If in the future your volume decreases and you want to step back down to a lower level, you cannot return to the same previous step charge because your contractor has made that additional capital investment which is outstanding, even if you no longer need it.

When you bring your materials to your own facility, you may pay an operating fee on a stepped up scale as well. But as you step up your tonnage, your operator need only provide additional labor while you provide the additional equipment. If your volume decreases, you can fully drop down to your previous operating fee after allowing operator a time to reduce labor. True, you may still have to pay debt service on additional equipment you may have acquired, but you retain the value of that equipment in the form of ownership.

Protocol for Operational Change Orders. Ideally from the public perspective you want the ability to direct - not merely request - changes on operations, e.g. additional volumes or materials (green waste). The only issue remaining is price. Especially in a competitive procurement you

47

can include a change order protocol which provides first for your requests for change proposals, next for your contractor’s responsive proposal and lastly, possibly arbitration of price by an independent engineer third party in the event of disagreement. (This direction right may be difficult to obtain outside of a competitive procurement, because contractor may argue that it could be bankrupted by an arbitrated fee determination, whereas it only represents “pennies” per ton to you. An alternative is termination.)

Reservation of Rights to Contract for Changes. You might retain the option to bring in a third party to perform the requested change where the change is a function sufficiently distinct from your operator’s existing operations, e.g. a third party to turn windrows outside the processing facility building on your site as opposed to additionally picking LDPE on operator’s picking line. Practically, you have this option only when you own the facility, since you can’t bring in another party to a private operator’s facility or site. Retaining this right may give your leverage when renegotiating the service fee impact of additional services.

Risk Allocation for Changes in Law/Uncontrollable Circumstances. In the event that a change in law (e.g. retrofitting your facility under new OSHA laws with respect to enclosed worker stations) or an uncontrollable circumstances which significantly increases the cost of processing, you might secure a termination right. Arguably, since a change in law or uncontrollable circumstance is neither party’s fault, you should not have to buy out your operator for lost profits. However, you might structure a termination for convenience based on such negotiated (or competitively bid) buy out price.

CONCLUSION. Public ownership accrues advantages of capital cost reduction and of operating fee renegotiation leverage at term or in the event of service changes. And a final note: the market participation exception to the Commerce Clause also gives a municipality more flow control over materials import to its facility.

Addendum: Public financing and ownership does not significantly shift responsibility for design, construction and operation of the facility from the contractor. Contractor’s accountability and day-to-day activities are much the same as if the contractor had financed and owned the facility itself. However, the attached addendum highlights some instances where public ownership requires some adjustment of the parties’ rights and responsibilities inter se.

48

ADDENDUM: PUBLIC FACILITY OWNERSHIP IMPLICATIONS

Selected implications of hiring a private contractor to operate a municipally owned facility follow:

Satisfactory Financing Terms Condition. At the time that your municipality enters into a desigdconstructloperation (and marketing) agreement for a MRF it probably has not yet secured its facility financing. Among numerous conditions precedent to its obligations under the Agreement (perhaps securing the site, obtaining permits etc.) should be securing financing on terms satisfactory to the municipality. You do not want to be in a position where your borrowing is much more expensive than you predicted due to bond market fluctuation, inability to secure cost-effective credit support or a lower credit rating than anticipated. In general, contractual provisions will be interpreted by courts in the context of "reasonableness" unless otherwise provided, and you do not want a court second guessing what a reasonable interest rate should be. So you should make clear that you will determine whether financing is satisfactory solely in your discretion. For example a condition precedent might be:

(2) Transfer Station Financing. The Authority shall have authorized, sold and issued, or caused to be issued, Municipal Obligations in an aggregate principal amount available for timely disbursement and suficient, together with any other available moneys, to finance Construction, Equipping, MRF Development, costs of issuance therefor, any required capitalized interest and other costs required to be paid by the Authority in connection with such issuance, upon terms and conditions satisfactory to the Authority in its sole discretion. The Contractor acknowledges that the Authority Board has not authorized the terms of Municipal Obligations as of the date of execution of this Agreement.

Processing Contractor's Design Responsibility. When your municipality owns the facility you will naturally have a major, even primary, interest in its design and specifications, including capacity and quality. You can hire your processing contractor to provide designs for your review and approval. In fact, it may be preferable to ensure that your processing contractor is responsible for the facility from design through construction and operations testing to operations, because then it is easier to hold contractor to performance guaranties for vehicle turnaround, materials throughput, recoveryhesidue limits etc. If multiple subcontractors are responsible for design, construction and operation it is easier for the operators contractor to argue that recovery is poor because the pick lines are designed inefficiently, or that alleged poor maintenance is not the issue but rather shoddy construction. Contracting with one entity who in turn is responsible for subcontractors' performance allows you to forge links in a chain of responsibility from conception to operation.

Securing permits and renewals. As facility owner you will be named on permits, but the degree to which you want your contractor to work for you to secure those permits is up to you. (You may have in-house planning staff do so.) At a minimum, you need contractual commitments for contractor to cooperate in providing information for securing - and renewing- permits over the term of your operations agreement.

49

Public Bidding of Construction and Equipping. Another consequence of public ownership may be the public bidding requirement. As described above with respect to design, it can be important to hold contractor responsible for this project development stage, so your agreement can provide for construction management by your processing contractor.

Operations Testing. Following completion of construction, your processing contractor must demonstrate that it can meet your performance guaranties for vehicle turnaround, throughput, recovery, marketing, etc. before commencing permanent operations under your agreement. Your agreement will prescribe the protocol for performing the tests, compiling the test result report and resolving differences over test results. It will also set an operations date and describe events which justify extending such date, including payments (e.g. your debt service and alternative service costs) by contractor for its delays.

Contractor Maintenance of Publicly Owned Facilities and Equipment. Hiring someone else to operate and maintain your building and equipment can cause worry, since they will not have the same motivation to care well for your assets as you, the owner, would. Your operations agreement needs to include maintenance protocols and reporting, including complying with manufacturers warranties and recommended maintenance. Prior to the end of the agreement, the parties should tour the facility and draw up an exit punch list of repairs the operator needs to make prior to ceasing service.

50

VARIABLE RATE PRICINGFORRESIDENTIAL COMlWNlTIES

Stephen P. Connolly and W. Gregory Vogt SCS Engineers Reston, Virginia

Esther Bowring Montgomery County Division of Solid Waste Services Rockville, Maryland

ABSTRACT

In an effort to promote solid waste source reduction and recycling, Montgomery County, Maryland is testing variable rate pricing for possible implementation on a County-wide basis. To this end, a pilot project was implemented in the Forest Estates community of Silver Spring, Maryland. Montgomery County designed the project to obtain real-time, curbside measurements of midentid waste and recyclabh set-outs. Them "ents were made during a series of quarterly field efforts so as to discem changes in dispod and recycling patterns over time.

Prior to implementation of the project (and during the baseke monitoring Mod), a total of 666 households received refuse collection on Tuesdays and Fridays, and recyclables collection (newspapers, commingled

November 1996, variable rate pricing for waste disposal was implemented, and mixed paper recycling was added to the program. The County shifted to once-a-week waste and recycling collection for the community in March 1997, and in August 1997, the community began to receive once-a-week, same-day collection for refuse, recyclables and yard waste.

Containers, and yard trimmings) on Fridays. In mid-

As part of the pilot project, tho County monitored wask and recycling quantities and composition in the community to assess the impact of variable rate pricing. Data were wllected from a represmtativ0 sample of households during the three-week period prior to implementation of the variable rate pricing program. Thew data were to provide baseline i n f i o n so as to idelntify changes in waste disposal and recycling behavior over time, based on quantities (by weight) of materials set out at the curb. To assess the impact of variable rate pricing, one-week follow- up studies were performed in February, May, and

July/AUguSt 1997. A final follow-up study was conducted over a -week period in October and November 1997.

To provide a set of oontrol data, the County conducted a study in the Parkwood community in June, 1997. As with Forest Estates, a baseline study was p e r f o d during the three-week period prior to project implementation, while mixed paper recycling was added to the collection immediately thereafter. However, variable rate pricing was not implemented in the Parkwood community.

This paper is an update of an earlier presentation of interim findings [Vogt, 19971. Findings from this pilot study indicate that waste diverted from landtill dispod itkcreesed significantly from approximately 39 percent (by weight) in the baseline study to levels of 50 percent, 62 percent, 53 percent, and 52 percent, respectively, in the follow-up study intervals (unadjusted for seasonality). When the data are adjusted for seasonality (principally yard waste), the study d t s show that residents improved recyclables Separatonpractices. That is, diecarded r e h during the baseline period contained 29 percent (by weight) of recyclables; this valw decreased to 14 percent, 14 peroent, 8 percent, and 21 percent respectively, during the subsequent one-year study period (unadjusted for seasonality). In part, these findings were due to the mixed paper fraction which trausferred from the refuse fraction to the recyclables fraction.

SAMFLING PROCEDURES

The County selected 71 households for the subject group sampling which were judged to be representative of the Forest Estates c o d t y . The same households were surveyed during each of the five field sampling events. For the control group, 90

51

houses were “pled which were judged to be representative of the Parkwood community.

Refuse* 6,197 61

“spaper 1,894 19

Recyclable 767 8 Containers

Contaminants 83 < 1

Yard waste 1,234 12

TOTAL 10,175 100 ?

The field study was coI1<1ucted on Tuesdays and Fridays, beginning October 22 through November 8, 1996. -le colledion began at 7:OO a.m. and target ams wen3 ordered so that the field team arrived after residents wem likely to have set out waste, but before collection vehicles arrived. On Fridays, collection of recyclables and weighing of yard waste also took place.

For each sample household, waste, commingled recyclables and newspapers were bagged (as

tagged with a sample identification number, and loaded into an SCS collection vehicle. The number of waste and recyclables bags per household as well as can size were recorded on the data sheet. When the disposed waste and recycling set-outs were collected from each of the designated houses, the materials were taken to the County’s Shady Grove Transfer Station for sorting and weighing. Yard waste was weighed at the curbside and then left at tbe curbside for collection by the hauler. The size and type of container were noted (e.g., 32-gallon metal can, 32-gallon plastic can, paper bag). Standard tare weights for the comsponding container were used to calculate the actual weight of yard waste (if yard waste was bagged, the weight of the bag was assumed to be negligible).

The pilot program used a tag system where the residents were requited to place either a $1 .OO tag on a 32-gallon bag or can of refuse or a $0.50 tag on a 20-gallon can or bag of refuse set out for collection. Refuse not properly tagged was not collected. At the begimhg of the p”, the County mailed residents a supply of about $70 worth of tags. Refuse and recyclables were taken to a transfer station for sorting and weighing.

SORTING PROCEDURES

At the transfer station, bags were sorted separately by household. Refuse and recyclables were sorted separately. Bags for a particular household were placed on a sort table, opened, and sorted into designated categories by the field team. Refuse was sorted into categories for disposable refuse, recyclable mixed pager, Commingled recyclable containers, and

categories for newspapem, commingled recyclable yard trimmings. Recyclables were sorted into

containers, and contaminants (refuse). Only clam materials were considered recyclable. Contaminants included paper other than newspaper or mixed recyclable paper, plastic caps and plastic other than #I and #2 bottles, and heavily soiled recyclables.

GROUP SORTING OBSERVATIONS

A review of the baseline data showed that participation rates for refuse and recyclables set-outs were good. Refuse set-outs contained almost no yard waste. compared to other published ratea of participation in variable rate programs, the recycling participation rate in the sample washigh, ranging from about 78 percent to 82 petcent during the three weeks of sampling. Levels of contamination were low.

As shown ia the table below, the refuse fraction accounts for about 61 percent of the materials gezleratedandsetoutby theresidents. This equates to a 39 percent diversion rate; the principal materials diverted were newspaper and yard waste. Field observations indicated that a significant amouut of recyclable mixed paper was disposed by residents within the refuse fraction. Accordingly, it was believed that diversion rates would increase if mixed papeo was added to the acceptable recyclable materials for the subsequent study intends.

TEST GROUP DIVERSION RATES BASELINE SAMPLE PERIOD

October 22 through November 8,19%

I MATERIAL I AMOUNT abs) I PERCENT I

52

In mid-November, variable rate pricing for waste dispoeal was implemented, and mixed paper recycling was added to the program. To assess the impact of the new pricing system, a one-week, follow-up study was performed in February 1997. The survey involved the same households that took part in the baseline study.

Refuse*

Mixed/ Newspaper

Recyclable Containers The collection and weighing procedures for refuse,

recyclables, and yard waste were the same as for the baseline study. At the transfer station, refuse was sorted into categorim for disposable refuse, recyclable mixed paper, commingled recyclable containers, and yard trimmings. Recyclables were sorted into categories for recyclable mixed paper, commingled recyclable containem, and contaminants (refuse).

1,653 38

1,046 24

264 6

After three months of waste disposal and recycling under the variable rate pricing program, a recycling participation rate of 77.5 percent was achieved. In addition, a diversion rate equivalent to 50 percent was measured as shown in the table below.

MATERIAL

Refuse*

Mixed/ Newspaper

Recyclable Containers

TEST GROUP DIVERSION RATES

February 25 and February 28, 1997 MATERIAL I AMOUNT(lbs) I PERCENT

THREE-MONTH FOLLOW-UP SAMPLE PERIOD

AM OUNT (lbs) PERCENT

1,7 14 47

1,102 30

326 9

Newspaper

TOTAL

Recyclable Containers

Contaminants <1

A second follow-up study interval (six months following the baseline study) was conducted in May 1997. The same methods were used for collection IIlld recording of the waste, recyclables, and yard waste. This interval recotded a recycling participation rate of 78.9 percent and a diversion rate equivalent to 62 percent, as shown in the table below.

TEST GROUP DIVERSION RATES

May 14 and May 16, 1997 SIX-MONTH FOLLOW-UP SAMPLE PERIOD

MATERIAL. I AMOUNT (lbs) I PERCENT

I Yardwaste I 1.398 I 32 1 I TOTAL I 4,389 I 100 I * The refuse category contained 230 lbs (14%) of

potentially recyclable materials.

A third follow-up study interval (nine months following the baseline study) was conducted in JulyIAugust 1997. The same methods were used for collection and “ling of the waste, recyclables, and yard waste. This interval recorded a recycling patticipation rate of 84.5 percent and a diversion rate equivaleat to 53 peaceat, as shown in the table below.

I contamirurnts I IO I <I I I Yardwaste 1 466 I 13 I I TOTAL I 3,619 I 100 I * The refuse category contained 136 lbs (8%) of

potentially recyclable materials.

A final follow-up study intervrrl (twelve months following the baseline study) was conducted in November 1997. The same methods were used for collection and “ding of the waste, recyclables, and yard waste. This interval recorded a recycling participation rate of 84.5 percent and a diversion rate equivalent to 52 percent, as shown in the table below.

53

TEST GROUP DIVERSION RATES

October 22 through November 8,1997

MATERIAL OUNT (lbs)l PERCENT

ONE YEAR FOLLOW-UP SAMPLE PERIOD

MATERIAL

Refuse*

Mixedl Newspaper

Recyclable containers

Contaminants

Yard waste

TOTAL

I Refuse* I 4,395 I 48 I

AMOUNT(lbs) PERCENT

2,100 54

858 22

300 8

16 c1

639 16

3,913 100

Recyclable Containers

Contaminants

MATERIAL

Refuse*

Newspaw

Containem

Contaminants

Recyclable

Yardwaste 1 910 - 1 10- I

AMOUNT (lbs) PERCENT

7,402 52

2,240 16

986 7

48 <1

I I I 100 TOTAL 9,079

potentially recyclable materials.

I * The refuse category contained 934 lbs (21%) of

CONTROL GROUP SORTING OBSERVATIONS

BAseline

A review of the baseline control data showed that participation rates for refuse and recyclables &-outs were good. Refuse set-outs contained virtually no yard waste. The recycling participation rate in the sample was 80.7 percent during the three weeks of sampling. Levels of contamination were low.

As shown in the table below, the refuse k t i o n accounts for about 52 percent of the materials generatedandsetoutby theresidents. This equates to a 48 percent diversion raw, the principal material divertedwas yard waste. As was the case with the test group, mixed recyclable paper was added to the recycling p r o g r a m immediately following the baseline sampling period.

I Yardwaste 1 3,687 -[-- I I I 100 1 TOTAL 14,363

potentially recyclable materials. * The refuse category contained 2,019 lbs (27%) of -

In July, mixed paper recycling was added to the program. To (~s8ess the impact of the new collection system, a one-week, follow-up study was performed in September, 1997. The survey involved the same households that took past in the baseline study.

The collection and weighing procedures for refuse, recyclables, and yanl waste were the same as for the baseline study. At the transfer station, refuse was sorted into catepiea tbr disposable refuse, recyclable mixed paper, commingled recyclable containers, and yard trimmings. Recyclables were sorted into categories for recyclable mixed paper, commingled recyclable containers, and contaminants (refuse).

After three months of waste disposal and recycling, there was a participation rate of 75.6 percent. A diversion rate equivalent to 46 percent was as shown in the table below.

CONTROL GROUP DIVERSION RATES THREE-MONTH FOLLOW-UP SAMPLE PERIOD

A second follow-up study interval (six months following the baseline study) was conducted in December, 1997. The same methuds were used for collection and "ding of the waste, recyclables, and yard waste. This interval recorded a recycling participation rate of 82.2 percent and a diversion rate

~

~-

54

equivalent to 50 percent, as shown in the table below.

MATERIAL

Refuse*

Mixed/ Newspaper

Recyclable Containers

Contaminants

AMOrJNT(lbs) PERCENT

1,888 50

1,334 35

299 8

28 < 1 I 1 ~ ~~

I Yardwaste I 229 6 I I I 3,778 I 100 1 TOTAL * The refuse category contained 556 lbs (29%) of

potentially recyclable materials.

A third follow-up study interval (nine months following the baselhe study) was umducted in March, 1998. Again, the same methods were used for collection and I.econling of the waste, recyclables, and yard waste. This interval recorded a recycling participation rate of 87.8 percent and a diversion rate equivalent to 37 percent, as shown in the table below.

CONTROL GROUP DIVERSION RATES NINE-MONTH FOLLOW-UP SAMPLE PERIOD

* The refuse category contained 829 lbs (30%) of potentially recyclable materials.

The one-year follow-up sampling interval will be completed in June 1998.

FINDINGS

Comparison of the baseline and follow-up data gathered during the variable rate pricing pilot project yielded the following findings:

Waste diverted from disposal to landfills or

from approximately 39 percent (by weight) in the baseline study to levels of 50 percent, 62 percent, 53 percent, and 52 percent respectively, in the follow-up studies. In part, these findings were due to the mixed paper fraction which transferred from the disposed refuse fraction to the recyclable mixed paper fraction.

facilities increased significantly

Within the control group, the amount of waste diverted from disposal to landfills or waste-to- energy facilities remained constantly low (48 percent (by weight) in the baseline study to levels of 46 percent, 50 percent, and 37 percent, rebpectively, in the follow-up studies).

Generation rates by components within the

time, while generation rrrtes by components within the recyclablm strerun generally increased OVM time. These trends, evident as functions of participating households and set- outs, suggest that variable rate pricing programs do impact disposal behavior and practices of residents.

disposed waste streem generally decreased over

When the data were adjusted for seasonality (principally yard waste), the study d t s show that residents improved recyclables separation practices. That is, discarded refuse during the baseline period contained 29 percent (by weight) of recyclables; this value decreased to 14 percent, 14 percent, 8 percent, and 16 respectively, during the subsequent one-year study period.

The umtrol group showed that without the variable rate pricing incentive, high amounts of nzcyclables consistently turned up in the refuse stream. That is, discarded refuse during the baseline period contained 27 percent (by weight) recyclables; this value stayed relatively constant at 28 percent, 29 percent, and 30 percent, respectively, during the subsequent one-year study period.

55

REFERENCES

Bowring, E., and Vogt, W.G., "Stepping Up to Variable Rate Collection Through Neighborhood Pilot-Scale Programs", Proceedings, Wastecon '97, St. Louis, MO, 1997.

r

f

56

COST CURVE: HOW MUCH MORE DOES REACHING AGGRESSIVE GOALS COST AND WHAT IS REALISTIC?

Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc.

Seattle, Washington

ABSTRACT Recent work by SERA examined the costs associated with achieving highev and higher levels of diversion. In a project for the California Chapters of SWANA, we used data from over 100 communities in the State of California to identify the expenditures by communities and ratepayers thus far to try to reach California’s AB939 goal of 25%. We used statistical analysis to estimate the relationship between diversion and costs, and how much it costs to increase diversion levels.

INTRODUCTION The State of California’s AB939 legislation has been in place more than 5 years. The legislation set initial diversion goals of 25 % , increasing to 50 % by the year 2000, measured via a prescribed tracking method, and sets financial penalties for communities if the goals are not met. This legislation has led to significant investment in a wide variety of programs and facilities by communities all across the state. With AB939 legislation coming up for reconsideration, and the past and potential investment of public funds, a number of communities and counties across the state requested a review of the cost and performance of the variety of diversion programs implemented in response to AB939, and a review of the cost of AB939 compliance to date and the expected cost to achieve the program’s future goals. The communities, working through the California Chapters of the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA, Sacramento), funded the project and hired Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA) of Seattle, Washington to conduct the study.

STUDY METHODOLOGY SERA had previously conducted a detailed analysis of diversion program performance in communities across the nation to identify patterns in effective program design (“Nationwide Diversion Rate Study.. . , 1996). The earlier work used a telephone survey to collect consistent and comparable data from a sample of more than 500 communities. For the SERA/CalSWANA study, that survey instrument was modified to add a long array of questions concerning costs, budgets, facilities, and other cost-related data. When combined with census data on demographics, the database included extensive information on programs, program designs and operation, costs, diversion and tonnage, facilities, and customer and community information. Data on more than 100 California communities representing a wide variety of community and program types was analyzed for this project.

The analytical method was designed to be more sophisticated than the usual case study-type analysis. In particular, the analysis was based on consistent data from more than 100 case studies, and the quantitative approach used took explicit statistical consideration of the influence of demographic and other differences between communities. This method can separate out the diversion effects attributable to program featureddesigns vs. demographics, as well as the cost impacts attributable to program and community differences.

~

~

RESULTS The cost curve work concentrated on trying to identify how much had been spent to date to meet the 25% diversion goal, and how much it could be expected to cost for

goal. The work required analysis of the relationship of ~

diversion to program design alternatives, combined with

~

communities across the state to reach the upcoming 50% --

57

the direct analysis of the relationship between cost and diversion.

PROGRAM INFLUENCES The research showed that program design choices have a significant effect on program performance. Clear and specific percentage increases in recycling could be attributed to implementation of the following program choices: 0 commingled program 0 additional materials collected 0 programs less than 10 years old, and

factors related to fees and other design factors.

These quantitative effects were separate from community influences. This is the “extra” power provided by the analytical approach over case studies - the effects estimated carry through across community types, so the results are transferable to other communities.

Similar diversion impacts from yardwaste program choices were also estimated. The factors that increased yardwaste diversion included: 0

0

a yardwaste ban in the area additional materials collected , and factors related to fees and other design factors.

Importantly, the estimation work was also able to develop quantitative estimates of the influence of community and demographic factors on diversion. We were able to demonstrate that communities with the following features tended to have lower diversion - even if they had exactly the same mix of programs offered with exactly the same designs. That is, these types of communities will tend to get lower diversion rates even if they offer the same programs as another community.

0

0

0 other factors.

lower education levels for the residents more rural or smaller communities higher percentage of “language isolated” residents more “temporary” residents (greater turnover) regional differences in the State, and

We also found some indicative differences based on whether the collection was by municipal vs. contracted/franchised/private haulers.

COST RELA TIONSHIP The study spent considerable time working with the cost data to allow “apples to apples” comparisons. Then, detailed statistical work was conducted to identify whether there was an identifiable and stable relationship between costs and diversion - that is, can we say how much it costs to achieve a certain amount of diversion, or how much more does it cost to add to diversion?

We found that the data were fitted by a curve that had a logical and explainable shape (similar to Figure 1). Establishing a program, or expending the initial money to set up a basic program or set of programs led to a definable amount of initial recycling. Adding funds, or enhancing the program set, led to increases in the percentage of waste. diverted from the disposal stream. Early on, increases in expenditure led to fairly significant increases in diversion (cream skimming). As communities got to higher and higher diversion levels, it took higher and higher investments to achieve significant additional increases in diversion.

Figure 1: Sample “Cost Curve”

% diver- sion

cost

Several caveats associated with the data led us to conduct additional analyses before we were comfortable using the work to develop broader cost implications.

0 Information for the commercial sector was sparse; the ~

best performing curve was fitted to residential sector data. We investigated commercial data that were available, and were able to make some initial conclusions for that sector. Because the curve is based on real communities, it is necessarily limited to identifying the cost/diversion ~

relationship for existing collection and program ~

technologies. Since one of the objectives of the study was to look into the future and estimate the costs to achieve more aggressive diversion, we used SERA research on “emerging technologies” in recycling and diversion programs to see if any of the programs had “near term” potential to achieve higher diversion at a

~ _____

0

~

58

given cost, or lower cost for a given diversion. That is, we wanted to examine whether emerging technologies have a chance of allowing communities to move “off the curve” in a more favorable direction. These possibilities were examined and incorporated into the results. Analysis of the data provided evidence that the cost curve’s fit and shape may be somewhat different between large vs. smaller communities.

0

The fitted curve and the work on average costs to date were used to develop dollar value estimates of: 0 the expenditures to date for communities across the

state to reach the 25% goal; 0 the incremental costs above what would have been

spent had the recyclables been managed through the garbage system;

0 the expected costs to reach 50 % , and the increment beyond current costs; and

0 some of the factors affecting community expenditures, including differences by region, technology, and other influences.

These results can be used to guide communities on program designs that might be most effective in increasing diversion, and provide an estimate of the level of expenditures that might be needed to meet the State’s diversion goal.

IMPLICATIONS As mentioned, the basic cost results demonstrated the amount spent to date across the state to get to 25 % , and the estimated additional and incremental expenditures needed to reach California’s 50% diversion goal. In addition, however, the cost curve work was used to examine issues related to the level of achievable goals, and the suitability and implications for different types of communities.

One key implication for the work is illustrated in Figure 2. As mentioned before, program types were not the only factors explaining differences between diversion rates experienced in different communities - demographic and community factors were also important in explaining overall diversion. The results imply that, to achieve a fixed diversion rate, communities with the demographic “strikes against” them (e.g., large non-english speaking population, lower educated population, etc.) will need to implement more aggressive programs or other activities than communities without these strikes against them. Implications include:

0 recycling coordinators face a number of community factors that will affect the performance of their recycling programs - factors that are totally outside the control of the coordinators (e.g., income, education, etc.) communities with strikes against them may have to spend more to achieve the same diversion as other communities without these “strikes”. Unfortunately, many of these communities are those that are least able to afford higher cost programs (they are lower income communities to begin with, etc.).

56 diver- sion

cost

Issues like these have implications for the setting of diversion goals across regions, states, or the nation. Higher overall recycling for lower “social” cost may be achieveable if communities are allowed to “trade” diversion percentages (like air credits), or if allowances are made for certain community types. Alternatively, if broad goals are set, it should be made with the knowledge that the goals will lead to higher costs in some areas than others.

CONCLUSIONS We found that, as expected, it becomes increasingly expensive to try to achieve high diversion levels; however, we were able to derive specific estimates of the increases needed to significantly affect diversion for communities in the State. We used these data to provide the communities in the State with a variety of analyses related to programs, performance, and costs:

In particular, the project examined the impact of the results on: 0 implications for communities trying to increase

implications for the appropriateness of alternative

0 measurement issues

diversion - costs and “achievability”

levels for statewide goals

59

0 and other results.

changes to the results related to non-residential recycling, and “new” technologies,

The success of these analyses has led SERA to undertake a project to expand its large existing nationwide survey sample to support even more robust cost analyses. Using a larger nationwide database will let us expect stronger results. The larger sample size will allow us to examine the differences in the cost curve based on key demographic, regional, and other strata. Besides the basic results identifying the most effective program designs for communities; the cost implications of specific different program designs; and the relationship between costs and diversion, the project also supports analysis of the achievability, costs, and impacts of different levels of state, regional, and national goals.

The study shows that this type of quantitative analysis can provide much more detailed information to help communities make sensible choices between program alternatives, and get more reliable information on the costs associated with their choices. This step beyond the more common case study work is needed if the industry is to gather the data needed to address the issues raised by recycling “skeptics”, and to provide more dependable data for communities to use in making decisions about ongoing waste management. More information on the studies can be obtained from the author.

Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D. is principal of Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc. (SERA Inc.) 1511 Yd Avenue Suite 1000, Seattle, WA. For more information call (206) 624-8508. Email: skumatz@ix.netcom. com

REFERENCES

Skumatz, Lisa A . . , Ph.D., 1996, “Nationwide Diversion Rate Study - Quantitative Effects of Program Choices on Recycling and Green Waste Diversion: Beyond Case Studies, ” Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA), Seattle, WA.

60

EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF RECYCLING COLLECTION PROGRAMS

Sh;iryn E. Dickerson Solid Wilste Department

Unified Governinent of Athens-Cliirke County Solid Waste Departinent

Athens, Georgiil

ABSTRACT Is the recycling program implemented in your community successfLil'! What confidence level do yo11 have in inaking this claim? Have you calculated the direct impact of your recycling program'! If so, what methodology did you use'? Does the data collected in your analysis provide clear documentation that your program is effective:' These questions are important for recycling professionals to answer. The objective of this paper is to provide the reader with a general understanding of how to evaluate the impact of recycling collection program(s). A brief discussion is provided on the various types of evaluation activities, the coinmon data sources, the basic experimental designs which may be i ~ e d in determining the impact of recycling collection program(s) and the steps required to conduct a program evaluation. The evaluation results froin Athens-Clarke County, Georgia's residential recycling collection program are referenced in the tinal discussion.

On what do you base your answer'!

How do you measure your program's success?

PROGRAM EVALUATION OVERVIEW Before attempting to conduct a program evaluation, it is important to understand what is iiieant by "program evaluation. " The tollowing are a taw definitions provided by Rossi and Freeinan ( 1993a), renowned evaluation researchers:

* To assess, to analyze, to make a judgment of governinen t program(s);

* The application of the social science method to the conceptual design of programs; and

* The application of systems analyses to facilitate evaluation of prograins to understand the impact of a public program.

Moreover, it is just as important to understand the reason for conducting program evaluations. There are a variety of reasons, here are just a few provided by Rossi and Freeinan (3993b):

* tojudge the worth of ongoing recycling efforts and estimate tlie usifillness of attempts to improve them;

to assess the utility of new recycling programs and/or initiatives;

'k t o increase the etfectiveness of your recycling program's inanagement and administration; and

;li to satisfy the accountability requireinants of your recycling program sponsors.

Perhaps the most important reason of all, especially to government recycling managers, is "to satisfy accountability. " There is no doubt that recycling nianagers need to he in a position to readily justify the continued fiinding of their programs. If we, as program managers, are not capable of providing documentation as to tlie effectiveness of our recycling program(s), then we may lose funding and, ultimately, our recycling program(s) will suffer. Unfortunately, those of us who are involved with the daily operations of recycling programs (especially in the public sector) often do not have the time or the skills to conduct evaluations of our programs. However, we must find the time and develop these skills. After all, prograin evaluations not only provide recycling managers with evidence of the of

61

program impact, but also serve to alert managei~s of potential problems within their prograni(s) that, if not addressed, could jeopardize their recycling efforts.

Evillllittion Activities According to Rossi and Freeman (19934, there are three major types of evaluation activities:

* Program Design/Conceptualization * Process Analysis * Impact Assessment

Program design/conceptualiztion is used by managers interested in evaluating the potential effects of a new program or initiative which has yet to he implemented. Technically speaking, an evaluation of program design focuses on assessing the extent and severity of probleins requiring intervention and on designing program to address these problems.

Process analysis is used by managers who are evaluating program which have been implemented. This type of evaluation activity provides information on whether or not the recycling program was implemented as planned and is operating as intended.

Finally, managers inay conduct an impact assessment as a means of evaluating a program which has been imp1 emen ted . An i iiipact assessinen t estimates the effects of a program and provides evidence as to whether the program accomplished its piii1x)se. I t is important to note that not all program evaluations will consider each of these activities.

Sources of Diltii There are four hasic data sources, according to Rossi and Freeinan (1 9934:

* Direct Observational Data * Service Record Data * Data from Service Providers k Information froin Program Participants

Direct observational data is fairly self-explanatory. Data is collected through direct observation. This data source should only be usad if the evaluator's presence will not interfere orjeopardize the collection of data. An example of direct observational data in a recycling collection program might involve collection crews collecting data on the nuinher of households which are participating in the recycling

program tluri ng a given t i me frame.

The second data soiirce itlantified is service record data. Service record data refers to the LISC of data

A good example of a service record data source is a refiise billing system. Since the majority of records are now stored i n computers, collection of data from this source may be coniplex.

which is wailahle through existing service records. ~~

The third source of data may be received froin service providers themselves. This source of data is similar to direct observational data, cxcept the evaluator's presence is not believed to .jeopardize the data collection and is often encouraged. In a racy cl ing co 1 1 ec t i on program, this data source might involve interviewing the collection crew members o n a number of the program's aspacts.

The final soui~ce of data conies in the form of information from program participants. This data is the most valuable of all sources. Here program participants are able t o share with the evaluator not only their service pi-eferences, but also their satisfaction level with the recycling program. In f o r inat i on fro i n program participants may be

one interviews. This data source is one of the best ways to identify whether the services intended to be delivered are actually being provided.

collected through the use of surveys and/or one-on- ~~

Rewirch Design and Data An;ilvsis There are three basic types o t program evaluation designs:

( I ) True experimental, (2) Ex Post Facto, and ( 3 ) Quasi-exl'eriinental

True experimental designs are the most preferred evaluation design\ since work is performed in a " I:ihol-a tory -like " env 11 on inen t . A true ex penmen tal design involves the selection ot both control and expel imental group\. Control groups would not be expovxl to the intervention OI treatment (la: recycling program), wherea\ experimental groups would be expowl. The ditteiences between the control and experimental groups serve as the basis for evaluating the effect\ ot the intervention.

~

On the other end of the spectrum are ex post facto designs. These designs are the least preferred. Ex post facto evaluation designs involve making

62

observations (!Jet- an intervention ( IC: recycling progrmi) has occurred. Theretore, making i t otten more difficult to evaluate the ettects of a given intervention.

Quasi-experimental designs are essentially the "middle ground" between true experimental and ex post facto program evaluation designs. The major difference between true experimental designs and qiiasi-experimental designs specifically deals with how subjects are selected for the experiment. True experimental designs einploy randoin sampling; however, quasi-experimental designs do not. Although not preferred, due to the absence of strict and rigorous controls which are available in true experimental designs, cluasi-experimental designs appear to provide recycling managers with the best alternative under the circumstances.

CONDUCTING A PROGRAM EVALUATION There are four basic steps involved i n conducting a program evaluation :

* Identify Outcoine of Interest :ic Identify Variables * Conduct a Process Analysis * Conduct an linpact Assessment

As a means of illustrating the steps noted above, I will reference the program evaluation I conducted on Athens-Clarke County's residential recycling collection program.

Step 1: Identify the Outcome of Interest The first and most fundamental step involves identifying the outcome of interest - what you intend to measure and/or evaluate. The outcome of interest is often the overriding program goal. For example, in my evaluation, the outcome ot interest was the reduction of residential solid waste clisposed.

Step 2: Identify Variilhles The second step of program evaluation require4 the evaluator to i den t i fy the independent and de pen d e ti t variables. The independent variables i n iny evaluation were the two waste reduction pro= (.ram interventions:

* Septeinber 1992: Impleniented a residential curbside recycling collection proprani with

twice-a-month service provided to 8,600 Iiouseholds in the Urban Services District; and

:1: Septeinher 1995: Implemented a Pay-As- You-Throw "can-decal and sticker system, " increased recycling collection to once-a- week, and added nine recyclable items to the residential curbside recycling collection service provided t o 8,600 households located in the Urban Services District.

The dependent variable in my evaluation was identified as the amount of residential solid waste disposed in the local landfill.

Ster, 3: Conduct a Process Aniilvsis Conducting a process analysis is the third step. As noted earlier, the piiq)ose o f perfoi.ining a process analysis is to assess whether or not the program was impleinented as planned and is operating according to the original design. Conducting a process analysis involves niapping ou t the d rent components of the program in a diagram. Figures I and 2 represent the process analyses I developed for my program evaluation. Each scliiare represents a key event in the development of each of Athens-Clarke County's recycling program interventions. In total, these key events represent the entire recycling prograin as implemented. Each key event must he itnpleinented for the program to operate properly. If not, an iinpact assessment can not be conducted.

Step 4: Conduct an Imoact Acsessment The fourth and final step involves conducting an iinpact assessment of the recycling program. Here, the evaluator must have identitied the source(s) of data, collected the data, and selected the design which will be used i n conducting the impact assessment.

I h t i l Selected: The source of data I selected to itse i n the impact assessment of Athens- Clarke County's resiclential recycling collection program was service record data. This data was gathered froin two Athens-Clarke County recording organs: the landfill's clisposal records and the AS400 financial datalcomputer hilling system. Table 1 provicles the monthly data collected on residential solid waste disposal activity froin Ju ly I99 1 through September 1007.

63

Evaluation Desicn Selected: Since the list: of control and experimental groups was not possible, I selected a quasi-experimental design to conduct the impact assessment of the residential recycling program in Athens, Georgia. There are a variety of cluasi-experimental designs. In my case, I chose to use a tnultiple interrupted time series (MITS) design. The interventions are considered interruptions in the time series. Since I had collected a sufficient amount of data both before and after each intervention, the MITS design allowed me to measure the impact which resulted from the implementation of each of these programs. The impact is determined by assessing the difference between what was occurring prior to the interruption and what occurred afterward.

Figitre 3 is a graph of the data I collected between JUIY 1991 and Septeniber 1997 for L I S ~ i n this assessment. See also Table 1. A simple eye-halling or visual analysis of the graph provides information on the effects of these two interventions. For example, following the September 1992 intervention, the slope of the line appears to decrease, suggesting a reduction in residential household waste disposed. However, after the 1995 intervention, the slope of the line increases slightly. Thus, indicating an increase in the amount of residential waste disposed of pcr month and not a decrease as had heen anticipated. A visual analysis provides general insight into what occurred as a result of these two interventions.

Visual analysis, while important, is limited to providing a more qualitative assessment of each intervention’s impact on the time series. To conduct a cjunrrfitLrrive assessinant of the intervention impacts, regression analysis is required. Regression analysis is capable of expressing the relationship hetween the variables in a more precise, inathematical forin. However, an in-depth discussion of regression analysis is beyond the scope of this paper.

Resid ts Overall, the program evaluation conducted o n Athens-Clarke County’s residential recycling collection program indicated that a 44 $4 reduction in nionthly residential solid waste disposed over a tive year period occurred. Based on my impact assessment, I have confidence that this reduction i n solid waste disposed occurred as a direct result of impleilientiny hoth the 1992 and 1995 recycling program interventions.

CONCLUSION A\ noted eat ltei, tht: reasons for conducting program evaluations are many. I n niy caw, the cumulative ettect ot both recycling program interventions was po5ttive. Howevet , i t I had not conducted the evaluation, then I would not have known about the problems which were oLcLiri tng in the second intet vention. Therefore, by conducting the evaluation, I was able to addre5s these problems before they impacted the residential recycling collection program efforts.

As a local government recycling manager, i t is my job to develop and nianage successfill recycling collection program for my community. By taking the time to develop the skills necessary to conduct a program evaluation, I now have the ahility to inore effectively perform these job responsibilities. Although i t can he time consuming, the information a program evaluation provides is invaluahle to the siiccess of all recycling collection programs.

REFERENCES

Rossi, P.H. and Freeman, H.E., 1993a, Evolutrtiori: A Systertrtrtic Apl~rotich, SAGE Puhlications, Inc., Newbury Park, California, 5th ecl., pp. 5

ROM, P .H. and Freenian, H.E., 1993h. Evtrlutrtioii: A Sj.~t.rrcvririric~ Apl)ro~ic~li, SAGE Puhlications, Inc., Newhury Park, Calltortila, 5th ad., pp. 3

Rossi, P.H. and Freeman, H.E . , 1993c, E v ~ r / u d o t r : A S)wrcwictric .+/)rotIch, SAGE Publications, Inc., Newbury Park, Calitomia, 5th ad., pp. 34-36

Rossi, P.H. and Freeman, H.E., 1993d, Evtrlurrtiori: A S y rcvrrtrtic Apliroticli, SAG E Pu hl i ca t 1 ons , I nc . , Newbury Park, C:ilifornia, 5th ed., pp. I98

64

Process Analysis Athens-Clarke County USD-Wide Residential Recycling Program

September 1992

Figure 1

Commission Establish Recycling

Decisions Mail Notices

''lid waste to Residents Employ~s + Crew andTrain - -- I

Purchase and

Recycling Bins Educational Distribute

. Solid Waste Reduced

Recycling 4 Z:Fedme Tonnage Increases

Economical Disposal

Happiness

65

Process Analysis Athens-Clarke County USD Residential PAYT Garbage and Recycling Program

September 1995 ~

Commission Amend Establish Policy Decisions Ordinance Procedures

+ Solid Waste + Policies and -b

Figure 2 -

MailNotices Train to Residents -b Employees

Solid Waste Reduced -b [Outcome of Extended Interest1 L

Customers Three Month Select Desired Service Levels

Recycling More Tonnage -b Economical Increases Disposal .

b h a s e and Distribute Recycling Bins

I & I I Happiness

66

- - __ - - .__ - -

olid Waste Pounds/Househol

2

2c

151

P 0 .c v)

-

a

a a T P

I 00

50

0

I , i

f

/ .

I

0793 0794 0795

Month 8 Year

67

Table 1 Athens-Clarke County Solid Waste Oepartment

USD Residential Solld Waste Pounds/Household (HH)

68

Public Education and Outreach

L.A. CONFIDENTIAL: WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW ABOUT RECYCLING CAN HURT YOUR BOTTOM LINE

Karen Higgins Integrated Solid Waste Management Office City of Los Angeles Los Angeles, CaWornia

ABSTRACT Nearly 40% of all Los Angeles employees work in just 1 ,OOO large office buildings. These buildings disposed of 12 1,724 tons of waste in 1995, which represented more than 3.6 percent of the City’s total waste. Most of this waste was paper, including highquality office paper and cunugated cardboard, which is easily recycled. These large office buildings reported an 1 1% overall decrease in waste disposal during 1990-1995; this rate is well below the targeted rate of 25% set by the office Buildmg Working Group, a partnership of building owners and the City of Los Angeles that met previously for 1992- 1995. The AB 939 C i w d e goal jumps to 50% diversion by the year 2000. To investigate obstacles, document results, impmve the q c l q rate of this important business sector, and to help foster markets for recycled-content paper products, the Integrated sdid Waste Management Off= (ISWMO) of the Bureau of Sanitation of the City of Los Angeles launched a pilot program, LA. Eco Building Rojed.

RECYCLING BACKGROUND ISWMO conducts target generator surveys on a yearly basis. The Large Office Building target group includes buildings containing businesses of various types (such as law firms, finance, real estate, and business services) which essentially have office functions and contain at least 20,000 square feet. The Large Office Building target p u p consists of a variety of businesseS defined by several SIC Codes. Based upon the information provided by the Building Owners and Management Association (BOMA), ISWMO determined that there are approximately 1 ,000 buildings in this group in Los Angeles. At the end of 1995, total square footage for large office buildings meeting criteria for inclusion in this target group was approximately 152,388,022 square feet (information from BOMA). Square footage was used as the Unit of measure for the correlative factor of this target group.

In 1990, the Large Office Buildings target group disposed of 137,002 tons of solid waste. At the end of 1995, disposal decreased 11% to 121,724 tons. This tonnage represents 3.6% of the total waste stream disposed in Los Angeles in 1995. The correlative factor for the large office buildq target remained the same at 0.001 tons per square foot. During this period, square footage fell fbm 154,805,OOO square feet in 1990 to 152,388,022 square feet in 1995 (a decrease of 2%).

SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION (PERCENTAGE AND TONNAGE) The City’s 1995 representative waste sampling of large office buildings determined that the most prevalent waste is remainder paper for 34,598 tons (28.4% of the total large office buildings waste stream). Other prominent waste types included mixed paper (1 6%), cormgated/?.raft (1 1.8%), and food waste (8.1 %).

In examining diEerences in material cOmpOSition between 1990 and 1995, the industry saw a statistically significant decrease in office paper. Office paper disposal fell from 35,338 tons in 1990 (25.8% of disposal) to 1,739 tons in 1995 (1.4% of disposal). However, it should be kept in mind that these composition samples were taken at a time when paper markets were strong and paper recycling was profitable. In terms of materials, the group recycled a si@icant amount of white paper. There were statistically significant increases in corrugated/kraft from 3.9% in 1990 to 1 1.8% in 1995, and mixed paper from 5.9% in 1990 to 16% in 1995.

LARGE OFFICE BUILDING TARGET GROUP DIVERSION PROFILES In 1995,26 large office buildings responded to the City’s disposal and diversion questionnaire. About thuty one percent

71

of the buildings that nqmmkd, reported that they engage in some type of recycling activity as a matter of standard practice. Ofthese buildings, 25% reported that they had initiated recycling programs More 1990 with 75% reporting that they had initiated mychng p r o g r a m s after 1 990. Sixty-two point five percent of the buildings engaged in recycling reported that the material they recycled had i”ed since 1990 while 12.5% of the buildings engaged in recycling reported that the amount of material recycled had remained the same. Large office buildings are important waste generators to target in order for the City to successllly meet AB 939 waste reduction goals.

THE LA. ECO BUILDING PROGRAM ISWMO initiated the LA. Eco &rikll;ng RoH a voluntary, comprehensive commercial recycling and buy-recycled pilot for large office buildings and office complexes in the City of Los Angeles. Loe Angeles City Council members Laura Chick and Rita Walters, the Building Owners Managers Association (BOMA), and the Central City Association also agreed to supprt it. The participating buildings include the Farmers Insurance complex; the downtown Wells Fargo Center, Library Tower, and The Gas Company Tower, all managed by Maguire Partners; CB Commercial Mcadquarters and the Northrop Plaza building, managed by CB Commercial, and Two California Plaza managed by Equity 086re. The project will run from March 1,1997 through December 1998, and will cover 10 properties with more than 17,000 total employees. The L.A. Eco Building pilot will provide participants with complete waste audits; set-up of the recyclmg collection program; recyclmg training for office employees and custodial staff; monthly status repoh that tally the reduced waste volume and lowered waste disposal costs; and assistance in purchasing recycled-content office products.

ISWMO contracted with the Recycled Paper Coalition who in turn contracted with RSI Consulting ServiaS @SI) to implement the project The L.A. Eco Building pilot is modeled after RSI’s successll program at the Warner Center office center in Woodland Hills, which redud waste volume by more than 70%, saved nearly two hundred thousand dollars on waste disposal costs, and generated revenues of more than $1 ,OOO,OOO over its first five years.

Togetha, the City, RPC, and RSI identSed and signed-up the buildmgs for implementation of the Eco Building Project fiom interested participants at a “kick off meeting sponsored by City Council members. City Council members took special intenst in the pilot due to the large n u m k of &ce bddings in their district. Having City Council support greatly increased the level of interest and support for the program. The qualified buildings house at least one large and “high-proiile” business, and many smaller tenants, including in some cases retail stores or restaurants. A letter of commitment fiom the appropriate building manager was requested for each property. An initial waste audit was conducted at the buildings to determine: the wask stream composition, refuse volume and frequency of collection, and the potential recyclable stream and potential diversion rate. Any existing refuse compactors were inspected to determine ifthey were functioning at maximum compaction and efficiency.

RFQs for refuse collection services and recycling collection Servioes were prepared for each L.A. Eco Building site and faxed to GLASWMA, CDA, and all hauledmycllers that are listed in the City of Los Angeles’ publication “Mind Your Business: A Recycling Guide for oftices.” RSI selected fhalkts from bidders for hauling and/or recycling collection services for each building site fiom those applicants who could provide the requested services. In all cases the L.A. Eco Building property manager was responsible for the final selection of the hauler and/or recycler.

An “Em Building Kick Off celebration was held at each site with recycling training and recycled-content promotional materials distributed to attendees. Educationalhaining materials were developed for the buildings and desktop and larger centrally located recycling containers were distributed at no cost to the tenants. Additional training sessions were held to inform purchasing representatives and interested employees about the types of recycled-content products available. Building representatives and tenants were also encouraged to sign up as local chapter members of the Recycled Paper Coalition.

Monthly status reports are issued that include the following items for each site: building information (address, contact, occupancy rate); waste volume; recyclable tonnage; revenue if any from sale of recyclables; current waste diversion rate; waste tons sent to landfill; reduced disposal costs; and other comments or event information.

~

~

~

BUILDING MANAGEMENT INVOLVEMENT cooped~on from buildmg management is essential for setting up the programs and getting them running in an expeditious manner. For example, when the building management company has a good relationship with the janitorial service provider, working with the janitorial Service is much easier. The janitorial service is important since the janitorial staff provide much

72

of the on-site ‘‘proam&‘ of the materials, i.e., moving the materials from the office suite to the loading dock and then into the recycling collection bin In a few instances, during follow-up waste audits the janitorial staff were found to be dumping recyclables in the trash dumpsters. Building management must ensure that they receive full cooperation from the janitorial management and M. Recycling collection is becoming more standard as a required building service, but contracts may need to be updated to reflect any additional tasks required to more easily ensure proper recycling practices.

COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLES In this pilot, all but one tenant expects employees to take their “desktop” bin and empty it into the conveniently placed cormgated office recycling bins. The collected materials include: office paper mix (white office paper, colored ledger paper, envelopes, windows are acceptable, fax paper, NCR paper, junk mail, manila folders, slick or glossy paper including pamphlets and brochures; “mingled recyclables: metal cans, glass, plastic including #1 and #2, telephone books, mixed low-grade paper such as newspaper inserts, magazines, and kraft paper, and corrugated cardboard if it fits in the container, otherwise it is stacked in designated places taking into consideration fire code regulations. For this program, contaminants include: neon paper, any plastic envelopes, carbon paper, paper with food waste, and paper towels). Farmers Insurance has a slightly diExent program in that they recycle white paper completey separately from office mixed paper, so they have three sorts of recyclables, white paper, mixed office paper, and commingled. The central bins are usually lined with clear bags so the janitorial M c a n ident.@ recyclables fiom trash. Some companies chose to use two different colored bags one for the paper, and one for the commingled recyclables.

Re-tmhing and reeducation is done on an as needed basis to correct any Contamination problems. Spot checks of recycling bindcontainers in employee areas and refuse bins and compactors in refuse collection sites are performed to monitor for contamination of recyclables or presence of recyclables in refuse. Occasionally in reviewing monthly hauling bills, the cunsuitant has found errors in the on h m sane vendors, so obtaining tracking information for hauling and recycling each month has been slow and reporting is often unavailbale until two months after the reporhg period. On one occasion the hauler repopted the exact same weight and number of pulls on trash collection for two consecutive months. When notified of this, the hauler rechecked the figures and changed the results. The same hauler also provided grossly inaccurate numbers on several occasions. The consultant checks trash and recyclables to estimate monthly figures, and then compares them to the actual billing numbers. If there is a great discrepancy, the hauler or recycler is asked to recalculate the figures.

INlTIALFINDINGs Some of the p g r a m findngs thus far show that a comprehensive waste management plan that includes recycling, must also add^^^ the waste hauling contract. All of the L.A. Eco buildings were over serviced as far as waste collection. Bins were serviced too frequently when they were not full and collection could have waited a day or two. Several buildings had compacm that were set improperly which also resulted in excess pick ups of rubbish and therefore, unnecessary additional pull charges. In most cases the L.A. Eco Buildings pay a fee per pull, or disposal, of the dumpster, in addition to the fees imposed by actual weight of the rubbish. In one building the consultant estimated that there could have had seven rubbish compactor hauls versus the thirteen that were actually hauled. Estimated annual savings for the reduced hauling would be $5796 per year. In one instance building management paid for a haul of 0.66 tons of rubbish, where the capacity of the compactor was actually 8.50 tons, again resulting in excess “pull” fees.

where mhual support has been pvided by the building management, the program has run much more smoothly and has shown better recycling percentages and waste diversion results than at the buildings where building managers have been more relwtaut to participate and cooperate. In a few of the L.A. Eco Buildings, the bureaucratic management structure of the property management firm resulted in many meetings for program planning, but little support to actually inform the tenants and janitorial staff of the impending program and resulting operational changes that needed to occur. Once the tenants were informed of the program, and recycling boxes were distributed, many tenants appeared to welcome and support the program, especially when there had been no program or a mediocre program in place.

Farmers Insurance Group, located in downtown Los Angel- had been recycling for several years More they joined the LA. Em &rilding Bojecf in July 1997. Through the City program, Farmers has fine tuned their recycling program, and their diversion rate has improved sigdicantly. By recycling office paper, cardboard and commingled recyclables with this program for only 7 months, Farmers has been able to save money from disposal costs as well as generate revenue from recyclables to the total amount of more than $13,000.00. Their waste diversion rate as of January 1998 was 56%.

73

The City of Los Angeles plans to use the L.A. Em Building pilot as a recycling case study and show model programs that buildings and businesses throughout the region can replicate to improve and document their diversion efforts. The City anticipates that such programs will thus reduce the need for additional recycling regulations or imposing mandatory waste disposal bans. The City will disseminate the results of fhe project to office building managers in an effort to start new large office recycling programs. Throughout this project, by publicizing “recycling success stories” documenting actual numbers, and cost figures, I S M 0 will inform building managers how they can implement cost-effective recycling programs. The use of& waste audits and recycling documentation appear to be effective tools for businesses to save money and help the City meet AB 939 diversion mandates.

~

74

CREATIVE PUBLIC EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY EVENTS: TAKING THE ACTION TO THE PEOPLE

KATIE G. FRITZ Public Works Department

City of College Station College Station, Texas

ABSTRACT This presentation is about the importance of public education in waste reduction and recycling programs and the need to reach many different target audiences in order to be successful in the long term. There are many ways to target audiences and reach the different segments of your community. There are also many different entities competing for the attention of your community. Some community segments are less active and motivated than others. These factors demand creative ways to work smarter, not harder, to build cooperative partnerships and join existing events and not duplicate efforts. By doing this more effective public education, it builds long term, broad based support for local waste reduction and recycling programs. This has been successful for the City of College Station and other communities in Texas.

IMPORTANCE OF CREATIVE PUBLIC EDUCATION Public education in this information age is quite a challenge! The number of ways and methods available to communicate with people is unprecedented. This is an incredible resource as well as a nightmare of decisions. How do you decide which ways to communicate with your diversified mass of citizens in your community?

In the waste reduction and recycling arena this mass of citizens is further divided into groups based on where and how they generate the waste and recyclables. These groups include single-family homes, multi-family apartments, commercial businesses, government offices and various combinations. Citizens can further be divided into age groups (children, students, adults), special interest or organizational groups (home owners, Lions Club, Boy Scouts, churches), and specific waste generator

groups (do-it-yourself oil changers, construction contractors, landscapers). Some citizen interests are not as easily described or formalized. Targeting of these groups can be done through some of the formalized organizations and interests that are already established.

Sometimes using main stream media with a targeted message is successful, but direct contact is really more effective. In addition, citizens are constantly bombarded by the media with incredible amounts of information and requests. Some citizens who are already interested in waste reduction or recycling might pick up the message and act on it; but most citizens won’t even register the message unless they hear it repeated 5-10 times within a short period of time. Even then they are not likely to act and consider it irrelevant to them.

Educating the people who control access to the organizations, interest groups, media and governmental programs is very important. Elected officials, community leaders, organizational presidents, teachersleducators and the media should be kept up to date on your programs and events. They can make your event or program a focus issue or give it a priority in their arena if they understand and support it.

Public education is used to let our citizens know what issues we face in waste reduction and recycling, why these issues are important to them, what our local plans to address these issues include and how they as citizens can help make a difference. Our goal is to keep citizens informed and thank or reward them for participation and support. Public education lets you communicate and exchange ideas to citizens who then can take pride and ownership in the goals and programs for the community.

75

If you do not communicate effectively with your citizens your programs cannot be successful. How will they know what to do or why? Also, if they don’t know about or understand a program, why would they want to participate, much less sponsor or partner with you?

Competition for the attention of your citizens is stiff. Advertisers of all persuasions want the time, attention and money of every citizen and business in your community. They want them to buy products and services, participate in local fund-raisers, volunteer for many deserving causes and participate in all kinds of events. How do you get them to even think about waste reduction and recycling?

To add to these problems, funding for events and programs gets harder and harder to find and keep. State and Federal grant programs have less money and are highly competitive with fewer and fewer programs being funded. To get any reliable funding you have to build support locally. City councils and management need to understand the importance of public education in the success of programs. They also look for various types of support for the program from citizens and businesses in the community. This is where creativity comes into play.

COMMUNITY EVENTS Community events are great ways to get out and meet the people wlio are your citizens. Event coordinators everywhere know how much work goes into holding a major or even minor community event. These events are usually labor intensive and can be very costly to put together. Scheduling your event can be a nightmare itself. Sometimes there are several similar type events going on and the people go to the easiest location or best publicized event. Getting the people out to your event after all this work can make or break the success and continuation of the event.

There must be a better way to accomplish the goals of public education and not be in the event business or the duplication of event dilemma.

In College Station, we decided that we needed to work smarter, not harder to build our public education efforts. This was accomplished by trying to build cooperative partnerships and look for events to join, not just duplicate efforts. We began by looking for creative ways to meet the needs of several groups and organizations with similar goals and combine

resources. Our goals were to educate the public on the importance of waste reduction and recycling and make them aware of current programs.

We found that to get the attention of some businesses and organizations there needed to be a track record of quality public education on our part. Several recycling collection events were regularly held already. Annually, the City sponsors Christmas tree recycling, phone book recycling and household hazardous waste collections. These events were well done and had been well attended by citizens. Our curbside collection programs for recycling and Clean Green brush collection were also well publicized and participation was increasing. Businesses and other government entities began to be interested in opportunities for sponsorships and partnerships.

We still had some problems with attendance and funding for our annual Earth Day event. When we talked to our sister city, Bryan, they too didn’t know how to make theirs work and not compete with ours; so we put them together. Next we talked to each of our water departments who actually had their own event, water awareness week in early May. Our energy departments celebrated energy conservation week in October. All of these events just had mediocre attendance and took lots of resources. To make a long story short, we talked all three departments in both cities, the Texas A&M Physical Plant and the landfill (BVSWMA) into joining resources and labor together for one event, the Planet Earth Celebration, to be held the Saturday after Earth Day. This would serve as an environmental education event.

Planet Earth Celebration has been held for three years now. Many state and local environmental related groups, organizations and agencies participate. Local businesses and radio stations offer sponsorships and partnerships. Last year’s attendance was over 1,500,

replaced four or five smaller events and has become a very worthwhile partnership.

which is great for our community. This event ~ ~~

We now always look for ways to join some other event and set up a table or provide materials. The idea is to get out of the event management business and into public education.

____

~ “I

~~

Just this last month we provided recycling coloring books and crayons to a children’s concert put on by the Opera and Performing Arts Society. The Non- ‘Toxic Band which sings about the environment

76

performed. We promoted our local recycling programs and sent 20 low income children to the concert. The local paper wrote up our efforts in the performance preview. We couldn’t buy better advertising.

Several other cities in Texas do similar type programs. The City of Grand Prairie encourages grandparents to bring children to recycle by offering an additional one cent per pound for aluminum cans if a person over 55 comes and another one cent if the children crush or step on the cans. The also do some joint programs with the city library story time. The City of Irving has neat partnership with its parks department on a compost demonstration site which they occasionally hold a farmer’s market at also. There are several other excellent examples in Texas and other states; too many to describe them all here.

RESULTS So what have these programs done for College Station? We have a regular monthly household participation rate of 60% in our curbside recycling program. We are currently diverting over 20% of the residential waste stream, 22% in 1997. We are getting 800-1000 participants a year in our household hazardous waste collections. We are receiving 10,000 gallons of used oil per year at our used oil recycling center. We have been recognized by the state and federal agencies as a model program. We won the 1997 EPA Region 6 Environmental Excellence Award and the 1998 Texas Environmental Excellence Award. Taking the action to the people has been both effective and efficient for College Station and many others in Texas.

77

A GREAT NEW RECYCLING PROGRAM AND PERSONALIZED CUSTOMER SERVICE GARNERS 92% APPROVAL RATING IN LOS ANGELES

Daniel 0. Hackney Department of Public Works, Bureau of Sanitation

City of Los Angeles Los Angeles, California

ABSTRACT

The customer relations group decided to try a novel approach to the public relations campaign for the citywide distribution of the new blue automated recycling containers. In the past, the City would have run expensive television and radio ads, contracted for billboards, and paid for a mass mailing to millions of Angelenos. This time we decided to save all that money anrl rely predominantly on the oldest advertising in the book --- word of mouth. A more academic term would be dispersion theory of communication. We put customer relations staff on each distribution route with instructions to talk to every customer they encountered in the neighborhoods and to tell them the “hows”, “whys”, and “what fors“ of the new automated recycling program. These residents, newly armed with substantive program information on why the City is converting to automated collection, were expected to tell several neighbors about the new blues, who in turn tell several more neighbors, until the program information is dispersed throughout the City of Los Angeles.

The idea developed from the rave reviews we received from the @cipants in the 12,500 home pilot project, culminating with a survey that revealed a 92 % approval rating (see Figure 1). Because word of mouth was so strong and so positive, we discovered that the old methods of “selling” the program to our customem were superfluous. An important component of the personalized customer service strategy is follow up. Customer relations staff respond to all written and phone inquiries regarding the new program either by phone or, preferably, m person. As a result, customer satisfaction with how the City responds to inquiries has skyrocketed with our customers, with our community groups, and with our City Council offices.

BACKGROUND

On September 29, 1989, the State of California adopted the California Integrated Waste Management Act, AB 939, which mandated that all cities and counties reduce 25 % of their solid waste by 1995 and 50% by the year 2000.

The City of Los Angeles acted swiftly to approve a curbside collection program to meet this challenge head on. On December 20, 1989, the City Council adopted the Recycling Implementation Plan and in September, 1990, the Bureau of Sanitation began distribution of 16-gallon yellow recycling bins to its 720,000 homeowners. By April 1995, all residents in the City’s six collection districts had received their bins (Second Generation Recycling Project Final Report, 1996). The program required participants to place their a l u ” and tin cans, glass bottles and jars, and plastic bottles and jugs inside the yellow bin while placing all of their clean paper into a tied bundle or paper bag next to the bin at the curbside for weekly collection.

Like any new “innovation”, the participation of Angelenos in the curbside recycling program followed a bell curve of adoption, pealung participation, declining participation, and, !inally, a levellng off of participation. In the summer of 1995, the Bureau of Sanitation conducted a waste characterization stdy that revealed a surprising fact: recyclable materials had grown over the five-year implementation period and had now bypassed refuse as the higher percentage of the average Angeleno’s waste stream. The exact breakdown was 40.5% recyclable materials, 35.3% rehse, and 24.2% yard trimmings. Yet residents had been furnished with standard 60-gallon black automated refuse containers, 6O-gallon green automated yard trimmings containers and, of course, 16- gallon bins fdr recyclables. Obviously, container capacity didn’t match up with solid waste production. Now what?

“What” was that the Bureau once again reacted swiftly, forming a Project Management Team, which consisted of 18 staff from several divisions of Sanitation (including collection superintendents) as well as Fleet Services. The team’s challenge --- operating under the hypothesis that automated collection of recyclables was our solution --- was to research two dozen cities nationwide which already had automated collection in place. Six months later, the Board of Public Works, acting on project team findings and management recommendations, gave its approval to conduct a 12,500 home, 15-route pilot study to determine the best automated collection methodology for the unique needs of Los Angeles.

79

The three methods to be tested were single stream (all recyclables commingled in one 90-gallon container), split stream (all clean paper on one side of the 90, commingled cans and bottles on the other), and a blue bag system (commingled cans and bottles in a tied bag, clean paper loose, all in the 90-gallon container).

One of the earliest decisions related to the conversion of the recycling program from manual to automated collection was a change in core philosophy. Instead of city government being a huge bureaucratic machine doling out impersonal, mass produced ‘goods”, the new recycling program would feature personalized customer service with staff taking the time to interact with citizen advisory groups, community groups, and even individual residents to get their opinions and their suggestions. Terms that seemed to create barriers such as “citizens”, “constituents”, and “residents” were scrapped for the new deal...“customers”. A “Customer Relations Manager” was ordained, staff was assigned, and they went where few civil servants had gone before.. .front yards and front doors.

This new “people person’’ manager and other designated “field customer service staff” approached customers in their front yards, even knocking on doors to talk to them about the rmrmned pilot study and to ask questions like, “What do you think about the size?”, “What do you think about the blue color?”, and even, “What do you think about rubber wheels compared to blow-molded wheels?” These discussions took place with individual customers by day and homeowners groups by night. When the dust settled, the Bureau of Sanitation selected 90-gallon as the size, royal blue as the color and, yes, those “quiet”, “easy to roll” rubber wheels.

. .

There were, of course, many other factors other than customer input considered. For instance, the color selection of blue. The overwhelming majority of cities we studied with automated recycling containers in place had selected blue because it was fast becoming the international color of recychg, much like “red” means stop anywhere you go. One homeowners group president who had been among the most resistant to the selection of blue in our initial inquiries reported that he had traveled across Germany and had seen 90-gallon blue recycling containers dotting the plush rolling landscape. Upon his return, he became one of the program’s strongest supporters. Also, surveys revealed “blue” had a higher safety rating for drivers spotting the containers in the street compared to earth tone colors such as brown or gray.

In Apnl 19%, the blue containers were distributed to the first five pilot routes with the other ten routes shortly thereafter. In line with the advance research, it was decided to minimize “hype” about the new blues to isolate two factors ---- increased capacity and enhanced convenience --- as the two primary variables on the existing yellow bin program. A simple one-sheet flyer on how to use the new container (in

English and Spanish) was placed under the lid on distribution day differing only by the method (single stream, split stream or blue bag). While there was no public relations campaign to accompany this targeted roll out, there was a subtle but important twist in the dispersal of program information.

THE PERSONALIZED PILOT

Everett Rogers, in his landmark work “Diffusion of Innovations” (1983), defined communication “as the process by which participants create and share information with one another in order to reach a mutual understanding” and defied diffusion as “a particular type of communication in which the information that is exchanged is concerned with new ideas”. Rogers reached other conclusions directly applicable to the adoption of qew recycling methods: “Mass media channels are often the most rapid and efficient means to info& an audience of potential adopters about the existence of an innovation, that is, to create an awareness-knowledge.. .On the other hand, interpersonal channels are more effective in persuading an individual to adopt a new idea.. .Interpersonal channels involve a face-to-face exchange between two or more individuals”.

-

~

When I spoke to customers about how they would prefer to learn about the new recycling program, many told me that whenever they receive mail from the City government, unless it is a bill or a citation, they throw it away as junk mail and if confronted with a Public Service Announcement (PSA) on television, they would channel surf if the remote was handy. These are two of the key methods historically used by the City to communicate messages to its ... customers. And, no surprise here, neither method is cheap. On the other hand, I was amazed at how remarkable our customers seemed to think it was that someone “from downtown” had taken the time to come to the neighborhood and talk directly to them. As I would tell them about the extensive research that had gone into selecting the three pilot methods, container size and color, and even the location of the routes ... a strange but wonderful thing began to occur: our customers became recycling program advocates.

These “converts” would sometimes call across the street to neighbors, sharing the good news of a great new program. Wow. Talk about adoption of an innovation! More like ownership of P business. Pride in a recycling program. And that is exactly how I began to co-opt the homeowners groups. As it became increasingly apparent just how popular the new automated containers were with our customers, we adapted our “marketing strategy” to get the word out to people in the community and then let positive word-of-mouth work its magic, much like it does when a great new film comes out.

~ ~

~

~

~~~

When motion picture studios began conducting research they learned that movies with fantastic reviews from advance

80

screening audiences did not require huge advertising budgets to “hype” the picture. Word-of-mouth between family members, friends and neighbors would do the job for free. Think it’s not true? Notice that when a movie like “Good Will Hunting” comes out, TV ads are “al at best. Not because of the budget but because they already know “the buzz” on the film is phenomenal. Conversely, for a mega- budget picture like “The Postman” which cost $100 million to make but has a “bad buzz”, the studio will saturate the airwaves all across America with flashy ads to try to get huge numbers of customers out the first few weeks before the word gets around that it is, in fact, a very expensive dog.

Either by conversations with individual customers in the community or contacts garnered from the City Council field offiw, I solicited invitations to homeowners group meetings in each of the 15 pilot routes. One generalization about the old or existing relationship between govement and its citizens: citizens freely identify themselves as taxpayers and they usually feel they are not getting their money’s worth. Upon my introduction to a group of homeowners, I would immediately re-identify them as business owners and the recycling program as one of the businesses they own. “We work for you”, I would tell them and the single most important element here is this --- We do work for them. If you do not believe this basic tenet of customer service then any personalized approach is doomed to failure. Then the exciting part of the briefing --- the pitch that turns the mood from cynicism to optimism --- “Your Bureau of Sanitation is getting rid of a business (the manual collection recycling program) that is costing you money and replacing it with a business that is going to save you money”. From there, the State-of-theProgram address to the proud new owners of the great new automated recycling program goes as follows.. .

PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND THE SALES PITCH

Ladies and gentlemen, the City has three key objectives in converting to automated collection: 1) Increase public participation; 2) Improve collectiodoperation efficiencies; and, 3) Decrease scavenging. The fiscal and environmental implications for each and every Angeleno are, if not critical, extremely significant. Increased public participation means increased tonnage of recyclables collected. Increased tonnage of recyclables collected means increased revenue from recyclables. Sounds good? Let’s talk great. Great because not only have revenues in your business just gone up, these recyclables haven’t just materialized out of thin air. Most came out of the refuse stream in the black containers (see Figure 2) since when customers only had 16-gallons for their recyclables and 60 gallons for trash, many recyclables ended up in the black container.

Need more good news? The City has to pay an average of $23 per ton in landfill tipping fees to dispose of refuse. In a

city the size of Los Angeles, when recycling participation goes up nearly 150%, as it is did in the 15 pilot neighborhoods, the combination of “increased revenue” and “avoided tipping fees” is like getting paid twice for the same amount of work! Revenue comes in from recyclables that we didn’t previously capture in yellow bin program due to lack of capacity axxl lack of convenience --- and we no longer have to pay landfill operators for materials that were recyclable in the first place. “Capacity and convenience!” is the war cry of a great new recycling program.

And what abdut objectives two and three? Business owners rejoice. Not only is revenue up and expenditures down, but the cost of collection just went down too. We are collecting more “stuff” in less time because the driver doesn’t have to get out of the truck anymore. Did I mention that worker’s compensation claims from manual lifting of bins and stacks of baaed pipers just went down? And about those “scavengers” that were epidemic in every neighborhood in L.A.: by our best estimates, we projected that the old recycling business was losing over two million dollars a year to theft. Pilot participants in the new single stream automated routes in which all items are mixed report that scavengers have all but disappeared. More savings, less mess. It’s all good with the new blues, my friends.

But let’s not focus entirely on the economics of automation although seemingly across the board, from the smallest town in Idaho, to the Feds in D.C., the purse strings are tightening. Capturing the full 40% of the recyclables in the waste stream, along with the nearly 25% of the yard trimmings, carries tremendous environmental sigdicance. More recycled paper. Less dead trees. Landfills are going to fill up a lot more slowly. Decreased demand for new landfills (when was the last time a community voted for a new landfill) means collection trucks will drive a shorter distance than they would to a new landfill since it is a safe assumption that any future ladills would be built farther from the city center rather than closer. Less distance means less air pollution from trucks and (it is hard to escape economics) improved productivity.

By the end of the community briefing, frequently the customers (the business owners) would break out in applause. At first I was surprised. But why not! Converting from 16- gallon bins (have a customer tell you how much they liked them when it rained, or when it was witxly, or when they were stolen) to lidded 90-gallon containers on wheels is like converting from the stagecoach to the automobile. Even the horses like it, and they are out of a job.

AND THE WINNER IS...

Soon d e r implementation of the 15 pilot routes, we knew we had a home run out of the park with automated collection. Participation by tonnage had doubled to tripled in all routes

81

and set-out rates for containers was at an average of 82 % . The only question that remained was, “Which method?”.

A couple of months into the “Blue Bag Pilot”, problems were becoming evident. Contamination was high as participants often failed to tie the blue bags shut and commingled cans would spill into the paper stream either while the container was dumped into the hopper or in the hopper while in transit. Moreover, scaveqhg actually went up in the five pilot routes as scavengers discovered, apparently to their glee, that cans and bottles were now pre-bagged for their scavenging convenience. My favorite interview to date was with a customer in our Westchester route who reported, “I looked out my front window and saw a fella open the lid of my container. He pulled out a huge bag of cans I had put out from our July 4th party and he started doing a jig right there in the middle of the street”.

The bell began tolling on the blue bag method when scavengers started dancing in the street. Soon thereafter, we converted the five blue bag routes to single stream collection since the split stream routes had containers with a divider down the center of the container.

Tbe paxticipation data from the single stream and split stream routes was more competitive but, at about the four-month mark, problems began to show with the split stream. The one that mortally wounded the split stream was the collection speed of the split truck. The split truck technology is still developing ancl the comparative degree of difficulty for a driver to align the automated gripper arm with the split divider in the hopper of the truck to that of gripping a container and dumping it into a standard truck hopper seemed to be analogous to a diver doing a back two and a half with a twist compared to just diving straight in, head first. The collection speed for the drivers in the single stream pilot routes was nearly double that of those hi the split stream.

As for the split container itself, it came up short in a very definitive way. Our waste characterization studies had also revealed that the stream of recyclables, by volume, is two- thirds paper. Therefore, a container split fifty/fifty is not functioning at its maxi“ capacity. We performed countless field checks and discovered that the paper side was often filled to overflowing while the cans and bottles side was half empty. Moreover, customers would jam cardboard into the paper half so that drivers had to repeatedly “slam” the container at the top of the dump cycle to get the material to jettison. Many times, it simply would not empty. Needless to day, this contributed to the poor collection speed.

Alas. Participation was highest in the single stream routes, collection efficiency was greatest, and scavenging was lowest. The proverbial no-brainer, right? There is that bit about reduced revenue per ton and contamination concerns.

WE KNOW, IT’S ONLY BLUE CONTAINERS, BUT WE LIKE THEM, LIKE THEM, YES WE DO

The Bureau of Sanitation, “for all the aforementioned reasons” as the Board report would state, recommends the adoption of the single stream automated collection method. The Board of public Works approves. The Mayor of Los Angeles approves. And the City Council of LQS Angeles approves. We in the Bureau believe strongly in our new program. Let us go out to our neighborhoods, to our homeowners groups, and to our school assemblies and proclaim the coming of the new blues.

____

~

~

Let’s be sure to distinguish this personalized customer service approach to “selling” automated recycling containers from selling used cars. There are a couple of dents in the ‘hew vehicle’that is single stream recycling. Industry professionals recognize the downside to single stream collection and it can be a steep one. One, a big one, is that you get less money per ton. After all, the Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) are going to receive a lot more tonnage and will have to do a lot more sorting. Two, a big two, is possible contamination from overflow refuse and/or yard trimmings (Note: Los Angeles charges $5 per 30-gallons for additional refuse containers and $2.50 per 30-gallons for additional yard trimmings containers). Customers trying to save a buck who do not recognize the negative implications of “contaminating” their recyclables with trash or green waste, could significantly reduce the revenue received by the City.

In theory, informed “business owners” would never take money out of their own pockets, so a major challenge for the customer relations group is to make sure all of our customers are informed about what goes into the blue container, and what does not. Also, what are the “personal consequences” of contamination and scavenging towards the lifespan of our landfills and the pfitability, or lack thereof, of our recycling program. Petty and Cacioppo (1981) conducted comprehensive studies in attitudinal and behavioral change which confirmed that, “The primary determinant of attitude change when a persuasive communication is presented depends on whether the issue under consideration is of high or low personal relevance.” That conclusion may seem

pblic relations staff is to recognize that by personalizing the recycling program, by getting the customer to become a business owner, you can achieve the behavioral result you desire whether it is to increase participation (Recycle More!) or to minimize contamination (Keep it Clean!). Make the message personal. ~

obvious, even simplistic. The point for customer service or ____ ~

Along with our change in L.A. from addressing customers as

have found the positive approach elicits better results than the negative. The literature we have developed for the new automated program (e.g. the “user sticker” on the container

~ residents, to arldressing customers as customers, we definitely ~~ ~

82

lid, the distribution flyer, and even the contamination notice) are all positive messages featuring the slogan, “Recycle the Blue Way”. Again. It may seem obvious but telling the customer, “Don’t do this, don’t do that, and if you do this, this bad thing is going to happen” will alienate your customer, and sooner rather than later.

while them is no question that s;hgle stream collection has its downside, there is also no question that the increase in collected tonnage from the phenomenal 148% participation increase which resulted from the unparalled convenience of the single stream method (anonymous customer quote, l‘recycling is now just as easy as throwing something in the trash”) more than makes up for the revenue lost per ton. The Environmental Protection Agency offered this simple, straightforward advice in their classic manual, “Decision- Makers Guide To Solid Waste Management” (1989): “The entire recycling program must be designed to maximize participation. This involves making participation as convenient as possible for residents and businesses. An integrated, comprehensive public outreach program will be one of the keys to a recycling program’s success. The public must know the importance of recyclmg, the nature of the local waste problem, and how they can get involved.”

The increased participation in the automated collection program will ensure that Los Angeles not only meets the 50% landfill diversion mandated by AB 939 ... we will far exceed it. From an environmental vantage point, single stream was our first, best choice. The 148% increase in tonnage ensures that it is our best economic choice as well.

The customer relations mission, and it is not overstating it to say it is the very foundation of the automated recycling collection program, is to ensure that participation is maximized and that contamination is ” ized . How will that be accomplished? By heeding the EPA’s advice and tm“mg a comprehensive, flexible and, most importantly, a customer service based public information program. We will plan carefully to utilize the appropriate methods for the objective at hand. If we have added a new item (e.g. empty or dry paint containers) to the list of recyclables accepted in the blue container, we can use a traditional mailing since our goal is to give new information. But if we discover a behavioral problem (e.g. everyone citywide is filling up their blue containers with full paint cans that are spilling and contaminating our MRF loads), we should respond with interpersonal communication --- whether it is sending speakers to homeowners groups and school assemblies or having staff canvass door-to-door.

. . .

One other key point about effective customer relations. We have f o d that using professional staff with the technical expertise in all of the complexities of the recycling program who have been trained in public relations techniques is more

effective than using public relations staff who have been trained in the complexities of recycling. The reason is that our customers are quite sophisticated in receiving information from a wicle variety of mass media and interpersonal sources. They sense very quickly whether the communicator really has the expertise and experience to convince them that the new program has merit or whether they just have extensive experience in communicating but only superficial knowledge of the new recycling program. If they sense the latter, you may f i i yourself at a community group presentation-that feels more like a wounded wildebeest facing a pride of lions in an open field: the good news is, your demise will be relatively quick - the bad news is, it isn’t going to be pretty.

As we all know, the nature of human beings is that, in the absence of factual information , we will still manage to form an opinion. W e also know perception is reality. If a customer thinks we did not do our homework before selecting the new program, then the fact that we did two years worth of extensive mearch is moot, ai least in that individual’s opinion of us. That is why it is imperative to inform customers about the exhaustive effort that has been put into developing a state- of-the-art recycling program and why it is essential that they understand the substantive concerns and the personal consequences of the behavior you want them to change (e.g. spilled paint means that an entire load of recyclables will be taken to the landfill where we will pay money to dispose of it and we will have lost the money we would have received from the MRF).

Back to the research of Rogers who found that, “Mass media can: 1. Reach a large audience rapidly. 2. Create knowledge and spread information. 3. Lead to changes in weakly held attitudes.” The important differentiation is that he found that interpersonal channels of communication can: “1. Provide a two-way exchange of information. One individual can secure clarification or additional information about the innovation from another individual. This characteristic of interpersonal networks sometimes allows them to overcome the social- psychological barriers of selective exposure, perception, and retention. 2. Persuade an individual to form or change a strongly held attitude. This role of interpersonal channels is especially important in persuading an individual to adopt an innovation.” Selective exposure (I hear what I want to hear), perception (what I believe to be the case is the case, unless you convince me otherwise), and retention (I‘ll remember it if you take the time to tell it to me in person, but if you send me a pamphlet in the mail that gets stuck between the pizza coupons a d the free carpet cleaning card, not only did I forget it, I never even saw it!), are all huge barriers to our message getting through to our customers. When a program message is important enough, it is well worth the staff time to invest in person-to-person contact.

83

Now obviously, we cannot go out and speak directly to every one of millions of Angelenos. This is where the comprehensive element of customer relations planning comes to the fore. We try to speak to big community groups and school assemblies under the theory that each member of the group can in turn disperse the message to half a dozen others who can, in tum, disperse the message to half a dozen others ... it’s kind of the reverse of the ‘‘six degrees of separation” theoq. Instead of making six contacts to get to Kevin Bacon, we are making 600 contacts to get to every customer in Los Angeles from Annie Apple to Zske Zabrowski. Will we need to employ mass media to get to everyone? Of course we will. But here’s a fact. The ones we got to in person will be much more likely to do the right thing ... recycling-wise that is.

ASK NOT WHAT YOUR BLUE CONTAINER CAN DO FOR YOU

We are approaching the halfway point in our citywide roll out of the new blue containers (e.g. over 300,000 distributed). By the time you read this, the entire San F e d 0 Valley will be recycling the blue way. Tonnage of recyclables collected has increased nearly 125% on average. Operational efficiencies are much improved. Mobilized scavengers seem to be going the way of the dinosaur. Remarkably, between City Council fiekl offices, our Sanitation 800-Hotline, and the Customer Relations Group, we have received less than 100 complaints. A survey CondUcteJ at the conclusion of the pilot project revealed a stunning 92% approval rating among the 12,500 partic- and the 300,000 who have followed seem to like the new blues as much, if not more. Proactive work with community groups and council offices by customer relations staff has, without question, preempted many calls.

By working closely with, and getting input from, citizen advisory committees, community groups, and council oftices both before, during, and afier the pilot project and again before and during the current citywide roll out, we have been able to adjust certain key program elements to cater to our customers’ unique needs. For example, some hillside neighborhoods in L.A. feature such steep terrain, narrow streets, and small garages that downsizing the container to a 60-gallon made a positive and appreciated difference to the individuals in those areas. Townhome 4 condominiums receive the 6O-gdon as the standard size. Similarly, we offer flexibility with a small number of 30-gallon containers that are made available to our elderly and/or disabld customers.

exchange. But invariably, the customer is pleasantly surprised and even grateful that we took the time to explain how the program works and why it works that way. I cannot be more emphatic on the point that taking the time to talk to people, over the phone or in person, can create an ally for the life of the program. I cannot count the times I’ve heard, “I never had any idea. To be honest, I looked at recycling as busy work. Now I can see it makes a difference.”

We are fortunate to work in a field, solid waste collection and disposal, that does make a very real difference in people’s lives. R h , reuse, and recycle are much more than words. They are tools to use as we head into the next century --- a century in which, more than ever, how we manage our resources, how we protect our environment and, yes, how we manage our budgets will determine the quality of lives our children will live. Government, industry a r ~ I the public (our customers), working together as a team is the best insurance we have that future will be a great one ...and a blue one. Customer relations staff can and, in fact, must facilitate that teamwork. Positive customer service orientation and effective interpersonal communication are the best weapons with which to overcome public cynicism and replace it with hope.

At every opportunity to personalize our customer service, we clo it. When customers call the Hotline and ask for a smaller container, someone from the customer relations group calls them back to explain the implications (and personal consequences) of going smaller (e.g. cannot fit cardboard boxes). After they hear our pitch on recycling the blue way, if they still want the smaller container, we arrange the

84

FI- 1:

Overall Satisfaction with the Blue Recycling Container Program

5% 3%

32%

60%

BASED ON DATA RESULlS F‘KM A SURVEY OF THE 12,500 PARTICIPANPS IN THE sMx=M) (;ENERATION RECYCLING PILOT P R C ”

Very satisfied Satisfied

0 Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

FIGURE 2:

Since Receiving the Blue Recycling Container, to What Extent Have You Been Able to Reduce the Amount Of Trash You Put in the Black Container?

1 1 %

49% To a moderate extent 0 To no extent at all

W E D ON DATA RESULTS FR34 A SURVEY OF THE 12,500 PARTICIPANIS IN THE sMx3M) GENE3ATION PILOT PROJECT

REFERENCES

City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation, 1996, Second Generation Recvcling Pilot Project Final ReDort, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 1-3.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1989, Decision-MakersGuide To Solid Waste Management, Washington, D.C., p.74 and pp. 125-130.

Petty, Richard E., and Cacioppo, John T., 1981, Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporarv ADproaches, Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa, pp. 258-259.

Rogers, Everett M., 1983, Diffusionof Innovations, Collier Macmillan Publishers, London, England, pp. 17-18 and 197-200.

87

MINIMIZING COSTS WHILE MAXIMIZING EXPOSURE

Susan L. Patane EducatiodCommunity Relations Manager

NORCAL/San Bernardino, Inc. San Bernardino, CA

How often have you heard these statements? “I wish I had their budget.” “I could do that too, if I could hire a big advertising agency.” “How did they get all that press?” “If I had as many staff as they did, I could do all that too.” “We are a government agency and we can’t do that.” “It’s too much trouble.” Who wants to go through all that hassle.”

These are just a few of the comments heard after a hghly successful community event. It is true that some municipalities have more dollars to spend than others, some hire large advertising agencies, others may have large staffs and, yes some organizers may have a relative in the newspaper business or a sister who is an anchorwoman for the ABC. But are big dollars really necessary for developing and implementing a highly visible and successful event?

There are four major steps in minimizing your costs while maximizing your exposure:

1) Plan Ahead

A well-planned campaign will be a successful campaign. During the planning stage, it is important to look at all resources and prepare to use them efficiently. Remember efficient use of resources will help you reach your goal. The planning stage is the time to organize your committees and get the management structure in place. Decide early on who is ultimately responsible for the campaign.

While laying the foundation contact some enthusiastic volunteers, employees or community leaders to participate in a brainstorming session. This session is where the ideas begin to flow and the foundation is set for the entire “mood” of your chosen event.

Plan on holding the brainstorming session in a relaxed environment away from distractions. Elect a facilitator, who does not have an agenda other than the success of this event. Teach your partners that no ideas is a bad idea and every idea can be built upon. Each concept, no

matter how bizarre or off-the-wall, could easily trigger even better, more feasible idea in the next person.

Iden@ the target audience. Who is the campaign for? Who are you trying to reach? Don’t forget the middleman, which can be meda representative, educators, community leaders, elected officials, and industry leaders. These may be your first audence, even though you have identified a speclfic target.

2) Research

Research is an important factor if you choose to q u a n w your results. Consider conducting a poll to find out how many people in your community are even familiar with your efforts. The poll can consist of a few simple questions asked to variety of people which represent your community.

How well the campaign is researched can be vital to the success of the campaign. The research phase may reveal conflicts or obstacles to your plan. Think of these as challenges which can help you enlist the aid of local “experts” who are not already involved.

In order for the campaign to be the center of attention, it is important that all challenges or hurdles be idenMied early and a route devised to go over or around those hurdles. For example, another community campaign may occur at the same time as your event, resulting in a lack of participants and limited media attention.

3) Media Relations

Members of the media can be your greatest allies, serving as your most powerfid awareness too. Media coverage can be used both before and after the event to publicize your selected message to the community. Media contacts are extremely important and must be handled delicately. Remember the media operate on strict deadlines. Information must be accessible to them in a timely manner.

89

When choosing the media you want, don’t forget smaller local publications, industry and trade magazines, cable television networks, local talk radio, chamber magazines, city and county newsletters, and broadcasters who showcase community events. Keep in mind that editorial content is a lot more credible than paid advertising. The following is a list of factors to rate the news worthiness of an event:

Consequence - What is the consequence of the event, how many people will be affected? What are the possible long term effects? Timeliness - The media is not interested in hearing statistics from ten years ago, their readers/viewers/listeners want to hear current information. Proximity - When targeting the media, put your major emphasis within the local community. Prominence - Having a prominent person within the community publicly support your event will attract attention. Human Interest - Waste Prevention and the environment are filled with human interest. Human interest mixes elements such as irony, humor or emotion with news. An example would be collecting reusable clothes for a needy family, repairing appliancedfurniture for an orphanage and redemption events to benefit schools.

A press kit is another tool to attract media attention. Be creative and personally deliver your message. Make an old cardboard box into a folder, put recycled coffee in a mug, attach the news release with a tag that states, “Read - Remember - Recycle,” or deliver your message in a lunch box purchased from a thrift store. Keep an updated list of media contacts that include names, addresses, fax and phone.

A front page or feature story is better than buying five 15 inch ads.

4) Partnerships

Visibility often creates credibility and credibility creates visibility. Creating partnerships with local organizations, businesses, other jurisdictions, and industry leaders can minimize your costs and maximize your credibility and visibility.. Also, don’t re-invent the wheel. There are hundreds of events already going on in each community or even the nation that you can “piggy back” on. The following is a list of mediums to spread-the-word that may be donated or have little cost:

Payroll Inserts Post Cards Grocery Bags Phone Book Insert Bag Stuffers Special Editions Table Tents Proclamations

Postal Cancellations Dedications Newsletters Posters Promotional Items Calendars Flyers Invites Billboards PSA’s Signage Contests Messenger Boards Phone Messaging Speakers Bureau Banners FairdCommunity Events Endorsements Sandwich Board Joint Purchases Certificates Co-op Advertising Photo Opportunities Direct Mail

Billing Statements T-shirts

The above mentioned promotional materials are a form of getting the word out about your event or to inform the public of the importance of an issue. T h s is the time to be creative with your outreach campaign. Costs for the above mentioned items vary depending on how elaborate the concept is but many times you can network with local businesses or even corporations to create win-win partnerships..

In conclusion, when your campaign is finished, you can never pay for the credibility a simple thank you will bring. We often forget those who donated time, energy and inkind contributions, these are the backbone of your campaign. A written thank you, on a piece of unique recycled or reused paper will open thousands of doors for you in the future.

90

Automated and Semi-Automated ~

~

Collection issues

-

AUTOMATED RESIDENTIAL PRODUCTION CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Pete Klimoski Solid Waste Division City of Mesa Mesa, Arizona

ABSTRACT

Governments today are coming to many new crossroads. One of those being that governments are no longer the sole service providers or monopolies of traditional government services. If a customer is not satisfied with the service, the customer often seeks the option of obtaining the service elsewhere. These customers can be residents, or they might be members of city councils. Whoever they may be, all customers have high expectations. They do not want to spend any more money, but instead demand that performance improvements be made, to provide more and better services for each dollar spent.

Today, many municipalities in the metro-Phoenix area are already, in some capacity, competing with the private sector or privatizing some component of their solid waste system. There are many private hauling companies that are more than willing to provide solid waste collection services to City residents. To meet this challenge in this highly competitive world, municipalities like Mesa are engaging in continuous quality improvement (CQI) efforts. The premise being to involve everybody in the organization in the process of improving how the work is done. This certainly includes the concepts of efficiency and productivity. However, no matter how good the services are, there cannot be total quality unless we are certain we are meeting both our external and internal customer’s needs and expectations.

Although the City of Mesa’s Solid Waste Division is currently the sole provider for residential automated barrel collection service, our employees are on a quality journey to develop automated side loader (ASL) route standards. The overall effect has been to center our efforts on meeting customer expectations and satisfaction, benchmark route statistics, reemphasize the important aspects of teamwork and cooperation, focus on more fact-based decision making, and assure continuous improvement now and €or the future.

This case study examines the steps that were taken to accomplish this multifaceted objective. The concepts considered, ideas explored, and tools developed will be highlighted as well as sharing the guidelines followed and pitfalls to avoid. All the pieces must be added make the final solution a success. No one part alone is sufficient to realize the goal of maximized

documented result will be the essence of our paper.

~

and sustained production and customer satisfaction. What those pieces are and how they came together, with their ~~

~

93

BACKGROUND The City of Mesa is the third largest city in the state of Arizona. Mesa has an estimated population of over 350,000 and takes in 123 square miles. Mesa is part of Maricopa County, recently determined to be the fastest growing area in the country, with over 82,000 people having arrived in the last year. Mesa is getting its share of this explosive growth with residential service increased by over 20,000 homes over the past four years.

Over 95% of the residential collection services are provided by automated side loader (ASL) collection with 28 trucks servicing over 160,000 stops each week. This service includes once a week trash barrel service and once a week recycling barrel service. ASL service has been in place for about ten years now, but ”blue barrel” recycling was just completed citywide a year ago. The recycling program and moving from 26 cubic yard capacity trucks to 30 cubic yard trucks allowed to us to “absorb” those 20,000 new homes without having to increase the size of the fleet. (These improvement steps have been documented by an R. W Beck study and also summarized in an article in World Wastes magazine in September 1996 by Dianne De Roze.)

After reaching this point, the question became, “Where do we go from here?’ Once all the major changes are in place, then one must work out the finer details. Just like an artist whose brush fills in most of the canvas at the start with big, bold strokes, we had now set the stage for the smaller, yet just as important, detailed strokes. We keep asking ourselves, “How are we doing? Is this the best we can do?” We realized that we needed something to use as a point of reference. Some kind of measure that would tell us if we were continuing to move in the right directions. Something more than just financial statements of profit and loss. We determined we needed something to tie production and progress to those financial reports. We needed route production and service standards.

ROUTE PRODUCTION STANDARDS Route production standards, or benchmarks, as we prefer to call them, are points of reference of what can be expected when an area is serviced. In other words, what is the reasonable amount of time a driver should take, how many loads to the disposal site, how many barrels, how many tons, how many miles, etc. for each route area. Once these initial production standards were in place, then the improvement process began to pickup speed. The more detailed our points of reference, the more we were able to respond to chaaging conditions and better understand the steps necessary to continue to improve.

PAST PRODUCTION MEASURES USED For many years, the City of Mesa had tracked production in the form of miles traveled, hours worked and tons hauled to the landfill. The drivers were ranked in each category. The better a driver was in that category, the higher he was ranked, and the more points he received. The points in each category were then added across to determine the top ten drivers overall. This was a simple, yet fairly effective method to focus the drivers on what they were able to accomplish and motivate them to improve. This was in place for a number of years until it was thought that too much emphasis on production was creating more accidents and the “Top Ten” list was discontinued. However, for the record, it was discovered later that the number of accidents did not decline.

The key lesson learned was that the most productive drivers were usually the safest drivers. The most productive drivers were not necessarily the fastest drivers in the short sprint, but they maintained a smooth, steady pace all day, with little wasted motion. This differed from the drivers who were fast because they were reckless and abused their trucks. The reckless driver was fast in the sprint, but usually lost the race in the long haul due to accidents, poor customer service‘ or continual truck breakdowns. When our current director came on board, and when the timing was right, we started to bring back the idea of focusing once more on production. However, production would now just be one part of a total package that first stressed safety and customer service, then dependability and teamwork, then taking care of the truck and finally production.

WHERE WE STARTED The place we started was to collect and analyze more data about our ASL collection services. We started with a basic database, one record for each route for each day. The first reports simply tracked total hours, total miles, total loads and total tons for each truck.

We quickly discovered that we were not keeping the same driver on the same routes. ( In Mesa our drivers

six days each week. This had created a situation where drivers were being rotated from day to day, from route to route and sometimes, truck to truck.) Drivers who could adapt quicker did much better than drivers that could not. The difference was made up by having the drivers that finished their routes help finish the routes that still had stops left to service. We were not able to get a very clear picture of what each route needed because of these conditions. It almost seemed like we were trying to keep drivers from ever running the same route twice. The help time also “muddied the waters” as well as acted as a disincentive for getting done early.

work four-ten hour days, but we run collection services ~~~ -

~

~

94

TRUCKS ASSIGNED TO SPECIFIC ROUTES The first step was to assign trucks to specific routes. Once this was done, then drivers were assigned to specific trucks. Each truck had a “primary” driver and a “secondary” driver. Anytime the primary driver was scheduled to work, he was the one who would drive the truck. Anytime the primary driver was off, the secondary driver would drive the assigned truck. If the primary driver and the secondary driver were both on the schedule, the primary driver would take the truck, and the secondary driver would get one of the other trucks available.

STARTED TO MINIMIZE HELP TIME The next step was to start to minimize help time, where one driver would have to go assist another driver once he finished his own route area. The recycle routes were light enough that help time was eliminated for all but for larger amounts of downtime. The trash route help time was limited to teams of two trucks, except for larger amounts of downtime.

This was a major improvement. For the first time, we could start to compare the same route to the same driver and the same truck for at least two out of every three weeks.

BETTER COMPARISONS BECAME POSSIBLE As we were able to make comparisons from week to week, other production components began to emerge. We have always had an ongoing dialogue with the ASL drivers about ways to better balance and improve the routes. Many of the ideas they had mentioned had initially been hard to verify because of the data conditions. Now that the fog was lifting a bit, some of the very points they were making about volume per barrel, set-out rates, load compaction, etc., were confirmed. Our drivers also started to record the number of barrels serviced. [see Appendix A: route data sheet]

BREAKING ROUTES INTO BASIC PARTS Production rates can sometimes be skewed by including the travel time to and from a route area, as well as the trips to and from the disposal site. We worked around that by breaking the route into smaller pieces. [see Appendix B: sample computer database record]

Yard time Two of the pieces are the prep time in the yard in the morning and the post-trip check at the end of the day.

Non-Productive time Breaks, mechanical downtime, stand by or any other non- productive time was deducted out of any on-route or disposal times, to be considered separately.

Disposal Haul Time and Miles Disposal haul time and miles are the statistics to go from the route area to the disposal site and back to the route again. This was broken out as its own separate piece and the average time and distance determined for each route area.

Travel Time and Miles to each Route Area Travel time and miles to the route from the yard was broken out as its own piece, unique to each route area.

On-Route Statistics: A Major Key With all these other parts identified and cleared away, the remaining piece was the on-route portion of the route. This is where the heart of collection takes place. This is where we found out the skilled drivers are most easily identified from the less skilled.

In Mesa, we use “path routing” versus “area routing.” This means that the truck travels the same path each time once on the route, no matter how many barrels are out. This provides us with a relative constant of on-route miles for each route area from week to week.

With this constant of on-route miles in place, we then found clear variations in servicing times. The same truck, on the same route, with the same number of barrels collected, but a different driver, would take longer than another driver.

SKILL INDEX CREATED AND EXPLORED By dividing the number of barrels serviced by the number of on-route hours, we developed a quick and easy skill index known as Barrels Per on-route Hour (BPH).

What we learned was that there was a larger difference in driver collection skill level from the fastest drivers to the slower drivers than we ever would have guessed. We had been under the presumption that “slow” drivers were possibly dragging their feet, but when they had to, they could pick up their pace. This was not the case.

We verified this in a couple of different ways. First we videotaped every driver and the technique they used to service three empty barrels under controlled conditions. The best drivers ran the course in 40 seconds (or about 13 seconds per barrel). The slowest drivers ran the course in over 66 seconds (or about 22 seconds per barrel). At first glance, this is only a difference of nine seconds per barrel. However, Table 1 shows the impact of a few seconds over a route day of 1000 barrels:

95

IMPACT OF SECONDS PER BARREL ON SERVICING 1000 BARRELS

Table - one

Seconds Barrels Hours to Difference per barrel per hour service (in hours)

13 277 3.61 0.00 16 225 4.44 0.83 19 189 5.28 1.67 22 164 6.11 2.50

The difference in technique from our fastest driver to our slowest driver could cost us 2.50 hours more on the same route and the same truck with the same 1000 barrels!

What we discovered under controlled conditions, correlated to what was happening on the routes. The faster technique drivers were completing their routes first, while the slower drivers were taking much, longer.

IMPROVING TECHNIQUE This prompted us to see what we could do to improve the technique of the drivers. We started working with a group of five drivers from the “middle of the road” in terms of observed skills. Our hope was that if we were able to take an average driver and improve his barrels per hour technique, we would be able to take a slower driver, tell him of the success we had with the average driver, and encourage him to make an effort to change his techniques to make noticeable improvements.

The original group of five were called the “mentor group.” We called them that because it was hoped that they would mentor the slower drivers when the time came. We thought the message would be better coming from a fellow driver rather than an analyst or foreman.

The first work done with the mentor group was promising. By talking and working with the drivers, we were actually sharing ways how each driver used the controls to pickup the barrel. This was something that had never been done before formally. There had never been a standard way of doing it. Each driver had developed their own style basically on their own, without really ever having a way or the opportunity to see how other drivers worked the controls. We found that some drivers used the feature of “grip-n-go”that combines a couple of the steps and saved time. Other drivers did not use the feature, thinking that it was unsafe, losing

precious seconds on each barrel. Some drivers would remove their hand completely from the control box between different phases of the dump cycle, while the faster drivers would keep their fingers on the controls the whole time. Some drivers would extend the boom on their collecting arm to reach out to each barrel to collect it, retracting it to dump it, and then having to extend it back out to return the barrel to the curb, using up more time. The faster drivers would have the knack of driving right up to the barrel and grasping it without ever having to extend the boom. The faster drivers would also have very fluid, very smooth operation of the equipment, where the slower drivers would be jerky, losing time, and often would throw the control system off that it would have to reset, taking even more time. In some cases, we even relocated the control box to a much more ergonomic, more comfortable position. These drivers had put up with it simply because they thought that was the way the truck came and they just had to make do.

The more we talked about various techniques and watched the video tapes of other drivers, the more we learned. We knew we had something. The challenge was to get drivers to recognize the need to change their technique, help them make new habits and then help them sustain the progress they had made.

RESULTS OF PILOT “MENTOR” GROUP Our first pilot group saw these drivers improve their times under controlled conditions. It also saw a marked improvement on the route as well for many of them. Some of the drivers claimed they really did not change the way they picked up the barrels. However, whether they saw something else on the videotapes, or maybe it was just the thought of trying to improve on what they are already doing, they did improve. Perhaps it was just the fact that their p oduction was being measured and tracked. In any event, we had made our first little dent in the big wall keeping us from improved production.

f

WHERE WE ARE NOW With the encouragement we had gained from the mentor group, we wanted to be able to expand on this idea and have it reach the people that it could help the most. We also realized that a good number of our drivers were very highly skilled. We wanted to encourage drivers to improve without some of the negative fallout we first encountered when we talked about measuring and improving production. ~

~ -

With the helpful input of the drivers, foremen and management staff, over a period of time, we had continued to refine our production standards to a point that, though still not perfect, both management and the drivers could feel much more comfortable with them.

~

~

96

After a series of tries from different approaches, the computer database now automatically adjusted for fluctuations in set-out rate and those days when there were more loads than usual. It also monitored statistics for the last five weeks and was in a format that more readily put them side by side with the standard route area information. [see Appendix C: ASL 5-week trend report]

With this new level of detail and formatting of the data we revisited efforts in the areas of driver recognition and coaching drivers in their technique.

RECOGNITION OF DRIVER SKILLS Our very first attempts at recognition were to post a daily list of production standards. Those that had improved on the standard were at the top of the list, while those who were having a little more trouble with their routes were at the bottom. After discussing the issue with the drivers, the list was posted by driver numbers, rather than the names of the driver, to maintain a certain privacy for the drivers, while still letting them know where they stood compared with the other drivers. Also, as an attempt to let them know how they compared to the standard generally, points and a “grade” were assigned to the result. That, in a word, did not go over too well. Nobody likes to get a “D” or an “F.” The drivers also wanted to see how the “grades” were accumulating. We soon were able to show the drivers how they did weeks at a time. Eventually, this gave way to a monthly review of production.

We now have a monthly “Top ASL Driver List” which highlights the drivers who were able to improve on their route standards. However, in keeping with the idea that production is only one part of what makes a top professional driver, once the top producers are determined, then these drivers are reviewed hrther to make sure they had worked over 100 hours during the month, had no sick days or unscheduled vacation time off, had a good customer service and followed all established division guidelines.

This list is put into our monthly newsletter and posted on the division bulletin board. A note is also placed in their personnel file to help remind us at their next annual personnel review of their accomplishment.

This method allows us to not only recognize the very skilled drivers we have, but it does it in a way that emphasizes production in a more proper context. The results have been favorable. The drivers seem to be warming up to the idea. They have not come out openly to say so, but they sure do not mind having their names posted as being one of the better drivers. They are also asking more questions as to how they are doing, and what

they can do to on their routes to be more effective. We are also looking to recognize the top drivers of the year. Such recognition could go a long way in helping secure a division merit monetary award as well.

We also recognize drivers with downtime of an hour or less each month for the efforts they make to keep their equipment moving and producing safely.

Having such lists in front of the drivers shows everyone that good production can be done, safely, dependably and while maintaining good customer service and not being hard on the equipment.

COACHING DRIVERS TO IMPROVE While we recognize the top drivers as we have just mentioned, production standards also reveals those drivers that are not quite as skilled. In the past, even though everyone seemed to know who the “slow” drivers were, the ones who always seem to need help getting their routes done, there did not seem to be anything that could be done.

We are happy to report that there is something that can be done. We are doing it in Mesa and it is working. A foreman was specifically selected to follow-up and focus on the things we fvst learned from the pilot “mentor” group. With the route standard measurements, we have identified the drivers that are having the most difficulty. We meet with these drivers regularly to discuss their production and see if there is anything that might explain the poor results.

The types of drivers that we are working with can be broken down into one of the following groups:

a) the driver was simply not recording his information correctly, resulting in lower production rates.

b) the driver did not realize that he was that far behind the curve, and without any more effort on the foreman’s part than a gentle “nudge,” their production improved.

c) the driver is trying, but repeatedly finds himself in an unfamiliar situations-- either a different style truck or controls, or routes that he has not done before. We give these drivers a little slack. We are working to get the less skilled drivers especially into a more stable setting of the same truck and the same routes.

d) the driver is trying, but is knowingly having difficulty with his collection and/or packing techniques. These drivers are matched up with other drivers to “mentor” them until the new techniques are mastered and sustained.

97

So far, all drivers have been receptive to what we are trying to do. We do not have any drivers that have refused or rejected the idea that they cannot improve. It has been especially helpful when we have the production statistics right in front of them. They can ask any questions they want, and we have been able to bridge the trust gaps. We have had most of our success in a one-on- one setting. The driver can be most comfortable without any outside distractions. The focus is on him and the routes he has been assigned and finding places where his performance was different. We can have an “informed” discussion and usually have two or three specific recommendations for the driver to try to make an impact.

If this does not go far enough, we can arrange for the foreman or another “mentor” driver to ride with the driver to help coach the driver “first-hand.” Even though we have not had to do this yet, we do let the drivers know this option is available.

MANAGEMENT REVIEWS In addition to specific drivers and route areas being reviewed for their relative performance, the production of the entire ASL workforce is being looked at for ways to improve and to insure that is cost-effective and competitive. [see Appendix D: Weekly ASL Review]

Every week, compiled and on a single page, the production results are displayed for each driver and made available for discussion to the ASL production team. It takes all the pieces and puts them together to get the overall picture of this operating system. Items such as scheduling, tonnage, barrels serviced, overtime, downtime and truck availability can be highlighted. It is also a backdrop for possible route boundary changes and standard adjustments. It is the springboard for making management decisions and evaluating current practices and procedures. It is a tool that is intended to literally keep the entire management team on the same page and on course as to what must be done.

WHERE WE PLAN TO GO FROM HERE What we have been discussing in general principle and theory has been quite the challenge to perform and maintain. Some the challenges “behind-the-scenes’’ are the constant changes that go with being in an explosive growth area. Just as soon as you think you have things under control, two or three new subdivisions pop-up and you have another 1000 homes to route into the balance.

We are going to larger 37 cubic yard tractor trailer ASL trucks, up from our 30 cubic yard straight body trucks. The last of our right-hand drive trucks are on the verge of retirement. Both situations are creating the above average need for driver training to get used to the fleet as

it is going to be for the near future. However, at the same time, it is providing us the opportunity to review the driving skills of each and every driver over a period of six months for a week at a time. This should give us a boost as we will be able to mentor and share all the best techniques in collecting and packing loads right in the cab of the truck.

~

We are continuing to add new services. At the time of this writing, the Mesa City Council will be deciding on expanding green waste barrel collection citywide. This will bring new resource demands, but it also promises to reduce the material that ends up being buried in the landfill. We are also working to convert more manual pickup trailer parks to automated barrel service. This adds the potential of several thousand more customers to the rolls of automated collection.

Even with the system of route standards that we currently have in place, it is hard to be able to continually adjust for all the variables of season and growth quickly for the almost 140 different ASL route areas that we run each week. The standards we are using now are based on an actual route day of a driver familiar with the route. The statistics are as close to what you could say are “typical” of that route area. They are not averages of several weeks. We had found that averages could be more misleading than to have just one “regular” or “normal” day. This standard can then be automatically adjusted for different set-out rates and number of loads. However, when the standard is set by a very highly skilled driver, we have also had to make some adjustments to take into account the average skilled drivers. We have wished that we could have an average driver go around and drive all the routes so that we can use his statistics as a common benchmark from route to route. Unfortunately, this is not feasible. However, we are looking forward to something over the horizon that could fit this need.

COMPUTERIZED ROUTING We have been laying the groundwork in Arcview, a Geographic Information System (GIS), for a computer software called Routesmart. ArcView displays and creates maps of the city streets with our customers’ service locations pinpointed on them. Arcview has been very useful to obtain counts and maps. RouteSmart is a software that will actually “connect the dots” in the most effective path. In essence, RouteSmart will be the standard driver that will be able to tell us just how long a route should take given the operating statistics at that time. One of the last “rough” spots will be addressed and resolved because there will one common benchmark to be able to measure all the routes.

~ ~

~

- ~

TRACKING VEHICLE COSTS TO THE ROUTE Another area we are just beginning to add to the mix are the vehicle costs specifically related to a driver or to a route. This is made possible by the specific truck to route assignments and the specific driver to truck assignments. Already we have noted that our higher vehicle costs might be linked to the routes that service the heavier 440 gallon alley barrels. We are just now in the process of analyzing our discovery and how we might best deal with this new information. Our management group is sure many more cost-saving ideas will come as we connect what a driver does on the route and what it takes to keep that truck moving. The City currently has a cost-tracking system that is over twenty years old. It will be replaced by a much more responsive system that will be much more user-friendly and better able to help us pinpoint trouble spots in this major cost area so that we can aggressively work to minimize driver-caused abuse and maximize productive capability with packing and hydraulic pressures being at their optimum, and the collection systems functioning at their peak levels of performance.

TYING COSTS TO PRODUCTION The next natural development would be to tie in all the costs of the day-to-day operation. The City currently has financial reporting of a most general sort, but nothing related to specific routes or particular route days. Picture if you would, being able to review the previous days

. production and be able to not only know how well you did in terms of production with past weeks, but also to know in dollars and cents just how much money you made or lost in that day. Could you not be better able to evaluate your management decisions by reviewing these results the next day or so, rather than having to wait for the end of the month and guess about the impact made of a decision made weeks before? This is one of the areas we hope to build on.

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT IS VITAL We will continue to look for ways to improve our trucks, our route areas and our drivers. Larger, more versatile trucks, more effective means to route those trucks and more effective training and incentives ‘for our drivers will always be in the works here at the City of Mesa Solid Waste Division. It is this concept of “working smarter” that has got us this far and will keep us competitive in an ever tightening market of solid waste providers. We are here to serve the city and give our residents and businesses the most beneficial and cost-effective service possible. As long as everyone in our division stays on that path, we will be able to do just that for many more years to come.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It would be useful for you to know who the people are that have contributed to the success we have enjoyed thus far and have kept us on track to reach our goals.

Jack Friedline, Solid Waste and Facilities Director who had the initial vision and provided the ongoing support to see this process through to this point.

Tim Mahon, Residential Supervisor, who has patiently been willing to listen to these new ideas and then help provide the people and time to get things in place.

Lonnie West, Residential Production Foreman, who does most of the field work and the one-on-one with the drivers. He has been able to build the necessary trust with the drivers to make a difference with new ideas.

Jesse Duarte, Residential Production Foreman, who helped with all the videotaping of the driver techniques and did the initial work with the driver “mentor” group.

Jennifer Means, Recycling Specialist and member of the productivity team, who was instrumental oftentimes to remain objective and help us sort out what was needed to stay on track, as we worked through each new stage.

Kari Kent, Management Assistant, who helped our ASL group get off the ground initially and reminded us about all the elements we would need to be successful.

The other residential foremen, Mike Ludwig, Hector Trevino and Addison White, who have always been there to assist in providing their insights and help. They have helped in the very first route standard comparisons.

Anita Wienke, info technician, Linda Hinegardner and our Info Svcs Division, who started working with our production data input and will now help us bridge the gap to ArcView and Routesmart

Our ASL drivers, who have helped with their input and opinions throughout this process. The process starts with their work, and the results end with their work, and their efforts will keep the ASL system competitive.

Our Fleet Support Services Group, who keep the trucks rolling each day, and work with us to find better ways to collect the trash and recycling materials more efficiently with the trucks we have available.

All of these people together have made it possible to be where we are today--willing to do whatever it takes to serve the citizens of Mesa better each year.

99

Hour Meter Starting ~ Ending

1 SI Truck , I I

- CITY OF MESA DAILY DRIVER COVER SHEET I i

I For RECYCLE TRUCKS: BE SURE Truck is EMPTY or has RECYCLE on it BEFORE LEAVING YARD!!! t I I T R U C K M Initial- ok to p/u recycle: TRUCK *I TRUCK.2:

I I MATL ON TRK I VOLUME ON TRK I START MILEAGE 1 MT'L ON TRK 1 VOLUME ow TRK , STIRT MILEAGE i w.7~ ON TRK I VOLUME ON IRK 1 START MILEAGE

i DAYIRTE 1 DRIVER 1 2ndTruck I 'I See back to record fuel usage and

and DowntimelStandby lime details TIME LEFT YARD PATE , _CHECK-IN TIME

~ STARTING COUNT

I

I FIRST ADDRESS

, SERVICED

I

TIME AT 1ST STOP

DOWNTIME ON THE ROUTE t --

1

/ DOWNTIME IN THE YARD IN THE A.M.:

I I I I I

I I

1

~ i I I

I I

~

~ I I 1

I

I I , STANDBY TIME ON THE RTE I I I

TRUCK EXITS I ' ESTIMATED NUMBER OF

I

I j I

j I

,

I j i I i i SERVICED I

i I ~

I I I I I I ...

; LARGE BARRELS (300 or 440 gal)

kENDING MILES ON THE ROUTE

TIME LEFT ROUTE

LAST ADDRESS

I 1 I I I I

I I

i I ~ I

DUMP SITE USED

_. .- - _- I have checked all vehicle(s) and equipment according lo the CITY OF MESA CDL requirements and safely procedures

1 DftlVER SIGNATURE PRE-TRIP 11 q his on' POST-TRIP 11 q his off7

I

APPENDIX A: CITY OF MESA DAILY COVER SHEET

I I

100

* * * * * Record 6785 in ASL PROD 5C 1TARE X *****

7 5 4 1 7 0 45 1-0

Ref.No.Q858 DATE:04/03/98 DAY/RTE:FT02 DR1VER:FALV ALVARAD0,FRANK A1163PPG

START VOL./MILEAGE-TRUCK 1:-0/-48,768 TRUCK 2: -O/ TRUCK 3 : -O/ ~

AM DT -YD: -0 (MIN.) AM SBT -YD: 0 (MIN.)

CHK-IN:06:00:00 START TIME: 06:OO:OO LEFT YD (1ST TIME):06:15:00- week: 127

RTE/TRK(S):F?;i52 1163- FT02 1163 FT02 1163 FTOl 1163 FTOl 1163 START MILES: 48,771 48,797 48 , 822 48,827 FIRST P/U : 06:30:00 0 5 : 3 0 : 0 0 12:25:00 14:10:03 . . . . - LOAD DT/SBT: 15 - - SBT DESCR. :BREAK-14:15 .~

END MILES : -48,778 48,804 - 48,827 - 48,831 ARRIVE LF : o9:05:00 ii:55:00 . . 15 :35 : 00 . . LF /COST : GROSS WT(LBS) : 51,960 51,340 53 , 180

DISP.DT/SBT:

DT DESCR. :

LEAVE RTE : 08:25:00 ii:40:00 i4:io:oo 15:io:oo . . . . . . . .

SR 186.22 SR 180.69 SR-7-55 SR 197.09 SR-0.55

15 - - - - - - - - . . 15:45:00 - . . :OF: 15: 0 0 15: 05: 0 0 . . - LEFT LF . .

DT DESCR. : SBT DESCR. :BREAK-8:30 ENDING VOL./MILEAGE-TR] TRUCK 3: O / ARRIVE YD (THE LAST TIME) :1630:00 END TIME: 16:lO:OO INPUT BY:Lr- FLAG: Y PM DT -YD: -0 (MIN. ) PM SBT -YD: O(M1N.) RTES HELPED/=MMENTS: ACTION needed: PROFILE:-871 ALLEYS 04/03/98 ALVARAD0,FRANKpA1163PPG TRK: 3

- - 155 std:-156 - 23 DS LDS 3 3 2.42 ~td:-2.33

ROUTE/TREK :FT02-1163 start COUNT : 0 SM/LG BLS :3io o NET TONS : 10.45 + / - min. wt.: -0.98

LBS/BARREL :-67 C O ~ 1 TONNAGE ADJ.:-0.00

ON-RTE HRS : -1.92 Brls/OnRT Hr: -161 ON-RTE MILES: 7 DISPOSAL MIN: 50 DT Hrs:-O.OO SBF Hrs:- On-rte Stats-RTE hours mi. Brls

1ST HELPED--FTO1-0.75 -4 -139

3RD HELPED-- 0.00 -0 Primary Rte-- - 5.84 -19

2ND HELPED-- 0 . 0 0 -0

3 10 660 882 139 -0

10.14 11.06

RTE hours mi. Brls STD. HRS: -8.83 1st . + / - (min.) : 23

Total Hours: 10.17 Total Miles: 81

2nd - _.- - 3rd - _.- - Recvd help from these rtes Check:OK

- 0.67 I zO.00 I -1.59

FTO 1 - 116 3 - 1,021

- 0 . 0 0 - 0 . 0 0

0 --

-- 0 col 5

0

- - 0 . 0 0

0 0

2 =ade:3

RTE SW1TCHES:l SMl3 :

1,021 -0 LGB:-22 - 31.65 ADJ -31.65 #minok: 3TRK SW 0 DS 1ST:O PART:O - 62 std:-58 6.59

TRIPS/TONS-TRASH:3/31.65 RECY.:O/-0.00 $$ SR:-564.00 QC: 0 . 0 0 VR: 0 . 0 0

IN MINUTES 12/16/97--- MADE AVG DISP HAUL MINUTES "FLEXIBLE" LOAD HRS ADJ: 0 12/16/97--- ADJ CYCLE TIME FROM 9 SEC TO 11 SEC BRL HRS ADJ: - - 12

PART LD ADJ: 0 MEETS 1,163 DHT Adj :- PRN:400 INSTALL DATE : 0 6/02/ 9 7

BPH IMPACT (min . ) : -11 Drivers who have seen this route: FALV-15~JCEJ-6~DPOR-l~GREC-l~R~-l~SFIS-l~WOO-l case: Al- Trucks driven by this driver: 43-1163-37-1146-2-1147-3_1167-1

APPENDIX B: SAMPLE ROUTE PRODUCTION DATABASE COMPUTER RECORD

101

ASL ROLLING 5 WEEK TREND RBPORT FOR ROUT6 FTOZ (5C) [with tons] FOR SERVICB DATB 03/02/98 TO 04/04/98 PRINTED:04/06/98 PAGB: 11 Brls to RT VOLI-----------------------.-------------------------.---------l---------.-----------.-------------------------------------------

DATE DRIVER TRUCK-yd REP.# SVC'D min. strtl Brl o/r o/r Gross DIFF IbsDisplHelp Recv'd (if any) Comments/Notes BPH +/- Brls o/r 'o/r Man. DHT Load Brl Part Input DHT dif

Total Hrs +/-I (lbs.) MIN WT brl /ldlRte Brls /hr hrs mi. Adj Adj Adj Adj Adj by Err Chk

CAdj HRS mi. endlRte Trk Brls /hr hrs mi. DS weight tons TO per mini

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05/02/97 FALV 1163-30 I504 818 ArYd: 14:40:01 OIFT02 1163 330 165 2.00 6 SR 48,740 9.17 -0.63 5 6 501

C: 8.83 DT: 0.00 SBT: 0 . 5 0 DHT: 2.33 LOADS: 3 DIPTO2 1163 301 139 2.17 6 SR 48,940 9.27 -0.53 62 451

T: 8.83 TrkSW: 0 OR 5.25 hrs 15 min. IFTO2 1163 187 173 1.08 6 SR 41,120 5.36 -4.44 57 451 0

0 OR 18 mi. 4 mi. I 1163 0.00 0.00 0 0143 1163-37 1146-2 1147-3 1167-1 0

0 BPH: 156 SPB: 23 FPB: 116 Grade: 80 2 A 01 1163 0.00 0.00 0 01 0 0.00 0 0 0 0 pjkn c OK _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - 03/06/98 FALV 1147-26 Q303 1,002 ArYd: 15:40:03 OlFTO2 1147 306 159 1.92 5 SR 45,700 8.22 -0.28 54 551

C: 9.27 DT: 0.00 SBT: 0 . 2 5 DHT: 2.83 LOADS: 3 71FT02 1147 316 189 1.67 5 SR 45,960 8.35 -0.15 53 501

T: 9.83 TrkSW: 0 OR 6.09 hrs 15 min. IFTO2 1147 325 144 2.25 7 SR 48,360 9.55 1 . M 59 501 -20

BPH: 165 SPB: 2 2 FPB: 95 Grade: 71 3 M 261 1147 0.00 0.00 0 01 0 0.00 0

4 mi. IFTO2 1147 55 220 0.25 1 0.00 0.00 0 15143 1163-37 1146-2 1147-3 1167-1 30 OR 18 mi.

0 0 -34 -15 LH Y OK

03/13/98 FALV 1146-26 Q439 710 ArYd: 15 :15 :00 OIFT02 1146 223 141 1.58 5 SR 44,620 7.71 -0.79 69 451

C: 9.17 DT: 0.00 SBT: 0.25 DHT: 2.92 LOADS: 4 OIFT02 1146 238 179 1.33 4 SR 42,580 6.69 -1.81 5 6 401

T: .9.42 TrkSW: 0 OR 5.58 hrs 15 min. IFTO2 1146 249 142 1.75 5 SR 44,480 7.64 -0.86 61 501 62 OR 18 mi. 3 mi. IFTO2 1146 0 0.92 4 SR 42,460 6.63 -1.87 0 40143 1163-37 1146-2 1147-3 1167-1 35

BPH: 127 SPE: 28 FPB: 134 Grade: 73 3 M 201 1146 0.00 0.00 0 01

________________________________________-----------l-----------------------------------------------------------l----------------------------------------.------------~-----------

A

0 -50 20 0 LH Y OK 0 0.00 0

03/20/98 MSES.1163-30 Q579 805 ArYd: 16:15:00 151FT02 1163 240 152 1.58 5 SR 51,360 10.15 0.68 47 501

C: 8.54 DT: 0.58 SBT: 0 . 2 5 DHT: 2.92 LOADS: 4 OIFTO2 1163 260 183 1.42 5 SR 46,900 7.92 -1.55 61 501

T: 10.33 TrkSW: 0 OR 5.42 hrs 10 min. IFTO2 1163 285 171 1.67 6 SR 5 0 , 5 0 0 9.72 0.25 68 301 16

OR 19 mi. 4 mi. IFTO2 1163 20 27 0.75 3 0.00 0.00 0 0144 1170-21 1164-10 101-4 PBs-3 609-3 1147-1 1175-1 35

_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - . - - - - - - - - - - 5 0 2 0 LH Y OK 0 0.00 0 BPH: 149 SPB: 24 FPB: 125 Grade: 86 2 A -171FT01 1163 75 112 0.67 3 SR 44,000 6.47 -3.00 173 451

03/27/98 FALV 1163-30 4712 900 ArYd: 15:20:00 71FT02 1163 196 147 1.33 4 SR 52,460 10.70 1.23 88 401

C: 9.25 DT: 0.00 SBT: 0.50 DHT: 2 . 2 5 LOADS: 3 OIFT02 1163 333 148 2.25 7 SR 52.500 10.72 1.25 64 451

T: 9.50 TrkSW: 0 OR 6.08 hrs 15 min. IFTO2 1163 371 148 2 . 5 0 3 SR 55,440 12.19 2.72 66 501 19

OR 14 mi. - 5 mi. I 1163 0.00 0.00 0 0143 1163-37 1146-2 1147-3 1167-1 -5

BPH: 148 SFB: 24 FPB: 82 Grade: 72 3 M 251 1163 0.00 0.00 0 01

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0

0 0 0.00 0 0 -15 0 LH Y OR

04/03/98 PALV 1163-30 Q858 882 ArYd: 16:OO:OO OlFTOZ 1163 310 161 1.92 7 SR 51,960 10.45 0.98 67 501

C: 9.22 DT: 0.00 SBT: 0 . 5 0 DHT: 2.42 LOADS: 3 OlPTOZ 1163 350 161 2.17 7 SR 51,340 10.14 0.67 58 451

T: 10.17 TrkSW: 0 OR 5.84 hrs 15 min. IFTO2 1163 222 127 1.75 5 0.00 0.00 0 01 11

BPH: 151 SPB: 24 PPB: 114 Grade: 72 3 M 231 1163 0.00 0.00 0 01 0 0.00 0

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - . - - - - - l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

OR 19 mi. 3 mi. IFTO1 1163 139 185 0.75 4 SR 53,180 11.06 1.59 159 50143 1163-37 1146-2 1147-3 1167-1 5

0 0 -12 0 LH Y OK

TRENDS FOR ROUTB FTOZ FOR svc DATES 03/02/98 TO 04/04/98 Rte profile: ALLBYS 440'8: 22 Home count: 871 Drivers : F ~ ~ v - 1 5 JCBJ-6 DPOR-1 GREC-1 RLAR-1 SFIS-1 woo-1

APPENDIX C: SAMPLE ASL 5-WEEK ROLLING TREND REPORT

WEEKLY ASL DRIVER REVIEW

Mon 03116

+I- Totala m Hours

Hrs Net +/- : Hrs Over : Hrs >= 30 min. over std. : Hrs under : Hrs e= 30 min. below std.: 1st priorities:

Standard hrs CAHrs I Tot hrs Downtime I Standby Help recvdlcases Barrels svcd/miles Loadflons

__ - C0"mb r

8.25 ~ ____

hrs cases 825 2r

1416 1L 1273 < -591 1 -4 30 1703 1

220 31 228 56 239 5

7 0 8 8 7 13 02

20823 203 65 530

-_--- _ _ _

Tue 03/17

I Rte mm

TB04 , 18 TT15 1 -61 rdo I 0

TBO8 1 -21 sick 1 0 RL , 0 vac 0 rdo 0 rdo 0

TT24 , 16 TT18 104 rdo 0 rdo 0

TB03 -7 TT19 81 TTZ1 , -43 RL I 0

TT23 ~ 54

-

-___-

_ _ ~ ~ _ _

-__ ~ _ _

-

=P TBOZ -28 -zTrK comp I 0

rdo 1 0 rdo 0

TT22 , -43 rdo 1 0 rdo ' 0

TB06 1 -72 TB07 43 rdo 0

TTZO 16 __ TT27 e TT25 -43 rdo 0

TBOI I -58 rdo , 0

TT17 -74 TT16 , -8 rdo 0 rdo I 0

T605 -18 21 -30:

-5 05 hrs cases -505 2 553 ; 471 1

-10 58 1 -9 20 1391 1

___

187 38 182 33 193 8

4 5 173 13 92 18179 147

49 41

--- - -

WED 03118

+I . Rte mm

WT17 -53

____p_.

0 _-__ vac o . rdo 0

WT15 55 WE01 1 152 vac o rdo 0

WT27 430 WT16 -37

rdo I 0 WT14 73 W T Z l , -42 WB07 -33

rdo 0 rdo 0

WB05 I01 rdo 0

W 1 3 32 WE02 12 WT23 32 rdo 0

WT22 54 WE18 ' 51 wr97 0

0 WE06 43 rdo 0 rdo 0

WTI8 35 rdo 0

WE03 -1 WTZO -25 WT12 I 16 NE08 -8 N004 147 rdo 0

wT19 ' 73 rdo 0 a w l 0 rdo 0

_____

__-

23 1106 18.44

his cases 1844 2: 21 74 I! 21 27 1: -3 30 -2 75 2402 1

201 17 220 60 234 8

316 13 1607 1

21191 240 50 410

---

Color Codes Red ~ q u a m ~ are routes > 30 mmutes ~ v e l standard > (20 min for Ihc week

Green squarer are routes > 30 mmutes below the slandard lnformauan m red Npe only tndcate Ovemme sltulhms

I I

0 1 7

# of employees that waned from 34 to 36 hours

~ X of employees that worked from 36 to 38 houn 1 X of employees that wnked from 38 to 40 hours 21 i

-3 &Of employees that worked mar~hetOho~~

for week ending: 03/21/98 Thu 03/19

I Rtc mm ---

0 HT09 , -48 vac , o rdo 0

HT13 -6 rdo 0 vac , o RL 0

HT29 ' 0 HT11 46 rdo 0

HT10 I 35 HT06 I 10 UBI2 52 rdo 0 rdo 0 rdo 0 rdo 0

HT08 14 HB11 i -46 HTIZ -25 rdo 0

HT02 , 32 HTOI 19 ofc 0 rdo 0

HE14 35 rdo 0 rdo 0

HE15 80 rdo 0

HE09 13 HT05 -17 HT03 50 HE13 20 HB16 84

HT07 41 HT04 -17 HB10 27 rdo 0 22 39

6.63 hrs cases 663 2 929 1 7 58

-2 66 -1 57 915 1

-

I__ -~

rdo 0

177 36 19079 191 1

309 1 3 59

16874 17i 44 364

40 DRI\

Fri 03120

I Rte mn --

0 rdo 1 0 vac o

FBI5 -17 rdo 0

FBI2 53 rdo , 0

FBlO ' 52 FTOI I 98 rdo 0

FTIO 1 73 FT14 I 68 FT07 I -85 rdo I 0

FTO3 ' 56 FT09 -2 rdo 0 vac 0 rdo 0 rdo 0

FT13 I 22 :omp 0 FT06 24 FT05 I -10 rdo 0

FT12 36 FBI6 I 40 FBI3 -38 1-vac 1 0 FT28 81 FTO8 , 38 rdo ! 0 rdo I 0

FT11 ' 11 rdo 0

FBI7 I 56 FT02 -17 rdo 1 0

FBI4 86 FT04 -2 F B l l 43

-__

A__

23 665 11.09

hrs cases 11 09 23 1394 16 1299 13 -285 7 -204 1 1503 14

202 19 215 28 228 5C

7 7 5 675 3 5 9 5

20145 193E 61 5112

-__ 4OHn - 160001

Sat Totals for the entire week 03/21

1 Rte - min * vat I 0 rdo I 0 rdo 1 0 rdo I 0

SB09 I 188 SBlO ! 83

ST07 I 49 STO8 1 76 STOI 1 -31 rdo 1 0

STO3 I 34 ST24 I 59

rdo 1 0

SEI1 7 I 1 9 rdo 1 0 rdo I 0

:omp I 0 ST02 1 -12

STlO 1 3 S T I I I I O OFC 0 ST04 I 5 SEI6 I 61 m 1-vac 1 o ST25 1 68 ST05 i -106 rdo 1 0 rdo ~ 0

ST26 1 49 rdo 1 0

ST06 I 40 STO9 ' -6 rdo , 0

jB14 55 ST28 51 jB12 , -38

23 , 711 11.94

his cases 1194 2 1607 1 1553 1 -4 13 -3 83 1936 1

-

21064 222 58 240 1

675 8 1 7 25

24706 242 48 431

X.I Available

REG

119905 1260 14 1328 43

3233 6548 48 1 57 44

121918 120571 317 266459

- A-

1 __. 1575 78 ti- Used

VAC 9 6 5 0 SICK 2000 OFC 1650 HolIdayOm o a0 COMP 4 2 0 0 BRL RL 46082~~m.s 8CO F S S HELP 2 00 U-VAC 3800 Train 2200 Submtd I 291 c8 182%

APPENDIX D: WEEKLY ASL DRIVER REVIEW

103

AUTOMATING COLLECTION OF GREEN WASTES

Lynn Merrill Public Service Department, Refuse Division

City of San Bemardino San Bernardino, California

ABSTRACT

DIVERSION OF GREEN WASTES THROUGH AUTOMATED COLLECTION HAS ALLOWED THE CITY OF SAN BEFWARDINO TO SUCCESSFULLY MEET ITS DIVERSION REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH BY

THE ART COLLECTION SERVICES TO ITS RESIDENTS. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WHILE PROVIDING CONVENIENT, COST-EFFECTIVE AND STATE OF

INTRODUCTION In 1989, California adopted the Integrated Waste Management Act which, among other things, requires each city and county to divert 50% of their waste stream from landfilling by 2000. An interim goal of 25% was established for 1995. This bill is commonly know as -939.

San Bemardino, California is located within the Inland Empire area of San Bernardino County, approximately 60 miles east of Los Angeles. It has a population of 184,000 and covers an area of 55 square miles. The City has a strong, full-time Mayor form of government with seven councilmembers elected by ward. It is the largest City within San Bernardino County.

Within the City, approximately 90% of all residential and commercial accounts are served by municipal collection. A small portion of annexed areas are serviced by three private haulers. The City provides residential collection services to approximately 36,000 single and multi-family customers, and front-load and roll-off services to approximately 4,000 business and industrial customers.

The City began the conversion of its residential customers from two-man rear load collection service to automated collection service in 1990. The intent was to phase-in conversion of the entire city to automated residential collection by approximately 1995, however economic conditions prevented the City froin completing the phased conversion as initially planned. In 1992 and in response to AB939, the City began developing its waste diversion activities. Several pilot programs were established, including a commercial cardboard collection program and four small test areas of automated collection of

commingled recyclables within the residential service area.

PROGRAM DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT In August 1994, the City began aggressive planning for completion of automation of the residential sector and establishment of curbside collection of commingled recyclables and green wastes. Phase I was to complete conversion of the remaining manual collection areas to automated collection by late 1995. Phase I1 was expansion of the commingled recyclable collection city- wide and implementation of automated collection of green wastes.

The City investigated several options for the collection of commingled recyclables and green wastes. In 1995, there were primarily two full service automated collection methods for recyclables and green wastes. One method used a split cart system, in which both trash and recyclables were collected simultaneously in a single truck, while green wastes were collected in a separate 96- gallon cart. The second method used three separate automated carts, color coded for each material type. After several months of investigation, the City decided that the use of the three cart collection system offered the most flexibility, with the least amount of technical and operational concerns.

During the preparation of the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element required under AB939, several local green wastes processors were identified. These firms were located within an appropriate travel distance from the City, and had the capability of processing clean green

105

wastes into either boiler fuel or compost. Some of the firms were co-composting a variety of sludges as well.

During 1995, several issues affected both green wastes and recyclables processing. Green wastes processing operators came under increased scrutiny by the California Integrated Waste Management Board, as the amount of green wastes diverted increased. The Board proposed development of facility permitting requirements for green wastes processors, based on the size of the facility and the types of materials received. While this created concerns within the green wastes processing industry, it also helped establish regulatory standards for facility management and operation in order to prevent environmental problems.

The second issue was the use of shredded green wastes as alternative daily landfill cover (ADC). Pioneering work done in this area by the Los Angeles Sanitation Districts determined the feasibility of using ADC instead of soil. The District provided a low cost alternative for green wastes processing within Los Angeles County which inadvertently placed market pressures on private processors whose operating costs were higher than that offered by the District. Use of green wastes as ADC also generated controversy within the recycling community, since ADC was viewed as an unacceptable waste diversion activity. This debate resulted in a variety of legal actions, including a court challenge. At one point, it was conceivable that a community which used green waste ADC as a diversion method might inadvertently loose its diversion credits, should the court system rule that ADC was not diversion.

The third issue was the collapse of the secondary paper market, resulting in losses of revenue to many curbside recycling programs.

In order to maximize the green wastes processing alternatives to the City and to minimize the potential impacts of these three issues to the success of the program, the City elected to focus on requiring that all City green wastes processed would be used for compost. In addition, since it was conceivable that loss of the paper recycling markets could seriously affect the City’s diversion activities, the City elected to specify alternative diversion strategies, which allowed inclusion of both food waste andor paper within the green wastes mix to be delivered to the processor.

A Request for Proposal was developed for both commingled recyclable processing and green wastes processing which simultaneously set forth both of these alternatives. Several firms submitted responses to the green wastes RFP and, after a brief debate at the Council

level regarding the merits of sending green wastes to ADC at a lower processing cost, a contract was awarded to California Biomass of Bloomington, California. This firm demonstrated its capability to process green wastes, paper and food wastes in a tiered pricing structure which satisfied the City’s requirements and allowed the greatest level of flexibility for diversion activities.

During early 1995, the City solicited and subsequently awarded bids for the purchase of eighteen additional automated collection trucks, which brought the entire fleet of automated collection trucks to a total of 37. Award of this bid was made to Amrep of Ontario, California. Delivery of these additional vehicles was slated for mid- to late-1995. At this same time, the City issued a bid for the purchase of up to 120,000 additional automated collection carts. Appropriate quantities of 64- and 96-gallon black, blue and green carts were specified. In order to allow maximum future flexibility, the City specified that the blue and green carts must be retrofittable to a split cart. Award of this bid was made to Toter, Incorporated, Sanger, California.

In order to implement Phase I, it was specified that delivery of all black carts would be made first, and that automation of the remaining residential services areas would be completed, prior to implementation of the recycling program. The City completed automation of the remaining residential areas in late 1995.

During the program design phase, a concern identified by the Mayor and Common Council was that residents were currently receiving twice per week refuse collection service of approximately 192 gallons per week. Upon implementation of the commingled recyclables and green wastes collection programs, the City would converte to a single collection day for all three materials. The Mayor and Council expressed concern that residents would see a reduction in the total volume of capacity each resident would receive weekly. To address this issue, the decision was made to provide three, 96-gallon carts as the standard

additional 96-gallons of capacity after program implementation for a total of 288 gallons per week.

service level. This resulted in each customer receiving an ~ -

As part of the planning process, the City recognized that some customers would prefer smaller automated carts for

would be those with either town houses, limited landscape areas or who were unable to physically handle the larger cart. customer needs, the City developed a postage-paid postcard survey which was distributed to all residents through the water billing system. Residents who wished to

both recyclables and green wastes. These customers ~~

~

In order to more closely match the cart size to the ~~

106

receive 64-gallon carts were asked to return the postcard by a certain date. Out of a customer base of approximately 36,000, approximately 1,500 customers requested either one or both of the blue or green carts to be 64-gallon carts.

This postcard survey was the first formal notification which many residents received regarding the upcoming residential recycling program. While the majority of customers responded accordingly, a small minority of customers used the postcard as a method of venting their displeasure with the proposed program. Staff enjoyed reading many of the “colorfbl” comments which were provided.

Press releases and other media were developed to notify residents of the upcoming program. A four-color brochure was developed in both English and Spanish for distribution to the residents during program implementation.

IMPLEMENTATION Delivery of blue and green carts commenced in late 1995. Toter established a phased delivery schedule which required the City to begin receiving and warehousing carts approximately three months before program roll-out. The City obtained permission to use a vacant warehouse located at the former Norton Air Force Base to temporarily store carts.

Phased rollout of the recycling program was scheduled to commence January 1996 with completion by June 1996. A schedule for cart delivery was established which called for delivery of blue and green carts to each resident at the rate of 1500 customers per week. A private cart delivery service was subcontracted by the manufacturer in order to make delivery to each of the City’s 36,000 customers. The City established the daily delivery areas and coordinated these with the cart delivery vendor.

The vendor provided sufficient crews and vehicles to deliver carts. Delivery was done by loading flatbed trucks and trailers with a quantity of carts. The delivery crews would then move into the scheduled delivery area, and begin dropping stacks of carts at strategic points. The delivery vendor’s crew would then install the wheel and axle assembly and attach a bag of literature consisting of the brochure and a flyer stating the customers new collection date. The delivery crew would then wheel a set of blue and green carts to the curb in front of each residence.

Each cart has a unique serial number, consisting of an alpha-numeric code which provides information regarding the year of manufacture, the cart size and the color of the cart. City staff were organized in teams to record cart serial numbers for each address for inventory control. In addition, city staff remained in the field throughout each day to answer any questions or solve any delivery problems as they arose within the delivery area.

OPERATION The City made an initial projection regarding routing of the new automated system. Prior to implementation of the recycling collection program, the City operated its residential collection system on a 10-hour, Monday- Thursday, Tuesday-Friday schedule with Wednesdays off. With the new recycling program, the City converted to a IO-hour, Monday through Thursday operation for residential collection. This schedule allows the City to recover collection operations in weeks in which a holiday occurs without resorting to weekend operations. Staffing for the automated collection system consists of 30 Refuse Operator I1 positions.

Initial routings for the three cart collection systems were developed. Each automated collection truck was rated at a capacity of 800 carts physically serviced per day. Routing for the black refuse cart was projected at 900 to 1000 stops per route, with an approximate set-out rate of 90%. This resulted in the establishment of 11 rehse collection routes per day. Routing for the green green-waste cart was projected at 1100 to 1200 stops per route with an approximate set-out of 60%. This resulted in the establishment of eight green-waste collection routes per day. Routing for the blue commingled recycling cart was projected at 1,700 to 2,000 stops per route, with an approximate set-out rate of 40%. This resulted in the establishment of six commingled recyclables collection routes per day. A total of 26 automated trucks are assigned out each collection day.

During the week which a customer received their blue and green carts, the City provided collection services on both collection dates. This permitted the customers to “clean house” and to begin the following week with the new collection program. For approximately a three week period after each neighborhood was converted, the customer service operation received numerous protests from customers regarding the new service, as well as letters to the local newspaper. Legitimate service problems were quickly addressed, and staff in general developed a “thick skin” regarding the adverse complaints. After a three week period, most protests died out.

107

The City has been successfully operating the three cart collection system since June 1996 with very few operational problems. Because of the flexibility built into the system through the use of standardized cart sizes and collection trucks, daily routing adjustments can be made by the field supervisors as needed to allow for increases or decreases in set-out rates for each material type, as well as to adjust for other operational problems such as equipment and manpower shortages. Currently, routing retains the original 1 1-refuse, 8-green wastes and 6-recycling routing schedule, however a 12” refuse truck is usually fielded each day to maximize flexibility for picking-up misses or late-set outs from the previous collection day.

MONITORING AND EFFICIENCY Each route operator is required to maintain a daily record of the number of pick-ups made each day by cart color, as well as a log of how much time was spent collecting each load, the time to and from the landfill and the amount of equipment downtime. Simple, manual counters were installed in the cab of each truck in order to count stops.

At the end of each shift, the drivers are required to turn in to the dispatcher their completed Daily Route Productivity forms, as well as any red-tags which were issued on the route during the day. These productivity reports are entered into a computer data base in order to examine daily and weekly productivity trends and to make appropriate comparisons between days and individual routes.

As a result of potential contamination of both the green wastes and commingled recyclables by residents, the City developed an anti-contamination ordinance which prohibited residents from placing refuse within either the blue or green automated carts. In order to implement this ordinance, the City developed a “three-strike” program. This program is centered around a red-colored tag which the driver leaves on a resident’s cart in the event that the driver was unable to service the cart. The red-tag includes categories for contamination in either a blue cart or green cart.

The three-strike program consists of the following. Anytime that contamination is discovered within a blue or green container, the driver will issue a red-tag to the resident. The date of Occurrence and the service address are noted on the tag and this information is recorded daily into a master database. Generally, a single warning to a resident is sufficient to correct the problem. In the event that a second red-tag is issued, a letter in both English and Spanish is sent to the resident which reminds them of the program requirements and that failure to follow these requirements may result in removal of the blue and green

carts. If a third red-tag is issued, the City physically removes the blue and green carts from the residence. While there is no monetary penalty for misuse of the carts, the loss of capacity to the resident and/or the additional cost of a second black cart at $10.50 per month is usually

the blue and green carts returned, the City requires the resident to send a writtcn request stating that they will comply with the requircincnts of the recycling program.

Despite this effort, contamination of the green-waste system continues to be a problem. Currently, the City’s ~

green wastes processor estimates the contamination at approximately 15% by volume. On-going efforts to reduce the contamination below this figure have not been successful. Contaminating materials range from miscellaneous refuse to automobile parts. To address this, California Biomass adjusted its processing system to allow removal of contaminates. Initial load checking and hand- picking of contamination such as glass, metals and plastics are done when each load is received. Paper and organics are left within the load, since they will compost. The materials are composted in windrows which are turned regularly. The rough compost is then placed over a sorting line and any remaining contamination is removed, prior to final processing and screening.

The combination of on-going contamination enforcement by the City and processing adjustments by California Biomass have continued to result in a high quality compost product.

sufficient to gain compliance. If a resident desires to have -

-

~

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION The City’s residential recycling program results in an average diversion of between 45 and 50 percent per week of the residential waste stream. Of this diversion, green wastes constitutes two-thirds of the diverted volume, with commingled recyclables constituting the remaining one- third. Within the City service areas, the 1997 city-wide diversion rate was 24.76%. As a result of the change from twice per week to once per week collection and due to the lower tipping costs for recyclables and green wastes, the City estimates that it saves approximately $50,000 per month in avoided disposal costs. Landfill tipping fees in 1997 were $33.00 per ton; however, due to the recent adoption of a Waste Delivery Agreement between the City and the County of San Bernardino, as of January 1, 1998,

wastes fees are $20.20 per ton, while the average net cost of recycling transportation, processing, marketing and

~ ~ ~

the tipping fee was reduced to $28.50 per ton. Green ~ ~~

residual disposal was $4.66 per ton. -~

~~

During 1997, the City collected a total of 76,415 tons of residential generated wastes. Of this, 39,691 tons of

108

refuse were collected and landfilled. 9,602 tons of commingled recyclables were collected with 7,870 tons recovered for market and 2,495 tons of residuals landfilled. 27,116 tons of green wastes was collected and processed into compost. Monthly tonnages of green wastes collected ranged from a high of 2,637 tons during May to a low of 1,839 tons during January. The amount of green wastes collected per stop averages approximately 55 pounds per cart serviced.

One of the most significant problems the City experiences on the residential collection program is failures of hydraulic hoses on the automated trucks. The City experiences between three and six on-route equipment failures each day. While a portion of these failures are a result of automated arm or packer blade failures, the majority of these failures are the result of hydraulic leaks. These failures significantly impact the City’s daily productivity and require the City to field more trucks each day in order to ensure completion of all service areas.

During 1998, the City is expecting to review its residential route productivity in order to better match existing service routes with appropriate staffing and equipment deployment. Presently, the existing Monday route areas are having difficulty completing within the ten-hour service window. The Monday service area also is in the fastest growing residential development area of the City. Tuesday through Thursday service areas are generally completing within eight hours. Drivers who compete their routes early are instructed to spend time cleaning and servicing their trucks. The residential routes will be rebalanced by the end of 1998.

Diversion of green wastes through automated collection has allowed the City of San Bernardino to successfully meet its diversion requirements set forth by the State of California, while providing convenient, cost-effective and state of the art collection services to its residents.

109

Collection of Topics

Title: MARKETING MESA Presenter: William Black Title: Address: P.O. Box 1466

Phone: (602) 644-3222

Supervisor for the City of Mesa

Mesa, AZ 852 1 1 - 1466

Fax: (602) 644-2718

The City of Mesa has been in the business of collecting solid waste from commercial businesses for more than thuty years. The last

in marketing, the City meandered through the last several years without any real marketing plan. nine years Mesa has competed with private refuse haulers for the commercial accounts withm the city. With no previous experience .~

We began to look at our commercial operation and how we can remain competitive in the refuse industry. The first step was to put together a team that would look at what we, as a city, could do to not only improve but retain our current share of the market. What was Mesa’s share of the market?

The team put together a program that tracked commercial refuse accounts in Mesa (Tracking Team). The team found a few other benefits fiom the program. The program enabled us to determine not only our share of the market but our competitors as well. This is beneficial for the next project for our team, a marketing program.

How do you market a municipal service? Marketing is not something that is new to our city or any other across the country. We nmket program related to police, fre and parks. As we expand our recycling efforts in the City, we market the recycling programs as well as changes when they occur. Ths same approach is used with all of the programs offered by the City. The difference is that the City does not compete for any of the services that are provided with the exception of the sale of natural gas.

The City of Mesa actively markets the sale of natural gas This area competes 111 the open market just as we do. Could they have been through the same marketing struggle as our division? What kind of experiences could they share with our division that would help in our marketmg efforts?

~

At times, an organization can actually hinder itself by not looking into other areas for ideas or thoughts. Our Tracking Team brain stormed marketing at one of our meetings. The brain storming actually went very well, but we also found ourselves rehashg the same old hngs over. As a group, we decided to pull in a few people from other areas of the City that have experience in marketing. The new members will be used solely for the development of our Marketing Plan.

With the marketing plan in place one can map the future of our success. The marketing program in Mesa is like no other in the cowtry. Now a municipality can compete with the multi-billion dollar haulers and survive.

113

INTRODUCTION

By ordinance, commercial refuse is defined as refuse that is generated by a business establishment. The City of Mesa began competing for commercial refuse accounfs in October of 1988. The change came when the State of Arizona Legislature mandated, through State Statute, that municipalities, with populations greater than 60,000, must allow private companies to compete for commercial solid waste services. Prior to this date, Mesa was the sole provider for all solid waste collection in the City.

~

~

In the past, Mesa has tried several different approaches to increasing market share and retaining our customer base. The first approach was putting a sales force into the field. Four service representatives were responsible with informing all Mesa customers of our rates and potential problems with signing long-term contracts with private waste haulers. M e r initial contact was complete, the sales force was reduced to two service representatives. Approximately four years later we reduced the number of service representatives to one who is tasked with increasing market share throughout the City.

Mesa has competed with private companies for refuse service Without a Marketing Program in place. This has left Mesa in a vulnerable position. Haulers have the ability to solicit service through a variety of marketing efforts with only defensive moves from the City. It is our intention to set up an offensive Marketing Program that would not only solicit accounts with private service but it would inform our customers of addtional services, such as office paper, cardboard recycling, etc, available as a Mesa customer.

114

COMMERCIAL ACCOUNT MARKETING PROGRAM

Mission: To actively market Solid Waste Services currently provided by the City of Mesa.

Focus: The intent of the Marketing Program is to develop a proactive program that solicits accounts in addition to providing service information to existing customers.

~

PROGRAM ELEMENTS

I. Promam Backmound

Since Mesa began competing with private refuse haulers for commercial services in October of 1988, attempts were made to market our refuse service. The attempts made to market the services provided by the City had no formal plan and usually it was a reactive move to actions from private refuse companies. We recognized that to be a competitor in the refuse industry, a formal marketing program would need to be a developed and implemented.

In April of 1997 a group from the%Solid Waste Division developed and implemented a program that would track commercial accounts. The program became known as the "Tracking Program."

The Traclung Program was the first step needed to develop a marketing plan A data base was established to input account information to be used for marketmg and sales. Contract terms, typeflevel service, last/future contact date and comments from the last visit with the customer is entered into the tracking data base

-

11. Market Composition

The market for supplying solid waste services in Mesa is highly competitive. Eleven haulers compete, including Mesa, for an estimated 2400 commercial accounts. In the past we have seen several small haulers start up and they eventually sell out to the larger companies. It wasn't until just a few years ago that the larger companies started swapping areas or selling off accounts in the valley. This has given Mesa an edge over the competition. Mesa is here to stay.

The businesses in Mesa range from the large manufacturing operations with several bins to small businesses with once a week collection.

A Competition

Mesa competes with several haulers in the collection of commercial solid waste. The companies range from the world wide conglomerates to the local haulers with a small percentage of the available market.

' ~

Understanding the compebtion is one of the most important parts of marketing. Knowing the trends and capabilities of the competition can assist in planning a marketing program. Large haulers have the capabiIities to structure pricing to allow them to bid lower than rates offered by the City. Consequently, the customer's price periodically increases without the option of terminating the contract and switching to another hauler. _____

~-~ The service offered by the competition varies as much as the haulers themselves. The local haulers face similar obstacles as Mesa. Nationwide or Valley wide contracts are typically signed by chain stores and restaurants.

Customers assume that there is a savings by going with one hauler for all of their accounts. This is a perception that can only be substantiated through research.

______

115

B. Services

The private refuse companies operating in Mesa offer traditional Front Loader and Roll Off services. Only one hauler offers a recycling program. The program offered is for commingled recyclables utilizing Front Loader bins.

The services offered by the City are what sets us apart from the competition. Mesa offers a variety of services to our clientele. Mesa customers are offered office paper recycling and cardboard recycling services, in addition to the availability to dispose of hard to handle items, for a nominal fee, such as furniture and appliances.

The Oftice Paper Recycling Program is provided to our customers at no charge. The Program accepts white ledger, mixed and computer paper. The customer is provided with a 60-gallon barrel for each commo&ty. The barrels are serviced as volume dictates, with a maximum service of once per week collection.

The Cardboard Program utilizes metal front loader bins. Mesa's fee for the service is adjusted according to the marketplace. When the market is good, the service is free. When the market is not as favorable the customer pays a nominal fee for the service.

~

There is one hauler with offices or services yards located in the East Valley besides the City. Mesa's advantage over ths hauler is our ability to respond to a customer's request any time of the day or night. Mesa personnel are available 24 hours a day should an emergency arise in which our services are needed.

Mesa's local operation is conducive to the delivery and repair of bins being completed in a minimal amount of time and causing less inconvenience to customers.

111. Marketing leads

The Solid Waste Division obtains customer leads through other departments withm the City in addtion to the Arizona Department of Liquor License and Control. Listed below is the type of lists available and how they are used by our division for marketing and sales:

A. Building Permit List

On a weekly basis the City's Buildmg Inspections &vision sends our service representative a list of building permits issued for the previous week. The list is used to solicit roll off service during construction or remodeling. A lead for permanent services can be gained during the construction phase. As we found, it is never too early to solicit for service.

B. Liquor License List

On Mondays, the Arizona Department of Liquor License and Control faxes a list of licenses that have been granted during the previous week. The list is used as a lead for new businesses as well as businesses that may have changed owners. The businesses that change hands may be fair game, since in most cases, they usually do not have to honor the service agreements signed by the prior owners

~

~

C. New Business Listing

On a monthly basis, the City's Tax and Licensing office supplies a list of new businesses in Mesa. The list is used to obtain information regarding new accounts in the city.

116

D. Account Turn on Turn Off List

On a daily basis our division receives a list of accounts from the Customer Service Division that details customers who have tumed on or off service the prior day. Our service representative goes through the list to look for activity that may result in a sale.

E. Staff Involvement

Ow current promotion is "Spot Free Customer Service." Solid Waste staff is rewarded with a car wash after three successll customer service leads. Leads can be potentially new customer accounts or an increaseldecrease in service to existing customer accounts.

IV. Account Retention

Account retention is an intricate part of marketing and retaininglincreasing market share. Existing customers are contacted to check adequacy of service and to promote any new programs that are available.

The Mesa model describes customers as Olympic Champions. Accounts are organized based on their dollar revenue level. The three levels are defined as Gold, Silver and Bronze. Each level represents a different form of contact with an emphasis that all customers are contacted in some way.

A. Gold

Our Gold level customers are accounts worth more than $750.00. per month. These customers are contacted personally by our service representative on a monthly basis. A special touch for our customers that have chosen to stay with the City of Mesa as their refuse service provider.

~

B Silver

The Silver level is accounts worth between $250.00 - $749.00 per month. These customers receive the same attention just less frequently. The customer service representative will personally visit the business site and check on the service every two months.

C. Bronze

The Bronze level customers are accounts that are worth $249.00 and less. Although these customers are just as important as the other two levels, they require very little maintenance. The service representative will check on service with the customers once a year.

D New Customers ~~ -

~

~

New accounts are given special attention when starhng service to ensure that everything goes smooth and without mistakes. The first impression of our service will always be a lasting one. New accounts axe sent a personal thank you note from our service representative in addition to a phone call to check on service.

V. Marketing and Sales

Currently the following methods of marketing are in place or have been used. Methods F & G are currently available but are not being used.

117

VI.

VI1 .

VIII.

A

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

Advertisement in the Yellow Pages to market our service to Mesa businesses. A simple query by our customer service personnel to determine how potential customers were informed of our commercial services showed that the investment was not cost effective. The majority of customers are repeats or they acquired our name and phone number fiom one of our containers in the field. This year the advertisement will be reduced to one line with a minimal charge.

Information about our operation is available on the Internet. (On the Home Page for the City of Mesa.)

Large truck signs have been installed on two of our front loader vehcles. The signs will be used to promote our service as the trucks travel the City.

Post cards promoting our service have been mailed out to customers in an effort to promote our service. Most recently the cards were used as a reaction to a marketing letter sent out by one of our competitors.

We have brochures that outline commercial services that are mailed out to potential customers. Brochures are left with customers when an on-site visit is made and no one is available to speak with our representative.

Open Line, the monthly newsletter, mailed along with the utility bill promotes events and services by the City.

Mesa Matters is a full page ad taken out by the City to promote events and services provided by the City.

Promotions

Promotional Items: Calendars, pens, and coffee mugs imprinted with the City logo and Solid Waste’s telephone number are used to promote Commercial services. Part of any good sales program is obtaining promotional items to dstribute to current and potential customers during an on-site visit. They are reminded of our service every time they use one of the items we have left. These items add a more personal touch to the service we provide.

Customer Education: Customers are cautioned to read the fine print in a contract for services. It is our intention to provide contract information to customers through random mailings, stop-in visits and telephone calls.

ValleyiNationwide Contracts

Customers who select a hauler based on ValleyINationwide contracts are on our direct mail program. These accounts are sent mformation relating to Mesa’s solid waste services. In the event that any of these businesses choose to select service on a local basis, Mesa will be a familiar name and a contact number will be available.

Soliciting Accounts

The remainder of the accounts are txacked accordmg to the contract expiration date. A service representative makes contact with the customer ninety days prior to the expiration date. This gives the customer ample time to consider Mesa’s service and cancel service with their current hauler, if appropriate. Information on customers that opt to stay with their current hauler is updated and tracked. The next expiration date is placed into the computer for follow-up.

Summary

The most important thmg that we have found over the years is the need to market ourselves. Businesses change hands and personnel .tirequently. With a marketing program in place, Mesa’s chance of providing service to a larger market share are enhanced.

118

Metro Rate Reform Process and Results

1 0 A Participatory Process for Rate Reform in a Regional Integrated Solid Waste Management System bY Douglas Anderson, Metro, Portland, Oregon and Harvey Gersltman, Gersltman, Brickner and Bratton, Inc, Fairfax,

Virginia presented at SWANA 's 9th Annual Waste Reduction, Recycling and Composting

May 13, I998 Symposium & 2nd Annual Collection Symposium

2 0

3 0

Motivations for Rate Reform w To Make the Rates Fairer w To Stabilize the Rates Over Time

To Reduce the Potential Conflict of Objectives between Metro's Role as a Promoter of Recycling and Regulator of Facilities and its Financial Interest in the Flow of Waste To Examine Performance of Metro's Funding Options to Changing Conditions To Reassess the Rate Structure Now When There is No Immediate Crisis

Rate Reform Process Stakeholder Groups: EnvironmentaWrofessional, Solid WasteRecycling Service Contractors (2 groups), WasteRecyclables GeneratorsRatepayer, and State and Local Government April through July - Stakeholders Sessions 1 and 2 - Requests for Information, Analysis Sent - Stakeholder Sessions Documented

w August - Summary of Stakeholder Session 2 Sent - Staff Initiates Analysis on Rate Options

- Discussion Draft Prepared and Issued to 300 Interested and Affected Parties - Public Information Meetings - Comments Accepted through Mid-October

September and October

WNovember . - Rate Reform Recommendation Made to Council

w Now in the 2nd Year of Implementing Changes

w Statement of the Problem and Statement of Purpose 4 0 Discussion Paper Prepared for Session 1

Metro - GBB 119

Metro Rate Reform Process and Results

5 0

- Solid waste programs funded from tip fees and surcharges on disposal; tip fees also fund

- Metro funding stability in question as waste reduction and recycling efforts increase diversion

- Basic financial issues and objectives:

~

other non-solid waste Metro activities

to current level of 43% and objective of 53% by 2005

)> Equity; )> Reasonable Rates; >> Incentives; )) Conflicting Objectives; and )) Stability.

Introduction - Significant changes in waste flows d o u t of 3-County Metro region in past 10 years -- see

- St. Johns’ closure almost fully funded - Over 120 additional facilities specialize in processinglmarketing source separated recyclables - Metro population growing significantly - Region at a very high diversion rate - Long-term disposal capacity assured

Figures 1 and 2

Environmental Stewardship: Metro’s Emerging New Role in Solid Waste Management - Metro helped catalyze and put in place a fully integrated solid waste management system - A Regional Solid Waste Management Plan has recently been prepared - Metro’s role focusing on environmental stewardship through hazardous waste management,

post-closure environmental monitoring of St. Johns Landfill, illegal dumpsite enforcement and clean-up, disaster debris management, community information, program evaluation, regional solid waste system monitoring and reporting, and other programs

Metro’s Solid Waste Mandates and Authority - Metro has extensive express authority to manage solid waste in the metropolitan area for the

- Cities and counties have specific authority over solid waste collection functions - Metro required, under state law, to implement solid waste reduction programs in the region - Metro has specific authority over acquisition, operation, regulation, licensing and franchising

- The Regional Solid Waste Management Plan provides the framework for Metro’s

disposal of solid wastes ... and any other function required by state law

of post-collection facilities

involvement in the post-collection part of the regional system Metro’s Rates, Services, and Revenue Requirements: Status Quo; Two types of user fees: - The Regional User Fee = $17.50 per ton - The Metro Tip Fee = $75.00 per ton, which includes RUF

Programs Funded by the Regional User Fee (RUF) Hazardous Waste Collection, Recycling, and Disposal; St. Johns Landfill Closure; Environmental Monitoring Services; Disposal System Development; Solid Waste Enforcement;

~~

_____ ~

_____

Metro - GBB 120

Metro Rate Reform Process and Results

6 0

7 0

8 0

9a

w Waste Prevention and Composting; w Recycling System Development; H Solid Waste Regional Planning w Technical Services; H Solid Waste Education; w Recycling Information Center (RIC); w Administration; and H Interfund Transfers.

Services Funded by the Metro Tip Fee (Net of RUF) H Ownership and operation of Metro facilities providing solid waste

receiving/transport and disposal, recyclables processing/marketing, and hazardous waste management and contracted services for same

Rate Reform Options Defined and Ranked w 1. Do Nothing w 2. Eliminate Services and Associated Costs

- a. Become a disposal agency - b. Become an environmental agency

w 3. Differential Rate Schedules H 4. Environmental Service Charge, or “Generator Fee”

- a. Portion of the cost of environmental programs - b. Substantial overhead costs

~ 5 . Other - a. Institute franchise or licensing fees - b. Institute a partial RUF on recyclables based on an appropriate allocation of costs - c. Institute solid waste system impact fees on new construction

Session 2 H Focused on Evaluation Criteria and Rate Options w Stakeholders asked to:

- Identify the most important objectives or evaluation criteria to be achieved by Metro’s rate

- Design a conceptual (though relatively comprehensive) rate package that best meets the structure; and

criteria.

Evaluation Criteria w Fairness, or equity

- Whether services and benefits are in line with the costs; - Whether ratepayers who pay similar amounts into the system receive similar benefits; and - Degree to which the option does not favor the same types of ratepayers or service providers

over others. w Fiscal Accountability

- Whether there is intrinsic incentives for Metro to operate as efftciently as possible; and - Whether explicit public oversight on expenditures is minimized.

121 Metro - GBB

Metro Rate Reform Process and Results

w Reasonable Rates - Rates should be affordable to all ratepayers; and - Rates should not impact the cost of doing business in the region so as to reduce job growth or

economic development. w Linkage

- Whether funding options are linked to services provided, andor clearly related to policy and management objectives.

w Administration

w Incentives - Ease of administering the option, once implemented.

- The extent to which generators and service providers are encouraged to reduce waste, recycle, and work toward other solid waste public policy objectives.

w Revenue Adequacy - Whether rates generate sufficient and predictable revenues to cover the reasonable costs of

managing the regional system. w Revenue Stability

- Whether fluctuations in the revenue stream (if any) match fluctuations in the revenue

- Requirements that are not sensitive to disposal or economic conditions should have a stable requirements.

funding base, e.g., post-closure environmental monitoring of St. Johns Landfill.

10 0 Discussion Points on the Rate Options w Status Quo

- Allocation Issues. The principal modification of the current system involves how revenue requirements are allocated between the bases for the Regional User Fee and the Metro Tip Fee. Reallocation can significantly affect the level of either fee. For example, if debt service were reallocated from the Metro Tip Fee to the Regional User Fee, the former would drop by over $4, and the latter would rise by almost $3. By affecting the relative price between Metro transfer stations and other disposal options, allocations can affect the flow of waste between Metro, and recyclers and processors.

w Differential Metro Tip Fee - A differentiated Metro Tip Fee would reflect the cost of handling and recovery, transporting,

and disposing of these wastes. The basic goal would be to bring posted prices more in line with costs. A secondary effect might be to encourage more of these materials to be delivered to Metro transfer stations, thereby potentially competing with some private operators.

- 1. Waste Basis. This option provides a rate schedule for different types of wastes that are delivered to the transfer stations. This option has some precedent, as loads of source- separated yard debris are currently charged $55 per ton, rather than $75. There are also special charges for tires and refrigerators, and source-separated recyclables are accepted at no charge.

- 2. Hauler Basis. This option provides a rate schedule that depends on the type of vehicle. For example, vehicles with automated tipping mechanisms incur less fixed costs than non- automated vehicles.

- 3. Setting rates. If differentiated rates are to be implemented, should Metro attempt to minimize potential competition with private operators, for example, by accounting for haul costs incurred by the hauler (transportation diseconomies)?

w Differential Regional User Fee - A schedule of Regional User Fees that is related to the benefits enjoyed by the generator. A

Metro - GBB 122

Metro Rate Reform Process and Results

current example may be generators of industrial process waste that must be landfilled, but for whom Metro has provided few direct benefits. Rates for these generators should perhaps reflect the cost of regional programs such as landfill closure and environmental monitoring, but not waste reduction programs because no industrial waste reduction policies or programs have been established by Metro.

- 1. Should differential user fees be based on the waste type or the generator type? - 2. What wastes should be eligible for a differential rate? For example, should processing

- 3. Differential rates need not be less than the current average of $17.50 per ton. Are there

- 4. Should the existence of a waste management option that involves treating an environmental

residuals from materials recovery facilities qualify, in order to encourage more throughput?

wastes that should pay a higher rate? Why?

hazard (as opposed to containing it in a landfill) affect eligibility for a differential rate? For example, Metro currently exempts petroleum contaminated soils (PCS) from the Regional User Fee if hydrocarbons are captured and destroyed, but imposes the full fee on landfilled PCS. Should this policy be extended to other types of treatable (but not recyclable) wastes? 5. User fee based on transaction cost. The market price for tipping waste that is delivered directly to disposal facilities is based to a large extent on the cost of handling and landfilling, which in turn is related to the type of waste. If market prices tend to reflect the burden on the system of various types of waste, then a Regional User Fee as a flat percentage of the transaction cost will also reflect these differences without the administrative overhead that accompanies a rate schedule assessed against waste types. 6. Should other characteristics (such as the amount of waste disposed) be additional considerations? For example, if two industrial firms are identical in all but size, under a flat rate the larger firm pays more despite receiving the same benefit as the smaller fm. Should a generator's obligations to pay fixed system costs decline after certain levels of usage? Two implementing mechanisms for this concept that are in use in other industries are:

)) Declining block rate, where one rate is paid on the first block of tonnage disposed during a year (say the

)) Application or "entry" fee to qualify the type of waste and confer eligibility for a flat, preferential rate. first 500 tons), and a reduced rate is paid on additional tonnage.

Environmental Service Charge, or Generator Fee - A fixed charge to generators of solid waste, not necessarily tied to direct consumption of

services, yet designed to cover certain costs of the integrated solid waste management system-typically, hazardous waste management, landfill closure and waste reduction programs.

of usage by the generator. - Usually designed to recover non-variable costs which must be incurred regardless of the level

- Removes Metro's need to consider "chasing the waste" in pursuit of its financial interests. - 1. Differentiating the Environmental Service Charge (ESC) according to the size of the

generator and/or other characteristics can make the charge more equitable than a flat charge, but this would have to be balanced against the higher cost to administer a program with many narrow generator classes.

- 2. The ESC need not be universal. - 3. An ESC-whether or not universal-need not be designed to recover all costs that are

- 4. Implementation will require some new infrastructure, development of information, and - ~~

currently funded through the Regional User Fee.

administration. - ~~

)) Bill through haulers. )) Add to charge on self-haulers. )) Bill through public utilities. )) Taxhaulers.

123 Metro - GBB

Metro Rate Reform Process and Results

11 0

12 IJ

13 0

14 0

15 0

16 0

System Management Fee H A per-ton charge levied on recyclable materials, analogous to the manner in which

H 1. What types of materials and processors should fall under a System Management

Session 3 Objectives H Review the Rate Options and Analysis H Have Q & A and Discussion of the Rate Options H Understand Your Opinion Which to Select

Rate Options Restated Status Quo

H Tiered Regional System Fee H Environmental Service Charge (Generator Fee) H Some Combination of the Tiered Regional System Fee and Generator Fee H Other

Evaluation Criteria H Fairness H Rate Stability

Fiscal Accountability H Reasonable Rates H Administration

Recycling and Economic Incentives

Types of Generators H Single-family households H Multi-family households H Commercial-Business

the Regional User Fee is levied on landfilled waste.

Fee?

- Office-related - Retail - Organics generators - Industrial - Other

Construction & Demolition H Any of the above by different amounts of waste disposed

Types of Waste (Waste type in italics analyzed) H Mixedputrescible waste (contains organics) .Mixed dry waste (contains no organics)

Clean wood H Non-recyclable paper (fiber-based fuel stock) H Yard debris

Metro - GBB 124

Metro Rate Reform Process and Results

17 a

18 a

19 I-J

20 (=J

w Medical waste w Construction, demolition, land clearing debris H Industrial process waste w Auto shredder residue (“auto fluff) w Household hazardous waste w Hazardous waste from small-quantity commercial generators w Petroleum contaminated soil H Organic waste (not mixed with other waste types) w Residuals from processing recyclables

Status Quo w Current Flat Tip Fee and Regional User Fee m Example:

- Metro Tip Fee for Mixed Waste $75/ton - Regional User Fee for Waste Not Disposed through Metro $17.50/ton - Household Hazardous Waste $S/load - Tires $1 to $laitire,

depending on size and rim o d o f f

Differential Metro Tip Fee w Metro Tip Fee Rate Varies by Waste Type or Generator (according to size) w Example Waste Type:

- Mixed Waste $75/ton - YardDebris $55/ton - Fiber-Based Fuel Stock $45/ton - Clean Tree Trimmings and Untreated Wood (Hog Fuel Rate) $4O/ton - Mixed Dry Non-Putrescible Waste $SS/ton - Household Hazardous Waste $1.60/pound

Differential Regional User Charge N Regional User Charge Rate Varies by Waste Type or Generator (according to size) w Example - Waste Types:

- Mixed Putrescible Solid Waste $1 7.50/ton - Beneficial Use Materials (e.g. ADC, Roadbed Material) $ O/ton - Industrial Process Waste $4/ton - Construction and Demolition Waste $6/ton - Petroleum Contaminated Soil $S/ton

Environmental Service Charge (Generator Fee) w Fee Graduated by Type of Generator (e.g. residential, commercial) to Cover Non-

Example:

~

Disposal Costs

- Residential - Businesses $20 to $2,00O/fidyear

$18 per HH per year

depending upon size

125 Metro - GBB

Metro Rate Reform Process and Results

- New Constructioflemodeling

- Metro Tip Fee Reduced

$2 per $1,000 Building Permit Value $60/ton

- Regional Use Fee Eliminated

21 a Questions and Comments from Session 3 w Why are residential generators kept neutral in the rate structures? w Having high rates, whether for tipping or regional fees, creates important incentives

for processing and recovering recyclables. Modifying the rate structure significantly by lowering them would create an impact on the processors operating in the region currently and result in an overall lower diversion rate; especially true for petroleum contaminated soil processors.

w Who would determine which tiered rates apply to loads delivered to either Metro or private facilities? Wouldn’t administration of tiered rates actually be more difficult than Metro envisions?

analysis needs to be done; November is too soon to make a recommendation. Local governments need to be surveyed concerning the feasibility of having an Environmental Service Charge.

w What is the environmental impact of each rate option? It will be more acceptable to see the Status Quo rates reduced due to program adjustments and new policies for use of fund balances than to see a new rate option implemented that shifts the revenue around and adversely a e c t s private sector processingh-ecycling businesses’ ability to attract feedstocks to process from the region.

option?

solid waste management system? With the analysis provided about the rate options, it is difficult to choose anything other than the Status Quo rate structure. The cost to administer the Environmental Service Charge is too great as compared to its benefit.

w What is the environmental impact of having more PCS go to landfill versus being processed for neutralization and recovery? It is preferable to have PCS processed than to landfill it and have significant levels of VOC emissions? The Status Quo is better for the ‘polluter pays’ principle.

w Why change the entire rate structure for such small amounts of waste? More

w Is any rate shiftinghavings offset up by administrative costs of doing the new rate

w What are the impacts of the rate options on other aspects of the region’s integrated

w Why can’t Metro bill directly? Does Metro have enforcement of payment ability? w Metro and local governments should work together to lobby the State Legislature to

w Residential rates should be required to be related to the volume set out for collection. - Where is the rate option that presents differential rates for various waste types, as

implement advance disposal fees.

asked for by most of the groups at Session 2? 22 0 Rate Option Preference

w Straw vote of stakeholders resulted in selection of Status Quo.

23 0 Changes in First Year Renegotiated disposal contract

Metro - GBB 126

Metro Rate Reform Process and Results

- Competitive landfill market - Eliminated fixed annual payment - Declining block rate structure (rewards growth) rather than flat rate per ton - Almost $4 per ton immediate benefit

w Reorganized Department - Consolidated, eliminated programs - Made reductions in staff - Holding the line on fixed costs

- Tip fee dropped from $75 to $70 per ton - Regional user fee dropped from $17.50 to $15 per ton - Monitored effect on recycling

24 0 Changes in Second Year Rebid transfer station operation

w Reduced solid waste rates, Fiscal Year 1997-98

- Competitive bidding - Consolidated operators: 1 f m (BFI) now operates both stations - Over $1 per ton reduction from existing contract

Encouraged private initiative by developing atmosphere for privatization in order to cap growth in public investment and operating costs - Economic Incentives

)) Eliminated RUF at “front door” of private facilities )) Imposed RUF only on landfilled waste )) Provides economic incentive for:

Private mvestment III solid waste facilities B Waste recovery. recycling D Separatron of inerts, other wastes that don’t requre Iandlilling

Loadconsolida(lm

- Institutional Incentives )) Instituted comprehensive revision of regulatory approach )) Removed barriers to entry )) Reduced regulations to the minimal set necessary to protect the public interest )) Majority of actions now administrative (reduced red tape) )) Authorized new types of activities (e.g., “local transfer stations”that serve as feeders to the public

transfer stations and help achieve operational efficiency)

25 0 First-year successes allowed w Further reductions in rates w Revision of rate structure

26 0 Implemented a two-part fee at transfer stations w Transaction fee: $5 per visit w Tip fee for tonnage dropped from $70 to $62.50 per ton

Effective rate ( 5 ton load) $63.50 per ton Rewards larger, more efficient loads

w Works with regulations that authorii~ “local transfer stations”

27 0 Implemented a sliding scale for the Regional User Fee

Metro - GBB 127

Metro Rate Reform Process and Results

w Rewards high-performing private operators Metro surcharge declines as performance improves

w Performance is measured primarily by material recovery w Base RUF dropped from $15 to $14 per ton w “Performance-based” user fee can be as low as $2 per ton for high performers

28 a Results So Far w Solid Waste service across the region remains excellent and of uniform quality w Three new private material recovery facilities are in operation w Application for 1 “local Transfer Station” received w Expect to get applications for at least 3 more “Local Transfer Stations” w Private interesfin facilities that handle organic waste: 2 applications w System is financially sound

- Tonnage in the Metro rate base remains stable-to-increasing - Flow control through economic incentives remains intact - Debt service only 3% of operating budget - Landfill closure is fully funded - Contingency accounts are fully adequate

w Regional recycling rate has flattened out - The cause is not wholly due to the new system and rates - This is a concern and is being monitored closely

29 a Lessons Learned w Involving Stakeholders worthwhile;

Be open and honest with Stakeholders; w Be open-minded in thinking about changes; w Implement some changes; and

Having outside facilitation assistance helps assure the process is viewed objectively and helps the rate setter see the forest through the trees.

Metro - GBB 128

COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR WASTE SERVICES: USING FREE MARKET FORCES TO CUT COSTS

Allen P. Bonini Solid Waste Director West Cook County Solid Waste Agency Westchester, Illinois

INTRODUCTION

The 36 units of local government that make up the West Cook County Solid Waste Agency (Agency) have a long history of reliance on the private sector for providing municipal solid waste services to their communities. Currently, thirty-one communities use exclusive contracts with private haulers for residential refuse service. A total of nine private firms ranging in size from several small local waste hauling firms to two of the world's largest hold these 31 contracts.

Historically, these municipal contracts have rarely gone out for competitive bid. In fact many contracts in the past have had "automatic" renewal provisions (commonly referred to as "evergreen" contract provisions). This often made it all too easy for towns and contractors to continue a relationship for decades without testing the marketplace to see if a new vendor could cost-effectively serve the community. However, this trend has shifted over the past two and a half years as more communities have elected to solicit bids for refuse services and are reaping huge rewards for their efforts.

In fact, since 1995, there have been eight communities that successfully used the competitive bidding process to get what they wanted in this new "free market" world. As a result, these communities were able to significantly expand and alter services or, in most cases, reduce their cost for services by 20 - 25 percent. The keys to successful bidding in all these cases were: 1) knowing what you want (and asking for it); 2) taking control of the bidding process (and not letting go); and 3) supporting healthy, aggressive competition in the free marketplace.

This paper will explore these three elements and provide a simple, easy to use template for constructing a waste services bidding process (and contract) that can be tailored to fit almost any community. A couple of the cases referred to above will then be examined to demonstrate how the model

has been effectively used to provide measurable results.

KEYS TO SUCCESS

The primary purpose for competitively bidding refuse contracts is to secure the services that your community wants and needs, for the best price and from a qualified and capable contractor. Even though refuse collection is a "service," there is no reason why a community cannot structure a refbse bid precisely to meet its specifications. This strategy is very similar to the system that a community may use in bidding a construction project. Even if you are not sure exactly what your community wants or needs, a bid process is the fastest and easiest way to accomplish the goal of providing reliable, cost-effective waste services to your community.

Knowing: What You Want

The first step to ensuring a successful competitive bid for solid waste services (including recycling and landscape waste) is to know exactly what you want and to be sure you ask for it in clear and precise terms. This does not mean that you cannot or wiIl not consider alternatives. Yet even in this case want to be the one that dictates the form and content of alternatives strategies.

~

~~ For example, you may want to test the marketplace to see if there are cost advantages to a five-year versus a three-year agreement. Or perhaps your community would like to weigh the costbenefit of a modified volume-based program versus a take-all refhe service. These are just two examples of an almost limitless array of alternatives that you can ask for through a carefully constructed bidding process. Later, we will review a case where this strategy was put into practice

village was its original bid specification.

~

to help a community decide that the best alternative for its ~~~

______

129

Of course, knowing what to ask for may be as simple as delineating your current level of solid waste services. Then again it may take some advanced work, especially if you are looking to change your service level or want to explore innovative alternatives. In this case you should survey local public officials and residents to determine if there is any interest in changing the services provided to residents. You may also want to talk with representatives from other communities in your region or in other parts of the country to learn more about their waste services programs. It is also advisable to have informal discussions with local haulers to see if they have any creative ideas that you may want to consider and to investigate whether they are capable of providing the level of service your community desires.

It is also important to consider the approximate market cost for various levels of waste services while investigating your options. It makes very little sense to specify a level of service that your community cannot afford or is unwilling to pay. An example of this might be specifying a service for twice-a-week back door service for refuse, recyclables and landscape waste. Many private haulers are willing to provide this level of service, but it usually comes at a high price that is most often reserved for only the most affluent communities.

Takinp Control of the Bidding Process

In order to achieve your community’s goal of securing the best program, at the best price, from a qualified vendor, you must take control of the process and never let the bidders arrest that control from you. If you retain control you will get bids that are properly completed, that properly address all the terms, conditions and specifications of your bid and are easily evaluated in order to determine the lowest responsible bidder.

On the other hand, if you lose control, you may very well get bids that are not comparable and which promote services that are advantageous to the bidder (Le. more profitable). These bids may also lack sufficient information to properly and adequately determine if the lowest priced vendor is qualified and capable of performing the services during the term of the contract.

Remember - THIS IS A BID! You get to set the scope, terms and conditions. yoU get to write the contract. yoU get to specify the program and services that fit your needs and preferences.

This is not a negotiation! All the vendors get to do is tell you how much they will charge. They also get to demonstrate that they are capable and qualified to perform the services specified. As long as you hold true to this doctrine your community is sure to get exactly what it wants, at a price that is fair and is set by what the marketplace will bear. This is the essence of the free market system.

The key to keeping control of the bidding process is in the structure and content of the Invitation to Bid. Generally an Invitation to Bid document should include the following key elements:

~

a a a a a a

a a a a a

a a

Copy of the Invitation to Bid as advertised Background information General instructions General terms and conditions Special terms and conditions (if any) Specifications (for the base bid and any alternatives) Bid bond requirements Price quotation forms Draft contract Other bid forms and schedules Accurate historical data regarding solid waste services (i.e. tons collected, households served, stickers sold, etc.) Checklist of submittals Addendum (if any)

Most of the elements listed above are fairly standard and should be familiar to most municipal officials. (A sample of an Invitation to Bid package is available by contacting the author.) Two items that can strongly influence the success (or failure) of a bid process (and which may not be common practice in many cases) are the inclusion of alternative bid specifications and the inclusion of a draft contract. Including alternative specifications was discussed in the previous section. Its value will be highlighted through example later in this paper. - ~~

Incorporating a draft contract into the bid package has proven to be a very powerful tool in helping municipalities secure bids (and ultimately contracts) that meet their specifications, with terms and conditions that are controlled by the municipality. In addition, the municipality should require all bidders to execute the proposed contract and submit the signed agreement as part of their bid. As a condition to this requirement, municipalities should allow vendors to propose changes to the contract using standard procedures for modifying a contract (i.e. initialing strike-outs

~

- ~~

~

130

or additions directly on the contract).

In order to reinforce the importance placed on this requirement, the bid document should make it very clear that returning a signed contract is a condition for a bid submittal being considered complete and responsive. In addition the community must be diligent in rejecting any submittal that fails to meet this condition. Once you disqualify a bidder for failing to meet this condition, it is very unlikely that you will ever need to do it again.

There are several benefits to including the draft contract with the Invitation to Bid. First, it ensures that the municipality controls the contract's terms and conditions. (It has been the author's experience that, historically, municipal refuse contracts have often been written to the advantage of the hauler. By drafting the agreement up-front, the municipality can control the contracts terms and conditions so that they are more favorable to the community's interests.) In order to accomplish this, a municipality must be willing to invest time and money preparing a draft contract before it issues a call for bids. This may seem burdensome at first, but will pay off by ensuring that the community gets the contract it wants and needs in order to protect it's interests. Also, the up-front effort will pay dividends for several contracts into the future since service levels, terms and conditions of refuse contracts tend to remain relatively constant over time.

In addition, providing the contract to the vendors along with the bid specifications ensures that the vendors have full knowledge of all the "fine print" in the contract. This makes it much more difficult for them to claim that they need to impose additional fees based on "unexpected" contract terms. All the contract's terms should have already been factored into their price quotes since they had full access to the contract prior to having to submit their bid.

And fmally, by having vendors submit signed contracts with their bids, the contract execution process becomes very simple. All that is left to do once the lowest responsible bid is selected and approved by the governing body, is for the community to sign the agreement. This eliminates protracted negotiations over contract terms and conditions. This may seem unnecessary, but for anyone who has tried to negotiate a refuse contract, this process can save a tremendous amount of time and frustration for the municipality. It also eliminates the opportunity for the other vendors to claim foul over the contract terms.

SupDorting Conmetition

In order to promote and support healthy, aggressive competition in the free marketplace the bidding process itself must include key elements that ensure consistency and integrity. The private sector must be confident and assured that the process will be conducted in a fair and open manner and that the lowest responsible bidder will be awarded the contract. Once that integrity is violated then the entire process may be looked upon with cynicism and vendors will either stop submitting bids or submit bids with very dull pencils. In either case, the community will have lost its opportunity to use free market forces to cut costs and increase service levels.

-

-

~

The key elements of the bidding process are rather simple and practical to implement. First, determine and outline a fair and reasonable minimum level of experience that the community believes is necessary to perform the requested services. Then, advertise and promote the solicitation for bids as completely and broadly as possible - both through a public notice advertisement as well as a direct solicitation to all know service providers in the area. Next, allow sufficient time in the bidding process to ensure that all vendors have time to properly and completely prepare their bid.

In addition, hold a mandatory pre-bid meeting where the community can further articulate its needs and desires and issue any addenda to the bid documents. This also serves as a useful forum for the community and prospective vendors to clarify the process and answer questions. By making the meeting mandatory, not only does the community "set the field" of prospective bidders, it also gives vendors a "read" on their potential competition (hopefully to the municipality's benefit). It also ensures that all vendors hear the same message from the community's representatives. This way a vendor cannot claim later that they did not have access to the information provided at the pre-bid meeting.

After the pre-bid meeting sufficient time should be allowed to accommodate additional written questions, as well as the community's written responses and any further addenda that need to be issued. The questions and responses should be distributed back to all vendors who attended the mandatory pre-bid meeting. The questions should be listed without revealing the source of the question. This will help encourage questions that will improve the bid process without tipping any vendor's hand.

It is also important to provide vendors with an opportunity to

131

inspect the current program with the help of municipal staff, The more prospective bidders understand your community and its service needs, the better your chances of receiving aggressive, competitive bids. The less certain a vendor is of the cost of providing the service, the more they will hedge their price to cover the unexpected.

When the due date for bids arrives, all bids should be opened and all prices should be read aloud at a public meeting open to all vendors. This eliminates any possibility for a favored vendor to submit revised pricing after the bids are opened. Then, if municipal staff have done their homework, selecting the lowest cost bidder should be a simple spreadsheet exercise.

The next step is to conduct a due diligence on the lowest bidder to ensure that they have the financial resources and the operational capabilities to fulfill the needs of the community and the terms and conditions of the contract. An obvious part of this process is checking references, yet it is remarkable how often that is not done. Finally, if the bid process timetable has been carefully thought out and adhered to by the municipality, then there should be sufficient time for the selected contractor to acquire any necessary new equipment, hire and train additional personnel, and ensure a smooth and orderly transition at the end of the contract that the bid process is designed to replace.

CASE STUDIES

The following case studies demonstrate the effectiveness of this strategy for competitively bidding waste services contracts. These are just examples of two of the eight bids that have been conducted in the West Cook County region since 1995.

Village of Riverside

The Village of Riverside is a quiet residential community with approximately 8800 residents. Riverside is historically significant in that it is the first planned community in the United States. For many years the village has issued a single contract to provide refuse service to all residential units as well as to the commercial businesses that are located primarily in the downtown area adjacent to the commuter rail station.

In the summer of 1996 the village decided to solicit bids for a new three-year refuse contract (including recycling and

landscape waste services) in spite of the fact that the current hauler was aggressively trying to convince the village to negotiate a contract extension with a rate increase.

As part of the bid development process, the trustee in charge of the Public Works Committee, along with the Village Manager and the Finance Director met with officials of the Agency to discuss and explore various options for specifying the services to be provided by the new contractor. During these discussions the village revealed that they had done a survey of residents regarding the current program. According to the survey, although most residents were satisfied with the service they currently received, most residents had been using only two of the three service options that were available under the current contract. (All residents received twice per week refuse collection and once per week recycling and landscape waste collection. Residents could choose to have their refuse collected at the curb twice each week, at the back door twice each week, or once at the curb and once at the back door.)

Village officials wanted to streamline this menu of services as part of the next bid. Specifically, they wanted to eliminate the service option where residents could have refuse picked up at both the back door and curb in the same week. The village also was interested in exploring a number of altemative specifications including: 1) a five year contract; 2) a once per week collection schedule during the four winter months with twice per week collection for the remaining eight months; 3) converting to a 95 gallon roll-out cart system with once per week collection; and 4) converting to a 60 gallon roll-out cart system with once per week collection. The goal was to determine if the village could provide a satisfactory level of service to the residents at a lower cost or with more convenience.

Using the bidding process outlined above, the village, with the assistance of the Agency, prepared a bid document that had a total four different sets of specifications and eight price schedules (four sets of specs x two alternative contract lengths). In spite of all these variations, the bid documents only took about 45 days to prepare and distribute. The bid document was released in August of 1996, bids were opened in September and the bid was awarded in October. The new contract commenced on December 1 st of that same year.

~ ~

~

~

~

~~

Through the bid process, the village was able to determine that the cost of delivering residents the various altemative levels of service was not significantly less than the cost of the base bid specifications. In addition the marketplace

132

conveyed (through the vendors' bids) that there was no price advantage to the village for awarding a five year contract. With this information in hand, the village elected to award a three-year contract for the base service level.

What the marketplace also told the village (again through the vendors' bids) was that it had been paying far too much for its services under the existing contract (which had previously been negotiated rather than bid). In fact, the village and its residents and businesses realized an average savings of 23 percent as a result of competitive bidding. What is even more remarkable is the fact that the lowest responsible bidder turned out to be the existing contractor - the one that had tried to negotiate a rate increase to the village just a few short months prior to the bid!

Clearly the bid process accomplished its goals in this case. Not only did the village lower its rates significantly, it was also able to determine that there was no benefit to changing the types and levels of service offered to its residents.

Vi1lag.e of Broadview

The Village of Broadview is a solid, middle-class community with a balance of residential, commercial and industrial zoning. Broadview has a population of approximately 8500. Historically the village has contracted for refuse, recycling and landscape waste services for single-family and duplex units only. In the fall of 1996 the village decided to solicit bids for a new refuse contract after many months of unsuccessful negotiations with its current hauler. (As in the Riverside example, Broadview's hauler had tried at first to seek a rate increase. Their last offer had been a rate reduction of 6.3% for the first year of a five year contract extension.)

Broadview was very satisfied with the level of service it provided its residents. The village was also satisfied with the quality of service provided by its hauler. This service consisted of a modified volume-based program whereby residents paid a flat monthly fee for two 30 gallon cans of refuse each week. Weekly curbside recycling was included in this base rate. Residents who had extra trash had to purchase refuse stickers that were sold through the village hall. Landscape waste collection was also paid for using a pre-paid sticker.

What motivated the village to solicit bids for a new contract was the belief that the free market would dictate an even

lower rate than they were being offered by their current hauler through negotiations. The village also believed that they could secure a contract with more favorable terms than their existing agreement. These beliefs were born out of the knowledge the village had obtained by watching its neighboring communities secure significant rate reductions and favorable contract terms through similar bids over the past two years.

As was the case in Riverside, Agency staff assisted the Village of Broadview in the development of a bid document based on the process outlined previously. Unlike the Riverside bid, this document was very simple and straightforward since Broadview was very satisfied with its current collection system. What is notable about this case is the fact that the two lowest bids were extremely close to one another. The lowest bidder (which again happened to be the current vendor) won the bid by only one cent per household per month! And, as happened in Riverside, the Village of Broadview saw its rate drop - by over 19 percent - even though the same hauler had previously offered a 6% rate reduction during negotiations.

Finally, by taking control of the contract terms, the village obtained the right to receive free unlimited clean-up of refuse in the case of an emergency such as a natural disaster, severe storm or flood. The winning contractor also agreed to provide a free spring clean-up day for residents each year of the contract. In addition, through the bidding process the village was able to secure a contract that provided free refuse and recycling collection for one multi-day festival each year in the village.

This case clearly demonstrates the power of the bidding process to lower rates - not to mention the courage of the village to forego an offer for a significant rate reduction. The village carefully read the marketplace and had the confidence to trust the free market to deliver an even lower rate. And as a bonus, the village secured a contract with very favorable terms and conditions.

CONCLUSION

Competition is the lifeblood of a free marketplace. It can be a very good friend to a municipality. Competition is also like a raging river - once you figure out how to harness its energy you can channel that energy into productive and beneficial uses for your community. But like a river, unless a community understands competition - nurtures it and respects it while always keeping it under control - it may dry

133

up or overwhelm you, and then your community may become powerless and lose control.

The competitive bidding process is a very effective way to harness the energy of competition and put it to productive use. But in order to conduct a successful competitive bidding process, communities must follow three basic tenets: 1) know what you want; 2) take control of the bidding process; and 3) support and encourage healthy, aggressive and fair competition.

This paper has outlined strategies for implementing these three elements. It has also examined two cases where the competitive bidding process has resulted in significant savings and other benefits to very different communities. The bottom line is that, as long as communities are willing to utilize the tools that they still have in their arsenal, there are ways to make the "free market" work to the advantage of local government - without having to give up control of the process or the systems.

134

Speaker Contact listing

-

9th Annual Waste Reduction, Recycling and Composting Symposium Speakers

Tempe, AZ May 11 -1 5,1998

Carroll, Patrick SWA of Palm Beach County 7501 North Jog Road West Palm Beach, FL 33412 Phone: 561 -640-4000 Fax: 561 -640-3400

Chappelle, Jack Engineering Solutions and Design 3916 Juan Tabo, N.E., Suite 37 Albuqueruqe, NM 871 11 Phone: 505-298-1 851 Fax: 505-298-0272

Connolly, Stephen SCS Enginneers 1 1260 Roger Bacon Drive Reston, VA 201 90-5282 Phone: 703-471 -61 50 Fax: 703-471 -6676

Dickerson, Sharyn Athens-Clarke County Solid Waste 1005 College Ave., P.O. Box 1868 Athens, GA 30603 Phone: 706-61 3-351 2 Fax: 706-61 3-351 3

Ferretti, Will National Recycling Association 1727 King Street Suite 105 Alexandria, VA 2231 4 Phone: 703-683-9025 ext. 201 Fax: 703-683-9026

Franklin, Marge Franklin Associates 4121 West 83rd Street, Suite 108 Prairie Village, KS 66208 Phone: 91 3-649-2225 Fax: 91 3-649-6494

Fritz, Katie City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 Phone: 409-764-3691 Fax: 409-764-3489

Hackney, Daniel City of Los Angeles 419 S. Spring Street, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: 21 3-893-8201 Fax: 21 3-893-8223

Higgins, Karen City of Los Angeles 433 S. Spring Street, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: 21 3-485-1 978 Fax: 21 3-847-3054

Hornig, Constance Constance Hornig Law Office 141 5 Victoria Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90019 Phone: 21 3-934-4601 Fax: 21 3-934-3742

Kessler, Mitch TIA Solid Waste Management Consultants 10012 N. Dale Mabry Highway, Suite 223 Tampa, FL 33618 Phone: 81 3-264-7240 Fax: 81 3-265-81 40

Miller, Chaz National Solid Waste Management Association 4301 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20008 Phone: 202-364-3742 Fax: 202-966-481 8

137

Morgan, Bob Somerset Fibers 139 Price Farm Road Cowpins, SC 29330 Phone: 864-463-9090 Fax:

Moulton, Michael Enron Capital & Trade Resources Corp. PO Box 11 88 Houston, TX 77251 -1 188 Phone: 71 3-853-0546 Fax: 71 3-646-3253

Patane, Susan NORCAL 222 W. Hospitality Ln. 2nd Floor San Bernardino, CA 92408-3220 Phone: 909-386-8605 Fax: 909-386-8988

Perez, Louis Norton Environmental 6200 Rockside Woods Boulevard Independence, OH 441 31 Phone: 21 6-447-0700 Fax: 21 6-447-5028

Skumatz, Lisa SERA 151 1 Third Ave., Suite 1000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-624-8508 Fax: 206-624-2950

P

-

138

2nd Annual Collection Symposium Speakers

Tempe, AZ May 11 -15,1998

Abernethy, John County of Sacramento Public Works Agency 9850 Goethe Road Sacramento, CA 95827-3561 Phone: 91 6-875-6788 Fax: 91 6-875-6767

Bennett, Julia City of Tempe DPW P.O. Box 5002 Tempe, AZ 85280 Phone: 602-350-81 29 Fax: 602-350-81 66

Black, William City of Mesa 300 East Sixth Street, P.O. Box 1466 Mesa, AZ 8521 1-1 466 Phone: 602-644-3222 Fax: 602-644-271 8

Bonini, Allen West Cook County Solid Waste Agency 1127 South Mannheim Road, Suite 102 Westchester, IL 601 54 Phone: 708-450-01 00 Fax: 708-450-0655

Burgiel, Jonathan R. W. Beck 800 Magnolia Avenue Orlando, FL 32803 Phone: 407-422-491 1 Fax: 407-648-8382

Cogswell, Dale City of Tempe DPW P.O. Box 5002 Tempe, AZ 85280 Phone: 602-350-8268 Fax: 602-350-81 66

Dempsey, John HDR Engineering 8404 Indian Hills Drive Omaha, NE 681 14-4049 Phone: 402-399-1 000 Fax: 402-399-491 8

Friedline, Jack City of Mesa P.O. Box 1466 Mesa, AZ 8521 1-1466 Phone: 602-644-4567 Fax: 602-644-3057

Gershman, Harvey GBB 8550 Arlington Boulevard Fairfax, VA 22031 -4620 Phone: 703-573-5800 Fax: 703-698-1 306

Hornig, Constance Constance Hornig Law Offices 141 5 S. Victoria Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90019 Phone: 21 3-934-4601 Fax: 21 3-934-3742

Jones, Steve RW Beck 251 7 Hartzell Street Evanston, IL 60201 Phone: 847-733-81 55 Fax: 847-733-81 75

Klimoski, Pete City of Mesa P.O. Box 1466 Mesa, AZ 8521 1-1466 Phone: 602-644-2427 Fax: 602-644-271 8

139

Martin, Juan City of Phoenix 101 S. Central Avenue Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: 602-495-5272 Fax: 602-534-1 766

Miller, Debbie RW Beck 800 Magnolia Avenue Orlando, FL 32803 Phone: 407-422-491 1 Fax: 407-648-8382

Merrill, Lynn City of San Bernardino 300 N. D Street Room 421 San Bernardino, CA 92418 Phone: 909-384-5549 Fax: 909-384-51 90

Soroka, Gaye Waste Management of Orange County 1800 S. Grand Ave Santa Ana, CA 92705 Phone: 71 4-480-2342 Fax: 71 4-568-6626

Westbrook, Thomas City of Chesapeake PO Box 15225 Chesapeake, VA 23320 Phone: 757-382-6225 Fax:

Wolpin, Bill World Wastes Magazine 6151 Powers Ferry Road Atlanta, GA 30339-2941 Phone: 770-61 8-01 12 Fax: 770-61 8-0349

140