Document Arvada_doc_afb71c02e6

RESIDENTIAL HAULING STUDY Prepared for: CITY OF ARVADA, COLORADO Final Report January 3, 2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- MID ATLANTIC SOLID WASTE CONSULTANTS 6225 Sawyer Road, New Market, MD 21774 301/607-6428 842 Spring Island Way, Orlando, FL 32828 407/380-8951 3407 Chestnut Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011 717/731-9708 9 Myers Drive, Fredericksburg, VA 22405 703/942-6307 www.mswconsultants.com ---PAGE BREAK--- MSW Consultants City of Arvada LBA Associates ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Project Team of MidAtlantic Solid Waste Consultants (MSW Consultants) and LBA Associates, Inc. would like to thank the following for their assistance during various stages of this project: ‹ Jessica Schluederberg, City of Arvada Sustainability Coordinator ‹ The City of Arvada licensed private waste haulers who participated in responding to the hauler survey and ‹ The City convened a Recycling Task Force to provide input on this study. Additionally, the Project Team would like to thank all of the citizens who took active roles in partipated in completing surveys that was used to complete the study. Prime Contractor MidAtlantic Solid Waste Consultants, LLC 6225 Sawyer Road, New Market, MD 21774 (301) 607-6428 Subcontractor LBA Associates, Inc. 2186 S. Washington St., Denver, CO 80210 (303) 733-7943 ---PAGE BREAK--- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS City of Arvada MSW Consultants LBA Associates This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Arvada i MSW Consultants LBA Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1. INTRODUCTION 5 2. EXISTING SYSTEM EVALUATION 6 2.1 Current Collection System 6 2.2 Current Impacts to City Streets 7 3. BENCHMARKING 8 3.1 State & National Benchmarks 9 3.2 Local Benchmarks 11 4. CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS 13 5. PUBLIC OUTREACH 13 5.1 Task Force Meeting 13 5.2 Public Survey 13 6. OPTIONS EVALUATION 15 6.1 Overview 15 6.2 Assumptions 15 6.2.1 General assumptions 6.2.2 Program Assumptions for All Alternatives 6.2.3 Program Assumptions for Hauler Licensing 6.2.4 Program Assumptions for Single or Multi-district Contract 6.2.5 Additional Program Assumptions for Multi-district Contract 6.2.6 Assumptions for transfer/landfill/MRF/compost facilities 6.3 Results 18 6.3.1 Customers, Waste Quantities and Diversion 6.3.2 Routing and Collection Trucks 6.3.3 GHG Emissions 6.3.4 Costs and Rates for Residential Customers 6.3.5 Impacts to Local Businesses 6.4 Conclusion 26 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A – Hauler Survey Results Appendix B – Pavement Impact Results Appendix C – Detailed Benchmarking Results Appendix D – City Council Meeting Presentation ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OF CONTENTS MSW Consultants ii City of Arvada LBS Associates Appendix E – Focus Group Meeting Presentation Appendix F – Public Survey Results Appendix G – Supporting Data for Options Evaluation List of Tables Table ES-1 Environmental and Infrastructure Impacts of Options 2 Table ES-2 Projection of Likely Rate Impacts to Residential Households ($/month) 3 Table ES-3 Impacts to the Arvada Hauling Community 3 Table 2-1 Trash & Recycling Services 7 Table 2-2 Collection Vehicle Traffic & Emissions of Current System 8 Table 3-1 National Communities Surveyed 9 Table 6-1 Customers, Waste Quantities, and Diversion Rates 19 Table 6-2 Weekly Routes in Operation 20 Table 6-3 GHG Emissions (MTCO2E) 21 Table 6-4 Comparison of “Average” Costs for Residential Hauling 22 Table 6-5 Projection of Likely Rate Impacts to Residential Households ($/month) 23 Table 6-6 Impacts to the Arvada Hauling Community 25 Table 6-7 Employment Impacts at Recycling and Composting Processors 26 ---PAGE BREAK--- City or Arvada 1 MSW Consultants LBA Associates FINAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Arvada, like many communities in Colorado and nationally, has in the past several years lent an increasing focus on sustainability initiatives. One such initiative has focused on residential waste management and recycling practices. To proactively address the recurring issue of improved recycling and more sustainable waste management, the City of Arvada undertook a Residential Waste Hauling Study in 2010. This study involved extensive public outreach, including a statistically representative survey of 2,000 residential households, web based survey, a survey of locally permitted residential haulers, and extensive analysis of the current collection system parameters. The study included detailed benchmarking of communities with similar programs, as well as communities that have different collection systems in place. These efforts informed the overall analysis of options for changing Arvada’s residential collection system. The focus of the study analysis was to evaluate opportunities for greater diversion and reduced environmental impacts available under alternative residential waste collection systems, while also informing the City and the public at large about the corresponding impacts to customer choice, changes to local hauling company operations, employment, and total waste management costs that any such system changes may entail. In Colorado and nationally, there are thousands of municipal collection systems with individual characteristics too numerous to count. However, in the professional opinion of the Project Team, there are three alternative collection strategies that could reasonably help Arvada meet its objectives of increasing diversion and reducing the environmental footprint of collection. The following three alternative collection system options were analyzed for purposes of informing the City: 1. Enhanced Hauler Licensing: Expand collection services to offer greater recycling and composting opportunities and to establish certain minimum criteria in order to operate in Arvada. 2. Multiple Hauler Contracts: The City would conduct a competitive procurement for four districts. It is possible that the City ultimately selects only two or three districts (it is unlikely that more than four districts would be large enough to enable efficient routing). 3. Single Hauler Contract: At the opposite end of the spectrum, this option would rely on a competitive procurement process to award the entire City to a single hauler, who would then become the exclusive provider. It is important to note that, in all three of these options, refuse and recycling would be provided with a bundled rate customers would pay a single charge for both refuse and recycling services combined), and using a Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) rate structure. Under a PAYT rate structure, customers are allowed to select from three sizes of refuse containers (48, 64, and 90 gallon), and are charged lower rates if they dispose of less waste. PAYT systems create a strong incentive for residents to utilize the recycling program, and over time PAYT systems have been found to change waste generation behavior to the extent that overall waste generation decreases. Studies by the U.S. EPA and other public and private organizations suggest that a PAYT system would greatly assist Arvada meet its waste reduction and recycling goals. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL REPORT MSW Consultants 2 City of Arvada LBA Associates Table ES-1 summarizes the environmental and infrastructure impacts under each of these three options compared to the current system. As shown in this table, each of the three options will have positive impacts on recycling and diversion rates, Green House Gas (GHG) emissions, and heavy duty truck traffic reductions on residential and arterial streets. These benefits are maximized in the Single Hauler System. Table ES-1 Environmental and Infrastructure Impacts of Options Current System Option 1: Hauler Licensing Option 2: Multiple Districts Option 3: Single Hauler Waste Reduction from Current Level 0.0% -9.8% -13.1% -13.1% Recycling Rate 10% 23% 27% 27% Weekly Routes 110.8 109.9 86.0 75.0 Change in Weekly Routes from Current 0.0% -0.8% -22.4% -32.3% Daily street passes 3.3 3.3 0.6 0.6 GHG Emissions (MTCO2E) 986 959 762 660 Reduction from Current System 0% -23% -33% Table ES-2 compares the likely impacts to the rates paid by residential households under each option. There are two groups of ratepayers in the current system, and each stands to react differently about their rate impacts: ‹ Voluntary Recyclers: Roughly 40 percent of the City’s households were found to be paying extra at the current time to receive curbside recycling collection. This subset of households stands to obtain the same level of service at an equal or lower rate under all three options analyzed. Savings in the Multiple District and Single Hauler options for these ratepayers would be significant, and all solutions would enable even more active recycling. ‹ Trash-only Subscribers: The remaining 60 percent of households in Arvada do not voluntarily pay for a separate curbside recycling collection service. All three of the options analyzed would compel these households to receive and pay for a bundled refuse and recycling service. Accordingly, it is likely that this subset of households would be more resistant to any changes unless the required additional service could be provided for the same or lower rate than they are currently paying. Only the Single Hauler option would assure the majority of trash-only subscribers realize lower rates for services. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL REPORT City of Arvada 3 MSW Consultants LBA Associates Table ES-2 Projection of Likely Rate Impacts to Residential Households ($/month) Current System Option 1: Hauler Licensing Option 2: Multiple Districts Option 3: Single Hauler Combined Refuse and Recycling $13 to $19 $13 to $17 $12 to $13 $10 to $11 Rate Increase (Decrease) 0% 0% to -11% to -32% -23% to -42% Impact on Household with Refuse Only $10 to $14 $13 to $17 $12 to $13 $10 to $11 Rate Increase (Decrease) 0% +21% to +30% to +20% 0% to -21% A final, and not inconsequential consideration, is that each of the options considered will have impacts on local hauling companies serving Arvada. Table ES-3 summarizes these impacts on local businesses and resulting reductions in customer choice. As shown, collection-related employment is expected to decrease under each of the three options analyzed. The employment reduction is somewhat dramatic under the Multiple District and Single Hauler options, where workforce reductions are estimated to reach 49 to 56 percent. This reduction is driven not only by the reduction in total routes, but also by the expected implementation of more automated collection technology under these two options. Automated collection requires only one equipment operator on each collection vehicle, whereas many of the collection vehicles in the current system have two-person crews. The collection-related employment reductions shown below will be offset by employment increases at the material recovery facilities and compost facilities that stand to gain throughput from the increased diversion in Arvada. The number of businesses operating in Arvada will also decrease under each option. Obviously, under the Multiple District and Single Hauler options the field of haulers will be limited by the number of exclusive service territories established by the City. However, even under Option 1, it is likely that some smaller haulers will exit the market because they will not have the capacity to competitively offer every-other-week recycling and a voluntary organics collection. Table ES-3 Impacts to the Arvada Hauling Community Current System Option 1: Hauler Licensing Option 2: Multiple Districts Option 3: Single Hauler Collection-related Employment (FTEs) 43.2 41.8 21.8 19.0 Change from Current 0% -49% -56% Number of Haulers Doing Business in Arvada 11 7 to 9 4 1 Change from Current 0% -27% -64% -91% The City ultimately must weigh the benefits for achieving its recycling diversion, GHG reduction, and vehicle impact objectives, as well as the importance of securing rate reductions for its residents; against the adverse impacts to local businesses and the resulting loss of customer choice to be experienced by residential households should the City change its current residential hauling system. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL REPORT MSW Consultants 4 City of Arvada LBA Associates Given the results of the customer survey, hauler survey and rate analysis, it appears that voluntary recyclers in the current system would be moderately to highly supportive of any of the options being implemented. These voluntary recyclers represent approximately 40 percent of City households. Conversely, trash-only subscribers have historically opted not to pay extra for recycling collection, and it stands to reason that they may not favor any option that forces recycling on them at an incrementally higher rate. If this hypothesis is accepted, then the Single Hauler option is the only option that will maintain or even reduce rates for trash-only subscribers while providing them with the bundled recycling service. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL REPORT City of Arvada 5 MSW Consultants LBA Associates 1. INTRODUCTION The City of Arvada, like many communities in Colorado and nationally, has in the past several years lent an increasing focus on sustainability initiatives. While these efforts have been broad and far reaching, they have identified residential waste management and recycling practices in Arvada as one area where potential changes to the system may be beneficial on multiple levels. Examples of these recent findings include: ‹ The City observed a 12 percent recycling rate in their Sustainable Energy Inventory & Action Matrix in 20061. Increasing waste diversion was also identified as the best way to quickly reduce GHG emissions from the City of Arvada. ‹ A 2009 Citizens’ Survey found that 91 percent of residents supported more recycling options.2 ‹ The Arvada Community Sustainability Action Plan sets goals to increase waste diversion.3 To proactively address the recurring issue of improved recycling and more sustainable waste management, the City of Arvada undertook a Residential Waste Hauling Study in 2010. The study was conducted by the Sustainability Division within the City Manager's Office. The City was assisted by the consulting firms of MidAtlantic Solid Waste Consultants (MSW Consultants) and LBA Associates (Project Team). The study was intended to evaluate clear opportunities for greater diversion and reduced environmental impacts available under alternative residential waste collection systems, but also to inform City Council and the public at large about the corresponding impacts to customer choice, changes to local hauling company operations and employment, and total waste management costs that any such system changes may entail. The Residential Waste Hauling Study has included seven tasks. ‹ Existing System Evaluation - an assessment of current collection practices and infrastructure impacts based on responses from a voluntary survey of Arvada’s licenses haulers. ‹ Collection System Benchmarking - a detailed survey of state and national communities with program improvements similar to those being studied for Arvada, and a summary of collection system attributes in neighboring Colorado cities. ‹ City Council Meeting - a presentation of initial study data and discussion with City Council members. ‹ Public Outreach - a presentation of initial study data and discussion with a Task Force of interested citizens, and a random survey of 2,000 city residents to obtain statistically defensible input concerning existing and possible future collection system features. ‹ Hauler Outreach - including a project notice and meetings where local hauling businesses could provide input on how Arvada could best achieve its goals. ‹ Options Evaluation - a cost and quantity comparison of three potential system improvements against the status quo; 1 University of Colorado Denver, 2006. 2 National Research Center, November 2009. 3 This plan has been drafted and will be reviewed for approval by City Council in early 2011. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL REPORT MSW Consultants 6 City of Arvada LBA Associates Š Maintain open subscription with expanded hauler licensing, Š Multi-hauler contracting with four exclusively served districts, Š Single-hauler exclusive contracting. This project was conducted in stages, and the Project Team submitted interim deliverables containing the results of each stage. This report serves to assemble and summarize each of the interim deliverables, which have been provided to the City previously. Further, this final report contains the initial results of the analysis of three alternative collection system options. Outcomes of these tasks are discussed subsequently. 2. EXISTING SYSTEM EVALUATION 2.1 CURRENT COLLECTION SYSTEM Broadly, residential waste hauling in Arvada is performed in an open market, or “subscription” basis. Residents who wish to receive refuse collection must make arrangements directly with any of the haulers licensed to do business in the City. If a resident desires recycling collection, they must also secure those services from a hauler. Residents pay only for the services they select. A consequence of this system is that relatively few residents choose to pay an additional fee to recycle (discussed in the customer survey task). A hauler survey was conducted by phone and e-mail during the summer of 2010 to more thoroughly document the residential collection system in Arvada. Each of the businesses registered with the City to haul solid waste were invited, under guarantee of data confidentiality, to provide information on collection service areas, services, quantities, equipment, routing and rates charged to customers. Seven of twelve registered haulers participated4, representing approximately 55 percent of Arvada's total households5. To maintain confidentiality, results of this survey were aggregated such that data could not be attributed to any one hauler. Table 2-1 summarizes key findings and Appendix A provides additional survey detail. 4 Since the time of the survey, additional haulers have registered with the City. 5 Some of these are multi-family units with more than 7 households (greater than 7 unit is not considered to be residential by CRS 30-15-401 (7.5) and some are part of a homeowners association (which may provide universal collection service/hauler for all association homes). The quantity of multi-family or HOA homes in Arvada is not known. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL REPORT City of Arvada 7 MSW Consultants LBA Associates Table 2-1 Trash & Recycling Services Metric Trash Recycling Frequency of Collection 100% weekly 60% weekly 40% every other week Residential Fees $13.00-$15.50/household (HOAs may be lower) $3.25-$5.00/household (HOAs may be lower) Provision of Containers 6 customers provide containers 6 customers provide bags 4 haulers provide carts 3 customers provide containers 4 customers provide bags 2 haulers provide carts/bins Type of Collection Vehicles 5 use rear-load 2 use front-load 2 use side-load 2 use rear-load 1 use front-load 3 use side-load Average Age of Vehicles 6.8 years 5.8 years Average Gross Weight of Vehicles/Axles 47,000 pounds 2.8 axles 44,100 pounds 2.8 axles HOA = homeowners association As shown in the table above, there are currently many different types of collection vehicles, set-out policies, no uniform collection frequency for recycling, and limited participation by residents in recycling collection. The system appears to rely on relatively older (and higher polluting) collection vehicles. Additional findings included: ‹ The service area of most haulers extends beyond Arvada. ‹ A slight majority of haulers service residents who provide their own trash and recycling containers. ‹ There is no curbside organics collection currently available. ‹ Multiple transfer, landfill and recyclables processing facilities are used by the haulers (none of these are located in Arvada). The quantity of municipal solid waste generation or waste diversion rate could not be accurately determined as not all haulers participated in the survey. Section 7, however, estimates expected quantities and diversion levels for each of the three optional collection systems considered by Arvada in this study. 2.2 CURRENT IMPACTS TO CITY STREETS This analysis was conducted to estimate impacts to city streets related to trash and recycling collection vehicle operation in Arvada. Information provided in the hauler study (above) and experience with the production capacities of other programs were used. Table 2-2 summarizes estimated vehicle traffic and carbon emissions. Appendix B provides additional technical information. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL REPORT MSW Consultants 8 City of Arvada LBA Associates Table 2-2 Collection Vehicle Traffic & Emissions of Current System Metric Trash Recycling Total Total Number of Routes 83 28 111 Routes/Day 17 6 223 Average Trucks/ Street-Day 3 1 4 Carbon Emissions 783 MTCO2E 203 MTCO2E 986 MTCO2E Pavement Impact Equivalent to 1,360 passenger cars Equivalent to 920 passenger cars Not applicable MTCO2E = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent Routing estimates based on assumed average collection rate of 500 households/day The information in Table 2-2 has been assembled for the current system so that it is possible to compare these parameters to each of the alternative scenarios modeled later in this report. It is noting the following information which was provided by the City regarding City street condition: ‹ Thirty five percent of Arvada streets were reported to be in poor condition in 2009. Based on typical load equivalency factors, it is known that heavy vehicles cause a majority of pavement structure damage. Accurately estimating pavement impacts requires sophisticated algorithms as well as extensive data that must be specific to the street network being analyzed. It was beyond the capability of this analysis to defensibly project meaningful pavement impacts that are imparted by refuse collection vehicles in the City at the current time. ‹ Of the current budget of $2.8 million for road maintenance, $1.2 million is for asphalt repair and maintenance (the rest is for concrete works). The City projects a total cost of $3.9 million for all asphalt and concrete repair. It appears that current expenditures are not sufficient to maintain roadways to the targeted condition. 3. BENCHMARKING Benchmarking has been defined as the process of searching for best practices, innovative ideas, and effective procedures/policies, and then adapting these practices and ideas for the benefit of the organization. Combined with performance measurement, benchmarking enables the City of Arvada to see how its solid waste collection system measures up to other municipalities with comparable customer bases and service levels. It should be noted that while benchmarking is conceptually simple, in the realm of solid waste collection there are myriad system characteristics that are likely to differ among different municipalities. For example, even if the customer base of two municipalities are the same, differences in underlying system characteristics may diminish the comparability of the two systems. It is therefore important to keep in mind that, although the results of this research effort can inform about opportunities that may exist for improving Arvada’s collection system, exact comparisons are not possible. In other words, benchmarking has its limits. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL REPORT City of Arvada 9 MSW Consultants LBA Associates 3.1 STATE & NATIONAL BENCHMARKS The intent of the detailed survey of state and national collection programs was to evaluate the attributes of successful residential collection systems similar to those being studied for Arvada - i.e., open subscription/ expanded hauler licensing, multiple hauler and single hauler systems. Wherever possible, communities with populations similar to Arvada (approximately 108,500 in 20096) were surveyed. Table 3-1 identifies the collection programs that participated in the detailed survey, and reflects 2009-2010 program attributes and performance data. Table 3-1 National Communities Surveyed COMMUNITY 2009 POPULATION NUMBER OF HAULERS OPEN SUBSCRIPTION/EXPANDED HAULER LICENSING PROGRAMS Boulder, CO 94,700 3 Fort Collins, CO 118,700 3 Westport, CT 26,600 7 MULTIPLE HAULER PROGRAMS Anne Arundel County, MD 500,000 6 Oklahoma City, OK 506,100 2 (city & private hauler) Modesto, CA 187,200 2 SINGLE HAULER PROGRAMS Lafayette, CO 23,200 1 Gainesville, FL 110,000 1 West Jordan, UT 68,300 1 The surveys were completed primarily through phone interviews to obtain detailed information on customers, services, facilities, equipment, billing, diversion rates and relationships with haulers. Exhibit 1 on the following page provides an overview of findings, and Appendix C includes back-up survey information. There was notable variation for all communities in terms of providing organics collection curbside, the provision of carts, fixed versus variable pricing, single- versus dual-stream recycling and diversion rates. And while only a small pool of systems were surveyed in depth, several key observations can be drawn from these results as well as experience with other national collection programs: 6 Colorado State Demography Office, 2009. ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF ARVADA, COLORADO ‐ 2010 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE BENCHMARKING ‐ SUMMARY TABLE OPEN SUBSCRIPTION SYSTEMS MULTIPLE CONTRACT OR FRANCHISE SYSTEMS EXCLUSIVE HAULER SYSTEMS BOULDER, CO FORT COLLINS, CO WESTPORT, CT ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MD OKLAHOMA CITY, OK PASADENA, CA MODESTO CA LAFAYETTE, CO GAINESVILLE, FL WEST JORDAN, UT 2000 Population 94,700 118,700 26,600 500,000 506,100 133,900 187,200 23,200 110,000 68,300 Service Area 44,900 SFUs, 14,400 apartments, 9,500 condos 50,000 residents 9,300 households 149,000 SFUs & townhomes 175,000 SFUs (few MFUs) 5,000 large MFUs & businesses 57,000 SFUs & 14,000 MFUs 5,500 SFUs/small MFUs 26,500 SFUs & MFUs (also city buildings) 23,900 SFUs/MFUs Collection Mechanism Open with 3 haulers Open with 3 haulers Open with 7 haulers 7‐yr contracts with 6 haulers City hauls part & has 7‐year contracts with 1 hauler Annual franchise with 27 haulers Evergreen contract with 2 haulers Single 5‐year contract Single 7‐year contract Single 5‐year contract Materials Collected Refuse, recyclables, organics Refuse & recyclables Refuse & recyclables Refuse, recyclables, yard waste Refuse & recyclables Hauler's discretion Refuse, recyclables, organics Refuse & recyclables Refuse, recyclables & YW Refuse, recyclables & YW Who Provide Containers Resident or hauler Resident or hauler (hauler provides recycling carts) Resident or hauler Resident (county provides some recyclables containers) City Resident or hauler Hauler Hauler (refuse), city (recyclables) Hauler City $20/month Base GENERAL LBA Associates, Inc. Residential Billing for 32‐gal refuse ~ $11/month for 32‐gal refuse ~ $50/month (or transfer for free) $275/year (property tax bill) $17.20/month (utility bill) Varies $24/month SFUs $8/month for 32‐gal refuse $19‐gal/month for 35‐gal refuse $13/month for 96‐gal refuse Variable rates Yes Yes No No No No ‐ although comNo Yes Yes No Fees Paid to City/County Licensing fees, hauler trash tax Licensing fees Licensing fees Keep recyclables revenues 50% of recyclables revenues > $25/ton Franchise fee 19.515% of gross receipts Some recyclables revenues All recyclables revenues All recyclables revenues Hauler Payments na na na fuel surcharge, annual CPI increase Annual CPI & fuel adjustment na For SFU collections Annual CPI increase Fuel surcharge adjustment fuel surcharge, annual CPI increase Recyclables Single‐stream Single‐stream Dual‐stream Single‐stream Dual‐stream Not specified Dual‐stream Single‐stream Dual‐stream (Single‐stream) Organics Compostables na na Grass, leaves, brush na Not specified Compostables na Yard waste Yard waste 35% 38% 18% 35% ~ 3% 66% na 27% 40% (residential only) 36% CPI = consumer price index MRF = materials recovery facility YW = yard waste Gal = gallons SFU = single‐family unit MFU = multi‐family unit WTE = waste‐to‐energy DIVERSION Diversion Rate LBA Associates, Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL REPORT City of Arvada 11 MSW Consultants LBA Associates ‹ The requirement for bundled collection (trash and recycling) and volume-based fees (collectively referred to as pay-as-you-throw, or PAYT)7 is prevalent in the open subscription - and universal in the single hauler - programs surveyed (all participating Colorado cities require haulers to implement PAYT) - notably, the PAYT requirement (and corresponding high diversion rates) can be included as either a license of contract requirement. ‹ All single hauler systems surveyed require contractors to provide automated carts to residents while other programs vary between containers provided by homeowners, city, haulers or a combination (one open subscription program required haulers to provide carts, another did not) - the cart requirement typically increases costs to residents. ‹ fees in the surveyed programs average $27 for open subscription programs, $21 for multi-hauler programs and $13 for single-hauler systems - this finding supports the higher costs (from lower collection efficiencies) typically seen when multiple haulers serve the same neighborhoods. ‹ Surveyed programs that include curbside organics collection as a regular service along with trash and recycling have fees 1.4 to 2.4 times higher than programs with trash and recycling only - diversion rates are correspondingly higher, however. ‹ Diversion rates ranged from 27% to 40% for programs with at least two of the following attributes: curbside organics collection, PAYT and single-stream recycling. 3.2 LOCAL BENCHMARKS The purpose of evaluating the collection systems in neighboring cities was to learn what policies and programs have and haven't worked in the Front Range area near Arvada. Targeted cities included Commerce City, Edgewater, Golden, Lakewood, Louisville, Westminster and Wheat Ridge. These surveys were also conducted primarily by phone. Findings are tabulated in Exhibit 2 on the following page, and reflect current program attributes. The collection programs of Arvada's neighboring cities fell into two groups with distinct differences: ‹ Commerce City, Edgewater, Golden & Louisville - all are single-hauler systems with five-year contracts and provide single-stream recycling to residents; Š With the exception of Commerce City (which is a generally funded program), these systems require their contract to use PAYT pricing Š Each programs serves only those residents living outside homeowners associations (which often provide discrete collection service for their customers) - however, the contracts administered by both Golden and Louisville allow for HOAs to elect to be served under the municipal contract in the future Š The Edgewater, Golden, Louisville & Lafayette (described in Section 3.1) contracts represent recent activity over the last two to three years - all four communities have moved from open subscription to single-hauler systems (this activity is unusual for Colorado) ‹ Lakewood, Westminster & Wheat Ridge - all are open subscription systems 7 It should be noted that pricing structure increments in a PAYT system need to be significant enough to create a recycling incentive - not all variable pricing accomplishes this effectively. ---PAGE BREAK--- LOCAL COMMUNITIES ‐ GENERAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTORS ONLY ‐ SUMMARY TABLE COMMERCE CITY EDGEWATER GOLDEN LAKEWOOD LOUISVILLE WESTMINSTER WHEAT RIDGE 2000 Population 21,000 5,400 17,200 144,100 18,900 100,900 32,900 Service Area Single‐family homes & duplexes 1,200 single‐family, multi‐family up to 7 units Single‐family, attached homes, HOAs able to opt in Single‐family only, HOAs may opt in System (open, contract, public) Exclusive contract (5 years with 2 renewable years) ‐ not first term Exclusive contract 5 years TBD) Exclusive contract takes effect June 2010 (5 years) Open ‐ license only req'd for haulers located in Lakewood (for sales tax) Exclusive contract since 2009 (5 years) Open ‐ license required (11 haulers currently licensed) Open ‐ license required (8 haulers listed) Contractor Waste Management (owns local transfer station/landfill/MFR) Allied Evergreen Disposal Service Open Western Disposal Service (owns transfer in Boulder) Open Open Refuse Collection Weekly Weekly Weekly Open Weekly Open ‐ license required Open Every other week Every other week Every other week Open ‐ refuse haulers required to offer recycling, list of LBA Associates, Inc. Curbside Recycling (refuse day), single‐ stream (refuse day), single‐ stream (refuse day), single‐ stream Open Every other week, single‐stream recyclables established Open Curbside Organics na na Two collections/year na Every other week na na Drop‐Site Recycling Yes ‐ hauler provides Yes ‐ city provides Yes ‐ city provides Yes ‐ city provides Yes ‐ county accepts recyclables, hauler accepts YW Yes ‐ land owned by city, operator accepts yard waste Yes ‐ facilities provided by others Financing Model Services are no cost (General Fund) City utility bills PAYT incl recycling (free) City utility bills (quarterly), PAYT incl recycling (free) Open City utility bills, PAYT incl recycling (free) Open Open Other Residents can opt out, cart ownership reverts to city in 5 yrs, lower rate for "super recyclers" "Super recycler" level, city will purchase carts after 5 yrs, incentive program for residents Plans to begin hauler licensing discussion in 2011 46% diversion, option for "super recycler" level Free HHW collection available to residents CY = cubic waste hhs = households YW = yard waste HHW = household hazardous waste TBD = to be determined LBA Associates, Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL REPORT City of Arvada 13 MSW Consultants LBA Associates Š Lakewood and Wheat Ridge currently require haulers to register only, with no licensing requirements Š Westminster has licensing stipulations that require trash haulers to offer curbside recycling to their customers and specifies the minimum list of recyclables that must be collected Š All three cities are considering changing their current systems in 2011 - Lakewood plans to obtain public input on collection alternatives, Westminster may expand their licensing requirements and Wheat Ridge may consider contracting options 4. CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS This project has sought to brief City Council at several stages. On August 23, 2010, existing system (Section 2) and benchmarking (Section 3) results were presented to the Arvada City Council. This presentation also addressed: ‹ Key components of Colorado state statute governing municipal policing powers over solid waste hauling ‹ 2010 ballot issues that could potentially impact the City's ability to implement study recommendations A copy of this presentation is included in Appendix D. 5. PUBLIC OUTREACH The City maintains a page on its website8 that includes on-going information concerning the Waste Hauling Study. Currently the page includes a summary of the project, the hauler survey results (Section the national benchmarking results (Section the Task Force presentation (below) and a contact for answering any questions or concerns. 5.1 TASK FORCE MEETING The City convened a Recycling Task Force to provide input on this study. The Task Force consisted of residents who had expressed interest (positive and negative) in changing the current collection system. On September 8, 2010, a presentation was made to this group summarizing existing system (Section 2) and benchmarking (Section 3) results. Additional presentation materials included a review of basic waste management concepts collection, processing, disposal, bundled trash/recycling and PAYT). A copy of the Task Force presentation, as well as meeting notes, is included in Appendix E. 5.2 PUBLIC SURVEY In other cities in Colorado and nationally that have investigated changes to a local, open market hauling system, such changes have often been accompanied by controversy due to the range of supportive and unsupportive opinions shared by various stakeholders. In an effort to overcome this situation, the City and the Project Team agreed that it would be critical to obtain feedback from broad cross-section of City residents in a statistically representative manner. Failure to do so would 8 http://arvada.org/about-arvada/waste-hauling-study/ ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL REPORT MSW Consultants 14 City of Arvada LBA Associates open an otherwise deliberate and thorough analysis and process to be influenced by smaller, yet potentially vocal, interest groups. While the opinions of individual interest groups are legitimate – after all, certain outcomes implemented by the City could as a result of this project impair local businesses and reduce customer choice – the Project Team and the City have attempted to maintain representativeness of all City residents. This was accomplished by conducting a public survey of a randomly selected, statistically representative group of 2,000 households in the fall of 2010 to obtain input from residents on their satisfaction with existing solid waste collection and preferences for future improvements. Almost 42 percent of households surveyed (830 total) responded to the survey, assuring error rate of no more than 3 percent. Residents who participated in the survey indicated: ‹ General satisfaction with current trash services provided and fees charged Š But less clarity about satisfaction with recycling fees in non-HOA neighborhoods. ‹ General satisfaction with their current haulers. ‹ A division on the importance of trash and recycling truck emissions, noise, pavement and safety impacts. ‹ Strong agreement for measures that reducing collection costs, potentially to include recycling, composting, bundling trash/recycling service and less frequent collection. ‹ Strong support for receiving increasing recycling services if it can be done for the same or lower cost than they are currently paying. ‹ General agreement that the City should set minimum standards for collection services. ‹ General agreement that increased competition between haulers is acceptable to reduce service costs, even if some existing haulers can no longer operate in Arvada. The survey was also posted on the City's website such that citizens outside the randomly-selected citizens could participate. It is expected that these other respondents were specifically motivated by the City's Task Force or by the haulers themselves). While their responses provide useful information, they cannot be interpreted as representative of Arvada citizens. Generally, these responses demonstrate: ‹ Residents who responded to the survey after local haulers began contacting their customers were significantly more supportive of the current system and less eager to have the system change in any way compared to the general populace. ‹ The participants in the Citizens’ Task Force are generally more supportive of collection system changes to increase recycling and organics diversion compared to the general populace. In the opinion of the Project Team, based on these random survey results, it appears that the City will have reasonable support for: ‹ New policy that includes bundling trash and recycling as universal services. ‹ PAYT pricing that gives residents the ability to decrease their total fees through diversion. ‹ An improved collection system as long as the improvements address the recycling and pricing changes (above) ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL REPORT City of Arvada 15 MSW Consultants LBA Associates The 2010 survey results further suggest that curbside organics collection should remain a voluntary rather than a bundled service (provided to every household). The full survey results are included in Appendix F, in both numerical and graphical format. 6. OPTIONS EVALUATION 6.1 OVERVIEW In Colorado and nationally, there are thousands of municipal collection systems with individual characteristics too numerous to count. However, in the opinion of the Project Team, there are three alternative collection strategies that could reasonably help Arvada meet its objectives of increasing diversion and reducing the environmental footprint of collection: 1. Enhanced Hauler Licensing: Expand collection services to offer greater recycling and composting opportunities and to establish certain minimum criteria in order to operate in Arvada. 2. Multiple Hauler Contracts: The City would conduct a competitive procurement for four districts. It is possible that the City ultimately selects only two or three districts (it is unlikely that more than four districts would be large enough to enable efficient routing). 3. Single Hauler Contract: At the opposite end of the spectrum, this option would rely on a competitive procurement process to award the entire City to a single hauler, who would then become the exclusive provider. Project Team member MSW Consultants maintains a proprietary routing model that can project the resource needs, environmental impacts, operating parameters, and relative costs of various collection system alternatives. To populate the model and generate accurate results it is necessary to compile pertinent demographic, waste stream, productivity, and local facility location data. These data were compiled from City records and staff input, the hauler survey, and Front Range disposal and processing facilities used by existing Arvada haulers. It is important to note that not all necessary Arvada-specific and hauler-specific data were available (for example, landfill tip fees paid by each hauler). In those instances, conservative assumptions were made based on the Project Team's experience with other collection programs. As with any estimation where assumptions are involved, the analytical results are subject to a margin of error. To minimize this margin, every attempt was made to establish reasonable assumptions, which were consistently applied for all evaluations (including the status quo) to best consider the relative impacts of potential future collection strategies against the existing collection system in Arvada. It is expected that some assumptions in these evaluations may change as the City moves forward with implementing changes to the residential collection system and further input is provided. A detailed summary of the assumption used in this analysis are contained in Appendix G. 6.2 ASSUMPTIONS This section summarizes the general assumptions used throughout the analysis. Detailed assumptions are contained in Appendix G. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL REPORT MSW Consultants 16 City of Arvada LBA Associates 6.2.1 GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS ‹ All annual costs were calculated assuming full implementation no phasing). In reality, pilot testing or phasing in any of the options could add temporary costs to any conversion to a new system. ‹ Each option was modeled assuming it had been operating for one 1 to 2 years and was no longer experiencing transitional challenges or costs. ‹ All cost estimates were developed in 2010 dollars. ‹ All quantities were estimated for 2010. ‹ Cost-based estimates of private sector pricing in response to a competitive procurement contain some error range (10-15%). This is because each individual hauler will have different parameters that govern their pricing, including differences in operational practices, work policies, facility locations, financial targets, etc. ‹ Program participation rates (organics) and set-out rate/weights (recycling and organics) were estimated based on state and national data and MSW/LBA's experience. Given that organics collection will remain voluntary, and that approximately 40 percent of the City’s residents currently voluntarily pay extra for recycling, it was assumed that the organics participation rate will be approximately 25 percent. ‹ The service area was assumed to be all single family dwellings and multi-family dwellings in 7- units or less. We note that some homeowners’ associations have existing contracts, and that these contracts must be honored, but it is expected that most HOAs could reasonably be expected to opt in by the 1- to 2-year maturity period. ‹ Collection system modeling was based on average operating, wage, fuel and equipment costs for solid waste collection systems. In practice, compensation structures may vary from hauler to hauler. Appendix G contains additional data about wages and labor costs, as well as vehicle capital and operating costs. 6.2.2 PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES The following assumptions apply to all three alternatives analyzed: ‹ Once-per-week trash collection will be provided to every household. ‹ Every-other-week recycling collection will be provided to every household. ‹ Rates for trash and recycling must be bundled. ‹ Refuse collection will be Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) with 3 sizes of refuse carts (48, 64, and 90 gallon). Under a PAYT system, customers are charged lower rates if they dispose of less waste. PAYT systems create a strong incentive for residents to utilize the recycling program, and over time PAYT systems have been found to change waste generation behavior to the extent that overall waste generation decreases. Studies by the U.S. EPA and other public and private organizations suggest that a PAYT system would greatly assist Arvada meet its waste reduction and recycling goals. ‹ Every-other-week yard waste/food waste/compostable papers/biodegradable service ware must be provided as a voluntary option but for an additional cost. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL REPORT City of Arvada 17 MSW Consultants LBA Associates ‹ Elderly/disabled customers receiving extra services will be charged the same rate as other customers upon submission of documentation. 6.2.3 PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS FOR HAULER LICENSING These assumptions apply only to the enhanced hauler licensing option. ‹ Refuse carts and recycling bins or carts will be provided by the haulers for their customers. ‹ Haulers would be left to select the collection equipment that worked within their capital replacement schedule and operating practices. In practice this means that there would be a mix of rearload and automated trucks and that this mix might change over time as the hauler licensing program matures. ‹ Haulers will maintain direct billing to customers. ‹ Haulers will be required to provide regular reports to the City. ‹ Haulers will be required to meet minimum appearance and safety standards. 6.2.4 PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS FOR SINGLE OR MULTI-DISTRICT CONTRACT These assumptions would apply to either exclusive contracting option, whether single or multi- district. ‹ The City would procure collection service with industry standard contract terms; the collection contract will include disposal, recyclables processing, and organics processing (recognizing that this arrangement may limit the pool of competitive vendors) ‹ Carts will be provided and maintained by haulers. ‹ Because of the long term contract, and because of the PAYT cart-based system, fully automated collection systems are modeled for these options. ‹ Residents would have the option to opt out of the City-procured contract, and ten percent of households in the service area would in fact do so - i.e., will not be served by the city's hauler or charged fees by the city. Households and HOAs could opt out of the City’s contract but would be required to hire a private hauler providing the same or higher service level. ‹ Three sizes of refuse carts to be offered with variable rate pricing; automated collection of all wastes would be provided. ‹ Single stream recycling will be offered with an expanded list of fiber and container recyclables. ‹ Organics collection will be offered for additional price but not required. ‹ City will manage the billing system (quarterly) via water department, with the hauler providing quarterly electronic updates to account billing. ‹ Hauler(s) will manage all customer complaints/requests, but customers have option of following up with City if they are not satisfied with the hauler response. 6.2.5 ADDITIONAL PROGRAM ASSUMPTIONS FOR MULTI-DISTRICT CONTRACT ‹ There will be four service territories of roughly equal size. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL REPORT MSW Consultants 18 City of Arvada LBA Associates ‹ The City will establish a procurement policy that limits haulers to being awarded a maximum of two service areas. ‹ Billing will be done by the haulers. 6.2.6 ASSUMPTIONS FOR TRANSFER/LANDFILL/MRF/COMPOST FACILITIES ‹ Facility location and distances are based on average of current facilities receiving City wastes. Specific drive times for various facilities are shown in Appendix G. ‹ Disposal and processing costs are based on current gate rates (which are likely higher than the City would obtain through a competitive procurement). These are shown in Appendix G. 6.3 RESULTS For both the existing collection system and the three options, the Project Team modeled the following system metrics so that City elected officials and the public at large can compare the benefits and disadvantages of each option compared to the status quo. ‹ Potential quantities managed for landfill disposal versus diverted through recycling and composting, ‹ Number of collection routes for the collection of refuse, recycling and organics, ‹ Annual costs, ‹ Greenhouse gas reduction, and ‹ Job loss/creation and number of hauling companies operating within City limits. 6.3.1 CUSTOMERS, WASTE QUANTITIES AND DIVERSION Results of the hauler survey described earlier found that the average City household annually generates 1.29 tons of waste requiring disposal and 0.34 tons of recyclables (for participating households only). These waste generation estimates are in line with other Colorado and national communities. These generation rates were applied to the universe of single family dwellings and multi-family dwellings up to 7-units. Census data showed that there are 38,882 such households. Table 6-1 summarizes the customer counts and quantities of wastes that were estimated for the status quo and each option. There are a number of important observations to be made in Table 6-1: ‹ Participating Households: One of the comments received from both the Citizens’ Task Force and from the customer survey is that some residents might want to opt out of any City-managed contracted service. For this reason, Options 2 and 3 assumed that 10 percent of the City’s residential households would opt out. Reasons for opting out might include homeowners’ associations that choose to maintain existing contracts, or individual residents that decide not to take advantage of the service levels and rates obtained by the City. (Over time, it would be expected that most HOAs and individual citizens would opt in if the City obtains competitive pricing for services.) ‹ Waste Reduction: It should be noted that PAYT collection systems routinely cause overall waste generation rates to decline. This decline can be attributed to the change in the behavior of waste generators, who not only take advantage of recycling opportunities but also create less waste to begin with. (An example of this would be residents that have traditionally disposed of ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL REPORT City of Arvada 19 MSW Consultants LBA Associates yard wastes together with the trash, but who opt to manage yard wastes on their lot once a PAYT program is implemented.) Consistent with U.S. EPA studies on the subject, it is predicted that the City’s overall waste generation will be reduced with all three of the options because all three options involve the implementation of PAYT. ‹ Recycling Rate: The recycling rate is a measure of the percentage of all materials collected that are delivered to a recycler or organics processor rather than to a disposal facility. As shown, the City’s residential recycling rate is projected to increase from the current 10 to 12 percent if any of the three options were implemented. Once residents are charged more for higher waste disposal volumes, and once the opportunity for voluntary organics collection is available, recycling rates are projected to increase to the mid-20 percent range. Table 6-1 Customers, Waste Quantities, and Diversion Rates Current System Option 1: Hauler Licensing Option 2: Multiple Districts Option 3: Single Hauler Total households participating 38,882 38,882 34,994 34,994 Waste Quantities Refuse Disposed 50,158 38,737 35,250 35,250 Recyclables Diverted 5,579 10,638 11,905 11,905 Organic Waste Diverted 0 875 1,260 1,260 Total Tons Collected 55,737 50,250 48,414 48,414 Waste Reduction from Current Level 0.0% -9.8% -13.1% -13.1% Recycling Rate 10% 23% 27% 27% 6.3.2 ROUTING AND COLLECTION TRUCKS Although overall waste generation decreases, the addition of bundled every-other-week recycling collection and the provision of voluntary every-other-week organics collection will still require multiple collection vehicles to operate on City residential streets. Table 6-2 summarizes the number of weekly collection routes that are projected to be needed to serve the City’s residential customer base under the status quo and for each of the three options analyzed. This table shows weekly rather than daily routes because, under the current open system, routes are not balanced across all days of the week. Rather, each hauler operates routes on the day(s) of the week that best fit into its overall service territory demands. In Options 2 and 3, haulers would balance their daily routing requirements so that the same number of trucks was on the road each day of the week. This represents the best allocation of capital in an exclusive hauler system. Table 6-2 conveys several important dynamics about the shift of collection resources from refuse to other collection services: ‹ Reduction in Refuse Routes: Under all options, the number of weekly refuse routes decreases. This is because recycling collection is voluntary in the current system, and only approximately 40 percent of the populace opts to pay additional for recycling collection. In each ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL REPORT MSW Consultants 20 City of Arvada LBA Associates of the three options, recycling is provided to every household and charged as part of a bundled rate. Because recycling rates are projected to increase under every option, the volume of refuse decreases, as does the number of weekly routes required to collect that refuse. ‹ Mix of Impacts on Number of Recycling Routes: The impact to the number of recycling routes may be up or down, depending on the option. In the Hauler Licensing option, the requirement to provide recycling collection to every household – instead of the 40 percent of households that currently volunteer to receive the service – drives up the total recycling routes. In the Multiple District and Single Hauler options, where haulers can route efficiently, the number of recycling routes will decrease compared to the current system. ‹ Increase in Organics Routes: As also shown, the every-other-week organics collection modeled in each of the three options will add weekly routes. ‹ Reduction in Total Weekly Routes: It is of interest to note that all three options analyzed are projected to result in fewer weekly routes being run in Arvada’s City limits. The options analyzed suggest that weekly truck routes will decrease between 1 and 32 percent depending on which option is selected. ‹ Reduction in Daily Street Passes: One of the notable outcomes of Options 2 and 3 will be that the number of trucks traversing each residential street on a daily basis will be significantly reduced. This is because, in both the Multiple District and Single Hauler systems, the exclusive contractor will balance daily routing requirements and rotate the same number of trucks geographically around the City. Each household will have two truck passes each week – one refuse truck pass, and either the recycling truck pass or the organics truck pass (because both services are provided every-other-week). This is expected to be a significant reduction to the current system, where some households have as many as seven or more trucks on their street on a given day, and may have trucks passing multiple days of the week. Table 6-2 Weekly Routes in Operation Current System Option 1: Hauler Licensing Option 2: Multiple Districts Option 3: Single Hauler Number of Weekly Routes Weekly Refuse Collection 83.1 69.7 60.0 50.0 Every-other-week Recycling Collection 27.7 32.6 20.0 20.0 Every-other-week Organics Collection 0.0 7.5 6.0 5.0 Total 110.8 109.9 86.0 75.0 Change in Weekly Routes from Current 0.0% -0.8% -22.4% -32.3% Daily street passes 3.3 3.3 0.4 0.4 6.3.3 GHG EMISSIONS Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are directly related to the number of collection vehicles operating within City limits. Table 6-3 summarizes the reduction in GHG emissions in each of the three options, measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E). As shown, if the City ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL REPORT City of Arvada 21 MSW Consultants LBA Associates were to implement any of the options shown, it is expected that GHG emissions would decrease. The largest GHG emission decrease – over 30 percent – is achieved through a single hauler system. Table 6-3 GHG Emissions (MTCO2E) Current System Option 1: Hauler Licensing Option 2: Multiple Districts Option 3: Single Hauler Refuse Collection 783 657 566 471 Recycling Collection 203 239 147 147 Organics Collection 0 63 50 42 Total 986 959 762 660 Reduction from Current System 0% -23% -33% 6.3.4 COSTS AND RATES FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS Responses to the customer survey indicated a strong support for any changes that would result in reduced rates to residential customers for the same or better levels of service. Therefore, one of the most critical aspects of the analysis involved the development of cost estimates for an “average” customer receiving the level of service under each of the options. From cost estimates, we can estimate the relative rate impacts that might be expected. It is important to note that any cost analysis must rely on averages, as there are currently 11 permitted haulers, each with different parameters that drive their overall rates. For example, each hauler operates from a vehicle yard that implies certain non-productive drive times to and from the City to perform collection services. For the purposes of this analysis, we have not attempted to develop hauler-specific cost estimates, as this would require case-by-case investigation of the unique parameters for each hauler that drive costs and rates. Rather, this section endeavors to estimate, within a reasonable range, the likely costs of an “average” hauler performing the level of services under the status quo and each of the three options analyzed. In doing so, it is acknowledged that the results may not reflect the costs of any individual hauler. However, we believe the analysis performed does reasonably compare the relative costs of each option, and can predict the likely impact on residential households should the City make changes to its residential hauling system. Results are presented so that it is possible to compare the costs of the current system with the expected costs that would be paid under each option. Note that a cost comparison is different from a rate comparison, in that haulers may opt to set their rates on market factors in addition to direct cost. This analysis is also complicated by the fact that, currently, some households only opt to receive trash service no recycling), while others are voluntarily paying extra for recycling. Additionally, certain households may enjoy materially lower (or higher) costs than the averages shown, simply because of their specific circumstance. For example, homeowners in a large HOA located near a hauler’s vehicle yard may enjoy a relatively competitive rate if the HOA has done an effective job procuring services. Table 6-4 shows the estimated average costs associated with each of the three options, as well as the status quo. This information is presented and is used to derive the relative rate impacts presented ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL REPORT MSW Consultants 22 City of Arvada LBA Associates subsequently. Note that Table 6-4 does not purport to duplicate the exact costs incurred by any single homeowner or charged by any single hauler. This table conveys some important findings about the relative costs of each option. ‹ Reduced Refuse Costs: In any of the options, but especially in the Multiple District and Single Hauler options, the cost of refuse collection will decrease on a per household basis. This is made possible by a number of factors, but most importantly by the significantly greater efficiencies that can be achieved by an exclusive collector. Although the City has indicated the importance of offering residents recycling and voluntary organics collection and all of the options analyzed include both of these services, refuse collection costs in isolation will decrease for virtually every rate payer (although to varying degrees depending on the competitiveness of current rates). Table 6-4 Comparison of “Average” Costs for Residential Hauling Current System Option 1: Hauler Licensing Option 2: Multiple Districts Option 3: Single Hauler Refuse Collection and Disposal $9.55 $8.94 $8.41 $6.53 Cost Increase (Decrease)) 0% -12% -32% Recycling Collection and Processing $2.58 $2.58 $2.91 $2.69 Cost Increase (Decrease) 0% 0% +13% Organics Collection and Composting $0.00 $2.58 $2.92 $2.92 Cost Increase (Decrease) 0% N/A N/A N/A The percentage of cost increase cannot be calculated because this service is not provided currently. ‹ Increased Recycling Costs: Interestingly, the average cost incurred by haulers to provide recycling will stay the same or increase under all three options. The increases occur in the Multiple District and Single Hauler options because of the requirement to provide carts for automated collection in these options. Carts add roughly $0.50 per month to the cost of recycling collection. However, it should be noted that the current system costs reflect an every- other-week collection frequency, although some households were reported to be receiving weekly frequency. Needless to say, it is likely that these homeowners would experience a rate decrease if their service is reduced to every-other-week. ‹ New Cost for Voluntary Organics Composters: In the current system there is no organics collection. Under each of the three options, haulers must provide organics collection to those who volunteer and pay extra for this service. Given that roughly 40 percent of homeowners were found to voluntarily recycle their paper, bottles and cans, it was assumed that 25 percent would voluntarily elect a separate organics collection service for an incremental cost. While these “average” costs are of interest and reflect the relative costs refuse, recycling, and organics collection under each option, an equally informative exercise is to compare the likely rate impacts to the current system under the several scenarios that currently exist. When comparing rates, rather than costs, it is necessary to start with the average rates that were reported by both the haulers (in the hauler survey) and also by residents (in the customer survey). These rates represent ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL REPORT City of Arvada 23 MSW Consultants LBA Associates the market price of the current system. We can make some statements about the new market dynamics that will impact competitively priced rates under each of the three options. ‹ Comparable Pricing Under Option 1: If the City leaves the subscription system in place and adds incremental service level requirements through a licensure process, it is hypothesized that rate setting dynamics will not change significantly from the current system. Haulers will continue to set rates on a case-by-case basis for individuals and/or through HOA-sponsored procurements. ‹ Downward Pricing Pressure Under Options 2 and 3: In options 2 and 3, haulers are compelled to offer their most competitive price. In this circumstance, the rates paid by homeowners will be more likely to approach the actual costs borne by haulers (including profit). In other words, customers stand a better chance of realizing legitimate rate reductions for the same level of service. Table 6-5 shows some hypothetical rate impacts, based on both the cost analysis in Table 6-4 and on the market dynamics described above. As shown, the average rate reported to be paid in Arvada ranges from $10 to $14 per month for refuse collection (according to both the hauler survey and the customer survey results). For households that opt to pay for recycling collection, the rates paid range from three to five dollars (with the higher rates likely due to weekly rather than every-other- week collection frequency). Note that these are relatively wide ranges, which is to be expected given the number of haulers and variance of many parameters in an open system. Table 6-5 Projection of Likely Rate Impacts to Residential Households ($/month) Current System Option 1: Hauler Licensing Option 2: Multiple Districts Option 3: Single Hauler Refuse Collection and Disposal $10 to $14 $10 to $14 $9 to $10 $7 to $8 Rate Increase (Decrease) 0% 0% -10% to -29% -30% to -43% Recycling Collection and Processing $3 to $5 $3 $3 $3 Rate Increase (Decrease) 0% 0% to -40% 0% to -40% 0% to -40% Combined Refuse and Recycling $13 to $19 $13 to $17 $12 to $13 $10 to $11 Rate Increase (Decrease) 0% 0% to -11% to -32% -23% to $-42% Impact on Household with Refuse Only $10 to $14 $13 to $17 $12 to $13 $10 to $11 Rate Increase (Decrease) 0% +21% to +30% to +20% 0% to -21% This table shows the projected dynamics that would be expected to influence actual rates charged to residential households under each option. The following statements can be made about these hypothetical rate impacts: ‹ Multiple District and Single Hauler Offer Refuse Rate Reduction: The combination of improved collection efficiency and the allure of securing an exclusive service area is projected to result in meaningful reductions in the rates paid for refuse collection by residential households. This savings is projected to be as significant as 30 to over 40 percent for the Single Hauler option. It is not anticipated that there will be significant rate impacts under the Hauler Licensing ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL REPORT MSW Consultants 24 City of Arvada LBA Associates option because haulers will continue to provide the same open market refuse collection service, and will have to provide carts at an added cost. ‹ Recycling Rate Reduction for Weekly Customers: The analysis above suggests that recycling rates charged to residential households will stay roughly level for every-other-week customers, and will decrease for weekly customers who would be expected to receive only every-other-week service under all three options. In practice, there may be a slight rate reduction in the Multiple District or Single Hauler options, but this has been shown as no savings to be conservative. ‹ Voluntary Recyclers to Maintain Rates or Get Rate Reductions Under All Options: At the current time, roughly 40 percent of City households voluntarily pay for recycling service – some weekly and some every-other-week. These households would be expected to maintain their current rates or improve their current rates under all three options analyzed. Voluntary recyclers would do extremely well under the Multiple District and Single Hauler options, where they would be expected to realize a savings on their collection rate between eight and 42 percent. Conversely, some voluntary recyclers who are paying for weekly service may find that they can only obtain every-other-week collection from some haulers under the new system. So, although their rates would decrease, so would their service frequency. ‹ Likely Rate Increases for Refuse-Only Customers in Options 1 and 2: It is of particular interest that residential households that currently receive only refuse collection no recycling) stand to pay higher rates under Options 2 and 3. This is because each of these options included bundled refuse and recycling service, which implies that these households will be forced to receive services they have historically not opted to pay for voluntarily. In the Multiple District option, there may be many “breakeven” households. However, the City should be aware that rates will almost certainly increase in the Hauler Licensing Option, and may increase for certain customers under the Multiple District option. ‹ Expected Rate Reduction and Service Level Increase in Option 3: Also noteworthy, the Single Hauler option is projected to provide all City households with an equal or better rate than they are paying now for refuse only, while also providing recycling service. This is important because the customer survey responses indicated strong support for this outcome. In conclusion, we can reasonably model the cost impacts of each of the three options. Applying our knowledge of market dynamics, we can infer the likely rate impacts to customers. While our analysis is subject to the use of a number of assumptions, we believe it to reasonably predict these financial impacts in relative terms for the average Arvada household. Based on this analysis, the Multiple District and Single Hauler options are the only two options that may provide the same or higher service levels for the same or lower rates than are now currently paid by ratepayers. The Single Hauler option specifically offers the opportunity for both voluntary recyclers and for trash-only households to pay a lower rate for the same or better service levels. Based on the response to the customer survey, this outcome would be considered favorable to a majority of City residents. 6.3.5 IMPACTS TO LOCAL BUSINESSES The previous sections have examined the positive impacts of each option on the environment and on the City ratepayers. However, it is important to note that each option also impacts the hauling industry doing business within the City’s borders. An important component of this analysis was therefore to estimate the impacts on the hauling industry in Arvada. ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL REPORT City of Arvada 25 MSW Consultants LBA Associates Specifically, this analysis investigated the impact on two business metrics: the number of hauling companies doing business in Arvada, and the employment of hauling companies doing business in Arvada. These metrics can be reasonably estimated, and elected officials should be aware of the impacts to the business community of any changes to residential hauling. It should be noted that there are more qualitative impacts that cannot be measured. One example is the impact of a reduction or elimination of hauler choice among households. Table 6-6 summarizes the likely loss of local businesses and the estimated change in hauling-related employment under each of the options analyzed. As shown, collection-related employment is expected to decrease under each of the three options analyzed. The employment reduction is somewhat dramatic under the Multiple District and Single Hauler options, where workforce reductions are estimated to reach 49 to 56 percent. This reduction is driven not only by the reduction in total routes, but also by the expected implementation of more automated collection technology under these two options. Automated collection requires only one equipment operator on each collection vehicle, whereas many of the collection vehicles in the current system have two- person crews. Table 6-6 Impacts to the Arvada Hauling Community Current System Option 1: Hauler Licensing Option 2: Multiple Districts Option 3: Single Hauler Collection-related Employment Refuse Collection 36.6 30.7 14.4 12.0 Recycling Collection 6.6 7.8 4.8 4.8 Organics Collection 0.0 3.3 2.6 2.2 Total 43.2 41.8 21.8 19.0 Change in Employment from Current 0% -49% -56% Number of Haulers Doing Business in Arvada 11 7 to 9 4 1 Change from Current 0% -27% -64% -91% The number of businesses operating in Arvada will also decrease under each option. Obviously, under the Multiple District and Single Hauler options the field of haulers will be limited by the number of exclusive service territories established by the City. However, even under Option 1, it is likely that some smaller haulers will exit the market because they will not have the capacity to competitively offer every-other-week recycling and a voluntary organics collection. It must be noted, however, that the loss of collection-related employment within Arvada’s City limits will be offset somewhat by an increase in employment at the recycling facilities and compost facilities that will begin receiving a higher volume of material for processing. While it was beyond the scope of this analysis to develop a detailed prediction of employment increases at these processing facilities, recent studies on the economic impact of recycling convey the likelihood of such increases. The Northeast Recycling Council completed an extensive Recycling Economic Impact study in March 2009 that provides a basis for estimating impacts to processing employment. Table 6-7 ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL REPORT MSW Consultants 26 City of Arvada LBA Associates applies the available metrics from this study to predict employment gains among material recovery facilities and composting facilities that stand to gain throughput as a result of Arvada’s implementation of PAYT with bundled recycling and voluntary organics collection. As shown, employment in these industries offsets the loss of collection industry employment, although does not make up for all lost jobs. These employment gains will be made elsewhere in the Front Range, although may not be within Arvada city limits. While of no direct impact to Arvada or the Front Range (but of importance to national recycling efforts), these diverted tons will also create many additional jobs in the areas of material brokering, processing and remanufacturing. Table 6-7 Employment Impacts at Recycling and Composting Processors Industry NERC Reported Througput (tons) NERC Reported Employment Implied Employment per Ton Arvada Incremental Diversion Incremental Employment from Incremental Arvada Diversion MRFs 3,979,000 2,460 0.00062 6,326 3.91 Compost 4,495,000 4,144 0.00092 1,260 1.16 Total 0.00154 7,586 5.07 In conclusion, adverse impacts to local hauling companies will be meaningful under both the Multiple District and Single Hauler options. The least impact will be imparted by Option 1, as only a few smaller haulers would be likely to discontinue operations in Arvada, and employment would not decrease significantly. The Multiple District and Single Hauler options greatly diminish the number of hauling businesses, and also decrease overall hauling industry employment. These options also create more of a “winner take all” atmosphere, as only a few haulers will earn the exclusive hauling territories as a result of a competitive procurement. 6.4 CONCLUSION While the preceding sections contained extensive details about the assumptions and findings of the analysis of options, the City ultimately must weigh the benefits for achieving its recycling diversion, GHG reduction, and vehicle impact objectives, as well as the importance of securing rate reductions for its residents, against the adverse impacts to local businesses and the resulting loss of customer choice to be experienced by residential households should the City change its current residential hauling system. ‹ Implementation of a hauler licensing requirement with the parameters described herein will move the City towards its goals with relatively lesser impacts on local businesses. However, residential households stand to pay the same or higher rates in exchange for receiving these higher service levels. Local haulers that are able to adapt and provide new, required recycling and voluntary organics collection will be able to continue operating in the City with minimal loss of employment. ‹ Implementation of a Single Hauler solution optimizes the City’s diversion and GHG reduction goals, and provides lower rates for the majority if not all existing residential customers for the same or better services. Conversely, the Single Hauler solution eliminates 10 of 11 hauling ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL REPORT City of Arvada 27 MSW Consultants LBA Associates companies from providing residential hauling service (excepting opt-outs), and reduces hauler- related employment in the City by over 50 percent. Further, a Single Hauler solution may reduce competition in the region over a longer time period, which could result in faster rate escalation after the completion of the first contract term. ‹ The Multiple District option offers somewhat of a balance between the other options. It equals the Single Hauler option in increasing diversion and reducing GHG emissions. However, this solution is not a cost-effective as the Single Hauler solution and may not achieve the savings to residents that would be needed to “sell” the program. Loss of local business and employment reductions are also relatively high in this option. The City will need to weigh the benefits and disadvantages of each option in selected the appropriate course of action. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Arvada MSW Consultants LBA Associates APPENDIX A HAULER SURVEY RESULTS ---PAGE BREAK--- MSW Consultants City of Arvada LBA Associates This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Arvada - 2010 Hauler Survey Results Page 1 of 3 Below are the results to the hauler survey that was conducted for the City of Arvada in the months of June and July 2010. Each of the 12 haulers permitted to collect waste within City limits were contacted and asked to participate. Eleven of these haulers were confirmed (or are believed) to provide residential refuse and/or recycling collection within the City. Responses were received from a total of 7 haulers, with a good mix of large regional/national companies and local companies. In most cases, responding haulers answered all questions, but in some cases withheld information due to confidentiality concerns (although all haulers that responded required MSW Consultants to enter into a confidentiality agreement as a condition of responding). Results of the hauler survey are summarized below. 1. Number of haulers that reported collecting materials in Arvada by day of the week: 2 Monday 2 Tuesday 1 Wednesday 6 Thursday 1 Friday 0 Saturday 2. Haulers reporting how residential customers set out the following material types (some haulers reported more than one allowable type of set-out): Material Customer-Provided Containers Hauler-Provided Containers Bags Refuse 6 4 4 Recyclables 3 4 2 It should be noted that no haulers reported providing separate yard waste collection. Rather, yard waste is collected with refuse. Bulky wastes are also collected with regular refuse to the extent possible, or else a separate charge is incurred for a call-in bulky collection. 3. Number of haulers that indicated how “overages” are handled: 0 Ignore and collect 3 Leave Notice 6 Additional Charge 0 Other (List) 4. Number of haulers indicating that they operate residential collection routes that are entirely contained in Arvada, vs crossing over municipal boundaries: 1 Entirely contained 6 Cross over. 5. The following information was provided about collection vehicles that are used for servicing residential households in Arvada. Refuse Collection Recycling Collection Type of Vehicle (Rearload, Sideload, Frontload, etc.) Rearload – 5 Frontload –2 Sideload – 2 Rearload – 2 Frontload –1 Sideload – 3 Avg. Age of Vehicle (yrs) 6.8 yrs 5.8 yrs Avg. Gross Vehicle Weight (Lbs) 37,400 to 56,000 (Average: 47,000) 35,900 to 54,000 (Average: 44,100) Number of Axles 2 or 3 (Average: 2.8) 2 or 3 (Average: 2.8) Any Engine Types Other than Diesel? (Y/N) N N ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Arvada - 2010 Hauler Survey Results Page 2 of 3 MSW Consultants 6. The table below summarizes how much material was reported to be collected from Arvada households and delivered to various facilities for processing or disposal. As shown, the haulers responding collect over 50 percent of the total waste generated. Note that the numbers in this table are estimates and actual quantities may differ significantly from the estimates shown below. Material Type Facility Name(s) Annual Tons Reported to be Collected by Responding Haulers Estimated Total Tons Generated Refuse Foothill Landfill, Golden Tower Landfill, Commerce City Denver Regional Landfill, Erie Co All Recycling North, Englewood 42,909 88,836 Recyclables All-Together Recycling, Denver WMRA-Frankling St MRF, Denver EcoCycle MRF, Boulder Alpine Waste, Denver 5,800 Estimated Recycling Rate 11.9% Based on U.S. EPA average generation rate of 4.5 lbs/person per day, and a 2008 U.S. Census population estimate of 108,000 for Arvada. 7. Only one hauler reported actually tracking its Arvada-specific recycling rate, which was 8. All responding haulers reported having residential route supervisors operating inside Arvada city limits during periods where their trucks are collecting in the City. 9. Responding companies reported the following: Collections operation policy? 6 Yes Idling policy? 6 Yes Health and safety policy/plan? 6 Yes Vehicle cleaning/appearance policy? 6 Yes Cart/bin washing and/or maintenance operations? 5 Yes Plans for testing or converting to alternative fuel vehicles? 3 Yes RFID or other tracking of residential bins and carts? 1 Yes 10. Responding haulers reported serving the following number of residential households. Note that not all haulers responded to this question. This represents 55 percent of the estimated 41,000 households in the City. Note that this number would be higher if all respondents had responded to this question. # of accounts that receive: 1 x week Every other Week Refuse Collection 23,126 Recycling Collection 5,711 3,804 11. Haulers reported serving an average of 5 percent of residential customers in Arvada via alley collection. 12. The following range of fees were reported by respondents. Note that not all respondents prpvided this information. Material Type Charge Billing Frequency Refuse Subscription: $13.00 to $15.50 per HH per month Some haulers reported lower pricing for HOA contracts Quarterly for HOA contracts) Recyclables $3.25 to $5.00 per HH per month Some haulers reported lower pricing for HOA contracts Bulky $20 to $25+ per call (varies depending on size of set- out) As incurred Some haulers noted that there may be other fees in addition to the state rates. In addition, we contacted nine HOAs and found that the reported contract rates were, as reported by some haulers, generally lower than the ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Arvada - 2010 Hauler Survey Results Page 3 of 3 MSW Consultants subscription rates. The survey of HOAs was not statistically significant but reasonably validates the information reported by haulers. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Arvada MSW Consultants LBA Associates APPENDIX B PAVEMENT IMPACT RESULTS ---PAGE BREAK--- MSW Consultants City of Arvada LBA Associates This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- MEMORANDUM To: Jessica Schluederberg, City of Arvada From: John Culbertson Copy: Laurie Batchelder Adams Date: August 12, 2010 Subject: Current Refuse Collection System Analysis This memorandum summarizes pertinent findings related to refuse and recycling collection vehicle impacts in Arvada, stemming from our analysis of hauler survey responses. Thse findings have been itemized below. Daily refuse and recycling truck traffic – Responding haulers indicated which days of the week they operate within Arvada, and most respondents provided either the estimated quantity they collect from Arvada, or the number of customers the serve in Arvada. Responses were received from haulers servicing at least 56 percent of the City’s households. From these data points, we have derived the following: • Routes: There are an estimated 83.1 refuse routes serving the City, or roughly 16.6 routes per day. There are an estimated 27.7 recycling routes serving the City, or roughly 5.5 per day. These estimates are derived from the assumption that both refuse and recycling trucks service approximately 500 households per day in an open system (compared to 800 to 1,000 households in an exclusive system). • Number of Trucks: The number of trucks that may drive down a residential street on any given day varies widely. The minimum is calculated at 1.8 trucks (Wednesdays and Fridays) and the maximum is calculated to be 10.6 (Thursdays). The average is estimated at 4.4 trucks per day (3.3 refuse trucks and 1.1 recycling trucks). CO2 Carbon Emissions: The international reporting standard for CO2 emissions is in metric tons (mt). Since there are 2,204.62 lbs per metric tonne, a single ton of carbon dioxide equates to 2,204.62 pounds of CO2. Greenhouse gases (GHG) are measured in carbon- dioxide equivalents (CO2e). CO2e calculates the impact of the other GHGs by their Global Warming Potential (GWP) compared to that of the reference gas CO2. While one metric ton (1,000 kilograms) of CO2 has the GWP of one metric ton of CO2e, one metric ton of methane (CH4) has the GWP of 21 metric tons of CO2e. ---PAGE BREAK--- Jessica Schluederberg MSW Consultants, LLC August 11, 2010 Technical Memorandum 2 Refuse trucks serving Arvada generate approximately 1.7 million pounds of carbon dioxide, or 783 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (mtCO2e). Recycling trucks serving Arvada add another 0.4 million pounds of carbon dioxide, or 203 mtCO2e. The total carbon footprint from refuse and recycling collection is 2.2 million pounds of carbon dioxide or 986 mtCO2e. Pavement Impacts: We are still working on the methodology to estimate pavement impacts. However, some relevant data are below. • Current Asphalt Condition: Thirty five percent of Arvada streets were reported to be in poor condition in 2009. Based on typical load equivalency factors, it is known that heavy vehicles cause a majority of pavement structure damage. Roads in poor conditions are even more greatly impacted by heavy trucks. • Current Asphalt Cost: Of the current budget of $2.8 million for road maintenance, $1.2 million is for asphalt repair and maintenance (the rest is for concrete works). The City projects a total cost of $3.9 million for all asphalt and concrete repair. So, current expenditures are not sufficient to maintain roadways to the targeted condition. • Relative Impact of Refuse Trucks: Based on data from 10 other studies, one refuse truck has been found to equate to between 830 and 1,730 passenger cars. One recycling truck has been found to equate to between 263 to 1,374 passenger cars. Our analysis of the data provided by responding haulers, combined with equipment specifications from the same or similar models from vehicle manufacturers, suggests that refuse trucks in Arvada equate to 1,358 passenger cars and recycling trucks equate to 917 passenger cars. Both estimates are roughly in the middle of the range from other studies (some of which are ten years or older). ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Arvada MSW Consultants LBA Associates APPENDIX C DETAILED BENCHMARKING RESULTS ---PAGE BREAK--- MSW Consultants City of Arvada LBA Associates This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- COLLECTION BENCHMARKING ‐ OPEN SYSTEM BOULDER, CO FORT COLLINS, CO WESTPORT, CT Service Area Single‐Family 44,900 total hhs 50,000 total hhs 9,334 total households Multi‐Family 14,406 apartment units, 9,448 condo units Residents can use transfer station drop instead Other Ordinance revised October 2009 Code revised May 2009 Haulers in Service Area WDS, Allied, One Way Waste, Gallegos, Ram Refuse Three ‐ one has 95% of residents Three Seven ‐ town divided into collection areas Recyclables Three refuse plus 2 additional haulers Three Seven ‐ town divided into collection areas Organics Three na na Collection Frequency Refuse Weekly Weekly Not specified Recyclables Every other week Min 2 times/month (same day as refuse) Not specified Organics Every other week na na Collection Vehicles Refuse Not specified Not specified Not specified Recyclables Not specified Not specified Not specified Organics Not specified na na Container Provision Refuse Resident own/rent or hauler Mixed ‐ hauler must label w volume capacity Resident Recyclables Resident own/rent or hauler (hauler must provide Hauler (automated cart required) Resident Organics Resident own/rent or hauler Hauler na Container Type/Size Refuse Base 32 gallons (mixed container type) Carts ‐ base 32 gallons Metal/plastic 30‐gal container, dumpster, etc. Recyclables Mixed 64 or 96 gal carts 18‐gal bins Organics Mixed na na Residential Billing Hauler Rates Quarterly range $49‐$69/32‐gal & $102‐138/96‐ gal (2009$), size split varies between haulers with up to 55% 32 gal carts Ranges widely with average $11/month for weekly collection for single 32‐gal container ~ $50/month for curbside but residents don't have to use (can use transfer station for free) Other Extra charges by all haulers for bulky Extra charge for overflow at $3/bag General Hauler tax $3.50/resident‐month (commercial $0.85/cubic yard) passed to customers na na Licenses $25/registration one time fee $100/vehicle (requires vehicle description, US DOT inspection number, capacity, tare weight; rate setting basis; customer notification) $100 (recycling trucks/roll‐offs), $300‐5000 for refuse trucks based on capacity Fees Paid to City LBA Associates, Inc. Page 1 of 4 Open System ---PAGE BREAK--- COLLECTION BENCHMARKING ‐ OPEN SYSTEM BOULDER, CO FORT COLLINS, CO WESTPORT, CT Hauler Policy License or registration Yes ‐ sales & use tax return/business license Yes Yes ‐ for each vehicle & roll‐off License fees $25/registration one time fee $100/vehicle (requires vehicle description, US DOT inspection number, capacity, tare weight; rate setting basis; customer notification) Refuse vehicles $100‐$500, recycling vehicles $100, roll‐off/trucks $250/$100, $10 decal replacement ‐ must identify services zones License term Annual (refile only ‐ no fee) Annual Annual Insurance No Bodily injury &property damage/occurrence or in aggregate No Safety/vehicle inspections No Vehicle identification with city stickers & US DOT inspections Yes ‐ inspections by Health District & Policy Dept prior to license renewal, also spot checks Container cleaning No No No Limited hours No 7 am ‐ 7 pm No Idling No No No Reporting (what/when) Annual tons Annual tons verified on certified scale at least quarterly, accounts, PAYT outreach material, service areas, rate systems, customer notifications; 3‐yr record retention No but town records weight of refuse tipped at transfer station (get total only not hauler‐specific) Alternative fuels No No No Public education Distribute city‐provided materials at no cost Annual notification or recycling/PAYT options No Services for handicapped No No No Senior discounts Yes (1 hauler) ‐ 10% No No Variable rates 32/64/96 gal; 2nd cost is 100% cost of 1st 2nd cart is 100% cost of 1st No Overflow limits Charge $1‐3/extra container No Require recycling If resident wants ‐ unlimited recyclables, minimum 32‐gal organics; bundled branches 3' by recyclables only from MFUs also at no extra cost If resident wants ‐ from MFUs also (cannot reduce cost if customer doesn't recycle; waiver for lack of space) Yes ‐ haulers may co‐collect (but not mix) refuse & recyclables City audit Any time during business hours City may audit any time No Other E‐waste collection ban Town provides vehicle/roll‐off decals ‐ town divided into zones & can require haulers in service zones if one under serviced, haulers can add zones at any time but cannot withdraw from zone without town approval Penalties Yes Suspension/revocation of license Suspension/revocation of license, fines LBA Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 4 Open System ---PAGE BREAK--- COLLECTION BENCHMARKING ‐ OPEN SYSTEM BOULDER, CO FORT COLLINS, CO WESTPORT, CT Hauler Policy (continued) Other E‐waste collection ban Town provides vehicle/roll‐off decals ‐ town divided into zones & can require haulers in service zones if one under serviced, haulers can add zones at any time but cannot withdraw from zone with out town approval Desired changes Recommend reporting tons & level of service for each trash cart size (as much baseline data as possible), create ombudsman position for haulers (regulator/policy maker roles conflict) Diversion Recyclables Collected Specified by city Specified by city Not specified ‐ most recyclables accepted, batteries, motor oil, anti‐freeze Recyclables Commingling Single‐stream Not specified Not specified ‐ transfer station accepts dual‐ stream materials Organics Collected Specified by city na na Recycling Mandate? No No No Drop Sites Description Western ‐ YW only (free for city residents) Riverside ‐ recyclables only (free) County ‐ recyclables only (free) CHaRM ‐ hard to recycle materials (fees vary) Facilities Designated? No No Refuse Several private LFs Larimer County LF (owned/operated by county) or other permitted LF Town transfer station ($81/ton tip fee for private haulers ‐ $80/ton for others), haulers must pre‐ pay with coupons of have account with town Recyclables Default use of Boulder County MRF (owned/operated by county) ‐ residents must request other facility Approved facility Regional interim processing facility (all revenues returned to facility operations) Organics Permitted facility na na Quantities What year? 2009 2009 2009 Refuse 86,635 tons 159,700 Town transfer station accepts residential refuse (free for residential loads), recyclables/YW (free) , other materials for some fees LBA Associates, Inc. Page 3 of 4 Open System ---PAGE BREAK--- COLLECTION BENCHMARKING ‐ OPEN SYSTEM BOULDER, CO FORT COLLINS, CO WESTPORT, CT Quantities (continued) Recyclables 36,002 tons 75,693 (residential participation 85%‐95%) Organics 11,491 tons na Diversion rate 48% residential, 35% community wide 38% incl 6% source reduction/PAYT assumption 18% NOTES: CY = cubic waste hhs = households HHW = household haz waste YW = yard waste Boulder hauler values cart provision at $1/month rental plus $0.285/month maintenance ‐ same hauler offers every other week/pre‐paid trash residents use) Boulder haulers must also provide recycling to MFU accounts equal to at least 1/2 refuse cart volume Boulder & Fort Collins allow haulers to estimate city tons if routes include out‐of‐city materials Fort Collins has refuse/recycling enclosure ordinance Fort Collins includes confidentiality provision in ordinance LBA Associates, Inc. Page 4 of 4 Open System ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF ARVADA, COLORADO ‐ 2010 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASET BENCHMARKING ‐ SUMMARY TABLE OPEN SUBSCRIPTION SYSTEMS MULTIPLE CONTRACT OR FRANCHISE SYSTEMS EXCLUSIVE HAULER SYSTEMS BOULDER, CO FORT COLLINS, CO WESTPORT, CT ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MD OKLAHOMA CITY, OK PASADENA, CA MODESTO CA LAFAYETTE, CO GAINESVILLE, FL WEST JORDAN, UT 2000 Population 94,700 118,700 26,600 500,000 506,100 133,900 187,200 23,200 110,000 68,300 Service Area 44,900 SFUs, 14,400 apartments, 9,500 condos 50,000 residents 9,300 households 149,000 SFUs & townhomes 175,000 SFUs (few MFUs) 5,000 large MFUs & businesses All generators incl 57,000 SFUs & 14,000 MFUs 5,500 SFUs/small MFUs 26,500 SFUs & MFUs (also city buildings) 23,900 SFUs/MFUs Collection Mechanism Open with 3 haulers Open with 3 haulers Open with 7 haulers 7‐yr contracts with 6 haulers ‐ collection only City hauls part & has 7‐year contracts with 1 hauler ‐ collection plus recyclables processing Annual franchise with 27 haulers ‐ collection, disposal & recyclables processing Evergreen contract with 2 haulers ‐ collection, transfer & recyclables processing Single 5‐year contract ‐ collection, disposal & recyclables processing Single 7‐year contract ‐ collection & organics processing Single 5‐year contract ‐ collection & recyclables processing Materials Collected Refuse, recyclables, organics Refuse & recyclables Refuse & recyclables Refuse, recyclables, yard waste Refuse & recyclables Hauler's discretion Refuse, recyclables, organics Refuse & recyclables Refuse, recyclables & YW Refuse, recyclables & YW Who Provide Containers Resident or hauler Resident or hauler (nauler provide recylcing carts) Resident or hauler Resident (county provides some recyclables containers) City Resident or hauler Hauler Hauler (refuse), city (recyclables) Hauler City Container Type/Size Refuse base 32‐gal, others vary Refuse base 32‐ gal, recyclables 64‐/96‐gal Varies Varies Refuse 40‐/96‐gal carts, recyclables 19‐gal bins Varies Residential 105‐gal carts, commercial dumpsters Refuse 32‐/64‐ /96‐gal refuse, 96‐gal recyclables 18‐/35‐/64‐/96‐ gal refuse, 18‐gal recyclables, YW varies 96‐/300‐gal refuse, 65‐gal recyclables, 96‐ gal YW Residential Billing $20/month for 32‐gal refuse ~ $11/month for 32‐gal refuse ~ $50/month (or transfer for free) $275/year (property tax bill) Base $17.20/month (utility bill) Varies $24/month SFUs $8/month for 32‐gal refuse $19‐gal/month for 35‐gal refuse $13/month for 96‐gal refuse Variable rates Yes Yes No No No No ‐ although comNo Yes Yes No Fees Paid to City/County Licensing fees, hauler trash tax Licensing fees Licensing fees Keep recyclables revenues 50% of recyclables revenues > $25/ton Franchise fee 19.515% of gross receipts Some recyclables revenues All recyclables revenues All recyclables revenues Hauler Payments na na na fuel surcharge, annual CPI increase Annual CPI & fuel adjustment na For SFU collections Annual CPI increase Fuel surcharge adjustment fuel surcharge, annual CPI increase GENERAL LBA Associates, Inc. Page 1 of 3 Summary Table ‐ Final 8/10 ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF ARVADA, COLORADO ‐ 2010 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASET BENCHMARKING ‐ SUMMARY TABLE OPEN SUBSCRIPTION SYSTEMS MULTIPLE CONTRACT OR FRANCHISE SYSTEMS EXCLUSIVE HAULER SYSTEMS BOULDER, CO FORT COLLINS, CO WESTPORT, CT ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MD OKLAHOMA CITY, OK PASADENA, CA MODESTO CA LAFAYETTE, CO GAINESVILLE, FL WEST JORDAN, UT Recyclables Single‐stream Single‐stream Dual‐stream Single‐stream Dual‐stream Not specified Dual‐stream Single‐stream Dual‐stream (Single‐stream) Organics Compostables na na Grass, leaves, brush na Not specified Compostables na Yard waste Yard waste 35% 38% 18% 35% ~ 3% 66% na 27% 40% (residential only) 36% Transfer/Landfill/ WTE Not specified County landfill Town transfer station County landfill and/or private transfer station/landfill specified One of 3 landfill specified Not specified Private WTE specified (haulers use own transfer) Not specified County transfer designated Regional landfill specified MRF County MRF Not specified Regional MRF Private MRF specified Not specified Not specified None specified (haulers use own dirty MRFs) County MRF specified County MRF designated Not specified Compost Not specified na na County facilities specified na Not specified City facility specified na Not specified Regional facility specified Drop Sites 3 1 1 2 ~ 10 Several 3 5 0 Insurance No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Performance Bond No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Safety Inspections No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Reporting Tons Tons, accounts, education, rates No Recyclables tons Collection metrics Tons, facilities used, accounts Tons, education Tons, accidents, complaints Tons, collection metrics Tons, complaints Public Education Yes Yes No No Distribution of city materials Yes Funding No No No HAULER POLICY/CONTRACT COMPONENTS FACILITIES DIVERSION Diversion Rate LBA Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 3 Summary Table ‐ Final 8/10 ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF ARVADA, COLORADO ‐ 2010 MUNICIPAL SOLID WASET BENCHMARKING ‐ SUMMARY TABLE OPEN SUBSCRIPTION SYSTEMS MULTIPLE CONTRACT OR FRANCHISE SYSTEMS EXCLUSIVE HAULER SYSTEMS BOULDER, CO FORT COLLINS, CO WESTPORT, CT ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MD OKLAHOMA CITY, OK PASADENA, CA MODESTO CA LAFAYETTE, CO GAINESVILLE, FL WEST JORDAN, UT Service/Discounts ‐ Disabled/Elderly Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Customer Complaints No No No County City Hauler City Hauler Hauler Hauler ABBREVIATIONS: CPI = consumer price index Gal = gallons MFU = multi‐family unit MRF = materials recovery facility SFU = single‐family unit WTE = waste‐to‐energy YW = yard waste LBA Associates, Inc. Page 3 of 3 Summary Table ‐ Final 8/10 ---PAGE BREAK--- COLLECTION BENCHMARKING ‐ MUTLIPLE CONTRACT SYSTEMS ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MD OKLAHOMA CITY, OK PASADENA, CA MODESTO, CA Service Area Single‐Family 149,787 SFUs, townhomes (not condos or apartments) & few businesses ‐ divided into 15 service areas 175,000 SFUs with limited number of MFUs 0 ‐ city services SFUs, MFUs < 5 units, institutional 57,000 SFUs Multi‐Family 361 small businesses (recycling only) see above 5 or more units ‐ total 5,037 large MFU & non‐ residential/non‐institutional accounts served 14,000 MFUs Other 349 county buildings (recycling only) na Included above are all other non‐residential/non‐ institutional generators All non‐residential generators also Haulers in Service Area Number Six contractors 27 have franchise agreements ‐ 12 primary haulers with permanent accounts, city is franchise hauler (are also non‐permitted haulers not yet enforced), some haul C&D only Two haulers with evergreen contracts Accounts 8,600‐46,900 accounts/hauler (haulers may have multiple service areas within county) Primary haulers have from 1 to ~ 1,700 accounts each One has 61%, other has 39% Key differences None ‐ service consistent throughout county None Collection Frequency Refuse Twice/week incl bulkies Weekly (both city, hauler), bulkies Not specified Residential weekly (incl bulkies, C&D) ‐ commercial 1‐6 times/week Recyclables Weekly incl recyclable bulkies (hard plastic) Weekly, same day as refuse Weekly Residential weekly (incl bulkies, C&D) ‐ commercial 1‐6 times/week Organics Weekly (YW only) Collect with/disposed as refuse Not specified Residential weekly, YW Collection Vehicles Refuse Rear‐load (optional cart tippers) ‐ many areas that can't accommodate larger vehicles Not specified in general ‐ rear‐load required for residents with bags, 20‐CY/single‐axle for rural, pick‐ups for hard to access locations Not specified Not specified Recyclables Rear‐load (optional cart tippers especially county/institutional recycling) Not specified in general, rear‐load required for few residents with bags & pick‐ups for hard to access locations Not specified Not specified Organics Rear‐load Collect with/disposed as refuse Not specified Not specified Container Provision Refuse Resident City Not specified ‐ not city Hauler Recyclables Resident or county City Not specified ‐ not city Hauler Organics Resident City (refuse containers) Not specified ‐ not city Hauler Container Type/Size Refuse Any type except cardboard boxes One or more 40‐ or 96‐gal carts, small number of residents use bags Not specified Residential ‐ 105‐gal carts, commercial ‐ 2‐6 CY dumpsters One contractor in addition to city ‐ city collects refuse from 71,000 urban residents, contractor collects refuse from 91,000 urban/13,000 rural residents & recycling from 160,000 urban residents (curbside recycling not currently available for rural residents) LBA Associates, Inc. Page 1 of 4 Multiple Contracts ---PAGE BREAK--- COLLECTION BENCHMARKING ‐ MUTLIPLE CONTRACT SYSTEMS ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MD OKLAHOMA CITY, OK PASADENA, CA MODESTO, CA Container Type/Size (continued) Recyclables County provides 32‐gal container ‐ residents may provide own (must mark with 18‐gal bins Not specified Residential ‐ 105‐gal carts, commercial ‐ 2‐6 CY dumpsters Organics Usually bags na Not specified Residential ‐ 96‐gal carts Residential Billing Rates $275/year $17.20/month for 1‐2 40‐ or 90‐gal carts or combination, $2.93 for any size additional carts ‐ bulkies > 4 cy $9/CY Set by haulers City bill SFUs only ($24/month) ‐ hauler bills all others ‐ but changing to all city bills soon Method By county on property tax bill By city on utility bill Fees for large generators set by haulers City bills with utility bill Fees Paid to City Amount City keeps all recyclables revenues Hauler pays city 50% of net revenue > $25/ton Franchise fee 19.515% of gross receipts City earns some portion of recyclables revenues Payment frequency na Paid to city Payments to Haulers County calculates payment without invoices ‐ separate pricing for refuse, recyclables, organics with quarterly household account adjustments, fuel surcharge, annual CPI Hauler invoice annual CPI & fuel adjustment, hauler keeps recyclables revenues (revenue share mechanism) na City pays haulers for SFU collections Hauler Policy/Contract Term One‐year contracts with six 1‐year renewals for effective 7‐year contracts (commission cannot obligate future funds) Seven‐year contract (effective July 2009), renewal of previous 7‐year contract Annual (franchise agreement) with up to 3 1‐year renewals Annual ‐ both evergreen contracts (automatically renew unless problems by either party) Scope Collection only Collection of refuse & recyclables, plus recyclables processing/marketing Collection, landfill disposal, recyclables processing Collection, transfer & recyclables processing/marketing Insurance Yes Bodily injury, property damage, worker's compensation Automobile, general liability, worker's compensation ($1M bond, self‐insurance options) Yes Safety/vehicle inspections Annual inspections City/state registration Certificate required from CA Highway Patrol & compliance with CA Air Resource Board emissions standards General compliance with state/federal regulations Vehicle identification Yes No City sticker & hauler identification required Yes Container cleaning No No Yes ‐ cleanliness, leak‐proof Must offer to customers for a fee Limited hours 6 am ‐ 6 pm Yes 7:00 AM 6 am ‐ 6 pm Idling No No No No Reporting (what/when) reports of recycling tons tons, participation/set‐out rate/stops ‐ quarterly personnel/equipment ‐ annual capital ‐ also landfill tickets, fuel, service requests Tons disposed/diverted, facilities used, accounts served & franchise fees Quarterly reports on quantities, educational efforts LBA Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 4 Multiple Contracts ---PAGE BREAK--- COLLECTION BENCHMARKING ‐ MUTLIPLE CONTRACT SYSTEMS ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MD OKLAHOMA CITY, OK PASADENA, CA MODESTO, CA Hauler Policy/Contract (continued) Alternative fuels No No No but new rule‐making in progress No Public education No Hauler supports/coordinates distribution of city information Yes ‐ recycling outreach at least every 6 months Must reimburse city for recycling education Services for handicapped No Yes No Must provided "in‐gate" service at no cost Senior discounts No No No No Variable rates No No No ‐ although commercial generally variable No Overflow limits Yes ‐ 4 containers/collection limit Unlimited overflow if at least 2 refuse carts already filled, bulkies limited to 4 CY/resident without charge No No Require recycling Yes ‐ recyclables/organics collection part of contract Yes ‐ part of contract Yes if requested by customer Yes Customer complaints Handled primarily by county, have 6 inspectors on road regularly Handled initially by city Handled by franchise haulers Handled primarily by city City audit Inspectors conduct on‐road vehicle inspections, county calculates all hauler payments (no specific auditing of accounts) Yes ‐ at any time Yes ‐ at any time Yes ‐ at any time Penalties Warnings, fines, termination Yes Citation program primarily for non‐permitted haulers (1st occurrence $100, 2nd $200, 3rd $500, > 3 $1000) Fines Other Performance bond equal to 50% of annual contract Performance bond equal to 50% of net revenues ($13.7M annual contract) Indemnifies, suspension & termination clauses Desired changes Will require CNG or other next bid, also weekly refuse, pilot for automated routes in some areas of city Would reduce to fewer haulers Provide recycling to schools & public facilities at no cost Diversion Recyclables Collected Typical recyclables incl aseptic, books, hard & film plastics, all labels/lids/caps Specified by city (typical materials) Not specified Fiber/containers Recyclables Commingling Single‐stream Dual‐stream Not specified Dual‐stream Organics Collected Grass, leaves, brush na Not specified Food/yard/paper Recycling Mandate? No No No ‐ however haulers must prove that their customers diverted 60% MSW and 75% C&D (liquidated damages on sliding scale for "shortfall tonnage" from $10‐20/ton & covers penalties to city from AB939), waiver available based on composition No LBA Associates, Inc. Page 3 of 4 Multiple Contracts ---PAGE BREAK--- COLLECTION BENCHMARKING ‐ MUTLIPLE CONTRACT SYSTEMS ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, MD OKLAHOMA CITY, OK PASADENA, CA MODESTO, CA Drop Sites Description Three ‐ all free to users ~ Ten private DOCs for residential/commercial Refuse, recyclables, YW, some C&D/special waste accepted from residents, recyclables only accepted from businesses Materials accepted varies, fees vary Facilities Designated? Yes ‐ if county designates facilities other than that stipulated in contract, will pay extra mileage No ‐ just duly permitted facility, various private & public (not Pasadena) ownership Refuse County landfill & private transfer station/landfill (county pays $34/ton through 2013 contract) Yes ‐ one of 3 landfills depending on residential locations (city pays tip fee through separate contract) Most use landfills owned by county or neighboring city Private transfer station (each hauler has own) & private (non‐hauler) WTE facility Recyclables Private MRF Not specified Varies Private dirty MRF (each hauler has own) Organics County‐owned facilities na Varies City compost facility Quantities What year? Jul 08‐June 09 (148,407 households) 2009 2008 2008 Refuse 129,502 tons 100,828 tons Recyclables 26,390 tons unknown Organics 44,506 tons na unknown Diversion rate 35% (ranges from 25%‐47% depending on service area ‐ nearly 40% 09/10) ~ 3% 66% city‐wide 3.5 pounds/capita‐day against state‐imposed target of 5.0 pounds/capita‐day NOTES: C&D = construction & demolition debris CY = cubic waste hhs = households YW = yard waste Anne Arundel County solid waste program operates as an enterprise fund with a $52M budget Anne Arundel obtains contract haulers through strict Request for Bid process ‐ specific vehicle type, size, number (find their pricing notably lower than neighboring communities that use Request for Proposals and allow haulers to select own equipment) Anne Arundel County expanded its recycling program to include bulkies, which is extremely popular to residents Anne Arundel not looking at PAYT in future (residents provide containers) but do have 50% diversion goal and pressure of new landfill contract in 2013 (expect tip fees to double) Oklahoma City rational for city/one contractor service provision is "volume pricing hauler has economy of scale] and one‐stop problem resolution"; rational for pricing not recycling incentive but to minimize overflows California's AB939 requires cities to divert 60% of solid waste on basis Pasadena used to have 80 haulers ‐ in 2007 closed franchise program to existing haulers (now 27) ‐ even if existing haulers go out of business, will not accept new franchises Pasadena required haulers to provide $10k surety bond when first entered agreement (still in place in future years) Of Pasadena 12 haulers with permanent accounts, city has 996 accounts (19%) and two other haulers have 3,469 accounts (69%) Pasadena's franchise fees ‐ 5.5% go to general fund, rest for solid waste planning Refuse ‐ several by county/haulers (tip fee), recyclables incl buy‐back centers ‐ several by haulers/private entities (tip fee), organics ‐ several by city/haulers/private entities LBA Associates, Inc. Page 4 of 4 Multiple Contracts ---PAGE BREAK--- COLLECTION BENCHMARKING ‐ EXCLUSIVE CONTRACT SYSTEM LAFAYETTE, CO GAINESVILLE, FL WEST JORDAN, UT Service Area Program revised November 2009 Single‐Family 5,500 total hhs SFUs & MFUs up to 7 units (500‐ 1,000 with alley service) 26,541 SFUs and MFUs up to 4 units 23900 SFUs & MFUs < 4 units Multi‐Family see above see above see above Other Excludes any SFUs in HOAs Service to city buildings All city facilities, buildings Contract Hauling Refuse Yes Yes Yes Recyclables Yes Yes Yes Organics No Yard waste Yard waste Other 1 bulky/quarter Bulky if furniture, carpet or appliances (Freon ok) Christmas tree collection for 2 weeks after holiday Collection Frequency Refuse Weekly Weekly (also white goods, bulky) Weekly Recyclables Every other week Weekly Weekly Organics na Weekly ‐ yard waste only Weekly ‐ April thru November only Collection Vehicles Refuse Auto with semi‐auto (tipper) for alleys (not specified) Auto side‐load (not specified) Auto side‐load (not specified ‐ only must accommodate city carts) Recyclables Auto with semi‐auto (tipper) for alleys (not specified) Manual rear‐load (not specified) Auto side‐load (not specified ‐ only must accommodate city carts) Organics na Manual rear‐load (not specified) Auto side‐load (not specified ‐ only must accommodate city carts), roll‐off trucks Container Provision Refuse Hauler Hauler City Recyclables City Hauler City Organics na ‐ city does curbside YW spring, fall leaf drop Residents ‐ 30‐gal Kraft or reusable container (limbs unbound) City provides carts, hauler provides 30‐CY roll‐ offs requested as needed Container Type/Size Refuse 32/64/96 gal cart (approximate split 50%/33%/17%) 18/35/64/96 gal (split 11%/27%/48%/14%) 96 gal cart, some 300 gal containers in approved private lane & city building locations Recyclables 96 gal cart 18‐gal bins 65 gal cart Organics na Varies 96 gal cart, also 30‐CY roll‐offs upon request Residential Billing Rates $22/$40/$60 per quarter incl $1/month for recycling cart (also extra $1/cart‐month for extra refuse carts) $15/$19/$23/$29 per month incl recycling, YW, white goods, bulkies $13/month plus extra $10/month for second refuse cart, extra $5/month for extra recyclables or YW cart LBA Associates, Inc. Page 1 of 4 Exclusive Contract ---PAGE BREAK--- COLLECTION BENCHMARKING ‐ EXCLUSIVE CONTRACT SYSTEM LAFAYETTE, CO GAINESVILLE, FL WEST JORDAN, UT Residential Billing (continued) Method City via utility bill City via utility bill City via utility bill Other Residents must pay regardless of use ‐ non‐ users billed at 64‐gal rate Revenues include residential fees & franchise fees Bulkies One free bulky/quarter Hauler collects bulkies weekly no extra cost Fees Paid to City Amount City keeps all recyclables revenues City keeps all recyclables revenues na Payments to Haulers Rates Resident fees passed directly to hauler (except cart fee) ‐ see above Fees fixed for first 5 yrs except fuel ‐ one time adjustment in 6th year Invoiced (pay ~ 50% for add'l refuse carts, also pay for roll‐off service at $80/pick‐ up Other Hauler has annual CPI increase effective July 1st No CPI ‐ only fuel surcharge (industry multiplier) ‐ pay hauler increase when cost 10% higher than contract, decrease when 10% lower fuel surcharge adjustment based on schedule established in contract, annual CPI increase Specific Contract Requirements Contract term 5 years (effective January 2009) 7 years (effective 2009) 5 years (effective March 2007) Scope Collection, landfill disposal, recyclables processing Collection only Collection of 3 streams plus recyclables processing (not refuse disposal or compost tipping), also dumpster service Insurance Automobile, general comprehensive liability, workers' compensation Automobile, general liability, bodily injury, worker's compensation, umbrella Safety/vehicle inspections No must report accidents No ‐ just require safe operating conditions Safety equipment, inspections required, vehicles must be less than 8 years old Container cleaning No No No Limited hours 7 am ‐ 5 pm 7 am ‐ 9 pm in/near residential areas, M‐Th only 7:00:00 am ‐ 5 pm Idling No Anti‐idling for city vehicles, not haulers No Reporting (what/when) quantities, revenues, accidents, complaints/resolution, account changes, missed collections tons, franchise fees, recycling set‐out rates material tons, delays/damages/complaints/responses Alternative fuels Not specified No ‐ too cost‐prohibitive Not specified but hauler uses Public education No ‐ city does (utility fliers, etc.), hauler provides materials No ‐ city does Not specified but hauler provides some Services for handicapped Door to door service at no extra charge Yes with doctor's note (no extra cost) ‐ back door service available for any at extra rate Yes ‐ approved on case by case basis by city Senior discounts No No No LBA Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 4 Exclusive Contract ---PAGE BREAK--- COLLECTION BENCHMARKING ‐ EXCLUSIVE CONTRACT SYSTEM LAFAYETTE, CO GAINESVILLE, FL WEST JORDAN, UT Specific Contract Requirements (continued) Variable rates Yes ‐ 32/64/96 gal Yes ‐ 2nd cart is 100% cost of 1st No Overflow limits Max 3 96‐gal refuse carts allowed, $3/32 gal bag (pre‐pay sticker sold to city by hauler for $2.70, sold to residents at city hall), refuse lids must close Allowed ‐ residents must use special yellow bag purchased at retailers or city Yes ‐ must be able to close lid on any cart, resident must pay for extra carts Require recycling Yes ‐ part of contract Yes ‐ recyclables/organics collection part of contract Yes ‐ part of contract Customer complaints Hauler handles all except recycling carts (city) Hauler has web‐based system, city encourages direct calls to track complaints Handled by hauler (city receives some complaints) City audit Yes ‐ any time Yes ‐ by outside auditor annually Yes Penalties For specific failures, range from $100‐ 1,500/incident Fees for various non‐compliance issues Probation, payment withholding Other $100k hauler performance bond equals cost of 3 month's service to city) $1M hauler performance bond Desired changes Next contract ‐ include organics, HOAs 5,000 SFUs) & 48‐gal recycling cart for elderly City retain ownership of all containers May look at PAYT in future Diversion Recyclables Collected Specified by city (match County MRF) Specified by city (incl plastics 1‐7) Specified by city (incl aseptics, plastics 1‐7) Recyclables Commingling Single‐stream Dual stream Not specified ‐ single‐stream Organics Collected na Yard waste Yard waste Recycling Mandate? No Not for residential No Drop Sites Description County ‐ recyclables (free) County has 5 rural DOCs ‐ 2 near Gainesville No permanent DOCs Western ‐ yard waste (free) Everything but C&D City provides 30‐CY roll‐offs for YW upon request at no cost CHaRM ‐ hard to recycle materials (fees vary) City residents use for free Regional landfill accepts tires, e‐waste, appliances, YW, some recyclables (fee for most materials except recyclables) Facilities Refuse None designated City is part owner of regional landfill & pays tip fees for collected refuse ($24/ton) Recyclables County MRF designated Not specified but city must approve MRF, haulers pays any tip fees & keeps revenues Designate county‐owned Transfer Station/ HHW/MRF (private operate for MRF) ‐ separate city/county contracts for MRF & landfill (city pays $52/ton TS tip fee to cover LF haul & $42/ton tip fee) LBA Associates, Inc. Page 3 of 4 Exclusive Contract ---PAGE BREAK--- COLLECTION BENCHMARKING ‐ EXCLUSIVE CONTRACT SYSTEM LAFAYETTE, CO GAINESVILLE, FL WEST JORDAN, UT Facilities (continued) Organics na None specified (multiple available) ‐ primary facility is privately owned/operated City is part owner of regional landfill & pays tip fees for collected YW ($12/ton) Quantities What year? 2009 Oct 08‐Sept 09 2008/09 Refuse 4,496 tons 19,501 tons 29,467 tons Recyclables 1,629 tons 4,692 tons 6,021 tons Organics na 8,481 tons (YW & white goods) 10,225 tons Diversion rate 27% 40% residential only 36% NOTES: CY = cubic waste hhs = households HHW = household haz waste YW = yard waste Lafayette received 6 bids ‐ 2 hauler only, 3 with landfills (1 w MRF), 1 w preferential landfill fees ‐ top 2 (Gator & Western) based on price, 96‐gal recycling & PAYT Lafayette found transition to contract system was successful ‐ took 40% of PW Director time (first few months was 100%) & 100% of utility billing clerk initially billing now clerk needs only 3‐5% to verify hauler's billing, download data to town billing system, answer phone calls, etc. Lafayette originally leased/purchased carts from Boulder County so city would have consistent containers/logs regardless of future haulers ‐ carts will be paid for in 7 years Gainesville solid waste program operates as an enterprise fund Gainesville commercial anything non‐residential incl MFUs > 4 units, institutional, etc.) is franchise system (3‐4 haulers total ‐ not limited) pay 10% of gross receipts current obstacle is inability to direct commercial tons (franchise) to public TS Gainesville's four‐day week allows holiday catch‐up to occur on Fridays & dovetails with city's move to four‐day work week to save costs Partially in response to recent Florida legislation requiring 75% landfill diversion by 2020, Gainesville requires commercial generators to recycled any "recoverable" material that reaches 15% of total waste by weight (only soft enforcement to date but effective) ‐ city may decrease this threshold in future LBA Associates, Inc. Page 4 of 4 Exclusive Contract ---PAGE BREAK--- LOCAL COMMUNITIES ‐ GENERAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTORS ONLY COMMERCE CITY EDGEWATER GOLDEN LAKEWOOD LOUISVILLE WESTMINSTER WHEAT RIDGE 2000 Population 21,000 5,400 17,200 144,100 18,900 100,900 32,900 Service Area Single‐family homes & duplexes 1,200 single‐family, multi‐family up to 7 units ("mostly" alley collection) Single‐family, attached homes, townhomes, HOAs able to opt in Single‐family only, HOAs may opt in (space issue for multi‐ family) System (open, contract, public) Exclusive contract (5 years with 2 renewable years) ‐ not first term Exclusive contract 5 years TBD) Exclusive contract takes effect June 2010 (5 years) Open ‐ license only req'd for haulers located in Lakewood (for sales tax) Exclusive contract since 2009 (5 years) Open ‐ license required (11 haulers currently licensed) Open ‐ license required (8 haulers listed) Contractor Waste Management (owns local transfer station/landfill/MFR) TBD Evergreen Disposal Service Open Western Disposal Service (owns transfer in Boulder) Open Open Refuse Collection Weekly Weekly ‐ 32/64/96 gal (assumed 50%/25%/25% split ‐ unverified) 32/64/96 gal (assumed 18%/60%/22% split ‐ unverified) Open 32/64/96 gal with 40%/49%/11% split Open ‐ license required Open Curbside Recycling Every other week (refuse day), single‐ stream Every other week (refuse day), single‐ stream (96 gal) Every other week (refuse day), single‐ stream Open Every other week, single‐stream with 32/64/96 gal carts (19%/24%/57% split) Open ‐ refuse haulers required to offer recycling, minimum list of recyclables established by city Open Curbside Organics na na Two collections/year na Every other week with 32/64/96 gal carts (44%/52%/4% split) na na Drop‐Site Recycling Yes ‐ hauler provides Yes ‐ city provides, YW & HHW accepted at county facility Yes ‐ city provides, YW & HHW accepted at county facility Yes ‐ city provides, YW & HHW accepted at county facility Yes ‐ county accepts recyclables, hauler accepts YW Yes ‐ land owned by city, operator accepts yard waste, YW & HHW accepted at county facility Yes ‐ facilities provided by others, YW & HHW accepted at county facility Other Services Bulkies by appointment City provides X‐mas tree recycling, annual spring/YW clean up Space ordinance for new/remodeled multi‐family, commercial City X‐mas tree/limb mulching, city collects bulkies with hauler, curb HHW at extra cost City provides bulky/spring clean up once/year by appointment, HHW facility in county LBA Associates, Inc. Page 1 of 2 Local Summary Info ---PAGE BREAK--- LOCAL COMMUNITIES ‐ GENERAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTORS ONLY COMMERCE CITY EDGEWATER GOLDEN LAKEWOOD LOUISVILLE WESTMINSTER WHEAT RIDGE Financing Model All services provided at not additional cost to residents (General Fund) City utility bills PAYT incl recycling (free) City utility bills (quarterly), PAYT incl recycling (free) & YW collection at $6/$11/$16 Open City utility bills (weekly ‐ hauler prepares itemized account billing info), PAYT incl recycling (free) & yard waste at $11‐29/month (extra refuse/YW carts $2/month) Open Open Other Residents can opt out, cart ownership reverts to city in 5 yrs, lower rate for "super recyclers" Add'l 96‐gal cart at $8/month, "super recycler" one 32‐cart collection every other week at optional curbside YW for tags for overflow refuse city will purchase carts after 5 yrs, weight‐based recycling incentives program for residents Has Sustainability Committee ‐ have begun talking about implementing ordinance with recycling, PAYT requirements for haulers (probably 1‐2 years out) 46% diversion 6/09‐ 4/10, option for "super recycler" lower cost for 1 refuse bag/month Hauling limited to Monday/Thursday/Fr iday, tree limb & free HHW collection available to residents NOTES: CY = cubic waste hhs = households YW = yard waste All prices rounded to the nearest $1 Edgewater ‐ pre‐2010 program included mix of public/open refuse collection with only private haulers providing some curbside recycling (public service waste $13/month) Golden ‐ pre‐2010 program included open refuse collection with haulers required to provide curbside recycling at "reasonable" (but extra) cost Golden received 5 bids ‐ 3 from haulers with landfills, 2 haulers only Louisville ‐ pre‐2009 program included open collection with no permits/standards/regulations and some curbside recycling at extra cost Louisville received 3 bids ‐ 1 with landfill, 1 with preferential landfill tip fees, 1 hauler only HHW = household hazardous waste TBD = to be determined LBA Associates, Inc. Page 2 of 2 Local Summary Info ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Arvada MSW Consultants LBA Associates APPENDIX D CITY COUNCIL MEETING PRESENTATION ---PAGE BREAK--- MSW Consultants City of Arvada LBA Associates This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 1 RESIDENTIAL WASTE RESIDENTIAL WASTE HAULING ASSESSMENT SERVICES A t 23 2010 P t ti August 23, 2010 Presentation to Arvada City Council KEY PRESENTATION POINTS Arvada’s Existing System … Hauler survey results y … Impact of collection vehicles Benchmark Results from Other Communities … National communities survey … Local communities summary Regulatory Constraints Regulatory Constraints Next Steps Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 2 ARVADA’S EXISTING SOLID WASTE HAULING SYSTEM Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 3 RESEARCH SUMMARY Survey of all permitted haulers providing residential refuse and/or recycling collection in the City refuse and/or recycling collection in the City … Responses received from 7 of 11 – good! … Respondents served 55 percent of households Limited phone calls to HOAs Quantification of vehicle impacts  p … Number of vehicles … Carbon emissions … Pavement impacts Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 3 RESIDENTIAL WASTE GENERATION 53,000 tons of residential refuse annually … 1.29 tons per household … Estimated 15 percent error range Based on residential waste profiles 30 to Based on residential waste profiles, 30 to 45 percent is recyclable paper, bottles, cans and yard waste Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 5 SERVICE LEVELS & TRUCK TYPES Refuse Collection: 1x/week Recycling Collection: Some 1x/week, some every-other-week Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 6 •No separate yard waste collection •Bulk waste is extra ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 4 ROUTING 6 of 7 respondents indicated that Arvada routes overlapped with other jurisdictions Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 7 Refuse delivered to a minimum of four facilities Recyclables delivered to a minimum of four facilities RECYCLING Responding haulers provide recycling to 42 percent of households served Estimated recycling rate of 11.9 percent Nationally some cities Nationally, some cities have achieved greater than 50 percent recycling rates from residential dwellings Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 5 COST OF SERVICE M t i l R t d M thl Billi F Material Reported Rates Billing Frequency Refuse $13.00 - $15.50 per HH Quarterly for HOA contracts) Recycling $3.25 - $5.00 per HH Bulky/Oversize $20 to $25+ per call-in As incurred Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 9 Calls to HOAs validated the reported rates Some haulers reported charging other fees in addition to service charge COLLECTION VEHICLES IN ARVADA Refuse Recycling Total Number of Routes 83.1 27.7 110.8 Routes per Day 16.6 5.5 22.2 Minimum trucks per street per day n/a n/a 2 (Wed & Fri) Maximum trucks per street per day n/a n/a 11 (Thu) per day Average trucks per street per day 3.3 1.1 4.4 Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 6 COLLECTION VEHICLE IMPACTS Refuse Recycling Total Carbon Emissions (CO2) 1 7 million lbs 0 4 million lbs 2 1 million lbs Carbon Emissions (CO2) 1.7 million lbs 0.4 million lbs 2.1 million lbs Carbon Emissions (metric tons of CO2 equivalent) 783 mtCO2e 203 mtCO2e 986 mtCO2e Pavement impact: Passenger car equivalent load per collection truck 1,358 cars 917 cars n/a Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 11 In 2009, 35 percent of City streets reported to be in poor condition $1.2 million budgeted for asphalt and pavement repair CONCLUSIONS ON CURRENT SYSTEM Mishmash of service levels and set-outs Recyclers have to pay more for service Recyclers have to pay more for service … Residential recycling rates are relatively low … No separate yard waste collection Older, higher polluting, heavier trucks on the road … Some streets could have as many as 10 trucks on a given day given day Inefficient routing High cost for lowest service levels Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 7 BENCHMARKING RESULTS Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 13 NATIONAL COMMUNITIES SURVEYED FOR RESIDENTIAL SERVICES Population Number of Haulers OPEN SUBSCRIPTON / HAULER LICENSING SYSTEMS Boulder, CO 94,700 3 Fort Collins, CO 118,700 3 Westport, CT 26,600 7 MULTIPLE HAULER SYSTEMS Anne Arundel County, MD 500,000 6 Okl h Ci OK 06 100 2 ( i i ) Oklahoma City, OK 506,100 2 (city + private) Modesto, CA 187,200 2 SINGLE HAULER SYSTEMS Lafayette, CO 23,200 1 Gainesville, FL 110,000 1 West Jordan, UT 68,300 1 Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 8 Open Subscription/Hauler License Systems  All systems established by city/town code of ordinances & cover residential  Weekly refuse/EOW recyclables (Boulder – also organics)  Code requirements … Boulder & Fort Collins – PAYT … Fort Collins requires haulers to provide automated recycling carts … Data reporting  Residential billing/month – Boulder $20, Fort Collins $11, Westport ~$50  City revenues – license fees, Boulder trash tax  y ,  Diversion … Boulder 35% - PAYT, single-stream recycling, curbside organics … Fort Collins 38% - PAYT, single-stream recycling … Westport 18% - dual-stream recycling Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 15 Multiple Hauler Systems Contracts – Anne Arundel & Oklahoma 7 yrs, Modesto 1 yr evergreen W kl f (A A d l 2 / k) kl l bl Weekly refuse (Anne Arundel 2x/wk) - weekly recyclables + organics (Oklahoma recycle only) Contract requirements … No PAYT … Containers – provided by hauler or city/county … Data reporting City revenues – some portion of recyclables revenues … City revenues some portion of recyclables revenues Billing/month – Anne Arundel $23, Oklahoma $17, Modesto $24 Diversion … Anne Arundel 35% - single-stream recycling + organics … Oklahoma City 3% - dual-stream recycling Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 16 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 9 Single-Hauler Systems  Contracts – 5 to 7 years  Weekly refuse – weekly recyclables (Lafayette EOW) & weekly organics  Weekly refuse weekly recyclables (Lafayette EOW) & weekly organics (Gainesville + West Jordan)  Contract requirements … Lafayette & Gainesville – PAYT … Hauler provides all containers (Lafayette - recycling containers) … Data reporting … City revenues – recyclables revenues  Billing/month Lafayette $8 Gainesville $19 West Jordan $13  Billing/month – Lafayette Gainesville $19, West Jordan $13  Diversion … Lafayette 27% - PAYT, single-stream recycling … Gainesville 40% - PAYT, dual-stream recycling + organics … West Jordan 36% - single-stream recycling + organics Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 17 LOCAL COLORADO COMMUNITIES HAULER SUMMARY Contract Examples Commerce City, Golden, Louisville, Open Subscription Examples Lakewood Wheat Ridge Edgewater  All single-hauler contracts with 5-yr terms  All except Commerce City have PAYT  All include every-other-week, single-stream recycling  Utility bills for billing Lakewood, Wheat Ridge, Westminster  Lakewood & Wheat Ridge – require business registration only  Westminster – hauler licensing requirements (refuse haulers required to offer recycling, recyclables established by city) (Commerce City is generally funded)  None specifically cover HOAs (Golden & Louisville plan for “opting in”) recyclables established by city)  Both Lakewood & Westminster have discussed increasing hauler requirements Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 10 KEY SURVEY OBSERVATIONS Caution when making comparisons! Residential costs increased when – Residential costs increased when … Collection frequency is increased … Curbside organics is provided … Containers are provided by hauler/city Highest cost for service levels in Open Subscription collection systems Diversion increased when – … Recyclables are single-stream … Organics are collected … PAYT is required … Recyclables drop sites – only two communities had no sites Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 19 KEY SURVEY OBSERVATIONS, con’t Open/license-only systems – can include PAYT, data reporting & increased diversion rates Successes due to grass roots support, hauler influence & political will … Commerce City – hasn’t gone far enough … Fort Collins – has tried and failed … Louisville – took multiple tries … Edgewater – moved away from public service to provide more/better services more/better services Many of same haulers operating in Arvada have accommodated policy changes in other CO communities Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 11 Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 21 REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 22 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 12 CRS 30-15-401 (7.5) Residential service – up to 7 units P hibi i f “ l i i ” b Prohibition of “exclusive territory” – can be addressed even in single-hauler scenario City-contracting for hauling services will require 6-month notification & procurement process Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 23 Home rule cities have the power to implement other hauling changes such as licensing policy OTHER REGULATORY ISSUES Proposition 101 – would establish lower limits on local spending & reinstate the limits on local spending & reinstate the Tabor “ratchet” (repeals Referendum C) Amendment 60 - would tax enterprises/ authorities but reduce property taxes Amendment 61 - would reduce the amount of local governments’ borrowing power g g p Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 24 The Colorado Association for Recycling & Legislators have begun discussions about state-wide data collection & hauler licensing . . . ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 13 NEXT STEPS Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 25 NEXT STEPS Task Force/Public Meetings – early September 8th, late Fall Public Survey – early September y y p Hauler Outreach – September, late Fall Options Evaluation – mid-September thru mid- November Phase I Report / Council Presentation – early December Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 26 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Arvada MSW Consultants LBA Associates APPENDIX E FOCUS GROUP MEETING PRESENTATION ---PAGE BREAK--- MSW Consultants City of Arvada LBA Associates This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 1 RESIDENTIAL WASTE HAULING: RESIDENTIAL WASTE HAULING: Arvada’s Existing System & Early Research S t b 8 2010 P t ti September 8, 2010 Presentation to Arvada Citizens Task Force INTRODUCTIONS John Culbertson, Vice President John Culbertson, Vice President Laurie Batchelder Adams, President 2 Waste Hauling Evaluation Project ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 2 OBJECTIVES ¸ Provide a generic overview of the management of wastes and recyclables management of wastes and recyclables ¸ Provide an overview of this project ¸ Describe Arvada’s current waste management system ¸ Discuss alternatives to the current system Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 3 WASTE MANAGEMENT 101 Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 3 WASTE MANAGEMENT HIERARCHY Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 5 RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION ¸ 3 main systems in U.S. … Public sector … Municipality contracts with private hauler(s) … Open system (pick up the phone book and find a hauler if you want one) ¸ Waste Streams … Refuse … Recyclables (bottles, cans, papers) … Yard Waste … Expanded organics … Special wastes Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 4 TRANSFER AND TRANSPORTATION ¸ Transfer Station … Consolidation of any waste stream from … Consolidation of any waste stream from local collection equipment to long-haul transportation … Some removal of recyclable materials Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 7 RECYCLABLES PROCESSING ¸ Material Recovery Facility (“MRF”) … Sorting of recyclable materials … Sorting of recyclable materials into recoverable constituents … Removal of contaminants … Densifying of sorted materials … Marketing of product Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 5 COMPOSTING/ ORGANICS RECOVERY ¸ Compost/processing facility … De-bagging … De bagging … Chipping of clean wood … Grinding, mixing and curing of organic wastes … Bagging of composts … Marketing/sale of product … Land application Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 9 LANDFILL DISPOSAL ¸ Entombment of wastes in a lined landfill … Liner and cap … Collection of “leachate” … Collection/flaring/ recovery of gases emitted during decomposition Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 6 PROJECT OVERVIEW Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 11 ARVADA = “OPEN” SYSTEM ¸ 11 private hauling companies collect solid waste in an open market ¸ Residents have choices – but typically pay more ¸ Services vary between haulers ¸ No regulation by city – no minimum standards or accountability ¸ All haulers collect trash & most collect recyclables but recycling rates are low y g … Haulers aren’t required to offer incentives for recycling … None collect yard/food waste separately ¸ Neighborhoods served overlap – so multiple haulers on same streets each day MSW/LBA Proposal - RFQ# 09-107 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 7 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED ¸ “Open” system with regulation (or hauler licensing) … Requires city policy L t/ ll i t h l i l … Leaves most/all private haulers in place … Establishes minimum thresholds of performance & service ¸ Contract system with multiple haulers serving city residents … Requires city selection of hauler(s) … Allows city to make decisions about materials, frequency, recycling levels, etc. … Requires city to administer multiple contracts but provides control q y p p over collection process including recycling ¸ Contract system with single hauler … Same requirements as above but only one contract hauler Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 13 PROJECT TASKS ¸ Survey of all licensed haulers ¸ Local and national residential collection program ¸ Local and national residential collection program benchmarking ¸ Quantification of current system vehicle and emissions impacts ¸ Customer survey ¸ Focus group meetings ¸ H l ti ¸ Hauler meetings ¸ Analysis of alternatives … Truck traffic, air emissions, local employment, cost to customers, service levels, etc. Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 8 KEY CONCEPTS Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 15 AUTOMATED COLLECTION ¸ Manual collection … 2-3 workers Any container … Any container ¸ Semi-automated collection … 1-2 workers … Automated carts ¸ Fully automated collection … 1 driver … Automated carts Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 16 … Increased efficiency/lower worker injuries ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 9 COLLECTION EFFICIENCY ¸ Exclusive service territories allow a hauler to optimize routes by minimizing drive time and maximizing vehicle capacity 17 ¸ Results … Lower cost per household … Lower air emissions per household … Lower pavement impact per household … Higher productivity per route … Lower system capital investment and employment VARIABLE RATE STRUCTURE (OR PAY-AS-YOU-THROW) ¸ Concept of 1) tying cost of solid waste collection all to trash and 2) setting rate to match amount of trash any resident generates … Cost of trash & recycling would be one fee (no extra charge for recycling) … Those who generate more trash would pay more than those who generate less (through recycling & other means) ¸ Creates a reason for residents to recycle ¸ Creates equitable rates similar to utilities ¸ Gives customers control over costs ¸ Allows unlimited recycling Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 10 Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 19 SUBSCRIPTION VS. ALL-INCLUDED RECYCLING SERVICE ¸ Subscription-based = residents who want to recycle pay extra for the service recycle pay extra for the service ¸ All-Included = every resident is provided with a recycling container and charged for the cost of recycling (whether they choose to recycle or not) ¸ Recycling programs may include B ttl / / … Bottles/cans/paper … Organics - yard waste, food waste & contaminated paper ¸ Recycling may be dual- or single-stream Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 11 2010 HAULER SURVEY Conducted to understand the specific “what” & “how” services are currently provided to Arvada’s residents See handout Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 21 RESEARCH SUMMARY ¸ Survey of all permitted haulers providing residential refuse and/or recycling collection in the City refuse and/or recycling collection in the City … Responses received from 7 of 11 – good! … Respondents served 55 percent of households ¸ Limited phone calls to HOAs ¸ Quantification of vehicle impacts ¸ p … Number of vehicles … Carbon emissions … Relative pavement impact Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 22 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 12 RESIDENTIAL WASTE GENERATION ¸ 53,000 tons of residential refuse annually … 1.29 tons per household … Estimated 15 percent error range ¸ Based on residential waste profiles, 30 to 45 percent is recyclable paper bottles cans and percent is recyclable paper, bottles, cans and yard waste Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 23 SERVICE LEVELS & TRUCK TYPES Refuse Collection: 1x/week Recycling Collection: Some 1x/week, some every-other-week Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 24 •No separate yard waste collection •Bulk waste is extra ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 13 ROUTING ¸ 6 of 7 respondents indicated that Arvada routes overlapped with other jurisdictions Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 25 ¸ Refuse delivered to a minimum of four facilities ¸ Recyclables delivered to a minimum of four facilities RECYCLING ¸ Responding haulers provide recycling to 42 percent of households served ¸ Estimated recycling rate of 11.9 percent ¸ Nationally, some cities have achieved greater than 50 achieved greater than 50 percent recycling rates from residential dwellings Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 26 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 14 COST OF SERVICE M t i l R t d M thl R t Billi F Material Reported Rates Billing Frequency Refuse $13.00 - $15.50 per HH Quarterly for HOA contracts) Recycling $3.25 - $5.00 per HH Bulky/Oversize $20 to $25+ per call-in As incurred Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 27 ¸ Calls to HOAs validated the reported rates ¸ Some haulers reported charging other fees in addition to service charge COLLECTION VEHICLES IN ARVADA Refuse Recycling Total Number of Routes 83.1 27.7 110.8 Routes per Day 16.6 5.5 22.2 Minimum trucks per street per day n/a n/a 2 (Wed & Fri) Maximum trucks per street per day n/a n/a 11 (Thu) per day Average trucks per street per day 3.3 1.1 4.4 Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 28 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 15 COLLECTION VEHICLE IMPACTS Refuse Recycling Total Carbon Emissions (CO2) 1.7 million lbs 0.4 million 2.1 million Carbon Emissions (CO2) 1.7 million lbs 0.4 million lbs 2.1 million lbs Carbon Emissions (metric tons of CO2 equivalent) 783 mtCO2e 203 mtCO2e 986 mtCO2e Pavement impact: Passenger car equivalent load 1,358 cars 917 cars n/a Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 29 ¸ In 2009, 35 percent of City streets reported to be in poor condition ¸ $1.2 million budgeted for asphalt and pavement repair CONCLUSIONS ON CURRENT SYSTEM ¸ Mishmash of service levels and set-outs ¸ Recyclers have to pay more for service ¸ Recyclers have to pay more for service … Residential recycling rates are relatively low … No separate yard waste collection ¸ Older, higher polluting, heavier trucks on the road … Some streets could have as many as 10 trucks on a given day day ¸ Inefficient routing ¸ Costs? See benchmarking results… Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 16 2010 COMPARISON OF OTHER STATE & NATIONAL COLLECTION PROGRAMS Conducted to evaluate the success (or not) that other cities have had with alternatives to the “open” collection system Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 31 OTHER COMMUNITIES SURVEYED Population Number of Haulers OPEN SUBSCRIPTON / HAULER LICENSING SYSTEMS Boulder, CO 94,700 3 Fort Collins, CO 118,700 3 Westport, CT 26,600 7 MULTIPLE HAULER SYSTEMS Anne Arundel County, MD 500,000 6 Oklahoma City, OK 506,100 2 (city + private) Modesto, CA 187,200 2 SINGLE HAULER SYSTEMS Lafayette, CO 23,200 1 Gainesville, FL 110,000 1 West Jordan, UT 68,300 1 Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 32 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 17 Open Subscription/Hauler License Systems ¸ All have both refuse & recyclables collection (Boulder – food/yard waste) ¸ Boulder & Fort Collins both require ¸ Boulder & Fort Collins both require … Single-stream recycling … Variable rates (or PAYT) ¸ Cost to residents each month (lowest rates – can be higher) … Boulder $20 – includes both recycling & food/yard waste … Fort Collins $11 – includes recycling ¸ Di i t (h h l d i t d f l dfill d) ¸ Diversion rates (how much recycled instead of landfilled) … Boulder 35% … Fort Collins 38% Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 33 Multiple Hauler Systems ¸ Anne Arundel, MD - Oklahoma City, OK – Modesto, CA ¸ All have refuse, recyclables & food/yard waste collection (Oklahoma f d/ d ) no food/yard waste) ¸ Anne Arundel & Modesto have single-stream recycling ¸ None have PAYT requirements ¸ Cost to residents each month … Anne Arundel $23 Oklahoma $17 … Oklahoma $17 … Modesto $24 ¸ Diversion (recycled instead of landfilled) … Anne Arundel 35% … Oklahoma City 3% Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 18 Single-Hauler Systems ¸ Lafayette, CO – Gainesville, FL – West Jordan, UT ¸ All have refuse, recyclables & food/yard waste collection (Lafayette – no ¸ y y y food/yard waste) ¸ Lafayette & West Jordan have single-stream recycling ¸ Lafayette & Gainesville require PAYT ¸ Costs to residents each month … Lafayette $8 … Gainesville $19 … West Jordan $13 $ ¸ Diversion (recycling instead of landfilling) … Lafayette 27% … Gainesville 40% … West Jordan 36% Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 35 WHAT ARE THE REST OF ARVADA’S NEIGHBORS DOING? Lakewood, Wheat Ridge, Westminster Commerce City, Golden, Louisville, Edgewater ¸ All have single-hauler contracts ¸ All have single-stream recycling Lakewood, Wheat Ridge, Westminster ¸ Lakewood & Wheat Ridge – “open” system without regulation ¸ Westminster – some hauler licensing requirements y g ¸ All except Commerce City have PAYT ¸ Both Lakewood & Westminster looking at increasing hauler requirements Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 19 SURVEY CONCLUSIONS ¸ Comparisons are tricky ¸ “Open” systems with hauler licensing – can ¸ Open systems with hauler licensing can include PAYT, increased diversion rates, etc. ¸ Residential costs increased when – … Open system … Collection frequency is increased … Curbside food/yard waste collection is added … Containers provided by hauler ¸ Diversion increased when – … Recyclables are single-stream … PAYT is required … Food/yard waste is collected Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 37 NEXT STEPS ¸ Task Force/Public Meetings – early September/late Fall ¸ Public Survey – early September ¸ H l O t h S t b l t F ll ¸ Hauler Outreach – September, late Fall ¸ Options Evaluation – mid-September thru mid-November ¸ Phase I Report / Council Presentation – early December Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 20 QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION Waste Hauling Evaluation Project 39 ---PAGE BREAK--- LBA ASSOCIATES, Inc. September 9, 2010 CITY OF ARVADA WASTE HAULER STUDY TASK FORCE MEETING NOTES Wednesday, September 8, 2010 Information that would improve task force understanding of issues:  Costs for alternatives  Fuel requirements for alternatives  Land available for siting future landfills  What happens to recyclables once collected  Environmental costs to collect, process & manufacture products from recyclables (versus manufacture from virgin materials)  How to educate the public about waste diversion  How long materials last in landfill before breaking down Recently completed hauler, state/national city benchmark & Arvada citizen surveys will be posted at in the near future. Links to sources for the other requested information will also be provided. Input on key concepts of waste hauling alternatives:  "Mandatory" recycling - recycling should be included as part of basic service with trash but don't use the "mandatory" label  Organics collection - this should be optional to basic service, should include yard/food/food-contaminated paper & cornstarch service ware, and may be a seasonal option  Minimum requirements for haulers - safety, alternative fuels, data reporting, etc. are important while others such as collection frequency may take away individual choice  Reducing some haulers' ability to do business in Arvada - this is understandable if haulers cannot minimum requirements in an open system with licensing requirements)  Hauler contracting options - o Some members had an initial preference is to maintain many haulers (open system) so residents have choice but acknowledged that they would weigh this choice against potential cost savings from contract option o Others felt a contract scenario with 2 to 4 haulers may be a reasonable compromise to maintain competition & flexibility but still increase efficiencies and decrease costs o Still others felt the cost savings and reduced infrastructure/environmental benefits associated with a single hauler may be the most advantageous o One suggestion was the development of an alternative that included a single contract hauler but gave residents the choice to use or select another hauler, creating choice for residents that may ultimately lead to a majority of ---PAGE BREAK--- LBA ASSOCIATES, Inc. September 9, 2010 residents using the city contract (similar examples include typical "opt in" by HOAs, Highlands Ranch and Loveland) Evaluation of hauler options for Arvada will be undertaken later this month and results will be shared with the Task Force through late 2010 and early 2011. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Arvada MSW Consultants LBA Associates APPENDIX F PUBLIC SURVEY RESULTS ---PAGE BREAK--- MSW Consultants City of Arvada LBA Associates This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of 3 Random Sample A total of 830 responses were received from the 2,000 randomly selected addresses that received a survey. This is a 41.5% response rate. Results below have an error range of GENERAL BACKGROUND: Please tell us about yourself and the trash and recycling collection services you currently receive. 2. Which of the following services do you currently receive at your home? 99.8% Weekly trash collection 10.9% Weekly recycling collection 18.9% Every-other-week collection 2.4% Other collection (such as large items). 3. Do you set out trash in: 16.3% Bags 63.6% My own cans 20.0% A cart (with wheels) provided by my hauler 4. Do you set out recyclables in (check all that apply): 16.7% Bagged or loose 14.0% A cart (with wheels) provided by my hauler 0.0% My own cans 69.2% Bin(s) provided by my hauler 5. Who is your current hauler? Allied Waste 15.4% Environmental Waste 5.1% Evergreen Disposal 8.0% Metro Disposal 3.2% Pac Man 11.6% Pro Disposal 3.6% Rocky Mountain Waste 16.4% Total Disposal 2.6% Waste Connections 1.7% Waste Management 31.6% Other 0.8% 6. What is your current charge for service? (include both trash and recycling if applicable) Included in HOA 1.6% Less than $9.99 1.4% $10.00 to $14.99 28.8% $15.00 to $19.99 24.7% $20.00 to $24.99 13.7% $25.00 to $29.99 9.6% Greater than $30.00 19.6% 7. Do you live in a neighborhood with a Homeowner's Association (HOA)? 595 No (75.4%) 194 Yes (24.6%) a. Does your HOA contract for refuse and recycling collection services with a private hauler(s)? 147 Yes (74.2% ) 51 No (25.8%) b. Do you use your HOA’s contracted service provider 142 Yes, it is mandatory (98.6%) 2 No, I subscribe to a different hauler ---PAGE BREAK--- Random Sample Page 2 of 3 OPINIONS: Please tell us about your satisfaction with current services. Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 8. The rates I pay for curbside trash are reasonable for the services provided. 53.2% 17.2% 16.0% 8.6% 5.0% 9. The rates I pay for curbside recycling (if any) are reasonable for the services provided. 36.6% 11.3% 32.5% 7.9% 12.0% 11. My hauler is responsive when I have a complaint or a change to my service. 62.3% 9.7% 23.1% 3.2% 1.7% 12. I generate a lot of yard waste (leaves, grass, brush, pruning's) that I throw in the trash. 30.7% 27.9% 14.9% 9.6% 16.9% 13. I generate a lot of food waste and contaminated paper that I throw in the trash. 18.3% 23.6% 21.6% 18.0% 18.5% 14. Trash and recycling trucks traveling down my street cause safety problems and/or are noisy. 18.0% 17.3% 22.8% 11.5% 30.4% FUTURE PROGRAM OPTIONS: The City is evaluating a range of alternative programs for managing trash and recyclables collection. The following questions will help understand your preferences. 15. Trash and recycling trucks damage my street and cause air pollution. 15.2% 17.1% 28.4% 10.7% 28.6% 16. It is important to obtain the lowest fee for curbside trash and recycling service. 65.3% 20.5% 8.1% 3.2% 2.9% 17. I would recycle more if it helped me save money on my trash collection. 51.6% 15.6% 16.0% 4.3% 12.5% 18. I would separate yard and food wastes and use a collection service if it helped me save money on my trash collection. 58.3% 16.0% 13.6% 3.2% 8.8% 19. I support bundling trash and recycling fees together as one charge (instead of charging separately for recycling). 55.4% 11% 15.4% 3.9% 14.4% ---PAGE BREAK--- Random Sample Page 3 of 3 Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 21. I would switch to a new hauler if I could receive the same or better service for a lower price. 68.7% 11.4% 10.8% 2.3% 6.8% 22. The City should require haulers to provide a minimum standard of service to all residents (like kinds of containers, recyclables collected, bulky items collected, etc.). 40.9% 17.3% 17.7% 6.1% 18.15 23. It is okay if some haulers cannot do business in Arvada because they cannot provide a minimum standard of service at a reasonable cost. 46.1% 15.7% 16.2% 5.3% 16.7% 24. The City should make haulers compete to provide better service at a lower cost, even if this keeps some haulers from doing business in Arvada. 42.1% 16.8% 17.9% 5.4% 17.8% 25. The City should just not be involved at all in trash and recycling collection, even if this means that the best service/lowest costs aren't available to residents. 23.4% 8.4% 21.6% 16.6% 30.0% 26. I support mandatory separation and collection for yard and food waste. 24.4% 13.0% 23.9% 10.4% 28.2% 27. I would recycle more if I could just put all my recyclables in one container. 45.6% 17.3% 20.1% 3.6% 13.6% 28. I support recyclables collection every other week if my containers could hold all my recyclables and I can save money. 59.4% 12.6% 13.9% 2.0% 12.1% 29. My street would look better if there weren’t trash cans and bags on the curb more than one day per week. 41.6% 11.55% 27.9% 4.2% 14.9% ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 1 City of Arvada Residential Hauling Study C U S T O M E R S U R V E Y R E S U L T S D R A F T 1 N O V E M B E R 2 4 , 2 0 1 0 Survey Overview Random sample of 2,000 single family addresses selected by City y y Responses to this random sample are representative of the City as a whole Survey instrument mailed to each household Business Reply envelope for transmitting hand-written responses Option to respond via the web 830 responses received 41.5% response rate (double the expected response rate!) Results exhibit 3% error rate ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 2 Voluntary Respondents All Arvada residents had the opportunity to respond to the survey on a voluntary basis y y 515 voluntary responses were received Primary drivers of voluntary responses Link from City website open to all Directed to survey by City staff during routine inquiry Some licensed haulers sent letters to their customers encouraging them to respond to the survey These voluntary responses cannot be considered representative of any particular group of City residents Citizens’ Task Force Survey City has formed a Citizens’ Task Force to participate in the Residential Hauling Study in the Residential Hauling Study Membership composed of individuals who have actively contacted the City about hauling and recycling issue in Arvada 10 participants in total Task Force members were asked to take the survey as well ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 3 Interpreting Results Throughout the presentation of results, the Random Sample responses are highlighted Sample responses are highlighted These data are highly representative of the City as a whole and can be relied upon by City decision makers Current Services 99.8% receive weekly trash collection 29 8% opt to pay for recycling collection 29.8% opt to pay for recycling collection 10.9% receive weekly recycling 18.9% receive every-other-week recycling 2.4% reported receiving other collection services (bulky wastes) ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 4 Current Set-outs Trash Recyclables Hauler Bins Hauler Cart My Own Cans Bags 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% Trash Current Hauler Allied, 15.4% Waste Other, 0.8% Environmental Waste, 5.1% Evergreen Disposal, 8.0% Metro, 3.2% Waste Connections, 1.7% Management, 31.6% , Pac Man, 11.6% Pro Disposal, 3.6% Rocky Mountain, 16.4% Total Disposal, 2.6% ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 5 Current Rates Paid for Service 30% 35% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 0% 5% < $9.99 $10.00 to $14.99 $15.00 to $19.99 $20.00 to $24.99 $25.00 to $29.99 Homeowners’ Associations Do you live in a neighborhood with an HOA? No 75% Yes 25% HOA? No 26% Does your HOA contract for refuse and recycling collection services with a private hauler? N Do you use your HOA's contracted service provider? Yes 74% Yes 99% No 1% ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 6 Opinions About Current Services Rates are reasonable for trash services provided. Rates are reasonable for curbside recycling services provided. Trash & recycling trucks cause f t & i bl Trash & recycling trucks damage streets & cause air pollution. Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% safety & noise problems. My hauler is responsive to complaints & requests for changes in service. Opinion About Current Waste Generation I generate a lot of yard waste (leaves grass brush pruning’s) (leaves, grass, brush, pruning s) that I throw into the trash. I generate a lot of food waste and contaminated paper that I throw in the trash. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 7 Opinions About Service/Cost Balance It is important to obtain the lowest fee for curbside trash and li i recycling service. I would recycle more if it helped me save on my trash collection. I would separate yard and food wastes to save money on my trash collection. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% I support bundling trash and recycling fees together as one charge. Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree Opinions About Service/Cost (continued) I support mandatory separation and collection for yard and food waste. Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Di I would recycle more if I could just put all my recyclables in one container. I support recyclables collection EOW if containers hold all recyclables & I save money. Disagree 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% My street would look better if the trash cans were only on the curb once a week. ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/16/2010 8 Opinions About Regulation of Haulers The City should require haulers to provide a minimum standard of service to residents. It’s okay if some haulers can’t work in Arvada because they cannot provide a minimum standard of service. The City should make haulers compete, even if this keeps some from being able to work in Arvada. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% The City should not be involved at all in trash and recycling collection. Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree Conclusions General satisfaction with current services and costs Not as clearly satisfied about current recycling fees y y g Customers appear satisfied with their current haulers Divided on the importance of trash and recycling truck emissions, noise, pavement and safety impacts Broad support for changes to the system that Save money on current services Increase recycling service for same or lower cost Agreement that it is reasonable for the City to Set minimum standards for collection services Create competition to obtain lower rates for services provided ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Arvada MSW Consultants LBA Associates APPENDIX G SUPPORTING DATA FOR OPTIONS EVALUATIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- MSW Consultants City of Arvada LBA Associates This page intentionally left blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Arvada G-1 MSW Consultants LBA Associates APPENDIX G – SUPPORTING DATA FOR OPTIONS EVALUATION This appendix contains the range of specific data assumptions used in the analysis of option in Section 6 of the report. Table G-1 2010 City of Denver Labor Costs Title Starting Salary Top Out Salary Automated Equipment Operator $32,500 $42,400 Rear/Semi-Auotmated Equipment Operator $31,000 $40,500 Utility Worker (Refuse/Recycle Helper) $28,400 $37,100 Operations Supervisor (Collections) $46,300 $60,500 Provided by Denver Solid Waste Management. 2009 labor rates escalated by Table G-2 2010 Estimated Labor Costs Title Salary Benefits @ 35% Total Salary & Benefits Rearload Refuse Driver $39,520 $13,832 $53,352 Rearload Refuse Helper $34,320 $12,012 $46,332 Automated Refuse Driver $44,720 $15,652 $60,372 Sideload Recycle Driver $39,520 $13,832 $53,352 Automated Recycle Driver $44,720 $15,652 $60,372 Rearload Yard Waste Driver $26,600 $9,310 $35,910 Rearload Yard Waste Helper $23,100 $8,085 $31,185 Table G-3 Estimated Vehicle Costs Equipment Type/Service Capital Cost Truck Depreciation Annual Fuel Cost Annual Maintenance Cost Annual Tire Cost Total Rearloader/Refuse $190,000 $17,000 $16,380 $16,000 $4,580 $243,960 Automated/Refuse and Recycle $250,000 $38,333 $19,110 $28,000 $4,580 $340,023 Sideload/Recycle $160,000 $17,500 $16,380 $12,000 $4,580 $210,460 Rearloader/Yard Waste $190,000 $17,000 $9,800 $10,667 $3,053 $230,520 ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX G MSW Consultants G-2 City of Arvada LBA Associates Table G-3 Availability of Disposal/Processing Facilities Facility Type Total Drive Minutes[1] Landfills 6 32 Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) 3 32 Composting (A1 Organics) 1 51 Drive times are estimated as one way. Table G-4 Disposal and Processing Tip Fees Facility Type Tip Fee Low Tip Fee High Tip Fee Average Landfills $20.00 $30.00 $25.00 Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Organics Composting $30.00 $40.00 $35.00 Landfill tip fees are based on quotes provided for December 2010 by the Tower Road, Foothills, DADS and Denver North Landfills as well as the Englewood and All Recycling North transfer stations. These prices may be higher than existing haulers obtain as long-term customers with preferential pricing. It is expected that lower prices would be obtained in either of the contract options when facilities price services reflecting the longer term contract commitment. Compost facility tip fees are approximate estimates only and will vary depending on composition and quantity (Permagreen Organics in Arvada currently charges $25 to $35 per pick-up truck for yard waste only).