HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 07/08/2008 - TRASH SERVICES STUDY UPDATE DATE: July 8, 2008 WORK SESSION ITEM
STAFF: Ann Turnquist FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Trash Services Study Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of the work session is to provide an update to the Council regarding the status of the
Trash Services Study and seek any necessary direction from Council prior to the beginning of the
public outreach process.
Staff recommends that the City seek public input on two major service system options and several
additional regulatory or program options. They include Districted Trash Service and an Open
Competition System with Additional Regulation of Haulers,as well as some other program options.
While community feedback is being sought,staff will also meet with the current residential haulers
to seek their comments and feedback. After completion of the community involvement process,
staff plans to present the findings of the report, any additional options which might be considered
and the feedback from the community at the September 23 work session.
At the September 23 work session staff will be seeking direction from City Council about which
options to pursue. During the fall, staff will more fully develop any options Council wishes to
pursue, including developing preliminary implementation plans and cost estimates.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Staff will seek input from the community and stakeholders over the next 60 days regarding
options presented in the Trash Service Study, including Districted Trash Service and an
Open Competition System with Additional Regulation of Haulers. Is Council comfortable
with these options being presented for public feedback?
2. Does Council have any further feedback or direction regarding this process?
BACKGROUND
In January, staff began work on the Trash Services Study. On January 8,City Council and staff met
in work session to review the proposed project scope and timeline for the Trash Services Study
which will be completed during 2008.
Council gave staff direction to proceed with the Study, including a range of options from the null
alternative to districted trash service. Council generally agreed that it did not wish to pursue a
July 8, 2008 Page 2
municipally owned trash utility. Council also asked staff to develop alternatives that made
improvements to the system without negatively impacting existing haulers, where possible.
In March, the City contracted with R3 Consulting Group, a firm which has significant experience
in public policy issues related to trash services. With experience in dealing with both waste hauling
arrangements and recycling programs, it brings expertise and a willingness to help develop a range
of alternatives that will be uniquely suited to the City's needs. The consultant was presented with
a problem statement that includes:
"In what ways can the City reduce the impacts of trash collection services in Fort
Collins, addressing issues of the cost of street wear, air quality, neighborhood
aesthetics, noise, and other neighborhood impacts? Are there ways that the City
might also improve diversion rates for recyclables?"
R3 Consulting Group has completed its report, including an analysis of Fort Collins' current open
competitive trash system and a large number of alternative solutions which address the problem
statement offered by the City.
KEY STUDY FINDINGS
The Trash Services Study provides key data that will be helpful in City Council's decision making
process for this project. It also highlights several changes in the community that have reduced the
impact of trash services on the community since the last trash study was completed in 1998. For
example, in 1998, six private haulers offered residential trash service in Fort Collins. This number
of trash haulers meant that as many as 12 trucks (one trash, one recycling for each hauler)could be
making up to 24 passes on residential streets each week(one in each direction.) Though that number
was unlikely on every street, the previous study conservatively estimated that the cost to the City
of maintaining residential streets damaged by trash trucks was approximately $500,000 per year
(1998 dollars.) In 2008, through consolidation and haulers leaving the market, three haulers are
now providing residential service, decreasing the impacts significantly.
In addition, since 1998, the City has worked with homeowners associations (HOAs)to encourage
them to voluntarily consolidate their neighborhoods to use one hauler. Many neighborhoods,
especially new subdivisions, have opted to effectively district themselves. These actions have
brought the benefits of districting to many neighborhoods and to the City.
A final change to the community since the 1998 study is a change in the construction standards for
residential streets. A higher construction standard has made newer streets more sturdy and resistant
to the damage caused by heavy vehicles. The result for the trash study is that less damage is caused
by the trucks that use these new streets.
Impact of Trash Vehicles
The Trash Services Study quantifies the impact of trash vehicles on residential streets. Based on
conservative assumptions about the number of trucks passing over these streets, the consultant
estimates that one-half of the trash vehicle trips on residential streets could be eliminated by
changing from an open competition trash system to a districted trash system. They project this
would save the City approximately$168,000 per year on street maintenance costs. This represents
July 8, 2008 Page 3
a 6-7% decrease in the cost of maintaining residential streets ($2.5 million per year.) A detailed
analysis of these calculations begins on page 2-1 of the Study.
Another impact of trash trucks that can be quantified is the impact of trash vehicles on air quality.
The consultant projects that 140 tons of annual CO'emissions could be avoided by changing from
an open competition trash system to a districted trash system. Additional improvements in air
quality could be achieved through other regulatory measures regarding the emission systems on
trash vehicles. Total reductions can be calculated for specific alternatives if haulers report more
specific data regarding their existing fleet of vehicles. This data is not a part of the Trash Services
Study. A detailed discussion of air quality issues begins on page 2-7 of the Study.
Several issues related to the existing open competitive trash system are noted in this project's
problem statement. Some of the problems created by the system are quantifiable, while others are
matters of perception for members of the community. Staff had previously proposed to Council that
a survey might be conducted about these issues, but Council directed staff to instead consider a
survey of potential solutions later in the process. Therefore, problems such as the impact of trash
truck noise and neighborhood aesthetics are not quantified in the Trash Services Study.
The Study also finds that,though the City has made significant progress in diversion rates through
a variety of recycling programs,a number of actions will be required in order to meet City Council's
goal of 50%diversion by 2010. The Study finds that the residential trash haulers currently control
approximately 7% of community's waste stream through the curbside recycling program.
Improving this diversion, in conjunction with the other recycling programs (commercial, drop-off,
recycling companies,scrap,organics,etc.)will be a key to moving Fort Collins from its current total
community diversion rate of approximately 27%toward 50%.
Action Alternatives
The Trash Services Study provides alternatives for the City's consideration which address both
collection system alternatives(open competitive,districted,regulated open market)and approaches
to improving division rates for recyclables. Some alternatives would address both issues. The
Study's main recommendation is to pursue a districted trash collection model,though it also offers
a number of alternatives which could significantly improve environmental, aesthetic and diversion
issues without pursuing a pure or traditional districted model.
Staff proposes to present two main alternatives(plus the"null alternative")for consideration by the
community and then Council. Staff plans to conduct an outreach effort in the community during
July and August with the goal of collecting feedback prior to a September 23 Council work session.
Details of all alternative solutions are included in the R3 Consulting Trash Services Study. Below
is a brief summary of two key options that staff proposes to seek community comment on during
the next 60 days:
Key Option A: Districted Trash Service (detailed discussion in Trash Services Study, p. 4-4)
• City awards trash service contracts for 3-5 districts through competitive process.
• Districts awarded for a multi-year period.
July 8, 2008 Page 4
• All single-family residences required to participate in the districted system, using the fine
assigned to their neighborhood/district.
• City could set additional conditions for haulers, including requirements such as:
o Haulers required to ensure minimum diversion rates for recyclables
o Haulers continue to be required to offer single-stream curbside recycling for
residential customers
o Standards set for trash vehicles such as age, appearance and emissions standards
• May require City billing for residential trash service.
Pros Cons
• Fewer vehicle miles traveled (VMTs) o Eliminates choice of hauler for
by trash vehicles, therefore, lower residential customers
pavement management cost.
• Greater diversion of recyclable 0 Change in collection day for many
materials and progress toward 50% customers
diversion goal
• Improved air quality by reduced 0 Some haulers may not be successful
VMTs. in securing contracted district(s)
• Lower trash service rates due to 0 Increased City administrative costs
increased efficiency of routes
• Haulers can make business decisions
based on long-term account
projections
• Improved neighborhood aesthetics by
consolidating to one day of trash
(single day with trash cans on street)
• Fewer trucks in neighborhoods
increases safety
Key Option B: Open Competitive System with Additional Regulation of Haulers (detailed
discussion in Trash Services Study, p. 4-1)
• Continue Open Competitive service model which is currently in place in the community.
• Through the City's licensing requirements for residential trash haulers, increase the
regulations which all licensed haulers must meet in order to provide residential service in
the community.
• Pay-as-you-throw and recycling service requirements would continue (with or without
modification, as appropriate.)
July 8, 2008 Page 5
• Higher licensing requirements could include any or all of the following:
o Limit the age of trash vehicles to eliminate the oldest, most polluting vehicles from
hauler fleets
o Require that all vehicles meet 2010 EPA Emission standards on an agreed upon
schedule
o Set standards for minimum diversion rates for residential accounts
o Set standards for vehicle appearance
o Set standards for noise reduction vehicle and container specifications
o Require management of overloaded vehicles
o Set standards for axles on new vehicles that are purchased by haulers
o Other requirements that address specific aesthetic or environmental concerns
Pros Cons
• Maintains choice of hauler for o No reduction in number of trucks on
residential customers residential streets and associated costs
for street maintenance
Greater diversion of recyclable 0 No change in trash service rates
materials and progress toward 50%
diversion goal with minimum
diversion standards
• Improved air quality by requiring o No improvement in VMTs for trash
higher environmental standards for vehicles
trash trucks
• No change in collection day for many o Increased City administrative costs
customers
• Haulers can make business decisions
based on expectations that City is not
about to change the competitive
environment
Haulers can maintain their market
share of residential customers
July 8, 2008 Page 6
POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL ACTIONS WITH ANY OPTION
Program Change or Legislative Action See Discussion
Trash Services
Study Page #
1. Provide universal City-owned single stream roll-out recycling p. 2-13
containers p. 3-12
2. Consider enhancements to the Pay-as-You-Throw(PAYT) p. 3-5; 3-7; and
Ordinance to increase diversion and reduce waste. 3-12
3. Require haulers to provide significantly greater data regarding p. 3-1
diversion rates, number of accounts and levels of service for
those accounts, calculated diversion rates based on weight of
materials, and other details regarding waste and recycling
collections.
4. Create a single City contracted recycling collection program for p. 4-2
all residential customers; eliminate the requirement that trash
haulers provide residential recycling service; charge a flat
recycling/environmental fee for all residential customers which
would fund the program.
5. Add a requirement that haulers offer yard waste service along p. 3-12
with recycling, with cost built into all rates.
6. Create and enforce standards and practices which ensure that p. 2-7
trash vehicles are not overloaded.
While the community outreach process is taking place, staff and the City Attorney's Office will
work together to evaluate implementation issues and identify any legal or other concerns presented
by the alternatives suggested by R3 Consulting. Staff will report these concerns to City Council at
the next work session in September.
Community Feedback
In the April 2008 Utility Bill Insert, staff included a note about the upcoming Trash Services Study
and invited residents to comment via the City's Web Site (www.fcgov.com/trashstudy/.)
Community members have provided feedback on the general concept of making changes to the
community's trash service model. Following the July 8, 2008 work session, staff will begin to
publicize the alternatives under consideration and seek more specific feedback about the options.
Staff will continue to use the web site, community meetings, forums, and meetings with interested
City boards to share information and seek community feedback about the Trash Services Study as
it progresses. The League of Women Voters has scheduled a forum in early August to address this
issue as well. Staff will provide more details to Council about this program as it becomes available.
July 8, 2008 Page 7
Upcoming Milestones
July 1 Consultant's Study and Recommendations completed.
July 8 Council Update at work session
Mid-July Work with stakeholders to review options and recommendations
July/August Community outreach and involvement
September 23 Council work session regarding options to develop further; direction re:
options to draft for implementation
Fall Implementation planning, working with stakeholders, drafting detailed
options for Council consideration
Winter Council formal decision making
Spring/Summer Implementation, if appropriate
2009
ATTACHMENTS
1. Trash Services Study, R3 Consulting Group, Inc., July 1, 2008.
Trash Services Study
Final Report
. y • - . may _ • ; •. �.
Presented to
City of • Collins , •
City of Fort Collins
July 1 , 2008
Z5Consulting Group , Inc . R3 Consulting Group , Inc
4811 Chippendale Drive , Suite 708
Resources Respect Responsibility Sacramento , CA 95841
Tel . 916-576-0306
Fax: 916-331 -9600
www. r3cgi . com
July 1 , 2008
Ms . Ann Turnquist
Council Policy Manager
City of Fort Collins
300 La Porte Avenue
Fort Collins , CA 80522-0580
Subject : — Trash Services Study Final Report
Dear Ms . Turnquist :
R3 Consulting Group Inc . ( R3 ) was engaged by the City of Fort Collins ( City) to complete a Trash
Services Study to determine opportunities to reduce the impacts of trash collection services in the
City and increase diversion . The attached Final Report presents our findings and
recommendations .
We wish to thank you and City staff for their assistance during our review , notably Susie Gordon ,
Senior Environmental Planner, and Rick Richter, Pavement Management Program Manager. We
also wish to thank the management of Gallegos Sanitation , RAM Waste Systems and Waste
Management who met with us at the beginning of the engagement and provided valuable
information in support of our review .
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City. Please do not hesitate to call me or
Richard Tagore- Erwin at (916 ) 576-0306 , or e- mail us at wschoen (@r3cgi . com or
rterwin _ r3cgi . com if you have any questions or comments regarding our Final Report.
Yours truly,
R3 CONSULTING GROUP INC .
YV
William H . Schoen
Principal
Cc . Richard Tagore- Erwin
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EX - 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EX-1
Project Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EXA
Summary Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EX-2
Review of Trash Collection Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EX-2
Review of Diversion Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EX-5
Review of Collection System Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EX-9
Section 1 - Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 1
Project Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 1
Project Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 -1
Report Organization , , . , , . mm , , mm , , m1m2
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 -2
Current Collection System Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 -2
History of Trash Districting Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 -3
Diversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 -5
Section 2 - Review of Trash Collection Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -1
Street Maintenance Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 1
Background / Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m . . . m . . . m . . . m . . . . . . . . . . . . m . . . m . . . m . . 2- 1
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
Options / Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
Air Quality / Vehicle Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
Background / Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 11
Options / Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 12
Neighborhood Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -12
Background / Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 14
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 13
Options / Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 14
Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 14
Background / Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 14
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 14
Options / Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 17
Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 17
Background / Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 17
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 19
Options / Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2- 19
TOC - i
Table of Contents Other Vehicle Street Maintenance Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -20
Impact of Overloaded Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 -21
Background / Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21
Section 3 = Review of Diversion Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 1
Evaluation of Diversion Rate Metrics and
Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 -1
Background / Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3- 1
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3- 1
Options / Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
Evaluation of Current Policies , Practices and
Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 -4
Background / Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
Options / Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
Evaluation of Current Recycling Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 -7
Background / Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
Options / Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3- 11
Coordinating Diversion and Sustainability
Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 13
Section 4 - Review of Collection System
Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 1
Collection System Structure Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 1
Background / Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M . 4- 1
Alternatives Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 1
Analysis of Collection System Structure
Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
Current Open Competition System without any
Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
Open Competition System with Increased
Licensing Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
Districted Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
City-Wide Contract for Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
Survey of Collection System Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
State of Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6
OtherAreas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9
Market Impacts of Districted Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9
[Z5 New Haulers Bidding on Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9
Local Haulers Discontinuing Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4- 10
TOC - ii
Table of Contents
Tables
1 Residential Trash & Recycling Vehicle Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
2 Comparison of Open Competition and Districted
Collection Trash and Recycling Vehicle Impacts . . . . . . . . . 2-6
3 Comparison of Trash and Other Vehicle
Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20
4 Licensed Hauler Disposal and Diversion Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
5 Trash Services Survey Summary Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7
6 Recycling Services Survey Summary Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
Figures
1 Pavement Life Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2 Emissions Standards Time Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
Appendices
A Best Management Practices - Sample Contract
Language
B Trash Truck Safety Devices
C Comparative Trash Truck Load Factors
D Draft Strategic Plan for 50 % Diversion :
Preliminary Staff Recommendations
E Waste Composition Data
F Residential Collection System Structure
Options — Comparative Matrix
G Colorado Municipal League and Colorado
Recycles - Survey Results
[Z5
TOC - iii
Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank.
[Z5
TOC - iv
Executive
Executive Summary Summary
Background
The City' s residential collection system is an open competition
system in which licensed haulers compete for accounts . While the
haulers are regulated through the City' s licensing process ,
Municipal Code requirements and applicable ordinances ( i . e . ,
Pay-As-You -Throw and Recycling Ordinances ) , that regulation is
limited . There are few regulatory requirements specific to
minimizing the impact of trash collection services with respect to
air quality , noise , and the cost of street wear or improving
neighborhood aesthetics and safety . In addition , while haulers
must offer recycling services to residents and businesses , there
are no associated diversion levels that the haulers must achieve
as a condition of their license .
Project Objectives
The overall project objective was to prepare a comprehensive
study that answers the following problem statement/question :
In what ways can the City reduce the impacts of trash
collection services in Fort Collins, addressing issues of
street wear, air quality, neighborhood aesthetics, noise
and other neighborhood impacts ?'
Are there ways the City might also improve diversion
rates for recyclables ?
A major related question is whether there would be a net benefit
from switching from the current open competition residential
collection system to some form of districted collection system . As
specified in the City' s Request for Proposals ( RFP ) , the review of
options to address the above project objectives , as well as
potential changes to the existing open competition system , was to
include consideration of:
Alternatives that make improvements to the system
without harming existing haulers.
The City' s RFP specifically mentioned safety as an additional issue to
address although it was not referenced in the problem statement/ IZ3
question .
EX - 1
Executive Summary Findings
Summary Our major findings are presented below followed by our suggested
priority options/recommendations , which are listed in Bold Italics .
As appropriate , we recommend that the City work with the
licensed haulers and seek their input related to the various
options/recommendations presented in this report . The objective
of any such collaboration would be to implement meaningful
improvements to the City' s trash collection system that support the
City' s objectives without being unnecessarily burdensome on the
haulers .
Review of Trash Collection Impacts
Street Maintenance Impacts
• Trash trucks are typically the heaviest vehicles regularly
operating on residential ( local ) streets and are a major
contributor to wear and tear on those streets .
• The most significant step the City can take to minimize
trash truck street maintenance impacts is to reduce the
number of trash truck miles traveled on the City's streets .
• In general , all other factors the same , moving from an open
competition collection system to a districted collection
system (or a City-wide contract for services ) would be
expected to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled
with a corresponding decrease in the associated street
maintenance impacts .
• Potential residential street maintenance savings
associated with a districted collection system are estimated
to be on the order of +/- $ 170 , 000 annually .
• Requiring that haulers not load vehicles in excess of
manufacturer recommendations and legal load weights
would also help to control street maintenance impacts .
Priority Options/Recommendations
✓ Require that haulers not load vehicles in excess
of manufacturer's recommendations or
limitations imposed by state or local vehicle
weight restrictions. Require haulers to
implement an ongoing monitoring program to
assure compliance with that requirement.
✓ Require 2 fixed rear axles on all new vehicles.
Require full time use of pusher or tag axle on
any existing vehicles with a single fixed rear
axle.
[Z5 ✓ Implement a Districted Collection System or
City- Wide Contract for Services to reduce the
EX - 2
Executive
number of residential trash truck miles traveled Summary
m m a r
and the associated street maintenance impacts, y
Air Quality / Vehicle Emissions
• It is estimated that residential trash trucks operating in the
City generated as much as 200 to 300 tons per year of
carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) emissions , in addition to nitrogen
oxide and particulates .
• The most significant step the City can take over the short
and medium term planning period to reduce vehicle
emissions is to require haulers to comply with the EPA
2010 diesel engine emission standards . With those
standards , emissions from diesel engines will be a fraction
of what they were less than 10 years ago .
• Natural gas and electric hybrid vehicles , bio-diesel fuel ,
operate-at- idle technology , automatic engine shut-off
systems and other options may also provide additional
emission benefits and should be considered , as applicable .
• Implementing districted collection (or a City-wide contract
for services ) would reduce the number of trash collection
vehicle miles travelled and the associated vehicle
emissions .
• Potential CO2 reductions associated with a districted
collection system are estimated to be on the order of +/-
140 tons annually .
Priority Options/Recommendations
✓ Work with the haulers to develop a schedule for
fleet compliance with the 2010 EPA Emission
Standards.
✓ Implement a Districted Collection System or
City- Wide Contract for Services to reduce the
number of residential trash truck miles traveled
and the associated vehicle emissions :
Require EPA 2010 Emission Standard
compliant vehicles as a condition of the
award of districts.
Neighborhood Aesthetics
• Establishing license standards related to vehicle
appearance (e . g . , washing , and painting ) , maintenance
(e . g . , control of fluid leaks ) and operational standards (e . g . ,
controlling litter) would support improve neighborhood
aesthetics .
• Implementing a districted collection system (or a City-wide
contract for services ) would reduce the number of trash [Z5
EX - 3
Executive trucks traveling on residential streets . It would also reduce
S u m m a r the number of days per week collection service occurs in a
Yneighborhood and allow for standardizing trash containers ,
all of which would improve neighborhood aesthetics .
Priority Options/Recommendations
✓ Establish vehicle cleaning and painting
requirements as a condition of the required
license.
✓ Implement districted collection to reduce the
number of trash trucks on residential streets,
the number of days per week collection service
occurs and allow for standardizing trash
containers:
Roll-out City-owned standardized
wheeled trash containers with City logo.
Noise
• As a first step in its efforts to reduce noise associated with
trash collection services , the City should establish noise
standards for all haulers as a condition of their license and
require the haulers to verify compliance with those standards .
• Converting to natural gas vehicles and using operate-at- idle
technology would significantly reduce vehicle engine noise .
Without the necessary fueling infrastructure , however, natural
gas vehicles are not a viable option in the City at this time .
Operate-at-idle systems , however, are generally standard on
all new side- loading vehicles and existing side-loaders can be
retrofitted with the technology . Manufacturers are also starting
to test this technology on rear- and front- loading vehicles .
• " Smart" back- up alarms that sense the level of ambient noise
and adjust their volume accordingly can be used to reduce
back-up alarm noise .
• Placing time limits on commercial collection activities near
residential neighborhoods can help address noise related to
commercial collection activities .
• Using plastic lids or plastic dumpsters , treating containers , lid
supports and truck forks with sound -deadening materials and
encouraging " best practices" training for drivers would reduce
noise from commercial collection activities .
• Implementing districted collection (or a City-wide contract for
services ) would reduce the noise produced by trash trucks in
transit from point-to- point due to fewer vehicles operating on
residential streets . The noise associated with collection
operations would also be limited to a single day and time in
each neighborhood . The noise at the point of collection ( i . e . ,
EX - 4
Executive
emptying containers ) would not be reduced , however, since Summary
there would be no change in the number of pickups . y
Priority Options/Recommendations
✓ Establish noise standards that are to be met by
all haulers as a condition of their license and
require haulers to verify and report on
compliance with those standards.
✓ Implement districted collection to reduce the
number of trash trucks on a typical residential
street and vehicle miles traveled.
Safety
• Requiring haulers not to overload vehicles and assuring
that all vehicles are specified with certain safety equipment
(e . g . , ABS breaking systems , rear and side strobe lights ,
reverse motion sensors , exception based video recorders )
would support improved safety .
• The City should consider working with the haulers to
sponsor a "Slow Down to Get Around" safety campaign .
This industry sponsored campaign is designed to
encourage the public to use the same amount of caution
when passing a trash truck as they do when passing a
school bus , emergency vehicle or road construction crew .
• Implementing a districted collection system (or a City-wide
contract for services ) would reduce trash truck miles
traveled and support improved safety .
Priority Options/Recommendations
✓ Require that haulers not load vehicles in excess
of manufacturer's recommendations or
limitations imposed by state or local vehicle
weight restrictions. Require haulers to
implement an ongoing monitoring program to
assure compliance with that requirement.
✓ Implement a Districted Collection System or
City- Wide Contract for Services to minimize
residential trash truck miles traveled.
Review of Diversion Issues
Diversion Metrics
• There is a limitation to the City' s ability to accurately
calculate its diversion rate . The Larimer County Landfill ,
and other neighboring landfills used by the licensed
haulers do not have , or do not routinely use scales for
weighing incoming loads . Tonnage is estimated by [Z5
EX - 5
Executive multiplying the volume of the collection vehicle by density
Summary factors established by each hauler, which vary significantly
(from 500 to 900 pounds per cubic yard ) .
• The lack of scales at the landfills places a ( potentially high )
degree of uncertainty on the City' s current estimated
disposal data and the associated calculated diversion rate .
• While the licensed haulers are required to provide certain
data , that data is not sufficient to provide the City with the
ability to effectively evaluate individual hauler or program
performance . If the City is to make effective progress
towards its established diversion goal additional
information needs to be provided by the haulers and that
data needs to be accurate .
Priority Options/Recommendations
✓ Track and report the following diversion rates :
Overall for the City;
By waste stream (residential,
commercial, roll-ofo ;
By program type (e. g. , residential
curbside recycling program, yard waste
program) ;
By account, by program (e. g. , the
average pounds per week of curbside
recyclables collected per solid waste
account) ; and
By individual licensed hauler by program
and waste stream as a percentage of the
material that they collect (control) .
In support of the above recommendations we further
recommend that the licensed haulers be required to:2
Report the number of residential solid waste
accounts by service level (e. g., 30-, 60-1 90-
gallon)3;
Report the number of commercial accounts by
service level and collection frequency for both
solid waste and recyclables (service
volume%ollection frequency matrix) ;
2 The recommended information should be readily available or easily
calculated based on available data .
3 The City may also wish to obtain the total number of HOA and HOA
contract accounts and specific HOAs serviced to enable it to more
effectively analyze trash truck street maintenance impacts . This
[Z3 information may also be necessary if the City decides to implement a
Districted Collection System or City-Wide Contract for Services .
EX - 6
Executive
Provide calculated curbside recycling and yard Summary
m m a r
waste diversion rates on a pounds per y
residential solid waste account per week basis;
Provide calculated diversion rates for the
material they control for each waste stream as
part of their regular reporting requirements;
Provide an accounting of total reported
disposal and diverted volume/tonnage by
individual facility (e. g. , Larimer County Landfill,
North Weld Landfill, Earth Cycle etc.);
Include historical data for each required data
set as part of the regular reporting process so
that trends can be tracked and are clear to all
parties;
✓ Review reporting forms to confirm that haulers
are providing required information in a
complete and accurate form. Revise / reinforce
required reporting requirements if necessary;
and
✓ Require that haulers provide complete and
accurate data as a condition of their license.
Provide the City with the right to audit required
information to verify its accuracy and/or require
the haulers to have their data audited by an
approved independent third party on periodic
basis to verify its accuracy.
Current Policies Practices and Programs
• The City has in place a number of key policy and program
components in support of its efforts to increase diversion
including the City' s Pay-As-You -Throw Ordinance and
Recycling Ordinance .
• While the City' s Recycling Ordinance requires haulers to
provide recycling service to residential and commercial
customers it lacks a mechanism to hold the haulers
accountable for their performance related to diversion .
• The City needs to more actively regulate diversion
activities , and more specifically , hauler diversion
performance (e . g . , establish minimum required hauler
diversion requirements ) if it is to significantly increase
diversion .
Priority Options/Recommendations
✓ Establish minimum diversion requirements for
the licensed haulers for the material streams
that they control, either as part of the Recycling
EX - 7
Executive Ordinance or as a condition of the license or a
S u m m a r district agreement (e. g., Require residential
Yhaulers to divert a minimum average of 10
pounds of curbside recyclables per solid waste
account per week).
✓ Amend the City's residential PAYT Ordinance
so that "rate design " further enhances waste
reduction efforts per the Strategic Plan Phase 1
staff recommendation.
✓ Roll-out any changes to the residential PAYT
program in conjunction with comprehensive
strategy to increase residential recycling (e. g.,
universal roll-out of City-owned single stream
curbside recycling containers, universal roll-out
of residential yard waste (organics) program
with City-owned yard waste containers) .
Current Recycling Efforts
• The City has set a diversion goal of 50 % by 2010 .
• Significant additional diversion potential exists within the
City' s residential , commercial and roll -off waste streams .
• The licensed haulers are currently diverting approximately
7 % of the material that they collect/control ( 14 % of the
residential waste stream , 2 % of the commercial waste
stream and 7 % of the uncompacted roll -off waste stream ) .4
• If the City is to significantly increase diversion , the licensed
haulers will need to significantly increase the amount of
material they divert and/or other diversion options will need
to be developed ( e . g . , a City-wide contract for residential
recycling services ; post-collection residential and
commercial mixed waste processing capacity ; construction
& demolition debris processing capacity ) .
Priority Options/Recommendations
✓ Establish minimum curbside recycling program
diversion requirements for the haulers (e. g. , 10
pounds per solid waste account per week) as a
condition of the residential license.
✓ Provide universal roll-out of City owned single
stream recycling containers.
4 These diversion rates are based on the licensed haulers reported
disposal and diversion data for January — June 2007 . The City' s
calculated diversion rate of 27 % is based on the haulers ' reported
diversion as well as diversion associated with various other sources
including recycling companies , the City' s Climate Wise partners ,
[Z3 recycling by large businesses not accounted for elsewhere and projected
source reduction .
EX - 8
Executive
✓ Revise residential PAYT rate structure per the Summary
m m a r
Strategic Plan Phase 1 staff recommendation, y
Provide recycling and yard waste services as
part of a "bundled" residential rate (Le. , no
additional cost for recycling and yard waste
service) .
Review of Collection System Structures
Our review of Collection System Structures considered the
following options :
• Current Open Competition System without any Changes ;
• Open Competition System with Increased Licensing
Requirements ;
• Districted Collection System ; and
• City-Wide Contract for Services .
Current Open Competition System without any Changes
• This option would maintain the current open competition
system as regulated without any changes .
• Existing hauler interests would be protected and customers
would maintain their ability to select their hauler .
• This option would do nothing to reduce trash collection
service impacts or increase diversion .
Open Competition System with Increased Licensing Requirements
• This option would maintain the current open competition
system , but add additional licensing requirements in
support of the City' s objectives to reduce trash collection
impacts and increase diversion .
• Existing hauler interests would be protected and customers
would maintain their ability to select their hauler .
• This option would not provide the reduced impacts that
would result from the reduction in residential trash truck
miles traveled associated with a districted collection
system (or City-wide contract for services ) .
Districted Collection System
• This option would break the City up into districts with the
City awarding separate contracts for each district to one
hauler. To effectively district it will be necessary for the City
to first determine which accounts are to be included (e . g . ,
HOAs ) and then obtain accurate account information by
geographic region of the City .
EX - 9
Executive This option would provide for reducing overall residential
Summary trash collection impacts largely in relationship to the
reduction in the number of vehicle miles traveled .
• This option would provide the opportunity to take other
actions to decrease residential trash collection impacts that
are not possible or may not be as easily implemented
under an open competition system (e . g . , requiring certain
types of vehicle or vehicle specifications as a condition of a
district agreement) .
• This option would provide a more effective structure for
establishing minimum diversion requirements and/or
incentives for haulers to increase diversion than an open
competition system .
• The option may provide for lower rates due to greater
collection efficiencies and a "guaranteed " customer base .
• Under this option the City may be required to take over
customer billing to allow it to establish a uniform City-wide
rate structure .
• This option would not protect the existing haulers market
share since they would be required to compete for the right
to provide service within a district with no guarantee that
they would be awarded a district.
• This option would not provide residents with the ability to
select their hauler.
• This option would increase City administrative
requirements .
City-Wide Contract for Services
• This option is similar to the districted collection system
option above ; however, rather than break the City up into
districts a City-wide contract would be awarded to a single
hauler.
• The benefits of this system are similar to the districted
collection system . In addition , this option has several
benefits over a districted collection system :
o It may generate increased competition by the
haulers given the larger associated market share ;
o Administrative requirements are less since they are
specific to one hauler rather than multiple haulers ;
o It is not necessary for the City to control the billing
process to provide a uniform City-wide rate ; and
o It offers the potential for the lowest possible rates
[Z5 due to economies of scale .
EX - 10
Executive
• This option could be incorporated into a hybrid approach Summary
with either a districted or an open competition system for y
trash collection services and a City-wide contract for
residential recycling services . In the case of an open
competition system for trash collection , however, this
would result in different collection days for trash and
recycling for many customers . We are not aware of any
jurisdictions that have such a system .
Alternatively the City could maintain the open competition
system but specify the day that service is to be provided in
the various areas of the City . This would provide for same
day trash and recycling service , but require the haulers to
reconfigure their collection routes to be consistent with the
specified service days .
• This option would not protect the existing haulers market
share since they would be required to compete for the right
to provide service within a district with no guarantee that
they would be awarded a district .
• This option would not provide residents with the ability to
select their hauler.
• This option would increase City administrative
requirements .
Priority Options/Recommendations
✓ Implement a Districted Collection System or
City- Wide Contract for Services to reduce the
overall impacts associated with residential
trash collection services and support a more
effective system for increasing diversion from
the residential waste stream.
This recommendation is based entirely on the
consideration of the best collection system structure to
meet the City' s stated project objectives of:
• Reducing trash collection service impacts ; and
• Increasing diversion .
The recommendation does not consider other factors ,
including the impact on haulers and the associated loss of
the ability of customers to choose their hauler .
IZ3
EX - 11
Executive This page intentionally left blank.
Summary
[Z5
EX - 12
Introduction Section 1
Project Objectives Introduction
The overall project objective was to prepare a comprehensive
study that answers the following problem statement/question :
In what ways can the City reduce the impacts of trash
collection services in Fort Collins, addressing issues of
street wear, air quality, neighborhood aesthetics, noise
and other neighborhood impacts ?
Are there ways the City might also improve diversion
rates for recyclables ?
A major related question is whether there would be a net benefit
from switching from the current open competition residential
collection system to some form of districted collection . As
specified in the City' s Request for Proposals ( RFP ) , the review of
options to address the above project objectives , as well as
potential changes to the existing open competition system , was to
include consideration of:
Alternatives that make improvements to the system
without harming existing haulers.
Project Focus
The primary focus of this study was on the City' s residential
collection system and a review of options to reduce residential
trash collection service impacts and increase residential diversion .
Many of the issues reviewed and options considered , however,
also apply to the commercial and roll -off collection systems . In
fact , due to the nature of the commercial collection system (e . g . ,
10 licensed haulers ) , the benefits resulting from certain options
may be greater within the commercial collection system than the
residential collection system . As such , if the City is to realize the
full potential of options to reduce trash collection service impacts
and increase diversion it cannot limit itself to the residential sector .
This includes consideration of potential changes to the collection
system structure and/or regulatory requirements associated with
the commercial and roll -off collection systems as well as the
residential collection system . With that said , we believe that an
initial focus on the residential collection system represents a
reasonable starting point .
As appropriate , we recommend that the City work with the
licensed haulers and seek their input related to the various
options/recommendations presented in this report . The objective
of any such collaboration would be to implement meaningful
improvements to the City' s trash collection system that support the
Section 1 - 1
Introduction City' s objectives without being unnecessarily burdensome on the
haulers .
Report Organization
The report is organized into the following three major sections and
key subsections :
Review of Trash Collection Impacts :
• Street Maintenance Impacts ;
• Air Quality / Vehicle Emissions ;
• Neighborhood Aesthetics ;
• Noise ; and
• Safety .
Review of Diversion Issues :
• Evaluation of Diversion Rate Metrics and Measurements ;
• Evaluation of Current Policies , Practices and Programs ;
and
• Evaluation of Current Recycling Efforts .
Collection System Structure Alternatives :
• Current Open Competition System without any Changes ;
• Open Competition System with Increased Licensing
Requirements ;
• Districted Collection System ; and
• City-Wide Contract for Services .
For both the Review of Trash Collection Impacts and Review of
Diversion Issues , background information is provided followed by
an analysis of related issues , as applicable . Various
options/recommendations are then presented for the City' s
consideration . Those options/recommendations listed in Bold
Italics represent our suggested priority items .
Background
Current Collection System Structure
Residential , commercial and roll -off solid waste collection services
in the City are provided through an open competition system in
which licensed haulers compete for accounts throughout the City .
All licenses are valid from the date of issuance and expire on the
31 st of December of each year.
Section 1 - 2
Introduction
Article XV of the City' s Municipal Code establishes certain license
requirements including :
• Proof of general comprehensive liability/automobile
insurance of not less than $500 , 000 ;
• Recordkeeping and report requirements ;
• The provision of curbside recycling services to residential
customers and the availability of recycling services to
multi-family and commercial customers ;
• The provision of volume-based rates ; and
• Various performance standards including hours of
operation and vehicle identification requirements .
There are currently three ( 3 ) licensed haulers providing residential
collection services in the City:
• Gallegos Sanitation , Inc . ( Gallegos/Dicks ) ;
• Ram Waste Systems , Inc . ( Ram ) ; and
• Waste Management , Inc . (WMI ) .
Under the current open competition system multiple haulers may
provide service on the same street on the same or different days
of the week. This creates the potential for six different trucks using
any neighborhood street in one week ( 3 trash and 3 recycling
vehicles )5 . The number of trash trucks traveling on residential
streets has been limited in certain neighborhoods where
homeowners associations ( HOAs ) have contracted with a single
hauler or where residents have voluntarily agreed to use one
hauler. As a result , the City has been able to achieve some of the
benefits of a formal trash districting system without implementing
a districting system . Most new HOAs voluntarily make one of
these two arrangements with trash haulers .
History of Trash Districting Policy
In 1995 , the City Council adopted a policy to reduce the average
number of trash trucks per week on residential streets from six to
two on at least 80 % - 85% of the residential streets . The purpose
of this policy was intended to respond to complaints from citizens
about trash truck traffic and to reduce street maintenance impacts .
Subsequently , the City engaged a consulting firm to perform an
initial districting feasibility analysis and another firm to identify the
costs associated with implementing districting . In 1998 , the City
engaged Hilton , Farnkopf & Hobson to perform a more detailed
feasibility analysis of creating a districted trash collection system
for residential customers . The purpose of that analysis was to
5 Gallegos Sanitation also operates a yard waste route that provides
service to a limited number of residential accounts .
Section 1 - 3
Introduction provide a greater understanding of what would happen if the City
were to award residential trash hauling contracts for specified
geographic districts in the City . That analysis found various
benefits to the City and customers from districting , including :
• Districting would result in a reduction to the number of
trash and recycling trucks traveling on City streets and this
reduced number of trucks would reasonably be expected
to also reduce traffic congestion , noise and air pollution
and street maintenance costs ;
• A districted system comprised of five or less districts would
likely result in savings as much as $500 , 000 annually
( based on 1998 study conditions ) from the current open
competition system ' s current residential rates ; and
• Other benefits such as improved aesthetics , comparability
of services and rates and reduced City liability may accrue
from districting .
However, the analysis also identified certain disadvantages to the
City , customers and collection companies :
• Districting requires increased attention by the City Council
and staff both during the implementation stage and
thereafter;
• Customers lose their ability to choose their collector;
• Districting may result in changes that will adversely affect
customers such as transitioning to a different hauler,
adjusting to new services and even increased rates in
some particular cases ; and
• It is unlikely that all current haulers will continue to provide
residential service in the City and those remaining may be
operating at lower levels of profitability .
The outcome of the 1998-99 Council discussion of the trash
districting concept was direction from Council to postpone the
districting concept and to instead fund new waste reduction
projects and to promote voluntary trash consolidation in
neighborhoods . Concerns that lead Council to defer any action on
trash districting included the impact of their decision on local trash
haulers who might not be awarded a district in a competitive
process , and citizen concerns about the possibility of reduced
quality of service and the lack of choice in their trash hauler.
Since the Council 3s 1999 direction to defer the possible
implementation of a districted trash system , a number of changes
have occurred including :
• The number of licensed residential haulers has decreased
[Z5 from six in 1998 to three in 2008 ;
Section 1 - 4
Introduction
• HOAs have been urged to contract with a single hauler or
encourage all residents to voluntarily agree to use one
hauler. Most new HOAs voluntarily make one of these two
arrangements with trash haulers ; and
• In recent years , funding for street maintenance has been
subject to budget reductions . A 2007 study of the
Pavement Management Program found that the current
street system funding levels are inadequate to maintain the
streets to their adopted standards .
Diversion
The City of Fort Collins is currently diverting approximately 27
percent of its waste stream from disposal and has established a
goal of diverting 50 percent by the year 2010 . Findings of the 2005
Garbage and Recycling Survey conducted by Corona Research
confirmed that residents are eager to recycle , with 98 percent of
respondents expressing the belief that recycling is "good for the
City of Fort Collins" . They are supportive of new measures to
divert waste and willing to pay some part of the costs that may be
incurred to develop new programs .
[Z5
Section 1 - 5
Introduction This page intentionally left blank.
[Z5
Section 1 - 6
Review of Trash Collection Impacts Section 2
This section provides an analysis of the following trash collection Review of Trash
service impacts :
Street Maintenance Impacts ; Collection
• Air Quality / Vehicle Emissions ; Impacts
• Neighborhood Aesthetics ;
• Noise ; and
• Safety .
Street Maintenance Impacts
Background / Overview
Road maintenance is designed to address deterioration . While
roads will eventually deteriorate if simply left unused , most
deterioration is associated with use ; and the damage caused by
vehicles goes up much more than proportionately with size and
weight . Hence , costs associated with maintenance are greater for
trips made by heavy vehicles . A single large truck can cause as
much damage as thousands of automobiles , and the configuration
of the truck can affect the amount of damage as well . If the load is
spread over more axles , so there is less weight on each wheel ,
then the damage is reduced . 6
Trash trucks are typically the heaviest vehicles regularly operating
on residential ( local ) streets . As a result , they are a major
contributor to the wear and tear on those streets . While trash
trucks also contribute to the wear and tear on collector and arterial
streets , those streets are designed to a higher standard and
experience significantly more vehicle trips and large truck trips
than local streets . As such , the relative impact of a trash truck on
collector and arterial streets is significantly less than that on local
streets . Commercial solid waste collection in the City , however, is
provided through an open competition license system , with
approximately 10 licensed commercial haulers currently operating
in the City . This large number of commercial haulers increases the
impact of trash trucks on the City' s collector and arterial streets
compared to a system in which there are fewer licensed haulers or
a single service provider (e . g . , a municipal or contracted system ) .
The pavement condition index ( PCI ) is a common unit of measure
used to rate the condition of pavements . The PCI rates pavements
on a score of 0 to 100 with a higher value indicating better
pavement condition . Rapid deterioration of pavement typically
6 A. Rufolo , Cost-Based Road Taxation , Cascade Policy Institute ,
November 1995 .
Section 2 - 1
Review of Trash occurs after roadways drop to a PCI score of 60 or lower. Studies
Collection have shown that every dollar spent performing preventative
maintenance on a roadway with a PCI of 70 or higher saves $4 in
Impacts future costs — it would otherwise cost about $5 to rehabilitate the
same roadway once rapid deterioration occurs' (as shown in
Figure 1 ) . Ensuring adequate funding for an effective pavement
management system is , therefore , critical to achieving a cost
effective pavement management system .
Figure 1
Good Roads Cost Less to Maintain
Pavement Condition Index Goal 70+
100 $ 1 for
Excellent / renovation here
85 �(
Good will cost
70 $4 to $5
Pavement Fair here
Condition 55 1
Index Poor fJ
40
Very Poor
0
5 years 10 years 15 years 20 years 25 years
The goal of a pavement management program is to bring all roads
up to a "good " to "excellent" condition where they can be
maintained most cost effectively . The strategy often
recommended is referred to as the " Best First Approach " , which
concentrates spending initially on routine and preventative
maintenance on those roads that are currently in "fair" to "good "
condition . This extends the useful life of those roads , preventing
rapid deterioration . Spending money on routine maintenance now
prevents additional spending in the future on more expensive
repairs .
The City' s goal is to maintain a PCI of greater than 70 which falls
within the "Good " range . The City has been able to maintain its
streets at or near this target which has allowed it to provide cost
effective maintenance . The 2008 and 2009 approved budgets ,
however, do not provide sufficient funding to maintain streets at
their current level . The 2008 budget is more than $ 1 . 0 million less
than that required to maintain streets at their current level while
the 2009 budget is more than $2 . 5 million less than required . If
J . Gerbracht, Bay Area Roads Close to "Tipping Point", Metropolitan
[Z5 Transportation Commission , Street Talk , March 2006 .
Section 2 - 2
funding continues to be less than that required to maintain the Review of Trash
streets at their current condition the quality of the City' s streets will Collection
decrease over time and maintenance costs will increase . This is a
negative cycle and one that should be avoided if at all possible . Impacts
Analysis
Open Competition vs . Districted Collection Impacts
In general , all other factors the same , moving from an open
competition collection system to a districted collection system
would be expected to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled
with a corresponding decrease in the associated street
maintenance impacts . However, when considering trash truck
street maintenance impacts and the potential effect of districted
collection on those impacts it is important to consider that :
• Both the size of the collection vehicles and the average
number of passes each vehicle makes down each
residential street segment may change under a districted
system . As a result the impact per vehicle may be more or
less than under the current open competition system .
• At least one hauler provides both residential and
commercial service with the same vehicle . If that hauler
was not awarded a residential district its vehicles would
continue to impact those residential streets it uses to
access commercial accounts , assuming it continued to
provide commercial service .
• If a hauler(s ) not currently providing residential or
commercial service in the City was awarded a district
under a competitive procurement , that hauler might also
compete for commercial accounts with a resulting increase
in commercial trash truck impacts .
Our approach to projecting trash truck street maintenance impacts
is based on common principles of pavement design and vehicle
loading . The basic premise is that all vehicles , including trash
trucks , exert an impact on streets that can be quantified . That
impact or "vehicle loading " can be expressed as an Equivalent
Single Axle Load ( ESAL ) , which is a function of the vehicle' s
weight and the distribution of that weight over the vehicles axles .
By projecting the number and type of vehicles (e . g . , cars , trucks ,
trash trucks ) that travel on a street over its design life , and the
average ESAL associated with each vehicle type , the total ESALs
that street will experience can be calculated . The relative impact
associated with a specific type of vehicle (e . g . , trash trucks ) can
then be determined based on the percentage of the total ESALs
attributed to that vehicle type .
For purposes of our analysis , we requested information on the
types of residential trash and recycling trucks used by the licensed [Z5
haulers and their average load weights . We also obtained
Section 2 - 3
Review of Trash manufacturer axle weight profiles for the same or similar truck
types and reviewed traffic count data and street maintenance
Collection
expense and funding information provided by the City . Information
Impacts provided was used to develop residential trash and recycling truck
axle weight profiles . This information was then used to project the
impacts of trash and recycling trucks on the City's residential
streets , which was expressed as percentage of the total vehicle
impacts experienced by those streets .
In developing the projections it is important to note that the
calculated impacts are based in part on various assumptions
including :
• The average number of vehicle trips per residential street;
• The percentage of total vehicle trips made by trucks other
than trash and recycling trucks and the average axle
weights of those vehicles ; and
• The average number of trash and recycling truck trips per
week on a typical residential street .
Reasonable changes to those assumptions can have a material
impact on the calculated impacts .
Note: One hauler uses vehicles with a single fixed rear axle and
a pusher axles. The impact of those vehicles increases
significantly if the pusher axle is not used during collection
operations. Also pusher and tag axles generally have two
tires per axle rather than four, which also increases the
impacts relative to a fixed rear axle with four tires.
Table 1 below provides a comparison of the calculated combined
trash and recycling truck impacts on residential streets as a
percentage of the total vehicle impacts . The table presents the
results for various assumptions regarding the average number of
passes trash and recycling trucks make each week on residential
streets .
The table also provides :
• The allocation of the annual cost required to maintain the
residential streets at their current condition to trash and
recycling trucks in proportion to their calculated vehicle
impacts ; and
• The projected annual carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) emissions
associated with each scenario .
s A dead axle , also called lazy axle , is not part of the drive train but is
instead free- rotating . Many trucks and trailers use dead axles for strictly
load-bearing purposes . A dead axle located immediately in front of a
drive axle is called a pusher axle . A tag axle is a dead axle situated
behind a drive axle (Source : Wikipedia ) .
Section 2 - 4
Review of Trash
Collection
Impacts
Table 1
RESIDENTIAL TRASH & RECYCLING VEHICLE IMPACTS
Allocated Portion of
Average Vehicle Passes / Week / Total Annual Cost Annual CO2 Emissions (1 )
Residential Street to Maintain
Percent of Total
Vehicle Impacts Residential Streets
Trash Recycling at Current
Truck Passes Truck Passes Total Passes Condition Pounds Tons
($2008 )
6 . 0 6 . 0 12 . 0 20 . 1 % $ 5061000 8133000 407
5 . 0 5 . 0 10 . 0 17 . 1 % $ 432 , 000 6789000 339
4 . 0 4 . 0 8 . 0 14 . 0 % $ 354 , 000 5429000 271
3 . 0 3 . 0 6 . 0 10 . 8 % $ 272 , 000 407 , 000 204
2 . 0 2 . 0 4 . 0 7 . 4 % $ 186 , 000 271 , 000 136
1 . 0 1 . 0 2 . 0 3 . 8 % $ 96 , 000 1361000 68
EPA Emission Facts : Average Carbon Dioxide Emissions Resulting from Gasoline and Diesel Fuel
For purposes of a base case analysis of the effects of changing
from the current open competition system to a districted collection
system we assumed that :
• There are an average of 4 residential trash truck and 4
recycling truck passes on each residential street segment
each week for the open competition system (e . g . , 2 trash
trucks and 2 recycling vehicles making two passes down
each residential street each week) ; and
• There will be an average of 2 residential trash truck and 2
recycling truck passes each week for a districted collection
system .
Table 2 below provides a comparison of the trash and recycling
truck impacts and the allocated street maintenance cost for the
current open competition system and a districted collection system
based on these assumptions . As shown , the associated impacts
and allocated pavement maintenance costs for a districted system
are essentially half that for the current open competition system
based on the noted assumptions .
The effect of changes to the assumed number of vehicle passes
for the open competition system and/or a districted collection
system listed above can be determined using the information
Section 2 - 5
Review of Trash presented in Table 1 above . As an example , if we assume an
average of 6 rather than 8 total trash and recycling trips per week
Collection
for the current open competition system , the associated " Percent
Impacts of Total Vehicle Impacts" is 10 . 8 % rather than the 14 . 0 % for the
base case shown in Table 2 . The associated reduction in the
" Percent of Total Vehicle Impacts" in this case is 3 .4 % ( 10 . 8 % -
7 . 4 % ) rather than 6 . 7 % . The corresponding reduction in the
"Allocated Portion of Total Annual Cost to Maintain Residential
Streets at Current Condition " would be approximately $86 , 000
($2727000 - $ 186 , 000 ) rather than the $ 168 , 000 for the base case
($354 , 000 - $ 186 , 000 ) shown in Table 2 .
Table 2
COMPARISON OF OPEN COMPETITION AND DISTRICTED COLLECTION
TRASH & RECYCLING VEHICLE IMPACTS
Total Trash & Allocated Portion of
Recycling Total Annual Cost Annual CO2 Emissions
Vehicle Passes / Percent of Total to Maintain
Collection System Week / Vehicle Impacts Residential Streets
Residential at Current
Street Condition Pounds Tons
($2008 )
Open Competition 8 . 0 14 .0% $ 354 , 000 5421000 271
Districted Collection 4 .0 7 .4% $ 186 , 000 2717000 136
Reduction ( Districted vs. Open )(' ) 4.0 6.7% $ 1683000 271 ,000 136
The Districted Collection "Percent of Total Vehicle Impacts" and "Annual Cost to Maintain Residential Streets at Current
Condition" is greater than half the calculated impacts for the Open Competition System due to the methodology used , which
assumes a constant number of vehicle trips for each scenario.
While the estimated impacts are subject to changes in the various
underlying assumptions , we believe that the analysis provides a
reasonable projection of the magnitude of trash truck impacts on
the City' s residential streets , which is supported by various
independent third-party estimates . Appendix C (Comparative
Trash Truck Load Factors ) provides a comparison of the
estimated passenger car equivalents estimated for the residential
trash and recycling trucks operating in the City to independent
references in support of the reasonableness of the estimates used
in our analysis .
Change in Street Design Standards
The City adopted new design standards for streets in 1999 that
are expected to increase the available vehicle loads streets can
handle over their lifetime . These new standards do not affect the
calculated percentage impacts of trash and recycling trucks on
residential streets , since that calculation is not based on street
design standards . Those standards would , however, be expected
to reduce annual maintenance costs over time . As a result , the
Section 2 - 6
allocated street maintenance costs attributed to trash and Review of Trash
recycling trucks would be reduced accordingly .
Collection
Options / Recommendations
✓ Require that haulers not load vehicles in excess of Impacts
manufacturer's recommendations or limitations
imposed by state or local vehicle weight restrictions
(see Appendix A for sample language) . Require
haulers to implement an ongoing monitoring program
to assure compliance with that requirement;
✓ Require 2 fixed rear axles on all new vehicles. Require
full time use of pusher or tag axle on any existing
vehicles with a single fixed rear axle;
✓ Encourage the Police Department to more aggressively
monitor and enforce vehicle weight limits ;
✓ Establish a street maintenance impact fee to provide
funding to offset pavement maintenance cost impacts
associated with trash collection services (see Appendix A
for sample contract language ) ;
✓ Require co-collection vehicles9 ; and
✓ Implement a Districted Collection System or City- Wide
Contract for Services to reduce the number of
residential trash truck miles traveled and the
associated street maintenance impacts.
Air Quality / Vehicle Emissions
Background / Overview
The nation ' s trash truck fleet is huge , more than three times the
size of urban bus fleets , and nearly 100 % dependent on diesel
fuel . That diesel fuel is often burned in old engines that operate
without state-of-the-art pollution controls . Trash trucks are also
one of the most fuel inefficient vehicles on the roads today , with
an average fuel efficiency of approximately 2 . 8 miles per gallon .
As a result , trash trucks are a major cause of air pollution in cities
across the country . Diesel engines have , however , gotten cleaner
since the late 1980 ' s . In fact , with new federal emissions
standards diesel engines manufactured in the United States
starting with the 2007 model year are the cleanest in the world .
EPA Standards
In 2000 , the EPA established stringent standards designed to
reduce emissions from on - road heavy-duty trucks and buses by
up to 95 percent and to cut the allowable levels of sulfur in diesel
9 Co-Collection vehicles have split bodies that allow for collection of two
materials (e . g . , trash and recyclables ) in the same vehicle thereby
reducing the number of vehicle trips per street segment .
Section 2 - 7
Review of Trash fuel by 97 percent10 . The EPA rule was the most significant mobile
Collection source initiative since the 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments
establishing the U . S . Mobile Source Emission Control Program .
Impacts Beginning with the 2007 model year, 100 percent of the on-road
diesel heavy duty engines ( HDEs ) are required to use a diesel
particulate filter and 50 percent of the engines are required to use
nitrogen oxide ( NOx) exhaust control technology . Beginning with
the 2010 model year, 100 percent of the on - road heavy-duty
diesel engines will require NOx exhaust technology .
Figure 2 below provides an illustration of the improvements in
engine emissions that have occurred over the last 25 years . With
the 2010 standards the emissions from model year 2010 HDE ' s
will be a small fraction of what they were less than 10 years ago .
Figure 2
Emission Standards Time Line
1994
5.0
L 1996
s
T' 4.0
i `. I_I L f I_I f<
OI
u
U
= 2002
2 . 5
Z
x
O
Z
1 .2 2007
x
Z � Defactor Standard
Phase in Period
0. - 2010
0.0
O. 0 0. 01 0.10
PARTICULATE [g/ HP -hr]
Source : http ://www. cumminswestport. com/products/emissions . php
It is important to understand , however, is that these standards
apply to engine manufacturers and not to fleet operators . There
are no requirements that fleet operators , including trash haulers ,
comply with the standards within any specific time period . Relying
10 As of 2006 , refiners and importers nationwide are required to ensure
that at least 80% of the volume of the highway diesel fuel they produce
or import is ultra low sulfur diesel ( ULSD ) compliant. By 2009 95% of
diesel fuel will have a sulfur limit of 15 parts per million ( ppm ) . By
December 1 , 2010 100 % of the diesel fuel sold will need to meet that
limit. ULSD fuel enables the use of cleaner technology diesel engines
and vehicles with advanced emission control devices , resulting in
[Z5 significant improved air quality .
Section 2 - 8
solely on fleet turnover to achieve the full benefits of the new Review of Trash
engine standards could take up to 20 years due to the reliability of Collection
diesel engines . In the meantime many of the older dirtier diesel
engines will continue to remain in service . Impacts
Natural Gas Vehicles
Natural gas engines offer the potential for significant reductions in
trash truck emissions . Natural gas is also a secure , domestically
produced fuel that reduces the demand for petroleum- based fuels
and imported oil . Replacing 50 % of the estimated 136 , 000 diesel
trash trucks operating in the country with natural gas trucks would
annually displace approximately 600 million gallons of diesel fuel ,
the equivalent of 14 . 3 million barrels of oil — a meaningful step
toward energy security11 . An added benefit is that natural gas
engines are significantly quieter than diesel engines .
In the past four years the number of natural gas trucks in the
United States has more than doubled , and nearly 700 natural gas
garbage trucks are in operation today . By 2010 it is projected that
over 2 , 200 natural gas garbage trucks will be operating in the
US12 . Two-thirds of the estimated 700 natural gas garbage trucks
in operation in the US operate on liquid natural gas ( LNG ) , while
the rest use compressed natural gas (CNG ) .
Natural gas engines have already shown that they can meet the
2010 EPA emission requirements while also generating half the
NOx emissions of 2010 compliant diesel engines . Natural gas
trucks , however, produce lower torque ( power) , are heavier and
take longer to fuel than diesel vehicles . While natural gas vehicles
can cost substantially more than diesel , the new emission
requirements and rising diesel fuel costs could erase the cost
advantage that diesel trucks have had over natural gas .
A major impediment to natural gas trash trucks in the City is the
lack of fueling infrastructure .
Biodiesel
Biodiesel is clean burning alternative fuel , produced from
domestic , renewable resources . Biodiesel contains no petroleum ,
but it can be blended at any level with petroleum diesel to create a
biodiesel blend . It can also be used in compression - ignition
(diesel ) engines with little or no modifications . Biodiesel is
biodegradable , nontoxic, and essentially free of sulfur and
aromatics . Each of the licensed residential haulers reported that
they have experimented with Biodiesel with mixed results .
Problems with clogging of filters , jelling , cost and warranty issues
were cited .
11 INFORM ; Greening Garbage Trucks : Trends in Alternative Fuel Use ,
2002-2005 .
12 Ibid . [Z5
Section 2 - 9
Review of Trash Operate-at-idle Technology
Collection Operate-at-idle technology can also reduce emissions . Operate-
at- idle systems allow an engine to run at much lower revolutions
Impacts per minute ( RPM ) and thus conserve diesel when compared with
collection vehicles that do not have the technology . Operate- in-
gear-at- idle systems save fuel by using a larger hydraulic pump
that produces the extra flow of fluid needed for a trash collection
vehicle to load and compact garbage at standard speeds while the
engine remains at idle . Without the systems , truck operators must
shift the transmission and throttle the engine to power the
hydraulic system every time they make a route stop or want to
pack the load . There is minimal effect on truck performance and
fuel savings of as much as 20 % have been attributed to operate-
at- idle systems . 13 Operate-at- idle technology is generally standard
on all new side loading equipment . Retrofitting existing vehicles
can be done at a cost of from $ 1 , 500 to $ 10 , 000 . Truck
manufacturers are just starting to test operate-at-idle technology
on rear- and front- loading vehicles .
An added advantage of operate-at- idle technology is that it
significantly reduces engine noise . Most of the loud engine noise
associated with garbage trucks comes from revving the engine to
pack the load . With an operate-at- idle trash truck the hydraulic
system is capable of packing without revving the engine and
generating the associated engine noise .
Automatic Engine Shut-Off Systems
Idling engines can burn up to one ( 1 ) gallon of fuel per hour. On-
board engine controls can be installed that automatically cut off
the engine after a set time period if a driver leaves it idling . Waste
Connections , a national solid waste management firm , has
installed automatic engine shut off devices on some of their
vehicles that shut the engine down after five minutes of idling . This
five minute standard is consistent with the proposed time frame in
EPA's Model State Idling Law .
Other Options
On the horizon , several other fuel and technologies are being
tested in prototype vehicles including :
• Hybrid -electric drive trains
• Bio- methane ( biofuels )
While these technologies may offer future benefits they have yet
to be proven in a large scale commercial environment . Volvo ,
however, recently introduced the first hybrid garbage truck in
Sweden . If testing goes well , Volvo plans to begin producing the
13
Ideal Idle Idea ; K. Simpson , Waste Age , Sep 1 , 2006 12 : 00 PM
Section 2 - 10
hybrid trucks in 2009 . Volvo's hybrid technology consists of a 320 Review of Trash
horsepower diesel engine which shuts down at rest combined with Collection
an electric motor that powers the truck at speeds up to 12 miles
per hour. Regenerative braking is used as a means to recapture Impacts
energy to recharge the lithium ion batteries . Besides being much
quieter, gas savings and CO2 emission reductions on the order of
20-30 percent are expected . la
Waste Management Inc . has reported that it is exploring using
waste methane ( bio- methane ) from its landfills as a fuel for trash
trucks . The Orange County Transportation Authority in southern
California is currently using methane from the county 7s landfills in
a portion of its LNG fleet .
Reducing engine idle speeds , maintaining proper tire pressure ,
maintaining air filters and other steps can also be taken to improve
fuel efficiency and minimize engine emissions .
Analysis
As discussed above , with the 2010 EPA standards emissions from
new diesel engines will be a fraction of what they were less than
10 years ago . When all trash trucks achieve compliance with
those standards there will be a significant improvement in the
emissions from trash trucks operating in the City . The most
significant step the City can take to reduce trash truck emissions
is , therefore , to establish a specific timeline for licensed haulers
( residential and commercial ) to bring their fleets into compliance
with EPA's 2010 emission requirements . The State of California
established such a timeline requiring fleet operators to bring their
fleets into compliance with specific standards within a relatively
short time frame ) . At a minimum the City could ban the registration
of any truck prior to 1994 , in order to remove some of the dirtiest ,
most polluting engines from the road . Idle- in -gear technology and
automatic engine shut-off systems would also provide for
additional emission reductions15
While natural gas engines already meet the 2010 requirements
the lack of local fueling infrastructure and other factors likely
preclude this as a viable short- to medium-term option in the City .
Also , while Biodiesel may offer some emission benefits ,
operational problems cited by some of the haulers will need to be
addressed for this to represent a reliable long term option .
Implementing a Districted Collection System or City-Wide Contract
for Services would also be expected to reduce overall vehicle
14 Volvo introduces first hybrid garbage truck, works on DME fuel , Posted
Apr 8th 2008 11 :41AM by Jeremy Korzeniewski;
www. autobloggreen. com.
15 This could then be followed by an ongoing graduated compliance
schedule that would ban vehicles prior to 1998 , 2002 and 2007 over
some reasonable time frame .
Section 2 - 11
Review of Trash emissions as a result of the reduction in the number of residential
Collection trash collection vehicle miles traveled . As illustrated in Table 1
above , it is estimated that residential trash trucks operating in the
Impacts City generated as much as 200 to 300 tons per year of CO2
emissions annually , in addition to nitrogen oxide and particulates .
These emissions might be reduced by as much as half with a
Districted Collection System or City-Wide Contract for Services .
Options / Recommendations
✓ Work with the haulers to develop a schedule for fleet
compliance with the 2010 EPA Emission Standards;
✓ Prohibit the use of any truck with an engine older than
model year 1994 in the City ;
✓ Require operate-at- idle technology on all new vehicles ;
require existing vehicles to be retrofitted ;
✓ Require installation of automatic engine shut-offs and
mandate shut down after a set number of minutes of idling
(e . g . , 5 minutes consistent with EPA' s Model State Idling
Law) ;
✓ Encourage hauler use of synthetic oils , effective tire
maintenance programs and other fuel saving measures ;
✓ Limit the number of residential and commercial licenses
(e . g . , issue no more than the current number) ;
✓ Require natural gas vehicles if the necessary fueling
infrastructure can be developed ;
✓ Evaluate opportunities for other alternate fuel / alternate
technology vehicles (e . g . , hybrid electric drive trains ) as
they become commercially viable ; and
✓ Implement a Districted Collection System or City- Wide
Contract for Services to reduce the number of
residential trash collection vehicle miles traveled and
the associated vehicle emissions :
01 Require EPA 2010 Emission Standard compliant
vehicles as a condition of the award of districts;
01 Require operate-at- idle technology on residential
vehicles as a condition of the award of the districts ;
and
Require use of County Landfill to reduce vehicle
miles traveled .
Neighborhood Aesthetics
Background / Overview
The appearance of a neighborhood is impacted by trash collection
services both with respect to the presence of containers and the
vehicles providing collection services . Under an open competition
Section 2 - 12
system adjacent residents collection schedules may vary resulting Review of Trash
in containers placed at the curbside for collection on multiple days Collection
of the week . Additionally, containers currently come in all shapes
and sizes and differing colors and bags are also used . Under a Impacts
districted system , all services would typically be provided on the
same day in a given neighborhood so streets are free of trash and
recycling containers six days out of the week . Containers can also
be standardized to provide a more uniform appearance .
The City currently has few if any permit requirements related to
the appearance and condition of trash collection vehicles .
Standards can be established regardless of the collection system
structure related to , among other things :
• Cleaning and maintaining vehicles so that they present a
"clean , professional and new-like appearance" ;
• Minimizing vehicle oil , fuel and other fluid spills ; and
• Controlling litter.
Analysis
Collection Days
Unless the City were to pursue a districted collection system or
require that all collection operations under the current open
competition system occur on a specific day in each neighborhood
( i . e . , districted service days ) it is likely that many neighborhoods
will continue to have multiple trash service days . Should the City
implement districted collection , however, collection services could
be limited to one day per week .
Standardizing Containers
Districted collection would also allow for standardizing residential
trash collection containers . In which case the City could own the
containers and have the City logo rather than the haulers logo on
the containers . Regardless of the collection system structure the
City could provide for the universal roll -out16 of City-owned
standardized single stream recycling containers .
Cleaning and Painting Trucks
The City's municipal code does not specify any requirements for
cleaning and painting trash trucks or commercial containers or any
other requirements related to aesthetics including controlling litter
and vehicle spills . Such requirements are standard in many
franchise agreements and contracts and to lesser degrees license
requirements . The City of Lone Tree ' s recent residential solid
waste collection agreement with Pro Disposal specifies , among
other things that the contractor shall use "vehicles that are
16 All residential accounts would be provided with a recycling container
rather than needing to request one . Any customer not wishing to
[Z5
participate would need to specifically request to "opt-out" .
Section 2 - 13
Review of Trash maintained in a clean, first-class manner" and that vehicles "shall
Collection be thoroughly washed not less than once each week and shall be
repainted as necessary. "
Impacts Options / Recommendations
✓ Establish vehicle cleaning and painting requirements
as a condition of the required license (see Appendix A
for sample language);
✓ Establish performance standards related to controlling
litter, spills etc . (see Appendix A for sample language ) ;
✓ Provide universal roll -out of City-owned standardized
single stream recycling containers with City logo (see
Appendix A for sample contract language ) ; and
✓ Implement a Districted Collection System or City- Wide
Contract for Services to reduce the number of trash
trucks on residential streets, the number of days per
week collection service occurs and allow for
standardizing trash containers:
Roll-out City-owned standardized wheeled trash
containers with City logo.
Noise
Background / Overview
Noise from trash trucks can be related to a number of factors
including :
• Engine noise ;
• Backing alarms ;
• Noise at Point of Collection ( Dumping of material such as
glass in curbside recycling systems ) ; and
• Dumping commercial bins .
The specific strategies and options to reduce those noise impacts
depend in large part on the source of the noise . Some jurisdictions
have established specific noise standards (e . g . , decibel ratings
within a specified distance from the vehicle ) that haulers must
comply with during collection operations .
Analysis
Engine Noise
Engine noise associated with residential trash trucks is largely
related to revving of the engine when the vehicle is packing .
Diesel garbage trucks can generate noise levels of up to 100
decibels . Two of the most significant options available to reduce
trash truck engine noise are :
Section 2 - 14
• Converting to either a compressed natural gas ( CNG ) or Review of Trash
liquefied natural gas ( LNG ) engine ; and Collection
• Using "operate-at- idle" technology" .
In addition to the above options , a well built , tight fitting , well Impacts
maintained vehicle can also help reduce noise .
A study in the Netherlands found there were noise reductions with
natural gas vehicles of 90 % inside the truck , 98% beside the truck
and 50 % behind the truck compared to diesel powered vehicles . 18
As mentioned above , a major impediment to the use of natural
gas trash trucks in Fort Collins is the lack of required fueling
infrastructure .
As discussed previously, in addition to fuel savings operate-at- idle
technology also significantly reduces engine noise . Most of the
loud engine noise associated with garbage trucks comes from
revving the engine to pack the load . With an operate-at- idle trash
truck there is a separate hydraulic system on the truck body . This
separate hydraulic system provides the pressure needed to pack
the load without revving the engine and generating the associated
engine noise .
Backing Alarms ( Beepers )
Vehicle backing and noise associated with vehicle backing alarms
are most often associated with commercial collection activities .
Placing limits on commercial collection activities near residential
neighborhoods can help address related noise issues . "Smart"
back-up alarms can also be used . These alarms sense the level of
ambient noise and adjust accordingly . In quiet conditions the
alarm beeps at a much quieter level .
Noise at Point of Collection
Noise at the point of collection ( i . e . , emptying containers ) can be
reduced by taking various actions to reduce engine noise , as
discussed above . In addition , efforts to reduce noise associated
with the dumping of materials , particularly glass recovered through
the curbside program can also be taken . These include
commingling of glass with other recyclable materials , reducing
dump heights and potentially eliminating glass from the curbside
program .
Overall noise associated with residential collection operations at
the point of collection would not be reduced under a districted
collection system since it does not reduce the number of pickups ,
17 With non operate-at- idle vehicles the engines need to rev when the
body is packing . With an operate at idle vehicle there is an hydraulic
system on the body which is capable of providing the hydraulic pressures
need to pack without revving the engine , which creates noise .
18 Ahhhh . . . the Peaceful Sounds of Garbage Trucks ; N . Stiles ; MSW
Management May/June 2007 .
Section 2 - 15
Review of Trash only the number of vehicles making those pickups . The noise
Collection produced in transit from point-to- point would be reduced however
due to fewer vehicles . The noise associated with collection
Impacts operations would also be limited to a specific day and time in each
neighborhood .
Dumping Commercial Bins
Dumping of commercial bins can be very noisy and particularly
noticeable in the early morning hours . A number of options are
available to reduce the noise associated with commercial
collection activities including19 :
• Treating lid supports with sound -deadening material - Lid
supports are small metal arms that are anchored on one
end which can be rotated to support the lid in an open
position . During dumping the arm swings freely and can
strike other metal objects ;
• Treating the containers with sound -deadening materials -
The reverberation of the sides of metal containers creates
loud noises ;
• Treating the forks of trucks with sound -deadening material
- A great deal of noise is generated by the metal forks used
to pick up the containers within the sleeves on the
container;
• Using plastic lids or plastic dumpsters where the Fire
Marshall will allow their use ;
• Promoting the use of larger storage containers and
reduced collection frequency ; and
• Encouraging " Best Practices" training for drivers - Driver
behavior is one of the single most important factors
affecting noise generation .
Time of Collection
Section 15 . 421 of the City' s Municipal Code states that , " No
collector shall operate any vehicle for the purpose of collection of
solid waste or recyclable materials on any street designated by
the City as 'local residential" or 'local collector" between the hours
of 7:00 p. m. and 7: 00 a . m. (the "Nighttime Hours ') " . Time
restrictions placed on residential collection activities are common .
Some jurisdictions also limit the time of commercial collection
activities , which by their nature are noisy , within a specified
distance of residential neighborhoods (e . g . , not before 7 : 00 a . m .
19 Report and Recommendations of the Noise Review Board on
Reducing Nighttime Noise from Garbage and Recycling Collection ;
IZ3 September 8 , 2005 , City of Portland Noise Review Board Subcommittee
on Garbage Collection .
Section 2 - 16
within 200 feet of a residential area ) . The City' s municipal code Review of Trash
does not place any limits on the time of commercial collection . Collection
Vehicle Maintenance
Effective vehicle maintenance can also reduce noise . Assuring Impacts
that vehicles are well built , tight-fitting and well maintained will
help reduce vehicle noise .
Options / Recommendations
✓ Establish noise standards that are to be met by all
haulers as a condition of their license and require
haulers to verify and report on compliance with those
standards. (see Appendix A for sample language) ;
✓ Require operate-at- idle technology on all new vehicles ;
require existing vehicles to be retrofitted ;
✓ Require natural gas vehicles if the necessary infrastructure
can be developed ;
✓ Require " Smart" back- up alarms ;
✓ Remove glass from the curbside recycling program ;
✓ Require various steps to be taken to reduce the noise
generated by the collection of commercial containers near
residential areas ( e . g . , treating containers , lid supports and
truck forks with sound deadening materials ; using plastic
lids or dumpsters ) ;
✓ Limit the time commercial collection activities can occur
within a specified distance of residential areas (see
Appendix A for sample contract language ) ;
✓ Require vehicles to be well maintained ; and
✓ Implement a Districted Collection System or City- Wide
Contract for Services to reduce the number of trash
trucks on a typical residential street and vehicle miles
traveled:
Require operate-at-idle technology on
residential vehicles as a condition of the award
of the districts.
Safety
Background / Overview
Solid waste operations can pose safety risks to employees and
the general public . The consideration of " Safety First" is central to
an effective solid waste management operation as safe operations
enhance productivity and profitability .
According to the Department of Labor Statistics , Refuse and
Recyclable Material Collectors have the one of the most
dangerous job in the country with a fatality rate approximately 10 IZ3
Section 2 - 17
Review of Trash times the national average . A University of Miami study found that
Collection the leading cause of on-the-job fatalities for refuse and recyclable
material collectors is impatient motorists who try to pass the
Impacts garbage truck and hit the collector.
Trash collection activities also result in interaction with the general
public and as such generate the potential for public safety issues .
Efforts to reduce those interactions (e . g . , districted collection ) ,
make the public more aware of collection vehicles and drivers
(e . g . , signage , lights ) and provide drivers with additional training
and tools to provide for safer collection operations (e . g . , video
recorders ) all contribute to increasing public safety as it relates to
trash collection services .
Industry Safety Initiatives
Waste Management Inc . , the largest solid waste services provider
in the country , has a model " Mission to Zero" plan and has
significantly reduced worker injuries since the model was
implemented . Allied Waste Industries , the second largest solid
waste provider in the country , has paid particular attention to
vehicle safety , including adding or replacing all incandescent lights
with LED 's and additional LED strobe lights on each side and the
front of the vehicles . As a result of these and other actions Allied ' s
accident rate declined approximately 20 percent in each of the first
three years following implementation and driver feedback has
been very positive .
Slow Down to Get Around Safety Campaign
Jurisdictions throughout the country have adopted the "Slow Down
to get Around " safety campaign to enhance the visibility of the
collection vehicles and have dramatically reduced rear-ending
accidents . 20 The program is designed to raise safety awareness
when passing utility , waste and service vehicles . The aim is to
encourage drivers to use the same amount of caution as when
passing a school bus , emergency vehicle or road construction
crew .
Fully Automated Vehicles
The use of fully-automated vehicles can greatly contribute to
worker safety . Automated collection eliminates the constant
manual lifting of cans and bags associated with manual collection
systems and is more efficient than semi-automated collection .
Automated collection uses wheeled carts that are lifted by a
mechanical arm on the side of the truck . The driver controls the
entire collection process without leaving the drivers seat.
Automated systems have been shown to result in decreased
workers compensation costs and allow experienced older (often
20 See http ://www. rumpke . com/Our_Commitment/Safety . asp for more
information on the Slow Down to get Around safety campaign .
Section 2 - 18
safer) workers and others who might not be able to effectively Review of Trash
function in a manual system to remain on the job . Collection
DriveCam
DriveCam is an exception based video event recorder that is Impacts
mounted on the windshield behind the rearview mirror and
captures sights and sounds inside and outside the vehicle .
Exceptional forces such as hard braking , swerving , collision , etc.
cause the recorder to save critical seconds of audio and video
footage immediately before and after the triggered event .
DriveCam reports that its video system and safety program has
reduced vehicle damages , workers' compensation and personal
injury costs by 30 to 90 percent in more than 70 , 000 commercial
and government vehicles around the world . Waste Connections ,
the nation ' s fourth largest collection company recently announced
that it has begun implementing the DriveCam solution nationally
across all major business lines in all four geographic regions .21
GPS systems can also be used to identify risky driver behavior
and other activities to improve safety and is becoming more widely
used in many parts of the solid waste industry .
Analysis
It is in the interest of the haulers to operate safely and it is
assumed that they are dedicating appropriate care and attention
to safety and safety related issues . The City may , however, be
able to enhance overall hauler safety by establishing certain
safety related requirements as a condition of the hauler license .
This could include requiring haulers not to overload vehicles and
assuring that all vehicles are specified with certain safety
equipment (e . g . , ABS breaking systems , strobe lights , reverse
motion sensors ) . Appendix B contains a list of various trash truck
safety devices that the City may wish to consider
encouraging/requiring the haulers to use . It is suggested that any
consideration of requiring certain vehicle specifications related to
safety be done in conjunction with the haulers to assure that any
such requirements are reasonable , appropriate and provide
meaningful benefit .
Options / Recommendations
✓ Require that haulers not load vehicles in excess of
manufacturer's recommendations or limitations
imposed by state or local vehicle weight restrictions.
Require haulers to implement an ongoing monitoring
program to assure compliance with that requirement
(see Appendix A for sample contract language);
21 http ://www. drivecam . com [Z5
Section 2 - 19
Review of Trash ✓ Work with haulers to develop appropriate and effective
Collection safety specifications for all new vehicles (e . g . , rear and
side strobe lights ) and a timeline for retrofitting existing
Impacts vehicles as a condition of the hauler license (see Appendix
A for sample contract language ) ;
✓ Require haulers to participate in City sponsored/initiated
" Slow Down to Get Around " safety campaign ; and
✓ Implement a Districted Collection System or City- Wide
Contract for Services to minimize vehicle miles
traveled:
Require fully-automated vehicles ;
O Require vehicles to have appropriate optional
safety equipment; and
Establish safety incentives (e . g . , sliding scale profit
ratio based on safety record ) .
Other Vehicle Street Maintenance Impacts
As part of the analysis of trash truck impacts we evaluated the
impacts of trash trucks relative to other types of vehicles , including
delivery trucks and buses . Table 3 below provides a comparison
of the average ESAL ' s for the various vehicle types noted22 to the
estimated ESAL's of residential trash and recycling trucks
operating in the City . The impacts are also presented in
Passenger Car Equivalents .
Table 3
COMPARISON OF TRASH AND OTHER VEHICLE IMPACTS
Vehicle Type Number of ESAL Factor Passenger
Axles (1 ) Car
General Classification AASHTO Classification Equivalents
Cars Passenger Cars 2 0 .0008 1
Vans/Pickups Other 2-Axle/4-Tire Trucks 2 0 . 0052 7
Large Pickups / Delivery Vans Panel and Pickup Trucks 3 0 .0122 15
Large Delivery Trucks 3 or More Axle Trucks 3 0 . 1303 163
Local Delivery Trucks 2-Axle/6-Tire Trucks 2 0 . 1890 236
Residential Recycling Trucks 2 0.2190 274
Buses Buses 2 or 3 0.6806 851
Residential Trash Trucks 3 1 .0230 17279
Long Haul Semi-Trailers Various Classifications 3 - 5+ 1 . 1264 1 ,408
22 Based on sample data reported by American Association of State
[Z5 Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO ) Guide for Design of
Pavement Structures .
Section 2 - 20
Review of Trash
As shown , residential trash trucks have an estimated impact Collection
equivalent to approximately 1 , 300 passenger cars . This is
comparable to the findings of other studies that we have Impacts
conducted as well as that reported by various independent third
parties (Appendix C ) . The impact of recycling trucks is much less
but still significant, and roughly equivalent to the impact of local
delivery trucks23 . One point to note is that the impact of large
delivery trucks (3 or more axles ) is approximately two-thirds that of
local delivery trucks (2-axle / 6 Tire Trucks ) based on the sample
population . This tends to support the positive benefit additional
axles can have on lowering overall vehicle impacts .
In reviewing this comparison it is important to note that the
impacts shown are based on a random sampling of vehicles .
There can be wide variability of impacts within the general vehicle
types noted . As an example a larger local delivery truck hauling
construction materials , heavy furniture or food supplies may have
a significantly greater impact than a smaller local delivery truck
hauling overnight packages .
Impact of Overloaded Vehicles
Background / Overview
The impact that a vehicle exerts on a section of pavement is
related to the vehicle' s axle weights . As axle weight increases the
impact increases at a rate much greater than proportionally . As
such , overweight vehicles exert a significantly greater pavement
maintenance impact than that same vehicle at or below its legal
weight , in addition to presenting a potential safety hazard .
Analysis
A trash truck operating at one ( 1 ) ton over a legal payload of 10
tons ( 10 % overweight) exerts an impact approximately 50 % more
than a vehicle loaded to its legal weight . That same vehicle
operating at two (2 ) tons (20 % overweight) over its legal payload
exerts an impact approximately 100 % higher than when loaded to
its legal weight24 .
The fact that the Larimer County Landfill , and certain other
neighboring landfills , do not have scales and charge haulers
based on volume presents a potential incentive for haulers to
maximize vehicle payloads . This may foster the overloading of
vehicles . While this potential may exist , it does not necessarily
23 Our projection of recycling truck impacts is based on the smaller non-
compacting vehicles that two of the haulers are currently using . It is
certainly conceivable that larger compacting vehicles could be used for
collection of single stream recyclables in the future with a much larger
associated impact .
24 Source : AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures . [Z5
Section 2 - 21
Review of Trash mean that haulers are overloading their vehicles , which can cause
Collection increased vehicle wear-and -tear. One of the haulers reported
having recently completed a route audit that included weighing
Impacts vehicles and modifying routes in an effort to ensure legal
payloads .
IZ3
Section 2 - 22
Review of Diversion Issues Section 3
This section provides an evaluation of the following diversion Review of
issues :
• Diversion Rate Metrics and Measurements ; Diversion Issues
• Current Policies , Practices and Programs ; and
• Current Recycling Efforts .
Evaluation of Diversion Rate Metrics and
Measurements
Background / Overview
Fort Collins is one of the leaders in recycling in the State of
Colorado . The City' s current diversion rate is estimated at 27 %
and it has adopted a diversion goal of 50 % by 2010 . The City has
undertaken a range of programs and policies in support of its
recycling efforts including a Pay-As-You -Throw ( rate structure )
ordinance and the requirement that licensed haulers provide
recycling services to residential accounts upon request . The City
completed a 5- Year Strategic Plan : Strategies to Reach 50%
Diversion from Landfill Disposal (Strategic Plan ) in 2006 . That
Plan evaluated a wide range of options to increase diversion
resulting in Phase 1 and Phase II Strategic Plan Staff
recommendations , which are provided in Appendix D .
While the City currently tracks an overall Citywide diversion rate , it
does not regularly track and report diversion by waste stream
( residential , commercial , roll -off) , program (e . g . , curbside
recycling ) or by licensed hauler.
Analysis
Diversion Calculation Limitations
An important component of the City' s efforts to increase diversion
is the availability of complete and accurate data to allow it to
accurately track tonnages diverted and disposed . There is ,
however , a limitation to the City' s ability to accurately calculate its
diversion rate . The Larimer County Landfill , and other neighboring
landfills used by the licensed haulers do not have scales . Tonnage
is estimated by multiplying the volume of the vehicle by a density
factor established by each licensed hauler . In recent Tonnage
Summary Reports the three licensed residential haulers reported
density factors of 500 , 750 and 900 pounds per cubic yard .
Changes to those estimates would materially impact the
calculated disposal tonnages and the City' s calculated diversion
rate . The lack of scales at the landfills places a relatively high
degree of uncertainty on the City' s disposal data and the
associated calculated diversion rates . IZ3
Section 3 - 1
Review of In addition to the limitations associated with the lack of actual
disposal weight data , the City' s diversion rate calculation does not
Diversion Issues account for processing residue25 manufacturer "out-throws" 26 , or
distinguish between recovered material that is processed as
manufacturing feed stock and material that is used as landfill
alternative daily cover27 . While the City's methods for calculating
diversion are not unreasonable we believe it would benefit from
further tracking and reporting of material diverted from the waste
stream to provide it with a more complete understanding of the
final disposition of that material .
Additional Data Needs
Accurate data is an important component of the City's efforts to
track, effectively plan for and achieve additional cost effective
diversion . While the licensed haulers are required to provide
certain data , that data is not sufficient to provide the City with the
ability to effectively evaluate individual hauler or program
performance . For the City to most effectively manage its solid
waste collection system additional accurate information needs to
be provided by the haulers .
The City should also review the information the haulers are
currently providing and confirm that it is consistent with the license
requirements . Our review raised a number of questions / concerns
related to the accuracy of the data provided :
• One hauler reported the same volume of Solid Waste
Collected as Recycled Materials Collected ; and
• One hauler reported that recycling figures for wood waste ,
Construction and Demolition (C& D ) material and metal
scrap were " Unavailable" .
Also , it was not clear if reported Construction & Demolition , Yard
and Wood Wastes Recycled reflect the total volume delivered to a
processing facility or if those figures are adjusted for portions of
those loads that are not recovered . If they are not adjusted for
non - recoverable portions then they should be .
Expanded Diversion Goals / Targets
In addition to requiring additional data from the haulers to support
effective solid waste management planning we suggest that the
City establish specific diversion targets for each program and
25 Processing residue is material that is collected through a recycling
program but is removed during processing and includes contaminants
and fines . Processing residue from single stream recycling programs can
often exceed 10% of incoming material .
26 Contaminants to paper are known as out-throws and prohibitive
materials . Out-throws are usually paper of a different type , a small
2percentage of which may be acceptable .
Material used in place of dirt to cover landfilled material at the end of
each day.
Section 3 - 2
waste stream . These targets should be based on an objective Review of
analysis of the associated diversion potential . Progress should Diversion Issues
then be tracked against those specific targets .
Options / Recommendations
✓ Track and report the following diversion rates:
Overall for the City;
By waste stream (residential, commercial, roll-
ofo;
By program type (e. g. , residential curbside
recycling program, yard waste program) ;
01 By account, by program (e. g. , the average
pounds per week of curbside recyclables
collected per solid waste account) ;
By individual licensed hauler by program and
waste stream as a percentage of the material
that they collect (control); and
City disposal and diversion data in support of its
Action Plan for Sustainability to reduce or divert
trash production by 50 percent by 2010 ( i . e . , how
much of the waste City municipal operations
generate is diverted ) .
In support of the above recommendations we further recommend
that the licensed haulers be required to : 28
✓ Report the number of residential solid waste accounts
by service level (e. g., 30-, 60-, 90-gallon)29;
✓ Report the number of commercial accounts by service
level and collection frequency for both solid waste and
recyclab/es (service volume%ollection frequency
matrix);
✓ Provide calculated curbside recycling and yard waste
diversion rates on a pounds per residential solid waste
account per week basis;
✓ Provide calculated diversion rates for the material they
control for each waste stream as part of their regular
reporting requirements;
✓ Provide an accounting of total reported disposal and
diverted volume/tonnage by individual facility (e. g. ,
28 The recommended information should be readily available or easily
calculated based on available data .
29 The City may also wish to obtain the total number of HOA accounts
and HOA contract accounts and the specific HOAs serviced to enable it
to more effectively analyze trash truck street maintenance impacts . This
information may also be necessary if the City decides to implement a [Z5
Districted Collection System or City-Wide Contract for Services .
Section 3 - 3
Review of Larimer County Landfill, North Weld Landfill, Earth
Cycle etc.) ;
Diversion Issues ✓ Include historical data for each required data set as
part of the regular reporting process so that trends
can be tracked and are clear to all parties;
✓ Review reporting forms to confirm that haulers are
providing required information in a complete and
accurate form. Revise / reinforce required reporting
requirements if necessary;
✓ Require that haulers provide complete and accurate
data as a condition of their license. Provide the City
with the right to audit required information to verify its
accuracy and/or require the haulers to have their data
audited by an approved independent third party on
periodic basis to verify its accuracy;
✓ Establish specific diversion targets for each program and
waste stream based on an objective analysis of the
available potential and track progress against those
targets ; and
✓ Encourage the County to install scales at the Larimer
County Landfill .
Evaluation of Current Policies , Practices , and
Programs
Background / Overview
Ordinances
The City has established the following ordinances and incentive
programs in support of increased diversion :
Recycling Ordinance - Requires haulers to provide curbside
recycling at no extra charge upon customer' s request . The
collection of materials from multi -family and/or commercial
customers is not required if the collector determines that there is
not sufficient space available to allow the placement of recycling
containers .
Pay-As-You -Throw ( PAYT ) Ordinance — Requires haulers to
provide a variable rate structure (volume- based or pay-as-you -
throw ) for all single and two-family residences , including those
participating in group trash service accounts such as HOAs . Trash
companies may elect to charge a small monthly service charge , in
addition to the volume charges , to cover their fixed operational
costs .
E -Waste Ordinance - Prohibits disposal of electronic equipment
(as defined by the State of Colorado Hazardous Waste
[Z5 Regulations 1007-3 , Section 260 . 10 ) in the waste stream .
Section 3 - 4
Enclosure Ordinance - Requires recycling areas to be built along Review of
with trash enclosures for all new commercial or multi-family Diversion Issues
housing construction ) .
Current Recycling Programs
Residents of the City currently have access to the following
recycling programs and services :
Single stream curbside recycling (without wheeled
containers ) ;
• Limited yard waste collection ( provided by one of the
licensed haulers at an additional cost ) ;
• Drop-off recycling center; and
• Miscellaneous third - party programs (e . g . , a-waste
recycling ) .
Analysis
While the City has in place some key policy and program
components in support of its efforts to increase diversion , it needs
to more actively regulate solid waste management activities in the
City if it is to significantly increase diversion . This holds true
regardless of the collection system structure (e . g . , open
competition , districted collection , etc . ) .
Recycling Ordinance — The City's recycling ordinance establishes
a good framework for the provision of recycling services by the
licensed haulers . However, without accompanying hauler
performance standards ( i . e . , minimum diversion rates ) it is unlikely
that the City will come close to realizing the diversion potential that
exists in either the residential or commercial waste streams .
PAYT Ordinance — PAYT systems have been shown to be one of
the most effective steps a jurisdiction can take to increase
recycling . The Strategic Plan that the City has developed includes
Phase 1 Strategies . Those strategies included amending the
City' s residential PAYT Ordinance so that " rate design " further
enhances waste reduction efforts . It was also recommended that
the City' s PAYT Ordinance be amended to include all commercial
customers , require a recycling fee embedded in the rates and
charge volume- based pricing . We support both of these efforts .
We suggest, however, that any changes to the commercial rate
structure also consider the potential for collection frequency based
incentives . Charging commercial accounts based purely on
volume without consideration for frequency (e . g . , charging the
same for a 4-yard container one-time per week as a 1 -yard
container four-times per week) provides no incentive for accounts
to reduce collection frequency . Increasing storage volume and
decreasing collection frequency would result in reduced vehicle
miles traveled and reduced trash collection impacts . [Z5
Section 3 - 5
Review of E-Waste Ordinance — The City has found that the private sector
has the capacity to meet the public' s demand for reuse and
Diversion Issues recycling opportunities for electronic equipment. At least two of
Fort Collins's trash haulers have also reported that they plan to
offer a special recycling collection program for customers' E-
waste . The City should support these efforts and/or consider
alternative means for providing convenient E-waste collection
opportunities for the City' s residents . One option is to integrate E-
Waste (and potentially Universal Waste ( U -Waste )30 and
Household Hazardous Waste collection ) into a bulky waste
collection program . On -call bulky waste programs that include E-
waste collection and diversion requirements are becoming
relatively common in parts of Northern California .
Enclosure Ordinance — The City' s Enclosure Ordinance appears
to adequately address new development requiring the provision of
"adequate space for the collection and storage of refuse and
recyclable materials . " The related Trash and Recycling Enclosures
Design Considerations recommend that the amount of space
provided for the collection and storage of recyclable materials be
at least as large as the amount of space provided for the collection
and storage of refuse materials .
The Ordinance pertains to all new commercial and multi -family
structures and all existing commercial and multi-family structures
proposed to be enlarged by more than 25 percent or where a
change of use is proposed . What it does not cover are existing
multi-family and commercial properties . In many cases these
properties have limited space available for recycling containers
which we understand is a major issue and one that needs to be
addressed as part of the City' s efforts to expand commercial
recycling . Finding an effective approach for providing diversion
opportunities for these and all commercial accounts should be a
priority .
Options / Recommendations
Recycling Ordinance
✓ Establish minimum diversion requirements for the
licensed haulers for the material streams that they
control, either as part of the Recycling Ordinance or as
a condition of the license or a district agreement (e.g.,
Require residential haulers to divert a minimum
average of 10 pounds of curbside recyclables per solid
waste account per week); and
✓ Establish a compensation system that would reward
haulers for achieving diversion in excess of the required
30 Universal wastes are hazardous wastes that contain mercury, lead ,
cadmium , copper and other substances . Examples of these wastes are
batteries , fluorescent tubes , and some electronic devices .
Section 3 - 6
minimum diversion level along with penalties for failing to Review of
achieve the required minimum ) . Diversion Issues
PAYT Ordinance - Residential
✓ Amend the City's residential PAYT Ordinance so that
"rate design " further enhances waste reduction efforts
per the Strategic Plan Phase 1 staff recommendation;
✓ Roll-out any changes to the residential PAYT program
in conjunction with comprehensive strategy to
increase residential recycling (e. g., universal roll-out
of City-owned single stream curbside recycling
containers, universal roll-out of residential yard waste
(organics) program with City-owned yard waste
containers) ; and
✓ Provide any future residential yard waste or organics
program as part of a bundled residential rate with no
additional cost to participate in that service .
PAYT Ordinance - Commercial
✓ Amend the City' s PAYT ordinance to include all
commercial customers ; require recycling fees to be
embedded in rates and charge volume- based pricing per
the Strategic Plan Phase 1 staff recommendation ;
✓ Roll -out any commercial PAYT system in conjunction with
comprehensive strategy to increase commercial recycling
(e . g . , establishing minimum commercial diversion rates ;
contract for a commercial recycling , provide commercial
organics program at reduced rate ) ; and
✓ Consider rate design that provides not only for volume
based incentives but also frequency premiums to
encourage increased storage volume and decreased
service frequency to reduce vehicle miles traveled and
other trash collection impacts .
E-waste Ordinance
Evaluate residential hauler proposed E -waste collection programs
and determine if they will provide an effective means for capturing
these materials . If so , support those efforts and consider requiring
all residential haulers to provide comparable services . If not ,
consider requiring provisions for an effective residential E-waste
collection ( potentially as part of bulky waste collection service ) as
a condition of the license or districted collection agreement , or as
a separate contracted service with fee embedded in the rates .
Evaluation of Current Recycling Efforts
Background / Overview
City staff has recommended the following five ( 5 ) Strategic Plan
Phase 1 Strategies : [Z5
Section 3 - 7
Review of • Increase / enhance the City' s education program ( in one-
year increments ) regarding specific measures to be initially
Diversion Issues implemented ;
• Provide customers , upon request to their trash haulers ,
with optional curbside yard waste collection services on a
weekly basis . This measure will require that yard waste
does not cost more than equivalent costs for trash by
volume ( consistent with PAYT rates ) ;
• Create a refundable construction & demolition ( C & D )
deposit system based on square footage of project (or
comparable criterion ) , with total deposit to be refunded
upon certification that the appropriate level of recycling
was accomplished ;
• Amend the City' s PAYT ordinance to include all
commercial customers ; require recycling fee to be
embedded in rates and charge volume- based pricing ; and
• Amend the City' s PAYT residential trash rates ordinance
so that " rate design " further enhances waste reduction
effort .
Our review of opportunities for the City to increase diversion was
not intended to be a comprehensive review of all options and
alternatives . Instead we focused our efforts on building upon the
significant and thoughtful analysis that the City has already
conducted as presented in the Strategic Plan and more
specifically the Phase 1 Strategies .
Analysis
While we support the general recommendations presented in the
City' s Strategic Plan and the five (5 ) Phase 1 Strategies the City
needs to take more aggressive steps if it wishes to significantly
increase diversion . This is particularly true with respect to the
haulers roles and responsibilities related to increased diversion
given that they control the majority of the waste being currently
disposed .
Additional Diversion Potential
Appendix E contains waste composition data based on the recent
Larimer County waste composition study . Assuming this
information reasonably represents the City' s waste stream it is
clear that significant additional diversion potential exists . As
reported in Table E -2 :
• 19 . 1 % of the residential waste stream consists of mixed
recyclable paper, newspaper and cardboard that could be
recovered through the existing curbside recycling program
while 25 . 4 % consists of food waste ( 17 . 4 % ) and yard
waste (8 . 0 % ) that could be recovered through a new
residential organics program , for a total of 44 . 5 % ; and
Section 3 - 8
• 21 . 3 % of the commercial waste stream consists of mixed Review of
recyclable paper, newspaper and cardboard while 22 . 2 % Diversion Issues
consists of food waste ( 15 . 9 % ) and yard waste (6 . 3 % ) , for
a total of 43 . 5 % .
Licensed Hauler Diversion Rates
Table 4 below provides a summary of 2006 disposal tonnage by
waste stream for the licensed haulers and the total tons diverted .
Table 4
LICENSED HAULER DISPOSAL AND DIVERSION DATA
2006
Method of Collection
Cubic Yds Tons % of Total
Compacted Residential 131 , 619 49 , 357 23 %
Compacted Commercial 208 , 756 78 , 284 37 %
Roll -off Compacted 1101178 411317 20 %
Roll -off Loose 1821764 41 , 122 20 %
Total Disposed 633 , 317 210 , 079 100%
Total Recycled 165120
Total Hauler Controlled 2267199
Hauler Controlled Diversion Rate 7 . 1 %
As shown , the associated diversion rate for the total material
controlled by the haulers ( Hauler Controlled Diversion Rate ) was
calculated at 7 . 1 % . Analysis of the hauler Tonnage Summary
Reports for January through June 2007 resulted in a calculated
hauler controlled diversion rate of 7 . 2 % , which is generally
consistent with the 7 . 1 % shown in Table 4 . 31 On an individual
waste stream basis the licensed haulers realized a diversion rate
of 13 . 6 % for the residential waste stream ( 13 . 3 % curbside
recycling program + 0 . 3 % Gallegos yard waste program ) , 2 . 3 % for
the commercial waste stream ( Compacted Commercial + Roll-off
Compacted) , and 7 . 3 % for the uncompacted waste stream (Roll-
off Loose ) .
As a point of comparison we offer the South Bayside Waste
Management Agency ( SBWMA) in San Mateo County California
( San Francisco Bay Area ) which has what we consider to be an
effective mix of residential and commercial programs and
31 It should be noted that one hauler reported " Unavailable" for certain
diversion information which may mean that actual diversion is higher
than calculated . If such is the case , however, it supports the need for
complete and accurate data to allow the City to effectively analyze , plan IZ5
for and realize available cost effective diversion .
Section 3 - 9
Review of supporting contractual requirements and rate incentives 32 . The
SBWMA' s franchised hauler has averaged a residential hauler
Diversion Issues controlled diversion rate of 46% through its weekly curbside
recycling (two-sort) and yard waste programs for the five year
period ending in 2005 . The hauler controlled commercial diversion
rate has averaged 20% over that same time period . The combined
hauler controlled residential and commercial diversion rate has
averaged 32 % . While the SBWMA has more comprehensive
diversion programs than the City it is by no means what we
consider to be state-of-the-art. The SBMWA is aggressively
pursuing additional diversion opportunities including single stream
recycling and adding food waste to its residential organics
collection program .
The fact that 35% of the City' s waste stream is estimated to be
Commercial Compacted with an additional 17 % Roll-off
Compacted (52 % combined total ) points out the need for the
development of an effective plan for commercial diversion . This is
particularly necessary given that it is estimated that less than 3 %
of the commercial waste controlled by the haulers is currently
diverted .
The Roll-off Loose waste stream accounts for approximately one-
quarter of the City' s waste stream . As reported above , the
diversion rate for this waste stream is estimated at 7 . 3 % .
Uncompacted roll -off loads as well as self haul loads are generally
highly recoverable . From a total tonnage and recoverability
standpoint these waste streams may offer the greatest single
opportunity for the City to cost effectively increase diversion ,
provided there is the necessary processing capacity and markets
for recovered materials .
General Findings
If the City is to significantly increase diversion , the licensed
haulers will need to significantly increase the amount of
material they divert and/or other diversion options need to
be developed (e . g . , residential and commercial recycling
32 The SBWMA is comprised of 13 member agencies with approximately
90 , 000 residential accounts and 10 , 000 commercial accounts . It is
currently in the process of contracting for a new franchise that will
include single stream recycling and the addition of food waste to the
residential yard waste program . Residential customers are provided with
weekly residential curbside and yard waste collection services at no
additional charge . Commercial customers are also provided with
recycling services at no additional charge by the franchised hauler. Other
recyclers have the right to pay for or collect recyclables for free .
Commercial organic waste collection is provided at a reduced rate . While
the rates and rate structures for the 11 member agencies vary , the
residential rates are generally volume based with the cost of a second
container two times that of the first.
Section 3 - 10
contracts ; comprehensive post-collection mixed waste Review of
iversi
processing capacity ) ; D on Issues
• Recycling is a net cost to the haulers and there is currently
no financial incentive ( or regulatory requirement) for the
haulers to aggressively pursue diversion . The pursuit of
aggressive diversion by any given hauler may put it at a
competitive disadvantage relative to any other hauler who
is not putting forth a similar level of effort and realizing
similar results ;
• Rates may need to be increased to significantly increase
diversion ;
• Local landfill costs are relatively low compared to many
areas of the country , which impacts the cost effectiveness
of recycling . The Larimer County Landfill currently charges
$ 5 . 81 per cubic yard for compacted waste . This is
equivalent to between $ 11 . 62 and $23 . 24 per ton for
densities of 1 , 000 and 500 pounds per cubic year
respectively ;
• Recovery of source separated materials from commercial
accounts may be limited by space constraints which
preclude placing additional recycling containers onsite ; and
• The County Landfill provides a good centralized location
for the development of C & D , composting and/or other
processing capacity in support of the City' s efforts to
increase diversion .
Options / Recommendations
The Strategic Plan provides a good framework for the City' s
efforts to increase diversion . As a next step we suggest that the
City focus on further refining its Strategic Plan Strategies to divert
material from the residential , commercial and uncompacted waste
streams ( Roll -off Loose ) . That effort should include supporting
available processing capacity and markets for recoverable
materials . We offer the following suggestions in support of that
effort .
Residential Waste Stream
✓ Establish minimum curbside recycling program
diversion requirements for the haulers (e. g. , 10 pounds
per solid waste account per week) as a condition of
the residential license;
✓ Establish a compensation system that would award
haulers for achieving diversion in excess of the required
minimum diversion level along with penalties for failing to
achieve the required minimum (see Appendix A for sample
language ) ; [Z5
Section 3 - 11
Review of ✓ If districted collection is pursued , have the haulers propose
minimum diversion levels they would be willing to
Diversion Issues guarantee ( i . e . , Ibs/solid waste account/week ) . Consider
the level of guarantee in determining the award of the
district . Establish a system that would award haulers for
achieving diversion in excess of their proposed minimum
diversion level along with penalties for failing to achieve
the proposed minimum ;
✓ Provide universal roll-out of City owned single stream
recycling containers;
✓ Provide universal ( not optional ) roll -out of weekly yard
waste services with City owned containers (with the ability
to expand to food waste if/when processing capacity is
available ) ;
✓ Revise residential PAYT rate structure per the
Strategic Plan Phase 1 staff recommendation. Provide
recycling and yard waste services as part of a
"bundled" residential rate (i. e. , no additional cost for
recycling and yard waste service) ;
✓ Support the development/viability of private sector
composting capacity ( e . g . , Earth Cycle ) and/ or pursue the
development of public sector ( e . g . , City and Larimer
County ) or public / private partnership for the development
of residential and commercial organics processing
capacity ; and
✓ Develop public or private sector capacity for food waste
composting .
Commercial Waste Stream
✓ Require licensed haulers to divert a minimum amount of
the material they control as a condition of their license ;
✓ Establish a commercial recycling contract with the cost
embedded in the commercial rate structure ( i . e . , no
additional cost for recycling ) . Charge haulers a " recycling
fee" to pay for the commercial recycling contract cost
( unless they can demonstrate that they have achieved a
required minimum level of diversion ) ;
✓ Explore the need/potential for some level of mixed
commercial waste recovery capacity ( i . e . , Dirty MRF with
selective routing ) if space constraints preclude effective
source separation programs ;
✓ Develop a commercial food waste collection program ; and
✓ Develop public or private sector capacity for food waste
composting .
Section 3 - 12
Uncompacted Roll -Off Review of
✓ Create refundable C& D deposit system per the Phase 1 Diversion Issues
Strategic Plan staff recommendation ;
✓ Support the development of private sector C & D processing
capacity or pursue the development of public sector (e . g . ,
City and Larimer County) or public / private partnership for
the development of necessary C& D processing capacity ;
and
✓ Consider establishing specific C& D licensing standards
with minimum diversion requirements .
Coordinating Diversion and Sustainability Planning
The City' s RFP requested that the consultant "Consider applying
concepts from Industrial Ecology ( i . e . , Materials Flow Analysis ) to
pull together data in context of achieving community goals and
optimizing efficiencies . " Industrial Ecology is the shifting of
industrial processes from linear (open loop ) systems , in which
resource and capital investments move through the system to
become waste , to a closed loop system where wastes become
inputs for new processes . Industrial Ecology draws on the fact
that natural systems do not have waste in them and that we
should model our systems after natural ones if we want them to be
sustainabless
The concept of Industrial Ecology is similar to the concept of Zero
Waste that is becoming the driving force behind solid waste
management planning in many progressive jurisdictions .
Zero Waste can be defined as :
• Zero Waste of Energy , Materials and Human Resources ;
• Zero Solid Waste ;
Zero Hazardous Waste ;
• Zero Emissions to Air, Water or Soil ;
• Zero Waste in Production Activities ;
• Zero Waste in Product Life Cycle ; and
• Zero Toxics .
Zero Waste , like Industrial Ecology supports the development of a
more sustainable closed loop solid waste management system in
which waste streams from one process become raw products for
other. While it is beyond the scope of this engagement to
undertake a mass balance of the City' s solid waste stream , we
support the integration of Industrial Ecology and Zero Waste
planning concepts into the City' s overall sustainability planning
efforts .
ss Wikipedia
5
Section 3 - 13
Review of
Diversion Issues
[Z5
Section 3 - 14
Review of Collection System Section 4
Structures Review of
Collection System Structure Alternatives Collection
Background / Overview System
The City' s residential collection system is an open competition Structures
system in which licensed haulers compete for accounts . While the
haulers are regulated through the City' s licensing process ,
Municipal Code requirements and applicable ordinances ( i . e . ,
Pay-As-You -Throw and Recycling Ordinances ) , that regulation is
limited . There are few regulatory requirements specific to
minimizing the impact of trash collection services with respect to
air quality, noise , and the cost of street wear or improving
neighborhood aesthetics and safety . In addition , while haulers
must offer recycling services to residents and businesses , there
are no associated diversion levels that the haulers must achieve
as a condition of their license .
Alternatives Considered
Our review of Collection System Structures considered the
following alternatives :
1 . Current Open Competition System without any Changes
This option would maintain the current open competition
system as regulated without any changes .
2 . Open Competition System with Increased Licensing
Requirements
This option would maintain the current open competition
system however additional licensing requirements would be
established in support of the City' s objectives to reduce trash
collection service impacts and increased diversion . It should
be noted that the City currently has some of the most
aggressive licensing requirements in the State . There are ,
however, a number of additional hauler requirements that the
City could establish to reduce trash collection service impacts
and increase diversion as discussed elsewhere in this report .
These include :
• Additional hauler reporting requirements ;
• Vehicle emission standards ;
Vehicle cleaning and painting requirements ;
• Noise standards and noise reducing vehicle and
container specifications ;
• Vehicle safety specifications ; [Z5
Section 4 - 1
Review of Required management of overloaded vehicles ; and
Collection Establishing minimum hauler diversion requirements .
System 3 . Districted Collection System
Y This option would require that the City be divided into two or
Structures more geographic districts . A competitive procurement process
would then be undertaken through the issuance of an RFP
( Request for Proposals ) . The City would then award a contract
to a single hauler to provide service within each district .
Specific terms and conditions related to reducing vehicle
impacts , increasing diversion and other desired terms and
conditions would be specified in the contract . 3a
To effectively district it will be necessary for the City to
determine which residential accounts are to be included (e . g . ,
single family , multi -family , HOAs ) and obtain accurate account
information by geographic region of the City .
4 . City-Wide Contract for Services
This option is similar to Option 3 above . However, rather than
break the City up into districts , a City-wide contract would be
awarded to a single hauler.
This option could potentially be incorporated into a hybrid
approach with either a districted or open competition system
for trash collection services and a City-wide contract for
recycling services . In the case of the open competition system ,
however, this hybrid approach may result in different collection
days for trash and recycling services for many accounts . We
are not aware of any jurisdictions that have such a system .
Alternatively the City could maintain the open competition
system but specify the day that service is to be provided in the
various areas of the City . This would provide for same day
trash and recycling service , but require the haulers to
reconfigure their collection routes to be consistent with the
specified service days .
Analysis of Collection System Structure Alternatives
An analysis of each the four collection system options is provided
below . Appendix F provides a matrix that compares these options
with respect to criteria developed with City staff.
34 The contract could be issued with the RFP . Haulers could then be
required to state any exceptions to the proposed contract terms and
conditions and offer acceptable replacement language as part of their
proposal . Any subsequent contract negotiations could then be limited to
the stated exceptions .
Section 4 - 2
Review of
Current Open Competition System without any Changes Collection
Benefits of Current Open Competition System
Major benefits of maintaining the current open competition system System
as regulated include the freedom residents have to choose a Structures
hauler and the relatively limited City administrative requirements .
In addition , there would be no impact on the existing haulers .
Unlike a districted or contracted system the City does not have to
manage a procurement process or regulate rates , and residents
would not be required to transition to a new hauler. Also , the City
is not involved in the billing process . Under a districted system the
City may need to take over the billing function if it wants to
establish a uniform city-wide rate .
Issues / Concerns of Current Open Competition System
One of the major issues related to an open competition system is
the increased impacts that result from multiple vehicles providing
collection services in the same area . In addition , while the limited
administrative requirements of an open competition system can be
considered a benefit on one hand , it also presents a major
constraint . As discussed above , under the current open
competition system there are few regulatory requirements related
to minimizing trash collection service impacts . Also , while haulers
must offer recycling services to residents and businesses , there
are no associated diversion levels that the haulers must achieve
as a condition of their license .
Open Competition System with Increased Licensing
Requirements
Benefits of Increased Licensing Requirements
Maintaining the existing open competition system with increased
licensing requirements would provide many of the same benefits
as the current open competition system , while providing the City
with greater control over trash collection services . Decreased
trash collection service impacts and increased diversion would
both be potential benefits that could be realized .
Issues / Concerns of Increased Licensing Requirements
While increased licensing requirements would allow the City to
take certain actions to reduce trash collection service impacts and
increase diversion , it does not reduce the number of trash
collection vehicles operating in any given area of the City. As
such , the City would not realize the associated reduction in trash
collection service impacts that would result from a districted
collection system or a city-wide contract for services . Also , while
the City could establish certain additional licensing requirements
to reduce trash collection service impacts and increase diversion ,
certain options that would be available under a districted or City [Z5
-
Section 4 - 3
Review of wide collection system are not possible or may not be as easily
Collection implemented .
Districted Collection
System Benefits of Districted Collection
Structures During our discussions with the haulers , the question was raised
as to what districting could accomplish that could not be
accomplished through the existing open competition system . The
answer is that a districted collection system provides :
A means for reducing overall trash collection impacts largely in
relationship to the reduction in the number of vehicles and vehicle
miles traveled .
All other factors the same, districted collection would be
expected to reduce vehicle emissions, trash truck noise
and pavement maintenance impacts, increase safety and
improve neighborhood aesthetics.
The opportunity to take other specific actions to decrease
residential trash collection impacts that are not possible or may
not be as easily implemented under an open competition system .
As an example, the City could require certain types of
vehicles or vehicle specifications that would support its
goal of reducing trash collection service impacts as a
condition of a hauler being awarded a district (e. g. ,
vehicles that comply with EPA 2010 emission standards
with operate-at-idle technology) . All haulers would be able
to develop their proposals based on the specified
requirements knowing that they could capitalize their
investment over the term of the agreement (e . g. , 7-years)
with a guaranteed revenue base . While similar
requirements could be placed on an open competition
system it is likely to be a more difficult and contentious
process given the lack of a guaranteed contract term and
revenue base .
A more effective structure for establishing minimum diversion
requirements and/or incentives for haulers to increase diversion .
The City could establish diversion as a major criterion for
award of the districts and select a hauler in part based on
their willingness to guarantee a higher diversion rate.
Hauler compensation could then be tied to the actual
diversion level achieved relative to the guarantee (i. e . ,
additional compensation for exceeding, and penalties for
failing to achieve the guarantee) .
The potential for lower rates for the City' s residents .
Districted collection would result in more efficient collection
services and should reduce collection costs. The cities of
Section 4 - 4
Review of
Lafayette and Superior, which both recently shifted from an Collection
open competition residential collection system to a
contracted system, reported significant reductions in rates. System
Issues / Concerns of Districted Collection Structures
While a districted collection system offers potential advantages
over an open competition system it is not the " be all and end all "
solution . For example , there are various options that the City can
undertake to reduce certain trash truck impacts regardless of the
collection system structure . Some of these options may have a
greater impact than that which might be realized through districted
collection alone . Also , the loss of "customer choice" is a very real
and potentially significant downside of a districted collection
system . In addition , the City may need to take over customer
billing to allow it to implement a uniform rate city-wide .
Districted collection also presents a significant challenge (as well
as opportunity ) for the existing haulers . Under a process in which
haulers compete for the right to provide service within a district
( i . e . , a competitive procurement ) it is likely that there will be
winners and losers . Some haulers may acquire a larger market
share while others are likely to lose some or their entire residential
market share .
Should the City decide to move forward with a districted collection
system , it should be prepared for opposition from both haulers and
some residents . A staff member of jurisdiction in Colorado that
recently switched from open competition system to a contract with
a single hauler reported that it was a very difficult process for staff
and the city council . There were harsh accusations , threats of
legal action and many calls from angry residents . That same staff
member also stated that once the system had been changed they
received calls from some of the same people that had been
opposed to the change that were now in support of the new
system . Should the City decide to move forward with a districted
collection system we recommend that staff speak with
representatives of other jurisdictions that have switched from an
open competition to a contracted system to solicit their insights
and recommendations .
Potential Options to Protect Existing Haulers
City staff provided the following guidelines related to steps that
might be taken as part of a districted collection system
procurement process to protect the interests of the existing
haulers :
• The City cannot limit the pool of potential proposers . It can
however , require that a proposer be a licensed hauler,
although haulers not currently licensed would have to be [Z5
Section 4 - 5
Review of given the opportunity to apply for and receive a license if
Collection they qualified ;
• The City can structure the process to limited the number of
System districts that can be awarded to a single hauler; and
Structures The City can give some level of preference to local
haulers .
City-Wide Contract for Services
Benefits of City-Wide Contract for Services
The benefits of an exclusive city-wide contract are similar to a
districted collection system . In addition , administrative
requirements are specific to one-hauler rather than multiple
haulers and it is not necessary for the City to control the billing
process to provide a uniform city-wide rate .
Issues / Concerns of City-Wide Contract for Services
The issues/concerns of a city-wide contract are also similar to a
districted system . In addition , limiting services to only one hauler
could result in reduced competition on a long term basis , if
existing haulers go out of business or decide not to compete for
the contract in the future .
Options / Recommendations
✓ Implement a Districted Collection System or City- Wide
Contract for Services to reduce the overall impacts
associated with residential trash collection services
and support a more effective system for increasing
diversion from the residential waste stream.
This recommendation is based entirely on the consideration of the
best collection system structure to meet the City' s stated project
objectives of:
• Reducing trash collection service impacts ; and
• Increasing diversion .
The recommendation does not consider other factors , including
the impact on haulers and the associated loss of the ability of
customers to choose their hauler.
Survey of Collection System Structures
State of Colorado
Trash Collection
The Colorado Municipal League and Colorado Recycles
conducted a survey involving 271 jurisdictions in the State in 2006
to determine the methods used to provide trash collection in their
communities . The survey focused on residential trash services
and was not designed to gather data about commercial , industrial
Section 4 - 6
Review of
or other services . Of the 222 jurisdictions that responded , 47 Collection
(21 % ) reported that they provide municipal trash service and 44
(20 % ) reported that they provide service through contracts with System
one or more private trash haulers . The majority , 131 (59% ) of Y
jurisdictions that responded ( including the City of Fort Collins ) , Structures
reported that they rely on the private market place to bring
residents and trash haulers together in some type of contractual
arrangement. In this regard the City's current open competition
system is similar to that of most other jurisdictions in the State .
The results of the survey are summarized in Table 5 below .
Appendix G includes more detailed trash collection survey results .
Table 5
TRASH SERVICES SURVEY SUMMARY RESULTS
Percent of Percent of
Number of Percent of All Percent of Population of
Category of Response Municipalities Municipalities Responding Population All Population of
Served Responding
Responding in Survey Municipalities Municipalities Municipalities
in Survey
Trash Service is a Municipal 47 17% 21 % 19076 ,484 32 % 33%
Service
Trash Service is a Municipal 44 16% 20 % 126 , 133 4% 4%
Service Through Contract
Trash Service is Provided 131 48% 59% 25104 , 955 62% 64%
Through Private Contracts
Subtotal 222 82% 100% 35307,572 98% 100%
Did not Respond 49 18% 655740 2%
Total 271 100% 393735312 100%
Based on analysis of the survey results it was reported that :
" . . . there is no observable predictor as to which communities are
likely to fall into any one of the three categories. There are very
large cities, medium size cities and very small cities represented
in each category. Moreover, there is no observable geographic
preference for one category over another. Communities that
provide contract service or rely on private entities to arrange the
service exist either side-by-side or in close driving proximity to
cities that provide municipal service. '° 35
Since that survey was conducted we understand that the following
jurisdictions have or are planning to switch to a contract with a
single hauler for residential trash collection services :
• Firestone
35 www . coloradocurbside . com/discussion papers . collection . html [Z5
Section 4 - 7
Review of • Fruita
Collection ' Georgetown
• Lafayette
System 0 Minturn
Structures ' Ouray
Superior
Recycling Survey
The survey also gathered information about the methods used by
jurisdictions to provide residential curbside and drop-off recycling
services . The results of the survey are summarized in Table 6
below .
Table 6
RECYCLING SERVICES SURVEY SUMMARY RESULTS
of % Population of
# of % of All % Population of
Category of Response Municipalities Municipalities in Municipalities Population All Municipalities Municipalities
Responding Survey With Curbside Served in Survey with Curbside
Service Service
Curbside Recycling Service is a 8 3% 8% 840,540 25% 28%
Municipal Service
Curbside Recycling Service is a 21 8% 22% 123,670 4% 4%
Municipal Service Through Contract
Curbside Recycling Service is Provided
Through Private Contracts Under a 6 2% 6% 349,698 10% 12%
Mandate to Provide
Curbside Recycling Service is Provided
Through Private Contracts Under 5 2% 5% 131 ,614 4% 4%
Mandate to Offer
Curbside Recycling is a Private
Contract Arrangement Between 55 20% 58% 1 ,593, 332 47% 52%
Consumer and Hauler
Subtotal 95 35% 100% 3,038,854 90% 100%
No Curbside Recycling but Drop Off 74 27% NA 216,648 6% 6%
Recycling is Available
No Verification That Curbside or Drop 104 38% NA 106,734 3% 3%
Off is Available
Total 271 100% 100% 3,373,312 100% 100%
The majority of the jurisdictions reported No Curbside Recycling
but Drop Off Recycling is Available (27 % ) or there was No
Verification that Curbside or Drop Off is Available ( 38 % ) .
However, these jurisdictions comprise less than 10 % of the total
population of the municipalities in the survey .
Of those jurisdictions with curbside service , the majority (58 % )
reported that Curbside Recycling is a Private Contract
Arrangement between the Consumer and Hauler. Fort Collins
reported that " Curbside Recycling Service is Provided Through
Private Contracts Under a Mandate to Provide, which is the case
in 6 % of the jurisdictions with curbside service .
Section 4 - 8
Review of
Appendix G includes more detailed recycling survey results . The Collection
reader is also referred to www . coloradocurbside . com for additional
survey information . System
Other Areas �7
California
Structures
In California , where jurisdictions are under a State mandate to
achieve 50 % diversion , the majority of jurisdictions have exclusive
residential collection contracts (franchises ) . A significant number
of jurisdictions also have exclusive commercial contracts , although
open competition commercial collection systems are also
prevalent , particularly in Southern California . A number of larger
cities also have districted residential collection systems including
the cities of San Jose and Stockton .
100 Largest Cities
A 1997 survey of residential collection services in the 100 largest
cities in the country conducted by HFH Consultants found that
exclusive municipal service was provided in 62 % of the cities .
That survey also found that exclusive private service ( under
contract or contract agreement) was provided in 18 % of the cities ,
6 % had open competition where several haulers compete for
residential customers , and 15% had combinations of the above or
other arrangements .
The most common arrangement for commercial collection was
open competition among private haulers offered in 60 % of the
cities , while 12 % of the cities reported exclusive municipal service .
In 13 % of the cities , the municipal collection operation competes
with private haulers for commercial customers and another 15 % of
the cities reported that they had an exclusive private contract .
Market Impacts of Districted Collection
Switching from an open competition system to a districted
collection system (or City-wide contract) will impact the existing
licensed haulers residential market share . It is possible that some
of the haulers will increase market share while others will lose
some or their entire residential market share . Licensed haulers not
currently providing residential services may also participate in the
procurement process and gain market share .
New Haulers Bidding on Contracts
The ability of a new hauler not currently operating in or near the
City to effectively compete for districted collection services
depends in part on the ability of that hauler to secure a local
corporation yard from which it can operate . This can be a
significant hurdle for market entry for many haulers , particularly
smaller haulers that do not have the resources of larger regional
Section 4 - 9
Review of or national haulers . While larger regional or national haulers may
Collection be in a better position to secure a local corporation yard the effort
involved can still represent a significant hurdle for market entry . In
System our experience it is not common for haulers that do not have
established local operations to attempt to establish a base of
Structures operations to compete for a new contract . Any such decision to do
so is likely to be based on the potential value of the contract as
well as the potential for securing additional market share from that
base of operations . In the case of the City , it may be more likely
that one of the licensed haulers that is not currently providing
residential services may attempt to enter the residential market
through the competitive procurement process . Should a hauler not
currently licensed or operating in the City successfully compete for
a collection district , it is certainly possible , if not likely , that hauler
would also pursue commercial and roll -off accounts in the City .
Local Haulers Discontinuing Business
Whether or not a licensed residential hauler may be forced out of
business if it is not awarded a district likely depends on what
portion of that hauler' s revenue is derived from residential services
within the City . Losing its share of the City' s residential market
would be expected to negatively impact a hauler' s bottom line . If,
however , the hauler has other operations either within or outside
of the City , those operations may be sufficient to provide for its
ongoing viability . In such a case that hauler could compete for the
City' s residential districts in the future as they come up for bid .
In our experience it is not uncommon for haulers to lose contracts
(districts ) but still maintain local operations servicing other markets
and compete for those contracts in the future . Should the City
decide to pursue a districted collection system it can do a number
of things to " level the playing field " and support competition for
future procurements . These actions include owning the residential
solid waste and recycling containers and requiring all new vehicles
as part of the contracts . This would remove some of the major
advantages the current service provider would have over other
haulers interested in proposing on the contract .
IZ3
Section 4 - 10
Appendices
Appendices
IZ5
Appendix A
Append ix A
Best Management Practices —
Sample Contract Language
100 Trash Collection Service Appendix A
mpacts
Best
1 . 1 Emissions Management
1 . 2 Neighborhood Aesthetics Practices —
General Provisions Sample Contract
General Provisions . All collection equipment used by Language
CONTRACTOR in the performance of services under this
Agreement shall be of high quality . The vehicles shall be
designed and operated so as to prevent collected materials from
escaping from the vehicles . All hoppers shall be closed on top
and on all sides with screening material to prevent collected
materials from leaking , blowing or falling from the vehicles . All
trucks and containers shall be watertight and shall be operated so
that liquids do not spill during collection or in transit .
All collection vehicles utilized by CONTRACTOR pursuant
to this Agreement shall provide automated or semi-automated
collection except where such service is not feasible because of
topographic or other physical factors . The determination that
automated or semi -automated collection vehicles are not feasible
shall be made by the City Representative after consultation with
CONTRACTOR . Where automated or semi -automated services
are not feasible , CONTRACTOR shall consult with the City
Representative regarding the collection equipment to be utilized .
( San Jose , CA)
Vehicle Cleaning
Cleaning . Collection vehicles shall be thoroughly washed
and thoroughly steam cleaned regularly, to present a clean
appearance of the exterior and interior compartment of the
vehicle . City may inspect vehicles at any time to determine
compliance with sanitation requirements . Contractor shall make
vehicles available to the Alameda County Health Department for
inspection , at any frequency it requests . (City of Union City , CA)
Cleaning . Vehicles used in the collection shall be
thoroughly washed at a minimum of once per week, and
thoroughly steam cleaned on a regular basis so as to present a
clean appearance and minimize odors . All vehicles shall be
painted on a regular schedule to maintain a clean , professional ,
new-like appearance , although the City Representative may
require the painting of any vehicle that does not present a
satisfactory appearance at any time . The vehicles shall be [Z5
Page A- 1
Aendix A painted in a uniform manner; although refuse , recycling , and
ppgreen waste vehicles may have different painting schemes . All
graffiti shall be removed immediately . City may inspect vehicles at
any time to determine compliance with sanitation requirements .
Contractor shall make vehicles available to the County Health
Best Department for inspection at any frequency it requests . ( City of
Management Salinas , CA)
City of Brighton , CO . The City of Brighton ' s Municipal Code
Practices — Article 8- 12 Garbage Collection states , among other things that
Sample Contract "vehicles shall be equipped with a tight box or tank so that no
p garbage or liquids shall escape therefrom and shall be kept
Language thoroughly clean . . . "
Litter / Vehicle Spills
Minimization of Spills . Contractor shall use due care to
prevent vehicle oil , vehicle fuel , or other liquids from being spilled
during Collection or Transportation operations . If any Solid
Waste , Recyclable , or Organic Materials are spilled or scattered
during Collection or Transportation operations , the Contractor
shall promptly clean up all spilled and scattered materials .
Contractor shall not transfer loads from one vehicle to
another on any public street , unless it is necessary to do so
because of mechanical failure , emergency (e . g . , combustion of
material in the truck ) , accidental damage to a vehicle , or unless
approved by the City .
If Contractor fails to perform some or all of the
requirements described in this Section , the Contractor shall pay
the City Liquidated Damages as described in Section 13 . 5 . ( Union
City , CA)
Clean - Up . During Collection , the Contractor shall clean - up
litter in the immediate vicinity of any Container storage area
( including the areas where Containers are delivered for Collection )
whether or not Contractor has caused the litter . Each Collection
vehicle shall carry protective gloves , a broom , and shovel at all
times for cleaning up litter . Cat- litter or similar absorbent material
shall be used by Contractor for cleaning up liquid spills . The
Contractor shall discuss instances of repeated spillage not caused
by it with the Customer of the Premise where spillage occurs , and
Contractor shall report such instances to City . If the Contractor
has attempted to have a Customer stop creating spillage but is
unsuccessful , the City will attempt to rectify such situation with the
Customer. ( Union City , CA)
Covering of Loads . Contractor shall cover all open Drop
Boxes , with a City-approved cover, at the pickup location before
Transporting materials to the Designated Disposal Location or
Processing Sites . ( Union City , CA)
Page A-2
Minimization of Spills . Contractor shall use due care to Appendix A
prevent materials placed in the collection containers from being
spilled or scattered during the collection or transportation process .
If any material is spilled during collection , the Contractor shall Best
promptly clean up all spilled materials . Each collection vehicle
shall carry a broom and a shovel at all times for this purpose . Management
Contractor shall not transfer loads from one vehicle to another on
any public street , unless it is necessary to do so because of Practices —
mechanical failure or accidental damage to a vehicle . ( City of
Salinas , CA) Sample Contract
City Ownership of Carts Language
Ownership of Carts . Ownership of carts shall rest with the
CONTRACTOR , except that ownership of carts in the possession
of a Service Recipient at the end of this Agreement shall rest with
the CITY . At its sole discretion , CITY may elect not to exercise its
rights with regards to this Article and in such case the carts shall
remain the property of the CONTRACTOR upon termination of
this Agreement . In this event , CONTRACTOR shall be
responsible for removing all carts in service from the Service Area
and reusing or recycling such carts . ( City of Piedmont , CA)
1 . 3 Noise
Vehicle Noise Level . All Collection operations shall be
conducted as quietly as possible and must comply with U . S . EPA
noise emission regulations currently codified at 40 CFR Part 205 ,
and other applicable State , County and City noise control
regulations . ( City of Piedmont , CA)
Collection Vehicle Noise Level . The noise level generated
by collection vehicles using compaction mechanisms during the
stationary compaction process shall not exceed seventy-five ( 75 )
decibels at a distance of twenty-five (25 ) feet from the collection
vehicle measured at an elevation of five (5 ) feet above ground
level using the "A" scale of the standard sound level meter at slow
response . CONTRACTOR shall cause each collection vehicle to
be tested no less than once every three ( 3 ) years during the
months of March and April , beginning March of 2008 .
CONTRACTOR shall maintain copies of certificates of testing
showing the results of the vehicle testing and shall make such
certificates available for inspection upon request by the City
Representative . CONTRACTOR shall not use any collection
vehicle that does not meet the noise level limitations of this
Section . ( City of San Jose , CA)
Noise - All Collection operations shall be conducted as
quietly as possible and shall conform to applicable Federal , state , [Z5
Page A- 3
Appendix A county , and City noise level regulations . Contractor shall promptly
ppresolve any Complaints of noise during the morning or evening
hours of the day to the satisfaction of the City . ( Union City , CA)
Best Schedules - Residential Solid Waste , Residential
Recyclable Materials and Plant Materials shall be collected on
Management weekdays between 6 : 00 AM and 6 : 00 PM . To preserve peace
and quiet , no Solid Waste , Recyclable Materials or Plant Materials
Practices — shall be Collected from or within two- hundred (200 ) feet of
residential Premises between 6 : 00 P . M . and 6 : 00 A. M . on any
Sample Contract day . Contractor shall notify Agency and service recipients in
writing at least two (2 ) weeks before an alternate Collection day is
Language scheduled when the regularly scheduled Collection day falls on a
Holiday when no Collections are scheduled . Collection of Solid
Waste from Commercial , industrial and institutional Properties
shall be scheduled at the direction of the Agency . ( SBWMA)
1 . 4 Safety
Vehicle Loading . Contractor shall not load collection
vehicles in excess of the manufacturer' s recommendations or
limitations imposed by state or local weight restrictions on
vehicles . ( Salinas , CA)
Collection Vehicles . CONTRACTOR shall not use any
collection vehicle older than model year 2001 , and shall not use
any collection vehicle that is more that six (6 ) years old or has
more than 250 , 000 miles unless such vehicle is a Rebuilt Vehicle .
( San Jose , CA)
Safety Markings and Devices . All collection equipment
used by CONTRACTOR in providing collection services under this
Agreement shall have appropriate safety markings including , but
not limited to , highway lighting , flashing and warning lights , and
clearance lights . All such safety markings and devices shall be in
accordance with the requirements of the California Vehicle Code ,
as may be amended from time to time , and shall be subject to the
approval of the City Representative . (San Jose , CA)
Vehicles Safety Features and Equipment . All of
CONTRACTOR' s collection vehicles will be equipped with the
following items to assure both public and employee safety during
all on - route and off- route operations :
o ABS braking system
o Rear vision camera - Smart Light safety systems
c Hopper Camera
c Back- up alarm warning
[Z5 o Reverse motions sensor alarm
c Battery disconnect
Page A-4
o Safety triangles Appendix A
o Fire extinguisher
o Dual air horn
o Prutsman 7" x 16" West Coast Mirrors
o Dual convex safety mirror Best
o Body hoist , rear door warning alarm Management
o Rear working strobe warning light
Practices —
The back- up cameras , back- up lights , audible warning devices ,
and yellow hazard lights are activated when CONTRACTOR' s Sample Contract
vehicle is forced to maneuver in safety sensitive areas , ensuring
the highest level of safety on city streets . In addition , each vehicle is Language
equipped with a broom , shovel , absorbent materials , and other
approved clean - up devices and materials for emergencies or any
spillage or leaks that may occur ( Spill Kit) . Each vehicle has two-
way radio communication with CONTRACTOR ' s office ,
dispatcher, customer service representatives , and operations
supervisors to maintain the highest level of access and
communication . ( Piedmont , CA ( Exhibit 11 based on hauler
proposal ) )
1 . 5 Street Maintenance Impacts
Vehicle Impact Fee . Initially , Contractor shall pay a Vehicle
Impact Fee to the City each month equal to $ 0 . 33 per Residential
unit that receives Collection services by the Contractor.
Thereafter, the Vehicle Impact Fee shall be adjusted annually
based on the change in the All Urban Consumers Index ( CPI - U )
all items , for the San Francisco , Oakland -San Jose , CA, Base
Period 1982 - 1984 = 100 , not seasonally adjusted , compiled and
published by the U . S . Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics . ( Union City , CA) .
2 . 0 Diversion Requirements/
Incentives
2 . 1 Minimum Diversion Requirements
Minimum Requirements . The CITY requires the
CONTRACTOR to use its best efforts to achieve a minimum
annual diversion rate of sixty five percent ( 65 % ) for Single family
dwelling Collection Services , Multi -family dwelling Collection
Services , Commercial Collection Services , City Collection
Services , and Debris Box Collection Services , or such other
amount as may be set in accordance with the provisions of Article
25 of this Agreement during each Calendar Year beginning
January 1 , 2009 . The annual diversion rate will be calculated as
Page A-5
Appendix A "the tons of materials collected by CONTRACTOR from the
pp provision of Collection Services that are sold , processed , or
shipped to a recycler or re- user and net of any residue amounts ,
as required by this Agreement , divided by the total tons of
materials collected by CONTRACTOR in each Calendar Year.
Best ( City of Piedmont, CA)
Management Failure to Meet Minimum Requirements .
Practices — CONTRACTOR' S failure to meet the minimum diversion
requirements set forth above in Article 5 . 01 may result in the
Sample Contract termination of this Agreement or the imposition of liquidated
damages . In determining whether or not to assess liquidated
Language damages or terminate the Agreement , the CITY will consider the
good faith efforts put forth by the CONTRACTOR to meet the
minimum diversion requirements . This consideration will include
the methods and level of effort of the CONTRACTOR to fully
implement the public education and diversion plans attached to
and included in this Agreement as Exhibits 8 and 9 , respectively.
( City of Piedmont, CA)
2 . 2 Diversion Incentives
Operating Ratio and Allowed Profit. The Contractor shall
be entitled to a profit on its Operating Costs , to be determined by
use of an Operating Ratio ' .
The Operating Ratio number will be determined using a
sliding scale , under which the Operating Ratio number will
decrease (and , thus , the Contractor's profit margin will increase )
the more Recyclable Materials collected by Contractor are
diverted by Contractor from landfilling ( i . e . , " Recovered Materials"
as defined in this Agreement) . The percentage of Recovered
Materials diverted from landfilling by Contractor shall be measured
by determining the percentage by weight ( in tons ) of Recovered
Materials diverted by Contractor from landfilling out of: (a ) all Solid
Waste collected by Contractor in the South Lake Tahoe Basin
Waste Management Authority Franchise Area from collection
routes ; ( b ) all Solid Waste received by Contractor at the Materials
Recovery Facility from haulers other than Contractor's collection
trucks ; and (c) all Recyclable Materials collected at Contractor's
buyback centers and through other recycling programs operated
by Contractor ( hereinafter the " Recovery Percentage" ) .
Contractor shall not receive diversion credit for the recovery of
Recyclable Materials collected outside of the Authority Franchise
Area or from recycling programs operated by third parties . The
' Profit based on an Operating Ratio is calculated by dividing the total
Allowable Costs by the Operating Ratio (e . g . , 90% ) and then subtracting
the Allowable Costs . (e . g . , Profit on $ 1 , 000 , 000 Allowable Costs with a
90 % Operating Ratio = ($ 1 , 000 , 000 /. 90 ) - $ 1 , 000 , 000 = $ 111 , 111 or
11 . 1 % profit) .
Page A-6
Recovery Percentage shall be rounded to the nearest whole number. Appendix A
The Operating Ratio number shall vary with Contractor' s
Recovery Percentage in accordance with the following sliding Best
scale :
Operating Ratio Number Recovery Percentage Management
94 . 34 0- 15 % Practices —
93 . 90 16
93 . 46 17 Sample Contract
93 . 02 18
92 . 59 19 Language
92 . 17 20
91 . 74 21
91 . 32 22
90 . 90 23
90 . 50 24
89 25-28
88 29-32
87 33- 100
The amount of profit ( "Allowed Profit" ) to be received by
Contractor for a given period shall be determined by multiplying
the total projected Operating Costs for the period by a fraction , in
which the numerator shall be one hundred ( 100 ) and the
denominator shall be the Operating Ratio number applicable to
the period as determined by using the foregoing sliding scale .
The Allowed Profit shall then be determined by subtracting the
projected Operating Costs from the product of the aforesaid
multiplication . For example , if projected Operating Costs for a
year were $ 5 , 000 , 000 and the Operating Ratio number to be used
was 90 , the Allowed Profit would be calculated as follows :
100/90 = 1 . 11 ( rounded off to one one- hundredths )
$ 5 , 000 , 000 x 1 . 11 = $ 55550 , 000
$ 555505000 - 510005000 = $ 5505000
Allowed Profit = $ 5501000
Recycling Revenue Bonus for Extraordinary Diversion . In
addition to the foregoing calculation of Allowed Profit , Contractor
shall be entitled to receive as and for additional profit , twenty-five
percent (25 % ) of Contractor' s gross revenues from the sale of
Recyclable Materials diverted from Iandfilling by Contractor
pursuant to this Agreement for those rate periods in which
Contractor' s Recovery Percentage is equal to or greater than
thirty-seven percent ( 37 % ) , and a total of fifty percent ( 50 % ) of
Contractor' s gross revenues from the sale of Recyclable Materials
diverted from Iandfilling by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement
for those rate periods in which Contractor' s Recovery Percentage
Page A- 7
Appendix A is equal to or greater than forty percent (40 % ) . ( El Dorado
pp county , CA)
Best
Management
Practices —
Sample Contract
Language
[Z5
Page A-8
Appendix B
Appendix B
Trash Truck Safety Devices
Appendix B
TRASH TRUCK SAFETY DEVICES
Optional Equipment'
Item Description Vehicle Source
Specification
Reverse Audible sound system in the cab of Optional Norcal/SBWMA
Motion vehicle that senses objects (cars , people , Proposal
Sensors poles , etc. ) in the reverse path of the
vehicle and provides an audible alert in
the cab for the driver.
Battery A mechanical switch that will disengage Optional Norcal/SBWMA
Disconnect energy from battery to vehicle . This is Proposal
used to prevent dead batteries from
electrical items left on or potential
electrical issues related to loose wires .
Rear/Side Automatic flashing light mounted on the Optional Norcal/SBWMA
Strobe rear of the vehicle and activated during Proposal
Warning collection operation . Used to alert people
Lights that the vehicle is operating in the area .
Spill Kits Emergency kits comprised of various Optional Norcal/SBWMA
absorbent material to help control and Proposal
limit exposure caused by a vehicle fluid
spill including (oil , fuel , hydraulic fluid ,
anti -freeze , etc. )
Rear, Side , Camera and video system used to assist Optional BEST/SBWMA
Hopper driver with viewing the activity behind , Proposal
Cameras & along side , or in the hopper of the vehicle .
Video
Driver Truck mounted camera systems that Optional Waste Age
Camera record truck and driver activity. These are
Systems used to help improve driver performance
and record events throughout the day .
GPS Used for operational monitoring functions Optional Waste Age
including monitoring vehicle travel paths ,
speed , hard stops and starts , and time
the vehicle was in the area .
Lane Position Used to detect out-of- lane drift and driver Optional Waste Age
Monitors fatigue .
' - Items that are available to be installed on new or used equipment with the buyer
paying an additional cost for the item , installation , and ongoing maintenance .
Page 1 of 4
Appendix B
TRASH TRUCK SAFETY DEVICES
Optional Equipment'
Item Description Vehicle Source
Specification
Infrared Night In cab display system that shows a Optional Waste Age
Vision temperature-based view of objects
beyond headlights .
Tire Pressure Used to monitor tire pressure with an Optional FMCSA. dot .
Warning audible alert to the driver of a potential gov
System tire pressure issue to help prevent blow
outs , flat tires , and breakdowns .
Electronic Monitors vehicle side ways movement Optional FMCSA. dot .
Stability and balance and automatically reduces gov
Controls speed to reduce roll over hazards .
Electronic Automatic systems to monitor and alert Optional Waste Age
System driver of potential hazards caused by
Monitoring wear or vibration to brakes , wheels , or
drives line .
Page 2 of 4
Appendix B
TRASH TRUCK SAFETY DEVICES
Standard Equipment'
Item Description Vehicle Source
Specification
ABS Braking Control system to assist braking to avoid Standard Norcal/SBWMA
Systems wheels from locking up and skidding . Proposal
Convex Mirror Used to aid driver to view objects on the Standard Norcal/SBWMA
sides of the vehicle . Proposal
' - Standard — Equipment normally selected by new buyers and installed on most new vehicles .
Page 3 of 4
Appendix B
TRASH TRUCK SAFETY DEVICES
Required Equipment3
Item Description Vehicle Source
Specification
Back Up Audible sound system that is Required DOT Inspection
Alarms automatically activated when the vehicle Sheet
transmission is set in reverse .
Safety Emergency reflect devises to be used in Required DOT Inspection
Triangles the event of a breakdown to warn other Sheet
drivers of a potential road hazard .
Fire Portable hand held fire extinguisher to be Required DOT Inspection
Extinguisher used in the event of a fire . These can Sheet
range in size from a small , medium , or
large unit ( 1lb . 5 lb . 10 lb . , etc . )
Dual Air Warning system used to alert people or Required DOT Inspection
Horns other drivers of a potential hazard from Sheet
oncoming vehicle .
Side Mirrors Used to aid driver to view objects on the Required DOT Inspection
sides of the vehicle . Sheet
Hoist , Arm , Audible alert for driver and personnel Required DOT Inspection
Rear Door outside of vehicle that mechanical lifting Sheet
Warning devises are activated and operational .
Alarms
3 - Required items either by DOT , OSHA, or ANSI standards
Page 4 of 4
Appendix C
Appendix C
Comparative Trash Truck Load Factors
Appendix C
COMPARATIVE TRASH TRUCK LOAD FACTORS
Passenger Car Equivalents
Reference Jurisdiction / Data Source
Trash Trucks Recycling Trucks
( 1 ) Bonestroo 830
(2) Napa , CA 886 869
(3) Roseville Public Works 11000
(4) GBB 1 , 125 525
(2) Fort Collins 19279 274
(2) Long Beach , CA 11279 11064
(5) 1 Metro Council 11500
(2) San Mateo, CA 11549 263
(6) Chanhassen 11650
(2) La Habra Heights , CA 11730 11347
( 1 ) Memo to Rick Getschow, City Administrator, Lauderdale, from Paul Heuer, Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates,
Engineers & Architects, 4/9/01
(2) R3 Consulting Group
(3) Impact of Heavy Trucks on Low Residential Streets , presented by Duane Schwartz, Roseville Public Works Director, 10/11 /01
to Roseville Solid Waste Commission
(4) Comparative Economic Analysis of MSW and Recycling Collection in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Areas, prepared for Metro
Council by GBB , 9/94; data from late summer through fall , 1993
(5) Study of Organized Collection in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area , 1985
(6) City of Chanhassen Organized Collection Study, Final Report, 9/93, Resource Strategies Corporation
Appendix C
COMPARATIVE TRASH TRUCK LOAD FACTORS
Comparison of Projected Trash Truck Impacts(Passenger Car Equivalents) Comparison of Projected Recycling Truck Impacts
(Passenger Car Equivalents)
1 ,600
N 2,000
e 11800 11400
1 ,600
3 1 ,400 w 1 ,200
w 1 ,200
v 11000 1 ,000
w
`m
800 V 800
600
400 rn 600
a 200 m
400
yti`°o C) GP J�°\ GP y5ec GP a 200
o�Go G°
San Mateo, Fort Collins GBB Napa, CA Long Beach, La Habra
�o �a CA CA Heights, CA
Jurisdiction / Data Source Jurisdiction / Data Source
Appendix D
Appendix D
Draft Strategic Plan for 50 % Diversion :
Preliminary Staff Recommendations
Appendix D
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN FOR 50% SOLID WASTE DIVERSION
PRELIMINARY STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY TABLE
Plan Element
Subgoal 1 Provide For` Collins residents and the business community with information and education about waste diversion
1 - 1 (1 ) Increase/enhance the City's education program (in one-year increments) regarding specific measures to be initially implemented .
Subgoal 2 Target organics to be separated from the waste stream, for collection and delivery in making secondary products such as
compost, mulch, or composition construction material.
2 1 (1 ) Provide customers , upon request to their trash haulers , with optional curbside yard waste services on a weekly basis . This measure
will require that yard waste does not cost more than equivalent costs for trash , by volume (consistent with pay-as-you-throw rates).
2 2 After sufficient infrastructure has been developed to accept large volumes of organic debris to be composted , add requirement for
largest candidate firms (e .g . , restaurants and grocery stores) to recycle commercial food waste.
2-3 Prevent yard waste from being discarded in Fort Collins' curbside trash collection system .
Subgoal 3 Target waste material generated by new construction and by demolition activities to be diverted from the waste stream
and used in manufacturing secondary products.
3- 1 Establish contract preferences to encourage recycling and waste reduction for City of Fort Collins construction & demolition (C&D )
jobs .
3 2 0 ) Create a refundable C&D deposit system based on square footage of project (or comparable criterion ), with total deposit to be
refunded upon certification that appropriate level of recycling was accomplished .
3-3 In the absence of appropriate private-sector facilities necessary for accepting C&D waste , ultimately create a City sponsored drop-
off site .
Subgoal 4 Divert more of the waste generated by the commercial sector.
4- 1 Offer 3 months recycling free to businesses (City-funded )
4-2 City provides technical assistance / waste audits to businesses
4-3 Adopt ordinance making it mandatory for businesses that dispose of more than 10yd3 of trash weekly to install a recycling bin .
4-4 Actively urge smaller / non-recycling businesses to implement singe-stream recycling systems .
4-5 Assist with the formation of recycling cooperatives for small businesses .
4-6 Awards grants, zero-interest loans , and incentives to businesses for waste prevention efforts.
4-7 Adopt City procurement guidelines and/or incentives for recycled content.
4-8 Strengthen the City organization's recycling program ; emphasize source reduction .
4 9 0 ) Amend the City's PAYT ordinance to include all commercial customers ; require recycling fee to be embedded in rates and charge
volume-based pricing .
4- 10 Ultimately, make recycling mandatory for all businesses.
Subgoal 5 Divert more of the waste generated by the residential sources.
5- 1 0 ) Amend Fort Collins' pay-as-you-throw ( PAYT) residential trash rates ordinance so that "rate design" further enhances waste
reduction efforts .
5 2 Implement ongoing curbside recycling program improvements , including more designated materials and standard options for larger
recycling containers , etc.
5-3 Encourage multifamily housing managers/residents to adopt single-stream recycling systems.
5-4 Encourage private partnerships for constructing multiple community drop-offs to collect more recyclables (paper, glass, etc. )
5-5 Prevent discarded computers from being placed in Fort Collins' curbside trash collection system .
5-6 Adopt the requirement for service providers to collect single stream recycling from residential customers as soon as market trends
allow.
Subgoal 6 Create a dedicated city "waste diversion fee " that would be used to fund new recycling opportunities, grants and zero-
interest loans for waste diversion innovation, as well as other Strategic Plan activities.
(' )Recommended Phase 1 Program
Community Planning and Environmental Services
Natural Resources Department
City of Fort Collins
March 28 , 2006 Council Worksession
Attachment 1 : Preliminary Staff Recommendations
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN
for 50 % SOLID WASTE DIVERSION
City of Fort Collins Natural Resources Department
Susie Gordon, Sr. Environmental Planner
John Armstrong, Environmental Planner
200 West Mountain Avenue • P. O . Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221 -6600
Attachment 1
March 28, 2006
Council Study Session
Draft Strategic Plan for 50% Solid Waste Diversion
Preliminary Staff Recommendations :
DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN FOR 50 % SOLID WASTE DIVERSION
City of Fort Collins Natural Resources Department
INTRODUCTION
Fort Collins ' involvement in recycling and waste reduction traces back to 1977 city master
planning policies and the introduction of local curbside recycling in the 1980 ' s . Adoption of a
pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) trash ordinance followed in 1995 . A 1999 resolution adopted by the
City Council for increasing waste diversion levels paved the way for more innovations . When an
update was made to the Council in February 2005 , measurements showed the community was
still only half-way to its goal of 50% diversion by 2010; clearly, new and revitalized efforts were
necessary to make significant advances .
During a six-month strategic planning process , dozens of new programs ' were explored for
diverting more of the community' s waste stream away from landfill disposal. A highly
experienced consulting team led by Skumatz Economic Research Associates was hired for the
project, and a group of knowledgeable stakeholders was recruited as a steering committee for the
project. Extensive community involvement helped ensure that public input was incorporated
into the December, 2005 strategic plan report.
This document introduces staff s preliminary proposal for a package of over 20 new measures
that will help Fort Collins divert 50% (or more) of its waste stream. The Strategic Plan for 50%
Solid Waste Diversion has been designed to provide both an appropriate range of actions and the
sequence of changes necessary to reach the community' s goal in a timely manner. The new
measures were chosen for their feasibility, effectiveness , and pro-activeness . They represent
staff s recommended approach, which came out of all the ideas that were explored with help
from the public, consultants, and Steering Committee members who participated in the planning
process .
If Council agrees to adopt a Strategic Plan, staff recommends prioritizing five programs for early
implementation. These include : a one-year education campaign about local recycling and waste
reduction opportunities ; opportunity for all customers to receive weekly yard waste recycling ; a
construction and demolition (C&D) deposit that refunds the full deposit for projects that recycle ;
amend the City' s pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) ordinance to include commercial customers so that
all receive recycling service ; restructure Fort Collins ' PAYT ordinance with "rate designs" that
further enhance waste reduction efforts .
' Table 5-2 (pages 40 — 43) of the draft SERA report (Fort Collins Solid Waste 5- Year Strategic Plan), available at
www.fcgov.com/recyclin /tg/ aWn tgtrash .
Page 1 of 9
Attachment 1
March 28, 2006
Council Study Session
Draft Strategic Plan for 50% Solid Waste Diversion
Background/Context
A number of cities , including Chicago, San Francisco, Portland (OR) , and San Diego have been
successful at reaching, and surpassing, 50% waste diversion levels by applying innovative
policies and programs2 . However, relatively few communities in this part of the country have
made such a high commitment to waste diversion, especially those that do not manage municipal
trash collection, and therefore have limited funding (Fort Collins citizens employ the services of
a completely privatized trash collection system) .
A number of economic variables are critical to consider in a strategic plan. Fort Collins '
geographic location increases shipping costs to recycling markets that are predominantly found
in coastal transportation centers . Local recycling opportunities that are not fully developed need
to be stimulated. However, Colorado has not adopted the legislative mandates that successfully
motivate waste reduction in many other states (quite the opposite happens due to the abundance
of landfills that have been built in our state) ; therefore, local ordinances and requirements play an
important role. The regional infrastructure necessary to accomplish higher levels of waste
diversion (i. e. , processing or remanufacturing plants) requires greater levels of investment, so
incentives are important to consider. Because the market for recyclable commodities is so
susceptible to global influences such as energy prices and international demand, waste reduction
and recycling programs adopted for Fort Collins must be as economically sound and solvent as
possible.
Key Objectives
Five main objectives were used to evaluate, model , and select "packages" of programs from
among the initial list of new ideas that were submitted by the consultant.
1 . Target materials that have the most potential to be diverted and those that represent the
largest amount of volume that can be diverted 3 ,
2. Elicit waste reduction contributions from all sectors of the community, including
residential, commercial, institutional (e. g. , the City), multi-family, and key stakeholder
businesses such as trash haulers and recycling companies,
3 . Distribute costs so that no single sector is unfairly affected,
4. Optimize positive, intended consequences and interrelationships among potential new
programs,
5 . Anticipate market forces that will create successful opportunities for our local recycling
system, which includes service providers , the business community, recycling
professionals, commodity brokers, as well as local citizens and their political
representatives, and
6. Address concerns and needs that were expressed by citizens of Fort Collins in a
community-wide survey.4
2 Waste News article: Municipal Recycling Survey. February 13 , 2006 (www.wastenews.com )
3 Figure 5- 1 , 5-2 (pages 32, 33) draft SERA report (Fort Collins Solid Waste 5- Year Strategic Plan).
4 Appendix D, ibid
Page 2 of 9
Attachment 1
March 28, 2006
Council Study Session
Draft Strategic Plan for 50% Solid Waste Diversion
How Recommendations Were Evaluated
The econometric modeling that was used to calculate the costs and effectiveness of new
programs for Fort Collins draws from an extensive, proprietary computer program developed by
Skumatz Economic Research Associates . (For 25 years , this firm has researched the impacts of
solid waste reduction policies and programs in over 1 ,500 North American communities . ) Fort
Collins ' own measurements of local waste generation and recycling activities provided the
baseline data for SERA' s Strategic Plan model; the customized tool now belongs to the City for
use in future planning.
Public Input
Public involvement was critical to guiding the strategic planning process . Numerous articles and
announcements were printed in the media that helped the City obtain comments and ideas . An
open house in December 2005 was attended by over 60 citizens and there were a number of
"visits" to an interactive website (www .fcgov.talkin tg rash ) .
A group of stakeholders representing a broad cross-section of the community met regularly to
assist staff and the consultants with developing and ranking strategies to include in the Plan. The
Steering Committee included:
Trash hauling companies
Recyclers — public & private
County landfill staff
Commercial composter
Environmental consultant
Citizen advisory committee members
As part of Fort Collins ' strategic planning project, a public opinion survey was conducted by
Corona Research, with a margin of error of � 4. 9 percent and a 95 percent confidence level in the
results . (A smaller survey was also administered to poll businesses in Fort Collins about their
attitudes and opinions about recycling and waste reduction. ) Survey questions were specifically
designed to seek information that relates to developing plans for new programs . The responses
from the 403 completed telephone interviews indicate an extremely high interest in, and support
of, recycling among Fort Collins citizens . In terms of importance, respondents were more likely
to state that the ability to recycle conveniently, and the ability to recycle many materials , is more
important than having inexpensive trash and recycling services .
There appears to be additional demand for curbside recycling ; nearly three-quarters (73 percent)
of survey respondents reported that they participate in curbside recycling. While there are many
reasons for not recycling, the largest single reason (37 percent of non-recyclers) is that curbside
recycling is not available to them; this may be attributed to the fact that curbside recycling is not
always provided to residents of multi-family dwellings .
Page 3 of 9
Attachment 1
March 28, 2006
Council Study Session
Draft Strategic Plan for 50% Solid Waste Diversion
Yard waste appears to be an area of particular potential for recycling. A total of 39 percent of
respondents report that they put yard waste out with the trash. About 1 /3 of respondents report
that they would use a community composting facility even if there was a small fee. Demand is
greater for curbside pickup of yard waste; over half would be "very likely" or "somewhat likely"
to use the service, even if there was a small fee.
There is a belief that recycling has not yet hit its potential. On average, respondents believe that
over 40 percent of their own trash could be recycled. A total of 79 percent believe that it is
feasible to divert 50 percent of garbage to recycling. Respondents also expressed price
flexibility for increased services . A total of 82 percent of households believe that their current
charges for trash and recycling are reasonable, and 78 percent would be willing to pay "a bit
more" to achieve the City' s recycling goal . Half of respondents would pay three dollars more per
month, while 93 percent would be willing to pay an additional 50 cents per month.
The findings of the public opinion survey confirm that Fort Collinites are clearly eager to
recycle, with 98 percent of respondents expressing the belief that recycling is "good for the city
of Fort Collins ." They are supportive of new measures to divert waste (89 percent believe that
the City should pursue additional means of recycling and diversion) and willing to pay some part
of the costs that may be incurred to develop new programs . These findings , and the public
comments that were received, were weighed together with our best estimation about costs and
impacts in developing the following preliminary Strategic Plan.
Phase-in Schedule
For the purposes of modeling, it was necessary to enter start-dates for the strategies that were
evaluated. Staff applied a phased approach with two basic stages . Many strategies were
modeled that could essentially be started right away, while several others would be better to
initiate in five or eight years , after the infrastructure has grown or intermediates steps have been
taken. It is important to plan for a highly flexible implementation schedule in order to respond to
changes over time such as adjusted market conditions or innovations in technology.
In the interests of assisting the City Council to provide immediate direction for the community,
staff developed a summary list of five new measures to investigate for Phase I implementation.
• Strategy 1 - 1 . Increase/enhance the City' s education program (in one-year increments)
regarding specific measures to be initially implemented.
• Strategy 2- 1 . Provide customers , upon request to their trash haulers , with optional
curbside yard waste collection services on a weekly basis .
• Strategy 3 -2 . Create a refundable C&D deposit system based on square footage of
project (or comparable criterion), with total deposit to be refunded upon certification that
appropriate level of recycling was accomplished.
• Strategy 4-9 . Amend the City' s PAYT ordinance to include all commercial customers ;
require recycling fee to be embedded in rates and charge volume-based pricing.
• Strategy 5 - 1 . Amend Fort Collins ' pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) residential trash rates
ordinance so that "rate design" further enhances waste reduction efforts .
Page 4 of 9
Attachment 1
March 28, 2006
Council Study Session
Draft Strategic Plan for 50% Solid Waste Diversion
Next Steps
At the March 28 , 2006 work session, the City Council' s feedback will be sought for the overall
package of new measures, and for the concept of adopting a long-term strategic plan. If the
Council concurs about a summary list of new measures to begin implementing immediately, staff
will begin preparing a business plan for each one, including more detailed benefit / cost analyses ,
schedule for implantation, and budget estimates . These project outlines will be submitted as
soon as possible for Council ' s formal endorsement.
Page 5 of 9
Attachment 1
March 28, 2006
Council Study Session
Draft Strategic Plan for 50% Solid Waste Diversion
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR 50 % SOLID WASTE DIVERSION
GOAL : The City will strive to divert 50 % of the community's waste stream from landfill
disposal by 2010.
Subgoal l : Provide Fort Collins residents and the business community with information
and education about waste diversion.
Strategy 1 - 1 . Increase/enhance the City' s education program (in one-year increments)
regarding specific measures to be initially implemented .
Modeled costs : $40 / ton City6, $ .50 / ton community?
Modeled diversion: 1 . 3 % (5 ,000 new tons)
Modeled start-date and ramp-up period: 2007 , one year
Subgoal 2 : Target organics to be separated from the waste stream, for collection and
delivery in making secondary products such as compost, mulch, or composition
construction material.
Strategy 2- 1 . Provide customers, upon request to their trash haulers, with optional curbside
yard waste collection services on a weekly basis . This measure will require that yard waste
does not cost more than equivalent costs for trash, by volume (consistent with pay-as-you-
throw rates) .
Modeled costs : $ 1 / ton City, $ 120 / ton community
Modeled diversion: 1 . 9% (7 ,500 new tons)
Modeled start-date and ramp-up period: 2007 , two years
Strategy 2-2. After sufficient infrastructure has been developed to accept large volumes of
organic debris to be composted, add requirement for largest candidate firms (e. g. ,
restaurants and grocery stores) to recycle commercial food waste.
Modeled costs : $ 1 / ton City, $ 12 / ton community
Modeled diversion : 0.4% ( 1 ,700 new tons)
Modeled start-date and ramp-up period: 2011 , two years
Strategy 2-3 . Prevent yard waste from being discarded in Fort Collins ' curbside trash
collection system.
5 Underlined to indicate strategy was included in staff' s recommendation for Phase I implementation.
6City cost per ton is the estimated cost to city government to divert one ton of new material per year following full
implementation of a given program.
7 User cost per ton is the estimated cost to the community (i.e. , residents and businesses) to divert one ton of new
material per year following full implementation of a given program.
Page 6 of 9
Attachment 1
March 28, 2006
Council Study Session
Draft Strategic Plan for 50% Solid Waste Diversion
Modeled costs : $ 1 / ton City, $30 / ton community
Modeled diversion: 9 .0% (34,000 new tons)
Modeled start-date and ramp-up period: 2011 , two years
Subgoal 3 : Target waste material generated by new construction and by demolition
activities to be diverted from the waste stream and used in manufacturing secondary
products.
Strategy 3 - 1 . Establish contract preferences to encourage recycling and waste reduction for
City of Fort Collins construction & demolition (C&D) jobs .
Modeled costs : not modeled
Modeled diversion: not modeled
Modeled start-date and ramp-up period: 2007 , one year
Strategy 3 -2. Create a refundable C&D deposit system based on square footage of project
(or comparable criterion) , with total deposit to be refunded upon certification that
appropriate level of recycling was accomplished.
Modeled costs : $ 1 / ton City, $30 / ton community
Modeled diversion : 12% (46,000 new tons)
Modeled start-date and ramp-up period: 2007 , four years
Strategy 3 -3 . In the absence of appropriate private-sector facilities necessary for accepting
C&D waste, ultimately create a City sponsored drop-off site.
Modeled costs : $ 1 / ton City, $ 12 / ton community
Modeled diversion : 10. 6% (41 ,000 new tons)
Modeled start-date and ramp-up period: 2011 , four years
Subgoal 4: Divert more of the waste generated by the commercial sector.
Strategy 4- 1 . Offer 3 months recycling free to businesses (City-funded) .
Modeled costs : $20 / ton City, $20 / ton community
Modeled diversion: very low
Modeled start-date and ramp-up period: 2007 , one year
Strategy 4-2. City provides technical assistance / waste audits to businesses .
Modeled costs : $ 110 / ton City, $ . 50 / ton community
Modeled diversion : 0. 9% (3 ,400 new tons)
Modeled start-date and ramp-up period: 2007 , two years
Strategy 4-3 . Adopt ordinance making it mandatory for businesses that dispose of more
than 10 yd3 of trash weekly to install a recycling bin.
Modeled costs : $ 1 / ton City, $ 12 / ton community
Modeled diversion : 2.0% (7 ,500 new tons)
Modeled start-date and ramp-up period: 2007 , two years
Page 7 of 9
Attachment 1
March 28, 2006
Council Study Session
Draft Strategic Plan for 50% Solid Waste Diversion
Strategy 4-4. Actively urge smaller / non-recycling businesses to implement single-stream
recycling systems .
Modeled costs : $ . 50 / ton City, $7 / ton community
Modeled diversion: 0. 9% (3 ,300 new tons)
Modeled start-date and ramp-up period: 2007 , two years
Strategy 4-5 . Assist with formation of recycling cooperatives for small businesses .
Modeled costs : $ 110 / ton City, $ . 50 ton / community
Modeled diversion : 0. 9% (3 ,300 new tons)
Modeled start-date and ramp-up period: 2007 , four years
Strategy 4-6. Awards grants , zero-interest loans, and incentives to businesses for waste
prevention efforts .
Modeled costs : $210 / ton City, $ . 50 / ton community
Modeled diversion: 0. 7 % (2,700 new tons)
Modeled start-date and ramp-up period: 2007 , two years
Strategy 4-7 . Adopt City procurement guidelines and/or incentives for recycled content.
Modeled costs : not modeled
Modeled diversion: not modeled
Modeled start-date and ramp-up period: 2007 , one year
Strategy 4- 8 . Strengthen the City organization' s recycling program; emphasize source
reduction.
Modeled costs : not modeled
Modeled diversion: not modeled
Modeled start-date and ramp-up period: 2007 , one year
Strategy 4-9 . Amend the City' s PAYT ordinance to include all commercial customers ;
require recycling fee to be embedded in rates and charge volume-based pricing.
Modeled costs : $ 1 / ton City, $70 / ton community
Modeled diversion: 16. 7 % (64,000 new tons)
Modeled start-date and ramp-up period: 2007 , four years
Strategy 4- 10. Ultimately, make recycling mandatory for all businesses .
Modeled costs : $ 1 / ton City, $70 / ton commercial
Modeled diversion : 1 .7 % (6,600 new tons)
Modeled start-date and ramp-up period: 2015 , one year
Subgoal 5 : Divert more of the waste generated by residential sources.
Strategy 5 - 1 . Amend Fort Collins ' pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) residential trash rates
ordinance so that "rate design" further enhances waste reduction efforts .
Modeled costs : $ 1 / ton City, $30 / ton community
Modeled diversion : 3 . 3 % Modeled start-date and ramp-up period: 2007 , one year
Page 8 of 9
Attachment 1
March 28, 2006
Council Study Session
Draft Strategic Plan for 50% Solid Waste Diversion
Strategy 5 -2. Implement ongoing curbside recycling program improvements , including
more designated materials and standard options for larger recycling containers , etc.
Modeled costs : not finalized
Modeled diversion : 0.4% ( 1 ,700 new tons)
Modeled start-date and ramp-up period: 2007 , one year
Strategy 5 -3 . Encourage multifamily housing managers / residents to adopt single- stream
recycling systems .
Modeled costs : not finalized
Modeled diversion : 0. 1 (470 new tons)
Modeled start-date and ramp-up period: 2007 , two years
Strategy 5 -4. Encourage private partnerships for constructing multiple community drop-
offs to collect more recyclables (paper, glass , etc. ) .
Modeled costs : $ 1 / ton City, $ . 50 ton / community
Modeled diversion : 0. 8 % (3 ,000 new tons)
Modeled start-date and ramp-up period: 2007 , two years
Strategy 5 -5 . Prevent discarded computers from being placed in Fort Collins ' curbside
trash collection system.
Modeled costs : $ 14 / ton City, $ 120 / ton community
Modeled diversion : 0.4 % ( 1 ,700 new tons)
Modeled start-date and ramp-up period: 2007 , one year
Strategy 5 -6. Adopt the requirement for service providers to collect single stream recycling
from residential customers as soon as market trends allow .
Modeled costs : $ 1 / ton City, $ . 50 / ton community
Modeled diversion : 2.0% (8 ,000 new tons)
Modeled start-date and ramp-up period: 2007 , three years
Subgoal 6. Create a dedicated city " waste diversion fee " that would be used to fund new
recycling opportunities, grants and zero-interest loans for waste diversion innovation, as
well as other new Strategic Plan activities.
Page 9 of 9
Appendix E
Appendix E
Waste Composition Data
• Table E - 1 ; Waste Disposal by Generator Sector
• Table E -2 ; Comparison of Top 10 Most Prevalent
Materials by Generator Sector
Appendix E
WASTE COMPOSITION DATA
Table E-1
WASTE DISPOSAL BY GENERATOR SECTOR
Residential Commercial Self-haul C&D Total
Tons Disposed % of Total Tons Disposed % of Total Tons Disposed % of Total Tons Disposed % of Total Tons Disposed % of Total
631624 41 % 55 ,211 36% 101211 7% 24516 16% 1531562 100%
Table E -2
COMPARISON OF TOP 10 MOST PREVALENT MATERIALS BY GENERATOR SECTOR
Residential Commercial Self-haul C&D
Rank
Material Type % of Total Material Type % of Total Material Type % of Total Material Type % of Total
1 Food Waste 17 .4% Food Waste 15. 9% Bulky Items 15.8% Drywall 15. 1 %
2 Yard Waste 8 .0% OCC/Kraft 13. 6% Yard Waste 9 .5% Asphalt Roofing 14. 7%
3 Non Recyc Paper 7 .7% Yard Waste 6. 3% Other Inorganics 9 . 1 % Carpet 11 .8%
4 Mixed Recyc Paper 6. 6% Non Recyc Paper 5. 5% Carpet 8 .0% Block/Brick/Stone 11 .2%
5 Newspaper 6. 5% Film/Bags 4. 5% Clean Wood 7 .7% Clean Wood 10.9%
6 OCC/Kraft 6. 0% Newspaper 4. 1 % Clean Wood/Block/ 5 .8% Other Wood 10. 3%
Brick/Stone
7 Diapers/Sanitary 4 .9% Mixed Recyc Paper 3. 6% OCC/Kraft 4 .4% Painted/Stained 6 0%
Products Wood
8 Film/Bags 4 .5% Clean Wood 3. 5% Mixed Recyc Paper 4 . 1 % Other Inorganics 5.4%
9 Other Rigid Plastic 3 .2% High Grade Paper 3. 5% Painted Stained 3 .7% Other/Broken Glass 3.9%
Wood
10 Fines 3 . 1 % Other Rigid Plastic 3.2% Asphalt Roofing 3 .6% Other Ferrous Metal 2.4%
Top 10 68.0% 63.9% 71 . 1 % 91 .8%
Recyclable Materials =
Compostable Materials =
Total =
Numbers may not add due to rounding
Source : Larimer County; Two-Season Waste Composition Study; Final Report, May 2007, Table 4-3
Appendix F
Appendix F
Residential Collection System Structure
Options
Appendix F
RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION SYSTEM STRUCTURE OPTIONS
COMPARATIVE MATRIX
Collection System Summary
Structure Overview
Pros Cons
Limited City control ;
Current Open Limited City administrative Multiple trash collection service
Competition requirements ; impacts ;
Haulers are required to obtain a
1 ) System without any Customers free to choose hauler; More difficult to implement new
9 /
Chan es license to operate within the City No impact on existing haulers ; uniform programs and services
(Status Quo) No change to Status Quo than Districted Collection System
or City-wide Contract for Services
Provides many of the same
Open Competition benefits as Current Open
System with Haulers would be required to Competition System while also Many of the same issues as
2) Increased comply with additional licensing providing opportunity to reduce Current Open Competition System ;
requirements established by the Additional City administrative
Licensing City trash collection service impacts, requirements
Requirements increase diversion and establish
other desired hauler requirements
Represents significant change for
all parties ( residents, haulers,
City) ;
Lack of customer choice ;
3) Districted Existing haulers may lose market
Collection System share ;
Increased City administrative
The City would Issue a Request for requirements ;
Proposals ( RFP) to provide Provides effective mechanism Requires City billing system if
services within a district(s) / City- (district or city-wide contract) and uniform rates are to be established
wide ; process (competitive procurement)
Specific services , service through which the City can
standards and other terms and establish desired contract terms
conditions would be specified in and conditions at rates set by the
the district or City-wide contract;
Rates would be specified in marketplace Represents significant change for
proposal all parties (residents, haulers,
City) ;
4) City-wide Contract Lack of customer choice ;
for Services Existing haulers may lose market
share ;
Increased City administrative
requirements ;
1 of 5
Appendix F
RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION SYSTEM STRUCTURE OPTIONS
COMPARATIVE MATRIX
Collection System Regulatory Reference Proposer Impact on Existing Trash Collection
Structure Mechanism Jurisdictions Pool Haulers Impacts
Current Open
Competition
1 ) System without any NA NA No change
Changes
(Status Quo)
Municipal Code
(Length can vary
depending on level of Fort Collins ;
requirements: Greeley; Windsor;
Broomfield, Golden 5 Many Others
pgs; Fort Collins 10
pgs; Calabasas, CA
46 pgs)
Open Competition Haulers would be Reduced impacts
System with required to adhere to relative to any new
2) Increased NA additional license associated licensing
Licensing requirements requirements
Requirements established by City established by City
Potential loss of some or
Districted Stand alone District None identified in all residential market
3) Collection System Contract Colorado share ;
(City of San Jose , CA) Potential for increased
market share Reduced impacts
relative to reduction in
number of trucks on
residential streets and
Any licensed number of vehicle miles
hauler traveled
(All other factors the
same) ;
Reduced impacts related
One hauler would be to any related contract
Stand alone City- awarded City-wide terms and conditions
wide Contract Commerce City ; contract;
City-wide Contract ( Lafayette, CO 13 Lafayette ; Evans ;
4) for Services pgs; Various CA Greenwood Village ; Existing haulers that are
Jurisdictions (+/- 100 Superior not awarded City-wide
contract would lose
pgs)) entire market share
2of5
Appendix F
RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION SYSTEM STRUCTURE OPTIONS
COMPARATIVE MATRIX
Collection System Impact on Customers
Structure Ability to Choose Hauler Rate Impact Ease of Use Quality of Service
Current Open
Competition
1 ) System without any Customer may choose NA No change
any licensed hauler
Changes
(Status Quo)
Customer has ability to
choose another licensed
hauler if they have a
customer service or other
issue
Open Competition
System with None unless additional
2) Increased Customer may choose licensing requirements result No change
any licensed hauler in increased costs that are
Licensing passed along to residents
Requirements
Customers do not have
Potential for obtaining lower ability to switch haulers if
Districted rates customer service issues
3) Collection System (Operational efficiencies should arise ;
allow for lowering of rates - all City has ability to set
other factors the same) customer service
standards but no ability to
None change haulers during term
(Contracted hauler would Will require transition to of contract if customer
provide service to all a new hauler for some or issues arise unless they
customers in district / City- all customers rise to breach of contract
wide) status ;
Liquidated damages
provision could be
Potential for obtaining lowest included in contract to
rates address service quality and
City-wide Contract other performance issues
4) for Services Operational efficiencies should that may arise and are not
allow for lowering of rates - all
other factors the same) resolved to the City's
satisfaction
3of5
Appendix F
RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION SYSTEM STRUCTURE OPTIONS
COMPARATIVE MATRIX
Collection System Implementation Issues
Structure Ease Cost Lead Time Key Process Considerations
(if third party is enlisted )
Current Open
Competition
1 ) System without any NA NA NA NA
Changes
(Status Quo)
+/- 6 months
(City may wish to solicit
Open Competition Requires drafting $10 - $25K plus City Hauler input related to
System with additional licensing implementation costs additional licensing Need to draft additional licensing
2) Increased requirements and and ongoing requirements to assure that they result in requirements and amend Municipal
Licensing amending Municipal administrative meaningful benefits Code ;
Requirements Code expenses without being overly
burdensome on the
haulers)
Need to establish districts ( Requires
accurate account data and
determination of which account types to
be included (e .g . , HOAs? )) ;
—$505000 - $1505000 Draft District Contract and RFP ;
3) Districted plus City Conduct procurement process and
Collection System implementation costs finalize District Contract;
and ongoing 12 - 24 months Manage transition to new contracted
administrative (City may wish to solicit hauler(s) ;
City should anticipate
expenses Hauler input related to Establish City billing capabilities and
opposition from both (Can have successful District / City-wide ongoing interface with haulers to
residents and haulers ;
proposer(s) cover cost Contract terms and assure billing is accurate
Requires transition and recover through conditions to assure
period with rates over term of that they result in
appropriate City contract) meaningful benefits
oversight (Rate Impact > without being overly
$0 . 10/month/acct) burdensome on the
(Billing costs associated haulers) Need to : Draft City-wide Contract and
with Districted RFP ;
4) City-wide Contract Collection System if Conduct procurement process and
for Services uniform rate is to be finalize contract;
established ) Manage transition to new contracted
hauler
4of5
Appendix F
RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION SYSTEM STRUCTURE OPTIONS
COMPARATIVE MATRIX
Collection System Administrative Issues
Structure Requirements Ability to Control Service Rate Regulation
Current Open
Competition
1 ) System without any No change No change NA
(Market sets rates)
Changes
(Status Quo)
Open Competition Additional administrative
System with requirements to oversee City can establish higher level of
2) Increased additional licensing requirements control through additional NA
0 . 0 - 0 .25 FTE additional licensing (Market sets rates)
Licensing ( g requirements
q
Requirements administrative staff)
3) Districted
Collection System
City would regulate rates ;
Additional resources necessary Initial rates established based on
to provide ongoing contract City would establish desired competitive proposals ;
controls / requirements (services, Rate regulation mechanism
management; service levels , rate adjustment would be specified in District /
Annual rate adjustment process ; process, recordkeeping , City-wide Contract (e.g . , annual
Periodic procurement and/or insurance, indemnification) CPI increases) ;
negotiations required though District / City-wide City could establish profit
administrative staff)
( 0 .25 - FTE additional Contract terms and conditions incentives related to performance
administrative
(e.g . , sliding scale profit tied to
diversion rate)
4) City-wide Contract
for Services
5of5
Appendix G
Appendix G
Colorado Municipal League and Colorado
Recycles - Survey Results
• Trash Services
• Recycling Services
Appendix G
TRASH SERVICES
Residential Residential Trash Svc. Residential Trash Svc.
Number of Population - Trash Svc. Is Is A City Svc. Provided Is a private sector svc.
Cities city July, 2004 County A Municipal through Contract with 1 Through private Did not Respond
Svc. or more haulers haulers
1 Denver 568,913 Denver X
2 Thornton 101 ,763 Adams - Weld X
3 ILongmont 80,612 Boulder - Weld X
4 Loveland 57,485 Larimer X
5 Grand Junction 48,141 Mesa X
6 Northglenn 35,612 Adams - Weld X
7 Durango 15,628 La Plata X
8 Montrose 15,351 Montrose X
9 Sterling 13,713 Logan X
10 Fort Morgan 11 ,119 Morgan X
11 Craig 9,178 Moffat X
12 Lamar 8,628 Prowers X
13 Fruita 8,507 Mesa X
14 Cortez 8,504 Montezuma X
15 Alamosa 8,419 Alamosa X
16 Delta 8,087 Delta X X
17 Rifle 7,760 Garfield X
18 La Junta 7,334 Otero X
19 Edgewater 5,351 Jefferson X X
20 Gunnison 5,318 Gunnison X
21 Brush 5,282 Morgan X
22 Gypsum 45944 Eagle X
23 Rocky Ford 4,182 Otero X
24 Eagle 3,816 Eagle X
25 Florence 3,795 Fremont X X
26 Yuma 3,362 Yuma X
27 Lochbuie 37091 Weld X
28 Las Animas 2,673 Bent X
29 Snowmass Village 2,317 Pitkin X
30 Wray 2,223 Yuma X
31 Limon 2,101 Lincoln X
32 Akron 1 ,8541 Washington X
33 Olathe 1 ,675 Montrose X
34 Paonia 1 ,639 Delta X
35 Julesburg 1 ,425 Sedgwick X
36 Holly 1 ,020 Prowers X
37 Haxtun 1 0081 Phillips X
38 Hugo 855 Lincoln X
39 Walsh 723 Baca X
40 Eads 702 Kiowa X
41 Swink 688 Otero X
42 Flagler 5991 Kit Carson X
43 Blanca 399 Costilla X X
44 Larkspur 245 Douglas X X
45 Cheraw 201 Otero X
46 Pritchett 130 Baca X
47 Black Hawk 112 Gilpin X
Subtotal 190769484
1 of 7
Appendix G
TRASH SERVICES
Residential Residential Trash Svc. Residential Trash Svc.
Number of Population - Trash Svc. Is Is A City Svc. Provided Is a private sector svc.
Cities city July, 2004 County A Municipal through Contract with 1 Through private Did not Respond
Svc. or more haulers haulers
1 Commerce City 30,768 Adams X
2 Evans 16,280 Weld X
3 1 Greenwood Village 12,586 Arapahoe X
4 Lone Tree 7,436 Douglas X
5 Johnstown 6,122 Larimer - Weld X
6 Milliken 5,214 Weld X
7 Burlington 3,8381 Kit Carson X
8 Eaton 3,825 Weld X
9 Dacono 3,309 Weld X
10 New Castle 2,949 Garfield X
11 Platteville 2,576 Weld X
12 Telluride 2,335 San Miguel X X
13 Silt 2,184 Garfield X
14 La Salle 1 ,857 Weld X
15 Hayden 1 ,765 Routt X
16 Bayfield 11705 La Plata X
17 Kremmling 1 ,641 1 Grand X
18 Crested Butte 1 ,543 Gunnison X
19 Kersey 1 ,433 Weld X
20 Ault 1 ,421 Weld X
21 Parachute 1 ,338 Garfield X
22 Ordway 1 ,188 Crowley X
23 Columbine Valley 1 ,167 Arapahoe X
24 Gilcrest 1 ,161 Weld X
25 Mountain Village 1 ,137 San Miguel X X
26 Hotchkiss 1 ,024 Delta X
27 Oak Creek 9141 Routt X
28 Pierce 878 Weld X
29 Ridgway 812 Ouray X
30 Foxfield 765 Arapahoe X
31 Ignacio 754 La Plata X
32 Mountain View 549 Jefferson X
33 Nunn 520 Weld X
34 DeBeque 497 Mesa X
35 Wiley 463 Prowers X
36 Creede 422 Mineral X
37 Olney Springs 370 Crowley X
38 Ovid 333 Sedgwick X
39 Eckley 278 Yuma X
40 Peetz 236 Logan X
41 Crowley 177 Crowley X
42 Grover 154 Weld X
43 Ophir 124 San Miguel X
44 Branson 85 Las Animas X
45 Kim 73 Las Animas X
Subtotal 126,206
2of7
Appendix G
TRASH SERVICES
Residential Residential Trash Svc. Residential Trash Svc.
Number of Population - Trash Svc. Is Is A City Svc. Provided Is a private sector svc.
Cities city July, 2004 County A Municipal through Contract with 1 Through private Did not Respond
Svc. or more haulers haulers
1 Colorado Springs 380,073 El Paso X
2 Aurora 295,775 Adams - Arapahoe - Douglas X
3 Lakewood 143,611 Jefferson X
4 Fort Collins 126,903 Larimer X
5 Westminster 105, 177 Adams - Jefferson X
6 Pueblo 104,031 Pueblo X
7 Arvada 103,004 Adams - Jefferson X
8 Centennial 101 ,049 Arapahoe X
9 Boulder 97,467 Boulder X
10 Greeley 85,887 Weld X
11 Broomfield 44,634 Broomfield X
12 Littleton 40,715 Arapahoe - Douglas - Jefferson X
13 Parker 37,093 Douglas X
14 Englewood 32,491 Arapahoe X
15 Castle Rock 32,261 Douglas X
16 Wheat Ridge 31 ,869 Jefferson X
17 Brighton 277131 Adams - Weld X
18 Lafayette 23,704 Boulder X
19 Fountain 18,334 El Paso X
20 Golden 17,731 Jefferson X
21 Windsor 12,711 Larimer - Weld X
22 Federal Heights 11 ,698 Adams X
23 Steamboat Springs 10,742 Routt X
24 Superior 10,267 Boulder - Jefferson X
25 Erie 10,216 Boulder - Weld X
26 Trinidad 9,344 Las Animas X
27 Glenwood Springs 8,517 Garfield X
28 Fort Lupton 7,111 Weld X
29 Woodland Park 7,081 Teller X
30 Avon 6,755 Eagle X
31 Aspen 6,368 Pitkin X
32 Cherry Hills Village 6,0891 Arapahoe X
33 Firestone 5,748 Weld X
34 Estes Park 5,707 Larimer X
35 Carbondale 5,689 Garfield X
36 Sheridan 5,457 Arapahoe X
37 Manitou Springs 57225 El Paso X
38 Berthoud 4,930 Larimer - Weld X
39 Vail 4,806 Eagle X
40 Glendale 4,796 Arapahoe X
41 Monte Vista 4,747 Rio Grande X
42 Monument 4,174 EI Paso X
43 Walsenburg 3,993 Huerfano X
44 Silverthorne 3,806 Summit X
45 Wellington 3,718 Larimer X
46 Breckenridge 3,296 Summit X
47 Orchard City 3,094 Delta X
48 Frisco 2,697 Summit X
49 Palmer Lake 2,355 El Paso X
3of7
Appendix G
TRASH SERVICES
Residential Residential Trash Svc. Residential Trash Svc.
Number of Population - Trash Svc. Is Is A City Svc. Provided Is a private sector svc.
Cities city July, 2004 County A Municipal through Contract with 1 Through private Did not Respond
Svc. or more haulers haulers
50 Mead 2,331 Weld X
51 Bennett 2,330 Adams - Arapahoe X
52 Meeker 2,291 Rio Blanco X
53 Buena Vista 2,279 Chaffee X
54 Cedaredge 2,190 Delta X
55 Rangely 2,099 Rio Blanco X
56 Idaho Springs 1 8521 Clear Creek X
57 Granby 1 ,746 Grand X
58 Watkins 1 ,645 Adams - Arapahoe X
59 Pagosa Springs 1 ,620 Archuleta X
60 Lyons 1 ,599 Boulder X
61 Hudson 1 ,595 Weld X
62 Elizabeth 1 ,529 Elbert X
63 Springfield 1 ,472 Baca X
64 Nederland 1 ,368 Boulder X
65 Mancos 1 ,201 Montezuma X
66 Keenesburg 1 ,157 Weld X
67 Fowler 1 ,150 Otero X
68 Georgetown 1 ,111 Clear Creek X
69 Cripple Creek 1 ,082 Teller X
70 Manassa 1 ,017 Conejos X
71 Cheyenne Wells 985 Cheyenne X
72 Green Mountain Falls 907 El Paso - Teller X
73 La Veta 901 Huerfano X
74 Dolores 899 Montezuma X
75 Calhan 898 El Paso X
76 La Jars 8541 Conejos X
77 Antonito 840 Conejos X
78 Winter Park 830 Grand X
79 Dillon 819 Summit X
80 San Luis 755 Costilla X
81 Blue River 743 Summit X
82 Nucla 736 Montrose X
83 Walden 704 Jackson X
84 Williamsburg 690 Fremont X
85 Fairplay 689 Park X
86 South Fork 6661 Rio Grande X
87 Stratton 643 Kit Carson X
88 Collbran 637 Mesa X
89 Kiowa 618 Elbert X
90 Granada 613 Prowers X
91 Hot Sulphur Springs 597 Grand X
92 Saguache 577 Saguache X
93 Deer Trail 575 Arapahoe X
94 Aguilar 554 Las Animas X
95 Poncha Springs 552 Chaffee X
96 Otis 517 Washington X
97 Manzanola 505 Otero X
98 Central City 492 Clear Creek - Gilpin X
4of7
Appendix G
TRASH SERVICES
Residential Residential Trash Svc. Residential Trash Svc.
Number of Population - Trash Svc. Is Is A City Svc. Provided Is a private sector svc.
Cities city July, 2004 County A Municipal through Contract with 1 Through private Did not Respond
Svc. or more haulers haulers
99 Grand Lake 482 Grand X
100 Westcliffe 463 Custer X
101 IFleming 445 Logan X
102 Victor 438 Teller X
103 Morrison 418 Jefferson X
104 Rockvale 411 Fremont X
105 Romeo 4031 Conejos X
106 Lake City 398 Hinsdale X
107 Crawford 397 Delta X
108 Empire 392 Clear Creek X
109 Coal Creek 380 Fremont X
110 Garden City 348 Weld X
111 Dinosaur 334 Moffat X
112 Red Cliff 307 Eagle X
113 Merino 291 Logan X
114 Jamestown 288 Boulder X
115 Kit Carson 242 Cheyenne X
116 Rico 231 Dolores X
117 Brookside 217 Fremont X
118 Genoa 203 Lincoln X
119 Silver Plume 203 Clear Creek X
120 Rye 196 Pueblo X
121 Seibert 176 Kit Carson X
122 Cokedale 146 Las Animas X
123 Crook 129 Logan X
124 Hooper 122 Alamosa X
125 Ramah 121 1 El Paso X
126 Moffat 113 Saguache X
127 Crestone 112 Saguache X
128 Vona 89 Kit Carson X
129 Sawpit 35 San Miguel X
130 Lakeside 201 Jefferson X
Subtotal 21093,087
5of7
Appendix G
TRASH SERVICES
Residential Residential Trash Svc. Residential Trash Svc.
Number of Population - Trash Svc. Is Is A City Svc. Provided Is a private sector svc.
Cities city July, 2004 County A Municipal through Contract with 1 Through private Did not Respond
Svc. or more haulers haulers
1 Louisville 18,545 Boulder X
2 Canon City 15,683 Fremont X
3 Frederick 5,905 Weld X
4 Salida 5,720 Chaffee X
5 Basalt 3,051 Eagle - Pitkin X
6 Palisade 2,802 Mesa X
7 Leadville 2,782 Lake X
8 Center 2,382 Rio Grande - Saguache X
9 Holyoke 2,308 Phillips X
10 Del Norte 1 ,715 Rio Grande X
11 Severance 1 ,563 Weld X
12 Minturn 1 ,1 15 Eagle X
13 Log Lane Village 1 ,085 Morgan X
14 Fraser 1 ,020 Grand X
15 Wiggins 975 Morgan X
16 Ouray 842 Ouray X
17 Bow Mar 812 Arapahoe - Jefferson X
18 Sanford 781 Conejos X
19 Simla 753 Elbert X
20 Mt. Crested Butte 743 Gunnison X
21 Dove Creek 683 Dolores X
22 Naturita 6591 Montrose X
23 Silver Cliff 593 Custer X
24 Silverton 548 San Juan X
25 Norwood 483 San Miguel X
26 Yampa 475 Routt X
27 Boone 324 Pueblo X
28 Hillrose 296 Morgan X
29 Sugar City 266 Crowley X
30 Alma 234 Park X
31 Arriba 232 Lincoln X
32 Timnath 225 Larimer X
33 Iliff 221 Logan X
34 Bethune 214 Kit Carson X
35 Sedgwick 192 X
36 Ward 171 Boulder X
37 Campo 156 Baca X
38 Starkville 137 Las Animas X
39 Pitkin 117 Gunnison X
40 Hartman 107 Prowers X
41 Vilas 104 Baca X
42 Marble 103 Gunnison X
43 Raymer 97 Weld X
44 Haswell 80 Kiowa X
45 Two Buttes 63 Baca X
46 Sheridan Lake 62 Kiowa X
47 Paoli 51 Phillips X
48 Montezuma 46 Summit X
49 Bonanza City 14 Saguache X
6of7
Appendix G
TRASH SERVICES
Residential Residential Trash Svc. Residential Trash Svc.
Number of Population - Trash Svc. Is Is A City Svc. Provided Is a private sector svc.
Cities City July, 2004 County A Municipal through Contract with 1 Through private Did not Respond
Svc. or more haulers haulers
Subtotal 77,535
Total 31373,312
7of7
Appendix G
RECYCLING SERVICES
Res. Curbside is Res. Curbside is Res. Curbside is Res. Curbside is DO = Drop off is
Number of Population - Res. Curbside is a Mun. Svc. provided by pvt. provided by pvt. provided by pvt. available - X = no
Cities city July, 2004 County a Mun. Service Through Haulers under Haulers under Haulers to their drop off or
mun. mandate to mun. mandate to cust. As a bus. curbside
contract provide offer Decision available
1 Denver 568,913 Denver X DO
2 Thornton 101 ,763 Adams - Weld X DO
3 Longmont 80,612 Boulder - Weld X DO
4 ILoveland 57,485 Larimer X DO
5 Durango 15,628 La Plata X DO
6 Cortez 8,504 Montezuma X DO
7 Gunnison 5,318 Gunnison X DO
8 Snowmass Village 2,317 Pitkin X DO
Subtotal 8409540
1 Grand Junction 48,141 Mesa X DO
2 Evans 16,280 Weld X
3 Greenwood Village 12,586 Arapahoe X DO
4 Fruita 8,507 Mesa X
5 Lone Tree 7,436 Douglas X
6 Milliken 5,214 Weld X
7 Eaton 3,825 Weld X
8 Dacono 3,309 Weld X
9 New Castle 2,949 Garfield X DO
10 Telluride 2,335 San Miguel X X DO
11 Silt 2,184 Garfield X
12 Hayden 1 ,765 Routt X DO
13 Crested Butte 1 ,543 Gunnison X DO
14 Kersey 1 ,433 Weld X
15 Columbine Valley 1 ,167 Arapahoe X
16 Mountain Village 1 ,137 San Miguel X X
17 Holly 1 ,020 Prowers X DO
18 Oak Creek 914 Routt X X
19 Ridgway 812 Ouray X
20 Foxfield 765 Arapahoe X
21 Garden City 348 Weld X
Subtotal 123,670
1 Fort Collins 126,903 Larimer X DO
2 Arvada 103,004 Adams - Jefferson X DO
3 Boulder 97,467 Boulder X DO
4 Steamboat Springs 10,742 Routt X DO
5 Superior 10,267 Boulder - Jefferson X DO
6 Aspen 6,368 Pitkin X DO
7 Carbondale 5,689 Garfield X DO
Subtotal 36%440
1 Westminster 105, 177 Adams - Jefferson X DO
2 Golden 17,731 Jefferson X DO
3 Sheridan 5,457 Arapahoe X DO
Subtotal 128,365
1 Colorado Springs 380,073 El Paso X
2 Aurora 295,775 Adams - Arapahoe - Douglas X DO
3 Lakewood 143,611 Jefferson X
4 Pueblo 104,031 Pueblo X
5 Centennial 101 ,049 Arapahoe X DO
6 Greeley 85,887 Weld X DO
7 Broomfield 44,634 Broomfield X DO
8 Littleton 40,715 Arapahoe - Douglas - Jefferson X
9 Parker 37,093 Douglas X
10 Englewood 32,491 Arapahoe X
11 Castle Rock 32,261 Douglas X
12 Wheat Ridge 31 ,869 Jefferson X
13 Commerce City 30,768 Adams X
14 Brighton 27,131 Adams - Weld X
15 Lafayette 23,704 Boulder X
16 Fountain 187334 El Paso X
17 Montrose 15,351 Montrose X
18 Windsor 12,711 Larimer - Weld X
19 Federal Heights 11 ,698 Adams X
20 Erie 10,216 Boulder - Weld X
21 Glenwood Springs 8,517 Garfield X
22 La Junta 7,334 Otero X DO
23 Fort Lupton 71111 Weld X
24 Woodland Park 7,081 Teller X
25 Johnstown 6, 122 Larimer - Weld X DO
26 Cherry Hills Village 6,089 Arapahoe X
1 of 5
Appendix G
RECYCLING SERVICES
Res. Curbside is Res. Curbside is Res. Curbside is Res. Curbside is DO = Drop off is
Number of Population - Res. Curbside is a Mun. Svc. provided by pvt. provided by pvt. provided by pvt. available - X = no
Cities city July, 2004 County a Mun. Service Through Haulers under Haulers under Haulers to their drop off or
mun. mandate to mun. mandate to cust. As a bus. curbside
contract provide offer Decision available
27 Frederick 5,905 Weld X
28 Estes Park 5,707 Larimer X DO
29 Edgewater 5,351 Jefferson X DO
30 Manitou Springs 5,225 El Paso X DO
31 Berthoud 4,930 Larimer - Weld X
32 Vail 4,806 Eagle X DO
33 Silverthorne 3,806 Summit X DO
34 Wellington 3,718 Larimer X DO
35 Breckenridge 3,296 Summit X DO
36 Lochbuie 3,091 Weld X DO
37 Basalt 3,051 Eagle - Pitkin X DO
38 Frisco 2,697 Summit X DO
39 Elizabeth 1 ,529 Elbert X DO
40 Nederland 1 ,368 Boulder X DO
41 Fraser 1 ,020 Grand X DO
42 Dillon 819 Summit X DO
43 Blue River 743 Summit X DO
44 Mountain View 549 Jefferson X DO
45 Fleming 445 Logan X DO
46 Crawford 397 Delta X DO
47 Jamestown 288 Boulder X DO
48 Larkspur 245 Douglas X DO
49 Kit Carson 242 Cheyenne X DO
50 Brookside 217 Fremont X DO
51 Rye 196 Pueblo X DO
52 Ramah 121 El Paso X DO
53 Sawpit 35 San Miguel X DO
Subtotal 1 ,581 ,453
1 Northglenn 35,612 Adams - Weld DO
2 Louisville 18,545 Boulder DO
3 Canon City 15,683 Fremont DO
4 Fort Morgan 11 , 119 Morgan DO
5 Trinidad 9,344 Las Animas DO
6 Craig 9, 178 Moffat DO
7 Lamar 8,628 Prowers DO
8 Alamosa 8,419 Alamosa DO
9 Delta 8,087 Delta DO
10 Avon 6,755 Eagle DO
11 Salida 5,720 Chaffee DO
12 Gypsum 4,944 Eagle DO
13 Glendale 4,796 Arapahoe DO
14 Monte Vista 4,747 Rio Grande DO
15 Walsenburg 3,993 Huertano DO
16 Burlington 37838 Kit Carson DO
17 Eagle 3,816 Eagle DO
18 Leadville 2,782 Lake DO
19 Las Animas 2,673 Bent DO
20 Center 2,382 Rio Grande - Saguache DO
21 Bennett 2,330 Adams - Arapahoe DO
22 Holyoke 2,308 Phillips DO
23 Buena Vista 2,279 Chaffee DO
24 Limon 2, 101 Lincoln DO
25 La Salle 1 ,857 Weld DO
26 Akron 1 ,854 Washington DO
27 Idaho Springs 1 ,852 Clear Creek DO
28 Granby 1 ,746 Grand DO
29 Del Norte 1 ,715 Rio Grande DO
30 Bayfield 1 ,705 La Plata DO
31 Kremmling 1 ,641 Grand DO
32 Pagosa Springs 1 ,620 Archuleta DO
33 Lyons 1 ,599 Boulder DO
34 Ault 1 ,421 Weld DO
35 Parachute 1 ,338 Garfield DO
36 Ordway 1 , 188 Crowley DO
37 Minturn 1 , 115 Eagle DO
38 Georgetown 1 , 111 Clear Creek DO
39 Hotchkiss 1 ,024 Delta DO
40 Cheyenne Wells 985 Cheyenne DO
41 La Veta 901 Huertano DO
2of5
Appendix G
RECYCLING SERVICES
Res. Curbside is Res. Curbside is Res. Curbside is Res. Curbside is DO = Drop off is
Number of Population - Res. Curbside is a Mun. Svc. provided by pvt. provided by pvt. provided by pvt. available - X = no
Cities city July, 2004 County a Mun. Service Through Haulers under Haulers under Haulers to their drop off or
mun. mandate to mun. mandate to cust. As a bus. curbside
contract provide offer Decision available
42 Hugo 855 Lincoln DO
43 La Jara 854 Conejos DO
44 Antonito 840 Conejos DO
45 Simla 753 Elbert DO
46 Eads 702 Kiowa DO
47 Stratton 643 Kit Carson DO
48 Kiowa 618 Elbert DO
49 Flagler 599 Kit Carson DO
50 Hot Sulphur Springs 597 Grand DO
51 Saguache 577 Saguache DO
52 Manzanola 505 Otero DO
53 Central City 492 Clear Creek - Gilpin DO
54 Norwood 483 San Miguel DO
55 Grand Lake 482 Grand DO
56 Wiley 463 Prowers DO
57 Creede 422 Mineral DO
58 Empire 392 Clear Creek DO
59 Red Cliff 307 Eagle DO
60 Eckley 278 Yuma DO
61 Arriba 232 Lincoln DO
62 Bethune 214 Kit Carson DO
63 Seibert 176 Kit Carson DO
64 Ward 171 Boulder DO
65 Pritchett 130 Baca DO
66 Moffat 113 Saguache DO
67 Crestone 112 Saguache DO
68 Black Hawk 112 Gilpin DO
69 Branson 85 Las Animas DO
70 Haswell 80 Kiowa DO
71 Kim 73 Las Animas DO
Subtotal 217,111
1 Sterling 13,713 Logan X
2 Rifle 7,760 Garfield X
3 Firestone 5,748 Weld X
4 Brush 5,282 Morgan X
5 Rocky Ford 4,182 Otero X
6 Monument 47174 El Paso X
7 Florence 3,795 Fremont X
8 Yuma 3,362 Yuma X
9 Orchard City 3,094 Delta X
10 Palisade 2,802 Mesa X
11 Platteville 2,576 Weld X
12 Palmer Lake 27355 El Paso X
13 Mead 2,331 Weld X
14 Meeker 2,291 Rio Blanco X
15 Wray 2,223 Yuma X
16 Cedaredge 2,190 Delta X
17 Rangely 2,099 Rio Blanco X
18 Olathe 1 ,675 Montrose X
19 Watkins 1 ,645 Adams - Arapahoe X
20 Paonia 1 ,639 Delta X
21 Hudson 1 ,595 Weld X
22 Severance 1 ,563 Weld X
23 Springfield 1 ,472 Baca X
24 Julesburg 1 ,425 Sedgwick X
25 Mancos 1 ,201 Montezuma X
26 Gilcrest 1 , 161 Weld X
27 Keenesburg 1 , 157 Weld X
28 Fowler 1 , 150 Otero X
29 Log Lane Village 1 ,085 Morgan X
30 Cripple Creek 1 ,082 Teller X
31 Manassa 1 ,017 Conejos X
32 Haxtun 1 ,008 Phillips X
33 Wiggins 975 Morgan X
34 Green Mountain Falls 907 El Paso - Teller X
35 Dolores 899 Montezuma X
36 Calhan 898 El Paso X
37 Pierce 878 Weld X
38 Ouray 842 Ouray X
3of5
Appendix G
RECYCLING SERVICES
Res. Curbside is Res. Curbside is Res. Curbside is Res. Curbside is DO = Drop off is
Number of Population - Res. Curbside is a Mun. Svc. provided by pvt. provided by pvt. provided by pvt. available - X = no
Cities city July, 2004 County a Mun. Service Through Haulers under Haulers under Haulers to their drop off or
mun. mandate to mun. mandate to cust. As a bus. curbside
contract provide offer Decision available
39 Winter Park 830 Grand X
40 Sanford 781 Conejos X
41 San Luis 755 Costilla X
42 Ignacio 754 La Plata X
43 Mt. Crested Butte 743 Gunnison X
44 Nucla 736 Montrose X
45 Walsh 723 Baca X
46 Walden 704 Jackson X
47 Williamsburg 690 Fremont X
48 Fairplay 689 Park X
49 Swink 688 Otero X
50 Dove Creek 683 Dolores X
51 South Fork 666 Rio Grande X
52 Naturita 659 Montrose X
53 Collbran 637 Mesa X
54 Granada 613 Prowers X
55 Silver Cliff 593 Custer X
56 Deer Trail 575 Arapahoe X
57 Aguilar 554 Las Animas X
58 Poncha Springs 552 Chaffee X
59 Silverton 548 San Juan X
60 Nunn 520 Weld X
61 Otis 517 Washington X
62 DeBeque 497 Mesa X
63 Yampa 475 Routt X
64 Westcliffe 463 Custer X
65 Victor 438 Teller X
66 Morrison 418 Jefferson X
67 Rockvale 411 Fremont X
68 Romeo 403 Conejos X
69 Blanca 399 Costilla X
70 Lake City 398 Hinsdale X
71 Coal Creek 380 Fremont X
72 Olney Springs 370 Crowley X
73 Dinosaur 334 Moffat X
74 Ovid 333 Sedgwick X
75 Hillrose 296 Morgan X
76 Merino 291 Logan X
77 Sugar City 266 Crowley X
78 Peetz 236 Logan X
79 Alma 234 Park X
80 Rico 231 Dolores X
81 Timnath 225 Larimer X
82 Iliff 221 Logan X
83 Silver Plume 203 Clear Creek X
84 Genoa 203 Lincoln X
85 Cheraw 201 Otero X
86 Sedgwick 192 Sedgwick X
87 Crowley 177 Crowley X
88 Grover 154 Weld X
89 Cokedale 146 Las Animas X
90 Starkville 137 Las Animas X
91 Crook 129 Logan X
92 Ophir 124 San Miguel X
93 Hooper 122 Alamosa X
94 Pitkin 117 Gunnison X
95 Hartman 107 Prowers X
96 Vilas 104 Baca X
97 Marble 103 Gunnison X
98 Raymer 97 Weld X
99 Vona 89 Kit Carson X
100 Two Buttes 63 Baca X
101 Sheridan Lake 62 Kiowa X
102 Paoli 51 Phillips X
103 Montezuma 46 Summit X
104 Lakeside 20 Jefferson X
Subtotall 120,427
1 Bow Mar 812 Arapahoe - Jefferson
2 Boone 324 Pueblo
4of5
Appendix G
RECYCLING SERVICES
Res. Curbside is Res. Curbside is Res. Curbside is Res. Curbside is DO = Drop off is
Number of Population - Res. Curbside is a Mun. Svc. provided by pvt. provided by pvt. provided by pvt. available - X = no
Cities city July, 2004 County a Mun. Service Through Haulers under Haulers under Haulers to their drop off or
mun. mandate to mun. mandate to cust. As a bus. curbside
contract provide offer Decision available
3 Campo 156 Baca
4 Bonanza City 14 Saguache
Subtotal 19306
39373,312
5of5
Trash Services Study
Update
July 8, 2008
Ann Turnquist
Policy and Project Manager
1
Current System Open Competition
Residential Commercial
■ 3 haulers ■ 11 haulers
■ Free customer choice ■ Free choice
■ Pay as you throw pricing ■ No recycling
■ Single-stream curbside requirements
recycling service must be
offered
■ HOAs and
neighborhoods can
choose single hauler
2
Trash Issues
■ Cost of street wear by multiple trucks
Neighborhood Aesthetics
Air Quality
■ Truck Noise
Fir
' It' ll
■ Recycling
diversion
rates
3
Key Findings Street Wear
R.� ■ Trash and Recycling
Vehicles
Y : ■ Three haulers in
residential areas
1
� �. ■ Average 8 trips per week
■ Current Cost to City =
$354,000 per year
4
Key Findings Air Quality
■ More trucks lead to more vehicle emissions
in neighborhoods
■ Limited standards for vehicle emissions
■ Diesel vehicles with 2 . 8 Miles Per Gallon
fuel efficiency
271 tons CO2 Emissions + other impacts
5
Key Findings Diversion Rates
■ City' s goal: increase diversion from 27 % to 50%
■ Curbside residential captures 7 % of
community' s waste stream
■ Opportunities to significant) increase diversion
6
Alternatives for Community Input
■ "Null Alternative" Open Competition System
■ Districted Trash Service
■ Open Competitive System with Additional
Regulation of Haulers
"Null Alternative " Open Competition
■ Free Choice for Customers
■ Neighborhoods free to organize and agree on one
hauler
■ Any licensed hauler can compete
■ 3 Residential haulers currently provide service
■ No improvement in street wear, noise, aesthetics, air
quality
a
Districted Trash Service
■ City awards trash service contracts thru
competitive process
■ Multi-year contracts
■ All single-family residences participate in the
districted system
■ Additional conditions for haulers , such as :
■ Minimum diversion rates for recyclables
■ Single-stream curbside recycling for residential customers continues
■ Set standards for vehicles age, appearance or emissions
■ Possible City billing for residential trash service
9
Open Competitive w/ Increased Regulation
■ Incremental approach
■ Focus on :
■ Vehicle emissions and noise standards
■ Performance standards for recycling
■ Vehicle loads
■ Hauler reporting requirements
■ Protects choice and current hauler' s
interests
■ No improvement in vehicle miles traveled or
number of trucks in neighborhoods
10
Community Outreach Stakeholders
■ Haulers
■ Boards and Commissions
■ Community Members
■ Activists
11
Community Outreach- - Methods
■ Forums
■ Web input
■ Stakeholder Meetings
■ Media
12
Project Schedule
Mid-July Stakeholders Meetings
July/August Community outreach and involvement
September 23 Council Work Session regarding options to
pursue
Fall Implementation planning, work with
stakeholders, develop detailed options for
Council consideration
Winter Formal decision making
Spring/ Implementation, if appropriate
Summer
2009
13
Council Questions
■ Is Council comfortable with these options
being presented for public feedback?
■ Does Council have any further feedback or
direction regarding this process ?
14