R W BECK REPORT August, 2008 - Solid Waste Collection Pilot Project Evaluation

PREPARED FOR: CITY OF C LEV E LA ND
Pilot Program Evaluation

Draft Report | August 2008
Pilot Program Evaluation

City of Cleveland
Table of Contents
Table of Contents List of Tables EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Section 1 INTRODUCTION Section 2 PILOT PROGRAM METRICS EVALUATION 2.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Comparison Approach and Data Sources ................................................ 2-2 2.3 Findings.................................................................................................... 2-5 Section 3 FINANCIAL EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE COLLECTION SCENARIOS 3.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 Data Sources and Principle Assumptions ................................................ 3-2 3.2.1 Data Sources ................................................................................ 3-2 3.2.2 Principle Assumptions ................................................................. 3-2 3.3 Model Construction and Results.............................................................. 3-3 3.3.1 Cart Replacement Surcharge...................................................... 3-11 3.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 3-12 Section 4 HIGH-LEVEL SYSTEM REVIEW 4.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Focus Groups ........................................................................................... 4-1 4.2.1 Process ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.2.2 Interpretation Instructions............................................................ 4-2 4.2.3 Findings........................................................................................ 4-3 4.2.4 Focus Group Summary ................................................................ 4-5 4.3 Pilot Program Route Observations........................................................... 4-6 Section 5 EXPANSION ASSESSMENT 5.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Strategy for Success................................................................................. 5-1 5.3 An Integrated Approach........................................................................... 5-2 5.3.1 Set-out Policies ............................................................................ 5-2 5.3.2 Enforcement................................................................................. 5-3
R:\Orlando\005821 - Cleveland\05-01482-10101 Pilot Program Eval\0400 - Expansion Assess\Work Products\Final Report\Final Report_20080911.doc
9/11/08
Table of Contents
5.3.3 Education ..................................................................................... 5-4 5.3.4 Collection Vehicles...................................................................... 5-4 5.3.5 Collection Operations .................................................................. 5-5 5.3.6 Pay-As-You-Throw ..................................................................... 5-7 5.3.7 Pilot Program Coordination......................................................... 5-9 Implementation Schedule ........................................................................ 5-9 Recycling ............................................................................................... 5-10 Collection Operations Data Management.............................................. 5-11 Pilot Program Survey............................................................................. 5-12
5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7
Appendix A PILOT COMP SUMMARY
This report has been prepared for the use of the client for the specific purposes identified in the report. The conclusions, observations and recommendations contained herein attributed to R. W. Beck, Inc. (R. W. Beck) constitute the opinions of R. W. Beck. To the extent that statements, information and opinions provided by the client or others have been used in the preparation of this report, R. W. Beck has relied upon the same to be accurate, and for which no assurances are intended and no representations or warranties are made. R. W. Beck makes no certification and gives no assurances except as explicitly set forth in this report. Copyright 2008, R. W. Beck, Inc. All rights reserved.
ii R. W. Beck
9/11/08 R:\Orlando\005821 - Cleveland\05-01482-10101 Pilot Program Eval\0400 - Expansion Assess\Work Products\Final Report\Final Report_20080911.doc
Table of Contents List of Tables

Table 2-1 Inputs for Productivity Metrics Carr Center............................................... 2-3 Table 2-2 Inputs for Productivity Metrics Glenville Center ....................................... 2-3 Table 2-3 Inputs for Productivity Metrics Ridge Road Center ................................... 2-4 Table 2-4 Summary of Key Operational and Performance Metrics ........................... 2-4 Table 3-1 Summary of Key Modeling Inputs and Route Model Results.................... 3-4 Table 3-2 Staffing Requirements by Scenario ............................................................ 3-5 Table 3-3 Salary and Benefits Assumptions ............................................................... 3-6 Table 3-4 Equipment Costs........................................................................................ 3-6 Table 3-5 Labor Impacts (Changes to the Number of Crew)...................................... 3-7 Table 3-6 Labor Cost Impacts..................................................................................... 3-8 Table 3-7 Vehicle Requirements (Changes to the Number of Vehicles).................... 3-8 Table 3-8 Vehicle Capital Cost Impacts ..................................................................... 3-9 Table 3-9 Vehicle O&M Cost Impact....................................................................... 3-10 Table 3-10 Cart Cost Impacts ................................................................................... 3-11 Table 3-11 Spare Vehicle Impacts ............................................................................ 3-11 Table 3-12 Net Program Savings General Fund and Capital Budget (Relative to the Baseline) ......................................................................... 3-14 Table 3-13 Capital Budget Cost Comparison of Scenarios (Relative to the Baseline) ................................................................................................... 3-14 Table 3-14 General Fund Cost Comparison of Scenarios (Relative to the Baseline) ................................................................................................... 3-15 Table 4-1 Suggestions Proposed by Focus Groups..................................................... 4-5
9/11/08
R. W. Beck iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Clevelands Solid Waste Division (the City) retained R. W. Beck, Inc. (R. W. Beck) to perform an evaluation of the productivity gains, financial impacts, City staff perception and feedback, and implementation challenges related to the extension of their existing solid waste collection Pilot Program (the Pilot Program) to an additional 30,000 households. The City is currently running its Pilot Program in three regions the Carr Center, the Glenville Center, and the Ridge Road Center. In each region, there are both SemiAutomated and Fully-Automated service areas (the alternative scenarios), which take advantage of either retrofitted rear-load vehicles or fully automated ASL trucks to complete collection. As part of this Pilot Program, the City collects detailed daily log information and statistics on key productivity metrics for each region, and for each service area. The City is currently considering an expansion of the current program to additional households, and eventual full implementation of the most holistically attractive alternative collection scenario, which would completely replace rear-load manual collection (the Baseline system) within an estimated 2-year timeframe. In order to perform the review of productivity metrics and evaluation of the collection system alternatives, multiple objectives were pursued, which included: In-depth review and comparison of field metrics gathered for the Baseline system by R. W. Beck in March of 2007 against detailed daily log data provided by the City for each Pilot region, with an emphasis on maximizing the comparability of the two data sets, Modeling of the labor, vehicle, and cost savings/increase (the delta) to both the Solid Waste Division and the City in aggregate of both alternative scenarios (focusing on residential refuse), leveraging data from the productivity metrics review as well as supplemental capital cost, salary and benefits, and operation and maintenance costs provided by the City; R. W. Becks proprietary route model and associated system average assumptions were used to buttress existing information and maximize the representative nature of the models, Facilitation of several focus groups, interviews, and one half-day ride along with City crews to acquire valuable qualitative feedback from internal staff on existing challenges and proposed solutions, and to obtain first-hand observations regarding current program challenges, and Summarization of the expected set-out policy, enforcement, education, vehicle choices, and logistical and operational challenges likely to be faced as the Pilot Program expands, with recommendations on an integrated approach for achieving an efficient transition to the preferred alternative scenario. The key findings of this effort are summarized below. The remaining sections of this report focus on the individual objectives summarized above, and provide more detail regarding each facet of the analysis.
9/11/08
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Key Findings
Both the Semi-Automated and Fully-Automated Pilot regions have seen improvements in productivity and uncontainerized set-out percentages as compared to the existing Baseline scenario. Unproductive times across these regions are at an above average level of efficiency. Due to the increased capacity of the ASL trucks utilized in the program, and because the Pilot regions are not servicing as many households, loads per day have also declined considerably in the Pilot regions. These improvements are strong indicators that considerable savings can be actualized under full implementation of either the Semi-automated or Fullyautomated collection scenario. The graphic below summarizes the estimated cost savings impact of both alternative residential refuse scenarios as compared to the estimated cost per customer under the Baseline system for the same cost components. The savings shown reflect the net impact to both the Capital Budget (cost increases related to retrofitting existing vehicles or procuring new vehicles, and cart capital costs) and the General Fund (the net cost savings related to staffing adjustments, vehicle O&M costs and cart replacement costs under the alternative scenarios).
Comparison of Operational Costs per Customer Baseline and Alternative Scenarios
$49.00 $47.00 $45.00 $43.00
$47.38
$41.25
$41.00 $39.00 $37.00 $35.00 Baseline Semi Auto
$39.72
It is important to note that the graphic above represents the comparison of the net cost impacts to both the General Fund and Capital Budget as compared to the estimated operational cost of the Baseline system for only those cost components examined as part of this analysis, and that the savings assume a City customer base of 186,000 units served. This chart does not reflect an all-in cost savings estimate. Based on the results of the proprietary route modeling performed for the City and summarized in the graphic above,
ES-2 R. W. Beck 9/11/08 R:\Orlando\005821 - Cleveland\05-01482-10101 Pilot Program Eval\0400 - Expansion Assess\Work Products\Final Report\Final Report_20080911.doc
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Within the context of the City in total, the results of the modeling process indicate that the Semi-automated scenario will save the City an estimated $1.14 million ($6.13 per customer) over the Baseline system on an annual basis. Full implementation of the Automated scenario is estimated to result in a cost savings of about $1.4 million annually, or about $7.66 per customer. The delta between the Automated scenario and the Semi-automated scenario is an estimated $285,000, which is the net difference in cost impact to the City (a cost savings in favor of the Automated alternative in this case) when the scenarios are considered in isolation, and With respect to the net impacts to the Solid Waste Divisions General Fund (i.e., excluding all capital cost impacts related to procurement of vehicles and carts), the results of the modeling process indicate that the Semi-automated scenario will save the City an estimated $2.2 million ($12.06 per customer) over the Baseline system on an annual basis. Full implementation of the Automated scenario is estimated to result in a cost savings of about $4.3 million annually, or about $23.30 per customer. The delta between the Automated scenario and the Semi-automated scenario is an estimated $2.1 million, which is the net difference in cost impact to the City (a cost savings in favor of the Automated alternative in this case) when the scenarios are considered in isolation. Because the cost burden of vehicle and cart capital is reported to be only an indirect cost consideration for the Solid Waste Division, the net savings impact to the Division for the Automated scenario increases significantly when capital costs are excluded from the analysis, as the fundamental cost burden associated with this scenario resides with financing costs for new vehicles and carts. Despite some challenges and areas for potential improvement cited by City staff, the vast majority of the current operations staff supports the direction that the City is heading with respect to alternative collection methods. A few key field issues observed by R. W. Beck, most notably the relatively high level of contamination in the recycling set-outs, should be addressed through incentives and enforcement. Extension of the Pilot program is a logical next step for the City. The City should actively engage in the development and maintenance of an integrated approach to program development, which gives consideration to the following key program components: Set-out policies that align with system goals, Proper support of crew by enforcing policies and limitations of the new program, Proactive and strategically-targeted education materials to enhance public awareness of program advantages and guidelines, Consideration of automated collection vehicles or other vehicle alternatives as based on the financial analysis conducted in Section 3,
9/11/08
R. W. Beck ES-3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Planning of collection operations to maximize the number of homes serviced by automated collection vehicles, as well as minimizing the number of trips made to service each customer, Conduction of a program survey from Pilot program participants to obtain valuable customer feedback on program perceptions and challenges from a customer perspective, and Development and maintenance of a customized set of data management templates that target the highest priority system metrics for continual tracking, which may be ultimately supported by a dedicated data management staff member. Supportive analysis and further detailed discussion related to all of these components can be found in the body of this report.
ES-4 R. W. Beck 9/11/08 R:\Orlando\005821 - Cleveland\05-01482-10101 Pilot Program Eval\0400 - Expansion Assess\Work Products\Final Report\Final Report_20080911.doc
Section 1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Cleveland (City) Solid Waste Division provides weekly waste collection services to approximately 186,000 households. The division has traditionally collected municipal solid waste (MSW) using rear-load collection vehicles with helpers riding on the back of the vehicle. The Division was interested in exploring options to improve the operational and financial efficiency of the collection operations. Additionally, the Division was interested in implementing a curbside recycling program that could recover more material than the existing drop-off facilities. In March 2007, R. W. Beck conducted preliminary benchmarking of the Citys existing collection operations. This included collecting detailed data on collection routes distributed across the Citys collection areas and conducting focus groups with collections personnel. After the results of that study were presented to the Division, the City decided to proceed with a pilot program of Automated and Semi-automated collection of MSW and recyclables. In October 2007, the Division implemented a Pilot Program in fifteen 1,000-household routes distributed throughout the Divisions collection jurisdiction. The pilot collection areas were evenly serviced by the Carr, Glenville, and Ridge Road Centers. Each route was collected by Fully-automated and Semi-automated vehicles which collected MSW from approximately 700 and 300 households, respectively. Additionally, Automated or Semi-automated recycling vehicles collected recyclable materials from all 1,000 households on the route. The Division next desired to evaluate the Pilot Program and determine if it makes sense to expand the program to an additional 30,000 households. The Division wanted to analyze the Pilot Program in terms of operational statistics, and also in terms of how those metrics translate into operational costs. Additionally, the Division wanted a high-level assessment of the overall collection operations, as well as some assistance developing community education materials related to the MSW collection and recycling programs. This report provides the evaluation of the Pilot Program and how it compares operationally and financially to the operations that were benchmarked in March 2007, as well as recommendations for program expansion.
9/11/08
Section 2 PILOT PROGRAM METRICS EVALUATION 2.1 Introduction

This section will detail the data compilation procedures and key findings related to the operational comparison between field data collected on the Citys Baseline operations in March 2007 and certain key operational and productivity metrics tracked by the City in each of the Pilot regions. It is important to periodically review the operations of a collection system. The more frequently performance is reviewed, the less likely it will be that big changes will need to be made immediately, which surprise operations and cause an unexpected burden, cost or otherwise, on collection customers. The change in productivity as measured by the components listed below can have a marked impact on the overall costs of a particular service offering. The relationship between these metrics generally determines the health and performance of both the current collection system, as well as the impact of available alternative systems, in that: Set-out rates reflect the actual household participation level for a given service offering and frequency of collection, and directly drive staffing levels, route counts, and the length of time spent on a route, Uncontained material detracts from productivity, necessitates additional collection staff, and increases the cost of enforcement of ordinances or other guidelines regarding what materials are collected and how certain materials should be placed out for collection, Seconds per stop is the most basic and fundamental metric that determines whether a system is operating at a poor, average, or above average level of productivity. This measurement is a benchmark for all of the combined elements of a particular stop that may cause an undesirable amount of time spent on a stop, including uncontained material, Unproductive minutes per route measures time for breaks, vehicle breakdowns, and lunches, and indicates the quality and reliability of the collection fleet and the collection staff; above average unproductive minutes generally indicate an older fleet, potentially coupled with inconsistency in break/lunch periods across staff, Average tons per load is an indirect measure of the adequacy of vehicle capacity as utilized in a particular collection system, in that frequent partial loads imply that routes can be extended and/or smaller vehicles can be procured that may be cheaper to operate in the long run; conversely, frequently maxed loads imply that the system is overburdened, and this condition is typically correlated with longer work days and more time spent dumping loads at the landfill, and
9/11/08
Section 2
Loads per day per route, as with average tons per load, is a measure of both the appropriateness of vehicle capacity and whether the length of a route is too long or short. These variables also serve as primary inputs into a more comprehensive analysis of routing requirements and associated financial implications for refuse collection as modeled and detailed in Section 3.
2.2 Comparison Approach and Data Sources

In March 2007, R. W. Beck Field Managers conducted field observations in the City in order to quantify the productivity levels of the Citys waste collection operations. Data collected during those observations can be thought of as the Baseline, in that those metrics reflected City operations prior to the introduction of the Pilot programs. Data for the three Pilot Program regions, the Carr Center, the Glenville Center, and the Ridge Road Center, were aggregated and compiled based on reports provided to R. W. Beck by the City. These reports included daily route logs by Pilot region, tonnage and load summaries by Pilot region, statistics on recycling participation, and other key information garnered through correspondence with City staff. The available data from March 2007 was re-reviewed in detail by R. W. Beck to identify which metrics that were currently being collected as a matter of course by the City were directly comparable to available information from the prior project. Portions of the metrics to be compared across time were measured directly by the City as part of their current Pilot region data tracking. In certain other cases, however, assumptions regarding system averages were used as proxies, or an assumption was made regarding the stability of certain time factor ratios across service alternatives, in an effort to maximize the comparability of the available information. Inputs were developed for the current Pilot regions individually, and then mapped to the corresponding performance metrics as appropriate to develop the core calculations. The tables below summarize the inputs used for the Automated, Semi-Automated, and Recycling services in each of the Pilot Program regions. As the City reviews these inputs, it will be important to distinguish between the number of demands (or households) available to be serviced within a given Pilot region and the actual number of stops serviced in each region during the period of data collection provided. The former is summarized herein, but the latter is the key determinant of productive time, and has been used to construct the routing and financial analyses shown in Section 3. Note also that recycling households shown reflect serviced units.
2-2 R. W. Beck
Pilot Program Metrics Evaluation
Table 2-1 Inputs for Productivity Metrics Carr Center

Auto Average Households per Route [1] Time per Route % Productive % Unproductive Average Route Total Time (h:mm) Average Route Total Time (min) Average Route Time per Stop (sec) 97% 3% 3:52 232 42 97% 3% 3:44 224 35 98% 2% 3:34 214 22 554 Semi 433 Rec. 596
[1] Route time per stop and associated productivity metrics have been measured relative to actual stops serviced for a crosssection of time in each Pilot region. The metric shown herein represents the total demands (or houses) available for servicing in each region. Recycling households shown reflect serviced units.
Table 2-2 Inputs for Productivity Metrics Glenville Center

The Glenville Center is reported by the City to have been participating in more handson training and this may in part explain the higher average route times in this region as compared to the other regions.
9/11/08
R. W. Beck 2-3
Section 2
Table 2-3 Inputs for Productivity Metrics Ridge Road Center

These inputs were utilized to compare the March 2007 metrics against the average conditions at each of the Pilot regions. The table below summarizes this evaluation. Information regarding Bulk collection was relatively limited across the Pilot Regions. This does not materially impact the modeling and cost evaluation of collection system alternatives, because the modeling and cost evaluation focused on refuse collection. Table 2-4 Summary of Key Operational and Performance Metrics
Baseline March 2007 Customer Metrics Set-out rate [1] Percent of set-outs with uncontained material [2] Households per route [2] Average pounds per set-out [2] Productivity Metrics Productive seconds per stop [3] Unproductive minutes per route [3] Average tons per load [4] Loads per day per route [4] 51.1 9.0 9.6 1.5 44.8 7.9 8.7 1.1 49.8 8.8 7.6 1.1 24.8 4.4 2.7 1.0 n/a n/a 1.2 1.1 80% 43% 526 66.5 82.9% 14.3% 645 58.2 64.4% 7.6% 345 29.2 30.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a All Pilot Regions Average Auto Semi Rec. Bulk
2-4 R. W. Beck

As evidenced by the footnote markers in the table above, there are several key considerations that must be noted with regard to the data presented in this table. 1. Set-out rates for Recycling are inclusive of recycling participation statistics provided by the City for January - April 2008, and recycling cart set-out statistics collected by the City in November 2007. 2. Set-out statistics were collected in detail for a cross-section (or snapshot) period of time in each Pilot region. The data shown for uncontained material and pounds per set-out are derived from this information. Households per route were provided directly by the City for the Pilot regions, and are based on prior field observations for the Baseline. 3. The productivity metrics collected directly in March 2007 were not available explicitly as part of the Citys current Pilot Program logs. Metrics shown for Pilot regions reflect assumptions related to system average productive vs. nonproductive ratios, which have been assumed to remain stable when compared to Baseline observations. The ratio of non-productive time per unit of productive time is assumed to be unchanged, and is thus derived as a percentage of the total amount of productive time logged in each region, which is available as part of the daily logs. The derived results correspond well to averages from prior studies with minimal time spent on breaks, lunches, etc. 4. Tons per load and loads per day are directly computed from the Pilot Program Daily reports provided by the City for the period October 2007 - June 2008. It is important to note that R. W. Beck thoroughly searched individual observations in an effort to identify (and in some cases exclude) data outliers. An outlier is a data point or observation that appears to be a transcription error, or represents a highly unlikely event. For example, a route with a total logged duration of only 15 minutes, when examined within the context of a broader list of route observations, is a potential outlier. Based on the general practice when dealing with outliers, R. W. Beck has used conditional spreadsheet logic to exclude a few observations that were deemed to be outliers. These observations, if included, would have had a detrimental impact on the construction of a representative performance profile for the Citys Pilot operations. These instances were very infrequent, and as such their exclusion does not detract from the reliability of the metrics summarized in this report. Appendix A contains a more detailed summary table of the key metrics, which includes region-specific information.
2.3 Findings
The following represents the key findings of this phase of the analysis. As the City reviews these findings, it is important to keep in mind the distinction between a service region (a part of the City) and a service area (which corresponds to a particular type of collection system being Pilot tested).
9/11/08
R. W. Beck 2-5
Section 2
Set-out rates and pounds per set-out in the Semi-automated service areas are considerably lower than both the Baseline and the Automated service areas. This may be due to the specific demographic makeup of the areas in which these services are being Pilot tested. R. W. Beck has adjusted these empirical findings upward for purposes of Section 3 modeling, in an effort to better align them with average expectations. Notwithstanding this finding, both the Automated and Semi-automated service areas appear to be performing either better or comparably to the Baseline system. Productivity data is more directly comparable to the Baseline data, and appears to point to an improvement overall, in terms of productive seconds per stop and unproductive minutes per route (which are down on average for the Automated and Semi-automated service areas primarily because the average route times are down). This is due for the most part to apparent improvements in the Automated service areas as opposed to the Semi-Automated service areas, which actually performed worse in one region and nearly identical to the Baseline overall. The City is operating well above average with respect to non-productive time spent on routes. The City reports that drivers and collectors are executing their duties with essentially no time allotted for breaks. Benchmark communities in prior studies have shown non-productive times upwards of 20 minutes, and City staff should be recognized for their efficiency in this regard. Loads per day per route appear to be down across the board. This may be due to the fact that the size and structure of the Pilot routes have been more recently designed when compared to the 2007 observations. In addition, the more current estimate of loads per day represents an annual average, whereas the 2007 data reflects solely the month of March. Consequently, a small amount of seasonal variation may also be driving this difference. An examination of March 2008 data reveals an average for this metric that is much closer to the 2008 annual average than to the 2007 average. Both the Automated and Semi-automated service areas have seen a significant reduction in the amount of uncontained material. This decrease has apparently had a greater impact on improvements in productivity metrics in the Automated service areas as compared to the Semi-Automated service areas. This is a key metric to monitor that directly impacts the efficiency of the waste collection system. Productive Seconds per Stop decreased by approximately twelve percent when comparing the Automated to the Baseline observations. This equates to approximately six seconds per household on average, and when extrapolated to the entire City, as shown in Section 3, could generate substantial savings in terms of capital expenditures for vehicles, as well as direct labor costs. Both Average tons per load and Average loads per day per route decreased for the Automated route when compared to the Baseline observations. The Automated collection vehicles have a capacity of 33 cubic yards compared to the 25 cubic yard capacity of the rear loader collection vehicles. This partially explains why the loads per day decreased, but the decrease in Average tons per load is a strong
2-6 R. W. Beck

indication that the Automated routes could be designed to service more households. Certain observations in the daily logs as well as the set-out statistics have been corrected to reflect the right calculations and/or excluded due to temporal discrepancies (a route that took far too little time, etc.) For future tracking of data in support of benchmarking, the City should consider creation and maintenance of a more customized set of data management logs and electronic data entry templates that target only the most important planning level data tracking needs. This will aid in streamlining the process even further, and may eventually aid the City in being able to effectively conduct these reviews more frequently. The City reported having some manual data logs which documented actual (not system average) productive and non-productive times for the Pilot regions. As the Pilot program expansion continues, actual productivity should be monitored with more detail to discern if the association of the Citys overall productivity profile with system average profiles is a truly appropriate proxy assumption. While there is no reason to believe that lunch, break, and breakdown times for the City are significantly different from other benchmark communities, crews moving up the learning curve for the alternative systems, coupled with residents participating appropriately as education and program awareness increases, should help improve productivity overall. Section 3 provides additional discussion regarding the benchmarking of key modeling inputs collected during this phase of the evaluation against averages from prior work conducted by R. W. Beck. This is to ensure the underlying sensibility of the data utilized to evaluate routing requirements and associated costs.
9/11/08
R. W. Beck 2-7
Section 3 FINANCIAL EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE COLLECTION SCENARIOS 3.1 Introduction

The purpose of this section is to present the results of both the route modeling and financial evaluation of the key alternative collection scenarios available to the City as expansion options relative to the existing Pilot Program service areas. This modeling focuses on residential refuse collection, and examines the implications of fully implementing both the Automated and Semi-automated collection systems. The results of this analysis were constructed with the use of R. W. Becks proprietary collection model (Model). This Model projects routing impacts and possible system modifications resulting from varying levels of service and different combinations of services offered. Factors considered by the Model include customer counts, collection frequency, set-out rates, and productive and non-productive times for vehicles. Routing requirements as determined by the Model have been coupled with financial data regarding current staffing levels and salaries, fleet details, capital, fuel, automated carts, and fleet maintenance cost data, among other inputs, to compute the expected cost delta (savings/increase) of complete conversion to either an Automated or Semiautomated collection system. The modeling process is based upon the philosophy that (i) scenarios constructed must, as best as possible, fully represent the operational and financial realities that apply to the City and that (ii) parameters of each respective scenario must be conformed so as to provide an apples to apples comparison of outcomes. Scenarios were modeled that were representative of the options available to the City with respect to collection system alternatives. The current service infrastructure (Baseline) was modeled, from which the delta between the Baseline and other service options was computed. The results of this analysis detail the estimated impact on costs to both the Citys Solid Waste Division and the City in total. Estimates of cost impacts to the Solid Waste Divisions General Fund exclude the capital costs related to vehicle and cart procurement (a separate expense not funded directly by the Solid Waste Division). Estimates are provided for both alternative scenarios as compared to the Baseline scenario. The Model estimates the impact of both operational changes related to staffing and route counts, as well as the resulting cost impacts. Wherever applicable, costs are reflected on an annual and/or per customer basis.
9/11/08
Section 3
3.2 Data Sources and Principle Assumptions

3.2.1 Data Sources
Information gathered and compared regarding key operational and productivity metrics for the Citys Pilot regions as summarized in Section 2 were combined with Baseline information gathered in March 2007 as inputs into the Model. Supplemental information regarding employee salaries, replacement costs of fleet vehicles, fuel and preventative maintenance costs, benefits multipliers, and other pertinent data points was provided to R. W. Beck by the City. Customer counts and annual tonnage collected were estimated by the City based on the most recently available information. R. W. Beck has extrapolated monthly tonnage estimates to obtain an annual tonnage amount as an input into the Model. Additionally, R. W. Beck has globally reviewed the Citys inputs for sensibility with regard to internal consistency and with regard to how closely outcomes matched expectations. To the extent a particular metric fell outside the range of what has on average been expected given a fully-implemented collection system, certain minor adjustments have been made to inputs. These modifications will be highlighted in the Results subsection. Crucial inputs relevant to the final results are presented in tabular format and reviewed in the Results subsection.
3.2.2 Principle Assumptions

The results outlined below should be interpreted given full awareness of the following principle assumptions: This analysis only includes the collection cost impacts of the system changes that were analyzed. The deltas estimated by the Model are strictly indicative of the cost savings or increase resulting from the factor inputs to the Model. They do not represent an aggregate cost savings estimate for the City, which could include, among other costs, the impact on workers compensation claims, additional recycling revenue resulting from program expansion, or decreased benefits multiplier rates resulting from decreased insurance claims, etc. To the extent that R. W. Beck has relied upon data provided by the City for use as inputs to the Model, R. W. Beck assumes that this information is accurate and complete. The outcome of a transition from the Baseline system to each scenario has not been modeled. The results below assume that the scenario has been completely implemented and is operating at target efficiency levels. Transition plans and costs are subject to numerous decisions by the City and are beyond the scope of this analysis.
3-2 R. W. Beck
Financial Evaluation of Alternative Collection Scenarios
Because the City is already Pilot testing the various collection scenarios, key productivity metrics are far less abstract and much more concrete, in that they reflect current operations as summarized in the Citys route logs. It has been assumed that these metrics will remain essentially unchanged once the system expands (i.e., learning curve impacts have not been modeled).
3.3 Model Construction and Results

Results are presented sequentially with respect to how the modeling effort was executed, beginning with key inputs and assumptions and layering in important intermediate results as appropriate. However, in order to provide a proper context for how the net savings for the alternative scenarios compare to the Baseline, it is important to first understand the big-picture impact of the alternative scenarios before delving into the detailed results. To that end, the graphic below summarizes the estimated cost savings impact of both alternative residential refuse scenarios as compared to the estimated cost per customer under the Baseline system for the same cost components. The savings shown reflects the net impact to both the Capital Budget (cost increases related to retrofitting or procurement of new vehicles and cart capital costs) and the General Fund (the net cost savings related to staffing adjustments, vehicle O&M costs and cart replacement costs under the alternative scenarios).
Comparison of Operational Costs per Customer Baseline and Alternative Scenarios
$49.00 $47.00 $45.00 $43.00
$47.38
$41.25
$41.00 $39.00 $37.00 $35.00 Baseline Semi Auto
$39.72
It is important to note that the graphic above represents the comparison of the net cost impacts to both the General Fund and Capital Budget as compared to the estimated operational cost of the Baseline system for only those cost components examined as part of this analysis, and that the savings assume a City customer base of 186,000 units served. This chart does not reflect an all-in cost savings estimate.
9/11/08
R. W. Beck 3-3
Section 3
The Conclusion subsection will present the ultimate cost comparison of the Automated and Semi-automated collection alternatives, and the remainder of this section will build up the set of calculations and associated cost implications of the factors that lead to the savings shown in the graphic above, taking care to distinguish between the net savings impact (as shown above to incorporate both the General Fund and the Capital Budget) as well as the impact of each respective fund individually. As the City reviews these results, it is important to note that while the Pilot Program was conducted in fifteen 1,000 household areas, the Model has been constructed to examine the full implementation cost impacts of each alternative To the extent an alternative is extended to more areas gradually, the resultant cost impacts would be equally gradual. Modeling the entire system provides the advantages of (i) utilizing true system tonnage quantities and customer counts, thereby preserving the relationship between these measures without ad hoc assumptions and ii) testing each collection alternative in its ultimate form to gain an understanding of the outcomes at a true planning level. Table 3-1 summarizes the key modeling inputs and resultant route count requirements from the proprietary route model.
Table 3-1 Summary of Key Modeling Inputs and Route Model Results
Rear-load Manual Modeling Metrics Customers Served [1] Annual Tons Collected Set-out Rate (%)
[3] [2]
Semi-Automated (1x/wk) 186,000 252,000 80.0% 49.8 8.0/9.0 25 1.1 7,737,600 768 29,760 54
Fully-Automated (1x/wk) 186,000 252,000 80.0% 44.8 8.0/9.0 33 1.1 7,737,600 1,013 29,760 48
(1x/wk) 186,000 252,000 80.0% 51.1 8.0/9.0 25 1.5 7,737,600 768 29,760 55
Seconds Per Stop [4] Sched/Actual Hrs/Day Truck Capacity (CY) [5] Loads/Day/Truck Total Annual Stops Stops to Fill Truck Stops per Day Routes per Day [6]
[1] Based on most recent estimate as provided by the City. [2] Extrapolation based on actual data through May 2008 and monthly data provided by the City for 2007. [3] Based on productivity metrics observed in 2007 and supplemental 2008 data on Pilot Regions. Set-out rates have been cross referenced against system averages. [4] Based on productivity metrics observed in 2007 and supplemental 2008 data on Pilot Regions. [5] Truck capacity differs for automated vehicles, and has a significant impact on cost deltas reported. Refer to the report for further details. [6] Represents the number of routes output by the proprietary route model as being required, given all inputs and relative differences in productivity across service offerings. Frequency of collection is identical and based on desired frequency as reported by the City, so as to provide an "apples to apples" comparison.
3-4 R. W. Beck
The City estimates a total customer base of 186,000 units, with annual tonnage reaching approximately 252,000 tons. Notice the differential in productivity for the Semi-automated and Automated alternatives as compared to the Baseline, which results in a decline in the amount of routes required in the Semi-automated scenario, and an even greater decline in the amount of routes required for the Automated scenario. The larger ASL truck capacity in the Automated scenario leads to more stops to fill each truck, which impacts the number of required routes when coupled with improvements in productivity over the Baseline system. The Baseline model outcome of 55 routes benchmarks well with information provided by the City regarding the actual number of routes currently running. It is important to note that collection frequencies modeled are based on the Citys reported and desired collection frequency, and that in order for the financial comparisons across scenarios to be relevant, the underlying level of service must be equivalent. Routing requirements have been used to estimate staffing levels, with the assumption that the City will retain one helper in the Semi-automated scenario, and that the ASL drivers will assume sole route responsibility once that system is fully implemented. These requirements are summarized in Table 3-2. Table 3-2 Staffing Requirements by Scenario
Staff Count Scenario Rear-load Manual (1x) Semi-Automated (1x) Fully Automated (1x) Truck Drivers [1] 55 54 48 Staff Collectors [2] 110 54 0 Cart Maint. [3] Total Staff 0 2 2 165 110 50
[1] Based on routes determined to be necessary from route model. [2] Semi-automated scenario assumes requiring only one collector per truck during initial phases of full implementation. [3] Collection cart maintenance staff commensurate with size and scope of the City's current customer base and collection area responsibilities. Additional support from other staff members/departments may be needed initially during the start-up and customer education phase of implementation.
Cost results in this section do not assume a phase-out of Laborers in the Semiautomated scenario. Staffing levels and associated route requirements were then mapped to certain key individual and equipment specific cost assumptions, including Operating and Maintenance (O&M) costs as summarized in Table 3-3 and Table 3-4.
9/11/08
R. W. Beck 3-5
Section 3
Table 3-3 Salary and Benefits Assumptions
Salary & Benefits Assumptions [1] Annual Salary $37,128 $42,697 $30,514 $30,514 Annual Salary plus Benefits Benefits (%) 37% 37% 37% 37% $50,774 $58,391 $41,729 $41,729
Position Driver Driver Collector Cart Maintenance
Vehicle Rear Loader Automated Side Loader Rear Loader Pick-up
Hourly Rate $17.85 $20.53 $14.67 $14.67
[1] Based on Staff salary data provided by the City, and benefits calculations provided by the City. Annual salary excludes overtime, and assumes a continuous 40-hour work week.
The hourly rates in Table 3-3 have been extracted from salary data provided by the City, and it can be expected that salaries for well-qualified drivers that transition to ASL trucks will be increased relative to rear loader drivers given the increase in overall responsibility associated with such a transition. The City will also likely need to hire cart maintenance/program coordination personnel (or reassign existing staff) in either scenario to assist with the short-term transition as well as the long term care and maintenance of carts. It should be noted that significant changes to the labor rates shown above will materially impact any savings incurred after full implementation of either modeled scenario. This is due to the fact that the preponderance of cost savings associated with both Scenarios centers on considerable reductions in staffing. Table 3-4 Equipment Costs
Equipment Cost Assumptions Vehicle Rear Loader Automated Side Loader Rear Loader (Semi-Auto) Retrofit (Semi-Auto) Pick-up Truck Carts
[2]
Purchase Price $134,000 $200,000 $140,000 $6,000 $25,000 $57
O&M Costs (per year) [1] $26,000 $32,500 $27,000 $27,000 $3,400 $1
[1] O&M Cost estimates adjusted from route model assumptions to reflect current fuel cost trends. Includes estimated annual cost of tires, parts and labor for preventative maintenance, and fuel. Fuel costs have essentially doubled relative to the base year fuel cost assumptions in the route model, and O&M costs have been adjusted to reflect more current fuel costs. [2] Retrofit estimate assumes the City can utilize its existing fleet and would fully implement the change over to semi-automated vehicles.
3-6 R. W. Beck

Note that for fleet costs, it has been assumed that the City will be able to retrofit its existing fleet, and that the cost of doing so is essentially equivalent to the differential in capital costs between an existing manual rear-load vehicle and an existing semiautomated vehicle. The difference in acquisition and capital costs related to the high capital cost and relatively high maintenance cost of ALS trucks, coupled with retrofit opportunities has a marked impact on the ultimate financial comparison of the two alternatives. Fuel and maintenance cost adjustments were applied to the Baseline route model cost assumptions in an effort to make them more representative of current costs. This was accomplished as follows: The United States Energy Information Administration (EIA) weekly average fuel prices were used to adjust Model results in order to better estimate the overall impact of fuel costs to the collection alternatives. Cart costs have been escalated to represent a per-unit cost of $57 based on general inflation levels. ASL costs have been escalated to reflect the Citys current best estimate for a 33 cubic yard ASL truck that was the primary tested vehicle for the Pilot regions. With regard to the $1 per-unit-per year O&M assumption for carts, the following maintenance service costs have been assumed to be embedded in this per-unit estimate: Repair of broken or damaged carts. Replacement of misplaced and/or stolen carts. Time of maintenance personnel needed to ensure fully functional carts yearround. Tables 3-5 and 3-6 summarize the labor deltas and labor cost impacts, respectively for the two alternative scenarios as compared to the existing Baseline system. Note that Table 3-6 shows the net cost impact solely related to route reductions in the Semiautomated scenario, but reflects the overall cost impact of adjusting driver positions from rear-load manual (a credit to the system) to ASL (a debit to the system) trucks, based on expected route requirements, at an inflated salary. Table 3-5 Labor Impacts (Changes to the Number of Crew)
Drivers Automated Rear Side Loaders/Semi Loader Collectors Automated (1) (55) 0 48 (56) (110) Cart Maintenance 2 2 Net Change (55) (115)
Scenario [1] Semi-Automated (1x) Fully Automated (1x)
[1] Represents the estimated net change in staffing as compared to the Baseline manual collection system. Represents full implementation staffing levels.
9/11/08
R. W. Beck 3-7
Section 3
Table 3-6 Labor Cost Impacts

Estimated Cost Impact Cart Maintenance $ $ 83,458 83,458 Net Change per Customer [1] $ $ (12.39) (24.18)
Scenario Semi-Automated (1x) Fully Automated (1x)
Drivers $(50,774) $ 10,155
Collectors $(2,336,817) $(4,590,177)
Total Change $ (2,304,134) $ (4,496,565)
[1] Based on City provided 2008 customer count of 186,000 customers served. Note that the increase in driver costs in the Automated scenario is related to the fact that ASL drivers have been assumed to be paid a premium salary, and even though the net driver differential is a loss of 7 drivers, there is a slight increase in overall driver costs related to this premium.
Based on other projects conducted by R. W. Beck, it is anticipated that two full-time staff members will be needed, at least initially, to manage complaints, coordinate cart repairs and replacement, report on cart misuse, help collection staff enforce violations, and manage and log cart inventories for the Citys 186,000 customers. Once compliance and system education levels have matured such that participation and violations are mitigated, this position may be able to be filled by one part-time employee. Overall, it is estimated that given current salary levels, the Automated scenario would save the City approximately $4.5 million per year, or $24.18 per customer per year, in labor costs. The Semi-automated scenario would save the City approximately $2.3 million per year, or $12.39 per customer per year in labor costs. Tables 3-7, 3-8, and 3-9 summarize the impact on vehicle quantities for the alternative scenarios, and represent both total and annualized cost estimates of the respective impacts. Annualized capital cost estimates for vehicles assume a straight line depreciation of the asset in question over a life of seven years for rear loaders and six years for ASL trucks. Table 3-7 Vehicle Requirements (Changes to the Number of Vehicles)
Net Gain (Loss) Scenario Semi-Automated (1x) Fully Automated (1x) Rear Loader (1) (55) Automated Side Loader 0 48 Pick-up 2 2 Net Change 1 (5)
3-8 R. W. Beck
Table 3-8 Vehicle Capital Cost Impacts

Total Capital Cost Increase (Decrease) Rear Loader/Semi Automated $322,866 $0 Automated Side Loader $0 $9,000,000 Annualized Capital Cost Deltas Automated Side Loader $0 $1,520,000 Total Change $52,869 $1,524,600 Net Change per Customer [1] $0.28 $8.20
Pick-up $50,000 $50,000
Total $372,886 $9,650,,000
Rear Loader $48,629 $0
Pick-up $4,600 $4,600
[1] Based on City provided 2008 customer counts of 186,000 customers served. Reduced route counts and costs under the semi-automated collection scenario are offset in part by the retrofit costs for the entire collection fleet. Salvage cost for retired trucks included in costs estimated as a credit to capital cost delta under the Rear Loader column. Capital costs do not directly impact the Solid Waste Division from a cost standpoint. Refer to the Conclusion sub-section for a compartmentalization of cost savings with and without capital costs.
9/11/08
R. W. Beck 3-9
Section 3
It is important to describe how the two scenarios differ procedurally with respect to capital costs as summarized in Table 3-8: In the Semi-automated scenario, the City bears the cost burden of retrofitting its existing fleet up front, and also invests in pick-up trucks in support of cost maintenance personnel. Alternatively, in the Automated scenario, the City must acquire a significant amount of ASL trucks in addition to pick-up truck costs, which are relatively expensive on a per-unit basis. The Semi-automated scenario would increase the Citys vehicle costs by $52,869 per year ($0.28 per customer), whereas the Automated scenario, which involves a significant up-front investment, would increase vehicle costs by approximately $1.5 million per year ($8.20 per customer). Note again that capital costs do not directly impact the Solid Waste Division from a cost standpoint. Refer to the Conclusion subsection for a compartmentalization of cost savings with and without vehicle and cart capital costs. Additionally, the Citys existing fleet of rear-load vehicles will eventually be depleted and the capital costs associated with acquiring vehicles for a semi-automated system will be more comparable to the capital costs of an automated system. Notice the flow of increases/decreases, as the deltas related to staffing must be combined with the deltas related to vehicles and other cost components to result in the net impact on the system. Table 3-9 Vehicle O&M Cost Impact
O&M Cost Increase (Decrease) Automated Side Loader $0 $1,560,000 Total Change $34,614 $136,800 Total Change per Customer [1] $0.19 $0.74
Rear Loader $27,814 ($1,430,000)
Pick-up $6,800 $6,800
[1] Based on City provided 2008 customer counts of 186,000 customers served. O&M costs are slightly higher for semi-automated vehicles, and significantly higher for ASL trucks.
O&M costs for ASL trucks are typically higher than rear loader trucks due to the increased cost to repair mechanical equipment. This results in a delta of approximately $137,000 per year, or $0.74 per customer in the Automated scenario, and only a nominal increase in the Semi-automated scenario due to the slightly lower anticipated number of routes. Both of these scenarios involve changes to cost to reflect the investment in carts, as well as the amount of spare vehicles required to be available. Tables 3-10 and 3-11 summarize these impacts.
3-10 R. W. Beck

Table 3-10 Cart Cost Impacts
Estimated Cost Increase (Decrease) [1] Cart Capital Cost $10,522,096 $10,522,096 Cart Replacement Surcharge $263,052 $263,052 Total Annualized Cost $1,078,515 $1,078,515 Annualized per Customer Cost [2] $5.80 $5.80
Quantity 186,000 186,000
[1] There is no assumed cart cost under the Baseline scenario. Consequently, the cart cost impacts shown in Table 2-10 reflect a net increase as a result of newly incurred costs. [2] Based on City provided 2008 customer counts of 186,000 customers served.
3.3.1 Cart Replacement Surcharge

The City had reported as part of initial project discussions that they were experiencing an unanticipated cost burden related to tenant occupied housing and the associated lack of accountability for returning carts and cart damages that could not be recovered from tenants. Typically, communities must either pass on the cost associated with maintenance risks directly to customers, or adjust their budgeting protocols to properly account for the likelihood (out of all carts) that such an event occurs. R. W. Beck has assumed that the City would adjust its budget by 2.5 percent of the per-unit cost of a cart, in an effort to better plan for these types of problems in advance. Should the City choose to assess this surcharge directly to customers, this amount would then be a credit to the City, and this approach can be argued to be a more equitable and direct way to keep owners accountable for their own behavior and the behavior of their tenants with respect to carts. Notwithstanding this ultimate decision, the relative impact of this cost component is identical for both the Automated and Semi-automated scenarios, and as such the relative cost differences are not driven by cart considerations. Table 3-11 Spare Vehicle Impacts
Net Gain (Loss) [1] Automated Side Loader 0 10 Total Annualized Cost ($1,667) $331,667 Annualized per Customer Cost [2] ($0.01) $1.78
Rear Loader 0 (8)
Pick-up 0 0
Total Change 0 2
[1] Based on a spare vehicle multiplier of 15% for rear loaders and 20% for ASL trucks.
9/11/08
R. W. Beck 3-11
Section 3
3.4 Conclusion
Table 3-12 below summarizes and compares the cost increase (savings) of labor, vehicle operation, annualized capital costs, and cart costs for each of the scenarios analyzed, as it relates to the City in total. Table 3-13 summarizes the net impact on the Capital Budget, and Table 3-14 summarizes the net impact on the Solid Waste Divisions General Fund, which excludes the impact of vehicle and cart capital costs from the comparison. It is important to stress again that the savings or increases shown are all relative to the Baseline system and the associated Baseline per customer costs as detailed in the introductory graphic in this section, and are driven from the routing differences modeled and summarized in Tables 3-1 through 3-11. Within the context of the City in total, the results of the modeling process indicate that the Semi-automated scenario will save the City an estimated $1.14 million in operating costs ($6.13 per customer) over the Baseline scenario on an annual basis. Full implementation of the Automated scenario is estimated to result in a cost savings of about $1.4 annually, or about $7.66 per customer. The delta between the Automated scenario and the Semi-automated scenario is an estimated $285,000, which is the net difference in cost impact to the City (a cost savings in favor of the Automated alternative in this case) when the scenarios are considered in isolation. The differences in cost impacts of the alternative scenarios for the City in total, as detailed throughout this section, are driven from several key factors, which can be summarized as follows: Near-term capital costs for the Semi-automated scenario are lower due to the ability of the City to retrofit its existing fleet, Capital costs for the Automated scenario are significant, in that the per-unit cost of an ASL truck is not only higher than the cost of a rear load truck, but the City must acquire a large amount of such trucks assuming full implementation, The net gains in productivity in the Automated scenario, coupled with improvements in productivity and increased capacity only partially offset capital costs related to procurement of ASL trucks; this cost notwithstanding, gains in productivity and staffing adjustments result in more savings under the Automated scenario, O&M costs for the ASL trucks are higher, primarily due to the more complex nature of the equipment on the vehicle, and Despite the larger staffing savings associated with the Automated scenario, ASL drivers are typically paid a premium for their increased level of route responsibility. Several factors that are inherently uncertain, such as whether the City could negotiate a lower price for ASL trucks, increased costs of retrofitting the existing fleet (or the inability to do so for some older vehicles), the greater potential for productivity gains in the long-run related to a fully-implemented ASL truck based operation, and the willingness of existing staff to fulfill alternative roles for comparable levels of
3-12 R. W. Beck
compensation may make the Automated scenario even more financially attractive as compared to the Semi-Automated scenario. Ultimately, however, the City cannot expect significantly more cost savings in the Automated scenario with the current capital cost level of the ASL trucks, at least during the amortization period whereby these capital costs must be financed by the system. There may be a window of opportunity past this period whereby the ASL fleet would still be usable, and consequently the savings for the ASL operation in those years could be larger.
9/11/08
R. W. Beck 3-13
Section 3
Table 3-12 Net Program Savings General Fund and Capital Budget (Relative to the Baseline)
Annual Vehicle Costs Scenario Semi-Automated (1x) Fully Automated (1x) Labor Cost ($2,304,134) ($4,496,565) Annualized Capital Cost $52,869 $1,524,600 Annual Cart Costs Annualized Capital Cost $1,052,210 $1,052,210 Cart Replacement[1] $26,305 $26,305 Spare Vehicles Annualized Cost (Savings) ($1,667) $331,667 Total Change Cost (Savings) ($1,139,802) ($1,424,983) Per Customer Cost (Savings)[2] ($6.13) ($7.66)
O&M Cost $34,614 $136,800
[1] Represents a cart surcharge that serves as a pass-through of costs incurred by the City as a result of lost or stolen carts, either through vandalism or as a result of renter occupied units transporting carts with them when they move. [2] Based on City provided 2008 customer counts of 186,000 customers served.
Table 3-13 Capital Budget Cost Comparison of Scenarios (Relative to the Baseline)
Annual Vehicle Costs Scenario Semi-Automated (1x) Fully Automated (1x) Labor Cost $0 $0 Annualized Capital Cost $52,869 $1,524,600 Annual Cart Costs Annualized Capital Cost $1,052,210 $1,052,210 Cart Replacement [1] $0 $0 Spare Vehicles Annualized Cost (Savings) ($1,667) $331,667 Total Change Cost (Savings) ($1,103,412) ($2,903,476) Per Customer Cost (Savings)[2] $5.93 $15.64
O&M Cost $0 $0
3-14 R. W. Beck
Table 3-14 General Fund Cost Comparison of Scenarios (Relative to the Baseline)
Annual Vehicle Costs Annualized Capital Cost $0 $0 Annual Cart Costs Annualized Capital Cost $0 $0 Cart Replacement [1] $26,305 $26,305 Spare Vehicles Annualized Cost (Savings) $0 $0 Total Change Cost (Savings) ($2,243,214) ($4,333,459) Per Customer Cost (Savings)[2] ($12.06) ($23.30)
Labor Cost ($2,304,134) ($4,496,565)
O&M Cost $34,614 $136,800
9/11/08
R. W. Beck 3-15
Section 3
With respect to the net impacts to the Solid Waste Divisions General Fund, the results of the modeling process indicate that the Semi-automated scenario will save the City an estimated $2.2 million ($12.06 per customer) over the Baseline scenario on an annual basis. Full implementation of the Automated scenario is estimated to result in a cost savings of about $4.3 million annually, or about $23.30 per customer. The delta between the Automated scenario and the Semi-automated scenario is an estimated $2.1 million annually, which is the net difference in cost impact to the City (a cost savings in favor of the Automated alternative in this case) when the scenarios are considered in isolation. Because the cost burden of vehicle and cart capital is reported to be only an indirect cost consideration for the Solid Waste Division, the net savings impact to the Division for the Automated scenario increases significantly in Table 3-14, as the fundamental cost burden associated with this scenario resides with financing costs for new vehicles and carts. Additionally, the projected results of full implementation as shown above assume that operational efficiency of the Pilot Program areas remain unchanged. If improvements are made, as suggested in Section 5, it is possible for the program savings and benefits to be greater than presented above. The results of the productivity and financial evaluation of the Citys system presented in Sections 2 and 3 must be carefully reviewed in light of qualitative feedback obtained from key City stakeholders and delineated in Section 4. Section 5 of this report will tie all of the findings of this analysis together to frame a series of recommendations to the City for Pilot program expansion.
3-16 R. W. Beck 9/11/08 R:\Orlando\005821 - Cleveland\05-01482-10101 Pilot Program Eval\0400 - Expansion Assess\Work Products\Final Report\Final Report_20080911.doc
Section 4 HIGH-LEVEL SYSTEM REVIEW 4.1 Introduction

Operational and cost metrics are important components of a thorough and independent evaluation of the waste collection Pilot Program. However, it is also important to gather qualitative information and input from those who have been involved with either the implementation or operation of the Pilot Program. This feedback helps paint a more complete and robust picture of the successes and challenges associated with the Pilot Program, and provides input for improving the program for both current and future program participants. In order to obtain this input, one-on-one interviews and focus groups were conducted with various staff members that represented a diverse group of stakeholders. Additionally, some operational staff suggested that it would be useful for an R. W. Beck consultant to conduct route observations within the Pilot Program areas. Consequently, an additional half day was spent on the routes with the Automated, Semi-automated and Recycling crews to get a first-hand perspective of some of the Pilot Program operations. This section of the report provides a summary of the information received during the interviews, focus groups, and route observations. It should be noted that while some observations may seem contradictory to either data referenced in prior sections of this report or other observations, this does not invalidate these observations. Rather, this information should be viewed as additional pieces of the puzzle that were elicited from key City stakeholders during this evaluation. Additionally, this section of the report is a description of the process and a listing of the observations, and not an evaluation of the issues. The Recommendations section of this report will aggregate the quantitative and qualitative data from all sections of this report into actionable recommendations for the Citys consideration.
4.2 Focus Groups

4.2.1 Process
Typically, staff that is involved in the day-to-day operations of a department already has significant insight regarding ideas to increase the departments efficiency. In an effort to glean these ideas from the staff in a confidential and productive forum, focus groups were conducted by R. W. Beck.
9/11/08
Section 4
The purpose of these focus groups was three fold: 1. Provide an organized forum for staff to share ideas they believe will improve performance in the Pilot Program area; 2. Provide an open forum for staff to express concerns regarding operations of the Pilot Program; and 3. Provide a structured framework that helps staff discuss the pros and cons of various suggestions and solicit levels of shared vision for these suggestions. R. W. Beck conducted two focus groups on June 30, 2008. Focus groups were conducted with both Laborers and Drivers from all three service centers, mostly from within the Pilot Program areas. The focus groups were conducted under the condition of anonymity, and comments, results, and feedback reviewed here are not attributable to any specific individual(s). Three primary questions were posed to each focus group: 1. What is working? 2. What is not working? 3. What are the solutions? Suggestions provided in response to Question 3 were intended to address specific issues raised in Question 2, while trying to minimize the impact on the issues discussed to Question 1. Frequently, it is possible to make suggestions that only impact the problem, but participants soon realize that recommendations can also have negative or unintended consequences, and they are forced to evaluate the pros and cons of each suggestion. After Question 3 was answered, each participant was given the opportunity to place three votes for any of the suggestions generated. Each participant could place all three votes with one suggestion, or spread them out among up to three suggestions. This allows the City to understand what suggestions the employees believe would have the greatest impact on improving the Pilot Program operations, and can be used to help prioritize future actions.
4.2.2 Interpretation Instructions

It should be noted that the focus groups are intended to encourage a free flow of ideas and comments, whether positive or negative, in a confidential forum. The summary of these responses should not be interpreted as an authoritative report card, but rather as the pulse of a specific group of employees at a given point in time. Some responses under the What is Working section may directly conflict with responses under the What is Not Working section. It is likely that these responses were each received during separate focus groups. Issues of concern in one focus group may not have been a concern in the other focus group. Lastly, it is beyond the scope of this project for R. W. Beck to validate or invalidate each response, whether positive or negative. An employees opinion is simply that,
4-2 R. W. Beck
High-Level System Review

and this task attempts to summarize a group of employees responses to a few specific questions.
4.2.3 Findings
The following is a summary of the responses received from the participants in the two focus groups.
What is Working?
Initially, participants struggled with developing a list of things that appear to be working well within the Pilot Program area. This is somewhat typical as most participants come eager to discuss challenges. However, after a few minutes, they began generating substantive comments regarding things that appear to be working well in the Pilot Program areas, namely: Labrie Vehicle no height issue on the automated arm Heil faster cycle time Automated program has great potential Toter carts heavier, sturdier, easier to roll Grass clipping collection Garbage being collected faster Less injuries Residents like new carts Cart placement works when residents comply Ticketing non-compliant set-outs makes a difference Teamwork among Pilot Program crew Rehrig Carts Streets look cleaner Time to service homes has improved Tippers 140H20, 138H124, and 140H19 seem to work best Dedication of crews Pilot Program is preferred by Drivers Steps on rear of Semi-automated vehicles has helped The participants genuinely appeared to be supportive of the Pilot Program becoming successful, and understood that a more broadly implemented alterative collection system is the direction the City is moving towards.
9/11/08
R. W. Beck 4-3
Section 4 What Is Not Working?

Responses to this question varied between being operational, policy and personnel related. Recycling contents of cart are too often contaminated Cart placement not placed correctly often enough Recycling low participation Differences between Pilot Program operations and procedures at each service center Cart maneuvering is difficult in winter months Uncontainerized (excess) waste Inconsistent ticketing procedures Having only one tipper on rear-loaders Not enough carts for residents Apathy among residents about complying with new procedures Rental properties no stake for tenant Education for Supervisors regarding the specifics of the Pilot Program (guidelines, ordinances, enforcement procedures, etc.) Customer Service phones Need more help on Semi-automated crews Customer education Pay for Drivers and Laborers Overpopulated Houses generate more trash Participants agreed that there are many areas that can be addressed which will improve the efficiency in the Pilot Program areas. While some of these issues can be addressed within their department, other issues will require action or input from senior management or other areas of the City, especially issues that stem from policy-related decisions such as set-out requirements, education and ordinance enforcement. The above list should be reviewed to determine if they are recurring or isolated problems, to prioritize the problems, and then to determine what level of authority is required to address the issues.
What Are the Solutions?

Participants enjoyed generating suggestions they believed could improve the Pilot Program. Table 4-1 summarizes the suggestions proposed in response to this question. It should be noted that the two focus groups often came up with similar suggestions and those have been combined in this summary. Additionally, since the number of participants in the focus groups varied significantly, the voting results have been
4-4 R. W. Beck

converted into percents (weighted averages) so as to more accurately represent the responses of all participants. Table 4-1 Suggestions Proposed by Focus Groups
Employee Recommendations Increase pay to Pilot Program Drivers / Laborers Improve or increase Pilot Program education (internal and external), especially regarding recycling Improve policy / ordinance enforcement procedures Implement parking ban on collection days Implement Bulk truck in Pilot area Provide extra cart to residents Create Pilot Program Coordinator position Select Pilot Program areas strategically Increase manpower for Semi-automated routes, especially in winter Percent of Votes 29% 22% 17% 10% 8% 7% 5% 2% 0%
4.2.4 Focus Group Summary

Both focus groups engaged in lively discussions of the Pilot Program. As the discussions progressed, it became apparent to the participants that the issues and challenges they identified could generally be classified as fine tuning, and that the Pilot Program has overall been a success. This is an important clarification since a lengthy list of challenges might easily be misinterpreted as a failing report card. This is clearly not the case in this situation. The participants readily acknowledged that the Pilot Program is the future of solid waste operations in the City, and that it is having a positive impact. One participant reported that crews are more enthusiastic about their jobs in the Pilot Program. That is a critical element to a successful implementation and expansion of the Pilot Program. The three most popular suggestions to address challenges are increasing pay, improving staff and public education, and improving ordinance enforcement and procedures. Since evaluation of pay levels is administered through union negotiations and beyond the scope of this analysis, it will be not discussed in depth. Additionally, it should be noted that the discussion regarding pay was relatively short, and almost came up as an afterthought. The other two high scoring topics, education and enforcement, both generated lengthy discussions. These two components are not only critical to the success of the automated collection Pilot Program, but are also interrelated. These two issues are discussed in greater detail in Section 5 of this report.
9/11/08
R. W. Beck 4-5
Section 4
4.3 Pilot Program Route Observations

While the interviews and focus groups provided significant insights into the successes and challenges being experienced in the Pilot Program, R. W. Beck decided to spend additional time in the field with the Automated, Semi-automated and Recycling crews to see firsthand what the Drivers and Laborers were experiencing, and to see how the Pilot Program residents were responding to the program. It should be noted that these observations were conducted a) on a day described as light by the crews; and b) from only one service center and not all three. It is important to recognize that compliance patterns of the residents, as well as operational and enforcement practices, likely vary between service centers. The following is a brief summary of the general observations from routes in the Pilot Program. These observations occurred with enough frequency to warrant inclusion in this summary.
Automated / Semi-automated
Some residents are not using the automated carts. They are still placing waste at the curb in cans, bags or loose. Many residents are using the blue cart for regular waste, in addition to the automated cart for waste. For a large portion of the Pilot Program area, both the automated and the semiautomated vehicles are driving down the same streets. The automated vehicle is collecting waste in the automated carts in approximately 70 percent of the area, and the semi-automated vehicle is collecting all waste in 30 percent of the area, and the un-containerized waste in 70 percent of the area. Drivers used to collect contaminated blue recycling carts, but are now leaving them. Semi-automated crews would prefer two flippers to help spread waste in the rear hopper. This would reduce the compaction cycle frequency and reduce spillage over the back of the hopper.
Recycling
Driver is recording address of contaminated carts and providing list to Supervisor. It is unclear if citations are being issued. Residents have been requested to bag their paper and container recyclables separately. The majority of the bags make it difficult to ascertain the contamination level, which requires every cart to be manually inspected prior to collection. Clear bags seem to work well, in addition to the light-blue plastic bags from Giant Eagle. Many phone books are being placed in recycling containers. They are being manually removed from the recycling cart and placed in the waste cart.
4-6 R. W. Beck

Many residents are placing recyclables in curbside bags rather than automated carts. Much time appears to be spent by crews manually sorting out contaminants from recycling carts. As with the Semi-automated vehicles, crews would prefer two tippers to reduce compaction cycle frequency and reduce spillage over the back of the collection hopper. Suggestions to address these issues will be presented in the next section of the report, taking into consideration results of the analyses presented in Sections 2 and 3.
9/11/08
R. W. Beck 4-7
Section 5 EXPANSION ASSESSMENT 5.1 Introduction

Implementing a Pilot Program provides an opportunity to evaluate successes and challenges prior to full implementation throughout the City. As the City has requested, R. W. Beck has evaluated basic route data and certain financial metrics, observed set-out behaviors and challenges on the routes, interviewed staff and conducted focus groups. Based on these inputs as previously reviewed in this report, it appears that on average the Citys Pilot Program is operating more efficiently than the Citys traditional collection methodology. Collection times have improved, containerization of waste has improved, the number of containers being set-out has decreased, and the implementation of a recycling program is a great addition to the services being offered by the City. These are all steps in the right direction and the Citys staff and crews should be commended for their efforts in implementing this Pilot Program. The next step the City is considering is expanding the Pilot Program to an additional 30,000 households. Given the initial success of the Pilot Program as outlined in Sections 2 and 3 of this report, as well as the substantial benefits the City and its residents could experience from full implementation, expanding the Pilot Program to additional households is a logical next step. This section contains strategies and recommendations for the City to consider that could help the Pilot Program areas operate more efficiently while still providing excellent customer service to the residents.
5.2 Strategy for Success

In order to develop an effective and efficient collection program, it is useful to clarify operational and cost goals as they relate to the Citys impetus for implementing the Pilot Program. These goals likely include some mix of the following: Reducing operating costs Reducing capital costs Reducing required number of routes Reducing waste generation Increasing recycling diversion Improving sustainability of operations (using less fuel, reducing the number of vehicles on roadways, etc.)
9/11/08
Section 5
One of the biggest challenges to balance with the above goals is the need to maintain a high level of customer satisfaction. If the City achieves all of the above goals by providing services that the residents dislike and/or do not utilize, the program is not a success. Therefore, a logical and balanced approach is required. There are a few keys to balancing the above priorities: Minimize the number of trucks and crews traveling through a collection area; Maintain convenience for residents; Give residents the information they need to comply with the Citys operations plan; Provide the residents incentives for compliance with the behavior the City desires (or disincentives for contrary behavior); and Implement an effective enforcement structure through the creation of targeted ordinances and empowered Code Enforcement personnel. A successful approach requires integrating areas of responsibilities throughout the Solid Waste Division as well as the City.
5.3 An Integrated Approach

A properly designed and implemented collection program requires a well coordinated, integrated approach. The following is a discussion on several attributes that are paramount to a successful program.
5.3.1 Set-out Policies

The Citys policies need to at least be reviewed, and possibly revised, based on the setout practices desired by the City. Establishing clear policies regarding waste collection practices enables the City to enforce the ordinances and establish penalties for non-compliance. A review of the Citys ordinances was beyond the scope of project; however, the following items are typical of what should be detailed in set-out policies if they are not already addressed in the Citys ordinances. Proper placement of the cart in relation to the curb, cars, mailboxes, trees, utility poles, etc. Proper placement of the cart regarding which side should be placed facing the street How much material, if any, is allowed to be placed on top of the cart, or in the cart and above the rim of the cart (preventing the lid to close properly) How much material, if any, is allowed to be placed adjacent to the cart (uncontained waste)
5-2 R. W. Beck
Expansion Assessment
Some of these issues have been communicated to residents, but without an enforcement mechanism, there is little incentive for the resident to comply. One of the primary limitations the City needs to determine is how much uncontained waste a resident may place curbside for collection with their contained waste. Collecting uncontained waste greatly affects the efficiency of the automated vehicles, which directly impacts the number of routes, crews and vehicles required, crews, cost of operations, etc. Based on route observations and conversations with the Drivers and Laborers, it appears that residents set-out waste believing they can set-out as much waste as they want, knowing it will all be collected. Also, the perceived difficulty of holding residents accountable for their set-out actions was brought up in focus groups and interviews. The difficulty is attributed to the charge for waste services being rolled into the owners property tax bill, and the out of sight, out of mind mentality that gives some residents the perception that waste services are free and their actions do not impact their costs. The concern is especially strong as it relates to tenants who never directly pay the property taxes. As the City evaluates ordinances, as well as various rate incentives discussed below, special consideration should be given to creating mechanisms that allow the City to pass along charges or fines to residents or tenants on a timely basis.
5.3.2 Enforcement
After establishing the proper ordinances, it is necessary to implement the proper structure for enforcing the ordinances. Prior experience shows that communities that actively enforce policies when they are implemented experience significant violations initially, but eventually obtain compliance. While other communities who never truly enforce policies, for fear of upsetting residents and voters, tend to experience ongoing violations and inefficiencies. Certainly the front lines of defense are the drivers on the route. They are extremely observant of set-out practices, repeat offenders, special needs of the residents, etc. It is also important for them to maintain good relationships with the people they serve, and they take pride in cleaning their assigned areas. Therefore, for customer service purposes, it is generally not suggested that drivers become the primary mode of enforcement. A friendly verbal reminder can sometimes be effective, but someone from a Code Enforcement position should carry the burden regarding code enforcement. If the City has general Code Enforcement Officers who are also responsible for enforcing all of the Citys ordinances, they should receive extra training regarding the solid waste ordinances, and be allowed to focus on enforcing them during the implementation period. Proper enforcement of the ordinances from the beginning of the Pilot Program usually leads to greater compliance in the long-run by the residents. If the City is not able to dedicate general Code Enforcement Officers for use in Solid Waste, the Division should consider hiring a few full-time, dedicated Code Enforcement Officers to assist with the implementation and maintenance of the automated program.
9/11/08
R. W. Beck 5-3
Section 5
Regardless of where the Code Enforcement Officer is positioned within the Citys organizational structure, it is important to ensure that proper communication channels are established between Drivers, Laborers, Supervisors and Code Enforcement personnel.
5.3.3 Education
Once the appropriate ordinances and enforcement practices have been established, the residents need to be thoroughly educated on the collection services being provided by the City. Based on observed set-out practices by residents, there is substantial room for improvement on their behalf for both MSW and recycling set-outs. An effective education plan should at a minimum communicate the following: the solid waste collection services being provided by the City; how the resident complies with the new program; the benefit to the resident, both personally and as a City, of compliance; and the penalties for non-compliance. Numerous people in the focus groups and interviews indicated that they thought the majority of residents will pay more attention to the penalties than they will the benefits to the City. While there may be some truth to this belief, a holistic communication strategy should be utilized. The data in Sections 2 and 3 of this report can be leveraged as the City desires to help communicate how this program benefits the residents individually and the City as a whole. Task 5 of this project provides assistance with developing community outreach and messaging materials, and will be conducted after this report has been finalized.
5.3.4 Collection Vehicles

Labrie and Heil vehicles were both field tested during the Pilot Program, and the Labries continue to be utilized in this interim period. The Labries seem to be preferred by the crews as well as the administrative staff. Additional considerations regarding collection vehicles: Depending on the Citys goal with uncontainerized waste, the City should consider procuring automated collection vehicles that easily allow the Driver to load small amounts of uncontainerized waste. This would allow the City to reduce the number of vehicles traveling on a collection route, and minimize the number of homes needing to be serviced by semi-automated vehicles. If the City is committed to collecting some waste via semi-automated loading techniques, the City should evaluate side-loading semi-automated vehicles. These vehicles, which can typically load on either or both sides of the vehicle, can produce significant gains in productivity since the Driver and Laborer no longer have to walk to the back of the truck to service the household.
5-4 R. W. Beck
Semi-automated and recycling crews, which are both using rear-loaders retrofitted with tippers, expressed an interest in having two tippers at the hopper rather than one. This double configuration is used elsewhere, and can make the crews more productive due to the increased tipping capacity and the decrease in time waiting to tip a cart. Additionally, it helps spread the material in the bucket, reduces the compactor cycling frequency and reduces the amount of material that spills onto the street.
Multi-Purpose Collection Vehicles

The City currently utilizes both automated and semi-automated vehicles, both of which have their pros and cons. To overcome some of the challenges posed by fully automated collection vehicles, a fairly new type of truck is being utilized in the solid waste collection industry. These vehicles combine the functionality of manual, semiautomated, and fully automated trucks, into one vehicle type for communities that face geographic challenges (i.e. alleys) and/or high overflow setout rates like the City of Cleveland has experienced. These drop-frame vehicles include a low-loading hopper that facilitates manual collection. A semi-automated flipper can be mounted on the right or left side of the hopper to service carts when the gripper arm is impractical. The fully automated gripper arm is designed with the flexibility to reach past parked cars. These vehicles, priced comparably to fully-automated vehicles, could be utilized in the future if the City attempts to consolidate its fleet configuration and needs vehicles that can service automated containers, tight alleys and out-of-cart set-outs.
5.3.5 Collection Operations

Once the proper environment has been created for an automated collection program though the implementation of proper ordinances, enforcement policies, and education programs, as well as the procurement of the proper equipment, then collection operations is the next functional area to evaluate. Based on the data, interviews and observations, there are a few tweaks to the collection operations plan that should be considered in order to achieve maximum efficiency. A primary tactic to implementing a successful automated collection program is to maximize the use of the automated vehicles, and minimize the use of semi-automated and manual collection operations. The City should try to minimize the number of trucks traversing the Citys streets. Currently, the Pilot Program areas service approximately 70 percent of the carts with the automated vehicles, and 30 percent with the semi-automated. The semi-automated vehicles are also collecting the uncontainerized material from the automated portion of the route. Recycling is collected via recycling crews utilizing semi-automated collection vehicles. Recycling carts that are deemed contaminated are reported to a supervisor and are collected by either an automated or semi-automated vehicle, depending on availability. Based on current operations as communicated to R. W. Beck, and observed in the field, the following conditions are a concern:
9/11/08
R. W. Beck 5-5
Section 5
70 percent of the households will likely need to be serviced by a minimum of three vehicles each collection day: Automated collecting carts Semi-Automated collecting uncontainerized material Recycling recyclable materials Only 30 percent of the households have the possibility of being serviced by two vehicles: Semi-automated carts and uncontainerized waste Recycling recyclable materials 70 percent of the households have the possibility of being serviced by four collection vehicles: Automated collecting carts Semi-Automated collecting uncontainerized material Recycling recyclable materials Automated or Semi-Automated collecting contaminated recycling carts The last scenario likely happens on a regular basis on any given street. Under this scenario, four different passes are being made on the same street, completely undermining the potential efficiency of the automated, containerized system. Assuming that the Citys overarching goal is to collect as many set-outs as possible with two vehicles (Automated and Recycling), the scenarios listed above indicate there is room to tweak the operations plan for collecting material. Following are recommendations to improve the collection efficiency of the collection operations: The City should work towards shifting as much of the collection operation towards the automated vehicles as possible. These vehicles collect waste much more efficiently, and as shown in Section 3, can produce significant gains in productivity and cost efficiency. The Citys ability to accomplish this successfully will be predicated on the implementation of appropriate set-out ordinances, and the procurement of vehicles that can load uncontainerized material more easily. The City should minimize the amount of trips down any particular street. Most streets should only require two vehicles an automated collection vehicle that can collect carts and small amounts of uncontained waste, and a recycling vehicle. The City should consider collecting recyclables using automated collection vehicles. As shown in Section 3, the operational efficiencies of collecting material with automated vehicles can be substantial. If the City is committed to implementing an efficient recycling collection program, additional gains in efficiency will be generated if automated collection vehicles are utilized. Additionally, the consolidation of vehicle types typically generates improvements in O&M practices and costs.
5-6 R. W. Beck
The City should consider enlarging the route sizes for the Automated vehicles. Given the extra capacity and increased efficiency, routes should be targeted to serve 1,000-1,200 homes. Assuming an approximate set-out rate of 80 percent, this equates to each vehicle servicing 800-960 homes per route, which is within industry standards. The sizing of these routes will be somewhat dependent on the set-out policies established regarding uncontainerized material. Currently, the laborers on the recycling vehicle hand check nearly every container prior to dumping the material. In many instances, they are hand picking materials out of the container and either placing them in the waste container if they are contaminants, or placing them in the vehicles collection hopper if it was a small amount of recyclables. Additionally, this encourages them to walk from home to home, further decreasing the productivity of the route. The Citys intent is to abandon manual collection, and this practice seems to revert to it. Minimizing the need to evaluate every recycling cart will be dependent on implementing an effective education program, and providing effective incentives for compliance. The City should consider removing the requirement that residents bag their recyclables before placing them in the automated recycling cart. It is R. W Becks understanding that the City receives a premium on its paper stream revenue if the material has been segregated. The additional cost of manually scanning each cart potentially offsets the premium received from bagging and manually checking the carts. These bags frequently make it difficult for the Recycling crews to evaluate the contents of a cart. Although the manual evaluation of recycling carts will hopefully be minimized, when it does need to occur, the bagging of recyclables makes it a laborious process. A cost-benefit analysis should be conducted to determine the net impact of this requirement.
5.3.6 Pay-As-You-Throw
A growing number of communities across the county are implementing variable rate structures commonly referred to as Pay-As-You-Throw, or PAYT. PAYT programs attempt to charge residents rates that are proportionate to the amount of waste they generate. The U.S. EPA supports this approach to solid waste management because it encompasses three interrelated components that are key to successful community programs: 1. Economic sustainability PAYT is an effective tool for communities struggling to cope with soaring municipal solid waste management expenses. Well-designed programs generate the revenues communities need to cover their solid waste costs, including the costs of such complementary programs as recycling and composting. Residents benefit, too, because they have the opportunity to take control of their trash bills. 1 2. Equity PAYT systems are inherently fair. When the cost of managing trash is hidden in taxes or charged at a flat rate, residents who recycle and prevent waste
1
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/payt/intro.htm
9/11/08
R. W. Beck 5-7
Section 5
subsidize their neighbors' wastefulness. Under PAYT, residents pay only for what they throw away. 2 3. Environmental sustainability Communities with programs in place have reported significant increases in recycling and reductions in waste, due primarily to the waste reduction incentive created by PAYT. Less waste and more recycling mean that fewer natural resources need to be extracted.3 According to previous studies by the EPA, communities with PAYT systems, on average, have reduced their waste from 14-17 percent and increased recycling from 32-59 percent. While PAYT programs possess significant potential benefits for a community, there are potential or perceived challenges to implementing a PAYT program. These challenges include: public opposition to changes in the fee structure; concerns regarding increased illegal dumping; servicing and billing multi-family residents who dispose of their material in central collection containers; establishing a reliable accounting and billing system (for options that require direct billing); and potential impacts on lower-income residents. The existence of thousands of communities across the country that have established PAYT systems indicates that these challenges can be overcome. However, doing so requires careful planning, accurate accounting of existing service costs, and responsive communication with residents in advance of and during implementation. Some options for the City to consider regarding PAYT implementation include: Charging residents or tenants for extra waste carts A one-time charge should at least recover the capital costs of the cart A monthly service fee should cover the costs to service the container Additional recycling carts should be distributed free of charge as requested and only collected by the recycling crews. Allowing the residents to select the size of their waste cart(s) smaller containers would cost the resident less, thereby creating an incentive to generate less waste and recycle more material. By implementing a carefully designed PAYT program, it is likely that the City of Cleveland would experience a reduction in waste generation, a diversion of waste into the recycling stream, and a more stable business model. There are many variations of PAYT programs and rate structures, each specifically tailored to the individual communitys demographics, financial plan, operations plan and political culture. R.
2 3
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/payt/intro.htm http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/payt/intro.htm
5-8 R. W. Beck
W. Beck would be pleased to assist the City develop a PAYT program if the City decides to proceed in that direction.
5.3.7 Pilot Program Coordination

Based on the focus groups, field observations, and discussions with field and management staff, it appears that there is some degree of inconsistency in how the Pilot Program is being implemented and managed throughout the three service centers. This is apparent in the set-out patterns and violations of the residents, as well as the collection crews and supervisors and how they deal with the violations. It would be helpful if one specific individual would be appointed to be responsible for assuring consistency in the Pilot Program operations between the three service centers. This individual should: Coordinate regular communications between area Supervisors regarding operations and enforcement issues; Act as a point person for communications with Code Enforcement; and Act as a point person for communications with Marketing and Education personnel. This role does not necessarily require a new position, but can be an added responsibility for someone with the correct skill sets and operational involvement in the Pilot Program.
5.4 Implementation Schedule

If the City decides to proceed with expanding the Pilot Program to an additional 30,000 households, its next step after this expansion should be to begin planning for full implementation throughout the City. Additional Pilot Program phases after this next phase should not be necessary. The City will be able to collect additional data and observations during Phase 2 of the Pilot Program, that when coupled with data collected in Phase 1, should allow the City to successfully implement Automated collection throughout the City. The City is currently evaluating two options for full implementation. The first option is a five to six year implementation plan whereby approximately 30,000 households will be transitioned into the program each year. The second option consolidates that schedule into approximately two years by phasing in approximately 75,000 households per year. Both approaches have pros and cons and should be evaluated carefully. Following are a few considerations for each scenario. Five to Six Year Implementation Plan Allows more flexibility regarding capital financing plans Allows for existing fleet to be more fully utilized throughout its useful life Minimizes initial shock to operational plan and personnel
9/11/08
R. W. Beck 5-9
Section 5
Extends period of transitional challenges from having multiple collection plans and services Two Year Implementation Plan Achieves financial benefits faster Creates shorter period of transitional challenges Minimizes challenges associated with multiple collection plans and policies Requires more aggressive capital planning Requires more thorough training for staff and education for residents Generally speaking, the roll-out of the Automated program to the rest of the City should be conducted in the shortest amount of time that is feasible given the procurement, education and training requirements. Given the strategy of implementing two phases of Pilot Programs, the City should be able to fully implement Automated collection throughout the rest of the City within two years. Extending the implementation period longer than two years often creates more challenges and headaches than it prevents.
5.5 Recycling
One important aspect of the Citys Pilot Program is the recycling collection operation. While this report focuses primarily on the operational and financial impacts of Automated, Semi-Automated and manual collection of solid waste, it is important to mention the benefits to the City of recycling, and how these benefits can be increased when the recyclables are collected in a cost-efficient manner. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency 4 , some of the benefits of recycling include: Reducing the need for landfilling and incineration; Preventing pollution caused by the manufacturing of products from virgin materials; Saving energy; Decreasing emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change; Conserving natural resources such as timber, water and minerals; Protecting and expanding the U.S. manufacturing jobs and increases U.S. competitiveness; and Sustaining the environment for future generations. While most of these benefits have impacts felt beyond the City of Cleveland, there are additional benefits of an efficient recyclable collection operation that directly impact the City. These include:
4
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/recycle.htm
5-10 R. W. Beck
Increased revenue from the sale of recyclable materials; Reduced tipping fees associated with municipal solid waste; Extended life of the landfill; and Reduced carbon footprint in accordance with Mayor Jacksons signing of the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. The City reports that they plan on supplying a recycling cart for each of the 186,000 residents, and have selected the 64 gallon cart for this purpose. Assuming a roughly equivalent capital cost to implement this cart procurement as compared to the solid waste collection carts, it can be estimated that recycling carts will cost approximately $1.1 million per year, or $5.80 per customer. If the City applies some of the efficiency-related concepts discussed in this report (Automated collection, effective education and enforcement, etc.) to the collection of recyclable materials, it is expected that the City will experience the benefits listed above, and be a model community for others to emulate.
5.6 Collection Operations Data Management

A carefully constructed and customized set of data management templates designed to capture the most relevant and highest priority operational and productivity metrics is indispensable to an appropriate long-term performance monitoring process. As the City expands the Pilot Program to additional households, the following tactics (related to both the tools required to house the data as well as the nature of data items to gather) should be kept in mind: Data should be housed in a single template and be as free of the need to perform manual calculations as possible; the template should separate raw field inputs from calculation sheets, in order to facilitate timely and consistent calculations of the key metrics; Data management should become the focus of a Data Management position/employee, such that all quality control, coordination with field staff, and reporting and template maintenance is the central responsibility of one staff member; The following key performance metrics should be tracked regularly for a statistically representative cross-section of the City: Set-out rates for all services Seconds per stop Unproductive times Loads per day per route Tonnage Generated (not a field metric), and if so desired, a split of tonnage generated across service areas Uncontainerized waste set-outs (so as to focus education and enforcement initiatives)
9/11/08
R. W. Beck 5-11
Section 5
To the extent future or current technology can be leveraged to minimize the burden of such collection on the drivers, such an investment should be considered, as the actual productivity achieved when the additional burden of data collection is not present can be expected to be higher than during periods of widespread data collection.
5.7 Pilot Program Survey

Many of the recommendations mentioned in this section could have direct consequences and impacts on the Citys residents. The City should carefully consider gathering input and feedback from the participants in the Pilot Program areas regarding, for example, convenience of the Pilot Program, issues with the carts or setout requirements, or recycling program participation. Based on prior surveys that R. W. Beck has conducted for other communities, a well-defined and properly administered survey can be extremely beneficial to a Solid Waste Division as it evaluates various options and decisions. This survey should be completed via a random mailing or random phone sampling. The results of this survey can be used to gauge public support and perceptions, as well as develop a prioritized implementation schedule for the next phase of the Pilot Program. This process can also incorporate community focus groups as an additional tool to gain feedback from the residents, and help develop a shared vision with the residents regarding the Citys desire to improve operations. Lastly, the information obtained in this survey is often instrumental in designing the education materials and promotional campaign if gaps in consumer understanding can be identified through the survey results.
5-12 R. W. Beck
Appendix A PILOT COMP SUMMARY
APPENDIX A
Baseline March 2007 Customer Metrics Set-out rate [1] Percent of set-outs with uncontained material [2] Average pounds per set-out [2] Productivity Metrics Productive seconds per stop [3] Unproductive minutes per route [3] Average tons per load [4] Loads per day per route [4] 51.1 9.0 9.6 1.5 40.9 7.2 7.4 1.03 34.4 6.1 8.4 1.15 21.2 3.7 2.3 1.03 80% 43% 66.5 Auto Carr Center Semi Rec. n/a n/a
Pilot Regions Glenville Center Auto 4.9% n/a 54.4 9.6 8.9 1.08 Semi 6.3% n/a 66.3 11.7 7.5 1.09 Rec. n/a n/a 27.6 4.9 2.2 1.01 Ridge Road Center Auto Semi n/a n/a 39.0 6.9 9.8 1.14 5.7% n/a 48.7 8.6 6.9 1.01 Rec.
All Pilot Regions Average Auto Semi 7.6% 29.2 49.8 8.8 7.6 1.08 Rec. n/a n/a 24.8 4.4 2.7 1.02
100.0% 63.6% 34.3% 65.7% 67.8% 28.5% 23.8% 10.8% 58.2 29.2
n/a 61.8% 28.8% 82.9% 64.4% 30.5% n/a 14.3% n/a 25.5 4.5 3.7 1.03 58.2 44.8 7.9 8.7 1.08
[1] Set-out rates for Recycling are inclusive of recycling participation statistics provided by the City for January - April 2008, and recycling cart set-out statistics collected by the City in November 2007. [2] Based on set-out statistics provided by the City. To be refined pending further data availability. [3] Metrics shown for pilot regions reflect assumptions related to system average productive vs. non-productive ratios, which have been assumed to remain stable when compared to Baseline observations. Subsequent to review of physical field logs, more representative productive vs. non-productive time ratios will be used to adjust the results. [4] Derived from the Pilot Program Daily reports provided by the City for the period October 2007 - June 2008.
9/11/08
R. W. Beck A-1

R W BECK REPORT August, 2008 - Solid Waste Collection Pilot Project Evaluation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

R W BECK REPORT August, 2008 - Solid Waste Collection Pilot Project Evaluation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PREPARED FOR: CITY OF C LEV E LA ND

Pilot Program Evaluation

Pilot Program Evaluation

5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7

Appendix A PILOT COMP SUMMARY

Table of Contents List of Tables

Section 2 PILOT PROGRAM METRICS EVALUATION 2.1 Introduction

2.2 Comparison Approach and Data Sources

Pilot Program Metrics Evaluation

Table 2-1 Inputs for Productivity Metrics Carr Center

Table 2-2 Inputs for Productivity Metrics Glenville Center

Table 2-3 Inputs for Productivity Metrics Ridge Road Center

Pilot Program Metrics Evaluation

Pilot Program Metrics Evaluation

Section 3 FINANCIAL EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE COLLECTION SCENARIOS 3.1 Introduction

3.2 Data Sources and Principle Assumptions

3.2.2 Principle Assumptions

Financial Evaluation of Alternative Collection Scenarios

3.3 Model Construction and Results

Financial Evaluation of Alternative Collection Scenarios

Position Driver Driver Collector Cart Maintenance

Vehicle Rear Loader Automated Side Loader Rear Loader Pick-up

Hourly Rate $17.85 $20.53 $14.67 $14.67

Purchase Price $134,000 $200,000 $140,000 $6,000 $25,000 $57

Financial Evaluation of Alternative Collection Scenarios

Scenario [1] Semi-Automated (1x) Fully Automated (1x)

Table 3-6 Labor Cost Impacts

Scenario Semi-Automated (1x) Fully Automated (1x)

Drivers $(50,774) $ 10,155

Collectors $(2,336,817) $(4,590,177)

Total Change $ (2,304,134) $ (4,496,565)

Financial Evaluation of Alternative Collection Scenarios

Table 3-8 Vehicle Capital Cost Impacts

Scenario Semi-Automated (1x) Fully Automated (1x)

Pick-up $50,000 $50,000

Total $372,886 $9,650,,000

Rear Loader $48,629 $0

Pick-up $4,600 $4,600

Scenario Semi-Automated (1x) Fully Automated (1x)

Rear Loader $27,814 ($1,430,000)

Pick-up $6,800 $6,800

Financial Evaluation of Alternative Collection Scenarios

Scenario Semi-Automated (1x) Fully Automated (1x)

Quantity 186,000 186,000

3.3.1 Cart Replacement Surcharge

Scenario Semi-Automated (1x) Fully Automated (1x)

Rear Loader 0 (8)

Financial Evaluation of Alternative Collection Scenarios

O&M Cost $34,614 $136,800

Financial Evaluation of Alternative Collection Scenarios

Scenario Semi-Automated (1x) Fully Automated (1x)

Labor Cost ($2,304,134) ($4,496,565)

O&M Cost $34,614 $136,800

Section 4 HIGH-LEVEL SYSTEM REVIEW 4.1 Introduction

4.2 Focus Groups

4.2.2 Interpretation Instructions

High-Level System Review

Section 4 What Is Not Working?

What Are the Solutions?

High-Level System Review

4.2.4 Focus Group Summary

4.3 Pilot Program Route Observations

High-Level System Review