1 REFUSE AND RECYCLING STUDY COLLECTION ALTERNATIVES AND COST COMPARISONS May 18, 2009

2 PURPOSE OF STUDY  Evaluate methods of recycling collection and processing Dual-stream Single-stream  Evaluate methods of refuse collection Current manual method Manual curbside collection Automated curbside collection Rear-yard collection/fee

3 WHY NOW?  Township staff continually investigates alternative methods of providing service  Different collection methods require different collection equipment  Current fleet of collection vehicles is scheduled for replacement during 2010 and 2011

4 PURPOSE OF STUDY  Evaluate and explain anticipated service level changes for each method under consideration  Evaluate and explain potential cost savings (if any) of the different collection methods and programs under consideration

5 RECYCLING COLLECTION AND PROCESSING  Two methods of recycling collection and processing were investigated Dual-stream recycling (current method) Single-stream recycling

6 SINGLE-STREAM RECYCLING  DISADVANTAGES: Loss of paper revenue ($125,000 per year) Increased overall annual cost of approximately $350,000 Only two processing plants in the region

7 RECYCLING RECOMMENDATIONS  Due to the increased cost and minimal amount of additional material diverted from the waste stream, staff recommends staying with the dual-stream recycling method at this time

8 COLLECTION METHODS REFUSE/RECYCLING  Methods Evaluated Manual collection w/rear-yard collection option w/no rear-yard collection fee (current method) Mandatory manual curbside collection Mandatory automated curbside collection Manual curbside collection with an optional rear- yard collection and fee Automated curbside collection with optional rear- yard collection and fee

9 OPTION 1 - MANUAL COLLECTION CURRENT METHOD  Annually residents choose one of 3 subscription levels (3-tier fee structure – same fees since 1999) One container ($192) (7,045 subscribers or 34%) Two containers ($262) (4,068 subscribers or 26%) Three to five containers ($322) (5,005 subscribers or 40%)  Residents choose where to place containers for collection Curbside: described as within 5 feet of the curb Rear-yard: described as a location more than 5 feet from the curb

10 OPTION 1 - MANUAL COLLECTION CURRENT METHOD  ADVANTAGES: Lower Capital Expense  Rear-load collection vehicles are less expensive (-45%) to purchase ($142,000 vs. $258,000) High Level of Service  Residents favorably perceive the service and value the interaction with refuse collection personnel  63% of customers utilize rear-yard collection services Lower Equipment Maintenance Costs  Rear-load collection vehicles have less complicated hydraulic systems and are generally easier and less expensive to maintain

11 OPTION 1 - MANUAL COLLECTION CURRENT METHOD  DISADVANTAGES: Higher Labor Costs  A total of 39 field operation collection personnel are required each day (excluding supervisors, special collection, bulk collection, composting operation) Increased Risk of Injury (Workers’ Compensation Claims  Higher risk of injury to personnel due to repetitive lifting of heavy containers, transporting container down driveways to the collection vehicles, and the associated risks of continually working in the midst of moving street traffic

12 OPTION 2 MANUAL CURBSIDE COLLECTION  Requires placement of refuse and recycling at curbside (no more than 5 feet from curb)  Uses same type of truck as current collection process

13 OPTION 2 MANUAL CURBSIDE COLLECTION  ADVANTAGES: Net cost savings from current method of collection  Less equipment and staff needed due to efficiency increases Reduced risk of staff injury

14 OPTION 2 MANUAL CURBSIDE COLLECTION  DISADVANTAGES: Reduced level of service  Elimination of rear-yard collection, or  New fee for customers selecting rear-yard collection (will be discussed later in report) Aesthetics Issue  Potential accumulation of debris on roadways  More trash cans at curbside (currently 1/3 of collection is curbside)

15 OPTION 3 - AUTOMATED CURBSIDE CART COLLECTION  Mandatory placement of refuse and recycling carts curbside for collection (within 5 feet of curb)  Carts of varying sizes (32, 64, 96 gallon) provided to residents by the Township

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 OPTION 3 - AUTOMATED CURBSIDE CART COLLECTION  ADVANTAGES: Lower Personnel Costs  Due to operating efficiencies, the number of collection routes and staff assigned to each vehicle could be significantly reduced Cleaner Appearance  Carts generally provide a cleaner appearance at the curb than mismatched refuse containers or bagged waste (no lost lids) Service Level Availability  Residents can choose the level of service they require, which is a more consistent and equitable method for providing service

24 OPTION 3 - AUTOMATED CURBSIDE CART COLLECTION  ADVANTAGES: Increased Recycling  Other municipalities report a minor increase in recycling diverted from the waste stream Reduced Risk of Injury  With no collectors walking alongside collection vehicles and no repetitive lifting of heavy containers, exposure to injuries and workers compensation claims would be reduced

25 OPTION 3 - AUTOMATED CURBSIDE CART COLLECTION  DISADVANTAGES: More expensive equipment costs  On average, the fully-automated side-loader collection vehicle has a higher initial capital cost as well as a higher maintenance cost Efficiency exception  Some routes may require additional staff  Some routes may require to remain manual collection

26 OPTION 3 - AUTOMATED CURBSIDE CART COLLECTION  DISADVANTAGES: Increased cart costs  Average cost per cart is $50  Will require at least three carts per residence (1-refuse, 2-recycling) Change in behavior  Automated collection must be at curbside  Residents who now take advantage of rear-yard collection (approx. 63%) would need to switch to curbside, unless a separate (manual) rear-yard collection program and fee were offered

27 REAR-YARD COLLECTION Curbside5’ to 30’31’ to 100’Over 100’Total Monday Bala Cynwyd 1,6271, ,670 Tuesday Penn Wynne/Wynnewood 1,3301, ,382 Wednesday Wynnewood/Ardmore 9541, ,597 Thursday Haverford/Bryn Mawr 1, ,294 Friday Gladwyne/Villanova 1, ,175 TOTALS6,0014,7893,7441,58416,118  Approximately 63% of properties currently receive rear-yard collection

28 OPTIONS 4 AND 5 REAR-YARD COLLECTION AND FEE  A separate rear-yard collection and fee can be established in both curbside collection methods (manual and automated)  Of the approximately 10,000 properties currently receiving rear-yard collection, Township staff estimates that approximately 7,000 will move to the curbside collection if an additional $200 annual fee is charged for rear- yard collection, leaving approximately 3,000 customers receiving rear-yard collection service

29 OPTIONS 4 AND 5 REAR-YARD COLLECTION FEE  Efficiencies will be created in manual curbside collection if rear-yard collection is instituted (reflected in option 4)  At 3,000 fewer collection points, efficiencies will not be created in option 4 with the institution of a rear-yard collection fee. Most of the collection efficiencies are already realized. Additional efficiencies may be realized with a higher number of rear-yard collection subscribers.

30 COST COMPARISON REFUSE/RECYCLING COLLECTION Option 1 Manual (Current) Option 2 Manual Curbside (No Rear- Yard Collection) Option 3 Automated Curbside (No Rear- Yard Collection) Option 4 Manual (w/RYCF) Option 5 Automated (w/RYCF) Total Cost:$3.5 M$2.9 M$1.9 M $3.3 M$2.5 M Projected Savings $0.6 M $1.6 M $0.8 M * $1.6 M * * Options 4 and 5 include a $600,000 cost for rear-yard collection and anticipated $600,000 revenue ($200/collection point) TOTAL COST: Direct collection-related expenses only. Does not include disposal, special pickups, operation of Transfer Station, overhead, etc. RYCF = Rear-Yard Collection Fee

31 SOLID WASTE FEES (SWF) LAST INCREASED IN 1999  Without new revenue, Solid Waste Fund requires increasing General Fund (GF) Subsidy 2009 SWF revenue is approximately $4 million  SWF increases (across-the-board) for full-cost recovery: 2009 GF Subsidy (Budgeted) = $1.4 M (represents +35% of SWF) 2010 GF Subsidy (Forecast) = $1.7 M (represents +43% of SWF) 2011 GF Subsidy (Forecast) = $2.0 M (represents +50% of SWF)

32 SWF IMPLICATIONS  CURRENT BLENDED RATE $250 / YEAR  IF GENERAL FUND SUBSIDY WERE ELIMINATED$337 / YEAR  PRIVATE CONTRACTOR RATE$480 / YEAR ( * Twice/week w/bulk pick-up included) * As reported from Upper Merion Township

33 SWF REDUCTION IF ALTERNATIVE METHOD WERE SELECTED Collection Point Option 2 Manual Curbside Option 3 Automated Curbside Option 4 Manual Option 5 Automated Curbside- $37- $99- $50 - $99 Rear Yard / FeeN/A +$200  Savings in 2009 dollars  Savings would not be fully realized during transition periods of 2010 and 2011  Savings may not be fully realized due to challenges learned during implementation

34 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS  Cable TV show on Township cable channel  FAQ handout tonight and on Township website  2004 Citizen’s Survey results  Address: Inviting residents to send questions, input, and preferences

35 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS  Communicate options broadly to public and encourage citizen input  Plan for Public Works Committee of June 3, 2009