Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-07-19; City Council; 9546; Recycling Program Feasibility Study4B#S )EPT. U/M MTG. 7-19-88 RECOMMENDED ACTION: TITLE: lE8mTmEm-m 1. 2. 3. 4. 5, Approve a voluntary recycling program for the City of Carlsbad which would include : a. A voluntary curbside, mixed or commingled recyclables collection program with weekly collection for all single family residences and smallmulti-residential (2-4 units) development. A 30%participation rate goal is recommended. b. Operation of drop-off and buy-back centers. c. Operation of a recycling program for commercial and large multi- residential developments. Direct staff to prepare, for Council consideration, a Request for Proposal to solicit proposals from the private sector to operate the recycling program or, in the alternative, direct staff to negotiate an agreement to perform the recycling program with Coast Waste Management. Direct staff to prepare a report for Council consideration which examines the impact and equity of the several alternative financing mechanisms. Direct staff to prepare anti-scavenging ordinances for Council consideration. Endorse the County Recycling Plan; authorize staff to work with County staff to assist in plan implementatio& and authorize staff to apply for funds from the County recycling incentive program to partially offset the cost of the Carlsbad recycling program. In July, 1987 Council directed staff to prepare a report evaluating the feasibilityof a recyclingprogram for the City of Carlsbad. The attached report examines recycling, recyclable materials, selected recycling programs and evaluates the feasibility and estimated cost of a Carlsbad recycling program. There are two viable alternatives for a Curbside Recycling Program; voluntary, which is a program dependent upon voluntary participation by the citizens and mandatory, which requires participation by the citizens. Each alternative results in collecting the same recyclable materials, either commingled or separated. In the commingled system, a citizen simply places all recyclables in the same container. With the separated system, the citizen is required to separate each type of recyclable and place it in separate containers. Those items that are commonly collected are glass (clear and colored), tin cans, aluminum cans, various paper products, waste oil, plastics, tires, textiles and ferrous metals. c PAGE 2 OF AB# The program can be supported by the City paying full costs or users paying full costs or a combination of both methods. The recycling service can be provided to single family and/or multi-family residential units, and commercial and industrial enterprises. The collection service canbe provided on a weekly, bi- weekly or monthly pick-up. The collections can be scheduled on the designated trash pick-up day or on a day other than the normal pick-up day. A recycling program can be operated by City forces, private contractor or through the City's contracted trash hauler. Containers for the program may be supplied by the City, the collector or the private citizen. Types of containers to be used range from plastic cans, burlap sacks, onion sacks supplied by the City, contractor or trash hauler, or no container is supplied. A contractor operated recycling program will require a site, equipment and personnel for separation recycling markets. A City the foregoing. Regardless of which type of program is education. The and storage of collectibles pending disposal to operated program would require the City to provide program the City adopts, a key to the success of that educational process must cover three basic elements of the community: First, educate the public at large; second, develop an information program for school age children; and third, advertise the program through newspapers, flyers, radio, television and monthly trash bills. The feasibility study concludes that: A recycling program can be successfully operated in Carlsbad. The feasibility of operating a voluntary curbside recycling program was examined and it appears that a curbside program can be operated with a modest annual subsidy. Conservatively estimated, the subsidy may range from $87,000 to $112,000 annually. If applied to potential residential participants as a mandatory charge, the cost would be fifty eight cents ($0.58) per month or less. The costs could be less, but likely not more. The report also identifies the following additional conclusions: Landfill capacity is rapidly diminishing and that recycling can extend the life of landfills. Sufficient recyclable materials exist in the CountylCarlsbad waste stream to make recycling a worth while effort to extend landfill life. Markets for materials commonly recycled in municipal recycling programs (newspaper, glass and aluminum) appear strong and prices stable for the near future. I ? e PAGE 3 OF AB# 7546 Curbside recycling program reviewed operate at participation rates as low as 13% and as high as 78%. All programs reviewed have required operating subsidies at some time during the program. Most subsidies take the form of mandatory charges on refuse collection bills. Participation in the recycling programs is voluntary in all programs reviewed While some programs claim profits or zero subsidies, program cost data lack consistency in accounting standards making analysis difficult. Successful curbside recycling programsprovide for participant convenience, require intensive on-going public information efforts and anti-scavenging ordinances. Recycling programs can substantially enhance material recoveryby operating buy-back and drop-off centers, commercial, and large multi-residential programs as well as single-family residential curbside programs. The goal of the County Recycling Plan is to divert 30% of the waste stream from landfills. If 30% is not diverted by 1991, the County may prohibit landf illing of recyclables , thus mandating recycling, County-wide . The County Plan provides for a recycling incentive program to financially assist public and private agency recycling programs. The recommended proposal could result in a fiscal impact of between $87,000 and $112,000 annually. Several financing alternatives are possible and staff will prepare a report and recommendation for Council consideration, should the Council approve the recommended action. As the feasibility study indicates, if the cost of the program is borne by single-family residential the refuse collection rate for single family would increase by approximately $.55 to $.58 per month. If the cost is borne by all refuse collection customers, the single family residential rate increase would be less than $.55 per month. 1. Recycling Program Implementation Schedule 2. Recycling Feasibility Study 0 CD In U I n $ k 9 PI z 0 H k V 4 rl H E 0 V 2 0 H k V 4 s E 0 V I RECYCLING FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF CARLSBAD A Report Prepared for The Carlsbad City Council BY The Utilities and Maintenance Department Ralph W. Anderson, Director March, 1988 carlsbad rey(clies _- CITY OF CARLSBAD FEASIBILITY REcmcmG !mmY 1 I. 1-a In 1986, the residents of San Diego County generated an estimated 3.6 million tons of solid waste. Each person generated an average of 1.6 tons annually. This generation rate has been increasing by as much as 10% annually since 1980. It is estimated that less than 10% of the regions solid waste is recycled. - Sanitary landfills in San Diego County are reaching capacity at an alarming rate. The San Marcos landfill is expected to close in 1991. Confronted with this solid waste crisis, local agencies in the County have been evaluating and, in some cases, implementing a variety of programs to attempt to deal with the waste disposal issue. The County of San Diego is attempting to evaluate and select replacement landfill sites in the North County. Currently, two site selection studies are underway to select replacement landfill sites in both North and South County. The County and the City of San Diego have attempted to sitelconstruct refuse to energy plants in the County. The City of San Diego effort (SANDER) was essentially curtailed in the November 1987 election. The County's San Marcos proposal was narrowly approved by San Marcos voters. Legal actions instituted by neighboring cities and private entities; successful legal challenges of the validity of the contract between the County and the operator 2 and changing financial conditions appear to have slowed further progress on the San Marcos project. In an attempt to extend the life of existing landfills and to conserve resources, several cities have implemented voluntary recycling programs. The County has recently approved a County Recycling Plan. As a result of the impending closure of the San Marcos landfill, the City Council directed staff to prepare a report evaluating the feasibility of a recycling program for the City of Carlsbad. This report examines recycling, recyclable materials. selected recycling programs and evaluates the feasibility and estimated cost of a Carlsbad recycling program. 3 11, luxmzmG Recycling programs can take many forms, from the local service club newspaper drive to a sophisticated curbside recycling program operated by a municipality or private entity. In the following narrative the types of recycling programs, materials secycled and markets and prices are briefly d.escribed. Moreover, several existing programs are summarized and evaluated. A. Recycling Programs 1. Ckubside -: These programs are operated by public or private entities and provide for collection of recyclable material at the curbside, similar to ordinary refuse collection. Typically, single family homes are serviced and materials are collected weekly or bi-weekly usually on the same day that ordinary refuse is collected. Large multi-family developments (apartments and condominiums) are generally not initially included in curhside recycling programs because such units usually have limited storage in the units, may not have space available for recycling containers in refuse bin enclosures and/or do not face the street. Small (2-4 units) multi-family developments can generally be included since the space liniitations do not generally apply and the units are more likely to face the street. Materials recycled normally include newspaper, aluiiiinuin and glass. Participants may or may not be provided a container(s) to store recyclables until collection day. Program participants are usually asked to separate their recyclables into separate containers and set each container out for collection in the same manner that ordinary refuse is collected. This is a source separated collection program. A few programs require the participant to place all recyclables into one container for collection at curbside. Separation and processing is performed 4 This is a mixed or cominingled recyclables by the collector at a remote site. collection program. Program participants are usually not compensated for their inaterials I although a few cities have operated incentive programs which provide for cash awards or utility rebates to participants Curbside programs almost always require additional funding to operate since the revenues from the sale of recycled materials are generally not sufficient to off-set operating costs, 2. Buy Back Centers: These are public or privately operated facilities where a persoil can be compensated for certain recyclable materials. Usually, newspapers aluminum, glass ferrous materials and cardboard are accepted for recycling. Materials receive some processing such as baling and are shipped directly to recycling markets. These facilities are usually staffed on a part time basis. Within the City of Carlsbad, a buy back center is operated from Monday to Friday from 8:OO A.M. to 5:OO P.M. by Coast Waste Management at their site on El Caiiiino Real. This is the only such center in Carlsbad. 3. Drop Mf Centers: Drop off centers are usually located in shopping centers or other public parking areas and can be identified by the igloo or box type structures used to receive and temporarily store recycled materials. Newspapers, aluminum and glass are the usual materials accepted for recycling. These centers are unstaffed and provide no compensation for materials deposited. 4. Bottle Bill Bedleqtioa Centers: AB2020 requires a one cent deposit on carbonated beverage containers and also requires redemption centers to be sited within 112 mile of supermarkets doing more than 2 million in annual sales. The Council recently adopted zoning ordinance amendments to permit the location of such facilities in the City. Redemption centers will likely be located at the larger supermarkets in the City. 5 5, -mial/Ttuhcttiat Eecydhg: These programs are operated by public and private entities and can generate large volumes of recyclable materials. Corrugated containers are the major constituent, and to a lesser degree, paper, wooden pallets and bottles from restaurants are the materials recycled. Used lead-acid batteries and tires are also recycled. Commercial/Industrialestablishments are generally not compensated formaterials. A few establishments (e.g. Supermarkets) have chosen to recycle corrugated containers on their own as a ineans to reduce storage requirements and generate revenue. 6. Paper Drives: These programs are the most familiar method for recycling of a portion of the residential waste stream. The programs are either operated periodically during a year with people canvassing door to door or continuously operate with receptacles placed in strategic places. These programs are generally operated by youth groups and service clubs and provide a source of revenue for ongoing activities or special events. Curhside collection programs can have a negative impact on paper drives as fund raising devices without careful planning. Curhside programs generally cooperate with paper drives by assisting in collection and sharing revenues. 7. -ting: These programs recycle vegetative waste, combined with sewage sludge in some cases, for use as soil amendments. Coniposting programs can make significant impact on landfill diversion because vegetative waste represents approximately 24% or more of the residential/commercial waste stream by weight and an even larger share by volume. Nitro-humus and Xilorganite are examples of products created by composting vegetative waste and sewage sludge. Composting programs have not been widely used because yard waste is usually mixed with refuse and difficult to separate, and composting requires 6 large areas, distance from residential areas and constant attention. The County of San Diego is planning to begin composting operations at all landfill sites in the near future. B. !sarketdPriee.s Several factors affect the economic viability of recycling programs, however, the key factors are: Waste Stream Composition Participation Rates Material Prices 1. Waste Stream Composition: Before deciding to recycle, an, agency should have a reasonable idea of the composition of the waste stream to determine the potential supply of recyclable materials. If the volume of recyclable materials is too small, recycling may not be a cost effective waste management alternative, hokever, recycling will remain an effective means to conserve resources. To our knowledge, there has never been a waste composition analysis of the Carlsbad solid waste stream. Moreover, we are not aware of an analysis of the composition of the waste accepted at the San Marcos landfill site. For purposes of estimating the composition of the waste stream in San Diego County, County staff has used the results of a waste composition analysis performed at the City of San Diego Miramar landfill in 1981. Based on that analysis the County estimates that approximately 50% of the waste is recyclable 7 (See Chart 2-11. These materials include: - Item X By Weight Newspaper Cardboard Office Paper Aluminum Glass Metal Yard Waste 10 7 6 1 9 5 12 5 0% - Source: County of San Diego The San Diego County residential/commercial waste stream composition is not significantly different than other California cities. The above percentages represent a good potential recovery rate especially since the mix of those items typically recovered in curbside programs (newspaper, glass and aluminum) represent 40% of the recyclable material or approximately 20% of the total waste generated, 2. Participation Rates: Participation rates affect economics since as participation increases, more materials are recovered and sold. Operations cost per ton of materials recovered generally decreases as participation increases. A number of €actors seem to affect participation, the most significant of which seems to be convenience for the participant. Participant convenience can be enhanced by: , . .Providing Containers for Curbside Programs. ... Weekly collection, same day as refuse collection. ... Mixed recycling requiring only 1 container and no source separation by participant. Programs that use some or all of the above techniques have been able to attain participation rates varying froin 13% to 78%. For example, the City of San Jose which uses 2 of the 3 techniques attained participation rates varying between 26% and 57%. The City of Oceanside participation rate has been 13%, the . 8 City of Solana Beach participation rate is reported to he 30-35% with the Cities of Encinitas and Del Mar reporting participation rates of 45-55% and 25-30% respectively (Participation rates as a measure of program performance should be viewed with some caution as cities calculate rates differently). Although all of the above programs require some operating funds above revenues, it appears that the cost of operation is less than the total cost to dispose of the same iiiaterial at a landfill. In sampling the curbside programs presently in operation in the State it appears that a participation rate of 30% or higher represents a viable program. From the experience in San Diego County a 30% participation rate appears to be achievable. 3. ?laterials Prices: Over time the prices received for recoverable mater als will vary according to demand and supply. According to Federal Government and State of California sources, the demand for waste paper is expected to remain strong through the year 2000. Over the same period, while the price for aluminum and glass will remain high due to demand, growth in the market share is expected to remain stable. PROJECTED GROWTH OF MAJOR RECYCUBLES 198412000 i, 73 60 i 30 20 I- 1984 2000 1984 2000 1984 2000 1984 2000 MItlu GlAss rua pumcs , 9 Over the past two years prices for newspaper and glass have remained somewhat stable, while aluininum prices have fluctuated as much as 40% in a year. An analysis of the curbside recycling program in San Jose, completed in November 1987 by the California Energy Commission (see Chart 2-2), revealed that unbaled newspaper commanded a stable price of between $30-$35 per ton through 1985-86. Over the same period, glass remained stable at $25.00 per ton while aluminum varied from $500 per ton to $700 per ton. These prices do not reflect the additional revenue that would be generated by the Bottle Bill, AB2020. If the redemption value for alumilium cans and glass bottles is included, the price per ton of glass is increased by $60 per ton to $85 per ton, while aluminum is increased by $480 per ton to an average of $1,080 per ton. Analysis of recycledmaterials prices indicate that prices, including AB2020 redemption, for recyclahles commonly collected by curbside program can he conservatively estimated at: I tern Price per Ton Newspaper, unbaled Glass Aluminum $ 30.00 85.00 1,080.00 C. Eoqarative Review of Existing Progras Table 2-1 (prepared by SANDAG) is a comparative matrix of ten recycling programs in the State, five of which are in San Diego County. All of the programs are curbside and source separation programs. The Poway program is operated by the Poway High School Band and depends on band members for curbside collection of newspapers, primarily. Some cities operate drop-off and buyback centers as a part of their recycling efforts. 10 All programs serve single family residences, primarily. All programs collect newspaper, glass and aluminum, with a few programs collecting corrugated materials, ferrous metals and plastics. Materials are collected weekly in all but two programs. Those programs, Solana Recyclers and Santa Monica, collect bi-weekly. All programs have active aiarketinglpromotion campaigns which include paid radio, TV and newspaper advertising, in addition to public service announcements, contests, door-to-door canvasing and fund raising events. Since the financial data provided by SANDAG is incomplete, program costs In fact, a review of these programs, and revenues are not shown in the matrix. and several others, indicate that program cost and revenue data is not maintained in a consistent pattern from program to program, making detailed analysis difficult and complex. Some relevant financial information can be distilled from the data available, however. 1. A11 programs reviewed have apparently required a subsidy continually, or at some tiroe during their operation. For example, the City of El Cerritos is presently earning a small profit, however, a voluntary charge of fifty cents ($0.50) per month has been collected since the program began. Approximately 50% of the residences served have agreed to the subsidy. The City of Palo Alto has required a charge ranging from fifty cents ($0.50) a month per residence in 1985-86 to a zero charge in the current year. The City's solid waste enterprise fund finances the subsidy, when requised. A subsidy of nine cents ($0.09) to fifteen cents ($0.15) a month per single family residence has been reportedly required to subsidize the City of Oceanside's recycling program. The City of Santa Monica program presently 11 requires a subsidy of seventy cents ($0.70) a month per single family residence to support its recycling efforts. As noted previously in this report, cost and revenue data are not consistently maintained from program to program and avoided landfill costs are not included. Therefore, program profitlloss and subsidy figures are less than reliable. In most of the programs reviewed, payment of subsidies is mandatory, generally through an enterprise fund refuse collection or recycling charge. The City of Fresno program. is operated by a private entity and the City does not subsidize the program. The Solana Beach program depends upon gifts and fund raising to subsidize the program, while San Jose subsidizes the program from the general fund and solid waste enterprise fund. While payment of subsidies is mandatory in most programs, participation in the programs is voluntary in all cases reviewed. 2. All programs receive revenue from sales of recyclables. 3. Some programs receive tipping fee credits for landfill diversion. Finally, all programs have in place or under development anti-scavenging ordinances to discourage unauthorized persons from taking materials set out for recycling. In addition to the ten programs in Table 2-1, recycling programs in Downey, El Cerritos, Santa Rosa and the County of Santa Cruz were reviewed. D. Elements of saxeasful progsrs While each of the recycling programs examined is somewhat unique, the programs with the highest participation rates had several common elements. These are : 12 1. Convenience: In reviewing the programs, it became apparent that the more convenient the program became for households, participation increased. For example, in the San Jose program, where containers were provided, participation was more than twice the rate in areas where containers were not provided. Generally, participation rates were higher when collection occurred weekly on the same day that ordinary refuse was collected. Mixed or commingled recyclables curbside programs seem to generate more participation sixice the participant does not have to sort materials. Rather, all recyclables are placed in one container for pick up. Mixed recyclables programs increase collection costs by shifting the cost of sorting to the collector than the participant. Revenue generated from increased participation and collection appears to offset added cost, however. Thus, mixed recyclables curbside programs that provide containers and weekly collection on "trash day" seem to provide the most convenience and encourage higher participation rates. 2. Marketing/Promotion: Successful programs make a significant effort to sell the recycling concept. Programs make very effective use of the media for feature stories and announcements, and paid advertising. Moreover, contacts with service clubs, churches, schools and other community organizations are maximized. Some agencies use contests to promote recycling. A successful recycling program apparently depends on a broad scope marketing and promotion campaign which operates continually. In Palo Alto, where participation is 78%, public information is approximately 13% of the budget, while participation is 28% to 35% in Santa Monica where public information is 13 7% of the budget. The level of funding is not the only indication of a good marketing campaign. Intensive work with service clubs, schools and community organizations may be as effective as a multi-media campaign. San Jose has a participation rate of 58% while public information is 6% of the budget. Extensive work with community groups and neighborhoods has apparently aided significantly in achieving a high participation rate. An analysis of five curbside recycling programs conducted by the State Solid Waste Management Board in 1982 concluded that among other things, "...Probably the one single factor which will most affect the success or failure of a curbside (or any 'other) recycling program is public education/awareness. Such activity must not only prepare the potential participant to utilize the program but also to reinforce that behavior once it is initiated. Public awareness activities must continue, even when the program is well established, in order to maintain participation." 3. Broad Scope Recycling Programs: As might be expected, programs that operated buy-back and drop-off centers in addition to curbside programs were able to make maximum use of public information resources and capture a greater amount of recyclable materials. Strategically placed drop-off centers and buyback centers also enhance convenience for participants. 4. MarketslPrices: While this element is essentially beyond the control of program operators, cities can take steps to enhance markets through the use of products made from recycled materials and promoting their use to business and industry. Additionally, support of Federal and State legislation would encourage use of and production of recycled materials through tax incentives and depletion type allowance is necessary. 14 5. Anti-Scavenging Regulations: All curbside recycling prograins reviewed had anti-scavenging ordinances in place or under development. such regulatims are necessary since program participants set out recyclables and refuse for collection on the night before collection, thereby providing an opportunity for unauthorized scavengers io pick up the most valuable recyclables , Scavengers, working undercover of darkness, can destroy the pro€itability of a curbside program in a short time. Such a situation occurred in the 1970ts when the City of San Diego CETA funded newspaper recycling program was terminated because scavengers removed most of the newspaper before the City crews arrived. Source separated recyclables curbside programs are more vulnerable to scavenging than mixed or commingled recycling programs since participants sort recyclables into separate containers prior to set out, making it easy for scavengers to pick out the valuable items. A commingled recyclables program, which requires all , recyclables to he placed in one container discourages scavenging. Anti-scavenging regulations do not prevent scavenging, rather scavengers are discouraged when they realize they can be cited and prosecuted. I .. 15 Z 0 c 0 0 "f e: a 0, s w I- I 3 2 3 2 3 z a - v, 0 2 0 c) n -=c W (Y I- cn W 0 30 Q) h U e a 0 u - 16 CHART 2-2 Citv e of San Jose Curbside Recycling Program History of Market Prices Received for Recycled Materials Won Sh on Siton 30 40 -30 20 10 0 a .I ................... ...... ........ , e*.; \... .. ......... ..,. .e..,. ............ ..,...' ....... . ..,., .................... ................ .... . .... ... . .. ,.,..... .... .# ., .. ...:. ... ......... .. .. \.\'...*.' .*\ *. ............. .. ............. .,..\ 8 .' '.' 'a'.' .I .. . ... ... ... . ... ......... .......... ; 1 srrnup .:...,. .. .. . .. . 8 'a ...e 8 ,.. .**,. .. .. I ._. I I I I I I I I1 ' IlI IV I H m Tv $50 1 "1 30 Glass v I I .. *. : .... ....... 20 10 0 *' ... ........ .. :Pih';.::;i, ,, .. ,.. .. .. .* .* .e : sunup '. ' -'. ... ... .... .. ........... ........ ,. 2 ...... , ..... ,'. I I b I I I I I I 1 I1 III IV. I 11 III Iv s700 1 J 650 Aliuninwn ..................... .,,. .. .................. 350 1 ..... ~..\. . ..,' ..... /. . .':,:,:. : ... :::. ..... .. 300 450 I I I I I I W .. .. . ., .... j Pikt : Sunup ..... 1 11 I11 IV I I1 III Iv 1985 1986 17 0 19 111. cmmT BlmmumG PT.m On December 8, 1987, the County Board of Supervisors approved the County recycling Plan. This Plan has as its goal a 30% reduction in the volume of refuse received at landfill sites in the County. The plan contemplates voluntary participation unless the 30% goal is not met by 1991. The Plan contains nine objectives which are intended to implement the Plan and achieve the 30% volume reduction goal by 1991. The nine objectives are as follows : Plan Objective 1. Develop a Solid Waste Yanagement Data Base This objective involves a waste stream analysis as well as a recyclable markets analysis. Also included within this objective is an analysis of existing and long-term costs of landfills to determine avoided disposal costs. Plan Objective 2. Solid Waste Ordinance: Mandatory Recycling This objective requires a revision to the County's Solid Waste Ordinance to provide for mandatory recycling if a 30% volume reduction is not achieved at County landfill sites by 1991. Plan Objective 3. Purchasing Policy This objective is to develop a policy to encourage the use of products made with recyclable materials by the County of San Diego. It is envisioned that a model policy will be developed for use by cities and local industries. Model specifications designed to favor the purchase of products made with recyclable materials will also be developed. Plan Objective 4. Recycling Education Program This objective is to expand the County's existing recycling education program to promote recycling and educate County residents as to the need for and benefits of recycling. 20 Plan Objective 5. Packaging Legislation This objective will provide for analysis and development of appropriate local ordinances and proposed State legislation to decrease packaging waste. The intent is to encourage the use of recyclable packaging material. Plan Objective 6. Industry and Market Development This is a three-part objective. First, is the development of appropriate amendments to County ordinances to require space for recycled material bins in future commercial, industrial and residential developments as well as guaranteeing a place for recycling industries. The second portion of this objective involves assisting the private sector in developing recycled materials markets. A market development plan will be developed and implemented. The final part of this objective is to seek State and Federal legislation to facilitate the implementation of mandatory recycling. The impact of this objective is to aid the private sector in developing expanded or new waste utilization projects and to seek avenues to assist in achieving a recycling oriented society. Plan Objective 7. County Office Hodel Recycling Programs This objective intends to augment the County's successful white office paper recycling program hy performing waste audits of all waste generated by County offices to determine other materials that are available for recycling. The result of this objective will provide for model office recycling programs for local government and private industry. Plan Objective 8. Disposal Site Recycling This objective intends to expand the recycling opportunities available at landfill sites. Recycling centers are to be constructed at each County landfill 21 site at which recyclable materials including vegetative debris will be accepted. Recycling will be encouraged through no cost disposal or avoided cost payments to participants for disposing of recyclable materials. Additionally, a tire recycling program will be developed and alternate recycling technology research will be evaluated. Plan Objective 9. Technical Assistance This is a multi-faceted objective which will provide for technical assistance to the private sector and local agencies in refuse collection and recycling techniques; provide for coordination of conununity and public service groups recycling efforts with the on-going public information programs and develop programs for conferences, workshops and educational programs regarding recycling. Finally and significantly, this objective provides for a recycling incentive program to be funded by a $500,000 annual appropriation which is intended to provide financial assistance to cities and private operators to begin or enhance recycling programs. Analysis The County's Plan is a comprehensive attempt to provide incentives for the public and local agencies to recycle resources. The cost of implementing this plan is less than 10% of the tipping fee. This plan and other solid waste initiatives are expected to increase the dumping fee 31% from $8.00 to $10.50 a ton. This increase is to be considered by the Board of Supervisors in the near future and could take effect before July 1, 1988. Tipping fee increases are expected to increase on an annual basis for the next several years , and could approach $30.00 per ton by 1995. The increases in the tipping fee are largely the result of including the cost of replacement landfills, landfill mitigation, recycling and . 22 hazardous waste management in the tipping fee. In prior years only solid waste planning and landfill operations and maintenance were recovered in the tipping fee. The County's goal of a 30% reduction in volume probably cannot be achieved through a voluntary program; even a mandatory recycling program may not achieve such a reduction. In any event, it is likely that the County may have to implement mandatory recycling by prohibiting recyclable materials from being landfilled. To comply with such a requirement would cause cities and/or refuse collection agencies to iiitplement recycling programs to assure their ability to use the landfills. The nine objectives in the County's Plan are for the most part achievable and several can be of significant benefit to Carlsbad, whether or not a curbside recycling program is implemented. Plan Objective 3, which provides for the development of model specifications for materials made with recyclables will permit the City to identify and purchase goods made with recycled materials thereby helping to increase market demand. Plan Objective 7 will assist the City in establishing a white office paper recycling program. Plan Objective 8, which provides for disposal site recycling will provide a low-cost or no-cost way of disposing of yard waste and used tires, thus reducing the City's litter control problems. Should the City determine to begin a curbside recycling program. Plan Objective 9 may be of significant benefit. Funds from the recycling incentive program could he made available to the City. Initial discussions with County staff have indicated that a City of Carlsbad recycling program could be eligible .. '. 23 for funds to offset start up costs and certain operating costs. In summary, the County Recycling Plan is an ambitious attempt to achieve a laudable goal. A mandatory recycling effort will likely he required to achieve a 30% volume reduction at the landfills. The Plan and its objectives will be beneficial to the City of Carlsbad, especially if recycling incentive program funds are available to defray a portion of the costs of a curbside recycling program. 24 IV. - I4Nxzau - A. Estimated Program Revenue As of January 1, 1987, the City of Carlsbad had 13,222 single family residences and 2530 sinal1 (2-4 units) multi-family developments for a total of 15,752 potential residential participants in a curbside recycling program. Assuming that a 30% participation rate is achievable, approximately 4,725 residences would participate in the program. For the purpose of this study, 16,000 residences and 4,800 potential participants were used. Based on studies performed by the County of San Diego and others, it is estimated that each participating residence will generate approximately 38 pounds of recoverable materials per month. This total consists of 20 pounds of glass, 16 pounds of newspaper and 2 pounds of aluminum. Thus, 4,800 residences will generate 182,400 pounds per month or 1,094 tons per year of recyclahles which could be recovered by a curbside program. The total would include 55 tons of aluminum, 459 tons of newspaper and 580 tons of glass. - Estimated revenues are projected using three scenarios: 1. Highest cost (Best Case) identified in San Jose study (Chart 2-21, plus redemption value. 2. Lowest cost (Worst Case) for materials identified in the San Jose study (Chart 2-2), plus redemption value and 3. Probable cost (Probable Case) for materials, plus redemption value as established in Section 11-B.3 of this report. Under the best case, estimated annual revenue would be $141,740; in the worst case, revenues would be $116,970 and in the prohable case, revenues would be $122,420 (Table 4-1). Only material sales are included in the revenue estimates, landfill cost subsidies or incentive grants are not included. 25 B. Estimated Program Operating Cost At a 30% participation rate, it is estimated that operation of the curbside collection program will require two collection vehicles on two routes of 450-480 pickups each day. It Each vehicle would be staffed by one person. is estimated that three staff would be required to process and separate the material collected for a total of five (5) staff for the program. Staff costs are estimated at $110,000 annually. Services and supplies costs include liability insurance, advertising (10% of program costs), vehicle operation and maintenance, facility costs and other normal operating- costs. Services and supplies costs are estimated at $91,000 annually. Capital costs are amortized over the expected life of the equipment and are estimated at $28,000 annually. Total program costs are estimated at $229,000 (Table 4-2). This cost estimate should be considered as on the high side and will likely be less. Estimated net operating costs (Table 4-3), based on the three revenue scenarios are: Monthly Revenue Scenario Net Cost Residential Charge Best Case !$ 87,260 Worst Case $112,030 Probable Case $106,530 $ .45 $ .sa $ .55 As the above calculations indicate, costs exceed revenues in all cases, leaving a net cost to be funded. 26 C. Program Funding A curbside recycling program for Carlsbad will operate at a deficit and require additional funding over revenue for at least the initial 3 to 4 years. Several financing alternatives are available: 1. General Fund: This alternative would require the General Fund to absorb the net cost of the recycling program. No additional costs would be charged to Carlsbad residents. 2. Rem Wllection Bates: This alternative envisions increasing the refuse collection rates to cover the net cost of the recycling program. a) Residential Rate Incmase: Would provide that required funds would be generated by increases in the residential refuse collection rate only. This is similar to programs operated in Encinitas, Del Mar and most other cities which fund recycling programs from a refuse collection rate. Such a process would result in the "Monthly Residential Charge" of $0.58 per month, or less as identified in Section B, above. b) Residential/Comercial/Industrial Rate Increase : Would provide for an across the board increase in the refuse collection rates for all clients. This proposal would more equitably distribute costs of the program to all refuse collection clients. The cost to single family residential would be below the $0.58 per month rate shown above. 3. Fee Increase: Envisions an increase to the Refuse Collection Franchise fee in an amount sufficient to cover the net costs of the recycling program. The franchise fee is established at 2% of gross revenues in the present contract between Coast Waste Management and the City. The Franchise fee presently likely require 27 generates about $50,000 annually. An increase in the fee would a refuse collection rate increase as the franchisee would probably request a rate increase to shift the cost to customers. Should Coast Waste Management request a rate increase. then the increased franchise fee would be considered alongwith other operating cost increases and decreases to establish a new collection rate. Further study of each alternative is required to determine the estimated impact on refuse collection clients and the General Fund. ? 28 TABLE 4-1 "Best Case" Ya ter ial PricelTon Total - Annual Volume Aluminum Glass Newspaper $1,180 85 60 55 Tons $ 64,900 580 Tons 49,300 459 Tons 27,540 GRAND TOTAL, 1094 Tons $141,740 "Worst Case" Price /Ton Material AMUal Volume Total Aluminum Glass Newspaper $ 980 85 30 55 Tons 580 Tons 459 Tons $ 53,900 49,300 13,770 GRAND TOTAL 1094 Tons $116,970 "Probable Case" Material Price / Ton Annual Volume Total $ 59,400 49,300 $ 13,770 $122,420 $1,080 85 30 Aluminum Glass Newspaper 55 Tons 580 Tons 459 Tons GRAND TOTAL 1094 Tons 29 TABLE 4-2 PROGRAM OPERATING COST ESTIMATES Salaries & Benefits 5 staff at $22,00O/year Sub t o t a1 Services and SuoDlies Vehicle Advertising Containers Facility Insurance Minor Equipment Consultant Office Supplies Misc. Sub to tal Capi t a1 Separator Trucks (2) Forklift Baler Containers (8) Sub total 15,000 at 5 years 100,000 at 7 years 30,000 at 10 years 30,000 at 10 years 30,000 at 10 years $110,000 '$110,000 $ 91,000 $ 3,000 16,000 3,000 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 28,000 "Best Case" cost $229,000 - "Worst Case" cost $229,000 "Probable Case" cost 30 TABLE 4-3 Revenue $141,740 Revenue $116,970 Revenue $229,000 $122,470 Monthly Net Cost Residential Subsidy $ 87,260 $ .45 Net Cost $112,030 Net Cost $106,530 Monthly Residential Subsidv $ .58 Monthly Residential Subsidy $ .55 31 A. Conclusions Landfill capacity in the North County is rapidly being depleted and the San Marcos landfill is expected to close in 1991. Recycling can serve to extend landfill life and conserve resources. Recycling programs come in many forms with a combination of curbside, buyback and drop off centers and commercial recycling programs being the most effective. Markets for the commonly recycled items (newspaper, glass and aluminum) appear strong with prices relatively stable for the past year. Approximately 50% of the solid waste stream consists of recyclable materials. Newspapers, glass and aluminum represent approximately 20% of the waste stream and 40% of the recyclable materials. Curbside recycling programs operate at participation rates as low as 13% and as high as 78%. All programs reviewed have required operating subsidies at some time during the program. Most subsidies take the form of mandatory charges to single family residences, levied through the refuse collection bill. Although such performance is possible, lack of consistent program accounting makes verification difficult. Some programs claim profits or a zero subsidy. Successful curbside recycling programs provide for customer convenience, require intensive on-going public information efforts and anti- scavenging regulation. , 32 Thirty percent (30%) or higher curbside program participation rates can be achieved if participant convenience can be maximized by operating a mixed recycling program with collection performed weekly on trash day. Recycling programs can substantially enhance the recovery of recyclable materials and maximize the effect of public information efforts by operating programs which consist of multiple residential/comercial recycling, buy-back and drop-off centers as well as curbside recycling. The County Recycling Plan is an ambitious plan with a goal of diverting 30% of the solid waste stream from landfills by 1991. The County Plan is voluntary unless 30% diversion is not attained by 1991. If the 30% goal is not realized, the County may not permit recyclable materials to be landfilled after 1991. Thus , recycling may become mandatory, County-wide. The County Plan also provides for technical assistance to cities and private industry and a recycling incentive program which could provide for avoided landfill cost payments and grants to cities and private agencies operating recycling programs. A recycling program can be successfully operated in Carlshad. The feasibility of a voluntary curbside program was examined and it appears that such a program could be operated with a modest subsidy ranging from $87,000 to $112,000 annually. These estimates are conservative and it is very likely that a program could be operated for less. If applied to potential residential participants as a mandatory charge the cost would be approximately $0.58 per month or less. Several alternatives exist to finance the required subsidy. Further analysis is required to determine the equity and impact of each alternative. 33 B. Recommendations Based on the results of the feasibility study and the review of other recycling programs, it is recommended that the City Council: 1. Approve a Recycling Program for the City of Carlsbad which would include : a) A curbside, mixed or commingled recyclables collection program with weekly collection on trash day for all single family residences and small multi-residential (2-4 units) deve4opments. A goal of 30% participation within three years is recommended. b) operationof buy-backanddrop-off centers, ifnecessary. c) Operation of a recyclingprogram for commercial and large multiple residential developments. 2. Direct staff to prepare for Council consideration, a Request For Proposal to solicit proposals from the private sector to operate the recycling program. 3. Direct staff to prepare a report for Council consideration which examines the impact and equity of the several alternative financing mechanisms. 4. considerat ion. 5. Direct staff toprepare anti-scavenging regulations forCounci1 Endorse the County Recycling Plan; authorize staff to work with County staff to assist in plan implementation and authorize staff to apply for County recycling incentive program funds to assist in the implementation of the Carlsbad recycling program.