HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-02-07; City Council; 9846; Adoption of Curbside Recycling Program48#9&
MTG, 2-7-89
IEPT. U/M
1.
a.
b.
C.
2.
3.
TITLE:
ADOPTION OF A PILOT CURBSIDE REC
PROGRAM IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
Approve a voluntary recycling pilot project for the City
of Carlsbad which would include:
A voluntary curbside, partially commingled recyclables collection program with weekly collection on the prescribed collection day, for 500 single family residences in the Carlsbad downtown area, and 500 single
family residences in the La Costa area.
Development of a network of neighborhood drop-off centers to augment the curbside recyclables collection.’
Expansion of the commercial, industrial recycling program currently operated by Coast Waste Management.
Direct staff to prepare, for Council consideration, a
contract to perform the recycling pilot project with
Coast Waste Management, Incorporated.
Direct staff to prepare proposals to obtain grant funding from the California Department of Conservation, and the County of San Diego to purchase needed household
containers.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
In July 1987, Council directed staff to prepare a report evaluating the feasibility of a recycling program for the City
of Carlsbad. On July 19, 1988 the feasibility study was presented to Council. Council approved staff recommendations that accompanied the report, to include directions to negotiate
an agreement with Coast Waste Management to perform the recycling program.
Coast Waste Management submitted the attached proposal to the
City on January 9, 1989. Staff has analyzed the proposal, as
well as the recycling needs of the City, and that analysis is
also attached.
The Coast Waste proposal outlines six major alternatives, as well as several separate elements. The first alternative is to conduct a pilot project to gather empirical data and test the operating mechanisms prior to a large-scale commitment. This pilot project can be constructed and molded to test either a source-separated or a partially commingled program. Coast Waste
has proposed to absorb all costs of this project with the exception of household container costs. This container cost
PAGE 2 OF AB# ET+&
would be borne by the City, however, California Department of Conservation and County of San Diego Grant funds could be requested to offset this expense.
The second, third, fifth and sixth alternatives presented in the Coast Waste proposal describe source-separated, partially- commingled, and commingled full-scale curbside programs. These are all viable alternatives, and can be undertaken with or without the aid of a pilot project. The full-scale curbside recycling programs will take four to six months to commence, and will require a yearly subsidy of between $200,000 and $290,000.
The fourth alternative is to maintain a series of recycling collection boxes through-out the city, in lieu of a curbside program.
Staff has examined all of the alternatives presented, and determined that they are all feasible, anyone of which would lead to a successful recycling program in the City. Since neither the City nor Coast Waste has any experience in operating a curbside recycling program, staff recommends that the City's
curbside recycling program begin with a pilot program similar
to the Coast Waste proposal. The pilot project will be at no cost to the City, assuming grant funds are received for household containers. The information gathered during the pilot project would be invaluable in determining which type of recycling program and equipment would be most beneficial to the city. This pilot project could begin as early as April 1, 1989,
with a comprehensive report due to the City six-months later; October 1, 1989.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The proposed nine (9) month pilot project would result in a fiscal impact of between $10,000 and $16,000 for household containers. This cost could be wholly or partially off-set by obtaining grant funds from the Department of Conservation or the County of San Diego. The next grant cycle for both these agencies begins in March, 1989, with disbursement of funds to take place July 1, 1989. The containers would have to be obtained in March, 1989, and it is proposed that general funds
be used for the initial purchase, and reimbursement take place when grant funds are obtained. The resolution appropriating funds will be presented for Council consideration at the time the contract for the Pilot Recycling Project is presented.
EXHIBITS :
1.
2.
Coast Waste Management Recycling Proposal
Utilities and Maintenance Staff Report
COAST WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.
& LIBERTY REcYCLING
RECYCLING OPTIONS FOR THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD
JANUARY 6, 1989
I"
Enclosed are the various recycling alternatives considered as the most viable options for the City of Carlsbad. We have prepared six (6) plans, A through F, which have different curb side elements for each and the rest of the elements being common to all plans. The plans proposed are of various types of segregated collection to maintain a higher market value. To achieve the waste reduction goals mandated by the City of Carlsbad and the County of San Diego, the plans must be implemented over a period of time and not all at once to develop and maintain consistancy of programs and maintain the support of the entire community. The following page is a diagram of the programs in brief.
We have attempted to answer all of the questions raised in the City's review of the preliminary Proposal presented in December. To expedite the program's effective date, we will be available to answer any other questions. The plans developed are felt to be the best alternatives for the City. With Staff and Coast Waste working collectively on the implementation, any variances which arise will be cognizant to both parties involved and can have
immediate attention if necessary. For this we propose the City
to appoint one of the City Staff to be program coordinator with Coast Waste.
EXHIBIT 1
.
v) z 15
z,
n
a
-1 V 2- V w CT
4
v) -1 cz
n
m
5
n
n
n
W v) 0
0 cz
K 0 *r K -0
v) u'r
a- u 0- aJ L 0- a ur- 0 w ?U em nu E 4LO c, aw *- C, K Lmm amp: .c V
nwc,
-aJ
c,m LY
m-
e- n
mw u VI no) m L -c,w w cnw E u E *I-
LU cnm WEWU) VIOVIL
.r aI aJ)cInK w um'r .- a~-m
hO aJ 0 WVLU
a- c VI-
7z at:
P 0 CK 0 0 at- aJ 0 c,-
wm d -3 -u -I= om c, u*v) E WL OUaJ E aJ-K c, m .- -c, mum IDocn c, --aJwc %-Lao x ncnL u *- aJ r m mc
o" u n
In
f 2 N
In
b. cu
In s N
In
b, m
N
.. VI c, E aJ E aJ'
W 7
VI a
n -
VI LI aJ EaJ *--VI c, moc K +ow aJ con u 0 -x .r uoaJ VI h aJ
'+ .r mw IC, .-'+ om> EOL cn '-0aJOu E wo no a*- K -0ONc zoo .I.- u '+N.--NU h N m0.r U hw=mma~ c,-ctftn L
v 4,v)
0- LcuCn E LrJ
.- E a
L I ocn 0 Y-K 0 0 .r 00 WL
aJ 0- v)GE 4-- +v)m v)m~ ow oscn TL u 0
.. c, V m a E e(
c m U VI .r U
v E wa aJ0 WV K aJcc EO aJ -VI P3
L cz
dW -
VI LN
c .r vu KVI
0 .r aL
VI WC)- K VI aJ VI 0s c, X.rU Y -.U i
..
0, c, m
c, L
c, v)
w aJ c,
U aJ
n
m
- -3 0 L n
E 0
c, m c, m
L al Le VI E m L I-
c, K W
cn m K
.r
E
9
aJ c, VI m zs
c, VI 4 0 V
c, m
E m aJ L c, v)
aJ c, VI m 3
5 L '+
VI 0)
n 4
U h U 0) L
'+ 0
E 0
c,
L m 0. aJ VI
aJ c,
v)
r- -
.r
m
.r
.. N 'ti;
c, c aJ 5 - W
U
VI L aJ c, E a, 0
K 0
c, U W
0 u
'+ Y- O
0 L w
TI 0 0 .c L 0
r
0,
aJ E
e
L z
0 U
.r
7 -
n
n
.r
n -
e.. m *
c, E aJ I
7 W
*
L W c, E 01 U
Y U m
I
m
n
2
.. e =n=
c, K aJ I c W
U
E 0
c, U aJ
0 U
c, K 0 K aJ c, I
c,
E
w E
.C
c -
.C - a
m
m .C L c, VI 3 TI K .r -
.r m
V L P 0
V
..
In *
c, E aJ 5 7 W
*
U aJ c, V W
0, In
ul
.C
3 .C
7 .r U m Y-
U aJ 1 0 L
m
n n
3 c a 0 V
E aJ r 3
aJ c, m w
aJ L =I c, a cc
w 01
0
aJ > aJ w
n -
W n
2
K 0
c, U a
0 V
aJ c, v)
.r
c
L
aJ >
..
(D 'ti;
c, E
0) E 7 W
. EXHIBIT 1
The following section delineates the curb side elements of the
six (6) plans first with the other common elements following this section.
PLANS AT"ECURBSIDE COLLECTIQN
PLAN A, ELEMENT 1
1000 HOME CURB SIDE WITH SEGREGATED COLLECTION
This option proposes to use two - 500 home areas located in different sections of the City. The 1000 home pilot would
provide the City with information on the best suited containers, participation rates and operating data to determine the fiscal impact for the residents of Carlsbad. The pilot program would be operated for nine months with the program data on the first six
months submitted for City review. We would continue the
collection on those homes while the City make6 its review.
The recyclables will be segregated by the homeowner and stored
for weekly collection on trash day in three stackable containers.
Residents would recycle aluminum cans, glass bottles and
newsprint. The stackable containers are not the least costly of the containers but of the programs reviewed they have the widest acceptance and higher participation rates. We propose the containers to be purchased by the City so grants would then be available for funding the purchase of the containers.
Coast Waste would fund the nine month pilot collection program expenses other than the cost of the containers. After review and recommendation the City will establish funding to pay for the
ongoing program costs.
Parameters Used to Develop Projection
Containers: The choice was narrowed down to the use of three stackable containers for each household. Stackable containers have been widely used throughout curb sides because of ease in handling, sturdiness, and accessibility while stacked and in use.
We have reviewed two types of stackable containere from two different manufacturers. Both manufacturers provide declining balance replacement warranties based on a five-year life. Both manufacture containers in Southern California. We have received
two bids for purchasing the containers. The first bid is $4.60 per container covering all associated costs. The second bid is
for $5.35 per container excluding shipping, handling, tax and some print work. Both suppliers can provide us with containers within 45 days of request for the 3000 needed for the pilot.
EXHIBIT 1
Containers: (continued) We have opted to use three stackable containers as opposed to fewer containers to maintain higher market grades for the material which can only be done at the participant's level. The three containers could be used to store more than the original three commodities as other commodities become viable. For this we recommend that the containers not be labeled for the types of material to accomodate for expanding the materials recycled.
Recyclables collected: The most common recyclables diverted from the waste stream are
aluminum cans, bottle glass, newsprint, and cardboard. Plastic
bottles could be flattened and mixed in with the aluminum cans.
However, the amounts of plastic collected from other programs have been minimal with limited data available. Plastic bottles can be diverted. However, they have less marketability. We would be willing to make plastic a part of the pilot program if so requested by the City.
Weekly Collection:
Weekly collection has been choosen to make it as easy as possible
for the households to participate in the program. Other programs
studied indicate that better participation occurs with a weekly
collection where the homeowner places his materials out when the
containers are full.
Areas for the Pilot study: Area 1 will be approximately 500 homes in Carlsbad proper within
the boundaries of: Elm Avenue, Celinda, Chestnut and Highland.
This area was choosen for the mix of types of homes, street and
traffic patterns. Collection day for this area will be Tuesday.
Route patterns and addresses of the homes paritcipating in the
pilot will be provided to the City.
Area 2 will also be approximately 500 hundred homes in the La Costa area of Carlsbad. This area will be within the streets of La Costa Avenue, Levante, and El Camino Real. This area has single family residences and multi-tenant housing with curb refuse service.
Collection Vehicles: We have looked at various types of collection equipment. One option would be to utilize a vehicle similar to a front loader vehicle for approximately $80,000. The other option would be to
purchase a bin trailer/tractor combination for approximately
$58,000. We have opted at the present to go with either using bin trailers or low entry trucks with hydraulic dumping boxes for the commodities. We are looking into having one of our low entry trucks refitted with hydraulic boxes for recycling which could be used for the program or be utilized as a spare.
New low entry cab trucks $64,000 each Tractor $40,000 each Trailer with automated bin dumping $18,000 each
Trailers without automated bins $ 8,000 each EXHIBIT 1
Advertising:
Mailings to pilot homes
Trash can tags or door hangers Publicize program through free community Cable TV Press releases regarding the program prior to start Signs on our recycling trucks and residential refuse trucks Community awareness programs (speaker presentation)
’ Notices on billing statements
Records : P/L information will be submitted quarterly with the information
displayed showing the monthly information. The six-month
information will be used to access the plan for further implementation.
Participation will be verified by using truck countere on
vehicles to show total stops per month. Twice per month’a
physical count of 50 units in each area will be conducted.
Materials collected will be weighed on day of collection with a
second verification via our shipping receipts. These receipts
are required to be segregated from buy back center volumes per
California State requirements for receipt of redemption money.
Capitalization .
For the Pilot program the equipment will be donated from the existing operation of Coast Waste Management. Acquiring a low entry recycling truck on lease at this point is not available. We are looking into converting one of our own low entry trucks for recycling. If any equipment is purchased or is eventually used in the City-wide program, the equipment would come in at the capitalization less the value for the time used or be utilized as a spare. Coast Waste would cover the costs of the equipment either through use or as contributed equipment for the City‘s program.
Estimated Operating Costs - 1000 Pilot Program
Expenses: Containers $ 14,900
Operating Costs 9.809
TOTAL COSTS * 24 , 709
REVENUE Aluminum Glass Bottles
Newsprint
TOTAL REVENUE
2 , 673 1 , 350 m 4,320
TOTAL REVENUE 4 , 320 24,709 TOTAL EXPENSES
NET PILOT COST COVERED ($20,3891 BY COAST WASTE WNAGEHENT
-_---- -_----
EXHIBIT 1
* Capitalization costs for equipment cannot be determined at this time as it depends on the equipment used in the pilot collection. Start up promotional costs, increased accounting expenses, and verification data will incur more expenses initially. The
expenses for these items will be detailed in the data submitted
to the City for review. The City of Carlsbad's selected program coordinator will have more time allocated to this phase of the
program for which it needs to be accounted. Coast Waste has
assumed this will be a shared cost and in-kind service.
Plastic Bottles As requested by the City, we have reviewed the collection of PET plastic bottles and other milky clear plastic bottles. The information on collection of these bottles is limited. We propose that they be collected at one of the two pilot areas to get a comparison of the additional coets and revenues. The plastic could be mixed with the aluminum cans in the same
stackable container. We have made the following estimates for the plastic bottles.
Projection Income PET Bottles $32 Other Plastic bottles la. TOTAL INCOME 167
EXPENSES Collection 187 Materials 6 Containers no charge --
Hauling other 12 PET not enough to sell --
Processing xi. NET SHORT FALL (67)
This is based on 1 PET bottle per month per resident and .5 lbs of clear plastic bottles. This is only our best estimation of costs for the material and collection amounts. Some of the pertinent costs in collecting plastics are the storage costs and costs of economically baling the material with the type of baler presently in use by our company. The amount projected for a year would amount to 1 1/2 bales of PET and 28 bales of other
plastics. This would require us to use a roll off container to
hold them until we had sufficient amount to ship in one bale.
The cost of containers has not been included in the price of
operation. A year's collection would amount to approximately 15 tons of plastic.
The milky clear plastic juice, milk, and water jugs would amount to more material than the PET bottles. The price for the clear plastic bottles is .10 cents per pound at present. In speaking to an industry expert, the PET bottles collected now from the AB 2020 bottle bill are stock piling due to no market demand for the product. Many of the processors are holding the material.
These materials would amount to a small portion of the waste
stream. The pilot would identify the merits of these as
recyclables. EXHIBIT 1
_I.
PLAN B, ELEMENT 1
SEGREGATED CITY WIDE CURB SIDE COLLECTION
This option as requested by the City is to show the time for implementation of a City-wide curb side collection. This program will take longer to setup due to the lead time for equipment. We feel that this program has merit. However, without empirical data which could be derived from a pilot phase, assumptions such as resident participation and operating costs would have to be subsidized from the onset. An additional concern of ours is the timing and available funding for containers. The method of
recycling with three stackable containers is the most prevalent
and is being established in more cities now initiating programs.
Even though the three container program is widely used, most cities have started their programs via pilots. For these reasons we are encouraging the use of a pilot.
Many of the parameters have already been highlighted in the previous section (Plan A, 1000 home pilot). As in that pilot program, this plan has the residents utilizing three segregated containers for separation of the materials prior to collection. The program as indicated in the diagram would require more time for initial start up but the project would be completed approximately in the same time as the proposal with the 1000 home pilot (Plan A). Should the City decide to have the entire City brought "on-line" with a curb side program, it can be accomplished in a shorter time frame. However, the City would need to indicate to Coast Waste prior to implementation when and what amounts of funding would be available for containers.
We would opt to have the information on the program's operating
costs, volumes, and participation rates submitted to the City quarterly with monthly data provided for the first year of the
program. We propose, after review of the program's first
complete year of collection, that the information be reduced to semi-annual submission to the City. Books and records would be available for the City to review.
EXHIBIT 1
Projection for Segregated City Wide Curb Side Collection
(Baaed of 30% Participation of 16,000 Residents)
CAPITALIZATION COSTS
DESCRIPTION Site Equipment: Collection: Trucks - 3
Material handling:
Forklift - used
Loader - used
9 roll off containers
Household Containers $16/set
Promotional Costs
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $
TOTAL COST --
192,000
7 , 000
43 , 500 36.ooo 278,500
256,000
19,200
553,700
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
Lease Expense Prorata
Insurance Prorata & Vehicles
Labor (Gross) Collection Processing Transfer Glass
Administration
Collection Vehicles Operating
Aluminum
Maintenance Materials & Supplies Container Replacement 1% Processing Equipment Operating Maintenance Materials & Supplies Marketing (Shipping Expenses) Utilities & Postage Travel Accounting / Legal Miscellaneoue Licenses Promotional Sustainment
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS
TOTAL CAPITALIZATION COSTS ANNUAL
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS LESS SHARED CAPITAL
ANNUAL COST --
50 , 700
1,900 11,500 9.500 73,600 51 , 200
4,700
$ 129,500
------ e-----
$12 , 000
4,000 71 , 800
10,400
3,700
1,100 28,000
8 , 800
900
200 2 , 560
3,600
1,200
1 , 200
4,000
4,000
500
2 , 400
1 , 500
4,800
5 , 600
$172,760 129 , 500
$302,260
------
--_----- --_-_---
EXHIBIT 1
..
INCOME PROJECTION
Aluminum Cans 1 lb per participant
Glass Bottles 10 lbs per participant
Newspaper 22 lbs per participant
Material Tonnage $/Ton Total Revenue Aluminum Cans 28.8 1980 $57,024 Glass Bottles 288 100 28,800
GROSS INCOME 92,160
Newspaper 633.6 10 6.336
LESS: TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS 392.260 NET GAIN (SHORTAGE) ($210,100)
RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY CHARGE $l.OS/MONTH
RESIDENTIAL CHARGE LESS CONTAINER COST $ .82/MONTH
NET COST PER TON OF RECYCLING MATERIAL $221 /TON
REFUSE COST PER TON OF RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE AT:
2 TONS PER HOUSEHOLD $45.60 /TON 1 TON PER HOUSEHOLD $91.20 /TON
The landfill diversion cost of $9,979 (5 cents per month) is applicable. This cost is part of the price formula of the Carlsbad Refuse Rate Index and would show up as reduced service cost for trash collection via reduced landfill costs at this time .
Adding plastic bottles was not added to the projection for Plan B since this would be a material which should be further studied before implemented City-wide. Figures for this have been prepared and can be provided upon request.
EXHIBIT 1
PLAN C, ELEMENT 1
PARTIALLY COMMINGLED CURB SIDE SORTED AT COAST WASTE MANAGEMENT
This program will take longer to implement since it will take
time for the modification to our existing facility. This program is more costly than the other methods due to the higher capitalization expenses for the building and equipment.
We feel that the homeowner with this type of program will be placing his containers out at the curb more often as opposed to using the three segregated containers. He will more than likely have less storage space for the items which on an overall basis will probably not reduce the collection costs.
This system of collection poses more costs initially. With the three segregated containers there would be ample room fo'r the placement of other materials to be collected whereas with only two there would be less space for other recyclables causing some materials to be averted from the recycling system.
All other aspects of the program would be similar to the other two previously mentioned programs.
EXHIBIT 1
--
Projection for Partially Commingled Curb Side
Sorted at Coast Waste Management
(Based of 30% Participation of 16,000 Residente)
CBPITALIZATION COSTS
DESCBIPTION Site
Equipment:
Collection: Trucks - 3
Material handling:
Forklift - used
Loader - used
Conveyor Dumping System Can Separator Crusher 9 roll off containers
Household Containers $16/set
Promotional Costs
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
TOTAL C=OST 30,000
192 , 000
7,000
43,500 125,000
6,000 36.ooo 439,500
171 , 200
19,200
$629 , 900.
- - - - - - - -------
ANNUAL OPEMTING COSTS Lease Expense Prorata Insurance Prorata & Vehicles
Labor (Gross) Collection
Collection
Processing
Processing Transfer Glass
Administration Vehicles Operating Maintenance Materials & Supplies Container Replacement Equipment Operating Maintenance
Materials & Supplies
Aluminum
1%
Marketing (Shipping Expenses)
Utilities & Postage
Travel
Accounting / Legal
Miscellaneous
Licenses
Promotional Sustainment
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS TOTAL CAPITALIZATION COSTS ANNUAL
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS LESS SHARED CAPITAL
ANNUAL
GQsr 7,900
50,700
1,900 11,500 33,000
1,600 9.500 116 , 100
34,240 4,700
$155,040
------ ------
$18 , 000 4 , 000 71,800 36,900 3,700
1 , 100
28 , 000
8,800 900 200 1,712
4 , 200 1,400 1,400 4 I 000 5,200 500
2,450
1,500 4,800
5 I 600
$206,262
155,040
$361,364
-------- --------
EXHIBIT 1
INCOME PROJECTION
Aluminum Cans 1 lb per participant Glass Bottles 10 lbs per participant Newspaper 22 lbs per participant
Material Tonnage $/Ton Total Revenue Aluminum Cans 28.8 1980 $57,024 Glass Bottles 288 100 28 , 800
GROSS INCOME 92 , 160
NET GAIN (SHORTAGE) ($269,204)
RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY CHARGE $1.40/MONTH
Newspaper 633.6 10 6.336
LESS: TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS ‘361.364
RESIDENTIAL CHARGE LESS CONTAINER COST $1.22/MONTH
NET COST PER TON OF RECYCLING MATERIAL $283/TON
REFUSE COST PER TON OF RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE AT:
2 TONS PER HOUSEHOLD $45.60 /TON 1 TON PER HOUSEHOLD $91.20 /TON
PLAN D, ELEMENT 1.
CHARITABLE GROUPS, SATURDAY COLLECTION
This program would be used in conjunction with the neighborhood
collection centers where, at these sites, Coast Waste would have
drop boxes set up for the collection of materials. We would help
set up and establish routes for collection drives but would only
provide boxes for the materials at no charge. Participation in a
voluntary program like this has varied. In the City of Seattle,
for example, it was estimated that 25% of the material was being
donated to the charitable drives and donation bin sites that were
run in that City prior to the implementation of curb side
programs.
This program understandably is hard to assess. The amounts that could additionally be diverted beyond what is presently being done is an unknown. However, use of this program could provide additional diversion of material from the waste stream.
This program would be funded by Coast Waste through its plan for the Neighborhood Collection Centers proposed budget.
EXHIBIT 1
PLAN E, ELEMENT 1
COMMINGLED CURBSIDE RECYCLABLES SORTED BY DRIVER AT CURB, CITY WIDE
These homeowners will sort their material into two containers,
one for newsprint and one for aluminum cans and glass bottles.
The materials will be sorted by the driver at the curb prior to
returning to the center for batching for shipment to market. This method of commingled recyclables can be accomplished easier than the sorting of material at our facility since it will not require the building space which is being utilized by our transfer station.
...
EXHIBIT 1
Projection for Commingled Curb Side Recyclable8
Sorted by Driver at Curb, City Wide
(Based of 30% Participation of 16,000 Residents)
CAPITALIZATION COSTS
DESCRIPTION Site
Equipment:
Collection: Trucks - 3 Material handling:
Forklift - used Loader - used Can Separator Crusher 9 roll off containers
Household Containers $10.70/set
Promotional Costs
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
TOTAL COST --
192,000
7,000
43,500 6,000 36.ooo 284,500 171,200 19,200
474,900
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
Lease Expense Prorata Insurance Prorata & Vehicles Labor (Gross) Collection
Processing
Transfer Glass
Administrat ion
Collection Vehicles Operating
Aluminum
Maintenance Materials & Supplies Container Replacement 1% Processing Equipment Operating Maintenance Materials & Supplies Marketing (Shipping Expenses)
Utilities & Postage
Travel Accounting / Legal Miscellaneous Licenses Promotional Sustainment
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS TOTAL CAPITALIZATION COSTS ANNUAL
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS LESS SHARED CAPITAL
ANNUAL COST --
50,700
1,900
11,500
1,600 9.500 75,200 34,240
4,700
114.140
------ ------
$12,000
4,000
105 I 400 10,400 3,700 1,100
28,000
10,560 1,000
200
1,712 4,200
1,400
1,400 4,000 4,000 500 2,450 1,500
4,800
5,600
$207,922
114,140
$322,062
------
-------- -------e
EXHIBIT 1
INCOME PROJECTION
Aluminum Cans Glass Bottles Newspaper
Material Aluminum Cans Glass Bottles Newspaper GROSS INCOME
1 lb per participant 10 lbs per participant 22 lbs per participant
Tonnage $/Ton Total Revenue 28.8 1980 $57,024 288 100 28,800
633.6 10 6.336
LESS: TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS NET GAIN (SHORTAGE)
92,160 322.062 ($229,902)
RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY CHARGE $l.ZO/MONTH
RESIDENTIAL CHARGE LESS CONTAINER COST $l.OZ/MONTH
NET COST PER TON OF RECYCLING MATERIAL $242/TON
REFUSE COST PER TON OF RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE AT:
2 TONS PER HOUSEHOLD $45.60 /TON
1 TON PER HOUSEHOLD $91.20 /TON
PLAN F, ELEMENT 1
COMMINGLED RECYCLING MATERIAL SORTED AT COAST WASTE
To implement a plan using a commingled collection system where paper, cans (steel, and aluminum), glass bottles and plastic are sorted will require approximately 10,000 square foot of space to house the sorting equipment. This would require additional space in conjunction with that already utilized by the existing
recycling operation. We would need to locate and build a
facility for the development of a plant as such.
We operate a transfer station at the present to reduce the
trash hauling costs. This part of our operation requires approximately forty percent of our space used as a daily holding
area during transfer. The space of this portion of our building
is approximately the size required for the recycling. If this alternative was setup we would be required to build or locate space to sort the recyclables. This would further delay the implementation of a recycling program.
EXHIBIT 1
Projection for Commingled Curb Side Recycling Curb side Collection City wide
(Based of 30% Participation of 16,000 Residents)
CAPITALIZATION COSTS
DESCBIPTION Site: Building $300M + Land Equipment:
Collection: Trucks - 2
Material handling: Forklift - used Loader - used Seperation System 2 Can Separator Crushers 9 roll off containers
Household Containers $10.70/set Promotional Costs
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
TOTAL COST 300,000
128 000
. 7,000
43 500
200,000
12,000
48.ooo 738 500
171,200
19,200
928,900
------- -------
ANNUAL OPERBTING COSTS Lease Expense Prorata Ineurance Prorata & Vehicles Labor (Gross) Collection Processing
Transfer Glass Aluminum Plastic Administration Collection Vehicles Operating Maintenance ’ Materials & Supplies Container Replacement 1% Processing Equipment Operating Maintenance Materials & Supplies Marketing (Shipping Expenses) Utilities & Postage Travel Accounting / Legal Miscellaneous Licenses Promotional Sustainment
TOTAL OPERATING COSTS
TOTAL CAPITALIZATION COSTS ANNUAL
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS LESS SHARED CAPITAL
ANNUAL COST 36,700
33,800
1,900 11 500 42,000 3 200 12.700 141,800 34,240 4 700
180,740
-----_ ------
18 000
47,900 55,250 3,700 1,100 200
28,000 7 800 700 150 1,712 4 200 1,700 1,400
5,350
6,000
500 2,500
1 500
3,200
5,600
$208,462
180,740
$389,202
12 J 000
------
----_-_- --------
EXHIBIT 1
INCOHE PROJECTION
Plastic .64 lbs per participant
Steel Can 1.5 lbs per participant
Aluminum Cans 1 lbs per participant
Glass Bottles 10 lbs per participant
Newspaper 22 lbs per participant
Material Tonnage $/Ton Plastic 16 -
Steel Cans 43.2 10 Aluminum Cans 28.8 1980 G,lass Bottles 288 100 Newspaper 633.6 10 GROSS INCOME LESS: TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS NET GAIN (SHORTAGE)
Total Revenue 4 , 170 432 $57,024 28 , 800 s.336 96 , 762 a€EuQ2 ($292,440)
RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY CHARGE $1.52/MONTH
RESIDENTIAL CHARGE LEGG CONTAINER COGT $1.34/MONTH
NET COST PER TON OF RECYCLING MATERIAL $290/TON
REFUSE COST PER TON OF RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE AT: 2 TONS PER HOUSEHOLD $45.60 /TON
1 TON PER HOUSEHOLD $91.20 /TON
This projection uses a 30 year amortization for the building
estimated at $300,000, the equipment with a 7 year payout,
vehicles with a 5 year payout .
EXHIBIT 1
t
ELEMENT 2, PROCESSING AND SITE REDUCTION CENTER
As stated in the Preliminary Plan, the continued use of the Source Separation Center has benefited the City of Carlsbad with the reduction of materials already going into the County landfill. The cardboard material collected and recycled at Coast Waste Management's facility was generated, not through the buy-back center, but from the refuse loads dumped on the separation floor of the Transfer Station. The County of San Diego in its recent waste stream study indicated that there was approximately 7.5% of the waste stream composed of marketable cardboard. The material which comes into the center would not
have to be picked up additionally by the collection trucks and
diverted through the system which has not cost the City any funds
at all. We could with a high density system possibly double the
volume with improved equipment.
The cardboard recycled from Coast Waste Management in Carlsbad is as follows:
CARDBOARD RECYCLED 1987 908,380 LBS 454.2 TONS 1988* 829,120 LBS 414.5 TONS
*This represents only 11 months of cardboard.
This cardboard volume is substantial and should be calculated as part of the material diverted to meet our waste diversion goals. This amounts to half of the material which is proposed in the curb side collection.
This recycling was conducted without City subsidies for the
venture with the City of Carlsbad receiving benefit of this with . reduced landfill expenses.
The preliminary plan proposed to the City was for the City to assist Coast Waste in obtaining grant funds for a higher capacity baler which will increase the volume of materials baled. Additionally, we proposed for the City to support us in leasing additional land for the use of expanding our recycling efforts. This was proposed without requiring any funds from the City's funding sources.
This recycling income is accounted for in the financial statements audited by the City when reviewing our books and records for Refuse Index Increases.
ELEMENT 3, NEIGHBORHOOD DROP OFF CENTERS
This element would develop a network of community collection centers. Residents would then have an alternative for donating recyclables. This would be carried out in Plans A and D. In Plan A (the 1000 home pilot) it would be used to gain more emperical data and, in Plan D for the implementation of collection and processing the materials collected by the groups. EXHIBIT 1
This system of recycling operating costs and others would be
funded by Coast Waste. No funding from the City would be
required other than as suggested previously in grant funding for
containers to aid the program's collections.
ELEMENT 4, BUY BACK CENTER
Having a California Certified Buy Back Center was one of the
original facets of a recycling program requested by Staff. This has been accomplished as requested. The Center adds to the overall City plan by providing the only commercial recycling center. The Center establishes a place for the people to recycle who do not wish to participate in a curb side whether it be for personal gain or for a charitable group.
The majority of the individuals who divert recyclable materials
at the Carlsbad location are Carlsbad residents. This volume
could be added with the materials collected from the Charitable organizations' bins and drives and added to the amount collected by the curb side program. As Stated by Ralph Anderson a recycling program needs to have more than one facet of recycling to make the volume reduction mandated. This is only another method which helps in completing the recycling circle.
ELEMENT 5, COHMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, MULTI TENANT COLLECTION
Coast Waste already provides service for the commercial, industrial, and multi-tenant collection on a voluntary basis. We will continue to provide bins for these with no charge to the participants. Coast Waste Management has worked on developing a commercial recycling plan for the these groups. However, to implement a plan of this type, various ordinances will have to be established to cover the cost of placement and servicing the bins at the specified locations. We will need to have work in close accord with the City's recycling coordinator to set up a fee system for presentation to Council. Another alternative to cover
the cost is for the County to install resource diversion credits
which would provide the additional economic incentives necessary
to get 'the participation.
We have, at the present, a collection system for bar and restaurant glass. This is being conducted with four establishements of the 27 in the City which have alcoholic beverages served. Only one of the restaurants on service meet the required volumes set by the Glass Packaging Institutes Program. To start up additional businesses we would have to set out special down-sized containers. This would require special
equipment for handling with a recycling rate established to cover
the operating costs.
EXHIBIT 1
ELEMENT 6, VEGATATIVE WASTE COLLECTION
This program cannot be divised until a site has been established for composting in the County. Materials could be collected with the recycling trucks possibly running on the same collection route. However, this would require more trips to the load separation center. Possibly the recycling trucks could be coupled with trailers for hauling vegatative waste. With the likelihood of the composting center being some distance from the
Coast Waste facility, it would be prudent for the material to be transfered into larger vehicles for transit to the composting site.
This material has been considered in making this proposal.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Loader: Loaders for handling materials such as glass need to have different specifications and in calling for price quotes for new and used equipment we obtained prices ranging from $35,000 to $73,500 with the low end piece of equipment needing to have tires
converted for use glass.
Lease payments: This amount has been reassessed and is based on the amount for the area utilized for recycling.
Administration: This cost is based on the salaries posted for a recycling director as in other municipalities or for qualified help in the trash industry.
Collection vehicles Operating: The costs accessed are for fuels oils lubricants and filters.
Collection Vehicles Maintenance: This area has been reduced since the equipment will be new. Funds allocated to this category are included in case repairs are necessary.
Processing Equipment Operating and Maintenance: The costs are for maintaining the equipment and servicing the
used forklift, loader and container repairs (painting) which would be purchased.
Marketing: Marketing is the shipping expense for delivery of glass and aluminum to market, less the labor expense at the standard hauling rate.to the markets to whom we sell our recyclables.
Licenses :
This amount was under stated using our vehicle licensing cost for our older vehicles. These new vehicles will have a license fee each of approximately $1,600 annually. EXHIBIT 1
January 18, 1989
TO: RALPH W. ANDERSON, UTILITIES AND MAINTENANCE DIRECTOR
FROM: Ronald J. Lane, Administrative Intern
STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON TEE COAST WASTE MANAGEMEm RECYCLING
PROPOSALS
As directed by the City Council on July 19, 1988, staff solicited
a recycling proposal from Coast Waste Management, the Cityls
current solid waste collector. On December 2, 1988, Coast Waste
submitted a recycling proposal to the City. This proposal has been
subsequently revised, with the final proposal being submitted to
the City on January 12, 1989. The proposal has been formatted to
present a series of recycling options for which the City to choose
from. There are six major Iplans' from which to select, as well
as a number of separate elements that can be considered for
inclusion with any of the plans. These major plans are:
A)
B)
C)
Nine-month pilot project of 1,000 residences
City-wide source-separated curbside recycling program
City-wide partially-commingled (two containers utilized,
one for paper, the other for both glass and aluminum)
curbside recycling program; glass and aluminum separated
at transfer station
D) Neighborhood collection centers
E) City-wide partially-commingled curbside recycling
program; glass and aluminum separated at curb by
collectors
City-wide commingled curbside recycling program F)
1
Staff has analyzed the different plans and elements as proposed,
and compared them with similar programs in the area as well as
against the special needs of the City.
As the feasibility study of March 1988 indicated, a curbside
recycling program in the City of Carlsbad is not only feasible, but
an imperative in order to avoid the consequences of landfill
closures in the next decade. Recycling has been strongly
encouraged by the County of San Diego, with the threat of mandatory
compliance in future years if voluntary programs do not divert at
least 30% of the waste stream from County landfills. Additionally,
the County of San Diego is making approximately 1.5 million dollars
available to communities in the County to implement or expand
recycling activities. Accordingly, staff recommends that the City
should immediately begin movement towards the implementation of a
comprehensive curbside recycling program.
The Coast Waste proposal outlines a nine-month pilot project which
would be useful to the City in determining the optimum
characteristics of the eventual city-wide program. This pilot
project can be molded to emphasize either a source-separated or
partially commingled program. The cost of this program, with the
exception of household containers, will be absorbed entirely by
Coast Waste Management. Coast waste, however, erroneously
indicates on page 5 of their proposal that the pilot project costs
absorbed by Coast Waste are $20,389. The correct figure is $5,489.
2
Staff recommends that this pilot project be undertaken as a
partially-commingled collection in the neighborhoods specified in
the proposal. Monitoring of this pilot program will be
comprehensive, with bi-monthly reports being submitted to the City.
Based on the data collected during the first six months of this
project, staff will be prepared to present to Council in November,
1989, a recommendation for the exact type of program that should
be instituted City-wide.
While commingled, partially-commingled, and source-separated
programs have been proposed, staff feels that the partially
commingled type program has the best potential for success, and
will ultimately prove to be the best alternative. The partially-
commingled program requires two containers, one for paper products,
the other for both glass and aluminum. The major advantages of the
partially-commingled program include:
- Less household container cost (2 containers versus the
3 containers required for the source-separated
program
- Convenience for the customer
- Minimum contamination of recyclable materials
- Difficulty to scavenge, as the lucrative aluminum cans
are commingled with glass
- Provides room for future expansion of collected
materials
3
All three types of programs will require a subsidy in order to
operate. The curbside programs proposed by Coast Waste require a
yearly subsidy of between $200,000 and $290,000.
In addition to the major curbside programs, Coast Waste has also
presented several separate elements that can be considered for
inclusion in the over-all program. These elements are:
1) Curbside collection
2) Site separation of recyclables
3) Operation of (4) neighborhood drop-off collection
centers
4) Operation of a buyback center
5) Expansion of Commercial, industrial, and multi-
tenant recyclables collection
6) Vegetative waste collection
Staff believes that all six elements presented be seriously
considered for the City-wide program and recommends implementation
of Coast Waste proposed elements #3 and #5 during the pilot phase.
Both these programs are provided at no cost to the City.
Elements #2 and #4, site separation and the buyback center, are
currently being operated at no cost to the City, and it is
recommended that their operation continue. Element #6, vegetative
waste collection, is a very key element since up to 26% of
4
E
Carlsbads waste stream is vegetative waste. A County composting
site is being planned for the near future, and when it becomes
operational, staff will present recommendations for vegetative
waste collection to the Council. Staff also recommends that the
recycling of plastics be tested for feasibility during the pilot
project .
In the Spring of 1989, the County of San Diego will be soliciting
proposals for grant funds for programs such as the ones proposed
by Coast Waste. It is estimated that approximately one and
one/half million dollars will be available for recycling programs
within the County. Additionally, the Department of Conservation
has two grant cycles a year for recycling programs. Staff predicts
that much if not all of the initial start-up cost (household
containers in particular) can be funded by these grants.
Funding for the operational cost of a fully implemented program is
normally obtained by charging effected residents a monthly
recycling charge. There are several other funding alternatives,
however, and staff will explore the feasibility of these during the
pilot project.
Summary and Recommendations:
On January 12, 1989, Coast Waste Management submitted a proposal
to conduct recycling in the City of Carlsbad. The proposal was
5
L
c
designed to offer a series of alternatives from which the City
could select a comprehensive recycling program. Staff has analyzed
the six major programs proposed, as well as the six separate
elements also included in the proposal. Both staff and Coast Waste
Management believe that a nine-month pilot project is in the best
interest of the City and should be conducted prior to making a
decision on a City-wide curbside program. The pilot project will
provide the necessary data needed by the City to determine the
ideal recycling program to implement, and will also assist Coast
Waste in developing expertise in recycling before launching of a
City-wide program. Staff recommends that the pilot project utilize
the partially-commingled (curb-separated by the collector) format
and include the implementation of neighborhood drop-off centers and
plastics recycling , and the expansion of commercial and industrial
recycling.
RONAM J. LANE
RJL/mew
c: Assistant Director, U/M Senior Management Analyst, U/M
6