Loading...
Exh 8CAGENDA ITEM #3C JUNE 27, 2005 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM: Proposed Pilot Project for Semi-Automated Garbage and Recycling Pickups on 19th Street and Associated Cu! de Sacs SUBMITTED BY: Rick Carper, P.E., Public Works Director DATE: May 23, 2005 BACKGROUND: Waste Services of Florida (WSF), the City's contracted waste hauler, is proposing a pilot project to test semi-automated (machine) pickup of waste. They have recently placed in service a smaller (8.5 cubic yard) compactor truck, which has a hydraulic arm capable of lifting and dumping custom containers under control of a street side operator. F The affected area includes approximately 150 homes, each of which would be provided with two containers, one for household garbage and one for mixed recyclable materials. WSF is proposing that the City pay for the containers, estimated to cost approximately $100 per household. The containers would have wheels and an attached lid, with a 90-gallon container for garbage and a 60-gallon container for recycling. Homes included in the pilot project would receive garbage and recycling services once per week. They currently receive garbage services twice a week. The proposed project would have no impact on or change to current procedures for yard (green) waste pickup. Because of the increasing costs of fuel, insurance, labor and workers compensation insurance, WSF is proposing to provide this service as a way of testing a more efficient means of providing sanitation services to the City. Their proposal suggests the inclusion of two customer surveys, at the mid-point and again at the end of the pilot, to gain feedback about the success or weaknesses of the program. WSF`s contract with the City expires May 31, 2006. There are no provisions for extending the contract. RECOMMENDATION: With less than a year remaining before rebidding the City's Sanitation contract, Staff recommends against agreeing to the pilot program if the City is required to fund the containers. Although a move to some type of automated pickup is desirable from a cost containment aspect, for the City to fund this type of pilot at this point in the contract, when a different type of container may be required next year, is not advisable. ATTACHMENT: Automated Waste Collection White Paper Excerpt- Benefits and Disadvantages REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: AGENDA ITEM #8C JUNE 27, 200 Bernefots of Automated Collection - - - Lower Overall Costs of Collection A study by the Solid Waste Association of Nortlt America (S WANA) found that collection of solid waste and rccyclahlcs typically represents the single largest percentage of MS W management budgets, ranging from 39 percent to 62 percent of total system costs. On average, collection represents SO percent of MS W management system costs. (Source: Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management: Six Case Studies of System, Cost and L•nergy Use: Summary Report, SWANA, 1991.) With collection making up such a significant portion of waste management budgets, any reduction in collec- tion casts can have a major impact on the overall budget. Automated refuse collection systems usually signifi- cantly lower a community's collection costs and pay for themselves through the savings they generate. For example, Longmont, Colo., spent $5.1 million to automate its refuse collection system in 1999 and will have completely rccoupcd its investment aRcr five years. On average, switching from manual to automated collec- tion reduces the cast of service to each household by about 25 percent. Cost savings come from a number of sources: • Reduced labor. Labor is typically the largest component of collection budgets. Moving from manual [o fully automated collection drastically reduces the number of workers needed, oRen dropping from three workers per vehicle to one. Additionally, improved efficiency leads to a reduction in the number of vehicles (and crews) needed. Usually the tivorkers can be moved tq~other positions. • Fewer injuricslreduced workers' compensation claims. Manua{ refuse collection is a physically pun- ishing job, and workers' compensation claims can be very expensive. The city of Longmont, for exam- ple, spent almost $SOO,OOD on workers' compensation claims in a three- to four-year period using setni- automated collection. The first year after moving to a fully automated system, workers' compensation claims totaled just $1,000. Because operators of automated systems almost never Icave the truck cab, on-the job injuries arc rare. ~" ~ • Lower insurance rates. Workers' compensation insurance ~'' r~ `' premiums decrease as worker classifications and rcsponsibili- .''.~ ' ties change from driverllaborers to operators. Thornton, Colo., ''' ~"` ~ ~ „ reported that after implementing a fully automated refuse col- ~ '-., - i~~M ~ ,r r~ lection program, the city's injury costs in the first year of oper- • f ~,~ '; Y~ ~~ ~, anon dropped to zcm. Workers' compensation insurance pre- ....,; ~} {y ~ "' ,' :; miums dropped more than GD percent. (Source: Getting More 1. ~ +~~ jt~, ~~ ~ for Less: Improving Collection Efficiency, U.S. ~" Environmental Protection Agency, 1999) ~ ~~ ~ ,~'• 1h ,., • Less overtime. When collectors arc out of work due to - injury, other workers must take their place. Sometimes these roles are filled by co-workers being paid overtime or by tem- porary workers. Either way costs more than if the original employee had not been injured. Eliminating injuries reduces excess personnel costs. • Less fuel used. Reducing the number of trucks can also mean a reduction in the amount of fuel used in many situations. In times of increasing fuel prices, this can be a significant source of savings. -a- AGENDA ITEM #3C JUNE 27, 2005 lncreased Efficiency Fu11 automation is the most e~cicnt means of refuse collection. Moving from manual to automated collection tpcreases the number of households served per worker per hour by up to 300 percent. (Source: Collection Etlicicncy: Strategics for Success, EPA, 1999) Exact productivity increases will vary based on equipment selected and geographical issues, but they arc significant enough that a move to automation alFVays means a reduction in the number of people needed to serve the same number of households. Reduced Employee Turnover There may be no more drastic difference in working condi- -~ • lions than 6et<veen operating an automated refuse collection vehicle and collecting from the back ofa manual rear loader. Operators of automated refuse collection vehicles spend their _, shifts in climate-controlled comfort, picking up and dumping containers with an automated arm, seldom leaving the vehi- cle cab. This is in stark contrast to the workers who must serve out in the elements, physically lilting all manner of - , ~ refuse and placing it in the vehicle by hand, risking injury from heavy and sharp objects, as well as environmental haz- ards. With manual refuse collection, driver tumover is high and positions can be hard to fill. Cheyenne, Wyo., for example, had a 113 percent turnover in refuse collection workers in 2001. (Source: "Trashirt' Protection: A Business Strategy for Protecting Your Carts Can Save Your Bottom Line," Joseph Lynn Tilton, MSW tYfanagement, January 13, 200~t, www.Foresternet/mw 0205 trashin.html.) Most refuse Peels that make the switch to automated collection find that workers stay in their positions for a much longer period of time. Communities report that operators of automated collection vehicles earn a salary of 5 l0 10 percent more than drivers of manual vehicles. (Source: "is Automation Altering Refuse Collection?" Susan Buslt, MSW Management, September/October 2003). Reduced physical demands, improve- ev„~.-~_ ""~'°~ menu in driver comfort and increased pay icad to greater employee longevity. Upgrading the Service for Customers Automated collection truly upgrades the level of service that is provided to resi- dents. Fixed lid, wheeled carts not only provide a uniform appearance on collec- tion day, they also reduce blowing trash, odors, animal scavenging and health con- cerns. Ganc are mismatched containers, bags and other unsightly set-outs. Residents are saved the hassles and expense of providing their own containers. Autatnating ~, recyclable collection has the same results. I I~ ~ lncreased Recydfng Many communities find that automating refuse eolleclion can also drive recycling efforts. The move to automation oRen goes hand in hand with pay-as-you-throw (PAYT) efforts. In communi- ties wlterc citizens can choose smaller carts for a lower price, recycling often increases. Automated recycling •5• AGENDA 1TElvI #3C JUNE 27, 2005 collection that provides residents with a convenient wheeled cart for recyclables, as well as one for refuse, ' makes it easier far residents to recycle more. Higher diversion rafts lead to less money spent on tipping fees. And in states like California, increased recycling can help meet government mandates. Disadvantages of Automated Collection High Upfront Costs Tfte initial costs of converting from manual to automated collection arc high. Automated refuse collection vehicles cost about 1S percent more than similarly sized manual rear loaders. Plus, carts must be purchased for every household, at an average cost of S35 to $50 each. Some communities and smaller independent haulers walk away from automation as soon as they see the initial price tag. Howeve ,after evaluating operating costs and savings, mast find that they can recoup their initial investment tluough the savings automated collection generates. McMinnville, Tcnn., for example, will have completely paid off its move into automated collection within four years. Plus, reduced operating costs meant that the public works department could cover collection and disposal expenses while at the same time paying on a bond issue for remediating a landfill several years ago -all without raising rates for four years F Nigher Maintenance Costs Maintenance casts for automated refuse collection vehicles arc generally higher than for their manual counter- parts. ('Iltough the overall cost per borne served may remain unchanged, since fewer automated vehicles are usually required than manual vehicles.) The automated vehicles' hydraulic systems are constantly working - lifting, packing and lowering 1,000 or more times per day, versus about 200 to 300 cycles per day on a manual rear loader. However, the degree of increase in maintenance costs varies drastically bchveen manufacturers' scheduled maintenance programs. •;5.•• Y- °~ `~~~,.:;~% ~ That's why it is critical to thoroughly evaluate any equipment before +,,i r~ ~~%~ l r1 ~~;~ c~ ; ~ --; . buying, looking not justatacquisition costs, but also long- -- ' . ~ i , ,• r ;': •° , ~ ~ ~ ~' -- term expenses like maintenance. Manufacturers arc also ,,:.,,,~ !" ~' ~~'w ,t f •.'~ ~ constantly working on reducing maintenance costs. The "' ~ ~ }: ~ ~~~~l~ =~~ ~ ~ j r:< ;' Heil Python° automated arm, for example, uses an 1 ~i y~1 :' enclosed oil bath gearbox to virtually eliminate grabber t ~s 4 ~ ~a { '-+ v '' ~ j V l gear wear. As a result, Python grabber gears will last up to ~, - rt ; ~ eight times as long as others, for maintenance cost savings of ~o~~~~~en !•- ~ 1 '' • ~.' i,~`} up to $12,000 over the life of the vehicle. ~,~. Customer Training I if carts are not properly positioned, or if they have additional refuse next to them, operators may have to exit i the vehicle cab, reducing ef&ciency. Training customers to use the new automated carts properly is key to the • success of an automated collection program. This training can take a lot of work before and during imp]emen- tation of the new system. A thoughtfully illustrated instruction sheet delivered with the new containers can be '~ very effective. The many benefits of automation long-term more than make up for the short-term training efforts.