CITY OF EAST RIDGE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION STUDY The Municipal Technical Advisory Service (MTAS) was asked by the City of East Ridge to review the City=s Sanitation Department, evaluate its solid waste collection operations and to make recommendations for improvements. MTAS=s approach to the study has been to review operations, interview all pertinent personnel, review critical data and review the routes and actual collection practices of the collection crews. We want to acknowledge and thank both the management and staff of the city for their cooperation and assistance in conducting this study. To set the stage for both the analysis and recommendations, it is important to understand the current system and operations which are described in the following background information. Background Within the same department the City operates both a solid waste collection system and a brush and trash collection system. In many cases it uses both equipment and personnel interchangeably between the two systems. The most frequent situation involves the latter. However, for the purposes of this study we will need to separate the two systems and treat them as if they were stand alone operations. Although it is not the City=s system, we believe it is also necessary to address the solid waste disposal operations and have done so in the background, analysis and recommendation segments of this report. Solid waste collection: The City=s solid waste collection system includes both residential and commercial collection. However, the latter deals with only small businesses that are comparable to residential collection both in terms of collection method and in volume, however, the volume periodically is higher for some businesses. The City=s solid waste collection system is all curbside and it is collected twice a week. The solid waste collection system operates with 12 employees divided into 4 crews, consisting of 3 persons per crew equipped with a 20-yard rear loading packer truck. These 4 crews collect solid waste from 8 routes per week (actually is 4 daily routes on both Monday and Tuesday repeated on Thursday and Friday) and the routes contain both residential and commercial customers, although most of the commercial is limited to 1 route. The 8 routes contain Aapproximately@ 8,108 residential accounts with an additional 279 commercial accounts, for a total of approximately 8,387 customer accounts. The actual commercial accounts may be slightly larger since these are the only ones that still have carts. The residential counts are estimated based on the house count contained in the 1990 federal census, so no actual count has been made. The carts are 90-gallon carts, which the City collects with the rear loading packers, all of which have been converted to semi-automated trucks by mounting hydraulic flippers on the rear of each truck. All of the solid waste collection program is funded through tax revenues. The City does not have a solid waste collection fee. In fact, East Ridge is the only city above 10,000 in population that provides twice a week solid waste collection without imposing a residential collection fee. Furthermore, sixty-three percent (63%) of all cities above 10,000 population 1 impose a residential collection fee. Not all of these cities have fees that make their systems selfsufficient, but they go a long ways in defraying the costs and freeing limited tax dollars. Solid waste disposal: All solid waste that is collected by these four crews is transported to the Hamilton County transfer station, which is located at 1005 Yale Street and is within an average of one to one and one/half miles of any collection point within the City. This is a compaction station and Adump time@ is at a minimum. In addition, the transfer station is next to the sanitation yard and very convenient in timing disposal trips at the beginning of the day, lunch or the end of the day. Disposal cost is $260 per truck. A per ton charge is not available or at least is not in use, since the transfer station does not have scales. This $260 per truck equates to approximately $43 per ton based on a 20-yard packer body and calculating a packing density of 600 pounds per yard. The density and fullness of load will vary from load to load or truck to truck, but this is a realistic average. Brush collection: The brush collection system operates with three crews consisting of three persons per crew. Collection equipment consists of three 20-yard rear loading solid waste collection trucks that are rotated down from the solid waste collection system. Brush is collected from fixed routes, which for all practical purposes are run once a week on Monday and Tuesday and on Thursday and Friday. Wednesday is brush and trash collection day, and all trucks from the solid waste and brush collection system are devoted to brush and trash collection. Brush and trash disposal consists of depositing the brush on the Aold pit-burner@ site and are chipped every four to six weeks by a consortium chipper (East Ridge is part of the consortium along with the cities of Athens, Cleveland, Collegedale, and Signal Mountain). Five percent (5%) of the chipped material is used by the parks and recreation system, five percent (5%) is given away to citizens and the remaining ninety percent (90%) is given to commercial landscapers. Analysis Solid waste collection: As stated, collection is twice a week with crews working an eight hour day, which begins at 7:00 a.m. and ends at 3:30 p.m. with a 2 hour for lunch. Actual collection begins around 7:30 to 7:40 a.m. when crews arrive on the route. Collection is usually completed on an average of one hour early on Mondays and Tuesdays and two hours early on Thursdays and Fridays. Although it will vary from route to route the average route size is 1,048 stops per route or per crew per day. This was calculated by dividing the approximately 8,387 customer accounts by 8 routes. Again, this is an average size, since some routes may be larger and some may be smaller. As noted, no one has a fixed count on the number of stops for each route. If this study results in a restructuring of routes, such a fixed count for each of the new routes will be critical. Furthermore, without further study and mapping efforts, it is difficult to make any determination on the logistical flow of each route. It is safe to say that routes 2 on Monday and 3 on Monday are split and have some significant logistical problems that could be improved without much effort. 2 It is important to note that the average route size of 1,048 stops per day is considerably larger than average public sector systems and very competitive with the route sizes that are usually established by private sector solid waste collection companies. Several factors allow East Ridge to operate with such large routes and with such early completion times. First, is the Ahustle@ of the work crew. Our observations showed a picture of crews that were hustling from the beginning of the day to the end of the day. This may have been aided by the fact that crews quit working when they complete their route. They are not allowed to go home, but they basically stop working. Second, is the teamwork of the collection crews. When one crew finishes its route, it doubles up to help the others on their respective routes. It is uncertain if this reflects a faster work pace by one crew or inequity in route sizes, but in either case it demonstrates teamwork. Third, is the close proximity of the transfer station which minimizes the down time for disposal (a significant factor for most collection systems) and allows for higher percentage of the work day to be devoted to collection. In fact, our observations show the crews completing one load and coinciding their first trip to the transfer station with their lunch break. Fourth, is the low percentage of participation by residents. Our observations, in following one crew on its Tuesday and Friday collections on the same route, revealed that on Tuesday 26% of the customers had not placed any items for collection on that day, another 16% had placed only one bag for collection and another 34% had placed only one can for collection. This shows that 42% of the customers had placed an insufficient amount (nothing or one bag) and a total of 76% had one can or less of solid waste out for collection. On Friday the numbers were 35% without anything for collection, another 19% with only one bag and another 30% with only one can, for an insufficiency number of 54% and a total of 84% with only one can or less for collection. This means that approximately half of the customers on these routes were either not placing anything out for collection or an amount that was insufficient for collection. It is unknown if this was the same customers on both days, but logic would show that the participation probably rotated from one group of customers to the other. We assume, based on discussions with collection crews, that this level of non-participation is reflective of all the routes. Finally are the 17 apartment complexes in the City. Ten of those apartment complexes are being collected privately, and 7 of those apartment complexes are being collected by the City. The privately collected units are not included in the 8,387 customer count. The units within the 7 apartment complexes collected by the City distort the collection time because of the high density those units provide. The latter may not be a big factor, but should be considered in evaluating route size. We will have specific recommendations on the apartments. It seems very evident that the level of service exceeds the need and probably the demand of the East Ridge citizens. A critical negative factor to the residential collection system is the amount of dead end or cul-de-sac streets. We calculated 13 miles of approximately 100 miles of streets as either deadends or cul-de-sacs. Virtually all of these 13 miles of streets or 13% of the City=s street system requires the crews to either back down the streets or back out of the streets. Few of the streets provide adequate turn around and most are narrow and all require the crews to backtrack that part of their route. This turns these 13 miles of streets into 26 miles of collection route. This pattern of dead-end streets applies to almost all of the City. Another critical factor is staffing or covering leave time. Vacation leave accrual for solid 3 waste amounts to 52 weeks out of the year. This means that if only one person at a time took their vacation and no one was sick throughout the year, one additional FTE would be required to cover vacation time. Although employees may sell their vacation back to the city, this 52 week factor needs to be kept in mind as we consider recommendations. Virtually all of the commercial solid waste is on one route, with disposal ranging from one 90-gallon cart to several cans and finally to mainly loose material. It is not unusual for a City to use its residential crews to collect its small commercial customers, but East Ridge=s volume of small commercial customers being collected with its residential operation seems high. Furthermore, it is being collected at no cost to the customer, which creates a potential equity problem with the other commercial businesses that are paying private sector companies to collect their solid waste. General annual costs for this collection system (does not include disposal) are as follows: Salaries $283,541 represents cost for 12 collection personnel which are 50% of the total salary costs Benefits 114,935 50% of total benefit costs Administration 32,825 50% of department costs only Operating costs 52,217 50% of total operating costs ________ Total costs $483,518 These costs do not include capital costs or amortization of equipment, which will need to be factored in as projections are made for continuing the current system or changing to an alternative system. Based upon these costs and a customer count of 8,387, the average monthly solid waste collection cost (excluding capital costs) per customer per month would be $4.80. This does not include disposal costs and combines the residential and commercial customers. Disposal: As stated earlier, disposal for East Ridge is about as good as it gets, at least logistically. The Hamilton County transfer station is in town and within a short distance of every point in town. By using the transfer station, the City is saving an enormous amount of money in transportation cost and probably even more in lost collection time. To travel to the Birchwood Landfill would take at least two to three hours and that is assuming the crew doesn=t lose time waiting in line. However, by using the transfer station, the City has limited its disposal options to the transfer station at a cost of $43 per ton. This cost was calculated earlier in the background section on disposal. The $43 per ton compared to the $22 per ton tipping fee at a private landfill in McMinn County, which appears to be the most common alternative that cities are using, results in a disposal cost difference of $164,178 (calculated at 7,818 tons per year (1,303 trips per year at six tons per trip) times $21). This cost difference covers the cost of operating the transfer station (a one person job at most) and transporting the solid waste to the Birchwood Landfill (another or the same one person job) and the difference in per ton tipping fee between the two landfills, which is $8 or $62,544 per year. Subtracting this tipping fee difference from the $164,178 leaves a net operating cost of $101,634 for the transfer station. 4 Brush and trash collection and disposal: As stated, the brush collection system is virtually a manual system with all brush being collected by hand and loaded into rear loading packer trucks. All trash that can be transported through the transfer station is collected with the solid waste collection system. White goods collected by private vendors and construction debris associated with a contractor are suppose to be removed respectively by the private vendor or the contractor according to the East Ridge Municipal Code, section 17-112. Other construction debris is the responsibility of the homeowner according to Section 17-113 of the Municipal Code. In essence the City is not suppose to collect construction or contractor related debris. This is possibly being violated from time to time, especially with brush resulting from commercial tree trimming. The City also has cut standards in its Municipal Code, Section 17-110, but these do not appear to be enforced. In fiscal year 1999/2000 the City collected 598 loads of brush at approximately three tons per load as compared to six tons per load of solid waste. That is an average of 11.5 loads per week or 2.3 loads per day. Of course, this average will be higher at times and lower at times, however, when it is average or below and the City is operating with three collection crews, each crew is averaging less than a load per day. The streets may be clean and therefore the operation is very effective, but it is not very efficient. Optimum staffing for this system is three crews of three persons per crew with one additional person functioning as relief. In reality, these crews often operate with only two people due to sickness or vacation in the regular staffing for either the solid waste collection system personnel or the brush collection system personnel. The brush system is similar to the solid waste system in considering the critical factor of staffing or covering leave time. Vacation leave accrual for the brush system amounts to 42 weeks out of the year. This means that if only one person at a time took their vacation and no one was sick throughout the year, almost one additional FTE would be required to cover vacation time. This factor needs to be kept in mind as we consider recommendations. The general cost of this brush collection system is as follows: Salaries $223,609 represents cost for 10 brush personnel which are 41% of the total personnel costs Benefits 94,247 41% of total benefit costs Administration 32,825 50% of department costs only Operating costs 52,217 50% of total operating costs ________ Total costs $402,898 Tires are collected at the Hamilton County Tire Center on Standiford Gap Road and any tires collected by the crews in their collection route are dropped off at the center. Recommendations: The following recommendations are not in any order of priority. Solid waste collection: 5 1. Containerize as much of the commercial customers as possible into front end loading containers and privatize that service for those customers. The remaining commercial customers would all be containerized on the 90 to 120-gallon carts. Loose material, including cardboard boxes would be prohibited. 2. Containerize all apartments from fourplexes on up into front end loading containers and privatize that service for those customers. This improves efficiency and eliminates the inequity existing in the current system, with some apartment complexes receiving free City service and others paying for private service. It is assumed that all apartment complexes could take advantage of the free City service, but that is not a recommended direction for the City. 3. Option 1, if nothing changes in the collection system, review the existing residential solid waste route with the intent of maximizing daily collections. This may sound ludicrous given the size of the current routes, but efficiency can be improved if some of the long runs from one part of the City to another (i.e. the third route on Monday) are corrected. 4. Option 2, begin an incremental process of modifying the City=s collection system. The background and analysis clearly show the City is providing a service level (twice a week collection) that is in excess of service need and possibly political demand. Seventy-six percent (76%) of the Tennessee cities above 10,000 population provide only once a week service. If East Ridge=s service level is in excess of need, and it clearly is, then the City should consider redirecting those precious tax dollars in directions of higher need. As the first step in incremental change, it is recommended the City purchase a Asatellite@ truck to correct the existing problems with dead-end streets. It is acknowledged that the current drivers do exceedingly well in maneuvering the 20-yard trucks in and out of these dead-end streets, but a one person satellite truck would be just as effective and significantly more efficient. This truck should be a single axle chassis with a 6 cubic yard or more side loading box, equipped with semi-automated (cart flippers) capability. Ideally it should have a Awalk-thru@ cab, but that is not critical. The price for such a vehicle will be around $60,000. If the City decides to pursue this recommendation, we would recommend a capital budget item of $70,000 for fiscal year 2001-2002, and MTAS is willing to help with specification development and assisting with the purchase process. If this recommendation is implemented along with recommendation number 3, all dead-end streets should be assigned to this satellite truck. 5. The second step in changing the collection process is to convert to once-a-week collection. This is strongly recommended because the need doesn=t justify twicea-week service and conversion will free up the most tax dollars. The analysis showed that on any given collection day, half of the customers were underutilizing the service. This means those customers could have waited until the next collection day, which would result in once-a-week service. It should be acknowledged that the difficulty in converting to once-a-week service will not be dealing with the service need, but dealing with the political demand. 6. The third step after converting to once-a-week service will be to determine the 6 collection methodology. We recommend staying with the manual collection system, but with modifications. We recommend converting all collection to a bagged system. These would be plastic bags, preferably of a certain strength and capacity (maximum size limit would be 45 lbs or 2.0 mil. in strength, but the more optimum size would be 25 lbs or 1.5 mil. in strength) and could be sold through all of the local stores. Using bags of a limited size results in the fastest manual collection system available. The loaders are able to Agrab and throw@ and move on to the next stop. They don=t have to replace the can and the lid or go through the dumping cycle and replace the cart. Using bags with strength standards and weight limit restrictions should not have a negative impact on the City=s worker=s compensation claims. Furthermore, using bags eliminates cans or carts being left at the curb for days after the collection is completed. It is acknowledged that using bags poses a risk of dogs or other animals tearing into the bags and scattering solid waste on the streets, but there are inexpensive products that can be made available to the citizens to prevent this. The City would work with local merchants to ensure citizens had a wide variety of bags available from which to choose. 7. If the City converts to once-a-week collection and uses the bagged system, it is recommended the collection structure be as follows: (a) three crews of two persons using the existing rear loading packers, plus one satellite truck and a crew of one, for a total of seven employees, or (b) two crews of three persons using the existing rear loading packers, plus one satellite truck and a crew of one, for a total of seven employees. Either option would reduce the current staffing level for solid waste collection by five positions and would allow the City to either save or redirect approximately $129,000 (includes the five lowest paid positions in solid waste) in resources. Capital costs to make this conversion would be limited to the $70,000 for a satellite truck addressed in recommendation number 4. This conversion would allow the City to fully utilize its current equipment detailed on page 16. It is acknowledged that some of the $129,000 in savings would be needed to cover vacation and sick leave, but that might best be resolved on a broader basis than solid waste by itself. Assuming a customer count of 8,367 (based on the 1990 federal census), potential route size recommendations, based on a five day work week, are as follows: (a) one satellite crew-collecting 260 to 300 customers per day, includes all dead-end streets and the remaining commercial customers. three rear loading two person crews-collecting 470 customers per day each. This would convert the City from eight routes to 20 7 routes per week. (b) one satellite crew-collecting 700 to 750 customers per day, includes all dead-end streets and the remaining commercial customers. two rear loading three person crews- collecting 700 to 750 customers per day each. This would convert the City from eight routes to 15 routes per week. The major cost difference between the two options would be the cost of operating and maintaining the third rear loading truck. A conservative calculation of the overall savings of these recommendations would be: Current Operation Costs Modified Operating Costs Amortized Capital Costs Solid Waste Collection Net Savings $483,518 - 354,518 - 11,666 ________ $117,334 8. It is recommended the City review and modify Chapter 1 of Title 17 of the East Ridge Municipal Code. Modifications are required if the City adopts many of the recommendations above, and the code after modifications will have to be enforced. The code already classifies apartment complexes of four or more units as commercial, but the option for City service should be removed. All aspects dealing with containers will need to be modified if the City accepts the recommendations for a bagged system. 9. It is recommended that further steps to mechanize the City=s collection system be postponed until recommendations 1 through 8 are fully implemented and functioning for 2 to 3 years. Further mechanization would include semiautomated or fully automated systems or a combination. A go slow approach and a more detailed study (routes, terrain, cart placement, etc.) is recommended before serious consideration is given to either of these possibilities. Given the limitations on many of the City=s streets, amount of non-curbed streets and the impact on department personnel, either of these options needs to be phased in over time. Solid waste disposal: 1. Calculate the cost of the City of East Ridge operating the Hamilton County Transfer Station. Our estimated costs would be one person at $50,000 per year 8 salary and benefits included, plus another $10,000 in operation and maintenance costs. Maintenance would be limited to routine cleaning, oiling, greasing and limited parts replacement. 2. Calculate the cost difference to the City, if it operated the transfer station, but the County continued to provide transportation to the landfill. Estimated calculations would be as follows: Projected annual City costs Current costs per load at the transfer station $260x1,303 loads per year Less tipping fee at landfill for 7,818 tons Less projected operating costs Net savings $338,780 - 234,540 - 60,000 ________ $ 44,240 3. Approach Hamilton County about the possibility of East Ridge operating the transfer station at no cost to the County, other than major repair parts (to be defined) in exchange for the County continuing to provide transport service for the transfer station, but at no cost to the City. In addition to operating the transfer station, the City would pay the tipping fee on all solid waste transported to the landfill from the transfer station. 4. Continue or revise the County=s charging policies for private or non city use of the transfer station. 5. Consolidate the three functions of brush management (currently handled by the 10th person in the brush collection system), operation of the transfer station and recycle center attendant into two positions. Current costs are $37,811.16 for brush management, $9,360 for the recycle center and an unknown cost for the transfer station. Total known costs are $47,171 plus X dollars for transfer station operation. Proposed costs are $40,000 for brush management and $60,000 for the transfer station for a total of $100,000. This should be a high estimate. 6. If the County rejects the above proposal, consider proposing the County give the transfer station to the City for a multi-year agreement that the City will operate the station and make it available to County residents; possibly for the remaining life of the bonds on the station, if such exist. If the County accepts, be sure the agreement doesn=t obligate East Ridge to use the Chattanooga landfill. 7. If recommendation 6 is implemented, explore options of using other and less expensive landfills i.e. the private landfill in McMinn County. 9 8. If the County rejects both proposals, investigate the possibility of installing a loose dumping transfer station in the Aold pit burner@ site, acquiring transport trailers and contracting with Collegedale or a private trucking company to transport the City=s solid waste to the landfill of the City=s choosing. Brush and trash collection: 1. The number one recommendation for brush collection is to go to a mechanized system. The current system is labor intensive and substantial resources can be saved or redirected, if the system is mechanized. Again, it is recommended that an incremental approach be taken to implement these changes. 2. It is recommended the City convert its brush and trash collection to every two weeks. This would result in dividing the City into 10 routes for brush and trash collection. 3. Citizens should be made fully aware of the brush and trash collection day and the Municipal Code should be amended to limit placing brush and trash at the curb to no more than 48 hours prior to the collection day. 4. If the recommendation for mechanization is accepted, it is recommended the City purchase a knuckle-boom mounted on a stake body dump truck with an 18 or 20 foot bed. The projected cost on this piece of equipment is $90,000. Again, MTAS is willing to assist the City in specification development and in the purchasing process. This unit will allow the City to mechanically collect brush in any part of the City including the dead end streets. Staffing for this unit is two persons. 5. If this piece of equipment is purchased, it is suggested the bed be modified to allow closing gates within the bed that would allow for segregation of trash from brush. If there is not any trash on the route, the gates would be left open and the total load would be devoted to brush. 6. With the purchase of the above piece of equipment, it is recommended that new routes be developed on an incremental basis by developing a route one day at a time. Presumably these routes would be a combination and/or modification of the solid waste collection routes. 7. In addition to the purchase above, also purchase a 20-foot, 24-cubic yard hydraulic brush trailer. This type of unit is tongue towed and can be towed by any type of one ton truck. The City might want to consider a goose neck design for greater maneuverability. The acquisition of this trailer will allow the unit in 10 recommendation number 4 to double as a loader for this trailer and provide both general day-to-day relief and specialized relief during the heavy brush season. The cost of this unit for budget purposes is approximately $20,000 plus the cost of the tow vehicle, which can have multiple purposes. If for instance the City acquired a one ton dump truck (approximate budget cost $35,000), it would have a great multi-use vehicle. Staffing for this unit is one person. 8. Based on the figures used in the analysis, the City is currently collecting an average of 2.3 loads of brush per day in the rear loading packer trucks. If that volume continues, then the combination of recommendations 6 and 7 should be adequate to collect all of the City=s brush. As a safety measure, it is recommended the City purchase an additional trailer beyond the one recommended in recommendation number 7. An existing street vehicle could be converted to serve as the tow vehicle for this trailer. Staffing, when this trailer is needed, would be one person. 9. It is recommended the City retain the remaining 20 yard rear loading brush trucks and staff until the routing size is determined and finalized. Once that is accomplished, it is suggested that the five oldest rear loading packer trucks be surplus or converted to other uses for the City (no suggestions on this option). It is also suggested the City reduce or redirect six of its current 10 employees from brush collection. Cost savings or reallocated resources would be $162,898 annually. A conservative calculation of the overall savings of these recommendations would be: Current Operating Costs Modified Operating Costs Amortized Capital Costs (8yrs life) 10. $402,898 - 256,250 - 16,250 ________ $130,398 It is recommended the City surplus the Aold pit burner@. There should be a market for such an item and MTAS might assist in researching the market. Cumulative annual savings of these recommendations, calculated on a conservative basis would be: Service Solid Waste Collection Solid Waste Disposal Brush Collection Annual Savings $117,334 44,240 130,398 11 _______ $291,972 Total Savings Solid waste fees: As noted earlier in this report, East Ridge is in a minority status by not charging a monthly solid waste collection fee. In fact, for cities providing twice-a-week collection service it stands alone in not charging a monthly fee. It is the recommendation of this study that East Ridge impose a solid waste collection fee to recover the costs of solid waste collection and disposal (not including brush). For current operations the fee would need to be: Solid waste collection operating costs $483,518 Solid waste disposal costs 338,780 ________ Total costs $822,298 Divided by (8,108 residential + 279 commercial = 8,387 customers) ________ Costs per customer per year $97.92 Divided by 12 months ________ Cost per customer per month $8.16 For operations with recommendations the fee would be: Solid waste collection operating costs Solid waste disposal costs Total costs Divided by (8,108 residential + 279 commercial = 8,387 customers) Costs per customer per year Divided by 12 months $366,184 294,360 ________ $660,544 ________ $78.66 ________ Cost per customer per month $6.55 EXISTING SOLID WASTE COLLECTION EQUIPMENT MODEL YEAR 2000 1998 1995 TRUCK NO. 19 23 21 ASSIGNMENT Refuse Refuse Refuse 12 CONDITION New Very Good Very Good 1989 1988 1984 1982 1975 1973 26 25 22 24 20 18 Refuse Extra for Refuse Extra for Refuse and Brush Extra for Refuse and Brush Brush Brush Good Good Fair Fair Fair Fair 1972 17 Brush Fair