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