packet - transportation and infrastructure subcommittee ... · subcommittee and to the general...

1

NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING PHOENIX CITY COUNCIL

TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUBCOMMITTEE Pursuant to A.R.S. Section 38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the PHOENIX CITY COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUBCOMMITTEE and to the general public, that the PHOENIX CITY COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUBCOMMITTEE will hold a meeting open to the public on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., located at Phoenix City Hall, 1st Floor Atrium, Assembly Rooms A, B, & C, 200 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona. One or more Subcommittee members may participate via teleconference. The agenda for the meeting is as follows (items may be discussed in a different sequence than posted): 1. Call to Order Chair Williams 2. Review and Approval of the February 10, 2015

Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee Meeting Minutes.

Page 3

Items 3 – 5 are for information, discussion and possible action. 3. Reimagine Phoenix Solid Waste Program Update

This report provides an update to the Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Subcommittee on the Reimagine Phoenix solid waste programs as well as information on the results of the initial phase of the Waste Characterization Study and proposed strategies for increased waste diversion. It also requests Subcommittee recommendation for City Council approval of measures to expand diversion efforts. This item is for information, discussion and possible action.

John Trujillo, Public Works 1

4. Resource Innovation Campus This report provides the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee with information on the development of the Resource Innovation Campus and related projects, including the City’s Resource Innovation and Solutions Network partnership with Arizona State University, Reimagine Phoenix Call for Innovators, Transforming Trash into Resources Request for Proposals, and innovative funding opportunities. This item is for information, discussion and possible action.

John Trujillo, Public Works Page 59

2

5. Recycling and Diversion Collection for the Commercial and Multi-Family Sectors This report provides information to the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on commercial recycling and diversion collection for businesses and multi-family housing. This item is for information, discussion and possible action.

John Trujillo, Public Works Page 63

6. Call to the Public: Consideration, discussion, and concerns from the public. Those wishing to address the Subcommittee need not request permission in advance. Action taken as a result of the public comment will be limited to directing staff to study the matter or rescheduling the matter for further consideration and decision at a later date.

Chair Williams

7. Request for Future Agenda Items Chair Williams 8. Adjournment Chair Williams For further information, please call Rita Marko, Management Assistant, City Manager’s Office, at 602-262-7684 or Gabriel Morales at 602-534-9222. 7-1-1 Friendly Persons paid to lobby on behalf of persons or organizations other than themselves shall register with the City Clerk prior to lobbying or within five business days thereafter, and must register annually to continue lobbying. If you have any questions about registration or whether or not you must register, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 602-262-6811. For reasonable accommodations, call Rita Marko at 602-262-7684 or Gabriel Morales at 602-534-9222 as early as possible to coordinate needed arrangements. 7-1-1 Friendly March 18, 2015

3

Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, March 24, 2015, Item #2

Phoenix City Council Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee

Summary Minutes Tuesday, February 10, 2015

City Council Subcommittee Room Phoenix City Hall, Assembly Rooms A, B, and C 200 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona Subcommittee Members Present Subcommittee Members Absent Councilwoman Thelda Williams, Chair None Councilman Bill Gates Councilwoman Kate Gallego Councilwoman Laura Pastor Staff Present Staff Present Public Present Public Present Megan Neal Penny Parella Rita Marko Rick Naimark Karen Peters Maria Hyatt Ray Dovalina Ken Dessler Kevin Teng Thomas Godbee Jessica Welch Joe Bowar Jesus Sapien

Chris Fazio Robert Ashton Herb Munoz Kini Knudson Mani Kuman Mark Melnychenko

Abraham James Maria Baier Tony Motola Howard May Chris Nipal Walt Gray Sonya Pastor LaSota Don Kent Frank McCune Wulf Grote Terry Gruver Howard Steere Jack Pisano Marty Shultz

Bill Scheel Dianne Barker Shannon Scutari Chelsen Colliage John Farry Greg Walker Eric Emmert Haley Ritter Diane E. Brown Sandra Ferniza Reid Butler Jim Shuman Mary Peters

1. Call to Order Chairwoman Williams called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. with Councilman Gates, Councilwoman Gallego and Councilwoman Pastor present.

2. Review and Approval of the January 13, 2015 Transportation and

Infrastructure Subcommittee Meeting Minutes. Councilman Gates moved to approve the minutes from the January 13, 2015

Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee meeting. Councilwoman Pastor seconded the motion, which passed 4-0.

3. Metro, Regional Public Transportation Authority, and Maricopa Association of

Governments Meetings This item was for information only.

4

Dianne Barker stated that the City of Phoenix needs to have a balanced regional transit system.

4. Citizens Committee on the Future of Phoenix Transportation

Recommendation Chairwoman Williams thanked the Citizens Committee on the Future of Phoenix Transportation (Transportation Committee) for all of their work. Mary Peters, Transportation Committee Co-Chair, summarized the successes and challenges associated with the Transit 2000 (T2000) plan and sales tax. She noted that prior to T2000, the City had reduced transit services and no light rail. She stated that since the beginning of T2000, the City constructed a very successful light rail system, and expanded transit service throughout the City. Ms. Peters added that significant progress was made with T2000; however, as a result of two recessions, there is an overall anticipated funding shortfall of $1 billion that will limit the implementation of many aspects of the plan.

Councilman Gates asked if the shortfall figure is based on the total estimated revenue of the T2000 plan. Ms. Peters stated that it is based on total through the life of the plan.

Ms. Peters stated that the City Council created the 34-member Transportation Committee to develop a plan for the future of transportation in the City of Phoenix. Ms. Peters summarized the steps the Committee followed to develop the recommended transportation plan. She noted that more than 100 public meetings were held and more than 3,700 residents were engaged to determine the community’s vision for the future of the City of Phoenix’s transportation system. She highlighted the use of talktransportation.org – an online community collaboration forum. Ms. Peters stated that the common themes were improvements to light rail, bus rapid transit and streetcar service. She added that residents also desired more shaded areas along transit corridors, enhanced ADA accessibility, additional bike lanes, better walkability and street pavement improvement. Ms. Peters stated that based on community input, the Committee recommended a transportation plan that included the replacement of the City’s current sales tax with a 0.75 percent transit sales tax, that would not be permanent but not less than 30 years. She added that $2.4 billion of the transportation plan will be dedicated to fund streets maintenance projects, including more than doubling funds for street overlays. Ms. Peters added that the Committee also recommended the formation of a Transit and Streets Committee to oversee expenditures and address future innovative financing and funding mechanisms. Councilman Gates asked for the level of funding that will be dedicated to street overlays. Chairwoman Williams asked if the lifecycle of street maintenance would

5

decrease. Streets Transportation Director Ray Dovalina stated that approximately $50 million will be dedicated to street overlays and some analysis would need to be done to determine the impact of the additional funding on lifecycle maintenance.

Marty Shultz, Transportation Committee Co-Chair, thanked the Committee members for their efforts. Mr. Shultz stated that although the Committee is recommending a 0.75 percent sales tax, it is important for the City to evaluate multiple funding methods, such as private/public partnerships. He added that the Committee emphasized the need to develop a plan than considers regional connectivity and economic development. Mr. Shultz stated that the Committee’s transportation plan triples the current amount of light rail miles, adding that the return on investment will be approximately $40 billion. He added that the Committee’s recommendation would significantly increase bus and ADA Dial-A-Ride frequency.

Steve Banta, Valley Metro, stated that he is in full support of the Committee’s recommendation. He thanked the Committee and Public Transit Department staff for their efforts. He noted that the private sector and the federal government would be encouraged to hear that the City of Phoenix has a long-term plan and funding mechanism. He stated that he believes a static sales tax is more appealing to private sector investors. Walt Gray, Westside Town Hall Committee, stated that he does not believe that it is the right time to develop a transportation plan. He stated that he believes that an economic development plan should come first. He added that the Committee should evaluate the length of the transit tax. Dianne Barker thanked the Committee. She stated that she believes public input has been directed towards a specific outcome. She added that more input needs to be gathered from those that use transit. She also stated that she is not in favor of light rail at-grade because it causes traffic problems. Howard May stated that the Committee meetings should have been held during the day. He stated that he is advocating for the disabled community, adding some items that are part of the proposed transportation plan should be accelerated. Marcus Smith stated that he appreciates the efforts of the Committee. He stated that he would like to see expanded service beyond the Committee’s recommendation. He added that he would like to see increased frequency for Dial-A-Ride and an evaluation of the additional light rail miles to ensure they are placed strategically. Roy Miller, Transportation Committee member, expressed his thanks for being asked to serve on the Committee. He stated that the Committee’s recommendation has too much emphasis on light rail, bus, and transit-related street improvements. He stated that there was not enough emphasis on non-transit related streets improvements, and he added the Committee was not provided adequate information before it was asked to vote on the transportation plan. He stated that he

6

is opposed to tax increases, especially at a time when the City is down 300 police officers. He also added that the public input process did not allow for diverse perspectives. Greg Walker emphasized the importance of easy access to light rail stations. He stated that the light rail stations in Phoenix are more accessible than other cities, such as Seattle and Denver. Reid Butler, Butler Housing Company, stated that the recommended expansion of light rail is very important to the multi-family housing industry. He noted that mainstream apartment development is starting to influence the ridership levels on the light rail in a positive way. He added that high-quality apartment development and condominium development will be seen near light rail stations in the future. Sonya Pastor La Sota, Transportation Committee member, stated that the Committee was given the opportunity to review all information before it was asked to vote on the transportation plan. Chairwoman Williams asked how the costs of the Committee’s recommendations were calculated, and how was the growth rate determined. Deputy Public Transit Department Director Ken Kessler stated that the costs were calculated based on current costs, inflated over the 30 years of the tax period. He added that the growth rate and revenue was based on the Arizona Department of Transportation forecasts and historical growth rates.

Public Transit Director Maria Hyatt added that cash flow analysis factored into the costs associated with the transportation plan. Ms. Hyatt stated that there is an annual inflation cost factored into the figures as a contingency balance. She noted that there were lessons learned from the T2000 process, so staff wanted to ensure that they were conservative when calculating costs. She added that the transportation plan includes the potential financial impact of a recession. Chairwoman Williams stated that she is concerned about the new transportation plan because of the funding challenges of T2000. She wants to ensure that the costs for this plan are properly calculated. Chairwoman Williams stated that she supports the City’s Complete Streets initiative; however, she is concerned about streets infrastructure and believes more funding should be dedicated to repairing the City’s streets. Chairwoman Williams asked if Phase II of the Camelback light rail extension includes funding from the City of Glendale. Ms. Hyatt stated that this light rail extension only includes the City of Phoenix portion. Councilwoman Pastor asked staff to verify that the Phase II of the Camelback light rail extension will only include funding for the portion of the extension in Phoenix. Ms. Hyatt stated that this light rail extension would be a collaborative effort between the City of Glendale and City of Phoenix; however, Glendale will be responsible for funding its portion of the extension.

7

Chairwoman Williams stated that it is imperative to implement a transportation plan as the City of Phoenix needs to lead the way in developing a regional transportation system. Mr. Shultz reinforced the need for a comprehensive statewide transportation plan. He noted that Phoenix is taking the leadership role in transportation, which will persuade other cities to collaborate in developing a regional plan. He added that the Committee’s recommendation and development of a transportation plan will send a message to the private sector that Phoenix is focused on economic development. Councilwoman Gallego thanked the Committee and staff for their work. She asked if the transportation plan and sales tax would sunset in 2050. Mr. Kessler noted that the cost models are calculated based on the assumption that the transit tax will conclude in 2050.

Councilwoman Gallego asked if holiday service will be expanded as part of the transportation plan. Ms. Hyatt stated that holiday service is established by the region. She added that the transportation plan will provide funding for expanded service for certain holidays; however, the region will determine which holidays will have expanded service.

Councilwoman Gallego asked for more information regarding additional Dial-A-Ride service. Ms. Hyatt stated that federal law requires that if fixed route service increases, Dial-A-Ride service will increase to support it. She further stated that the transportation plan includes 20 percent in additional Dial-A-Ride enhancements. Councilwoman Gallego asked if Phase II of the Camelback light rail extension will be the last light rail extension completed as part of the transportation plan. Mr. Kessler stated that this extension will be one of the last extensions to be completed. Councilwoman Gallego asked if funding for Complete Streets can be used for sidewalks. Mr. Dovalina stated that funding may be available for sidewalks along the transit corridor or perpendicular to the transit corridor.

Councilman Gates thanked the Committee for all of their work. He stated that the transportation plan is one of the most significant items presented to the City Council during his tenure, and he wants to ensure that it is properly vetted. He added that there was no need to rush this plan as the current transit sales tax does not expire until 2020. Councilman Gates asked how much the current transit sales tax would generate over 30 years. Mr. Kessler stated that the current transit sales tax rate would generate approximately $10 billion over 30 years. Councilman Gates asked how much the sales tax would generate for the new transportation plan. Mr. Kessler stated that the tax would generate approximately $17.5 billion.

8

Ms. Hyatt summarized the anticipated source of funds for the new transportation plan over 30 years, noting that $17.5 billion will come from the transit sales tax. Councilman Gates asked for a breakdown of funding provided by the current transit sales tax, and the impact of the new transit sales tax. Ms. Hyatt provided the breakdown of funds from the T2000 plan and the sales tax revenue from the proposed transportation plan. Councilwoman Pastor stated that she is in support of the transportation plan; however, she wants to ensure that funding for the plan was conservatively calculated and residents input was adequately considered.

Councilman Gates asked for fare box recovery statistics for light rail and bus service compared to other cities. Ms. Hyatt provided a chart comparing the fare box recovery of several cities. Steve Banta, Valley Metro, provided additional information regarding fare box recovery, noting that Valley Metro is implementing new processes to increase fare box recovery, such as increased fare enforcement.

Councilman Gates stated that the he was pleased funds from the transportation plan would be dedicated to street maintenance. Mr. Dovalina stated that funding in the plan will include streets maintenance for the transit corridors throughout the city. Mr. Naimark added that funding from the transportation plan would more than double the current funding for street maintenance.

Chairwoman Williams stated that she would support the transportation plan; however, she would like the plan to be limited to 30 years, and she would like to eliminate item 4. Councilman Gates stated that the transportation plan should not be rushed, because the current transit sales tax does not expire until 2020. He added that further discussion is needed before the transportation plan is approved to move forward to the City Council. Chairwoman Williams stated that the new transportation plan was developed to address funding challenges that the City’s transit and street systems are currently experiencing. Mr. Naimark noted that the transportation plan would need to be approved by the City Council by mid-April to be placed on the August 2015 ballot.

Councilman Gates stated that he would like staff to provide the Subcommittee with additional information and options before approving the plan to move forward to the City Council. Chairwoman Williams stated that the Subcommittee will have a special meeting to review the transportation plan once the plan includes recommended changes and staff provides additional information requested by the Subcommittee members.

9

5. Public Transit Department Capital Improvement Program Item was continued 6. Street Transportation Department 5-Year Capital Improvement Project Update Item was continued 7. Call to the Public

Walt Gray asked for the City to re-evaluate the process it uses for public meetings. Howard May stated that he would like to see the City enhance collaboration with other cities when establishing new transit routes. He added that the Next Ride signs in transit stations need to be more visible and at a proper level for those who are disabled. Hailey Ritter stated that she is in support of the transportation plan.

8. Request for Future Agenda Items

None 9. Adjournment Chairwoman Williams adjourned the meeting at 11:18 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Gabriel Morales Management Intern

10

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

11


CITY COUNCIL REPORT

TO: Rick Naimark Deputy City Manager

FROM: John A. Trujillo Public Works Director

SUBJECT: REIMAGINE PHOENIX SOLID WASTE PROGRAM UPDATE

This report provides an update to the Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Subcommittee on the Reimagine Phoenix solid waste programs as well as information on the results of the initial phase of the Waste Characterization Study and proposed strategies for increased waste diversion. It also requests Subcommittee recommendation for City Council approval of measures to expand diversion efforts. THE ISSUE In February 2013, the Mayor and City Council established a citywide goal to divert 40 percent of solid waste by the year 2020. In an effort to improve the City’s diversion rate of 16 percent, the Public Works Department (PWD) launched Reimagine Phoenix. This initiative focuses on offering new solid waste services, increased education and community outreach, and the creation of public and private partnerships centered on developing waste diversion strategies. OTHER INFORMATION Through continuous achievement of efficiencies and savings, Public Works has successfully maintained the current monthly solid waste fee of $26.80 for the past seven years. Recent efficiencies include continuing transition of refuse vehicles from diesel to Compressed Natural Gas, downsizing heavy equipment, and conversion to LED lighting at transfer stations. These efficiencies have resulted in a combination of one-time and continued savings of $1.8 million. Additionally, a new outbound scale house at the North Gateway Transfer Station was installed to decrease customer wait times. On February 19, 2014, the City Council approved the selection of Cascadia Consulting Group to conduct a Waste Characterization Study (see Attachment A) to analyze the composition of the City’s single-family residential contained garbage and recycling streams. The purpose of this study was to identify opportunities to increase diversion within the community and solid waste operations, and opportunities for business development. The first phase of the study was conducted in August 2014 and included a review of 130 garbage samples and 101 recycling samples throughout the city. Findings from the study showed nearly two-thirds or 65 percent of the garbage sampled could be diverted from the landfill, including 118,000 tons of compostable yard waste, 57,500 tons of curbside recyclable materials, and 56,500 tons of food waste. The 57,500 tons of curbside recyclable materials translates to more than $5 million in potential revenue, if properly recycled.

12

PWD has already implemented several measures to increase diversion from the waste stream, including the launch of two new programs and increased community outreach. On July 7, 2014, PWD launched the Curbside Green Organics Program and the “Save-As-You Reduce and Recycle” (SAY R&R) Program for single-family customers. Green Organics offers residents a weekly curbside collection of containerized compostable yard waste on a voluntary, subscription basis for a monthly fee of $5. Phase I of Green Organics was offered to 150,000 residents across all eight council districts. The SAY R&R Program encourages curbside-service residents to downsize from a large trash container to a medium-sized trash container with the incentive of a $3 fee savings per month. Since launch, 3,605 residents are participating in the Green Organics Program and 5,916 residents are participating in the SAY R&R program. Of all compostable yard waste currently collected, 10 percent is being diverted through the new Green Organics program. To promote participation of Green Organics, staff will conduct additional marketing and expansion efforts, focusing on residents within the current implementation area that have large lots or additional trash containers. Expansion will focus on five areas within and near the current boundaries based on two factors: current high participation and larger amounts of compostable yard waste based on the Waste Characterization Study. PWD has also increased outreach efforts through a variety of outlets including social media, Phoenix At Your Service newsletters, Council District newsletters and community meetings, and at neighborhood meetings throughout the year organized by the Neighborhood Services Department. PWD is exploring the following strategies to continue to maximize waste diversion efforts:

• Expansion of the current plastic bag program, Bag Central Station. • “Pay-As-You Throw” options that provide incentives to customers to recycle

more. • Enhanced community outreach, including the use of automated outreach, Mind

Mixer and media buys. Expand Bag Central Station The single use plastic bag came into the waste stream in the mid-1970s via grocery, convenience and other retail stores. The City’s recent waste characterization study shows that approximately 4,667 tons of plastic bags (grocery/merchandise) are disposed of annually by Phoenix residents. Plastic bags present many challenges such as litter, damaging equipment used to sort recyclables, and their effect on lowering the value of recyclables due to contamination. In 2007, staff worked with the Arizona Food Marketing Alliance (AFMA) and various Phoenix retailers to create Bag Central Station –Where Plastic Bags Belong voluntary plastic bag recycling program. With this program, Phoenix became the first city in Arizona to address the challenges associated with plastic bags without bans, taxes or fees. Other approaches to address the challenges with plastic bags have been implemented in other jurisdictions. For example, California recently approved a ban on single use grocery bags and a ten cent fee for paper bags in order to standardize the various

13

bans/fees currently in place in more than 200 communities throughout California, including Los Angeles and San Francisco. Several other communities have instituted fees or taxes to fund clean-up programs or change resident behavior such as Washington, DC, Austin and Laredo, Texas, and countries such as Ireland, France, Nepal and China. In Arizona, only Bisbee has banned the use of single use plastic bags. Tempe, Tucson and Flagstaff have implemented the Bag Central Station approach either through resolution or by ordinance. AFMA members have continued to use the Bag Central Station program for collection of plastic bags and wrap from stores statewide in each chain. In response to a request at the March 25, 2014, City Council Policy Meeting, Public Works staff has researched implementation of a tax or fee for plastic grocery bags as a revenue source. However, grocery/merchandise bags account for less than one percent of the total tonnage collected in residents’ trash and recycling containers. Although bans and taxes are an expedient way of dealing with the challenges of plastic bags, many cities/states have had to put plastic bag bans on ballots for repeal due to citizen referendums on consumer choice and/or reduction of jobs in the plastic bag industry, including most recently California. Through the City's participation in the Bag Central Station program, studies in 2007 and 2012 show a decrease in the use of plastic bags (86 percent to 62 percent), an increase in the use of reusable bags (7 percent to 28 percent), and a 65 percent awareness of bins for recycling plastic bags. Based on research, discussion with our partners, and success of Bag Central Station, staff does not recommend a tax or fee for grocery/merchandise bags as a revenue source at this time. However, to reduce the volume of plastic material (i.e., grocery and merchandise bags, other clean bags such as bread, produce and dry-cleaning bags) found in the waste stream, staff is proposing to expand the Bag Central Station program by increasing partnerships with a goal of 20 percent reduction by 2020. The goal will be met through continued outreach and education efforts with grocers and retailers and outreach to industries beyond grocers that use bags. Since Spring 2014, staff has expanded focus beyond grocery stores to partner with other retailers (Arizona Retailers Association), the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, Keep Phoenix Beautiful and the Arizona Restaurant Association. These partners have expressed support for outreach and campaign efforts to reduce plastic bags found in trash and recycling containers and increase collection sites to include retail and convenience stores.

“Pay-As-You Throw” (PAYT) “Pay-As-You Throw” (PAYT) is a usage-pricing model for disposing of municipal solid waste. In PAYT programs (also known as trash metering, unit pricing, variable-rate pricing or user-pay), residents are charged for the collection of municipal solid waste based on the amount they throw away. This creates a direct economic incentive to recycle more and to generate less waste. Traditionally, residents pay for waste collection through property taxes or a fixed fee, regardless of how much—or how little—trash they generate. PAYT treats trash services like electricity, gas, and other utilities. Households pay a variable rate depending on the amount of service they receive.

14

Most communities with PAYT programs charge residents a fee for each bag or can of waste they generate. In successful programs, residents are charged based on the size of their container with the price difference from 20 to 30 percent. In a small number of communities, residents are billed based on the volume of their trash. Phoenix residents are charged $26.80 for 90-gallon (traditional) containers and 300-gallon alley containers and $23.80 for 65-gallon containers. The newly implemented SAY R&R program is a modified version of a PAYT program, allowing Phoenix residents to elect to have a smaller 65-gallon trash container instead of the traditional 90-gallon trash container resulting in a $3 monthly savings for SAY R&R participants. An expanded PAYT program might vary costs or savings based on container size, curbside collection versus alleys, and other options such as smaller trash containers in an effort to encourage diversion. Tucson, Austin, San Jose, Long Beach, San Francisco, and Mesa use PAYT programs based on a fee-for-service model. Staff recommends conducting additional research and development of costing models to determine the impact of possible PAYT changes to solid waste customers, operations and revenue. Once the analysis has been completed, staff will return to the Subcommittee with a more specific recommendation. Outreach and Marketing The City of Phoenix has been in the recycling business for more than 25 years. The waste characterization study shows that nearly 15 percent or 57,493 tons of the trash collected through residential garbage, such as paper, metals, glass and plastics are recyclable through the City’s current recycling program. In the current residential recycling collection, 21 percent or 21,447 tons of the material contains contaminates including textiles, plastic film, purchased food, and food soiled paper products. Staff works throughout the year to educate residents about recycling through school presentations, transfer station tours, neighborhood meetings, community events, the City’s website, mass mailings, billboards and interviews with media. Over the past year, staff has:

• Made 107 school presentations to 12,209 students; • Provided 115 transfer station tours to 3,067 individuals of all ages; • Attended 40 special events with 440,929 people in attendance; and, • Participated in 188 community events with more than 28,942 residents, including

neighborhood meetings.

Given the current recycling and contamination rate, additional work is needed to raise awareness among residents regarding the importance and benefits of recycling as well as to increase participation in the SAY R&R and Green Organics programs. The Behavior Research Center Solid Waste Customer Survey is a useful tool that measures residents’ satisfaction with the weekly garbage/recyclable material collection services they receive from the City and its contractors. The survey incorporates questions to better understand why customers are or are not participating in the Green Organics or SAY R&R programs. This feedback provides staff efficient and timely insights on how to expand and improve these programs rather than anecdotal observations. Staff would like to explore options for survey research services.

15

Without survey research services, it will be challenging for staff to refine our message and marketing plan. Staff would also like to explore options for purchasing media using internal resources. A media buyer services contract would allow for an existing network of contacts, values and bulk rates. However, the City does not currently have a media buyer services contract. Although using existing internal resources would not require additional staff, it will limit the marketing opportunities otherwise available through a media buyer service, resulting in extended time to establish contacts, no additional values and no bulk rates. Staff is also exploring options such as the use of automated outreach, Mind Mixer application and grassroots outreach to increase participation in Phase I of the Curbside Green Organics Program to achieve a five percent participation rate in FY14/15. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests the T&I Subcommittee recommend City Council approval to:

1) Expand the Bag Central Station program by increasing partnerships with a goal of 20 percent reduction by 2020. The goal will be met through continued outreach and education efforts with grocers, restaurants and retailers.

2) Issue a Request for Proposals for survey research services for the Public Works Department to conduct a customer satisfaction survey on an annual basis.

3) Use existing internal staff and funding to purchase media to raise community awareness of City diversion programs.

Further, staff requests direction to further research incentives and “Pay-As-You Throw” options that promote increased diversion and return recommendations to the T&I Subcommittee in the fall.

16

Introduction and Background Since 2008, nine of the ten largest cities in the country (including Phoenix) have begun comprehensive waste characterization studies. These world class cities have used the results to:

• Increase recycling revenue by diverting more commodities into the recycling stream,

• Save money on tip fees by reducing the quantity of materials heading to the landfill,

• Reduce the contamination in recycling loads through targeted education campaigns,

• Save money by optimizing their collections, processing, and transfer operations, and

• Develop local recycling markets and create new job in the recycling industry.

Increasing waste diversion is a high priority for the City of Phoenix: in early 2013, Mayor Stanton announced his goal to achieve a 40 percent landfill diversion rate by 2020. An important first step on the path to meeting this goal and increasing waste diversion is a well-informed analysis of the composition of Phoenix’s residential waste stream. The 2014 City of Phoenix Residential Waste Characterization Study will collect composition and quantity data that will help guide policy formation and program implementation as the city moves toward its goal of 40 percent diversion by 2020. This study is an update to the previous Phoenix waste characterization study completed in 2003. This memo summarizes the field work and key findings for the first season of this work, which occurred in August 2014.

Summary of Field Methods This study characterizes samples from the following two substreams:

• Residential Garbage – Garbage generated by single family residences located within the City of Phoenix. City collection vehicles collect these materials at the curb or in the alley.

• Residential Recycling – Recycling generated by single family residences located within the City of Phoenix. City collection vehicles collect these materials at the curb or in the alley.

For the first season of this study (August 2014), the field crew intended to collect and sort 130 garbage and 100 recycling samples over two weeks. Samples were approximately evenly allocated among sampling days and the 10 bid areas. Field work began on Monday 8/18 and wrapped up on Friday 8/29. Prior to beginning field work, the project team coordinated with the Public Works Department (PWD) staff to randomly select routes for sampling and

17

to ensure plans were in place to direct the pre-selected routes to the appropriate tip location for sampling and sorting. The field crew spent the week of 8/18 collecting and sorting samples at the North Gateway Transfer Station (NGTS) and the week of 8/25 at the 27th Avenue Transfer Station (27th Ave.). The sample goals and actual samples collected are shown in Table 1. The largest deviation from sample goals occurred on Tuesday 8/19, when sampling activities were cancelled around 9:00am due to torrential rains and regional flooding which delayed or postponed collections due to roadway closures leading to the transfer station. This weather resulted in consistently low Tuesday sample counts across all bid areas. The field crew collected additional samples for the rest of the August study period to meet the overall sampling targets.

The field crew hand sorted all samples into 84 material types, and weighed the sorted materials. The target weight for a garbage sample was 200 pounds and for a recycling sample it was 125 pounds. The average garbage sample weighed 218 pounds and the average recycling sample weighed 130 pounds. In 2003 the average garbage sample weight was 228 pounds. The 2003 study did not include any recycling samples. The list of material types and definitions used for this study is included in Appendix A. Material Definitions.

Summary of Findings

To quantify diversion opportunities, the project team grouped material types according to their recoverability, using four recoverability groups:

•

•

18

•

•

Each material type was assigned to one of the recoverability groups based on the definitions listed above. Appendix A. Material Definitions shows how material types are categorized into each recoverability group.

substream, bid area, and citywide are presented in Appendix B. Detailed Composition Tables. Garbage The composition of residential garbage at the citywide level is summarized in Figure 1 and Table 2. This composition data is based on 130 hand sorted samples. Tables in this section aggregate the 84 material types included in field sorting into 25 condensed material categories designed to showcase the curbside recyclables and compostable materials remaining in the garbage and to make the tables more readable when comparing the results between bid areas. Many, but not all, materials in the construction and demolition (C&D) category are included in the Other Recoverable group; because of this the purple slice of the pie in Figure 1 is greater than the sum of the purple rows in Table 2. Key findings for the citywide residential garbage substream include:

•

•

•

19

Bid Area Comparisons Compostable yard waste and food waste are the two most prevalent disposed materials in every bid area (and citywide). Among the bid areas, these materials combined range from nearly 39% of residential garbage in area G to approximately 53% of residential garbage in area E. Compostable paper is the third most prevalent material in the residential garbage everywhere except areas E, G, and H. Other recyclable paper is the third most prevalent material in E and H; non-compostable organics is the third most prevalent material in area G. Table 3 summarizes the summer sort composition by bid area.

20

As shown in Table 4, more than 60% of residential disposed garbage

21

Comparisons with 2003

Working with PWD staff, Cascadia designed the material list used in the current study to be comparable to the material list used in the 2003 study. Results in this section aggregate the 84 material types used in the 2014 study into a condensed list of 22 materials that nearly match the 2003 study and showcase the curbside recyclables and compostable materials in the garbage. The aggregations are shown in Appendix A. Material Definitions. The totals and subtotals shown in this section are slightly different than those in other sections because of changes to the material list between the 2003 and 2014 studies.1 Based on PWD provided tonnage information, the total quantity of garbage has decreased by approximately 10% since 2003 from nearly 435,000 tons to nearly 391,000 tons. The proportion of most recyclable or compostable materials also decreased between the 2003 and 2014 studies; exceptions include compostable paper, PET (#1) plastic, and compostable yard waste, all of which increased between studies. This information is detailed in Table 5. Compared to 2003, both the quantity of recyclable materials in the garbage and the proportion of garbage that is recyclable have decreased. In 2003, recyclables were nearly 19% of the garbage; in 2014, recyclables are nearly 13% of the garbage. The quantity of compostables in the residential garbage decreased from nearly 215,000 tons in 2003 to approximately 197,000 tons in 2014. This is due primarily to the overall reduction in garbage tonnage between the two studies, as the proportion of compostables in the garbage increased slightly from 2003 to 2014 (from 49.4% to 50.6%). See Table 6 for the comparison of the citywide garbage recoverability between study years.

23

Bulky Materials in the Garbage While in the field, the garbage sort crew noted loads that contained items too large or bulky for a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) to handle (appliances, furniture, tires, large stumps, concrete, etc.). The type of material and the number of items spotted were noted for all sampled loads. Of the 130 loads sampled in August 2014, four loads contained bulky items (3% of loads). There was one load from area A, one from area C, one from area H, and one from area J. The loads from areas A and H each contained one tire. The load from area C contained a large microwave and the load from area J contained a dishwasher.

24

Recycling

Tables in this section aggregate the 84 material types using during field sorting into 21 condensed material categories designed to showcase the acceptable and contaminant materials in the recycling substream and to make the tables more readable when comparing the results between bid areas. Many, but not all, materials in the construction and demolition (C&D) category are included in the Other Recoverable group; because of this the purple slice of the pie in Figure 2 is greater than the sum of the purple rows in Table 7. More than three quarters (80,435 tons) of the recycling substream is Curbside Recycle, mostly recyclable paper (55,307 tons). recycling

Figure 2 Approximately 21% of the recycling substream is contaminants, materials that should not be in the recycling bin. Citywide, the five most prevalent contaminant material types are:

• smaller than 2" in diameter including dirt, broken glass, bottle caps, loose shredded paper, and small pieces of food.

• pants, shirts, bed sheets, curtains, and towels. This does not include leather items.

•

•

• paper towels, paper plates, waxed paper, tissues, and other food service/food soiled paper products without a plastic coating.

The citywide recycling composition is summarized in Table 7. More detail on the recycling contamination is available in the Recycling Contamination section below.

25

Bid Area Comparisons

Table 8

26

Recycling Contamination

Citywide, the recycling contamination rate is approximately 21%. As shown in Table 9, the contamination rate ranges from less than 16% in area J to nearly one third (32.1%) in area A. Table 9 also summarizes the five most prevalent contaminant material types in each bid area and citywide. Non-distinct fines and textiles are the only material types in the top five in every bid area; citywide, they are the two most prevalent contaminants. Other film is in the top five in eight of the ten bid areas. Carpet/upholstery, disposable diapers, and contaminated wood each were in the top five in one bid area (areas E, G, and I respectively). The top five contaminants comprise between 45% and 62% of the total contamination in each bid area and citywide.

27

The five most prevalent contaminants in each bid area and citywide are shown in Table 10.

28

Appendix A. Material Definitions Paper

1. NEWSPAPER: Printed newsprint. Advertising “slicks” (glossy paper) are included in this category if found mixed with newspaper; otherwise, ad slicks are included with mixed low grade paper.

2. PLAIN OCC/KRAFT PAPER: Old unwaxed/uncoated corrugated container boxes and Kraft paper, and brown paper bags.

3. WAXED OCC/KRAFT PAPER: Old waxed/coated corrugated container boxes and Kraft paper, and brown paper bags.

4. HIGH GRADE PAPER: White or lightly colored sulfite/sulfate bond, copy papers, envelopes, and continuous-feed sulfite/sulfate/ground wood computer printouts and forms of all types. This is a combination of the 2003 types office paper and computer paper.

5. MIXED LOW GRADE PAPER: Low-grade, potentially recyclable papers, including junk mail, magazines, colored papers, bleached Kraft, boxboard, mailing tubes, carbonless copy paper, paperback books, paper egg creates, and telephone directories. This is a combination of the 2003 types mixed low grade and phone books.

6. MILK/JUICE POLYCOATED PAPER: Bleached polycoated milk, ice cream, and aseptic juice containers.

7. FROZEN FOOD POLYCOATED PAPER: Bleached and unbleached polycoated frozen/refrigerator packaging, excluding polycoated milk/ice cream/aseptic containers.

8. COMPOSTABLE/FOOD SOILED PAPER: Paper towels, paper plates, waxed paper, tissues, and other paper products without a plastic coating. The items may be food soiled.

9. PAPER/OTHER MATERIALS: Predominantly paper with other materials attached (e.g. orange juice cans and spiral notebooks) and other hard to recycle paper items such as carbon copy paper, hardcover books, and photographs. This is a combination of the 2003 types paper/other materials and other papers.

Plastic 10. #1 PET BOTTLES: Polyethylene terephthalate bottles. A bottle has a neck and a mouth narrower than the

base. Items may bear a #1 when labeled for recycling. This is approximately the same as the 2003 type PET pop and liquor bottles.

11. #1 PET OTHER PACKAGING: All non-bottle PET plastic packaging including tubs, jars, tray, and clamshells. This includes single use PET plastic cups. Items may bear a #1 when labeled for recycling. This is a combination of the 2003 types other PET bottles and the PET items in other rigid packaging.

12. #2 HDPE NATURAL BOTTLES: High-density polyethylene translucent bottles, often containing milk, juice, and beverage containers. A bottle has a neck and a mouth narrower than the base. Items may bear a #2 when labeled for recycling. This is approximately the same as the 2003 type HDPE milk and juice bottles.

13. #2 HDPE COLORED BOTTLES: High-density polyethylene colored or pigmented bottles. A bottle has a neck and a mouth narrower than the base. Examples include laundry detergent bottles and some gallon juice jugs. Items may bear a #2 when labeled for recycling. This is approximately the same as the 2003 type other HDPE bottles.

14. #2 HDPE OTHER PACKAGING: All non-bottle HDPE plastic packaging including tubs, jars, tray, and clamshells. An example is a ground coffee tub. Items may bear a #2 when labeled for recycling. This is a combination of the 2003 types HDPE jars and tubs and the HDPE items in other rigid packaging.

15. OTHER RIGID PLASTIC PACKAGING: Plastic bottles, jars, tubs, trays, clamshells, and other packaging not classified in the above-defined PET or HDPE categories; includes plastic packaging labeled #3-#7, unknown or unlabeled plastic packaging, and dual labeled plastic packaging but excludes all expanded polystyrene items and items labeled compostable. Examples include some shampoo bottles, dairy tubs, and single use plastic cups. This is a combination of the 2003 types other plastic bottles, jars, and tubs and other rigid packaging.

29

16. EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE: Includes packaging and finished products made of expanded polystyrene. Examples include packing peanuts, clamshells, trays, and packing blocks. Does not include rigid Styrofoam insulation.

17. COMPOSTABLE PLASTICS: Packaging made from compostable materials such as corn or potatoes, with the words “compostable” on the product. This is a new type.

18. PLASTIC GROCERY/MERCHANDISE BAGS: Plastic shopping bags used to contain merchandise to transport from the place of purchase, given out by the store with the purchase. Does not include dry cleaner bags. This does include grocery and merchandise bags reused for other purposes such as small trash bags. This is a new type.

19. OTHER CLEAN PLASTIC CONSUMER PRODUCT BAGS: Bread, produce, and dry cleaner plastic film bags. These are usually transparent and made of a single layer of film. Also includes Zip-Loc bags.

20. PLASTIC GARBAGE BAGS: Plastic garbage bags. This does not include single use shopping bags reused as garbage bags.

21. OTHER PLASTIC FILM: All other film items, including film packaging not defined elsewhere, plastic sheeting, photographic negatives, and shower curtains. This includes multi-layer and opaque food packaging such as chip bags, candy bar wrappers, frozen food bags, etc.

22. MIXED RIGID PLASTICS: Plastic products intended for long term use or for to be reused multiple times. Examples include toys, milk crates, plastic pallets, plastic pipes, and buckets. Includes fiberglass resin products and materials.

23. PLASTIC/OTHER MATERIALS: Predominately plastic with other materials attached such as disposable razors, pens, lighters, toothbrushes, hoses, and 3-ring binders.

Glass 24. GLASS BEVERAGE CONTAINERS: Includes any color pop, liquor, wine, juice, beer, and food bottles,

jars, and containers. This is a combination of the 2003 clear, green, and brown beverage container types and the 2003 container glass type.

25. FLUORESCENT TUBES: Fluorescent light tubes and compact fluorescent bulbs.

26. OTHER GLASS: Window glass, light bulbs (except fluorescent tubes), mirrors, glassware, and any other glass item that does not fit into a category above.

Metal 27. ALUMINUM CANS: Aluminum beverage cans (UBC) and bi-metal cans made mostly of aluminum. This

does not include aluminum food containers or cat food containers.

28. ALUMINUM FOIL/CONTAINERS: All other aluminum food containers, trays, and foil. This type includes cat food containers.

29. OTHER NONFERROUS: Metals not derived from iron, to which a magnet will not adhere, and which are not significantly contaminated with other metals or materials, including metal products and scrap such as window frames and cookware. This is a combination of the 2003 types other nonferrous and other aluminum.

30. TIN FOOD CANS: Tinned steel food containers, including bi-metal cans mostly of steel. Does not include paint cans or other types of steel cans.

31. EMPTY AEROSOL CANS: Empty, mixed material/metal aerosol cans. (Aerosols that still contain product are sorted according to that material—for instance, solvent-based paint.)

32. OTHER FERROUS: Ferrous and alloyed ferrous scrap metals to which a magnet adheres and which are not significantly contaminated with other metals or materials. Stainless steel is included in this material type. This includes empty and punctured tanks for liquid and gaseous fuels.

33. OIL FILTERS: Metal oil filters used in cars and other automobiles.

34. MIXED METALS/MATERIALS: Motors, insulated wire, and finished products containing a mixture of metals, or metals and other materials, whose weight is derived significantly from the metal portion of its construction.

30

Organic 35. LEAVES AND GRASS: Grass clippings, leaves, and weeds.

36. UNACCEPTED YARD WASTE: Oleander, palm fronds, pyracantha, and creosote. This is a new type.

37. PRUNINGS LESS THAN 2”: Cut prunings, 2" or less in diameter, from bushes, shrubs, and trees. This may include some prunings with fruit attached if the weight of the pruning exceeds the weight of the fruit. This is a new type.

38. PRUNINGS 2” TO 12”: Cut prunings, between 2" and 12” in diameter, from bushes, shrubs, and trees. This may include some prunings with fruit attached if the weight of the pruning exceeds the weight of the fruit. This is a new type.

39. PRUNINGS GREATER THAN 12”: Cut prunings, 12" or more in diameter, from bushes, shrubs, and trees. This may include some prunings with fruit attached if the weight of the pruning exceeds the weight of the fruit. This is a new type.

40. PURCHASED FOOD: Food wastes and scraps, including bone, rinds, etc. Excludes the weight of food containers, except when container weight is not appreciable compared to the food inside.

41. HOMEGROWN FOOD: Fruits and vegetables grown at home. Large quantities of the same fruit or vegetable lacking PLU stickers or other grocery store marking are considered homegrown fruits and vegetables. This may include some prunings with fruit attached if the weight of the fruit exceeds the weight of the prunings. This is a new type.

42. BEVERAGES AND FOOD LIQUIDS: Bottled water, soda, and other edible liquids such as pickle juice. This does not include the moisture content of solid foods. This is a new type.

Other Materials 43. TEXTILES: Clothing, rags, and accessories made of natural and synthetic textiles such as cotton, wool,

silk, woven nylon, rayon, polyester, and other materials. Examples include pants, shirts, fabric purses, bed sheets, non-leather shoes, and towels.

44. CARPET/UPHOLSTERY: Floor coverings and other furnishings made entirely of natural or synthetic fibers. Carpet is a general category of flooring applications consisting of various natural or synthetic fibers bonded to some type of backing material. Other examples include carpet padding, area rugs, curtains, pillows, and cushions.

45. LEATHER: Finished products or scraps of leather. Examples include leather purses, leather shoes, and baseball gloves.

46. DISPOSABLE DIAPERS: Disposable baby diapers and adult protective undergarments.

47. ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS: Animal carcasses and wastes. This includes animal feces and kitty litter.

48. RUBBER PRODUCTS: Finished products and scrap materials made of rubber, such as bath mats, inner tubes, rubber hoses, and foam rubber (except carpet padding).

49. TIRES: Vehicle tires of all types.

50. ASH: Fireplace, burn barrel, or fire pit ash.

51. FURNITURE: Mixed-material furniture such as upholstered chairs. Items made wholly of a single material will be sorted based on the material type (wood furniture is sorted as treated wood, a metal desk is sorted as other ferrous).

52. MATTRESSES: Mattresses and box springs of any kind. Include memory foam, coil, stuffed, and futon mattresses.

53. SMALL APPLIANCES: Small electric appliances such as toasters, microwave ovens, power tools, curling irons, and light fixtures.

54. CRT’S: Computer monitors and television sets containing a cathode ray tube (CRT). This is a combination of the 2003 types computer monitors and televisions.

55. OTHER ELECTRONICS: Item with some circuitry not categorized elsewhere including cell phones, answering machines, electronic toys, stereos, radios, tape decks, other audio/visual equipment, VCRs, DVD players, computer processors, mice, keyboards, disk drives, monitors and TV’s that do not contain cathode

31

ray tubes, printers, scanners, gaming systems, tablet computers, e-readers, and laptops. This is a combination of the 2003 types audio/visual equipment and other computer equipment.

56. CERAMICS/PORCELAIN: Finished ceramic or porcelain products such as dishware, toilets, etc.

57. NONDISTINCT FINES: Contains mixed fines smaller than 2" in diameter including dirt and other small materials. This is a combination of the 2003 types nondistinct fines and sand/soil/dirt.

58. MISCELLANEOUS ORGANICS: Wax, modeling clay, bar soap, cigarette butts, and other organic materials not classified elsewhere.

59. MISCELLANEOUS INORGANICS: Other non-combustible, inorganic materials not classified elsewhere.

Construction and Demolition Wastes 60. DIMENSION LUMBER: Clean milled lumber.

61. PALLETS/CRATES: Untreated wood pallets, crates, and other packaging lumber/panel board. This is a combination of the 2003 types pallets and crates.

62. TREATED WOOD: Lumber and wood products that have been painted or treated so as to render them difficult to compost. This includes plywood, other engineered woods, furniture made wholly of wood, and painted pallets and crates.

63. CONTAMINATED WOOD: Lumber and wood products contaminated with other wastes in such a way that they cannot easily be separated, but consisting primarily (over 50 percent) of wood. Often adhered to concrete or other contaminants that would not compost easily. This includes plywood and other engineered woods.

64. NEW GYPSUM SCRAP: New gypsum wallboard scrap.

65. DEMO GYPSUM SCRAP: Used or demolition gypsum wallboard scrap.

66. INSULATION: Fiberglass building and mechanical insulation, batt or rigid. Includes rigid Styrofoam insulation panels.

67. ROCK/CONCRETE/BRICKS: Includes rock gravel larger than 2" diameter, Portland cement mixtures (set or unset), and fired-clay bricks.

68. ASPHALTIC ROOFING: Asphalt shingles, tarpaper of built-up roofing.

69. OTHER CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS: Construction debris (other than wood), which cannot be classified into other component categories, and mixed fine building material scraps.

Household Hazardous 70. LATEX PAINTS: Water-based paints and similar products.

71. HAZARDOUS ADHESIVES/GLUES: Oil/resin/volatile solvent-based glues and adhesives, including epoxy, rubber cement, two-part glues and sealers, and auto body fillers.

72. NON-HAZARDOUS ADHESIVES/GLUES: Water-based glues, caulking compounds, grouts, and spackle.

73. OIL-BASED PAINT/SOLVENT: Solvent-based paints, varnishes, and similar products. Various solvents, including chlorinated and flammable solvents, paint strippers, solvents contaminated with other products such as paints, degreasers and some other cleaners if the primary ingredient is (or was) a solvent, or alcohol such as methanol and isopropanol.

74. HAZARDOUS CLEANERS: Various acids and bases whose primary purpose is to clean surfaces, unclog drains, or perform other actions.

75. PESTICIDES/HERBICIDES: Variety of poisons whose purpose is to discourage or kill pests, weeds, or microorganisms. Fungicides and wood preservatives, such as pentachlorophenol, are also included.

76. NON-RECHARGABLE DRY-CELL BATTERIES: Dry-cell batteries of various sizes and types as commonly used in households that are not intended to be re-charged and re-used. This is a new type created by splitting the 2003 type dry cell batteries.

32

77. RECHARGABLE DRY-CELL BATTERIES: Dry-cell batteries of various sizes and types as commonly used in households that are intended to be re-charged and re-used. This is a new type created by splitting the 2003 type dry cell batteries.

78. WET-CELL BATTERIES: Wet-cell batteries of various sizes and types as commonly used in automobiles.

79. ASBESTOS: Asbestos and asbestos-containing wastes (if this is the primary hazard associated with these wastes).

80. EXPLOSIVES: Gunpowder, unspent ammunition, picric acid, and other potentially explosive chemicals. This includes full or partly full tanks for liquid and gaseous fuels.

81. VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT FLUIDS: Containers with fluids used in vehicles or engines, including antifreeze, brake fluid, motor oil, gasoline, and diesel fuel. This is a combination of the 2003 types gasoline/kerosene and motor oil/diesel oil.

82. POOL CHEMICALS: Chemicals in liquid or powder form used to maintain swimming pools. This is a new type, probably included in the hazardous cleaners type in 2003.

83. OTHER HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS: Other hazardous wastes that do not fit into the above categories, including unidentifiable materials and medical wastes such as I.V. tubing and patient drapes (Medical wastes that could be considered a bio-hazard were excluded from the sorts.).

84. OTHER NON-HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS: Non-hazardous soaps, cleaners, medicines, cosmetics, fire extinguishers, and other household chemicals.

35

Table 12. 2014 vs. 2003 Comparison Categories, contd.

36

Appendix B. Detailed Composition Tables Garbage

47

Recycling

58

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY

59


CITY COUNCIL REPORT


FROM: John A. Trujillo Public Works Director

SUBJECT: RESOURCE INNOVATION CAMPUS

This report provides the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee with information on the development of the Resource Innovation Campus and related projects, including the City’s Resource Innovation and Solutions Network (RISN) partnership with Arizona State University (ASU), Reimagine Phoenix Call for Innovators (CFI), Transforming Trash into Resources Request for Proposals (RFP), and innovative funding opportunities. THE ISSUE In February 2013, the Mayor and City Council established a citywide goal to divert 40 percent of solid waste by the year 2020. In an effort to improve the City’s residential diversion rate of 16 percent, the Public Works Department launched the Reimagine Phoenix initiative. This initiative focuses on offering new solid waste services, increased education and community outreach, and the creation of public and private partnerships centered on transforming trash into resources. The City is fostering public and private partnerships through the development of the Resource Innovation Campus that encompasses the area of 27th Avenue to 35th Avenue, Lower Buckeye Road south to the Rio Salado. The vision of the Resource Innovation Campus is to be a world-leading, vibrant, physical manifestation of the values of Reimagine Phoenix, and the principles and benefits of a circular economy in action. A circular economy is an alternative to a traditional linear economy (make, use, dispose) in which we keep resources in use for as long as possible, extract the maximum value from them while in use, then recover and regenerate products and materials at the end. The Public Works Department is working closely with the City’s Community and Economic Development Department (CEDD) to generate economic activity at the Resource Innovation Campus. Collaboration between the two departments led to the preparation of a Reimagine Phoenix CFI, similar to a Request for Information, and the Transforming Trash into Resources RFP, both of which were issued on March 9, 2015. In the weeks prior to issuing the CFI and RFP, staff from both departments shared these business opportunities with more than two dozen local businesses and organizations in nearly 30 settings. Staff continues to work jointly to identify funding resources to assist innovators and businesses with growing in and relocating to Phoenix.

60

The recent waste characterization study was essential in identifying business opportunities in support of the CFI and RFP as well as opportunities to increase diversion within the community. On February 19, 2014, the City Council approved selection of Cascadia Consulting Group to analyze the composition of the City’s single-family residential contained garbage and recycling streams. The first phase of the study was conducted in August 2014 and included a review of 130 garbage samples and 101 recycling samples throughout the City. Findings from the study showed nearly two-thirds or 65 percent of the garbage sampled could be diverted from the landfill, including 118,000 tons of compostable yard waste (30 percent), 57,500 tons of curbside recyclable materials (15 percent), 56,500 tons of food waste (14 percent), and 23,200 tons of compostable paper (6 percent). OTHER INFORMATION The Resource Innovation Campus will include the 27th Avenue Transfer Station, Materials Recovery Facility, a new Composting Facility, available land leases for private sector innovators and manufacturers, RISN headquarters and a Technology Solutions Incubator. 27th Avenue Composting Facility The City is designing and constructing a composting facility with the capacity to process 110,000 tons of organic material per year. The composting facility is expected to be operational by July 2016 to process green organics from transfer station customers and residents as well as food waste from businesses, non-profits, special events and City facilities. The composting facility promotes higher diversion rates, future cost savings and economic benefits, reduces greenhouse gas emissions of methane and leachate produced at the landfill, and extends the municipal landfill life by diverting organic materials from the landfill. The expected long-term benefits of the facility exceed its operating and capital costs. In preparation for this composting facility, the City began a food scraps composting pilot at the 27th Avenue Transfer Station on January 7, 2015. This pilot project allows City staff the opportunity to learn and test the composting process. Furthermore, food scraps are being mixed with green organic material, and the resulting compost will be tested for quality and may be used in City projects such as City parks and right-of-ways. The pilot also included food scraps collected as part of the reduce-waste program for the Verizon Super Bowl Central event in downtown Phoenix. The City has an ongoing partnership with Bashas’ Grocery for a food scrap pilot with the Food City located on 7th and Southern Avenues. The total projected cost for the composting facility is $16.4 million, which is currently budgeted in the five-year Solid Waste Capital Improvement Program. On November 5, 2014, the Mayor and City Council approved entering into an agreement with Arrington Watkins Architects, LLC to provide engineering services for the preliminary design of the facility not to exceed $540,802. Four Requests for Council Action (RCAs) will be forwarded to City Council in April 2015 for approval to complete the remaining phases of the Construction Manager at Risk (CM@Risk) composting facility project, totaling $14.7 million and including design services ($1.2 million),

61

construction administration and inspection ($459,000), CMAR design ($250,000), and construction ($12.8 million). Resource Innovation and Solutions Network On July 2, 2014, the Mayor and City Council approved establishing a partnership with Arizona State University’s Walton Sustainability Solutions Initiatives as part of the City’s Reimagine Phoenix initiative to create RISN. RISN is a global network of public and private partners to create economic value and drive a sustainable circular economy. RISN encompasses partnerships that cultivate cutting-edge research opportunities to advance the diversion of waste and create economic value through the development of new technologies. RISN headquarters will be housed at the Resource Innovation Campus and RISN will manage the on-site Technology Solutions Incubator space for innovators, developing emerging products and technologies from the City’s waste resources. Current RISN projects include the waste diversion program with Paradise Valley School District, working with students and teachers on waste reduction at nine valley schools, Food Scraps Conversion Program with Sprouts Markets, Resource Valuation Assessment Tool to identify processing costs, Waste Reduction in Multi-Family Housing, Living Building Challenge for Design of RISN Headquarters, and a Regional Green Organics System Design. Call for Innovators and Transforming Trash into Resources RFP The Public Works Department, in partnership with CEDD and RISN, issued a Reimagine Phoenix CFI on March 9, 2015 to request information from private sector innovators with technologies and manufacturing processes that transform trash into energy and new products. Through this CFI, the City seeks to identify specific business opportunities for future competitive processes. Categories include market-ready manufacturing processes, market-ready waste-to-energy technologies, start-up emerging technologies and manufacturing processes, and a special category for “everything else.” Staff also issued a Transforming Trash into Resources RFP on March 9, 2015 for innovators willing to recycle or repurpose some of the most challenging trash the City currently collects in transfer stations, including non-rechargeable dry cell batteries, carpeting, furniture, latex paint, mattresses, palm fronds, and residential food waste. Through this RFP, the City seeks to contract with one or more for-profit and/or non-profit organizations for the diversion of these trash resources. Innovative Funding Opportunities Organizations like the Ellen MacArthur Foundation are at the forefront of promoting and implementing the circular economy with regions and corporations across the world. The Foundation’s Circular Economy 100 membership is an innovation platform for 100 corporations, emerging innovators and regions that represent the global economy, including circular economy pioneers in key industry sectors with a wide geographic spread. One of the Circular Economy 100 members is the Closed Loop Fund. The Fund provides zero interest loans for municipalities and companies to build the necessary infrastructure to implement emerging technologies in the recycling industry and to process recycling and organics. Typical loan sizes range from $250,000 to $5,000,000.

62

The Public Works Department has been invited to become a Circular Economy 100 member at an annual cost of $50,000 for 3 years. The Closed Loop Fund has expressed an interest in offering zero percent loans for capital for the Resource Innovation Campus and low interest loans for business partners pursuing land leases at the campus. Staff plans to forward a future request for City Council approval for the Circular Economy 100 membership. Membership in the Circular Economy 100 includes national and international exposure to companies and investors such as the Closed Loop Fund. RECOMMENDATION This report is for information and discussion. However, this agenda item is listed for “information, discussion and possible action” in the event the Subcommittee wishes to act on the Circular Economy 100 membership at this time.

63


CITY COUNCIL REPORT


FROM: John Trujillo Public Works Director

SUBJECT: RECYCLING AND DIVERSION COLLECTION FOR THE COMMERCIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY SECTORS

This report provides information to the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on commercial recycling and diversion collection for businesses and multi-family housing. THE ISSUE Chapter 27-21 of the Solid Waste Municipal Code governs eligibility for solid waste collection service by the City of Phoenix. Currently, municipal solid waste service is limited to single-family residential homes; all buildings with less than five dwelling units, including duplex, triplex, and four-plexes; any building with five or more multi-family dwelling units but less than 30 units upon consent of the City and responsible party; mobile home parks; townhouses; and condominiums. Additionally, the City of Phoenix is authorized to service non-profit organizations, City-owned apartment facilities, and government buildings. Private apartment complexes with greater than 30 units and commercial and industrial establishments are required to receive service by private haulers. A request to provide commercial services to businesses and multi-family housing would require an amendment to Chapter 27-21 of the Solid Waste Municipal Code. In February 2013, the Mayor and City Council established a citywide goal to divert 40 percent of solid waste from the landfill by the year 2020. In order to reach this goal, the Public Works Department launched Reimagine Phoenix. This initiative focuses on offering new solid waste services and programs, increasing education and community outreach, and forging new public and private partnerships to expand waste diversion opportunities. OTHER INFORMATION Currently, several cities in Arizona provide recycling, diversion, and trash collection to larger multi-family housing and businesses, including Mesa, Scottsdale, Tempe, Gilbert, Glendale, Peoria, Tucson, Casa Grande and Flagstaff. Benefits to offering recycling and other diversion collection to businesses and multi-family housing potentially include new revenue, aid in reaching the citywide goal of 40 percent landfill diversion by the year 2020 and increased competition for services. The Public Works Department has implemented several projects that provide models to draw from in possibly expanding solid waste service to businesses and private apartment complexes.

64

Solid Waste Service to Multi-Family Housing Complexes Chapter 27-21 allows the City to provide solid waste service to City-owned apartment facilities. The Public Works Department Solid Waste Division is currently providing service to 19 of the 39 apartment facilities owned by the City of Phoenix Housing Department. The complexes range in size from 18 to 523 units. The Public Works Department is working with the Housing Department to convert the remaining 20 apartment facilities to City of Phoenix solid waste service. Of the 19 apartment facilities serviced by the Solid Waste Division, five participate in the City’s recycling program. The remaining 14 facilities will be phased in to receive recycling service within the next 12 months. The most recent audit indicates that the diversion rate for the five apartment facilities receiving recycling service is 18.72 percent. This information is based on a one-week snap shot. Roosevelt Row Pilot Project On November 15, 2012, the Public Works Department launched a six-month pilot program in the Roosevelt Row area in downtown Phoenix. The pilot, known as the Roosevelt Row Reduction Diversion (RoRo ReDi) program, introduced recycling to merchants who are part of the Roosevelt Row Community Development Corporation. Because the Development Corporation is a non-profit organization, the City was able to offer service per City Code. Initially, 16 merchants signed-up to participate in the program, each receiving two-cubic-yard recycling bins. However, as the program continued the number of participants grew to 24. Recycling service was provided weekly. Participants continued to maintain private garbage collection. During the pilot, 14.89 tons of material was diverted from the landfill. Basha’s Food Waste Pilot Project The City is also partnering with Basha’s Grocery Stores in a pilot program that launched on January 5, 2015. Under the pilot, the Public Works Department is collecting food waste at the Basha’s Food City located at Southern and Seventh Avenues three times per week. A second store is expected to be added in March. The pilot is being used to test understanding of and improve the collections and composting systems needed to process food scraps and special event wastes. Solid Waste & Recycling Hauler Permitting/Franchise Zones Under Reimagine Phoenix, the City is committed to expanding recycling and diversion opportunities for residents and businesses and, in turn, significantly increasing the citywide diversion rate. In order to achieve this goal, the City will need to seek increased participation from the private hauler community. There are a few alternatives to expanding private hauler involvement, such as the establishment of franchise zones and/or requiring private haulers to obtain municipal solid waste permits.

65

Some cities, such as Los Angeles, are transitioning to a franchise-based system. Under Los Angeles’s new program, known as “Zero Waste LA,” the city is divided into 11 franchise zones. Each of the zones is awarded to a primary hauler who services all businesses and large multi-family customers within that zone. Each franchisee is required to implement practices that advance Los Angeles’s diversion goals. Other cities require private haulers to obtain municipal solid waste hauler permits. Local cities that currently require these permits include Mesa, Peoria, Scottsdale, Gilbert and Tempe. The purpose of a municipal solid waste and recycling hauler permit is to prescribe rules for the delivery of solid waste and recycling services (public and private) made within the City. Arizona Revised Statute 49-746 A and B define a municipality’s ability to prescribe rules for the delivery of recycling services and commercial or industrial solid waste management services. The City of Phoenix currently does not require a solid waste and recycling permit for haulers, nor does it prescribe rules for waste and recycling collections. If Phoenix were to implement hauler permitting, regular data reporting related to tonnage collected could be required by permit holders. In addition, private haulers could be required to meet a diversion goal. Data could be used to gauge the City’s progress toward meeting the 40 percent diversion goal by 2020. In summary, solid waste services for businesses and multi-family housing are currently provided by private haulers per City Code. Any change would require an amendment to Chapter 27-21 of the Solid Waste Municipal Code. Staff could provide limited commercial diversion programs using existing resources. However, a long-term and/or permanent change would require additional staff and equipment in order to successfully provide commercial diversion services. RECOMMENDATION This report is for information and discussion.

packet - transportation and infrastructure subcommittee ... · subcommittee and to the general...

Documents