r w beck report august, 2008 - solid waste collection pilot project evaluation

8/3/2019 R W BECK REPORT August, 2008 - solid waste collection pilot project evaluation

1/53

Pilot Program

Evaluation

Draft Report | August 2008

PREPARED FOR: CITY OF CLEVELAND


2/53

Pilot Program Evaluation

City of Cleveland

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

List of Tables

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Section 1 INTRODUCTION

Section 2 PILOT PROGRAM METRICS EVALUATION2.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Comparison Approach and Data Sources ................................................ 2-22.3 Findings.................................................................................................... 2-5

Section 3 FINANCIAL EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE

COLLECTION SCENARIOS3.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 3-13.2 Data Sources and Principle Assumptions ................................................ 3-2

3.2.1 Data Sources ................................................................................ 3-2

3.2.2 Principle Assumptions ................................................................. 3-23.3 Model Construction and Results.............................................................. 3-33.3.1 Cart Replacement Surcharge...................................................... 3-11

3.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................. 3-12

Section 4 HIGH-LEVEL SYSTEM REVIEW4.1 Introduction.............................................................................................. 4-14.2 Focus Groups ........................................................................................... 4-1

4.2.1 Process ......................................................................................... 4-14.2.2 Interpretation Instructions............................................................ 4-24.2.3 Findings........................................................................................ 4-34.2.4 Focus Group Summary ................................................................ 4-5

4.3 Pilot Program Route Observations........................................................... 4-6

S i 5 EXPANSION ASSESSMENT


3/53

Table of Contents

5.3.3 Education ..................................................................................... 5-45.3.4 Collection Vehicles...................................................................... 5-4

5.3.5 Collection Operations .................................................................. 5-55.3.6 Pay-As-You-Throw ..................................................................... 5-75.3.7 Pilot Program Coordination......................................................... 5-9

5.4 Implementation Schedule ........................................................................ 5-95.5 Recycling ............................................................................................... 5-105.6 Collection Operations Data Management.............................................. 5-115.7 Pilot Program Survey............................................................................. 5-12

Appendix A PILOT COMP SUMMARY

This report has been prepared for the use of the client for the specific purposes identified in thereport. The conclusions, observations and recommendations contained herein attributed toR. W. Beck, Inc. (R. W. Beck) constitute the opinions of R. W. Beck. To the extent thatstatements, information and opinions provided by the client or others have been used in thepreparation of this report, R. W. Beck has relied upon the same to be accurate, and for which noassurances are intended and no representations or warranties are made. R. W. Beck makes nocertification and gives no assurances except as explicitly set forth in this report.

Copyright 2008, R. W. Beck, Inc.All rights reserved.


4/53

Table of Contents

List of Tables

Table 2-1 Inputs for Productivity Metrics Carr Center............................................... 2-3Table 2-2 Inputs for Productivity Metrics Glenville Center ....................................... 2-3Table 2-3 Inputs for Productivity Metrics Ridge Road Center ................................... 2-4Table 2-4 Summary of Key Operational and Performance Metrics ........................... 2-4Table 3-1 Summary of Key Modeling Inputs and Route Model Results.................... 3-4Table 3-2 Staffing Requirements by Scenario ............................................................ 3-5Table 3-3 Salary and Benefits Assumptions ............................................................... 3-6Table 3-4 Equipment Costs........................................................................................ 3-6

Table 3-5 Labor Impacts (Changes to the Number of Crew)...................................... 3-7Table 3-6 Labor Cost Impacts..................................................................................... 3-8Table 3-7 Vehicle Requirements (Changes to the Number of Vehicles).................... 3-8Table 3-8 Vehicle Capital Cost Impacts ..................................................................... 3-9Table 3-9 Vehicle O&M Cost Impact ....................................................................... 3-10Table 3-10 Cart Cost Impacts ................................................................................... 3-11Table 3-11 Spare Vehicle Impacts ............................................................................ 3-11Table 3-12 Net Program Savings General Fund and Capital Budget

(Relative to the Baseline) ......................................................................... 3-14Table 3-13 Capital Budget Cost Comparison of Scenarios (Relative to the

Baseline) ................................................................................................... 3-14Table 3-14 General Fund Cost Comparison of Scenarios (Relative to the

Baseline) ................................................................................................... 3-15Table 4-1 Suggestions Proposed by Focus Groups..................................................... 4-5


5/53

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Clevelands Solid Waste Division (the City) retained R. W. Beck, Inc.(R. W. Beck) to perform an evaluation of the productivity gains, financial impacts,City staff perception and feedback, and implementation challenges related to theextension of their existing solid waste collection Pilot Program (the Pilot Program)to an additional 30,000 households.

The City is currently running its Pilot Program in three regions the Carr Center, the

Glenville Center, and the Ridge Road Center. In each region, there are both Semi-Automated and Fully-Automated service areas (the alternative scenarios), whichtake advantage of either retrofitted rear-load vehicles or fully automated ASL trucks tocomplete collection. As part of this Pilot Program, the City collects detailed daily loginformation and statistics on key productivity metrics for each region, and for eachservice area. The City is currently considering an expansion of the current program toadditional households, and eventual full implementation of the most holisticallyattractive alternative collection scenario, which would completely replace rear-load

manual collection (the Baseline system) within an estimated 2-year timeframe.

In order to perform the review of productivity metrics and evaluation of the collectionsystem alternatives, multiple objectives were pursued, which included:

In-depth review and comparison of field metrics gathered for the Baseline systemby R. W. Beck in March of 2007 against detailed daily log data provided by theCity for each Pilot region, with an emphasis on maximizing the comparability ofthe two data sets,

Modeling of the labor, vehicle, and cost savings/increase (the delta) to both theSolid Waste Division and the City in aggregate of both alternative scenarios(focusing on residential refuse), leveraging data from the productivity metricsreview as well as supplemental capital cost, salary and benefits, and operation andmaintenance costs provided by the City; R. W. Becks proprietary route modeland associated system average assumptions were used to buttress existinginformation and maximize the representative nature of the models,

Facilitation of several focus groups, interviews, and one half-day ride along withCity crews to acquire valuable qualitative feedback from internal staff on existingchallenges and proposed solutions, and to obtain first-hand observations regardingcurrent program challenges, and

Summarization of the expected set-out policy, enforcement, education, vehicle


6/53

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Key Findings

Both the Semi-Automated and Fully-Automated Pilot regions have seenimprovements in productivity and uncontainerized set-out percentages ascompared to the existing Baseline scenario. Unproductive times across theseregions are at an above average level of efficiency. Due to the increased capacityof the ASL trucks utilized in the program, and because the Pilot regions are notservicing as many households, loads per day have also declined considerably in thePilot regions. These improvements are strong indicators that considerable savingscan be actualized under full implementation of either the Semi-automated or Fully-

automated collection scenario.The graphic below summarizes the estimated cost savings impact of both alternativeresidential refuse scenarios as compared to the estimated cost per customer under theBaseline system for the same cost components. The savings shown reflect the netimpact to both the Capital Budget (cost increases related to retrofitting existingvehicles or procuring new vehicles, and cart capital costs) and the General Fund (thenet cost savings related to staffing adjustments, vehicle O&M costs and cart

replacement costs under the alternative scenarios).

Comparison of Operational Costs per Customer

Baseline and Alternative Scenarios

$47.38

$41.25

$39.72

$35.00

$37.00

$39.00

$41.00

$43.00

$45.00

$47.00

$49.00

Baseline Semi Auto

It is important to note that the graphic above represents the comparison of the net costimpacts to both the General Fund and Capital Budget as compared to the estimated


7/53

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Within the context of the City in total, the results of the modeling processindicate that the Semi-automated scenario will save the City an estimated

$1.14 million ($6.13 per customer) over the Baseline system on an annualbasis. Full implementation of the Automated scenario is estimated to result in acost savings of about $1.4 million annually, or about $7.66 per customer. Thedelta between the Automated scenario and the Semi-automated scenario is anestimated $285,000, which is the net difference in cost impact to the City (acost savings in favor of the Automated alternative in this case) when thescenarios are considered in isolation, and

With respect to the net impacts to the Solid Waste Divisions General Fund(i.e., excluding all capital cost impacts related to procurement of vehicles andcarts), the results of the modeling process indicate that the Semi-automatedscenario will save the City an estimated $2.2 million ($12.06 per customer)over the Baseline system on an annual basis. Full implementation of theAutomated scenario is estimated to result in a cost savings of about $4.3million annually, or about $23.30 per customer. The delta between theAutomated scenario and the Semi-automated scenario is an estimated $2.1

million, which is the net difference in cost impact to the City (a cost savings infavor of the Automated alternative in this case) when the scenarios areconsidered in isolation. Because the cost burden of vehicle and cart capital isreported to be only an indirect cost consideration for the Solid Waste Division,the net savings impact to the Division for the Automated scenario increasessignificantly when capital costs are excluded from the analysis, as thefundamental cost burden associated with this scenario resides with financingcosts for new vehicles and carts.

Despite some challenges and areas for potential improvement cited by City staff,the vast majority of the current operations staff supports the direction that the Cityis heading with respect to alternative collection methods. A few key field issuesobserved by R. W. Beck, most notably the relatively high level of contamination inthe recycling set-outs, should be addressed through incentives and enforcement.

Extension of the Pilot program is a logical next step for the City. The City shouldactively engage in the development and maintenance of an integrated approach to

program development, which gives consideration to the following key programcomponents:

Set-out policies that align with system goals,

Proper support of crew by enforcing policies and limitations of the newprogram,


8/53

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Planning of collection operations to maximize the number of homes servicedby automated collection vehicles, as well as minimizing the number of trips

made to service each customer, Conduction of a program survey from Pilot program participants to obtain

valuable customer feedback on program perceptions and challenges from acustomer perspective, and

Development and maintenance of a customized set of data managementtemplates that target the highest priority system metrics for continual tracking,which may be ultimately supported by a dedicated data management staff

member.Supportive analysis and further detailed discussion related to all of these componentscan be found in the body of this report.


9/53

Section 1INTRODUCTION

The City of Cleveland (City) Solid Waste Division provides weekly waste collectionservices to approximately 186,000 households. The division has traditionallycollected municipal solid waste (MSW) using rear-load collection vehicles with

helpers riding on the back of the vehicle.The Division was interested in exploring options to improve the operational andfinancial efficiency of the collection operations. Additionally, the Division wasinterested in implementing a curbside recycling program that could recover morematerial than the existing drop-off facilities.

In March 2007, R. W. Beck conducted preliminary benchmarking of the Citysexisting collection operations. This included collecting detailed data on collection

routes distributed across the Citys collection areas and conducting focus groups withcollections personnel. After the results of that study were presented to the Division,the City decided to proceed with a pilot program of Automated and Semi-automatedcollection of MSW and recyclables.

In October 2007, the Division implemented a Pilot Program in fifteen 1,000-householdroutes distributed throughout the Divisions collection jurisdiction. The pilotcollection areas were evenly serviced by the Carr, Glenville, and Ridge Road Centers.Each route was collected by Fully-automated and Semi-automated vehicles which

collected MSW from approximately 700 and 300 households, respectively.Additionally, Automated or Semi-automated recycling vehicles collected recyclablematerials from all 1,000 households on the route.

The Division next desired to evaluate the Pilot Program and determine if it makessense to expand the program to an additional 30,000 households. The Division wantedto analyze the Pilot Program in terms of operational statistics, and also in terms of howthose metrics translate into operational costs. Additionally, the Division wanted a

high-level assessment of the overall collection operations, as well as some assistancedeveloping community education materials related to the MSW collection andrecycling programs.

This report provides the evaluation of the Pilot Program and how it comparesoperationally and financially to the operations that were benchmarked in March 2007,as ell as recommendations for program e pansion


10/53

Section 2

PILOT PROGRAM METRICS EVALUATION

2.1IntroductionThis section will detail the data compilation procedures and key findings related to theoperational comparison between field data collected on the Citys Baseline operations

in March 2007 and certain key operational and productivity metrics tracked by theCity in each of the Pilot regions.

It is important to periodically review the operations of a collection system. The morefrequently performance is reviewed, the less likely it will be that big changes will needto be made immediately, which surprise operations and cause an unexpected burden,cost or otherwise, on collection customers.

The change in productivity as measured by the components listed below can have a

marked impact on the overall costs of a particular service offering. The relationshipbetween these metrics generally determines the health and performance of both thecurrent collection system, as well as the impact of available alternative systems, inthat:

Set-out rates reflect the actual household participation level for a given serviceoffering and frequency of collection, and directly drive staffing levels, routecounts, and the length of time spent on a route,

Uncontained material detracts from productivity, necessitates additional

collection staff, and increases the cost of enforcement of ordinances or otherguidelines regarding what materials are collected and how certain materialsshould be placed out for collection,

Seconds per stop is the most basic and fundamental metric that determineswhether a system is operating at a poor, average, or above average level ofproductivity. This measurement is a benchmark for all of the combined elementsof a particular stop that may cause an undesirable amount of time spent on a stop,including uncontained material,

Unproductive minutes per route measures time for breaks, vehicle breakdowns,and lunches, and indicates the quality and reliability of the collection fleet and thecollection staff; above average unproductive minutes generally indicate an olderfleet, potentially coupled with inconsistency in break/lunch periods across staff,


11/53

Section 2

Loads per day per route, as with average tons per load, is a measure of both theappropriateness of vehicle capacity and whether the length of a route is too long

or short.These variables also serve as primary inputs into a more comprehensive analysis ofrouting requirements and associated financial implications for refuse collection asmodeled and detailed in Section 3.

2.2Comparison Approach and Data Sources

In March 2007, R. W. Beck Field Managers conducted field observations in the Cityin order to quantify the productivity levels of the Citys waste collection operations.Data collected during those observations can be thought of as the Baseline, in thatthose metrics reflected City operations prior to the introduction of the Pilot programs.

Data for the three Pilot Program regions, the Carr Center, the Glenville Center, and theRidge Road Center, were aggregated and compiled based on reports provided to R. W.Beck by the City. These reports included daily route logs by Pilot region, tonnage andload summaries by Pilot region, statistics on recycling participation, and other keyinformation garnered through correspondence with City staff.

The available data from March 2007 was re-reviewed in detail by R. W. Beck toidentify which metrics that were currently being collected as a matter of course by theCity were directly comparable to available information from the prior project. Portionsof the metrics to be compared across time were measured directly by the City as partof their current Pilot region data tracking. In certain other cases, however, assumptionsregarding system averages were used as proxies, or an assumption was made regarding

the stability of certain time factor ratios across service alternatives, in an effort tomaximize the comparability of the available information.

Inputs were developed for the current Pilot regions individually, and then mapped tothe corresponding performance metrics as appropriate to develop the core calculations.The tables below summarize the inputs used for the Automated, Semi-Automated, andRecycling services in each of the Pilot Program regions. As the City reviews theseinputs, it will be important to distinguish between the number of demands (or

households) available to be serviced within a given Pilot region and the actual numberof stops serviced in each region during the period of data collection provided. Theformer is summarized herein, but the latter is the key determinant of productive time,and has been used to construct the routing and financial analyses shown in Section 3.Note also that recycling households shown reflect serviced units.


12/53

Pilot Program Metrics Evaluation

Table 2-1

Inputs for Productivity MetricsCarr Center

Auto Semi Rec.

Average Households per Route [1] 554 433 596

Time per Route

% Productive 97% 97% 98%

% Unproductive 3% 3% 2%

Average Route Total Time (h:mm) 3:52 3:44 3:34

Average Route Total Time (min) 232 224 214

Average Route Time per Stop (sec) 42 35 22[1] Route time per stop and associated productivity metrics have been measured relative to actual stops serviced for a cross-

section of time in each Pilot region. The metric shown herein represents the total demands (or houses) available forservicing in each region. Recycling households shown reflect serviced units.

Table 2-2Inputs for Productivity Metrics

Glenville Center

Auto Semi Rec.


Time per Route % Productive 97% 95% 98%




Average Route Time per Stop (sec) 56 69 28

[1] Route time per stop and associated productivity metrics have been measured relative to actual stops serviced for a cross-section of time in each Pilot region. The metric shown herein represents the total demands (or houses) available forservicing in each region. Recycling households shown reflect serviced units.

The Glenville Center is reported by the City to have been participating in more hands-on training and this may in part explain the higher average route times in this region ascompared to the other regions.


13/53

Section 2

Table 2-3

Inputs for Productivity MetricsRidge Road Center

Auto Semi Rec.


Time per Route

% Productive 98% 97% 98%




Average Route Time per Stop (sec) 40 50 26[1] Route time per stop and associated productivity metrics have been measured relative to actual stops serviced for a cross-

section of time in each Pilot region. The metric shown herein represents the total demands (or houses) available forservicing in each region. Recycling households shown reflect serviced units.

These inputs were utilized to compare the March 2007 metrics against the averageconditions at each of the Pilot regions. The table below summarizes this evaluation.Information regarding Bulk collection was relatively limited across the Pilot Regions.This does not materially impact the modeling and cost evaluation of collection systemalternatives, because the modeling and cost evaluation focused on refuse collection.

Table 2-4Summary of Key Operational and Performance Metrics

All Pilot RegionsAverageBaseline

March2007 Auto Semi Rec. Bulk

Customer Metrics

Set-out rate [1] 80% 82.9% 64.4% 30.5% n/aPercent of set-outs with uncontained material [2] 43% 14.3% 7.6% n/a n/a

Households per route [2] 526 645 345 n/a n/a

Average pounds per set-out [2] 66.5 58.2 29.2 n/a n/a

Productivity Metrics


14/53


As evidenced by the footnote markers in the table above, there are several keyconsiderations that must be noted with regard to the data presented in this table.

1. Set-out rates for Recycling are inclusive of recycling participation statisticsprovided by the City for January - April 2008, and recycling cart set-outstatistics collected by the City in November 2007.

2. Set-out statistics were collected in detail for a cross-section (or snapshot)period of time in each Pilot region. The data shown for uncontained materialand pounds per set-out are derived from this information. Households per routewere provided directly by the City for the Pilot regions, and are based on prior

field observations for the Baseline.3. The productivity metrics collected directly in March 2007 were not available

explicitly as part of the Citys current Pilot Program logs. Metrics shown forPilot regions reflect assumptions related to system average productive vs. non-productive ratios, which have been assumed to remain stable when comparedto Baseline observations. The ratio of non-productive time per unit ofproductive time is assumed to be unchanged, and is thus derived as apercentage of the total amount of productive time logged in each region, whichis available as part of the daily logs. The derived results correspond well toaverages from prior studies with minimal time spent on breaks, lunches, etc.

4. Tons per load and loads per day are directly computed from the Pilot ProgramDaily reports provided by the City for the period October 2007 - June 2008.

It is important to note that R. W. Beck thoroughly searched individual observations inan effort to identify (and in some cases exclude) data outliers. An outlier is a datapoint or observation that appears to be a transcription error, or represents a highlyunlikely event. For example, a route with a total logged duration of only 15 minutes,when examined within the context of a broader list of route observations, is a potentialoutlier.

Based on the general practice when dealing with outliers, R. W. Beck has usedconditional spreadsheet logic to exclude a few observations that were deemed to beoutliers. These observations, if included, would have had a detrimental impact on theconstruction of a representative performance profile for the Citys Pilot operations.

These instances were very infrequent, and as such their exclusion does not detractfrom the reliability of the metrics summarized in this report.

Appendix A contains a more detailed summary table of the key metrics, whichincludes region-specific information.


15/53

Section 2

Set-out rates and pounds per set-out in the Semi-automated service areas areconsiderably lower than both the Baseline and the Automated service areas. This

may be due to the specific demographic makeup of the areas in which theseservices are being Pilot tested. R. W. Beck has adjusted these empirical findingsupward for purposes of Section 3 modeling, in an effort to better align them withaverage expectations. Notwithstanding this finding, both the Automated andSemi-automated service areas appear to be performing either better or comparablyto the Baseline system.

Productivity data is more directly comparable to the Baseline data, and appears topoint to an improvement overall, in terms of productive seconds per stop andunproductive minutes per route (which are down on average for the Automatedand Semi-automated service areas primarily because the average route times aredown). This is due for the most part to apparent improvements in the Automatedservice areas as opposed to the Semi-Automated service areas, which actuallyperformed worse in one region and nearly identical to the Baseline overall.

The City is operating well above average with respect to non-productive timespent on routes. The City reports that drivers and collectors are executing their

duties with essentially no time allotted for breaks. Benchmark communities inprior studies have shown non-productive times upwards of 20 minutes, and Citystaff should be recognized for their efficiency in this regard.

Loads per day per route appear to be down across the board. This may be due tothe fact that the size and structure of the Pilot routes have been more recentlydesigned when compared to the 2007 observations. In addition, the more currentestimate of loads per day represents an annual average, whereas the 2007 data

reflects solely the month of March. Consequently, a small amount of seasonalvariation may also be driving this difference. An examination of March 2008 datareveals an average for this metric that is much closer to the 2008 annual averagethan to the 2007 average.

Both the Automated and Semi-automated service areas have seen a significantreduction in the amount of uncontained material. This decrease has apparently hada greater impact on improvements in productivity metrics in the Automatedservice areas as compared to the Semi-Automated service areas. This is a key

metric to monitor that directly impacts the efficiency of the waste collectionsystem.

Productive Seconds per Stop decreased by approximately twelve percent whencomparing the Automated to the Baseline observations. This equates toapproximately six seconds per household on average, and when extrapolated to


16/53


indication that the Automated routes could be designed to service morehouseholds.

Certain observations in the daily logs as well as the set-out statistics have beencorrected to reflect the right calculations and/or excluded due to temporaldiscrepancies (a route that took far too little time, etc.) For future tracking of datain support of benchmarking, the City should consider creation and maintenance ofa more customized set of data management logs and electronic data entrytemplates that target only the most important planning level data tracking needs.This will aid in streamlining the process even further, and may eventually aid theCity in being able to effectively conduct these reviews more frequently.

The City reported having some manual data logs which documented actual (notsystem average) productive and non-productive times for the Pilot regions. As thePilot program expansion continues, actual productivity should be monitored withmore detail to discern if the association of the Citys overall productivity profilewith system average profiles is a truly appropriate proxy assumption. While thereis no reason to believe that lunch, break, and breakdown times for the City aresignificantly different from other benchmark communities, crews moving up the

learning curve for the alternative systems, coupled with residents participatingappropriately as education and program awareness increases, should help improveproductivity overall.

Section 3 provides additional discussion regarding the benchmarking of key modelinginputs collected during this phase of the evaluation against averages from prior workconducted by R. W. Beck. This is to ensure the underlying sensibility of the datautilized to evaluate routing requirements and associated costs.


17/53

Section 3

FINANCIAL EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVECOLLECTION SCENARIOS

3.1IntroductionThe purpose of this section is to present the results of both the route modeling and

financial evaluation of the key alternative collection scenarios available to the City asexpansion options relative to the existing Pilot Program service areas. This modelingfocuses on residential refuse collection, and examines the implications of fullyimplementing both the Automated and Semi-automated collection systems.

The results of this analysis were constructed with the use of R. W. Becks proprietarycollection model (Model). This Model projects routing impacts and possible systemmodifications resulting from varying levels of service and different combinations of

services offered. Factors considered by the Model include customer counts, collectionfrequency, set-out rates, and productive and non-productive times for vehicles.

Routing requirements as determined by the Model have been coupled with financialdata regarding current staffing levels and salaries, fleet details, capital, fuel, automatedcarts, and fleet maintenance cost data, among other inputs, to compute the expectedcost delta (savings/increase) of complete conversion to either an Automated or Semi-automated collection system.

The modeling process is based upon the philosophy that (i) scenarios constructedmust, as best as possible, fully represent the operational and financial realities thatapply to the City and that (ii) parameters of each respective scenario must beconformed so as to provide an apples to apples comparison of outcomes. Scenarioswere modeled that were representative of the options available to the City with respectto collection system alternatives. The current service infrastructure (Baseline) wasmodeled, from which the delta between the Baseline and other service options wascomputed.

The results of this analysis detail the estimated impact on costs to both the Citys SolidWaste Division and the City in total. Estimates of cost impacts to the Solid WasteDivisions General Fund exclude the capital costs related to vehicle and cartprocurement (a separate expense not funded directly by the Solid Waste Division).Estimates are provided for both alternative scenarios as compared to the Baseline


18/53

Section 3

3.2Data Sources and Principle Assumptions

3.2.1Data Sources

Information gathered and compared regarding key operational and productivitymetrics for the Citys Pilot regions as summarized in Section 2 were combined withBaseline information gathered in March 2007 as inputs into the Model. Supplementalinformation regarding employee salaries, replacement costs of fleet vehicles, fuel andpreventative maintenance costs, benefits multipliers, and other pertinent data pointswas provided to R. W. Beck by the City.

Customer counts and annual tonnage collected were estimated by the City based onthe most recently available information. R. W. Beck has extrapolated monthly tonnageestimates to obtain an annual tonnage amount as an input into the Model.

Additionally, R. W. Beck has globally reviewed the Citys inputs for sensibility withregard to internal consistency and with regard to how closely outcomes matchedexpectations. To the extent a particular metric fell outside the range of what has onaverage been expected given a fully-implemented collection system, certain minoradjustments have been made to inputs. These modifications will be highlighted in theResults subsection. Crucial inputs relevant to the final results are presented in tabularformat and reviewed in the Results subsection.

3.2.2Principle Assumptions

The results outlined below should be interpreted given full awareness of the following

principle assumptions: This analysis only includes the collection cost impacts of the system changes that

were analyzed. The deltas estimated by the Model are strictly indicative of thecost savings or increase resulting from the factor inputs to the Model. They do notrepresent an aggregate cost savings estimate for the City, which could include,among other costs, the impact on workers compensation claims, additionalrecycling revenue resulting from program expansion, or decreased benefitsmultiplier rates resulting from decreased insurance claims, etc.

To the extent that R. W. Beck has relied upon data provided by the City for use asinputs to the Model, R. W. Beck assumes that this information is accurate andcomplete.

The outcome of a transition from the Baseline system to each scenario has notbeen modeled The results below assume that the scenario has been completely


19/53

Financial Evaluation of Alternative Collection Scenarios

Because the City is already Pilot testing the various collection scenarios, keyproductivity metrics are far less abstract and much more concrete, in that they

reflect current operations as summarized in the Citys route logs. It has beenassumed that these metrics will remain essentially unchanged once the systemexpands (i.e., learning curve impacts have not been modeled).

3.3Model Construction and ResultsResults are presented sequentially with respect to how the modeling effort was

executed, beginning with key inputs and assumptions and layering in importantintermediate results as appropriate. However, in order to provide a proper context forhow the net savings for the alternative scenarios compare to the Baseline, it isimportant to first understand the big-picture impact of the alternative scenariosbefore delving into the detailed results.

To that end, the graphic below summarizes the estimated cost savings impact of bothalternative residential refuse scenarios as compared to the estimated cost per customerunder the Baseline system for the same cost components. The savings shown reflects

the net impact to both the Capital Budget (cost increases related to retrofitting orprocurement of new vehicles and cart capital costs) and the General Fund (the net costsavings related to staffing adjustments, vehicle O&M costs and cart replacement costsunder the alternative scenarios).

Comparison of Operational Costs per Customer

Baseline and Alternative Scenarios

$47.38

$41.25

$39.72

$35.00

$37.00

$39.00

$41.00

$43.00

$45.00

$47.00

$49.00

B li S i A t


20/53

Section 3

The Conclusion subsection will present the ultimate cost comparison of theAutomated and Semi-automated collection alternatives, and the remainder of this

section will build up the set of calculations and associated cost implications of thefactors that lead to the savings shown in the graphic above, taking care to distinguishbetween the net savings impact (as shown above to incorporate both the General Fundand the Capital Budget) as well as the impact of each respective fund individually.

As the City reviews these results, it is important to note that while the Pilot Programwas conducted in fifteen 1,000 household areas, the Model has been constructed toexamine the full implementation cost impacts of each alternative To the extent analternative is extended to more areas gradually, the resultant cost impacts would be

equally gradual. Modeling the entire system provides the advantages of (i) utilizingtrue system tonnage quantities and customer counts, thereby preserving therelationship between these measures without ad hoc assumptions and ii) testing eachcollection alternative in its ultimate form to gain an understanding of the outcomes at atrue planning level.

Table 3-1 summarizes the key modeling inputs and resultant route count requirementsfrom the proprietary route model.

Table 3-1Summary of Key Modeling Inputs and Route Model Results

Rear-load Manual Semi-Automated Fully-Automated

Modeling Metrics (1x/wk) (1x/wk) (1x/wk)

Customers Served [1] 186,000 186,000 186,000

Annual Tons Collected [2] 252,000 252,000 252,000

Set-out Rate (%) [3] 80.0% 80.0% 80.0%

Seconds Per Stop [4] 51.1 49.8 44.8

Sched/Actual Hrs/Day 8.0/9.0 8.0/9.0 8.0/9.0

Truck Capacity (CY) [5] 25 25 33

Loads/Day/Truck 1.5 1.1 1.1Total Annual Stops 7,737,600 7,737,600 7,737,600

Stops to Fill Truck 768 768 1,013

Stops per Day 29,760 29,760 29,760

Routes per Day [6] 55 54 48


21/53


The City estimates a total customer base of 186,000 units, with annual tonnagereaching approximately 252,000 tons. Notice the differential in productivity for the

Semi-automated and Automated alternatives as compared to the Baseline, whichresults in a decline in the amount of routes required in the Semi-automated scenario,and an even greater decline in the amount of routes required for the Automatedscenario. The larger ASL truck capacity in the Automated scenario leads to more stopsto fill each truck, which impacts the number of required routes when coupled withimprovements in productivity over the Baseline system. The Baseline model outcomeof 55 routes benchmarks well with information provided by the City regarding theactual number of routes currently running.

It is important to note that collection frequencies modeled are based on the Citysreported and desired collection frequency, and that in order for the financialcomparisons across scenarios to be relevant, the underlying level of service must beequivalent.

Routing requirements have been used to estimate staffing levels, with the assumptionthat the City will retain one helper in the Semi-automated scenario, and that the ASLdrivers will assume sole route responsibility once that system is fully implemented.

These requirements are summarized in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2Staffing Requirements by Scenario

Staff Count

Scenario Truck Drivers [1]

Staff

Collectors [2] Cart Maint. [3] Total Staff

Rear-load Manual (1x) 55 110 0 165

Semi-Automated (1x) 54 54 2 110

Fully Automated (1x) 48 0 2 50[1] Based on routes determined to be necessary from route model.[2] Semi-automated scenario assumes requiring only one collector per truck during initial phases of full implementation.[3] Collection cart maintenance staff commensurate with size and scope of the City's current customer base and collection area responsibilities.

Additional support from other staff members/departments may be needed initially during the start-up and customer education phase of

implementation.

Cost results in this section do not assume a phase-out of Laborers in the Semi-automated scenario.

Staffing levels and associated route requirements were then mapped to certain keyi di id l d i t ifi t ti i l di O ti d


22/53

Section 3

Table 3-3Salary and Benefits Assumpt ions

Salary & Benefits Assumptions [1]

Position Vehicle Hourly RateAnnualSalary Benefits (%)

AnnualSalary plus

Benefits

Driver Rear Loader $17.85 $37,128 37% $50,774

Driver Automated Side Loader $20.53 $42,697 37% $58,391

Collector Rear Loader $14.67 $30,514 37% $41,729

Cart Maintenance Pick-up $14.67 $30,514 37% $41,729[1] Based on Staff salary data provided by the City, and benefits calculations provided by the City. Annual salary excludes

overtime, and assumes a continuous 40-hour work week.

The hourly rates in Table 3-3 have been extracted from salary data provided by theCity, and it can be expected that salaries for well-qualified drivers that transition toASL trucks will be increased relative to rear loader drivers given the increase inoverall responsibility associated with such a transition. The City will also likely needto hire cart maintenance/program coordination personnel (or reassign existing staff) ineither scenario to assist with the short-term transition as well as the long term care andmaintenance of carts.

It should be noted that significant changes to the labor rates shown above willmaterially impact any savings incurred after full implementation of either modeledscenario. This is due to the fact that the preponderance of cost savings associated with

both Scenarios centers on considerable reductions in staffing.

Table 3-4Equipment Costs

Equipment Cost Assumpti ons

Vehicle Purchase Price O&M Costs (per year) [1]

Rear Loader $134,000 $26,000

Automated Side Loader $200,000 $32,500

Rear Loader (Semi-Auto) $140,000 $27,000

Retrofit (Semi-Auto) [2] $6,000 $27,000

Pi k T k $25000 $3400

Fi i l E l ti f Alt ti C ll ti S i


23/53


Note that for fleet costs, it has been assumed that the City will be able to retrofit itsexisting fleet, and that the cost of doing so is essentially equivalent to the differential

in capital costs between an existing manual rear-load vehicle and an existing semi-automated vehicle. The difference in acquisition and capital costs related to the highcapital cost and relatively high maintenance cost of ALS trucks, coupled with retrofitopportunities has a marked impact on the ultimate financial comparison of the twoalternatives.

Fuel and maintenance cost adjustments were applied to the Baseline route model costassumptions in an effort to make them more representative of current costs. This wasaccomplished as follows:

The United States Energy Information Administration (EIA) weekly averagefuel prices were used to adjust Model results in order to better estimate the overallimpact of fuel costs to the collection alternatives.

Cart costs have been escalated to represent a per-unit cost of $57 based on generalinflation levels.

ASL costs have been escalated to reflect the Citys current best estimate for a 33

cubic yard ASL truck that was the primary tested vehicle for the Pilot regions.With regard to the $1 per-unit-per year O&M assumption for carts, the followingmaintenance service costs have been assumed to be embedded in this per-unitestimate:

Repair of broken or damaged carts.

Replacement of misplaced and/or stolen carts.

Time of maintenance personnel needed to ensure fully functional carts year-round.

Tables 3-5 and 3-6 summarize the labor deltas and labor cost impacts, respectively forthe two alternative scenarios as compared to the existing Baseline system. Note thatTable 3-6 shows the net cost impact solely related to route reductions in the Semi-automated scenario, but reflects the overall cost impact of adjusting driver positionsfrom rear-load manual (a credit to the system) to ASL (a debit to the system) trucks,based on expected route requirements, at an inflated salary.

Table 3-5Labor Impacts (Changes to the Number of Crew)

Drivers

S ti 3


24/53

Section 3

Table 3-6

Labor Cost Impacts

Estimated Cost Impact

Scenario Drivers CollectorsCart

Maintenance Total Change

Net Changeper

Customer [1]

Semi-Automated (1x) $(50,774) $(2,336,817) $ 83,458 $ (2,304,134) $ (12.39)

Fully Automated (1x) $ 10,155 $(4,590,177) $ 83,458 $ (4,496,565) $ (24.18)[1] Based on City provided 2008 customer count of 186,000 customers served. Note that the increase in driver costs in the Automated

scenario is related to the fact that ASL drivers have been assumed to be paid a premium salary, and even though the net driver differential isa loss of 7 drivers, there is a slight increase in overall driver costs related to this premium.

Based on other projects conducted by R. W. Beck, it is anticipated that two full-timestaff members will be needed, at least initially, to manage complaints, coordinate cartrepairs and replacement, report on cart misuse, help collection staff enforce violations,

and manage and log cart inventories for the Citys 186,000 customers. Oncecompliance and system education levels have matured such that participation andviolations are mitigated, this position may be able to be filled by one part-timeemployee.

Overall, it is estimated that given current salary levels, the Automated scenario wouldsave the City approximately $4.5 million per year, or $24.18 per customer per year, inlabor costs. The Semi-automated scenario would save the City approximately $2.3million per year, or $12.39 per customer per year in labor costs.

Tables 3-7, 3-8, and 3-9 summarize the impact on vehicle quantities for the alternativescenarios, and represent both total and annualized cost estimates of the respectiveimpacts. Annualized capital cost estimates for vehicles assume a straight linedepreciation of the asset in question over a life of seven years for rear loaders and sixyears for ASL trucks.

Table 3-7

Vehicle Requirements (Changes to the Number of Vehicles)

Net Gain (Loss)

ScenarioRear

LoaderAutomatedSide Loader Pick-up Net Change


25/53


R:\Orlando\005821 - Cleveland\05-01482-10101 Pilot Program Eval\0400 - Expansion Assess\Work Products\Final Report\Final Report_20080911.doc 9/11/08 R. W. Beck 3-9

Table 3-8Vehicle Capital Cost Impacts

Total Capital Cost Increase (Decrease) Annualized Capital Cost Deltas

Scenario

RearLoader/SemiAutomated

AutomatedSide Loader Pick-up Total Rear Loader

AutomatedSide Loader Pick-up

TotalChange

Net Change perCustomer [1]

Semi-Automated (1x) $322,866 $0 $50,000 $372,886 $48,629 $0 $4,600 $52,869 $0.28

Fully Automated (1x) $0 $9,000,000 $50,000 $9,650,,000 $0 $1,520,000 $4,600 $1,524,600 $8.20

[1] Based on City provided 2008 customer counts of 186,000 customers served. Reduced route counts and costs under the semi-automated collection scenario are offset in part by the retrofit costs for the entire collection fleet.

Salvage cost for retired trucks included in costs estimated as a credit to capital cost delta under the Rear Loader column. Capital costs do not directly impact the Solid Waste Division from a cost standpoint. Refer to theConclusion sub-section for a compartmentalization of cost savings with and without capital costs.

Section 3


26/53

Section 3

It is important to describe how the two scenarios differ procedurally with respect tocapital costs as summarized in Table 3-8:

In the Semi-automated scenario, the City bears the cost burden of retrofitting itsexisting fleet up front, and also invests in pick-up trucks in support of costmaintenance personnel.

Alternatively, in the Automated scenario, the City must acquire a significantamount of ASL trucks in addition to pick-up truck costs, which are relativelyexpensive on a per-unit basis.

The Semi-automated scenario would increase the Citys vehicle costs by $52,869 peryear ($0.28 per customer), whereas the Automated scenario, which involves asignificant up-front investment, would increase vehicle costs by approximately $1.5million per year ($8.20 per customer). Note again that capital costs do not directlyimpact the Solid Waste Division from a cost standpoint. Refer to the Conclusion sub-section for a compartmentalization of cost savings with and without vehicle and cartcapital costs. Additionally, the Citys existing fleet of rear-load vehicles willeventually be depleted and the capital costs associated with acquiring vehicles for a

semi-automated system will be more comparable to the capital costs of an automatedsystem.

Notice the flow of increases/decreases, as the deltas related to staffing must becombined with the deltas related to vehicles and other cost components to result in thenet impact on the system.

Table 3-9

Vehicle O&M Cost Impact

O&M Cost Increase (Decrease)

Scenario Rear LoaderAutomatedSide Loader Pick-up

TotalChange

TotalChange perCustomer[1]

Semi-Automated (1x) $27,814 $0 $6,800 $34,614 $0.19

Fully Automated (1x) ($1,430,000) $1,560,000 $6,800 $136,800 $0.74[1] Based on City provided 2008 customer counts of 186,000 customers served. O&M costs are slightly higher for semi-automated vehicles,

and significantly higher for ASL trucks.

O&M costs for ASL trucks are typically higher than rear loader trucks due to theincreased cost to repair mechanical equipment. This results in a delta of approximately



27/53


Table 3-10Cart Cost Impacts

Estimated Cost Increase (Decrease) [1]

Scenario QuantityCart Capital

Cost

CartReplacement

Surcharge

TotalAnnualized

Cost

Annualizedper Customer

Cost [2]

Semi-Automated (1x) 186,000 $10,522,096 $263,052 $1,078,515 $5.80

Fully Automated (1x) 186,000 $10,522,096 $263,052 $1,078,515 $5.80[1] There is no assumed cart cost under the Baseline scenario. Consequently, the cart cost impacts shown in Table 2-10 reflect a net increase

as a result of newly incurred costs.[2] Based on City provided 2008 customer counts of 186,000 customers served.

3.3.1Cart Replacement Surcharge

The City had reported as part of initial project discussions that they were experiencingan unanticipated cost burden related to tenant occupied housing and the associated

lack of accountability for returning carts and cart damages that could not be recoveredfrom tenants. Typically, communities must either pass on the cost associated withmaintenance risks directly to customers, or adjust their budgeting protocols to properlyaccount for the likelihood (out of all carts) that such an event occurs. R. W. Beck hasassumed that the City would adjust its budget by 2.5 percent of the per-unit cost of acart, in an effort to better plan for these types of problems in advance. Should the Citychoose to assess this surcharge directly to customers, this amount would then be acredit to the City, and this approach can be argued to be a more equitable and direct

way to keep owners accountable for their own behavior and the behavior of theirtenants with respect to carts. Notwithstanding this ultimate decision, the relativeimpact of this cost component is identical for both the Automated and Semi-automatedscenarios, and as such the relative cost differences are not driven by cartconsiderations.

Table 3-11Spare Vehicle Impacts

Net Gain (Loss) [1]

RearAutomated

Side TotalTotal

Annualized

Annualizedper

Customer

Section 3


28/53

Section 3

3.4Conclusion

Table 3-12 below summarizes and compares the cost increase (savings) of labor,vehicle operation, annualized capital costs, and cart costs for each of the scenariosanalyzed, as it relates to the City in total. Table 3-13 summarizes the net impact on theCapital Budget, and Table 3-14 summarizes the net impact on the Solid WasteDivisions General Fund, which excludes the impact of vehicle and cart capital costsfrom the comparison. It is important to stress again that the savings or increases shownare all relative to the Baseline system and the associated Baseline per customer costsas detailed in the introductory graphic in this section, and are driven from the routing

differences modeled and summarized in Tables 3-1 through 3-11.

Within the context of the City in total, the results of the modeling process indicate thatthe Semi-automated scenario will save the City an estimated $1.14 million inoperating costs ($6.13 per customer) over the Baseline scenario on an annual basis.Full implementation of the Automated scenario is estimated to result in a cost savingsof about $1.4 annually, or about $7.66 per customer. The delta between theAutomated scenario and the Semi-automated scenario is an estimated $285,000, which

is the net difference in cost impact to the City (a cost savings in favor of theAutomated alternative in this case) when the scenarios are considered in isolation.

The differences in cost impacts of the alternative scenarios for the City in total, asdetailed throughout this section, are driven from several key factors, which can besummarized as follows:

Near-term capital costs for the Semi-automated scenario are lower due to theability of the City to retrofit its existing fleet,

Capital costs for the Automated scenario are significant, in that the per-unit costof an ASL truck is not only higher than the cost of a rear load truck, but the Citymust acquire a large amount of such trucks assuming full implementation,

The net gains in productivity in the Automated scenario, coupled withimprovements in productivity and increased capacity only partially offset capitalcosts related to procurement of ASL trucks; this cost notwithstanding, gains inproductivity and staffing adjustments result in more savings under the Automated

scenario, O&M costs for the ASL trucks are higher, primarily due to the more complex

nature of the equipment on the vehicle, and

Despite the larger staffing savings associated with the Automated scenario, ASLdrivers are typically paid a premium for their increased level of route



29/53


compensation may make the Automated scenario even more financially attractive ascompared to the Semi-Automated scenario. Ultimately, however, the City cannot

expect significantly more cost savings in the Automated scenario with the currentcapital cost level of the ASL trucks, at least during the amortization period wherebythese capital costs must be financed by the system. There may be a window ofopportunity past this period whereby the ASL fleet would still be usable, andconsequently the savings for the ASL operation in those years could be larger.


30/53

Section 3

3-14 R. W. Beck 9/11/08 R:\Orlando\005821 - Cleveland\05-01482-10101 Pilot Program Eval\0400 - Expansion Assess\Work Products\Final Report\Final Report_20080911.doc

Table 3-12Net Program Savings General Fund and Capital Budget (Relative to the Baseline)

Annual Vehicle Costs Annual Cart Costs Spare Vehicles Total Change Per Customer

Scenario Labor Cost

Annualized

Capital Cost O&M Cost

Annualized

Capital Cost

Cart

Replacement[1]

Annualized

Cost (Savings)

Cost

(Savings)

Cost

(Savings)[2]

Semi-Automated (1x) ($2,304,134) $52,869 $34,614 $1,052,210 $26,305 ($1,667) ($1,139,802) ($6.13)

Fully Automated (1x) ($4,496,565) $1,524,600 $136,800 $1,052,210 $26,305 $331,667 ($1,424,983) ($7.66)

[1] Represents a cart surcharge that serves as a pass-through of costs incurred by the City as a result of lost or stolen carts, either through vandalism or as a result of renter occupied units transporting carts with them when theymove.

[2] Based on City provided 2008 customer counts of 186,000 customers served.

Table 3-13Capital Budget Cost Comparison of Scenarios (Relative to the Baseline)

Annual Vehicle Costs Annual Cart Costs Spare Vehicles Total Change Per Customer

Scenario Labor CostAnnualizedCapital Cost O&M Cost

AnnualizedCapital Cost

CartReplacement [1]

AnnualizedCost (Savings)

Cost(Savings)

Cost(Savings)[2]

Semi-Automated (1x) $0 $52,869 $0 $1,052,210 $0 ($1,667) ($1,103,412) $5.93

Fully Automated (1x) $0 $1,524,600 $0 $1,052,210 $0 $331,667 ($2,903,476) $15.64




31/53


R:\Orlando\005821 - Cleveland\05-01482-10101 Pilot Program Eval\0400 - Expansion Assess\Work Products\Final Report\Final Report_20080911.doc 9/11/08 R. W. Beck 3-15

Table 3-14General Fund Cost Comparison of Scenarios (Relative to the Baseline)

Annual Vehicle Costs Annual Cart CostsSpare

Vehicles Total Change Per Customer

Scenario Labor CostAnnualizedCapital Cost O&M Cost

AnnualizedCapital Cost

CartReplacement [1]

AnnualizedCost(Savings)

Cost(Savings)

Cost(Savings)[2]

Semi-Automated (1x) ($2,304,134) $0 $34,614 $0 $26,305 $0 ($2,243,214) ($12.06)

Fully Automated (1x) ($4,496,565) $0 $136,800 $0 $26,305 $0 ($4,333,459) ($23.30)



Section 3


32/53

With respect to the net impacts to the Solid Waste Divisions General Fund, the resultsof the modeling process indicate that the Semi-automated scenario will save the City

an estimated $2.2 million ($12.06 per customer) over the Baseline scenario on anannual basis. Full implementation of the Automated scenario is estimated to result in acost savings of about $4.3 million annually, or about $23.30 per customer. The deltabetween the Automated scenario and the Semi-automated scenario is an estimated$2.1 million annually, which is the net difference in cost impact to the City (a costsavings in favor of the Automated alternative in this case) when the scenarios areconsidered in isolation.

Because the cost burden of vehicle and cart capital is reported to be only an indirectcost consideration for the Solid Waste Division, the net savings impact to the Divisionfor the Automated scenario increases significantly in Table 3-14, as the fundamentalcost burden associated with this scenario resides with financing costs for new vehiclesand carts.

Additionally, the projected results of full implementation as shown above assume thatoperational efficiency of the Pilot Program areas remain unchanged. If improvements

are made, as suggested in Section 5, it is possible for the program savings and benefitsto be greater than presented above.

The results of the productivity and financial evaluation of the Citys system presentedin Sections 2 and 3 must be carefully reviewed in light of qualitative feedbackobtained from key City stakeholders and delineated in Section 4. Section 5 of thisreport will tie all of the findings of this analysis together to frame a series ofrecommendations to the City for Pilot program expansion.


33/53

Section 4

HIGH-LEVEL SYSTEM REVIEW

4.1IntroductionOperational and cost metrics are important components of a thorough and independentevaluation of the waste collection Pilot Program. However, it is also important togather qualitative information and input from those who have been involved with

either the implementation or operation of the Pilot Program. This feedback helps painta more complete and robust picture of the successes and challenges associated with thePilot Program, and provides input for improving the program for both current andfuture program participants.

In order to obtain this input, one-on-one interviews and focus groups were conductedwith various staff members that represented a diverse group of stakeholders.Additionally, some operational staff suggested that it would be useful for an R. W.

Beck consultant to conduct route observations within the Pilot Program areas.Consequently, an additional half day was spent on the routes with the Automated,Semi-automated and Recycling crews to get a first-hand perspective of some of thePilot Program operations.

This section of the report provides a summary of the information received during theinterviews, focus groups, and route observations. It should be noted that while someobservations may seem contradictory to either data referenced in prior sections of thisreport or other observations, this does not invalidate these observations. Rather, thisinformation should be viewed as additional pieces of the puzzle that were elicited fromkey City stakeholders during this evaluation. Additionally, this section of the report isa description of the process and a listing of the observations, and not an evaluation ofthe issues. The Recommendations section of this report will aggregate the quantitativeand qualitative data from all sections of this report into actionable recommendationsfor the Citys consideration.

4.2Focus Groups

4.2.1Process

Typically, staff that is involved in the day-to-day operations of a department already

Section 4


34/53

The purpose of these focus groups was three fold:

1. Provide an organized forum for staff to share ideas they believe will improve

performance in the Pilot Program area;

2. Provide an open forum for staff to express concerns regarding operations of thePilot Program; and

3. Provide a structured framework that helps staff discuss the pros and cons ofvarious suggestions and solicit levels of shared vision for these suggestions.

R. W. Beck conducted two focus groups on June 30, 2008. Focus groups wereconducted with both Laborers and Drivers from all three service centers, mostly fromwithin the Pilot Program areas. The focus groups were conducted under the conditionof anonymity, and comments, results, and feedback reviewed here are not attributableto any specific individual(s).

Three primary questions were posed to each focus group:

1. What is working?

2. What is not working?

3. What are the solutions?

Suggestions provided in response to Question 3 were intended to address specificissues raised in Question 2, while trying to minimize the impact on the issuesdiscussed to Question 1. Frequently, it is possible to make suggestions that onlyimpact the problem, but participants soon realize that recommendations can also havenegative or unintended consequences, and they are forced to evaluate the pros andcons of each suggestion.

After Question 3 was answered, each participant was given the opportunity to placethree votes for any of the suggestions generated. Each participant could place allthree votes with one suggestion, or spread them out among up to three suggestions.This allows the City to understand what suggestions the employees believe wouldhave the greatest impact on improving the Pilot Program operations, and can be usedto help prioritize future actions.

4.2.2Interpretation InstructionsIt should be noted that the focus groups are intended to encourage a free flow of ideasand comments, whether positive or negative, in a confidential forum. The summary ofthese responses should not be interpreted as an authoritative report card, but rather asthe pulse of a specific group of employees at a given point in time.

High-Level System Review


35/53

and this task attempts to summarize a group of employees responses to a few specificquestions.

4.2.3Findings

The following is a summary of the responses received from the participants in the twofocus groups.

What is Working?

Initially, participants struggled with developing a list of things that appear to be

working well within the Pilot Program area. This is somewhat typical as mostparticipants come eager to discuss challenges. However, after a few minutes, theybegan generating substantive comments regarding things that appear to be workingwell in the Pilot Program areas, namely:

Labrie Vehicle no height issue on the automated arm

Heil faster cycle time

Automated program has great potential

Toter carts heavier, sturdier, easier to roll

Grass clipping collection

Garbage being collected faster

Less injuries

Residents like new carts

Cart placement works when residents comply

Ticketing non-compliant set-outs makes a difference

Teamwork among Pilot Program crew

Rehrig Carts

Streets look cleaner

Time to service homes has improved Tippers 140H20, 138H124, and 140H19 seem to work best

Dedication of crews

Pilot Program is preferred by Drivers

Section 4


36/53

What Is Not Working?

Responses to this question varied between being operational, policy and personnel

related. Recycling contents of cart are too often contaminated

Cart placement not placed correctly often enough

Recycling low participation

Differences between Pilot Program operations and procedures at each servicecenter

Cart maneuvering is difficult in winter months

Uncontainerized (excess) waste

Inconsistent ticketing procedures

Having only one tipper on rear-loaders

Not enough carts for residents

Apathy among residents about complying with new procedures Rental properties no stake for tenant

Education for Supervisors regarding the specifics of the Pilot Program (guidelines,ordinances, enforcement procedures, etc.)

Customer Service phones

Need more help on Semi-automated crews

Customer education

Pay for Drivers and Laborers

Overpopulated Houses generate more trash

Participants agreed that there are many areas that can be addressed which will improvethe efficiency in the Pilot Program areas. While some of these issues can be addressedwithin their department, other issues will require action or input from senior

management or other areas of the City, especially issues that stem from policy-relateddecisions such as set-out requirements, education and ordinance enforcement. Theabove list should be reviewed to determine if they are recurring or isolated problems,to prioritize the problems, and then to determine what level of authority is required toaddress the issues.



37/53

converted into percents (weighted averages) so as to more accurately represent theresponses of all participants.

Table 4-1Suggestions Proposed by Focus Groups

Employee Recommendations Percent of Votes

Increase pay to Pilot Program Drivers / Laborers 29%

Improve or increase Pilot Program education (internal and external),especially regarding recycling

22%

Improve policy / ordinance enforcement procedures 17%Implement parking ban on collection days 10%

Implement Bulk truck in Pilot area 8%

Provide extra cart to residents 7%

Create Pilot Program Coordinator position 5%

Select Pilot Program areas strategically 2%

Increase manpower for Semi-automated routes, especially in winter 0%

4.2.4Focus Group Summary

Both focus groups engaged in lively discussions of the Pilot Program. As thediscussions progressed, it became apparent to the participants that the issues andchallenges they identified could generally be classified as fine tuning, and that thePilot Program has overall been a success. This is an important clarification since a

lengthy list of challenges might easily be misinterpreted as a failing report card. Thisis clearly not the case in this situation. The participants readily acknowledged that thePilot Program is the future of solid waste operations in the City, and that it is having apositive impact. One participant reported that crews are more enthusiastic about their jobs in the Pilot Program. That is a critical element to a successful implementationand expansion of the Pilot Program.

The three most popular suggestions to address challenges are increasing pay,improving staff and public education, and improving ordinance enforcement andprocedures. Since evaluation of pay levels is administered through union negotiationsand beyond the scope of this analysis, it will be not discussed in depth. Additionally,it should be noted that the discussion regarding pay was relatively short, and almostcame up as an afterthought.

Th th t hi h i t i d ti d f t b th t d l th

Section 4


38/53

4.3Pilot Program Route ObservationsWhile the interviews and focus groups provided significant insights into the successesand challenges being experienced in the Pilot Program, R. W. Beck decided to spendadditional time in the field with the Automated, Semi-automated and Recycling crewsto see firsthand what the Drivers and Laborers were experiencing, and to see how thePilot Program residents were responding to the program. It should be noted that theseobservations were conducted a) on a day described as light by the crews; and b)from only one service center and not all three. It is important to recognize thatcompliance patterns of the residents, as well as operational and enforcement practices,

likely vary between service centers.The following is a brief summary of the general observations from routes in the PilotProgram. These observations occurred with enough frequency to warrant inclusion inthis summary.

Automated / Semi-automated

Some residents are not using the automated carts. They are still placing waste at

the curb in cans, bags or loose. Many residents are using the blue cart for regular waste, in addition to the

automated cart for waste.

For a large portion of the Pilot Program area, both the automated and the semi-automated vehicles are driving down the same streets. The automated vehicle iscollecting waste in the automated carts in approximately 70 percent of the area,and the semi-automated vehicle is collecting all waste in 30 percent of the area,

and the un-containerized waste in 70 percent of the area. Drivers used to collect contaminated blue recycling carts, but are now leaving

them.

Semi-automated crews would prefer two flippers to help spread waste in the rearhopper. This would reduce the compaction cycle frequency and reduce spillageover the back of the hopper.

Recycling Driver is recording address of contaminated carts and providing list to Supervisor.

It is unclear if citations are being issued.

Residents have been requested to bag their paper and container recyclablesseparately The majority of the bags make it difficult to ascertain the



39/53

Many residents are placing recyclables in curbside bags rather than automatedcarts.

Much time appears to be spent by crews manually sorting out contaminants fromrecycling carts.

As with the Semi-automated vehicles, crews would prefer two tippers to reducecompaction cycle frequency and reduce spillage over the back of the collectionhopper.

Suggestions to address these issues will be presented in the next section of the report,taking into consideration results of the analyses presented in Sections 2 and 3.


40/53

Section 5

EXPANSION ASSESSMENT

5.1IntroductionImplementing a Pilot Program provides an opportunity to evaluate successes andchallenges prior to full implementation throughout the City. As the City hasrequested, R. W. Beck has evaluated basic route data and certain financial metrics,

observed set-out behaviors and challenges on the routes, interviewed staff andconducted focus groups. Based on these inputs as previously reviewed in this report,it appears that on average the Citys Pilot Program is operating more efficiently thanthe Citys traditional collection methodology. Collection times have improved,containerization of waste has improved, the number of containers being set-out hasdecreased, and the implementation of a recycling program is a great addition to theservices being offered by the City. These are all steps in the right direction and theCitys staff and crews should be commended for their efforts in implementing this

Pilot Program.

The next step the City is considering is expanding the Pilot Program to an additional30,000 households. Given the initial success of the Pilot Program as outlined inSections 2 and 3 of this report, as well as the substantial benefits the City and itsresidents could experience from full implementation, expanding the Pilot Program toadditional households is a logical next step.

This section contains strategies and recommendations for the City to consider thatcould help the Pilot Program areas operate more efficiently while still providingexcellent customer service to the residents.

5.2Strategy for SuccessIn order to develop an effective and efficient collection program, it is useful to clarifyoperational and cost goals as they relate to the Citys impetus for implementing the

Pilot Program. These goals likely include some mix of the following: Reducing operating costs

Reducing capital costs

Reducing required number of routes

Section 5


41/53

One of the biggest challenges to balance with the above goals is the need to maintain ahigh level of customer satisfaction. If the City achieves all of the above goals byproviding services that the residents dislike and/or do not utilize, the program is not a

success. Therefore, a logical and balanced approach is required.

There are a few keys to balancing the above priorities:

Minimize the number of trucks and crews traveling through a collection area;

Maintain convenience for residents;

Give residents the information they need to comply with the Citys operationsplan;

Provide the residents incentives for compliance with the behavior the City desires(or disincentives for contrary behavior); and

Implement an effective enforcement structure through the creation of targetedordinances and empowered Code Enforcement personnel.

A successful approach requires integrating areas of responsibilities throughout theSolid Waste Division as well as the City.

5.3An Integrated ApproachA properly designed and implemented collection program requires a well coordinated,integrated approach. The following is a discussion on several attributes that areparamount to a successful program.

5.3.1Set-out PoliciesThe Citys policies need to at least be reviewed, and possibly revised, based on the set-out practices desired by the City. Establishing clear policies regarding wastecollection practices enables the City to enforce the ordinances and establish penaltiesfor non-compliance.

A review of the Citys ordinances was beyond the scope of project; however, thefollowing items are typical of what should be detailed in set-out policies if they are not

already addressed in the Citys ordinances. Proper placement of the cart in relation to the curb, cars, mailboxes, trees, utility

poles, etc.

Proper placement of the cart regarding which side should be placed facing thestreet

Expansion Assessment


42/53

Some of these issues have been communicated to residents, but without anenforcement mechanism, there is little incentive for the resident to comply.

One of the primary limitations the City needs to determine is how much uncontainedwaste a resident may place curbside for collection with their contained waste.Collecting uncontained waste greatly affects the efficiency of the automated vehicles,which directly impacts the number of routes, crews and vehicles required, crews, costof operations, etc. Based on route observations and conversations with the Driversand Laborers, it appears that residents set-out waste believing they can set-out as muchwaste as they want, knowing it will all be collected.

Also, the perceived difficulty of holding residents accountable for their set-out actions

was brought up in focus groups and interviews. The difficulty is attributed to thecharge for waste services being rolled into the owners property tax bill, and the outof sight, out of mind mentality that gives some residents the perception that wasteservices are free and their actions do not impact their costs. The concern is especiallystrong as it relates to tenants who never directly pay the property taxes. As the Cityevaluates ordinances, as well as various rate incentives discussed below, specialconsideration should be given to creating mechanisms that allow the City to pass alongcharges or fines to residents or tenants on a timely basis.

5.3.2Enforcement

After establishing the proper ordinances, it is necessary to implement the properstructure for enforcing the ordinances. Prior experience shows that communities thatactively enforce policies when they are implemented experience significant violationsinitially, but eventually obtain compliance. While other communities who never truly

enforce policies, for fear of upsetting residents and voters, tend to experience ongoingviolations and inefficiencies.

Certainly the front lines of defense are the drivers on the route. They are extremelyobservant of set-out practices, repeat offenders, special needs of the residents, etc. Itis also important for them to maintain good relationships with the people they serve,and they take pride in cleaning their assigned areas. Therefore, for customer servicepurposes, it is generally not suggested that drivers become the primary mode ofenforcement. A friendly verbal reminder can sometimes be effective, but someone

from a Code Enforcement position should carry the burden regarding codeenforcement.

If the City has general Code Enforcement Officers who are also responsible forenforcing all of the Citys ordinances, they should receive extra training regarding thesolid waste ordinances and be allowed to focus on enforcing them during the

Section 5


43/53

Regardless of where the Code Enforcement Officer is positioned within the Citysorganizational structure, it is important to ensure that proper communication channelsare established between Drivers, Laborers, Supervisors and Code Enforcement

personnel.

5.3.3Education

Once the appropriate ordinances and enforcement practices have been established, theresidents need to be thoroughly educated on the collection services being provided bythe City. Based on observed set-out practices by residents, there is substantial roomfor improvement on their behalf for both MSW and recycling set-outs. An effective

education plan should at a minimum communicate the following:

the solid waste collection services being provided by the City;

how the resident complies with the new program;

the benefit to the resident, both personally and as a City, of compliance; and

the penalties for non-compliance.

Numerous people in the focus groups and interviews indicated that they thought themajority of residents will pay more attention to the penalties than they will the benefitsto the City. While there may be some truth to this belief, a holistic communicationstrategy should be utilized. The data in Sections 2 and 3 of this report can beleveraged as the City desires to help communicate how this program benefits theresidents individually and the City as a whole.

Task 5 of this project provides assistance with developing community outreach andmessaging materials, and will be conducted after this report has been finalized.

5.3.4Collection Vehicles

Labrie and Heil vehicles were both field tested during the Pilot Program, and theLabries continue to be utilized in this interim period. The Labries seem to bepreferred by the crews as well as the administrative staff.

Additional considerations regarding collection vehicles:

Depending on the Citys goal with uncontainerized waste, the City should considerprocuring automated collection vehicles that easily allow the Driver to load smallamounts of uncontainerized waste. This would allow the City to reduce thenumber of vehicles traveling on a collection route, and minimize the number ofhomes needing to be serviced by semi-automated vehicles.

Expansion Assessment


44/53

Semi-automated and recycling crews, which are both using rear-loaders retrofittedwith tippers, expressed an interest in having two tippers at the hopper rather thanone. This double configuration is used elsewhere, and can make the crews more

productive due to the increased tipping capacity and the decrease in time waitingto tip a cart. Additionally, it helps spread the material in the bucket, reduces thecompactor cycling frequency and reduces the amount of material that spills ontothe street.

Multi-Purpose Collection Vehicles

The City currently utilizes both automated and semi-automated vehicles, both of

which have their pros and cons. To overcome some of the challenges posed by fullyautomated collection vehicles, a fairly new type of truck is being utilized in the solidwaste collection industry. These vehicles combine the functionality of manual, semi-automated, and fully automated trucks, into one vehi

r w beck report august, 2008 - solid waste collection pilot project evaluation

Documents