Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-04-22 City CouncilC ty Manager’s City of Palo Alto Summary Report 12 TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS APRIL 22, 1997 CMR:157:97 INTERIM MIXED PAPER DROP-OFF PROGRAM EXPANSION This report requests that Council approve an interim expanded mixed paper drop-off program. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff requests that Council approve an interim expanded mixed paper drop-off program, and direct staff to return in one year with an evaluation of the program, including recommendations for changes. POLICY IMPLICATIONS There are no policy,implications related to this report. F~ECUTIVE SUMMARY In March 1996, staff initiated a pilot residential mixed paper program on one recycling route in Palo Alto. At the completion of the program, paper tonnages were calculated to determine the amounts collected. The data collected projected that 15 .tons per day or 4,000 tons per year could be diverted from the residenti!! waste stream (approximately 16.7 percent of the residential waste stream). Staff also sent surveys out to all pilot participants and 46 percent of them were returned. Overall, surveyed residents were pleased with the program, had seen reductiom in the amount of garbage they generated, and would be willing to pay extra for a program were it to be expanded eitywide. There are several costs and scenarios associated with expanding the program eitywide: 1) Collect and process mixed paper at the Palo Alto Recycling Center, 2) Transport material CMR:157:97 ¯Page 1 of 13 to the new recycling line at the SMART Station, 3) Transport material to the BFI Recyclery, 4) Implement an interim drop-off program, and 5) Continue recovering mixed paper from the sorting line at the SMART Station (see Attachment A for cost considerations for these Scenarios). In order to implement a citywide mixed paper program using Scenarios 1-3 above, refuse rates would have to be increased to cover the cost of collection, processing, and promotion. However, due to California’s new "Right to Vote on Taxes" initiative (Proposition 218) which was passed last November, it is unclear whether recycling programs can be charged through refuse rates. A precedent has not yet been set by any municipality, so staff believes it would be prudent to delay implementinga curbside mixed .paper program until it is clear what will be expected of cities in regard to the requirements of Proposition 218. In addition to the issues raised by Proposition 218, staff also would like time to assess the cost impacts of increased use of the mixed paper recycling option on refuse rates from the standpoint Of reduced revenues, landfill cost avoidance, and .the requirements for the Sunnyvale SMART station contract. As a short term solution, an interim program (Scenario 4) could be implemented which would place three-yard bins for mixed paper drop-off at all Palo Alto Fire Stations and Libraries. This would provide 12 drop-off locations for residents in addition to the Recycling Center for minimal cost. The cost of this program would be $65,000 plus an additional $20,000 for staff time and to promote the program. FISCAL IMPACT The interim mixed paper drop-offprogram will cost $85,000 per year. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT There is no Environmental Assessment required. ATT_ACHMEN~ Cost Summary of Five Scenarios PREPARED BY: Karen Gissibl, Executive Assistant CMR:157:97 Page 2 of 13 DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: GLENN S. ROBERTS /’/~t3NE FL~MING ~/City Manager CMR:157:97 Page 3 of 13 ATTACHMENT A: Cost Calculations for Programs Which Will Divert Mixed Paper Scenario 1-Collect and process mixed paper at the Palo Alto Recycling Center Collect, sort and process mixed paper at Palo Alto Recycling Center. This would require a new processing and sorting operation at the Center. 2-Transport to SMART Transport mixed paper to SMART Station for processing and sale on new recycling line which has not yet been put into operation. 3-Transport to BFI Transport mixed.paper to BFI Reeyclery in Milpitas. 4-Interim Drop-off Place three-yard bins at 12 drop-off locations in Palo Alto, including all Fire Stations and Libraries. 5~Continue SMaRT recovery Continue to have mixed paper recovered from the waste stream at the SMART Station as is currently done.’ Annual Costs $195,000’ One-time Costs $240,000 $205,000*$180,000 Total Program Costs ’ $435,000 $385,000 $385,000* $180,000 $565,000 $65,000*$65,0000 no additional costs no additional costs *Annual costs for Scenarios 1-4 would include an additional $20,000 of advertising, direct mailing, promotional materials and staff time. CMR:157:97 Page 4 of 13 City of Palo Al~o City Manager’s Repor SUBJECT:INTERIM MIXED PAPER RECYCLING DROP-OFF PROGRAM EXPANSION This report requests that Council approve an interim expanded mixed paper drop-off program, and direct staff to return in one year with an evaluation of the program, including recommendations for changes. This report also provides information from the pilot ¯ residential mixed paper program and estimated costs on various mixed paper expansion programs staff evaluated. BACKGRO~ In 1978, Palo Alto implemented one of the first curbside recycling programs in the nation. When the program was initiated, newspaper, glass, cans, cardboard, motor oil, and scrap metal were accepted curbside in burlap bags provided by Palo Alto Sanitation Company (PASCO). Additions to the program include #1 PETE plastic in 1988, yard trimmings in 1990, non-colored #2 HDPE plastic in 1993, and dry cell batteries in 1996. In 1994, plastic stacking crates were purchasedby the City and distributed to all single family and multi-family dwellings with fewer than five units. The stacking crates took the place of the burlap bags and made recycling more convenient and user friendly. All .of the improvements to the recycling program have helped increase the annual recycling tonnages dramatically; in 1972, 3,000 tom of recyclables were collected compared to 11,000 tom in 1995. It is estimated that with the addition of mixed paper to the curbside program, 4,000 additional tons will be collected, a 36 percent increase in tonnages over 1995. In March 1996, staff initiated a six month pilot mixed paper program to determine the amount of mixed paper collected and the operational costs for the program. In addition, a survey was sent out to all pilot participants to provide feedback on whether they were able to reduce their waste, what type of containers they preferred to use for placing their paper eurbside, .and whether they would be willing to pay for the program if it were implemented eitywide.. This report provides Council with the results of the pilot, alternative scenarios for implementation (including estimated costs) and an overview of Proposition 218 impacts on new program costs. CMR:157:97 Page 5 of 13 POLICY IMPLICATIONS This report does not represent any change to existing policies. A mixed paper pilot program was implemented on one recycling route (2,200 single family households) from January to March 1996. Four apartment complexes with 200 residents werealso included in the pilot. Single family residents placed their white and colored paper~ paperboard, and magazines into a grocery bag, small cardboard box, or a labeled garbage can for curbside collection. Multi-family residents placed their mixed paper in a wheeled cart located next to other recycling containers at the complex,: At the completion of the pilot program, paper tonnages were calculated to determine the amounts collected and then extrapolated to determine annual tonnage amounts. Tonnages collected are projected to be 15 tons per day or up 4,000 tons per year from the residential waste stream (16.7 percent of the residential waste stream). Currently, approximately 50 percent of the mixed paper is removed at the end of the waste stream when it is processed at the SMART Station. Thus, the total amount of diversion would be 2,000 additional tons of mixed paper .from what is currently diverted from the City’s waste stream. Surveys Surveys were sent to all 2,200 participants in the pilot, program. Forty-six percent (1,012) of the surveys were returned. Of the residents who returned surveys, 95 percent said they had participated in the pilot program~. When-asked if they had seen a reduction in their garbage level during the pilot program, 79 percent said yes and 9 percent said no. When. asked .by what quantity, 32. percent said by ~A can or less, 28 Chart A Amount of,reduced garbage (in cans) 1/2 ©sn or less (28% percent said by 1/~ can or less,. 16 percent said by more than a lh can, and 5 percent said by a full can (Chart A). Of the surveyed respondents, over half of them (55 percent) said they would consider reducing their garbage service level to fewer cans, or in the case of CMR:157:97 Page 6 of 13 ’ one-can customers, to a mini-can if a program were offered. When asked what type of container participants used or-what they preferred to use, half of the participants put their mixed paper out in a paper bag, 31 percent in a box, and 12 percent in a labeled garbage can. The majority of participants who responded to the survey (38 percent) felt that an , .additional recycling crate, similar to what is currently used for curbside materials, would be the most convenient container to use. Chart B Frequency rnatedal was placed at curb Monthly (6% Twenty percent were satisfied using a paper bag. When asked the frequency with which they placed their mixed paper curbside, 62 percent placed it out at the curb weekly, 25 percent placed it out twice a month, and 6 percent placed it out monthly (Chart B). Prior to the pilot program, 30 percent of the participants took their material to a recycling center and 38 percent said they would be willing to take it to a recycling center if a program were not implemented. In addition, participants were willing to pay for a mixed paper program. When asked if they would be willing to pay an additional monthly cost to implement the program citywide, 22 ¯ percent said yes if the program cost less than $0.50, 30 percent said yes if less than $1,00, 22 percent said .yes if .less than $2.00, and .20 percent said they were not willing to pay.extra for the program (Chart C). Chart C Willing to pay addltio~nal cost for program ecye~ling Element In 1989, AB 939 was enacted to reduce waste disposed at California’s landf’dls, one requirement of the law was the preparation and Council adoption of a City of Palo Alto Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), Which described the programs and activities the City would implement to achieve the 50 percent diversion goal. CMR:157:97 Page 7 of 13 As part of the SRRE, a mixed paper program was planned for implementation in early 1994 at the Palo Alto Recycling Center and curbside. The Recycling Center began accepting mixed paper in 1994. Value of Mixed Paper The market prices for paper have covered a wide range the last few years. In 1995, new U.S. paper mill capacity coincided with strong export buying to drive up prices. Mixed paper had the widest price range of all paper grades, peaking in some regions at over $100 per ton in 1995. In late 1995, the recycled paper demand slowed; and in 1996, a price correction occurred which brought paper prices down. Mixed paper prices are currently at zero or cost $20 per ton for processing. Some analysts have predicted there will be a slight recovery in the market value of mixed paper by the end of 1997. Cost Scenarios for a citvwide Program Due to the costs associated with the implementation of a mixed paper program, staff evaluated five scenarios. Attachment D provides the details of the costs for each of the scenarios. A summary of the description of each scenario and associated costs follows: SCENARIO 1: Process Mixed Paper at the Palo Alto Recycling Center Expansion of mixed paper collection City-wide would require a new processing and sorting operation at the Recycling. Center. The present conveyor belt system and sorting equipment are inefficient; and an additional volume ofmaterial added to the system would result in regular breakdowns. (While PASCO does an excellent job of working with and repairing the equipment at the Center, a new sorting line would be necessary to improve operations.) One time equipment costs would be $240,000 for a new conveyor system and $180,000 for modification of the three recycling trucks. The annual (ongoing) costs would be $195,000 for staffing, maintenance, and processing costs, and $105,000 for an additional driver and truck maintenance. The total program cost would be $435,000° ." SCENARIO 2: Transport Material to the New Recycling Line at the SMART Station Western Waste Inc.(WWI), the contractor operating the SMART Station, is contracted to design and install a recycling line which will accommodate trucks and materials from the three cities (Sunnyvale, Mountain View and Palo Alto). This line was planned to be operational in 1997, but is currently on hold while the three cities evaiuate design options. When the new line is in operation, Palo Alto.would be able to transport mixed paper or other recyelables to the SMART Station for processing and sale. CMR:157:97 Page 8 of 13 Staff estimates the annual costs would be $205,000 for collection and transportation of the materials. It is likely that processing costs would also be charged, but these costs are unknown at this time. Under Sunnyvale’s agreement with WWI, the contractor would receive 50 percent of the revenue from the sale of the material. The total program cost would be $385,000. SCENARIO 3: Transport Material to BFI Recyclery This scenario would require transporting the mixed paper to the Browning, Ferris Industries (BFI) Recyclery in Milpitas. This would eliminate the need to expand the Recycling Center for processing mixed paper and could be an interim solution until the processing line is constructed at the SMART Station. However, due to lack of a current market for mixed paper, BFI would charge the City for processing the paper. For this scenario staff estimated the cost for processing at $20/ton or $80,000 per year. The annual costs for collecting and transporting the paper to the Recyclery. would be $385,000. The total program costs would be $565,000. SCENARIO 4: Interim Drop-Off Program Scenario 4 would be an expansion of the current mixed paper drop-off program at the Recycling Center. From February 1996 to February 1997, 288 tons of mixed paper have been collected through business collection and drop-offs. Staff estimates eight tons per month, or 33 percent are dropped off at the Center by residents. A substantial amount of residents would most likely use the expanded program, as mentioned earlier in the report (38 percent of the pilot participants said they would be willing to take mixed paper to a recycling center, if the program did not get implemented). Staff has worked with PASCO to develop an interim program which would place three-yard bins for mixed paper drop-off at all Palo Alto Fire Stations and Libraries. This would provide 12 drop-off locations for mixed paper in Palo Alto (see Attachment E) in addition to the Recycling Center. Based on estimates of 4,000 tons of mixed paper in the residential waste stream, staff estimates that an average of six tons per week could be collected at each site. The cost of this scenario totals $65,000 to rent 12 three-yard bins, twice weekly, at all 12 locations. The total program costs would be $65,000. CMR:157:97 Page 9 of 13 SCENARIO 5: Continue Recovering Mixed Paper from the Sorting Line at SMART Station Currently, all of Palo Alto’s residential waste is transported to the SMART Station and the recyclable material in the waste stream is recovered through the sorting lines at the SMART Station. A recent waste characterization study found that 16.7 percent of the waste from the residential waste stream in Palo Alto is mixed paper, ¯ and of¯ thaL 50 percent, or 2,000 tons is recoverable at the SMART Station. The City could continue with this recovery method, thus eliminating the start-up and ongoing costs of a eurbside residential mixed paper program. This method does not provide residents with the¯ incentive to reduce their waste since the mixed paper would be placed with their garbage. Other Program Cost Considerations Program Promotion In Scenarios 1-4 above, the cost to promote the program and educate residents is not included. Staff estimates $20,000 would be needed for advertisements, brochures, utility bill inserts, direct mailing, and staff time (one-time cos0. New Collection Vehicles In Scenarios 1-3 above, the cost estimate includes modifications to three existing recycling trucks that are in the process of being replaced. By modifying the old recycling trucks,. the start-up costs would be dramatically reduced and since new trucks would not have to be ordered (6-9 month delivery on new trucks), the program could be implemented earlier. However, the cost for maintenance and repair of the older trucks may be substantial. If new trucks were to be used, the cost would be approximately $540,000. Revenue Reduction While implementing a mixed paper program citywide would capture additional diversion tonnages, there would be a revenue reduction from residents switching to fewer garbage cans. As previously mentioned, 55 percent of the surveyed residents claimed they would reduce their garbage service level if the program were. implemented eitywide. If 55 percent of residents switched from one can to a mini-can, the revenue loss would be approximately $165,027 per year (Table 1). CMR:157:97 Page 10 of 13 Table 1 Revenue loss from 55 % migration to mini-can 55 % of one can users Revenue from 55 % of one can users Revenue from 55 % of mini-can users Difference (revenue loss from migration to mini-can) *August 1996 monthly PASCO report 3,619’ $65,142/month or $781,704/year $51,389/month or $616,677/year $165,027/year Avoided Landfill Costs As mentioned previously, 50 percent of the mixed paper is recovered at the SMART Station. If 4,000 tons of mixed paper were recovered from a curbside recycling program, the. City may realize savings up to $97,000 per year from the avoided landfill cost. This could offset approximately 58 percent of the revenue loss from the potential conversion to smaller/fewer garbage cans. Potential Reduction of Tonnage to SMART Station Another cost consideration is that a mixed paper program would reduce the amount of garbage tonnages currently being transported to the SMART Station by approximately 2,000 tons. If the City did not meet the put-or-pay tonnage commitments, Palo Alto would have to pay approximately $18 for each ton not delivered. To avoid paying a put-or-pay fee, the City would dive~ additional solid waste to the SMART Station which is now delivered to the Palo Alto Landfill. " EISCAL~AC~ Staff estimates the start-up costs of a residential mixed paper program for scenarios 1-3 to be between $385,000 to $485,000 ($1.86 to $2.34 per household/month) and the annual costs to be between $195,000 to $385,000 per year ($0.94 to $1.86 per household/month). Scenario 4 would have an annual cost of $65,000 (0.31 cents per household/month). The monthly per household amounts are at the upper range of what 22 percent of survey respondents said they were willing to ~pay if a eurbside mixed paper program were implemented (see Chart C). The least costly method of capturing the mixed paper from Palo Alto residents is to continue the current practice of recovering it at the SMART Station. However, in order to encourage residents to reduce their waste .by recycling instead of throwing it away, a modified drop-off program or a curbside collection program is a better waste prevention tool. CM~:157:97 Page 11 of 13 Pr _ " " i Proposition 218, the "Right to Vote on Taxes" initiative, was passed by California voters last November. It requires new procedures for raising fees for what are defined as "property related services." It also requires that users of services pay for the costs of those services. It is unclear at this time whether, and to what extent, refuse rates fit within the definition of "property related fees," as defined by the initiative. It is also unclear to what extent recycling programs in general can be charged through refuse rates, or whether separate recycling charges need to be developed and added to the utility bill. If refuse rates do fall within the definition, the inifiative’s procedural requirements for raising fees are much more extensive than cities have had to follow in the past. Those requirements take effect whenever a new or increased fee is proposed, and involve notifying each .property owner of the proposed fee increase, and demonstrating in detail how the fee increase affecting that particular property was calculated. Furthermore, it is unclear under the terms of the initiative whether someone who recycles should bear an additional charge for the cost of providing that service, or should instead receive a credit for reducing waste ¯ disposal costs. During the pilot program, staff received over 50 phone calls, six e-mail messages, and seven letters (Attachment C) from residents interested and enthusiastic about continuation of the program. Since the pilot program ended, staff continues to respond to phone calls and e-mail messages regarding mixed paper. It is apparent from this response that residents are very much in favor of a mixed paper program and are motivated to recycle. As mentioned previously, it is estimated that an additional one and one half percent diversion of the total City waste ,stream could be achieved by program expansion. However, staff believes it would be prudent for the City to delay implementing any new programs that would require a rate increase until 1998-99 because of the issues surrounding Proposition 218. By that time, more discussion statewide.oninterpreting Proposition 218 will have occurred, other cities may have developed rate strategies that would have some applicability for Palo Alto, and court cases may have clarified these questions further. The interim program expansion (Scenario 4) would not-require a rate increase in the next fiscal year. In one year, staff would evaluate the effectiveness of the expanded mixed paper dropToff program, the effects of Proposition 218, and make recommendations for either the continuation, or expansion of the program using one of the alternative scenarios. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT There is no Environmental Assessment required. CMR:157:97 P~ge 12 of 13 ATTACHMENTS A - Blank Survey B - Survey Results C - Two Letters of Support D - Cost Calculations E - City SiteS for DroP-0ff CMR:157:97 Page 13 of 13 Attachment A /v~IXED PAPER RECYCLING SURVEY Please take a few moments to fill out the survey below regarding the Mixed Paper Recycling Pilot you have been participating in. As you know, the pilot ended on April 14. The Palo Alto Reeyelin~ Program staff is now evaluating the feasibility of expanding the program city-wide. Your comments are a much needed part of the evaluation process and will help shed light on problems, concerns, or things that you liked about the program. If you return the survey by hlag_L3., your name will be entered in a drawing for a free pair of movie tieketst PLEASE ANSWER QUESTIONS AND CHECK BOXES AS APPROPRIATE : i. o o Did you participate in the mixed paper pilot program? 11yes 11no (if no, please go to questions #10) what type of container did you use to put mixed paper at the curb? 11paper bag ¯11box 11garbage can 11other (describe). What type of container do you think would be the most convenient to use? 11paper bag Obox. 11garbage can !!64 gallon wheeled cart 11additional crate the same size as eurbside crates 11crate bigger than the curbside crate 11othe.r (explain) How many mixed paper containers did you put out each time you recycled? How often did you put material out at the curb? 11weekly 11twice a month 11monthly If you used paper bags to put your mixed paper in, did you have a problem with them at the curb (i.e., bag getting wet or tearing)? Have you seen a reduction in your garbage since y0ti started the program? 11yes 11no If yes, can you estimate how much your garbage has been reduced by? 111/4 can or less 11~h can or less 11more than ~A can 11full can During the pilot program PASCO experimented with two different collections methyls.. Were you aware of these differences and did they affect you in any way? Please explain: Please turn over~ 10.What did you like or disl~ike about the program? 11. 12. ¸13. 14. 15. 16. Would you participate in the program if it was provided as a regular weekly collection? Qyes Qno Would you consider Changing your garbage service level to fewer cans or the mini-can (20 gallons) if the program was implemented city-wide? Clyes Qno Did you take your mixed paper to a recycling center before this program started? Qyes Qno Would you bewilling to take it to a recycling center if the program didn’t get implemented city-wide? [21yes 121no If there was an additional cost to implement this program city-wide would you be willing to pay for it? Cino 121yes, if less than $0.50 I21yes, if less than $1.00 I~1 yes, if lessthan $2.00 Was the educational material distributed to you at the beginning of the mixed paper pilot dear and easy to understand? I~lno (if no, please explain) 17. Comments: ¯ Please fill in your name and address below if you want to be entered in the drawing for free movie tickets. Name: Address: ¯ Phone: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND IDEAS. PLEASE MAIL THIS BACK IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE BY ~’~AY t3. ~F .YOU HAVE ANY RECYCLING QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL 496-59tO. Attachment B o 6 MIXED PAPER RECYCLING SURVEY RESULTS Did you participate in the mixed paper pilot program? yes 955 (94%) no .~1 (5%) /fro response 7 What type of container did you use to put mixed paper at the curb? paper bag 514 (50%) box 315 (31%) garbage can 125 (12%) other(describe): plastic wastebasket (30), plastic crate (108), plastic bag (6), top of recyclables (1), wood crate (1), no response (56) Wh~t type of container do you think would be the most convenient to use? paper bag 203 box 96 garbage can 89 64 gallon wheeled cart 38 crate bigger than the curbside crate 93 Additional crate the same size as curbside crates 394 other 32 no response 68 How many mixed paper containers did you put out each time you recycled? (Didn’t tally)* How often did you put material, out at the curb? weekly 636 (62%) twice a month 254 (25%) monthly 67 (6%) No response 56 If you used paper bags to put your mixed paper in, did you have a problem with them at the curb (i.e., bag getting wet or tearing)? (Didn’t tally)* Have you seen a reduction in your garbage since you started the program? yes 790 (78%) no 95 (9%) No response 108 If yes, can you estimate how much your garbage has been reduced by? 1/4 can or less 333 (32%) IA can or less 292 (28%) mo~e than I~ can 166 (16%) full can 60 no response 163 During the pilot program PASCO experimented with two different collections methods. Were you aware of these differences and did they affect you in any way7 Please explain: (Didn’t tally)* What did you like or dislike about the program? (Didn’t tally)* Would you participate in ~he program if it was provided as a regular weekly collection? (Didn’t tally)* " 12.Would you consider changing your garbage service level to fewer cans or the mini-can (20 gallons) if the program was implemented city-wide7 ~ yes 565 (55%) no 310 (30%) No response 136 13.Did you take your mixed paper to a recycling center before this program started7 yes Sl S (30%) no 562 (55%) No response 37 14. 15. Would you be willing to take it to a recycling center if the program didn’t get implemented city- wide? yes 385 (38%) no 480 (47%) Maybe 73 (7%) No response 73 (7%) If there for it? no yes, if less than $0.50 yes, if less than $1.00 yes, if less than $2.00 No response ~as an additional cost to implement this program city-wide would you be willing to pay 2o3 (2o%) 232 (22%) sos (son) 224 (22%)- 45 16.Was the educational material distributed to you at the be ’girming of the mixed paper pilot clear and easy to understand? (Di .dn’t tally)* Total number of surveys mailed out Total number of returned surveys *Some of the items were not tallied for these results, but will be when planning and developing a Mixed Paper Program get underway (if the program gets approved).- Start of Item 3. Attachment C Message. Subject: Mixed Paper Program . Sender: GEORGE-H-BROWN / NTMAIL (*) TO: RECYCLING / CPA/CH Part Dated: 05/16/96 at 0857. ~Contents: 3. TO: RECYCLING / CPA/CH Part 2. MESSAGE HEADER. Part 3. To: recycling@city.palo-alto.ca.us From: brown@stanford.edu (George H. Brown) Cc: PBROWN@scuacc.scu.edu Dear Julie Weiss, .Concerning Our participation in the Mixed Paper Pilot Program, we would like to follow up our mailed evaluation form with this additional message. Our household consists of two adults and two children aged 15 and II, a large dog, two cats, a growing iguana, and some fish. Although we try to be careful of resources, like our neighbors we do generate quite a bit of trash each week° We have used the curbside recycling program to itsfull extent, but each week we still put out two thirty-gallon cans of garbage° When we took part in the Mixed Paper Pilot Recycling Program, we were pleased to note that our refuse decreased dramatically: from filling two cans each week to less than one can° If the Mixed Paper Project goes through, I doubt that we will be able regularly to squeeze our refuse into a mini-can, but we can assure you that our refuse will be more than halved each week. ¯ I expect that our experience is typical of other Palo Alto residences. We urge you to put the case for the Mixed Paper Recycling Program before the City Council in the strongest possible terms~ TheProgram will make a great difference in our efforts to recycle resources and protect the environment. The city of Palo Alto has been in the forefront of urban recycling programs; it could lead the way once again, with the Mixed Paper Recycling project° With best wishes for your good work, George, Phyllis, Austin and Malcolm Brown 451 Adobe Place Palo Alto, CA 954306-4501 George Hardin Brown Department of English e~mail: brown@stanfordoedu office: 415 723r3014 At tmlment C 867 Lincoln Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 January 30, 1996 Ms. Judy Weiss ¯ Recycling Program Assistant City of Palo Alto Public Works Department P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA .94303 Dear Ms..Weiss, I want to tell you how pleased I am that: Number One, the City of Palo Alto has taken on a pilot mixed paper recycling program, and Number Two, our neighborhood was selected as the test site neighborhood. I am appalled and astonished at how much paper can accumulate in just one week in our household (there are only two of us in the h6usehold). For some reason, this program has made me so much more aware of our need to conserve,to recycle and be stewards of the earth. Thank you for this opportunity. This is an important program and I hope it will be undertaken permanently. I don’t want it to stop on April 14th! Sineerley, t Weil 415-323~7919 Attachment D COST CALCULATIONS Total Program Costs for Scenario 1 Annual costs One-time costs Collection -additional driver $75,000 -maintenance ~ Subtotal $105,000 Sorting at the Recycling .Center Collection -modification of three tracks Subtotal $180. oo0 Sorting at the Recycling Center -additional staff $75,000 -baling materials $ 5,000 -maintenance ~ Subtotal $90,000 -new conveyor system Subtotal Grand total $195,000 Grand total $240~000 Annual program costs after f’wst year $195,000 Total program costs $435,000 ($195,000+ $240,000) Total Program Costs for Scenario 2 Annual costs One-time costs Collection $75,000 -modification of three trucks ~ $105, 000 Subtotal $180, 000 Collection -additional driver -maintenance Subtotal Transporting material to SMART Station -transportation cost ~ Subtotal $100,000 Grand total $205,000 Annual program costs after fin’st year $205,000 Grand toud Total program costs ($205,000+ 180,000) $180,000 $385,000 COST CALCULATIONS (page 2) Annual costs Collection -additional driver $75,000 -maintenance ~ Subtotal $105, 000 Total Program Costs for Scenario 3 . One-time costs Collection -modification of three trucks ~ Subtotal $180, 000 Transporting material to BFI Recyclery -transportation cost $200.000 Subtotal $200,000 Processing cost -$20/ton @ 4,000 tom $80,000* Subtotal $80,000 Grand total ~ $385,000 Grand total $180,000 Annual program costs after fin’st year $385,000Total program costs.$565,000 ($385,000+$180,000) *This is a conservative estimate. During poor markc~s BH could charge ~o process the paper, during good markets they could pay for the paper. ATTAcI~ENT E