HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-11-22 City Council (8)City of Palo Alto
C ty Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
NOVEMBER 22, 2004 CMR:497:04
POTENTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF MAY 10, 2004 CITY COUNCIL
ACTION REGARDING "PROPOSED NEW RECYCLING AND SOLID
WASTE SERVICE - RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 1:
IMPLEMENTATION OF A SINGLE STREAM RECYCLING
PROGRAM"
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council reaffirm the direction to implement a single stream recycling
program.
BACKGROUND
At the November 15, 2004 City Council meeting, Council requested that staff return with further
information regarding the single stream recycling program.
DISCUSSION
History of Recycling in Palo Alto
Recycling in Palo Alto began in 1971 with a drop off recycling center. In 1978, curbside
collection of newspapers, cans, glass, corrugated cardboard, motor oil and small scrap metal
items began. Vehicles were custom designed and constructed to fit the Palo Alto recycling
program. Through the years, the program has continued to expand and evolve and has received a
number of awards along the way. Today, between the curbside collection and drop off programs,
40 different materials are collected and accepted for recycling. Since the beginning of the
program, these materials with a few exceptions, have been processed at the Palo Alto recycling
center which is located at the landfill, and not sent offsite for processing. Recyclables have not
been sent to the SMART Station in Sunnyvale, which does process a portion of Palo Alto’s refuse
stream. Doing so would require forfeiting the majority of revenue from the sale of those
recyclables to the contract operator of the SMART Station - as will be discussed further in this
report.
Palo Alto is now faced with the need to reevaluate and change our recycling program, due to
three factors,
First, the evolution of recycling from 1978 to today, the current system of source-separated
collection has become obsolete. As residents have become more comfortable with recycling,
they want to recycle more. The four-crate system has limited expansion capabilities and the
existing style of crates are no !onger available for purchase. Industry standards are changing
requiring more automated collection as a potential savings in collection efficiency and as a
means of controlling escalating workers’ compensation insurance costs.
CMR:497:04 Page 1 of 5
Secondly, increasing recycling also complies with the zero waste and sustainability policies
adopted by the City. The annual customer survey of PASCO’s services also provides the
opportunity for residents to add comments about their service. The following suggestions were
provided to improve service:
1.Recycle additional plastics;
2.Imwove how containers are returned after being serviced;
3.Reduce collection noise, and
4.Create flexibility and simplify collection methods.
Clearly, Palo Alt0 residents also want the opportunity for additional recycling which the current
system cannot provide.
Thirdly, a change is mandated by the fact that the current site of the recycling center, which is
located at the City’s landfill, will be lost when the landfill closes in approximately 2011. Unless
the City chooses to maintain a processing center at that site, the operation must move elsewhere.
Options Available for Future Recycling Programs
There are three basic options available to Palo Alto for developing its future recycling programs.
The first and second options would both make use of existing programs and services that are
currently available contractually from other sources.
The first option, single stream recycling, is currently available through Waste Management, Inc.,
the parent company of PASCO. If the staff recommendation is reaffirmed, the recyclables would
be processed at WMI facilities in either San Leandro or Castroville. The terms of our current
agreement with PASCO provides that we retain all pr.oceeds, from the sale of recyclables as a
credit against operating costs. The net to Palo Alto from the $1 million annual value less the
$600,000 increased cost of single stream operation would be approximately $400,000 per year,
which would continue to reduce the cost of refuse collection from our customers.
The second option, split cart or dual system recycling, is available at the SMART Station in
Sunnyvale as an optional service through the existing agreement ..between Sunnyvale, Palo Alto,
and Mountain View. The terms of that agreement would require that the revenue from the sale
of the recyclables be allocated 75% to the SMART Station contract operator - Green
Team/Zanker, a San Jose business - with the remaining 25% to be divided equally among the
three cities. Thus, Palo Alto would retain approximately 8% of our current recycling revenues,
or approximately $80,000 of the current $1 million mmually.
Finally, if it is deemed ultimately desirable to maintain total local control and location of the
program, a custom designed program could be developed and located in Palo Alto. That option
infers the same land use policy considerations as are currently being reviewed in the
Environmental Services Center project discussions.
The net difference between the two net revenue figures - $80,000 per year for split cart and
$400,000 per year for single stream is an approximate net/net $300,000 per year advantage for
single stream, as well be yet further detailed subsequently in this report.
CMR:497:04 Page 2 of 5
Single stream allows all recyclable materials collected curbside to be commingled and placed in
a single wheeled-cart as opposed to multiple bins. The materials can then be wheeled to the curb
and placed into one collection vehicle. The split cart system requires that recyclable materials
collected curbside be separated into a wheeled cart that is split into two categories: one for all
the paper goods (newspaper, mixed paper, and corrugated) and one for glass, cans and plastic.
Split cart collection vehicles have a divider in the middle to keep the materials separated.
Either system will have an increase in start-up costs over the current system (Attachrnent 1).
However, the initial cost of start-up for single stream is $792,000 less expensive than for the split
cart system.
Advantages of Single Stream Program
The advantages of the single stream system are the convenience to residents from having to sort
recyclables into the current four-crate system and carry each to the curb, carts will have wheels
and attached lids thereby improving mobility and reducing noise and litter; and additional
recyclable materials can more easily be added to the collection program. With the onset of the
program, the design of the collection trucks will need to be changed. This comes at an opportune
time as a number of PASCO collection vehicles are scheduled for replacementin the near future.
With single stream, fewer vehicles are needed to collect materials, thereby reducing street wear,
noise levels in neighborhoods, and maximizing truck capacities. Other benefits of the single
stream program are increased recycling tonnages, fewer odors since carts are covered, fewer
insects and rodents, a variety of cart sizes, reduces theft of the materials as it is harder for people
to remove only the "valuable" items; it optimizes fleet (fewer parts need to be kept in inventory)
and it reduces collection time at each single residence.
With the single stream system, Palo Alto would retain the revenues generated from the sale of
the materials for processing. In terms of materials processing, for single stream recycling,
PASCO would transport the material to a materials recovery facility for processing. There are
currently three sites available: the Davis Street Transfer Station located in Oaldand, the
Castroville Processing Center in Castroville via a transfer station in Sma Jose and the Central
Valley Materials Recovery Facility in Lodi.
The downside of both the single stream and dual stream systems as opposed to source separated
is the increased residue rate. Both programs are similar in that regard. In the pilot program, the
residue rate for single stream was .five percent (5%) and at the SMART station the residue rate for
duat stream is 4,735 percent. The residue is a result of people placing items inside the container
that are not recyclable. Staff will provide extensive education outreach to the public to minimize
this problem. Also, as residents become more accustomed to the program, the amount of residue
should lessen. Staff will also examine the stability for materials markets prior to expanding the
program in order to maintain viable materials.
Advantages of the split cart system are:
Residents save time in separating recyclable materials over the current four-crate system. Semi-
automated collection is more efficient than the current manual system and reduces worker
injuries and worker insurance costs.
CMR:497:04 Page 3 of 5
Disadvantages of the split cart system are:
Cost to purchase the divided carts are 93 percem more expensive than the carts for single stream
recycling. There are more components to split cart and trucks, increasing the potential of having
¯ a higher rate of repair and maintenance costs. Contamination can be an issue with split carts and
trucks: when one side fills up, the remaining materials may overflow in the other side. The split
cart system requires collection vehicles with split bodies, which may affect the collection
efficiency since if one side of the truck fills up faster than the other, the materials will need to
taken to the SMART Station to unload the truck before cominuing to finish the route. This also
has a significant impact on the total fleet size and number of spare trucks required, since the split
cart. trucks can be used only for that purpose due to the dividers in the truck body. Tlley must be
used only for that purpose and require their own separate spares. Single stream trucks can serve
either for recycling or refuse collection and can share their spare vehicles. The SMART Station
is currently the only local processing facility for split cart recyclables processing. If SMART
were unavailable, there would be no other options to process the materials.
The revenues generated tl~rough the split cart collection system would have to be shared with the
contractor running the SMART Station at Sunnyvale, as per the- agreement with the City of
Smmyvale. Currently, 75 percent of the revenues would be split with Sunnyvale’s contractor.
Revenue differences between the single stream and the split cart system are as follows:
SINGLE STREAM SPLIT CART
Revenue earned including revenue,$20 per ton $25 per ton~
processing cost and transportation cost
Transportation cost not included in split $24*
cart number
Revenue per ton .$20 per ton $.71
A~mual Recycling Tonnage 15,584 ~15,584’
A~mual Revenue $311,680 $11,065
Net Revenue difference comparing $31)1),615
Single Stream Program vs Split Cart
The single stream pilot program began in October 2002 in five different areas throughout Pato
Alto, encompassing 2500 households and including sections of Downtown, Crescent Park,
Midtown/West Bayshore Road area, Barron Park and College Terrace. In March 2003~ a survey
of the pilot areas was conducted to assess residents’ reaction to the new system of single stream
recycling. Fifty-five percent of the households responded and 93 percent preferred the cart
system to the current system and welcomed the ease and convenience of the single sort system.
During the pilot program there was a seven percent increase in recycling.
It may be interesting to note that the following cities have recently switched from a split cart
system to a single stream system: Orinda, Moraga, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Danville and
Contra Costa County unincorporated area. The justification in making this change included:
Does not include transportation cost
From Auditor’s Report
CMR:497:04 Page 4 of 5
reducing cross contamination, maximizing container capacities, the ability to empty cardboard
more easily and most importantly to increase waste diversion.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Projected Expenses
Attachment B: Materials Collected by three Cities
Attachment C: Table of Pros and Cons
Attachment D: CMR:205:04
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER:
MICHAEL JACKSON
_Deptaty. Director o~f Public Worj;s Operations
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Works
AssiStant City Manager
CMR:497:04 Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
Comparison of Recycling Materials Accepted
Attachment B
Single Stream Pilot City of Palo Alto City of Mountain Vie~v City of Sunnyvale Accepted at the
City of Palo Alto SMART Station
Cans & Foil
Aluminum Cans
Tin
Foil
Bi-Metal Cans
Metal lids
Beverage containers
Plastics
Tubs and containers (t-7)
Plastic bottles and jars (1-7)
Plastic bottles (1 & 2)
Plastic ba~s
Milk & Juice Cartons
Milk &juice cartons
Juice boxes
x
x
x
x
x
x
Glass
Paper
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Bottles and iars x x x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
White: colored and glossy paper
Newspaper
Cardboard
Junk Mail
Paperbacks & phone books
Paperboard (i,e., cereal and tissoe boxes)
MagaZines
Paper groce~T ba,gs
Motor oil
Oil filters
Household batteries
Scrap metal
Not Accepted
Food contaminated paper, plastic or foil
Hardcover books
Photograpbs
Polystyrene blocks and peanuta
Window glass or mirrors
Ceramics, porcelain~ ligbt bulbs
Wax/plastic coated cardboard
.Crystal
Pyrex
Television and compnter monitors
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x x x x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
ATTACHMENT C
PROS AND CONS OF SINGLE STREAM AND SPLIT CART RECYCLING SYSTEMS
Single Stream
PROS
Allows residents to maximize space
within the container thus minimizing
container size and added expense.
Offers a smaller 32-gallon cart for
recycling.
Discourages theft of valuable recyclables
at the curbside. Harder to get to.
Collection tracks become more versatile.
Can be interchange able with different
collection needs.
Collection bodies can be maximized to
full capacity.
Have the ability to process materials at a
variety of local facilities.
Larger size cardboard can be put inside
the container without getting stuck and
preventing recyclabtes to be emptied.
Increase in recycling tonnages
Convenience to residents from having to
sort recyclables
Fewer vehicles are’ needed to collect
materials, thereby reducing street wear,
noise levels in neighborhoods, and
increased full truck capacities.
Palo Alto gains a larger portion on
recycling revenues.
CONS
Limits the versatility of
available markets.
Additional education required
minimizing contaminati6n
levels.
Split Cart Ability to use the SMART station.93 percent more expensive to
purchase carts than for single
stream
higher rate of repair and
maintenance costs of carts and
vehicles.
Cross contamination concerns.
The split cart system requires
collection vehicles with split
bodies, that prevents filling
truck capacities.
Must get agreement with
partners to expand additional
recyclables.
Cardboard gets stuck more
easily because it goes into a
more restrictive area of the
cart.
Residents must do a two-sort
separation.
Limited space at the SMART
station will require scheduling
of deliveries between the
partner cities.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENT D
City of PaSo Alt
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
MAY 10, 2004
POLICY AND SERVICES
REGARDING PROPOSED
WASTE SERVICES
COMMITTEE
NEW
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
CMR:205:04
RECOMMENDATIONS
RECYCLING AND SOLID
6
RECOMMENDATION
The Policy and Services Committee (Committee) and-staff recommends that Council
approve the following:
1)Implementation of a Single stream recycling program; Committee voted 2-1
recommending program;
2)Change the collection of yard trimmings to cart service; Committee voted 3-0
recommending program;
3)Supply optional curbside cart service for garbage; Committee voted 3-0
recommending program; and
4)Approve compressed natural gas as an alternative fuel for the collector’s
recycling collection vehicles. Committee voted 3-0 recommending program.
COMMITTEE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On March 9, 2004 the Policy and Services Committee (Committee) discussed the
Proposed New Recycling and Solid Waste Services. (See Attachment 1: CMR 165:04).
The Committee voted two to one to accept staff’s recommendation to implement a single
stream recycling program with the condition that staff returns to Council with a status
report 18 months after the programs begin (scheduled to begin July 2005). Chair
Kishimoto voted "nay" because of her concern of where and how the recycled materials
would be used and the global view of how the single stream program would integrate
with the proposed Environmental Service Center project. The Committee voted
unanimously to accept staff’s three other recommendations, including changing the yard
trimmings recycling collection to cart service, supplying residents with the option to
CMR:205:04 Page 1 of 6
obtain a cart for curbside garbage service, and approving compressed natural gas as an
alternative fuel for the collector’s recycling collection vehicles.
The Committee’s review included discussions regarding recycling markets and the
quality of materials processed; the alternative service options including the split cart
system;~ the single stream recycling program connection with the proposed future
Environmental Services Center; the environmental impact of the recommended new
services; and the impact on the refuse rates.
Both chair Kishim~to and Vice Mayor Burch asked whether the single stream material
was being recycled. Staff has obtained a recycling .guarantee from Waste Management,
investigated recycling markets, visited single stream processing facilities and researched
at what level recycling material degradation occurs if any. The following were staff
findings:
Rec¥clin~ Guarantee
To ensure that the materials are reused and/or recycled with the existing source separated
program, the City currently requires:
°°Monthly Recycling Reports" from PASCO that include tonnages marketed by
material type and revenues received from those materials.
Staff conducts a "PASCO Performance Audit" which includes re~iewing selected
recycled materials and the markets used to ensure materia!s are recycled.
With the proposed single stream program, the following items will be required from
PASCO to ensure that the materials are reused and/or recycled:
A monthly recycling verification form will be required to be filled out by Waste
Management reporting all inbound, outbound tonnages by material type.s, residue
rates, and specify the brokers purchasing the recycling materials.
The processing facility will also twice per year perform an analysis of the Palo Alto
stream which will indicate specific quantities of materials being processed just from
Palo Alto.
Staff will require annual letters from the brokers and material manufacturers that
purchase the recycled Commodities from the single stream facilities stating that they
recycle the material and what it will be recycled into.
PASCO will be subject to stringent performance adjustments including the possibility
of termination of its Agreement with the City if it is determined that PASCO or the
processing facility has landfilled the recyclables collected.
CMR:205:04 Page 2 of 6
Staff will continue to ensure that selected recycled materials are reused or recycled as
part of the ~PASCO Performance Audit."
Recyclin,~ Markets
Markets are important to follow to ensure that all the materials are reused and/or
recycled, and that the highest market values are received. Waste Management reports
that minimal market changes will occur by switching from a source separated program to
a single stream.because the materials sorts remain similar. Waste Management is giving
the City a high market value for the materials collected during the pilot program which
staff believes will continue if the single stream program is approved. Waste Management
markets its materials from a regional approach, resulting in a higher market value for the
material and ensuring long-term market commitments.
During the pilot program, staff inquired and followed where the raw materials were sold
and received written verification that these materials were Used as recycled materials.
The following is what ~an be expected if the single stream program is approved:
The Waste Management Castroville facility currentiy markets 75 percent of its
fiber/paper tom, age to Asia, mostly China. These plants make packaging material such
as cardboard and paperboard as well as new newsprint from the recycling material
received from Waste Management. The remaining 25 percent of paper is sold
domestically to SMURFIT, specifically its San Jose site that makes cereal boxes for
General Foods, or Weyerhaeuser, a plant that makes new cardboard. Half of the plastic
containers are marketed to domestic plants within the United States and 50 percent of the
plastics are marketed to Asia. The plastic containers are shredded and made into plastic
pellets that are reformed to create a variety of new products including new beverage
containers, new toys and new household items. Tin cans are sold to domestic markets
and converted to new containers. Aluminum cans are sold to Anheuser Busch within the
United States and made into new beverage container~. Scrap steel is also-sold to
domestic markets to be melted and-formed into ne~ metal materials. The .glass is
processed at afacility in Union City where the material is further sorted and marketed to
Gallo Wineries (to be used in wine bottles" and to aggregate manufacturers that use the
glass mixture in road projects.
The best recycling guarantee that a community can obtain is to collect materials that have
positive market values. At the same time, communities have to be willing to risk
accepting a material type in order to improve the recycling markets. As a result, Palo
Alto expanded the materials accepted in the current pilot progam to include the addition
of #3 -#7 plastics, plastic bags, and milk and juice cartons. Waste Management is
successfully marketing the #3 - #7 plastic containers and staff recommends keeping them
in the single stream program. However, during the pilot program staff discovered that
plastic bags and other film plastics have a poor or negative market value and create
CMR:205:04 Page 3 of 6
problems with the sorting equipment at the processing :facilities. The markets for the
milk and juice cartons are also limited and at thls time, the material is only accepted and
¯ recycled in North Korea. Since staff has not received a guarantee that the brokers will
recycle these materials and not ultimately throw them out as residue, staff recommends
not ektending the collection of these materials with the citywide single stream recycling
program. However, staff does recommend that these materials continue to be collected at
the Palo Alto Recycling Drop-off Center where both PASCO and City staff can better
control where and how these commodities are marketed. In addition, if the overseas
market stops accepting the milk and juice cartons, the materials can easily be removed
from the drop-off center as an acceptable item. If the materials were collected curbside,
it would entail the re-education of the community to no longer place the material in the
recycling containers.
.Sin~te Stream Processin~ Facilities
Recycling materials collected through the proposed single stream-recycling program
would be taken to a regional processing facility located outside the city limits. ’ Waste
Management has two regional processing facilities that could accept Palo Alto’s single
stream recycables. The Castroville processing facility is currently the preferred location
to take the materials if the program is approved. The Castroville facility began
processing single-stream in September 2002 and is currently processing single stream
recycling for the fol!owing cities: unincorporated areas of Monterey County, Seaside,
Marina, Pacific Grove, King City, Sand City, Del Ray Oaks, Pebble Beach, Carmel and
Hollister.
The second Waste Management single stream processing facility is the Davis Street
Transfer Station located in Oakland. The Davis Street processing facility location
processes single stream recycling materials for 11 cities, including Walnut Creek,
Lafayette, Orinda, Moraga, Danville, unincorporated areas of Alameda County, Albany,
Emeryville, Castro Valley, Ora Loma Sanitary District, and Oakland. This facility is
currently at capacity in handling single stream recyclable materials but plans are being
made to improve this facility in the near future, which would allow Palo Alto to take its
recyclable materials to this facility, if it proved beneficial.
The table below compares the type of material sorts that are accomplishekl at these single
stream processing facilities and the source-separated materials that are processed at the
City’s Recycling Center. The only difference is that office paper, currently collected
only from the commercial sector, would be collected and processed with the mixed paper.
CMR:205:04 Page 4 of 6
Materials
Source separated
materials processed at the Materials sorted by the
single stream processingCity’s Recycling Center
Newspaper
Cardboard
Office Paper
Mixed paper
Colored HDPE/#2 plastic
comainers
Plastic containers #3 through #7
Natural HDPE/#2 plastic
containers
PET/#1 plastic containers
Tin
Aluminum
Glass
Scrap lnetal (small pieces)
Recvclin~ Material Degradation
When municipalities first started rolling out single stream pro~ams a few years ago, they
ran into issues with marketing some of the material, primarily the fiber/paper stream, due
to high contamination levels of glass, or not being able to successfully separate most of
the newspaper from mixed paper. As a result, the material was often downgraded into a
lower-qu.ality end product.
StafFs research has found that material degradation in single stream is beconaing less of a
concern due to advancements in technology and changes in the sorting equipNent.
Today, processing plants have better screening of materials than they did even one year
ago since technology continues to advance as the processing facilities update their
equipment. As an example, Waste Management invested over $1 million last year to
update the equipment at its Castroville facility and plans to implement up to another $l
million in improvements this year to its processing lines to make the sorting of materials
faster and cleaner. As a result, the Waste Managemem Castroville facility is able to sort
the various fibers (cardboard, newspaper, mixed paper). An example of the sorting
equipment improvements is that it is able to market its mixed paper as a #3 grade, the
salne as the mixed paper collected from the source separated program in Palo Alto.
If degn’adation of recyclable materials does occur, it lowers the value of the materials and
means that the raw material is reused and/or recycled in a different form. Degradation
does not result in landfilling.
By switching to a single stream or split cart recycling program, the City would, see a
decline in what is received for recycling revenues by approximately $740,000 annually.
CMR:205:04 Page 5 of 6
Waste Management reports that this loss of recycling revenues has little to do with the
degradation of recyclable materials, but is the result of the cost for equipment and the
additional labor needed to sort these materials.
With regards to Chairperson Kishimoto’s other concern about how single stream is
integrated with the proposed Environmental Service Center project, staff has developed
the single stream .program which is not dependent on the future of the ESC or vise versa.
The advantages and disadvantages of having an ESC locally will be discussed at a later
date.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1:CMR:165:04
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Public Works Operations Deputy Director
~LENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
Assistant City Manager
CMR:205:04 Page 6 of 6
TO:CITY COUNCIL
ATTN:
City of Palo Alto
C. ty Manager Report
POLICY AND SER’vXCES COMMITTEE
FROM:CITY NL4_NAGER DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
DATE:
SUBJ-ECT:
M?--~RCH 9, 2004 CMR: 165:04
PROPOSED NEW RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE SERVICES
i~PORT !N BRIEF
Staff recommends implementing a singte stream .recycling pro~am, changing the
collection of.yard trimmings ~o a cart service, providing residents with the option of a
curbside cart for garbage service and.chanNng the collection cohtractor’s recyc!ing
’ vehicles to run on compressed natural gas as a prer%rable alternative fuel.
Single stream .recycling will enable all residents as well as businesses and multi-family
complexes to benefit, from using a wheeled cart. for the recycling and yard trimming
services. Single stream recycling allows for the expansion of accepted materials,
improves container mobi!ity, ,,,d redu~ no~se and liger created ~ um normal collection.
The wheeled cart-~%r recyc!ing and yard trimmings will increase participation due to its
, corivenience - "~ .t_ ~. _~.a~m mc easy program gmd~xmes containing Iess restrictions than the current
system. Aiternatives considered to the sing!e stream recycling included the spilt cart
system (where customers so~ recycling matetials into r~vo comparm~enrs) and keeping
the existing four recycling crate system.
Staff also recommends providing residents with the option to obtain a wheeled car~,
collected at the curb. for their garbage se~ice. This service would eliminate residents’
concerns of missing lids and of containers purchased at local hardware stores nor meetin~
the required restrictions for garbage collection. The garbage cart would also eliminate
privacy concerns, as well as improve container mobility and minimize collection cost.
Finally, staff recommends requiting the collection contractor to chanae the recvclina
collection vehicles to run on compressed natural gas as a preferable alternative fuet that is
also approved by the California Air Resources Board’s future clean air requirements.
CMR:165:04 Page 1 of] 1
Staff requests that the Policy and Se~ices Comm~e~ recommend to Council approval of.
the x%llowin ~:
1)Implement a singie stream recycling procure.
2)Change the collection of yard trimmings to cart service.
3)Supply optiona! curbside can service for garbage.
4)Approve compressed natural gas as an alternative fuel
recycling collection vehicles.
for the collector’s
BACKGROUND
As required in the ageement with the Palo Alto Sanitation Company/Waste Management
(PASCO), the City periodically performs a customer service satisfaction survey to
evaluate the general satisfaction of the community with the quality of service provided by
_ AbU:O. The results from the survey conducted in 200t showed that 96 percent of
residents responding to the survey rated the PASCO ser,4ce as excellent or satisfactory
(CM~ 364:0!). The surv’ey also provided the opportunity for residents to add comments
about their service, Comments related to improving service levels included: 1) recycle
additional plastics, 2) improve.how containers are returned after being se~wiced~ 3) reduce
co!lection noise, and 4) create flexibility and simpiify collection methods. As a result of
this su~,ey, a pilot pro~am was implemented to address the concerns and needs of the
public.
Currently residents have to separate curbside recycling materials into four different
stationary containers and then carry them to the curb for collection by PASCO. The new-
piioted service involved testin~ single stream ,e..ychn~. Single stream recycling is the
commingled collection, of recyclable materials in one wheeled cart. The pilot also tested
the placement of yard trine-hinge in a wheeled cart instead of the current system where
residents piace their yard trimmings into their own 32-galt0n cans, which are then carried
to the curb for collection.
The pilot progam was
throughout the’ Paio Alto
Midtown/West Bayshore
prog-ram was comprised
implemented in October 2002 in five different locations
community, including sections of Downtown,. Crescent Park,
Road ar~a, Bah’on Park and College Terrace. The pilot
of approximately 2500 households, with about 500 being
serviced each day of the week. Each household in the pilot area received new public
educational materials and was provided with ~vo 96-gallon wheeled car~s, o~_e for the
corn_mingling of r..cvd_n_ materials and one for yard trimmings materials.
The 9d-gallon cart size was chosen because it would accommodate al! the recyclable
materials placed inside the current system of four 18-gallon recycling crates. The cart
CMR:]65:04 ,Pa~e .~ of 1113" "1
also accommodates corrugated cardboard and extra materials generated seasonally
(mixed paper during the-holidays, extra beverage containers during the warm summer
days). Recycling materials accepted were expanded to include all plastics, numbered one
through seven, milk and juice cartons, and plastic bags. The 96-gallon car* for yard
trimmings accommodates the normal amount of material placed for collection at the curb
as well as any e~ra yard trimmings occasionally generated by residents.
Staff evaluated carts from five different cart manufacturers and selected the cart delivered
to residents for its pricing, capacity to hold recycling materials, ease in .maneuverability
and compatibility with the existing PASCO collection equipment. The color of the carts
was chosen after careful consideration .of the colors normally associated with recycling
materials and yard trimmings. For yard trimmings, the color geen was selected since it
is associated with the color of the materials collected. The blue color for the recycling
cart was custom-made for the City of Palo A!to. The color blue is generally associated
with recycling of materials. Since Palo Alto prides itself in being unique and different
from other municipaIities, staff wanted to continue that tradition by having the
manufacturer create a custom blue color forthe recycling cart.
The delivery of the carts and announcement of the pilot recycling progam was well
accepted, with the normal level of initial resistance to serv’ice changes. City and PASCO
staff worked hard to- accommodate special requests and to educate, the public that
residents would be Wen the opportunity to evaluate the service and help determine
whetherto continue and expand the pi.loted service ciLvwide. Within a month, residents
initia!!y rejecting the idea of change began to enjoy the benefits of single s~ream
recycling.
The recycling materials are collected at the curb and taken to a processing facility where
both people and machinery with advanced technology separate the recyclable material.
The sorted materials are then marketed to material brokers or manufacturers. According
to PASCO’s/Waste Management market analysts, the majority of the material including
paper is sold to markets in Asia. Some materials such as some plastic, tin and glass are
sold to markets within the United States.
DISCUSSION
A survey of the piloted area was conducted in March 2003 to assess residents" response
to the new system of single stream recycling and yard trimmings using wheel carts. The
survey included questions about their preference of container, the size of the cans issued
during the pilot, color of the cart and collection changes noticed during the pilot. Staff
received, 1,279 responses for a 55 percent return rate. When asked the question, "Do you
prefer the cart instead of the crates?" 93 percent of the survey respondents preferred the
cart. with 4 percent disageeing with the s’catement. The survey responses also showed
that the size of the recycling can issued at the beginning of the pilot was adequate for 59
percent of the participants, while 32 percent preferred a mid-size can (64-gallon) and 7
percent preferred a smaller 3.2-gallon cart For yard zrimmings: 68 percent of the survey
CMR:165:04 Page _3 of 11
pa~icipants preferred the larger 96-gallon container, while 25 percent preferred the
smaller containers. In the survey, 86 percent of the respondents liked the custom blue
color for the recycIing carcs, 4 percent did not like the color, and 9 percent had no
opinion. The survey results for the color of the yard trimmings cart were similar in that
85 percent liked the color, 1 percent did not like it and 9 percent did not have an opinion.
While some survey responses expressed the concern about the lack of sorting and a
change in their recycling habits, most residents welcomed the ease and convenience of
the single-sort system.
Single Stream Recycling
Staff recommends expanding the piloted single stream recycling progam to the entire
city. Single stream recycling has many advantages. It saves people time from having to
sort recyclables into the current four-crate system and carry each material type to the
curb. Collection carts have attached lids and wheels.-. This improves cart mobility and
reduces noise and litter created from the collection progam. It allows the Recycling
Pro~am to expand the types of materials accepted. It changes the design of the
collection trucks to single compa~ment bodies. This reduces the number of collection
vehicles needed to collect materials, reduces noise levels in neighborhoods, reduces street
wear, reduces Collection cost and allows the ability to utilize fult truck capacities. The
semi-automated coI1ection of the cart instead of the current manual collection of crates
results in reduced worker injuries and in the future will reduce the collector’s insurance
COSTS.
Single stream recycling in wheeled ca~s has proven to be a successful service for the
Palo Alto residents participating in the pilot progam. Single stream recycl.ing is also a
service that has become the trend in many communities throughout the nation due to its
convenience to the customer and the technological improvements that have been made in
the sorting systems. City and PASCO staff believes that single stream recycti.ng ~ili
increase participation and zormage due ~o its convenience in using the wheeled cart and of
the easy progam guidelines containing less restrictions than the current system. Based
on the results from the piloted area, PASCO projects an increase of 10 percent in curbside
recycling tonnage and 35 percent increase in curbside yard trimmings ~onnage if services
are expanded citywide to residents.
With the expansion of single stream recvcling city,vide, residents would be ~vo-" the
choice of pre-selecting their recycling cart size (.~., 64 & 96 gallon). The default cart
size for those residents that do not make a cart selection would be a 96-gaIlon cart. This
is based on the responses from the pilot survey where the majority (59 percent.) of
responde~_ts preferred the larger 96-gallon car~ for recycling, The ca~s used for sin~!e
stream recycling will alleviate some of the container placement issues mentioned in the
PASCO survey by reducing the number of containers placed at the curb for servme.
Residents will be given the option to keep and reuse their existing crates or the crates wilt
be collected and recyclect.
CMR: I65:04 Page 4 of 1 l
The goal for the City’s solid waste management, services is to have Palo Afro’s materials
serviced within the community instead of having to transport materials to other
jurisdictions. However, the current Pato Alto Recycling Center is not equipped nor does
iv have the space to process the comming]ed mixture of recyclab]es. With single stream
recycling, PASCO would transport the material to another Waste Management materials
recovery facility for processing. The proposed processing facilities are the Davis Street
Transfer Station located in Oakland or the Waste Management Castroville Processing
Center via the transfer station in San Jose. The additional travel time to deliver the
recycling materials to Oakland or Castrovilte would offset any time saved during the
collection time. Since all the recycling is placed in one container, there is an increase in
processing costs and degadadon to some of the marketable items. This resuits in
PASCO receiving a lower cost per ton for the materials marketed. PASCO currently
receives approximately $71 per ton for an average of 14,500 tons of material recycle~t
annually. PASCO projects tO receive only $15 to $20 per ton for the single stream
material, resulting in a !oss of revenue of approximately $740,000 on an annual basis. It
is estimated that the increase in partielpndnn w~ll !ead *,, =~ ~*~,,,o~ 1,450 +~’--o of
materials to be recycled, which will offset some of the revenue loss by approximately
$30,000.
Single stream may also increase the amount of residue, which PASCO estimates to be
between 3 and 12 percent. The residue is a result of people placing items inside the
contaSqer that are not recyclable. Staff plans to try to control the residue rate by
providing extensive educational outreach on what can be recycled. PASCO wiil also use
its non-collection notices to inform customers of items which are not recyclable. As a
way to prevent high levels of residue, staff recommends not extending the piloted
curbside collection of milk and juice cartons or plastic bags due to the poor plastic
recycling markets and the inability of processors to guarantee that all materials wilt be
recycled and not disposed as residue at the end of the sorting process. ,.
As a result of sending the recycling materials {o another community for processing,
PASCO would no longer operate the processing of recyclables at the local. Recycling
Center. The punic drop-off center would remain open and would continue to accept all
the current recycling items including those not collected curbside such as milk and juice
cartons, polystyrene, and plastic bags.
.,.Expandin~ Recvclin~ for Multi-Family Comrfiexes. Businesses and Schools
Staff recommends e~ending the single stream progam to multi-family complexes,
businesses and schools. The current service involves the collection of materials separated
in multiple containers including: 1) office pak (a mixture of white, and mixed paper), 2)
newspapers, 3) bottles and cans, and 4) cardboard. Allowing these sectors to mix paper,
bottles and cans would increase participation and tonnage due to the convenience and less
restrictive recycling guidelines involved in single stream recycling. Since the majority of
CMR:165:04 Page 5 ofl I
cardboard from these sectors is oversized and is best placed in large containers, staff
recommends continuin~ the current Cardboard service.
The change in service would involve collecting the existing carts and exchanging them
for the new single stream recycling carts that would resemble those issued to residents.
All recycling car~s would then be standardized (by color, size and manufacturer) through-
out the city and Could be serviced by.any of the collection trucks.
Carts for Yard Trimminas Collection
Staff recommends changing the collection of yard trimmings to cart service. Collectin_~
yard trimmings in wheeled carts means that the cart would be more convenient and easier
to wheel to the curb than carrying multiple 32-gallon cans ~11 of yard trimminas. The
carts would provide a clean and uniform appearance, as well as improve the aesthetics of
the streets on collection days .due to the containment of the yard. trimmings. PASCO
would create desigmated routes for the collection of yard trimmings, resulting in more
efficient use of the truck space and fewer trips to the composting site a~ the landfill.
Under this pro~am~ residents would be siren-the option of obtaining one 96-gallon cart
af no charge. The 96-~allon cart would accommodate the same amount of me, erie! as
three of the currentlv allowed _~2-gallon cans. Smaller sized carts (_~2 and 64-gallon)
would also be available. Kesidents regularly generatin~ more yard trimmings and
needing more than one cart would have the option of renting or purchasing additional
carts.
The processing of the yard trimmings would continue to occur at the composting site in
the City’s landfilt.
Ootional Curbside Cart Service For Garbase
Staff recommends continuing the backyard garbage collection service, in additior~ to
offering residents a choice of obtaining a wheeled can and placing it at the curb for their
garbage collection. PASCO currently provides backvard garbage collection to residents
with can service, This allows residents to leave the cans in a convenient location on their
private property and for a PASCO driver to enter the backyard to empty the containers on
collection day: Over ~he years, staff has obtained feedback from residents that 32-gallon
cans are becoming more difficult to obtain through the local hardware stores. The
containers sold are generally larger and over the size limit required for garbage service.
Many of these new containers purchased by residents are also not compatible with the
PASCO equipment. By having PASCO provide the optional wheeled cart for garbage, it
ensures that the cart will be compatible with the collection equipment used and the
weight limit guidelines. The cart service would also eliminate some of the concerns
residents mentioned in a recent PASCO customer service survey of !ids not being
returned to the container, which is a problem thatrises during rainy and windy days.
With this option, residents Would be provided a wheeted cart. at no cost for the collection
of their garbage. Those.residents wanting a cart for their garbage would be provided the
CMR:ld5:04 Page 6 of ll
choice of cart sizes that would equal the current se,wice rate structure. The smallest size
available is a 20-gallon, which is the same capacity as the mini can currently used by
some residents. This cart would be a o~-gallon ca~ with a 20-gallon insert allowing only
20 gallons of trash to be placed inside the car~. Other car~ sizes would include 32-ga!lon,
64-gallon and 96-gallon. The 96-gal!on would be equivalent to the current three cans
(each a~ 32-gallons) used by some residents.
By choosing the cart option for garbage collection, residents would be required to place
their car~s at curbside for collection. Curbside collection would help maintain the cost of
providhag the car~ collection service by allowing PASCO to maintain its efficiency in
emptying the cares. Similar ~o the recycling car~s, by placing the garbage carts at the
curb, PASCO would be able to drive up to the car~s. The driver would place the cart on a
lifting mechanism, which would then empty the cart without moving it far from its
original location.
No rate incentive was proposed to residents who elect to put their own carts at curbside
because the collection labor saved would be used towards the .City yard trimming
collection program, in anticipation af the incre~art amount o~ nnrt~rq~nti~n in that
program.
Education
.PASCO would need to hire three additional ~emporary customer service representatives
for approximately six months prior and during the star~-up of the new services to handle
the expectedin’ o~oo~ ...... m’ ~’,~u~tomer~ t~,eph,~ne~ ~ calls and administrative work.
City "* _o_~. .,~ca~_± will develop all the educational outreach ma~er~ms to educate the Palo Alto
communky, including residents, businesses and schools, on the future se~ice changes.
This will inciude developing a postcard to send residents requesting that they pre-select
the size of their recycling and yard trimmings cart as we1! as offering the option of a
garbage car~ for curbside collection. Brochures with new recycling guidelines, will be
developed and distributed ~o all customers. Newspaper advertisements will be placed in
the local newspaFers. In addition, staffwill work with business, home and neighborhood
associa:ions as wetl as the local media to inform the community about changes to their
services.
Collection Vehicles & Alternative Fuels
staff recommends switching the new PASCO recycling collection vehicles to compressed
natural gas (CNG).
The City requested that PASCO research the possibility of using altematige fuels to
improve air quality and to comply with upcoming mandates by the California Air.
Resources Board (CAP.B). PASCO switched to using biodiesel (B-20) as a fuel
alternative in its vehicles in July 2002, helping to reduce air emissions during collection.
CMR:I65:04 Page 7 of ll
However. it is uncertain at this time if using B-20 would meet future requirements by the
Air pollution reductions can be made by switching the vehicles ~o operate on another
preferable alternative fuel such as CNO. Since four of the PASCO recycling trucks are
due for replacement during FY 2004-05 and two vehicles are scheduled" for replacement
the following fiscal year, the City and PASCO ha,ce an opportunity to obtain trucks that
operate on CNG to meet the CARS requirements. Each collection vehicle with the CNG
fuel engine would cost an additional $50,000. The added cost would be included in the
FY 2004-05 budgeted PASCO depreciation costs. PASCO plans to fuel these vehicles a~
the City’s new CNG fueling station. The Ciw’s Public Works Department/Refuse Fund
would absorb the cost of the fuel (see Attachment A). Using CNO would require PASCO
~o retrofit its mainzenance shop ar a cosz of approximately $100,000, budgeted throuah
the PASCO budget. The retrofit includes insta!lin~ gas detectors, required ventilation,
and spark prevention improvements as well as up~ading the shop’s heating and electrical
s~,srem: Maintenance and labor costs associated with CNG are estimated to increase
approximately 15 percent, which would also .be budgeted through .the normal PASCO
budaer r~rocess.
Aiternative I: Split Cart System
As an alternative to single stream recycling, staff considered the split car~ system.
Instead of commingling a!l of the recvclables into one wheeled cart as the case of the
single s~ream recycling, residents would sort their materials into two .categories. Paper
(mixed paper, newspaper and smal!er pieces of cardboard) would be placed in one side of
the cart and the rest of the accepted materials (glass, plastic bottles, and cans) would go in
the second partition of the cart. The type of materiais accepted would aiso be expanded
to include all plastics numbered 3 through 7.
This pro~am would be similar to the direction that the cities of Sunnyvale andM0untain
V~ew are taking their recycling progams, and it ,,’could allow the-City’ to take the
materials from the split cart to the SMART Station in Sunnyvale for processing. The
SMART Station is currently processing materials from the split cart service used in the
City of Sunnwale and is gearing up to take the recycling materials from Mountain View.
The potential for PASCO to reduce employee injuries and worker’s insurance costs
would also be realized since the semi-automated lifting of the carts would be used instead
of the crates that are currenzly collected manua!Iv.
While the split cart would be an improvement over the current four-crate system, and
residents could save ~ime in separating recyclable materials and the labor from carrwn_~
the various..crates to the curb. there are a number of disadvantaaes.
Costs for the divided carts are 93 percen~ more than the carts for single stream recycling
(see Attachment A). There are more components to a split cart. ~ncreasing the potential
of having a higher ra~e of repair and maintenance costs. The split cart can lead ro the
CMR:165:04 Page 8 of I1
contamination of the materials when residents run out of space on one side of the cart and
use the available space on the ~ther side of the cart partition. This contamination would
also lead to a higher amount of residue. The split cart would require trucks with a split
body, which may affect the collection efficiency since if one side of the truck fills up
faster than the other, the FASCO driver might have to make an extra trip to the SMART
Station to unload the truck beforecontinuing to finnish the route.
With the split cart option, residents would be given the opportunity to pre-select the size
of their cart; however, the options ~vould be either a 64-gallon or a 96-gallon cart. with a
divider in the middle of the cart. Due to the nature of the divided cart, the 64-gallon cart
is the smallest size available. Unfortunately, this size would be too large for some
residents in Palo Alto.
With the split Cart System, PASC0 would stilI need to hire tMee additional temporary.
customer service representatives for approximately six months prior and during the start-
up of the new services to handle the expected increase in customer telephone calls and
administrative work. City staff would develop the same ~ducationa! outreach materials
as single stream recycling to educate the Pa!o A!to community, including residents,
businesses and schools, on the service changes.
Alternative II: Continuing with Existing Four Recycling Crates
The second alternative to single stream recycling would be to continue with the existing
four-crate system. This option involves expanding the type of materiais accepted for
curbside collection and requesting that residents keep their existing four recycling crates.
Residents would continue to sort their recycling materials into the four crates separating
mixed paper, newspaper, plastic containers, glass bottles’ and cans. Cardboard would
continue tO have .to be flattened, folded to the required size and .placed next to the
recycling crates. City staff would prepare outreach materials to educate the communffy
on the expanded list of accepted plastics and residents would be able to add them to their
existing crates. Any overflow of materials would be accommodated in a paper bag
placed next to the crate at the curb.
Keeping the existing crate system means residents will continue to have to sort their
.materials into the four individual containers and will need to adhere to the current sorting
restrictions. Since the crate system began in.!994, many of the existing crates are due for
replacement at in estimated cost of $; 84,000 including the cost to collect the old crates to
be recycled. (See Attachment A).
This option would not have a significant impact on the PASCO operation or.processing.
The processing and marketing of the recycling materials would continue to be done at the
Palo Alto Recycling Center with minimum impacts to the operation.
CMR:165:04 Page 9 of ]1 ’
Implementation Timeline of New SeN’ices
The projected implementation date for the new services is July 1, 2005. This is based on
having approximately one year from the time Council approves the implementation of the
new services and the new budget. This would provide the City and PASCO time to 1)
or.der the new collection vehicles~ 2) order and assemble the carts, 3) create, print and
distribute educational outreach materials, 4) train employees on the new. pro~am
collection and guidelines, and 5) inform the community of the future services and provide
them with information and time to choose the size of their carts.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Funds to implement the new pro~ams are detailed in ~ ’Attachment A". One time
expenses include educational materials & order forms ($40,000), ~art purchases,
assembly and delivery ($~,007,z00), crate collection and recycling ($16,000), temporary
help for outreach/education ($23,550), and CNO shop conversion ($100,000), totaling
$2,186,850.
Fiscal year 2004-05 adop.ted-in-concept budget included a 10 percent rate increase for the
Refuse Fund to maintain the Counci!-adopted minimum Rate Stabi!ization Reserve
(RSR). If the 10 percent rate increase adopted-in-concept for FY 2004-05 is approved
and the recommended staff progams go fore, yard, no additional rate increases will be
needed in FY 2004-05. There wilt not be any rate reductions in future years if the
recommended progams do not go forward, however rate increases could potentially be
delayed one f~scal year if the new procures are not approved. Staff identified two(2)
one-time reductions in the Refuse Fund operating budget, $1.275 million in the
Environmental Services Center - Capital Improvement- Project and $585,943 from the
adopted-in-concept FY 2004-05 payments to PASCO, as a result of PASCO being more
than 2% outside the target operating ratio range in FY 2002-03. These reductior~s will.
provide the majority of the one time funding for the capital costs of the new pr~o~ms
with remaining amount funded by the RSR. ’
The on-going costs for the proposed new procures are anticipated to be $659,414 in. F5~"
2005-06 and $630,944 in FY 2006-07 and each fol!owing fisca! year, mostly due to the
anticipated loss of revenue ($740,000), from the sale of recyclable materials. These on-
going costs have a rate impact calculated at nearly 3% of the revenue requirements for
the refuse fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is a class 8 categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality
Act under Section 15308 -action by regulatory agencies for the protection of the
e_n_viro_n_me_n_t.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The implementation of the new services would temporarily be in conflict with the City’s:
Comprehensive Plan N-55, which requires the City tO ~Maintain and expand the use of
CMR:1(55:04 Page 10 of If
the Recycling Center at the City’s refuse disposal area". However, the implementation of
the Environmental Services Center full size proposal would provide single stream
processing and would make the new services consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:Cost comparison of services considered for both PASCO and the City
budgets..
PREP~D BY:
DEPAff~T1VIENT HEAD:
’ MIC~c_~-/JACKSON
Deputy Director of Public Works Operations
- GLENN- S..ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
[SON
Assistant City Manager
CIvIR:165:04 Page 11 ofl 1
ATTACHMENT A