ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

Date: July 15, 2003
Author/Local: B. McLennan/
604-873-7239
 RTS NO. 03487

CC File No. 3756
Meeting Date: July 31, 2003

TO:

Standing Committee on City Services and Budgets

FROM:

General Manager of Engineering Services

SUBJECT:

Automated Collection of Solid Waste

 

RECOMMENDATION

i. Fully automated garbage collection program with carts supplied by the City.

ii. Fully automated yard trimmings collection program with carts supplied by the City.

iii. Existing manual garbage and yard trimmings collection programs.

COMMENTS

The General Manager of Engineering Services recommends approval of A and B.

POLICY

On May 3, 1994 Council agreed to support the Greater Vancouver Solid Waste Management Plan, which includes implementing user pay for solid waste programs.

On October 7, 1997, Council approved that the Solid Waste Utility be implemented on January 1, 1998. By establishing the utility, service is paid for by fees based on usage.

SUMMARY

Engineering staff are investigating alternative methods of collecting solid waste that could radically change the way solid waste is picked up from residents. Automated collection of solid waste is gaining popularity in North America as a means to reduce injuries, improve service to residents, improve neighbourhood aesthetics and improve the local environment.

As an alternative to the current system where workers manually lift cans and bags, automated collection of solid waste uses specially designed wheeled carts that are lifted by a mechanical arm on the trucks. Reducing or eliminating manual lifting will reduce injuries to Sanitation workers thereby reducing workers compensation costs, decreasing disability claims, decreasing the number and cost of light duty assignments, and reducing salary fringe benefit costs in the future.

Automated solid waste collection can facilitate further implementation of a user pay structure that would advance environmental sustainability. Tailoring the size of the cart to the amount of garbage produced and charging a higher cost for larger garbage cart sizes would encourage residents to recycle and reduce the amount of waste disposed in landfills. The use of carts also improves the service to residents, improves neighbourhood aesthetics and reduces the use of plastic bags by residents.

Automated collection programs can reduce labour requirements, particularly when implementing programs where crew sizes are reduced from two-person to one-person. However, with automated garbage collection there is also the opportunity to expand the customer base to include small apartment and commercial buildings.

Semi-automated or fully automated collection programs would have higher operating costs than the City's current manual collection. Equipment purchase and maintenance costs are higher, and there is a substantial cost attached to the carts required for automated collection.

While both semi and fully automated collection reduce manual lifting, fully automated collection provides enhanced worker safety and comfort, and would result in greater injury reduction benefits, and is more cost effective than semi-automated collection.

There are a variety of options available for automated solid waste collection programs. Further detailed analysis and reporting of options should be focussed on the strongest business cases. A future report to Council on the recommended options will include detailed impacts on labour, the billing system and utility fees (costs and financing), as well as an implementation plan and the structure of a user pay approach.

PURPOSE

This report summarizes the progress of staff research on automated collection of solid waste, identifies remaining issues, and recommends that a future, detailed evaluation report to Council focus on the most efficient and effective alternatives.

BACKGROUND

Current Residential Collection Program

The City of Vancouver currently provides residential garbage, recycling and yard trimmings collection to approximately 86,000 properties in Vancouver. This service is performed predominantly by manually lifting materials into the collection vehicles.

The basic garbage allocation is two cans or bags each collection day.

A citywide yard trimmings collection program was implemented in 2000. Yard trimmings are collected bi-weekly the same day as garbage and are limited to four items (cans, bags or bundles) each collection day. Unlimited amounts of leaves are collected in the fall. The majority of yard trimmings are set out in plastic bags, which are "de-bagged" by cutting open the bags and emptying the contents into the collection trucks.

Two person crews are used for both garbage and yard trimmings collection, alternating throughout the day between driving the collection truck and loading materials into the truck. Collection crews pick up items up to a maximum weight of 20 kg. (44 lbs.) each and a maximum container size of 100 litres.

Recycling is collected weekly (same day as garbage collection) in three streams; newspaper, mixed paper and mixed containers, sorted by residents and set out for collection. Recycling collection trucks are operated by one person, driving and getting out at each stop to collect the material. Recycling trucks use a combination manual/semi-automated type collection system.

Workers Compensation

The Occupational Health and Safety Regulation (B.C. Reg. 296/97) was introduced in 1998 under authority of the Workers Compensation Act. The Regulation requires that the risk of musculoskeletal injuries to workers be eliminated or, if that is not practicable, be minimized.

Following the introduction of the new Regulation, and in response to the WCB's notification that the City's Occupational Heath and Safety (OH&S) Program was out of date, City staff reviewed and updated the Corporate OH&S Program. Engineering Services conducted an OH&S Program Compliance Audit and developed Action Plans for each of the operating branches. The Engineering Services Action Plan included assessing automated collection of solid waste and reporting the impacts of automated collection to Council in 2003.

Garbage and yard trimmings collection crews currently lift around 6 tonnes (13,000 lbs.) per worker per day. In general, this heavy, repetitive, manual lifting combined with an aging workforce tends to generate an increasing number of injured staff that are unable to do this work.

Injuries in Sanitation Operations currently costs the City approximately $0.5 million per year in WCB claim payments and WCB levy surcharges. In 2002 approximately 82% of the WCB injury hours in Sanitation Operations were from garbage and yard trimmings collection crews.

Between 1996 and 2002, a total of 272 time loss injuries occurred in garbage collection, with 208 (76%) of the injuries related to manual lifting, and 44 (16%) of the injuries related to walking and getting on and off the truck.

In 2001 and 2002, a total of 18 time loss injuries occurred in yard trimmings collection, with 12 (67%) of the injuries related to manual lifting, and 4 (22%) of the injuries related to walking and getting on and off the truck.

Over the last two years a number of ergonomic assessments and interventions have been conducted in Sanitation Operations. Some of the interventions include enforcing solid waste container size and weight limits, using trucks with the lowest rear loading height available, increasing the yard trimmings item limit, and educating workers on musculoskeletal injuries and safe work procedures. The average WCB hours claimed per employee in 2002 dropped by 33% from the hours claimed in the years 2000 and 2001.

DISCUSSION

Manual solid waste collection is labour intensive and physically demanding work. With the advent of automated lifting systems, there is potential to reduce injuries, sick time, and labour requirements, improve neighbourhood aesthetics and environmental quality. Automated solid waste collection can improve worker safety and comfort, improving job longevity and worker diversity.

Current Manual Collection

The frequency of lifting, the duration of lifting over the work day, and the weight of the loads are contributing factors affecting the exposure of workers to the risk of musculoskeletal injury. City of Vancouver garbage collection crews currently collect 900 to 1000 items (cans and bags) per worker per day, amounting to approximately 6 tonnes (13,000 lbs.) lifted by each worker each day.

Manual solid waste collection requires lifting of materials from the ground up to the truck hopper, and emptying containers in the truck hopper. The loading height of the City's garbage and yard trimmings collection trucks is the lowest loading height in the industry, to minimize the height of the lift and risk of injury.

In Vancouver, the majority of yard trimmings are set out in plastic bags. When crews collect plastic yard trimmings bags, in addition to lifting the bags from the ground to the truck, the plastic bags are cut open to empty the yard trimmings into the hopper, and the plastic bags are disposed as garbage.

The physically demanding nature of manually lifting solid waste creates concerns for the long term ability of staff to perform this work. In general, manual solid waste collection has high injury rates. Injured workers are reassigned to light duty work or accommodated in other departments. As the number of light duty staff continues to grow it becomes increasingly difficult to reassign staff. Given the high number of Sanitation workers that currently cannot work collections, our injury rate is not sustainable.

Automated Solid Waste Collection

Semi-automated and fully automated systems are the two main approaches to automating solid waste collection. Both systems require special trucks with mechanical lifting systems and require customers to use specially designed wheeled carts.

Semi-automated Solid Waste Collection

With semi-automated collection, the container is wheeled over to a mechanical tipper on the collection vehicle, which lifts and empties the container into the truck.

Semi-automated collection can be performed using side-loading trucks with a single person crew, or rear-loading trucks with a two person crew. The City's existing fleet can be retrofitted to implement a rear-loading two-person semi-automated collection program. New trucks would be required for a side-loading semi-automated style operation.

Advantages of Semi-automated Collection:
· manual lifting minimized
· can retrofit existing collection trucks (for two-person crew method)
· can be used in narrow lanes
· manual collection can still be performed relatively easily
· debagging of yard trimmings eliminated (with elimination of plastic bags)
· fastest implementation
· minimize worker exposure to sharp waste

Disadvantages of Semi-automated Collection:
· slower than manual garbage collection
· slower than fully automated collection
· requires manual handling of carts
· increases the loading height of the truck hopper for manual collections (if collecting material manually in addition to carts)
· workers still have to step on and off the truck, one of the significant causes of injury in Sanitation

Fully Automated Solid Waste Collection

With fully automated collection, the container is lifted, emptied and returned entirely through the use of a remotely controlled mechanical arm. The collection truck is operated by a single operator that does not have to leave the cab.

Advantages of Fully Automated Collection:
· enhanced worker safety and comfort
· manual lifting eliminated
· reduced labour costs
· minimize worker exposure to sharp waste
· ability to increase workforce diversity

Disadvantages of Fully Automated Collection:
· higher equipment and maintenance costs
· difficult to access carts in tight spaces
· difficult to collect material not placed in cart

In certain areas of Vancouver that have limited space restricting access to solid waste setouts, such as locations with no rear lanes and heavy on-street parking, automated collection may not be feasible. A manual crew would have to be retained to service these locations.

Carts for Automated Solid Waste Collection

For automated solid waste collection programs, customers require special containers that are compatible with the mechanical lifting systems. The carts have wheels and lids and come in a variety of sizes.

The use of carts for solid waste collection would reduce the need to use plastic bags and divert plastic bags from the landfill. For yard trimmings, the use of plastic bags by residents would be eliminated, as yard trimmings would be placed directly into the cart. For collection staff, the undesirable and physically challenging task of debagging yard trimmings would be eliminated. In 2002 over 800,000 plastic bags of yard trimmings were collected by City crews.

The use of carts for garbage collection is also an opportunity to expand the customer base served by the City. Garbage collection could be expanded to include small apartments and commercial buildings currently served by private contractors.

Neighbourhood aesthetics can be improved using carts which are more resistant (than bags and cans) to animals, which reduces unsightly blowing litter and strewn garbage, and replaces unsightly set-outs with a single uniform container.

Carts with lids help to keep water out of setouts, which helps reduce the weight, leakage from trucks, and the tipping fee cost of added water weight. The lids also help to reduce odours.

User Pay

Carts can be obtained in a variety of sizes which can facilitate further implementation of a user pay structure to encourage waste reduction. The City's commitment in the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan includes implementation of user pay programs. Tailoring the size of the cart to the amount of garbage produced and charging a higher cost for larger garbage cart sizes would encourage residents to recycle and reduce the amount of waste disposed in landfills.

With a user pay garbage collection program, there will be a need to allocate a minimum cart size and fee to minimize a possible increase in abandoned garbage.

Table 1: Comparison of Container Volumes

Cart Sizes

Equivalent # of Cans

US Gallons

Litres

77 litre
(std. size)

100 litre
(max. size)

20

76

1.0

0.8

35

132

1.7

1.3

48

182

2.4

1.8

65

246

3.2

2.5

95

360

4.7

3.6

Automated Collection Pilot Project

From October 2002 to January 2003 an automated collection pilot program was conducted in several neighbourhoods in Vancouver. Approximately 2,600 houses were provided with one 360 litre cart for the trial period and asked to set out their yard trimmings using the cart on their regular collection days.

The City collected yard trimmings carts for the four month trial period testing semi-automated and fully automated equipment from several different manufacturers. At the end of the trial, a survey was mailed to residents to provide feedback. Approximately 45% of the residents in the pilot areas returned the survey. Some of the key findings from the residents that responded:

· 76% preferred automated collection, 16% were indifferent, and 8% preferred manual collection
· 58% were willing to pay an increase in the yearly fee for automated yard trimmings collection service
· 17% indicated the cart was too big to manoeuvre or store at their property.

Options for Automated Solid Waste Collection

Options for automated collection of garbage and yard trimmings have been investigated. Automated collection of residential recycling is not being considered at this time because co-mingling of recyclable materials would be required, which would reduce the market value of the material. The sorting of recyclables by residents into three material streams reduces contamination and increases the value of the recyclable material.

Estimates of the impact of implementing automated garbage and yard trimmings collection options are shown in Table 2 and Table 3. The estimates are based on providing the same level of service as the City currently provides; weekly collection of garbage and bi-weekly collection of yard trimmings. Future savings that would occur from reduced WCB costs and reduced salary fringe benefits costs are difficult to quantify and are not included in the cost estimates. The estimates also do not include the cost of changing the billing process for an automated collection program, however the additional cost would be similar for each of the options.

The options include a rear-loading semi-automated program with voluntary participation, where customers would voluntarily purchase carts for collection. The remaining options are estimated based on the City purchasing and issuing carts to customers.

AUTOMATED GARBAGE COLLECTION OPTIONS

A summary of automated garbage collection options with estimated utility fee impacts are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Comparison of Garbage Collection Options (estimates)

Garbage
Collection

(a) Current

Manual
Rear-
loading

Semi-auto.
Rear-loading
@ 50% using carts.

Semi-auto.
Rear-loading

Semi-auto.
Side-loading

(a)

Fully Automated

Cart Supplied By

n/a

resident
(voluntary)

city

city

city

Beats

18

25

32

26

+ 2 manual

18

+ 2 manual

Labour
# Staff

36

50

66

32

24

Utility Fee

$89

(b) $106

(c) $132

(c) $103

(c) $99

% Increase
Utility Fee

-

+ 19-20 %

+ 46-50 %

+ 13-18 %

+ 9-13 %

(a) recommended for detailed comparison and report by October 2003
(b) does not include the cost of the cart; the cart cost to those participating with carts (voluntarily purchase carts) would add a minimum of $10 per year to the program cost for the customer
(c) ± $2 depending on cart purchase and financing costs

A voluntary cart program using side-loading semi-automated trucks or fully automated trucks is not considered because voluntary programs must handle both manual and automated collection. Manual collection of cans and bags using a side-loading semi-automated truck or a fully automated truck requires lifting of cans and bags to a significantly higher height than rear-loading.

It is recommended that only fully automated garbage collection be considered for implementation for the following reasons:

1. Highest potential for injury reductions. Fully automated collection eliminates heavy lifting, walking between setouts and frequent steps on and off the truck. In garbage collection 76% of injuries are related to heavy lifting and 16% of injuries are related to walking and getting on and off the truck. Fully automated collection has the highest injury reduction potential and maximizes the diversity of the workforce that can do this work. A program with voluntary participation has the least impact on injury reductions.

2. Lowest Cost. If the participation rate in any semi-automated program is higher than about 30%, the cost of operating the program is higher than operating a fully automated program with carts used by all residents supplied by the City. The $10 increased cost (over the current program) for a fully automated program essentially covers the cost of providing each user a cart. This provides added value to each user. The additional cost of semi-automated garbage collection programs does not provide additional value to the user.

AUTOMATED YARD TRIMMINGS COLLECTION OPTIONS

Similar to the analysis for garbage collection, a summary of automated yard trimmings collection options are shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Comparison of Yard Trimmings Collection Options (estimates)

Yard
Trimmings

(a) Current

Manual
Rear-
loading

Semi-auto.
Rear-loading

Semi-auto.
Rear-loading

Semi-auto.
Side-loading

(a)

Fully Automated

Cart
Supplied By

n/a

resident
(voluntary)

city

city

city

Beats:
average

6.5

5 - 7

5 - 7

4 - 6

+ 1 manual

4 - 5

+ 1 manual

Labour:
average # staff

13

10 -14

12 -16

8 - 10

8 - 9

Utility Fee

$32

(b) $32 - $36

(c) $42 - $48

(c) $41 - $47

(c) $40 - $46

% Increase
Utility Fee

-

+ 0-12%

+ 31-50%

+ 28-47%

+ 25-44%

(a) recommended for detailed comparison and report by October 2003
(b) does not include the cost of the cart; the cart cost to those participating with carts (voluntarily purchase carts) would add a minimum of $10 per year to the program cost for the customer
(c) low end of utility fee range represents current participation levels and lower cart costs; high end of range represents 40% increase in participation and higher cart costs

Similar to the analysis for garbage collection, a voluntary cart program using side-loading semi-automated trucks or fully automated trucks is not considered because voluntary programs must handle both manual and automated collection. Manual collection of cans and bags using a side-loading semi-automated truck or a fully automated truck requires lifting of cans and bags to a significantly higher height than rear-loading.

It is recommended that only fully automated yard trimmings collection be considered for implementation for the following reasons:

1. Highest potential for injury reductions. Fully automated collection eliminates heavy lifting, walking between setouts and frequent steps on and off the truck. In yard trimmings collection 67% of injuries are related to heavy lifting and 22% of injuries are related to walking and getting on and off the truck. Fully automated collection has the highest injury reduction potential and maximizes the diversity of the workforce that can do this work. A program with voluntary participation has the least impact on injury reductions.

2. Cost Impact. A semi-automated rear-loading yard trimmings collection program where residents voluntarily purchase carts is expected to have the least increase in the utility fee (applied to all users), depending on how many residents choose to use carts. This is primarily because the cost of the cart is borne by the voluntary users. These users would be paying more than they would under a city wide fully automated program. If all users are provided carts, fully automated collection is more cost effective than semi-automated collection.

3. Lower Risk. If the participation rate for yard trimmings collection continues to increase, the yard trimmings collection program will continue to expand. Fully automated collection can be performed faster than semi-automated collection, therefore for any expansion of the program the cost of labour and equipment for semi-automated collection would increase faster than with fully automated collection. Fully automated collection lowers the risk of rising collection costs due to growing participation.

4. Operational Efficiencies & Flexibility. There are also efficiencies to be gained by using the same vehicles for garbage collection and yard trimmings collection. Currently the City uses the same fleet for garbage and yard trimmings, and shares the spare trucks for both programs. This is particularly useful considering the variability of the yard trimmings collection program which currently varies between 3 and 13 crews per collection day depending on the time of the year. Fully automated collection is faster than semi-automated collection which reduces the variability in the number of crews and number of trucks (including spares) that are required for the program, especially during the peak season.

The City currently collects unlimited bags of leaves in the fall, which would be difficult to handle using a cart system which limits the volume. If fully automated trucks are used for both garbage and yard trimmings collection, the combined fleet could be used to collect yard trimmings weekly in the fall using longer shifts (10 hour shifts) to accommodate the high volume of leaves. For this scenario, it would also be safer for collection staff to work longer shifts using fully automated trucks than semi-automated trucks.

Billing

Currently the majority of customers are billed the same rate for basic garbage and yard trimmings collection service. Implementing automated collection with varying cart sizes and levels of service would require significant change in the current billing processes. The cost of these changes has not been included in the cost estimates in this report, however any added costs would be similar for each of the options. Further analysis of the impacts on billing is required and will be included in the future report to Council.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

Implementing automated collection of solid waste can facilitate further implementation of a user pay structure for waste collection. Tailoring the size of the cart to the amount of garbage produced and charging a higher cost for larger garbage cart sizes would encourage residents to recycle and reduce the amount of waste disposed in landfills. The use of carts would enhance accountability for waste, allowing future generations to have access to resources and encourage the use of renewable resources

Automated yard trimmings collection programs eliminate the need to use plastic bags which end up in the Landfill. In 2002 over 800,000 plastic bags (approximately 40 tonnes) were collected in the yard trimmings collection program.

Implementation of fully automated garbage collection would result in two additional collection trucks, and their resulting greenhouse gas emissions each day. This would largely be offset by fewer collection trucks being required for automated yard trimmings collection.

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Automated solid waste collection is a higher level of service (versus manual collection) for residents and improves neighbourhood aesthetics. Carts are more resistant to animals, which reduces unsightly blowing litter and strewn garbage, and replaces unsightly set-outs with a single uniform container. Carts with lids also helps to reduce odours and keep water out of setouts, which reduces leakage from trucks. Wheeled carts make it easier for residents to move and set out solid waste, than using cans and bags that must be lifted.

PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS

Automated solid waste collection can improve worker safety and comfort, improving job longevity and improving worker diversity. Reducing injuries to an aging workforce reduces the need to accommodate workers (that can no longer perform manual solid waste collection) with light duty assignments.

While automated solid waste collection addresses concerns associated with the long term ability of workers to physically perform manual collection, the use of one-person semi-automated or fully automated collection trucks reduces the crew size from two to one, which can significantly reduce the number of staff required for collections. An implementation plan would consider options such as reassignment of staff, a phase in period for automated collection and implementation over a period of time to match regular attrition, such that there would be no layoffs to current regular full time employees in Sanitation Operations.

With automated collection there is also an opportunity to expand the customer base served by the City. Depending on the type of equipment and size of carts used, automated collection adds flexibility to accommodate small commercial or apartment properties and is expected to be competitive with private industry for those users. Detailed analysis will be included with the future report to Council.

Representatives from CUPE 1004 have been involved in the automated collection pilot program and evaluations to date. This has included having staff operate each of the numerous equipment types used in the pilot program, presenting the issues to all solid waste collection staff and obtaining feedback and answering questions, as well as during the drafting of this report.

During recent meetings CUPE 1004 has indicated a preference for the semi-automated rear-loading options which require the greatest number of workers for garbage and yard trimmings collection. The primary impetus for investigating automated collection of solid waste is to reduce the high rate of injury and to reduce the high WCB costs associated with manual collection. The semi-automated rear-loading options have lower injury reduction benefits and higher operating costs than fully automated collection options. The business case analysis presented in the preceding section clearly supports fully automated collection over semi-automated collection.

CUPE 1004 has expressed concern over the reduction of staff associated with implementation of fully automated collection programs. It is recommended that the future detailed report to Council include implementation plans that will result in no layoffs to current regular full time employees in Sanitation Operations.

CUPE 1004 has also expressed a desire to have the issue of automated garbage and yard trimmings collection addressed in conjunction with the issue of re-establishing a front load container operation serving the multi-family and commercial sectors which are currently served by private contractors. As these two issues are independent, automated collection can be addressed separately as per our commitment to the Workers Compensation Board.

CUPE 1004 has been provided a copy of this report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Significant cost is associated with the carts required for automated solid waste collection. The purchase price for carts is $60 to $80 each, depending on the size and style, and based on a significant volume purchase. They have a lifespan of 10 to 15 years. The capital cost of supplying one cart to each customer is $6-$7 million per program, or $8-$10 per customer per year.

One option is a voluntary program where residents purchase carts from the City or from retailers to participate, however this would require the ability to maintain manual collection for those who do not purchase carts. This option would likely result in a significantly higher cost per cart to residents due to the lower volume purchase and is not recommended.

Implementation of an automated collection program would increase the operating costs for solid waste collection. A comparison of the options and the impact on the Solid Waste Utility Garbage and Yard Trimmings Fees is shown in Table 2 and Table 3. Depending on the type of program, the increase in the annual fee is estimated between $8 - $45 for garbage collection, and $0 - $16 per year for yard trimmings collection.

A fully automated garbage collection program would cost approximately $890,000 per year more than the current manual collection program. A semi-automated rear-loading garbage collection program would cost approximately $3.81 million per year more than the current program.

A fully automated yard trimmings collection program would cost approximately $950,000 per year more than the current manual collection program. A semi-automated rear-loading yard trimmings collection program would cost approximately $1.12 million per year more than the current program.

Injuries in Sanitation Operations currently costs the City approximately $0.5 million per year in WCB claim payments and WCB levy surcharges.

Reducing or eliminating manual lifting will reduce injuries to Sanitation workers thereby reducing workers compensation costs, decreasing disability claims, decreasing the number and cost of light duty assignments, and will reduce salary fringe benefit costs in the future. Fully automated collection has the advantage of eliminating all manual handling of solid waste and is expected to have greater future benefits from injury reductions.

Residents participating in automated solid waste collection have a reduced need to purchase plastic bags and garbage containers. For yard trimmings, the need to purchase plastic bags is eliminated.

CONCLUSIONS

There are a variety of options available for automated solid waste collection programs. Further detailed analysis and reporting efforts should be focussed on the most viable options for reducing injuries and minimizing costs.

Except for a semi-automated voluntary yard trimmings collection program, all other semi-automated garbage and yard trimmings collection options are expected to have higher operating costs and lower injury reduction benefits than fully automated programs. A voluntary semi-automated yard trimmings collection program is expected to have the least increase in operating cost, however would have lower injury reduction benefits because significant manual collection would still be required. As well, a voluntary program requires customers to purchase their own carts which adds to the cost for users.

A future report to Council with detailed costs, benefits, financing options and an implementation plan should be prepared only for the following options:

iii. Existing manual garbage and yard trimmings collection programs.

The report on the automated collection options should include a staged implementation plan that results in no layoffs to current regular full time employees in Sanitation Operations.

* * * * *

cs20030731.htm

Comments or questions? Send us e-mail at info@city.vancouver.bc.ca
© 2002 City of Vancouver