CITY OF VANCOUVER

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

 

Date:

January 8, 2004

 

Author:

Kevin Van Vliet\
Bob McLennan

 

Phone No.:

873-7992\873-7239

 

RTS No.:

03648

 

CC File No.:

3756

 

Meeting Date:

January 29, 2004

TO:

Standing Committee on City Services and Budgets

FROM:

General Manager of Engineering Services

SUBJECT:

Automated Collection of Solid Waste

RECOMMENDATION

AND

CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The City Manager notes that the more conservative approach, which minimizes capital investment, while dealing with time loss injuries, is to proceed with automated garbage collection first with evaluation and report back before proceeding with yard trimmings. Therefore, the City Manager recommends C, D & F.

If Recommendation A and B are not approved C, D, & E are offered for CONSIDERATION

AND

AND

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

Engineering Services recommends implementation of automated collection for garbage and yard trimmings collection (Recommendations A & B). However, it is recognized based on public consultation, there will be a mixed reaction to this strategy. Since users are significantly more positive about automation after they have used the system a more conservative approach would be to implement garbage first and allow for public evaluation prior to committing the funds to automating yard trimmings collection. Implementation of garbage first is preferred because manual garbage collection is the largest source of time loss injuries in Sanitation, and the use of a user pay garbage cart system encourages waste reduction by residents. This alternative is presented as CONSIDERATION items C, D and E.

COUNCIL POLICY

The Solid Waste Capital Reserve was established by Council in 1986, to be used for solid waste capital expenditures, which consists primarily of long term Landfill closure costs.

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.

On July 31, 2003 Council directed staff to report back on implementing fully automated collection programs for garbage and yard trimmings.

SUMMARY

This report recommends implementing fully automated collection of garbage and yard trimmings. As an alternative to the current system where workers manually lift cans and bags, fully automated collection 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. Roughly one third of the current workforce in Sanitation Operations is no longer able to do the work required to collect yard trimmings or garbage. As the current workforce ages, there is concern for rising injury rates. Engineering Services is at the point where it is very difficult to find lighter duty work for staff that can no longer work collections.

The advantages of automated collection include:

The disadvantages of automated collection include:

Engineering Services concludes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, and it is desirable to implement fully automated collection of garbage and yard trimmings. This report recommends automated collection of both garbage and yard trimmings be implemented as soon as possible (Recommendation A & B) to maximize the injury reduction potential and to take advantage of fleet efficiencies realized by using the same trucks for both garbage and yard trimmings collection.

The proposed program would see conversion from manual to fully automated collection of garbage and yard trimmings phased in over a period of 18 to 24 months, commencing mid 2005. This schedule is proposed to accommodate the time required to supply the equipment, the time required to allow for attrition of staff, and to allow a gradual phase in period for the significant change to solid waste collection service.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to summarize costs, benefits, financing and implementation plans to switch to fully automated collection of garbage and yard trimmings, and to recommend implementing a fully automated collection program.

BACKGROUND

Current Residential Collection Program

The City of Vancouver currently provides residential garbage, recycling and yard trimmings collection to approximately 88,000 customers in Vancouver. This service is performed predominantly by manually lifting materials into the collection vehicles.

Garbage and yard trimmings collection crews currently lift, on average, over 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.

Following a report to Council July 31, 2003, Council directed staff to report back on implementing a fully automated collection program

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.
Injuries in Sanitation Operations currently cost the City approximately $500,000 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. Currently, approximately one third of the labour force in Sanitation Operations is no longer able to work garbage or yard trimmings collection. These labourers have filled all of the lighter duty positions (such as litter collection) available in Sanitation Operations.

Over the last three years, following the introduction of the Engineering Department Action Plan, risk identification and assessments have been conducted in the Sanitation Branch to determine risks of musculoskeletal injury. Control measures were then developed and implemented as appropriate.

Some of the control measures implemented over the last three years include strict enforcement of garbage and yard trimmings can size and weight limits, use of collection trucks with lowest loading height in the industry, allocating a minimum number of garbage cans to multi-unit properties (to reduce overstuffing of cans), increasing the yard trimmings items limit from 3 to 4, subsidizing composter sales (to encourage backyard composting), development and education of workers in safe work procedures, and increased safety training.

As can be seen from Table 1, these control measures have resulted in significant injury reductions.

Table 1: Time Loss Injuries 1999 - 2003

 

Time Loss Injuries

Year

Garbage
Collection

Yard Trimmings
Collection

Total

1999

27

-

27

2000

33

8

41

2001

25

13

38

2002

21

4

25

2003

27 (to Nov.30)

1 (to Nov. 30)

28 (to Nov. 30)

Should our current injury rate continue, we would expect that the annual WCB surcharge costs relating to Sanitation Operations will drop from $500,000 to about $400,000 per year.

DISCUSSION

AUTOMATED WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEMS

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.

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.

Injury Reductions

A fully automated collection program would enhance worker safety and comfort, minimize manual lifting and exposure to hazards in the waste (such as sharp objects and dog feces), and increase diversity of the workforce. Many of the workers currently unable to work in garbage or yard trimmings collections would be able to return to work in these areas with automated collection.

Fully automated collection eliminates heavy lifting, walking between setouts and frequent steps on and off the truck. The mechanical arms on fully automated trucks are typically operated by the driver using a joystick control. Particular attention to the ergonomics of the driver posture would be required to minimize the risk of injuries such as carpal tunnel syndrome and repetitive neck turning.

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. Carts range in size from 75 litres to 360 litres. Standard garbage cans are 77 to 100 litres in size (100 litres is the maximum size allowed in our program). Customers would pay for the size of cart (amount of service) they use.

Fee schedule options include setting a fee per unit volume ($/litre) or marginal pricing such as a fee per stop plus a fee per unit volume. Table 2 shows an example of what the fee structure for a user pay cart system could look like for garbage collection, based on the costs of the proposed program. A future report to Council (closer to the implementation date) would discuss detailed fee schedules and determine a fee structure.

Table 2: Example Garbage Fee Schedule Scenario

Cart Size
(litres)

Estimated #
of Customers

Possible Annual Fee

Current Program Comparison

     

Annual Fee

# Cans

75

17,500

$72

$89

2

130

40,000

$95

$89

2

180

19,000

$115

$89

2

245

9,000

$141

$120

3

360

2,500

$188

$151

4

Total

88,000

      

Waste reduction could be encouraged by setting higher fees for larger cart sizes, however the fees should also encourage the use of a single container by multi-unit properties to reflect lower servicing costs of densification. Selecting standard or minimum cart sizes based on the number of dwelling units at a property would also be required to minimize a possible increase in abandoned garbage.

Billing

Currently the majority of customers are billed the same rate for 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 process.

Implementing a new billing schedule for automated collection would require the creation of one temporary staff position which could possibly become a permanent full time staff position, subject to review upon full program implementation. The cost of the temporary and possible permanent positions are included in the implementation cost estimate.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Public feedback regarding automated collection of solid waste was solicited in three forums; a survey of pilot project participants, feedback from focus groups, and a newspaper survey. The survey feedback from the pilot project participants is likely the most accurate reflection of longer term user acceptance of automation.

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.

Some of the key findings from the residents that responded to the survey:

Complete survey results are provided in Appendix A.

Focus Groups

Two focus groups were conducted September 29, 2003 to discuss automated collection in detail, give residents hands on experience with wheeled carts, obtain specific reactions from residents, and to determine whether residents see increased value for the increased fee. The focus groups also provided an opportunity to understand if there are any common misconceptions about an automated collection program.

The first focus group were residents that had not participated in the City's automated collection pilot program. This group was basically split on the issue of paying an increased fee for automated collection. Half of the group saw the increase in cost as insignificant and were willing to pay an increase for automated collection. The other half were not willing to pay an increase and consider their current service to be adequate.
The second group were residents that participated in the City's yard trimmings automated collection pilot (October 2002 - January 2003). This group was unanimous in their support for fully automated collection of garbage and yard trimmings, and saw value in the increased fee. Concern was expressed by one participant about handling large volumes of leaves in the fall using a cart with a fixed volume.

Detailed results from the focus groups are provided in Appendix B.

Newspaper Survey

Information and a survey about switching to fully automated collection was published in some of the local papers (Vancouver Courier, Sing Tao and Voice) in September 2003. Surveys could be mailed in, faxed in or completed on-line on the City's website.

It is noted that responding to a survey placed in a newspaper requires higher motivation on the part of the responder, which would likely generate a larger percentage from people who feel strongly about the issue than may be reflected by the general population.

The survey asked if customers were willing to pay about $10 more per year for automated collection of garbage, and about $10 more per year for automated collection of yard trimmings. From 602 responses received:

Table 3: Newspaper Survey Results

Reply

Automate Garbage ?

Automate Yard Trimmings?

Source

Yes

No

Not Sure

Yes

No

Not Sure

Internet

47%

49%

4%

41%

53%

6%

Fax

46%

48%

6%

40%

51%

9%

Mail

31%

64%

5%

26%

67%

7%

Overall

41%

54%

5%

36%

57%

7%

It is worth noting that approximately 8% (overall) of the respondents indicated that they would not support increased fees because they generate very little garbage (one can or less), often a comment from seniors. It is anticipated that for customers generating one can or less the fee for this level of service under an automated garbage collection program would not go up, but would be less than their current fee (such as example in Table 2). With fee schedule information, these respondents would likely become supportive of an automated collection program.

Complete survey results are provided in Appendix C.

RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE AND YARD TRIMMINGS COLLECTION

Fully Automated Collection

Converting the current manual garbage and yard trimmings collection programs to fully automated collection requires replacing the existing fleet of manual rear loading trucks with fully automated trucks. The current manual program uses an average of 25 trucks per day. A fully automated program would require an estimated average of 22 fully automated trucks plus three manual trucks per day (to service those properties not suited for automated collection).
An automated collection program would also require warehouse space and staff to distribute, repair and replace carts. Warehouse space, 4 staff and two vehicles are anticipated in the longer term as an ongoing operation to manage the carts. These costs are included in the implementation costs as well as the annual longer term operational costs.

Automating the collection programs will allow greater flexibility for such things as scheduling and shift configuration. This greater flexibility may allow for additional efficiency and service improvements than our current configuration provides. These opportunities will be further explored when a fully automated system is implemented.

Service Expansion

With implementation of an automated collection program, there would be an opportunity to expand the customer base to include small apartment and commercial buildings. However, the impact on the overall collection program would not be significant. The garbage collection program currently serves approximately 88,000 customers. It is estimated that there may be about 1,000 additional potential customers for this service, which would at most be approximately a 1% increase in the program. This would not require significant additional resources nor would it have a significant impact on the business case.

Fall Leaf Collection

Due to the variability of yard waste collection volumes throughout the year, it may be difficult for residents to choose an appropriate size cart to match their needs. During unlimited leaf collection in the fall (October to December) capacity concerns could be addressed by allowing the use of biodegradable paper bags for additional material. Increasing the frequency of yard trimmings collection during peak periods could also address capacity concerns. Weekly yard trimmings collection could be accomplished by working longer days (ie. four 10 hour days per week per worker). Weekly yard trimmings may be needed during May to June as well as October to December peak periods. These costs are included in the implementation costs as well as the annual longer term operational costs.

ALTERNATIVES/OPTIONS

Based on public consultation, it is recognized that there will be a mixed reaction to fully automated collection. Since users are significantly more positive about automation after they have used the system a more conservative approach would be to implement garbage first and allow for public evaluation prior to committing the funds to automating yard trimmings collection. This alternative is presented as CONSIDERATION items C, D and E.

If Council is not willing to commit to automated collection at this time, Sanitation Operations could continue the current manual collection program, conduct risk identifications and assessments, and implement control measures as has been done over the last three years. Injury rates would continue to be monitored and control measures such as injury education and awareness programs would continue. Staff would report back to Council on alternatives for the elimination of clear plastic bags used for yard trimmings. Staff would also report to the Workers' Compensation Board that switching to automated solid waste collection is not practicable for the City.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Implementation of an automated garbage and yard trimmings collection program would increase the program costs due to higher truck purchase and operating costs and the additional cost of supplying carts to residents. Reduced labour costs due to one person crews do not completely offset the cost increases.

Significant equipment, operational and billing changes are required to convert the existing program to a fully automated program. Increased cost is associated with the carts required for automated solid waste collection. The purchase price for carts is estimated at $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. One time implementation costs are shown in Table 4. Capital costs of fully automated trucks would be funded through the Truck and Equipment Replacement Reserve (Plant Account). Proposed funding of implementation costs is from the Solid Waste Capital Reserve.

Since 1998, surplus contributions from the Solid Waste Collection Programs to the Solid Waste Capital Reserve (SWCR) have totalled $4,500,000 mainly from recycling material revenues that were higher than forecast due to market fluctuations. Staff recommend using the amount of the surplus contributions to fund some of the implementation costs of a fully automated program and to reduce the funds borrowed from the Solid Waste Capital Reserve for the purchase of wheeled carts. This would reduce the average annual fee increase of fully automated collection to about $8 for yard trimmings and $10 for garbage.

Ongoing operational costs for cart replacement will begin to increase over time as carts require replacement. It is proposed that ongoing cart replacement costs be funded annually as part of the Solid Waste Utility fees. In order to have long-term fee stability loan repayments for the initial cart purchase will be higher in the early years, and gradually reduce until the end of the 13 year term. This is expected to be offset by gradually increasing cart repair and replacement costs. The goal is to have these two costs balance over time so as not to add excess pressure or spikes in the utility fee.

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. These savings are difficult to quantify and have only a small impact on the fee. However it may be reasonable to assume $200,000 to $300,000 per year in reduced WCB costs (garbage and yard trimmings collection combined), distributed across Engineering.

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. These cost savings to residents are not included in the fee analysis. On average, residents spend approximately $2 per year on clear plastic bags for yard trimmings.
 
Table 4: Fully Automated Collection Implementation Costs; RECOMMENDATION A & B

ONE TIME IMPLEMENTATION COSTS

YARD TRIMMINGS

GARBAGE

     

Containers

    

- wheeled carts

$6,750,000

$6,000,000

- cart delivery

$270,000

$270,000

- cart decals

$100,000

$100,000

     

Trucks

    

- outstanding capital (early fleet replacement)

$250,000

$650,000

     

Implementation

    

- cart delivery coordination

$165,000

$165,000

- billing changes

$85,000

$85,000

- promotion/advertising

$85,000

$85,000

- coordinator

$90,000

$90,000

- hotline staff

$75,000

$75,000

- driver/mechanic training

$10,000

$60,000

- increased operating cost during transition

$220,000

$220,000

     

Total Estimated Implementation Cost

$8,100,000

$7,800,000

     

FUNDING OF IMPLEMENTATION COSTS

YARD TRIMMINGS

GARBAGE

     

Solid Waste Capital Reserve

    

- Solid Waste Collection Surplus (total $4.5 M)

$2,250,000

$2,250,000

- Loan from Solid Waste Capital Reserve

$5,850,000

$5,550,000

     

Total Funding

$8,100,000

$7,800,000

     

UTILITY FEE IMPACT

BEGIN 2006

BEGIN 2007

     

Annual Loan Repayment ($5.85 M & $5.55 M)

+$660,000

+$630,000

Change in Annual Operating Cost

-$70,000

+$150,000

Cart replacement costs

+110,000

+$110,000

Total Annual Increase

+$700,000

+$890,000

Average Fee Increase per Customer

+$8

+$10

For full repayment of the implementation costs (repay full $15.9 million), the estimated annual increase in operating cost for yard trimmings is $960,000 ($11 per customer) and for garbage is $1,140,000 ($13 per customer).

With an automated collection program, the current practice of allowing the occasional set out of extra bags of garbage by purchasing stickers to place on additional bags should continue, however an adjustment in the fee (currently $1.50 per sticker) may be warranted subject to implementation and a future report to Council.

It is worth noting that for an average single family dwelling the Solid Waste Utility fees have risen only 1.4% from 1998 ($145) to 2003 ($147). During this time, the bi-weekly collection of yard trimmings was implemented along with a reduction in the can limit from 3 to 2 (2000).

CONSIDERATION C, D & E

It is recognized, based on public consultation, that there would be mixed reaction to implementation of automated collection of garbage and yard trimmings. Since users are significantly more positive about automation after they have used the system, a more conservative approach would be to implement garbage first and allow for public evaluation prior to committing the funds to automating yard trimmings collection.

Implementing automated garbage collection first is preferred because:

Implementation costs for automated collection of only garbage would be the same as shown in Table 4. Applying the $4,500,000 SWCR surplus contributions to implementing automated collection of garbage reduces the average annual fee increase to about $7, as shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Garbage Fully Automated Collection Implementation Costs
CONSIDERATION C, D & E

FUNDING OF IMPLEMENTATION COSTS

GARBAGE

   

Solid Waste Capital Reserve

  

- Solid Waste Collection Surplus (total $4.5 M)

$4,500,000

- Loan from Solid Waste Capital Reserve

$3,300,000

   

Total Estimated Implementation Cost

$7,800,000

   

UTILITY FEE IMPACT

BEGIN 2006

   

Annual Loan Repayment ($3.3 M)

+$370,000

Change in Annual Operating Cost

+$150,000

Cart replacement costs

+$110,000

Total Annual Increase

+$630,000

Average Fee Increase per Customer

+$7

PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS

Implementation of a fully automated garbage and yard trimmings collection program would reduce collection staff from 42 to 27 regular full-time positions, and would create 4 regular full-time positions for cart repair and replacement over the longer term. It is anticipated that by not filling vacancies in regular full time positions, the reduction of 11 regular full time positions can be accommodated through regular attrition in Sanitation Operations by the end of 2005.

The increased maintenance requirements of a fully automated truck fleet for garbage and yard trimmings would potentially require additional full time equivalent positions in Equipment Services.

It is also noted that expansion of the litter collection program, which will be considered separately by Council, may also create additional full time positions in Sanitation Operations.

A review of job classification will be required for drivers of fully automated collection equipment.

Conversion from manual to fully automated collection would require two temporary Engineering Assistant III positions, a temporary Coordinator position, a temporary Clerk II position, and a temporary Clerk IV position (possibly becoming a permanent Clerk III position). The temporary positions would be required in Sanitations Operations and Financial Services for approximately two years during program implementation. Classification subject to job evaluation by the General Manager of Human Resource Services.

Staff have discussed this proposal with CUPE 1004, which represents the workers that are affected by this change. CUPE acknowledges the high injury rates in our Sanitation Collection's programs, and is supportive of the need to address this issue, both for the benefit of the workers and to ensure that our in house collection programs remain viable. However, CUPE is not in favour of workforce reduction and some of the sanitation workers have indicated that they like their current work and do not want to see it change. The active nature of the work, and the camaraderie of working with a partner are aspects of the work that they do not want to lose. Automated collection work is more sedentary and the workers are more isolated.

CUPE has recently suggested that rather than approve the recommendations of this report, Council approve a program change which would eliminate our current "Skip a Day" collection schedule, to benefit workers performing manual collection. The Skip a Day schedule means that whenever a Statutory Holiday occurs the missed pickup day is not made up by working overtime on a Saturday or Holiday. Instead the collection schedule is adjusted moving everyone's collection day back by one day. CUPE suggests that instead, we continue the same schedule year round and make up for days missed due to stats. by working Saturdays. Workers would be required to accept compensating time for the overtime which, due to the double time rates of pay for overtime, would result in eleven additional days off per year (approx. 5% reduction in number of days worked). This additional time off would have to be covered using additional workers, on a temporary or auxiliary basis.
 
The benefits the CUPE suggests from this proposal are that;

· for manual collections, the eleven extra days off would give workers more days on which to recover from the heavy workload
· workload becomes less variable; the normally heavy day that follows a skip a day because customers have missed collection for one week would be eliminated
· customer service would be improved because each home would receive two more collections per year, their schedule would remain the same year round, and they would not miss their weekly collection as they currently do twice a year.

Staff met with CUPE to discuss their proposal and provide the following comments.

While there may be some marginal benefit to our injury rates through the elimination of the "impact days" that follow stat holidays this proposal does not address the basic nature of the work which is heavy, repetitive, and prone to injury. The City has an obligation under the WCB regulations to address this issue. The CUPE proposal would result in an annual cost increase estimated at $440,000 and is not likely to have a significant impact on injury reduction. Injuries that occur on impact days, in excess of the average injury rate, account for approximately 3% of annual injuries (1 out of every 33 injuries). The option of eliminating the skip a day schedule should only be considered on the basis of the customer service benefits. Before making such a change public input should be sought to see whether our customers have any significant concerns with the current schedule and would support elimination of Skip a Day, at a cost. A survey of our customers in 2000 indicated that only 38% of our residents were willing to pay the additional $5 to eliminate the skip-a-day schedule.

If Council approves the implementation of fully automated collection the possibility exists to eliminate skip a day without incurring overtime costs as a result. Once the heavy manual element of the work is eliminated it may be possible to redesign the collection schedule so that all of our customers are serviced on 4 days of the week. This would involve extended work days, which cannot be supported given the nature of the manual collection work but this would not be an issue with automated collection. Staff intend to examine the costs and benefits of this option further as part of our implementation plan.

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 and reduce the quality and usability of the City's compost. In 2002 over 800,000 plastic bags (approximately 40 tonnes) were collected in the yard trimmings collection program. In spite of careful efforts to debag at curbside, plastic contamination in the City's compost is having a very negative impact on compost quality which jeopardizes marketing of the product.

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.

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 help to reduce odours and keep water out of setouts, which reduces leakage from trucks. In a fully automated system, carts are returned neatly to their setout location with the lids closed which helps the lane remain orderly.

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Automated solid waste collection is considered a higher level of service (versus manual collection) for residents. For most residents, wheeled carts are easier to move and set out cans and bags that must be lifted.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The lead time required to have fully automated trucks in service is approximately 18 months, putting the earliest implementation commencing in mid 2005 for fully automated collection.

To help ensure smooth implementation it is recommended that the conversion from manual to fully automated collection of garbage and yard trimmings be phased in over a period of 18 to 24 months. This transition period is recommended to help minimize the challenges of making major changes to the solid waste collection programs. Attention can be focussed on smooth delivery of carts to all customers as part of a cart supply tender and the introduction of fully automated trucks can occur gradually as trucks are delivered starting in 2005.

Significant lead time would also be required to contact all customers to confirm the cart sizes they want to use. Staff would analyze average garbage and yard trimmings production by neighbourhood and contact residents recommending cart sizes that match generations rates observed in the neighbourhood. Residents would be given the option of selecting larger or smaller cart sizes based on their needs. This process would begin in 2004

Table 6: Implementation Schedule

ACTIVITY

TARGET
START DATE

TARGET
COMPLETION DATE

Deliver carts

Mid. 2005

Fall 2006

Transition from manual to fully automated collection

Mid. 2005

Fall 2006

Start billing for automated collection

Jan. 2006

Jan. 2007

A future report to Council would discuss a detailed implementation schedule.

COMMUNICATIONS PLAN

This proposal calls for major change to the collection services provided by the City. Effectively communicating with the customer base is essential.

The communications plan would include:

CONCLUSION

Engineering staff have investigated automated collection of solid waste as a means to reduce the risk of musculoskeletal injuries to workers. Staff have assessed the costs and benefits as outlined in this report.

Fully automated collection can substantially reduce worker injuries, increase diversity of the workforce, facilitate further implementation of a user pay structure, improves service to residents, improves neighbourhood aesthetics and reduces the use of plastic bags by residents. The implementation of a fully automated collection program requires significant capital investment, largely due to the cost of supplying carts to residents, which would increase the annual cost of collection service.

Engineering Services concludes the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, and it is desirable to implement fully automated collection of garbage and yard trimmings. This report recommends automated collection of both garbage and yard trimmings be implemented as soon as possible (Recommendation A & B) to maximize the injury reduction potential and to take advantage of fleet efficiencies realized by using the same trucks for both garbage and yard trimmings collection.

* * * * *

 

APPENDIX A

AUTOMATED YARD TRIMMINGS COLLECTION PILOT PROJECT
SURVEY RESULTS (February 2003)

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.

Figure 1: Pilot Project Areas

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. The results of the survey are as follows:

1202 responses from 2662 houses (45.1% response)

1.

Do you prefer automated yard trimmings collection over manual collection?

   

Yes, I prefer automated

850

71%

  
   

Did not notice any difference

184

15%

  
   

No, I prefer manual

92

8%

  
   

No response

75

6%

  
   

Total

1201

100%

  
           

2.

Would you prefer to use carts (various sizes available) and have automated collection of : (check all that apply)

 

Yard Trimmings

      
   

Check

914

76%

  
   

Blank

287

24%

  
   

Total

1201

100%

  
 

Garbage

      
   

Check

585

49%

  
   

Blank

616

51%

  
   

Total

1201

100%

  
 

Recycling

      
   

Check

501

42%

  
   

Blank

700

58%

  
   

Total

1201

100%

  
           

3.

Was the cart easy to use?

      
   

Easy to use, no problems

944

79%

  
   

Somewhat easy to use

154

13%

  
   

Somewhat difficult to use

58

5%

  
   

Difficult to use

27

2%

  
   

No response

18

1%

  
   

Total

1201

100%

  
           

4.

Did you have difficulties finding a space to store or set out your cart for collection?

   

No difficulties

949

79%

  
   

A few difficulties

188

16%

  
   

Many difficulties

44

4%

  
   

No response

20

2%

  
   

Total

1201

100%

  
           

5.

Automated collection depends on specific placement of the cart when setting the cart out for collection. Did the changes create any difficulties for you?

   

No problem

976

81%

  
   

Kind of, but I caught on

147

12%

  
   

Yes, difficult to get it right

38

3%

  
   

No response

40

3%

  
   

Total

1201

100%

  
           

6.

Do you think the cart is an adequate size for yard trimmings collection all year round?

   

Yes, just right

886

74%

  
   

No, too big

210

17%

  
   

No, too small to collect leaves in the fall

71

6%

  
   

No, too small for use all year round

10

1%

  
   

No response

24

2%

  
   

Total

1201

100%

  
           

7.

Were you adequately informed on how to use the cart and what to set out?

   

Yes

1077

90%

  
   

Sort of

86

7%

  
   

No

18

1%

  
   

No response

20

2%

  
   

Total

1201

100%

  
           

8.

If you had to contact the City regarding problems with automated service, were the problems handled adequately?

   

Did not have to contact the City

1011

84%

  
   

Yes

96

8%

  
   

No

32

3%

  
   

Sort of

22

2%

  
   

No response

40

3%

  
   

Total

1201

100%

  
           

9.

Overall, the change to automated yard trimmings has made taking out the yard trimmings...

   

A pleasant chore

720

60%

  
   

No different

351

29%

  
   

A dreaded task

33

3%

  
   

No response

97

8%

  
   

Total

1201

100%

  
           

10.

The City is currently investigating the feasibility of automated collection service citywide. If you were asked to pay an increased fee for automated service, what yearly fee increase would you be willing to pay:

 

a)

For automated yard trimmings collection service?

  
   

(the current yard trimmings fee is $32/year for a single family home)

   

$0

458

38%

  
   

$0.01 - $5.00

254

21%

  
   

$5.01 - $10.00

203

17%

  
   

$10.01 - $15.00

108

9%

  
   

$15.01 +

59

5%

  
   

No response

119

10%

  
     

1201

100%

  
           
 

b)

For automated garbage collection service?

   

(the current garbage fee is $89/year for a single family home)

   

$0

595

50%

  
   

$0.01 - $5.00

165

14%

  
   

$5.01 - $10.00

156

13%

  
   

$10.01 - $15.00

69

6%

  
   

$15.01 +

61

5%

  
   

No response

155

13%

  
     

1201

100%

  
           
 

c)

For automated recycling collection service?

   

(the current recycling fee is $26/year for a single family home)

   

$0

642

53%

  
   

$0.01 - $5.00

196

16%

  
   

$5.01 - $10.00

112

9%

  
   

$10.01 - $15.00

53

4%

  
   

$15.01 +

40

3%

  
   

No response

158

13%

  
     

1201

100%

  

APPENDIX B

FOCUS GROUP CONSULTATION

To understand the reactions of the residents of Vancouver and to gain further, in-depth, insights from participants of the automated yard trimmings collection pilot program, Synovate was commissioned to conduct two focus groups (12 people per group). One group with a random sample of pilot program participants and one group randomly selected with Vancouver households who did not participate in the pilot program.

Participants were shown a variety of materials regarding automated solid waste collection including a description of the proposed automated collection program and video clips of automated collection. Both groups were shown four different sized carts and were also shown the same "conceptual" pricing for automated service and the current pricing for the average garbage container and yard trimming service.

The focus groups were conducted on the evening of September 29th, 2003 at Synovate's Vancouver office.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (from Synovate's report)

· There appears to be a more positive than negative reception to the notion of a $10 average fee increase for automated garbage and yard trimming pickup.

· Communication needs to address a fundamental misunderstanding: Residents do not have to pay for the new carts themselves. (Some do wonder about the logistics of the order and delivery process however.)

· Residents easily understood part of the strategy: worker injury reduction is a valid rationale.

· The technology itself leads to some resident concerns that there may be layoffs. This perception will need to be mitigated.

· If however, the strategy is to promote and encourage garbage reduction then the current "Conceptual Pricing Model" has potential to be abused and perhaps, undermine the laudable efforts already undertaken by the city.

· City Council will likely need to weigh the potential unintended consequences of the Conceptual Pricing strategy with the strategic considerations for the service in the first place.

· While an "average" fee increase appears palpable it disguises the many options and potentially harmful behaviour that a regressive price model may promote. An alternative pricing strategy or variant may need to be considered.

· Finally, the focus groups purpose was to uncover the range of reactions. If council needs definitive answers to the actual price mix then a formal price sensitivity study with a randomly selected, statistically valid sample should be undertaken

APPENDIX C

NEWSPAPER SURVEY (September 2003)

Information and a survey about switching to fully automated collection was published in some of the local papers (Vancouver Courier, Sing Tao and Voice) in early September 2003. Surveys could be mailed in, faxed in or completed on-line on the City's website.

 

Based on what you've read, would you be willing to pay about $10 extra per year for automated collection of garbage?

Based on what you've read, would you be willing to pay about $10 extra per year for automated collection of yard trimmings?

 

Yes

No

Not Sure

Yes

No

Not Sure

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Internet: 317

148

154

15

129

166

18

 

46.7%

48.6%

4.7%

41.2%

53.0%

5.8%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fax: 80

37

38

5

32

41

7

 

46.3%

47.5%

6.3%

40.0%

51.3%

8.8%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail: 205

63

132

10

52

137

15

 

30.7%

64.4%

4.9%

25.5%

67.2%

7.4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total: 602

248

324

30

213

344

40

 

41.2%

53.8%

5.0%

35.7%

57.6%

6.7%

APPENDIX D

STAFFING REQUIREMENTS

Implementation of Fully Automated Collection of Garbage and Yard Trimmings will require creation of the following staff positions:

Clerks

Assistant Technicians
· Two temporary positions to begin mid 2004 and end upon full program implementation (anticipated classification as Engineering Assistant III). Responsibilities to include contacting customers regarding cart sizes and compiling an address list with cart sizes for delivery.

Coordinator
· One temporary coordinator position to begin in 2005 and end upon full program implementation (classification to be determined). Responsibilities to include coordinating cart delivery and collection crew conversion from manual to automated collection.

ag980623.htm

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