HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA BACKUP 06-22-89
.
Centra~ ~ontra Costa Sanitary Jistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 63
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
June 22, 1989
NO.
SUBJECT
RECE IV E A REPORT 00 "THE RESUL TS OF "THE "THREE-MON"TH
PILOT PROGRAM CONDUCTED BY VALLEY W ASTE MAN~EMENT
AND AUTHORIZE FULL-SCALE IMPLEMENTATION OF aJRB-
SIDE RECYQ ING IN Al AMO, DANV ILLE, AND L AFAYEm
IV. SOLID WASTE 1
DATE
June 15, 1989
TYPE OF ~"ffi~IZE PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION
SUBMITTED BY INITIATING DEPT/DIV
H. Heibel, Publ ic Information Coordinator Administrative Department/Personnel
ISSUE: A report on the results of the three-month pilot program conducted by Valley
Waste Management is bei ng transmitted to the Board of Di rectors. Based on the
reported results of the pilot program, the Board of Directors is being requested to
authorize the full-scale implementation of the curbside recycling program
throughout Al amo, Danvill e, and Lafayette.
BAa<GRWtI>: At the December 1, 1988 Board meeting, Vall ey Waste Management received
approval fran the Board of Di rectors to impl ement a th ree-month pil ot curbside
recycl ing program in Al amo, Danvfll e, and Lafayette. The program provided curbside
collection of aluminum cans, glass bottles, plastic soft drink bottles, and
newspapers. Each residential custaner in the pilot program was given a set of three
plastic containers in which to place the designated recyclable items. Recyclable
items were collected weekly on the same day as regular refuse collection.
Simultaneously, an automated refuse collection pilot program was implemented in the
TC7fIn of Danvill e and community of Al amo.
Vall ey Waste Management proposed that the recycl ing program be phased in over a
nine-month period beginning with the pilot start-up. During the first three months,
three pilot areas of approximately 1200 hanes in the TC7fIn of Danville, City of
Lafayette, and community of Al amo received weekly curbside recycl ing. Concurrently,
165 homes in Alamo and Danville were provided curbside recycling and automated
refuse collection. An additional 150 hanes in Alamo and Danvflle were provided only
with autanated refuse collect ion. Each of these homes was prov i ded with a 60 or 100
gallon refuse container on wheels, knC7fln as a supercart, which was picked-up at the
curb by a one-person truck with a mechanical hoisting arm.
A report on the resul ts of the three-month pilot programs has been prepared by
District staff and is being transmitted for review by the Board.
The principal results described in the report are summarized belC7fl:
.
Based on an actual househol d-by-househol d count, monthly participation in
the Valley Waste Management recycl ing program was extremely high. During
the final month of the pilot program, Danville's participation was 87.51,
follC7fied by Alamo with 84.21 and Lafayette with 74.61. Overall monthly
participation averaged 81.71 of all pilot participants recycling. According
to a study on curbside programs in California produced by the Department of
Conservation, Division of Recycl ing, the average monthly participation rate
is 461.
1302A-9/85
HH
,it. CRF
PM
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
1/
~~~
INITIATING DEPT./DIV.
-...,-.-------.-..----~-,-.-~--------~..-..-..,..--.-~---.--r-~'-."~--_._-----~.......,----___r-.,.,~.-,.w.,--.........--',........-.. '.
SUBJECT
RECEIVE A REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF THE THREE-MONTH
PIL OT PROGRAM CONIlJCTED BY V ALL EY WASTE MANHiEMENT
AND AUTHORIZE RJLL-SCALE IMPlEMENTATION OF CURB-
SIDE RECYQ ING IN JlLAMO, DANV ILLE, AND LAFAYETTE
POSITION PAPER
PAGE 2 OF ,,~63
DATE
June 15, 1989
.
The amount of recycl abl es coll ected per househol d per month in Danv ill e
was 53.02 pounds; in Alamo 51.5 pounds; and in Lafayette, 40.6 pounds. The
overall average for the three communites was 48.36 pounds per househol d
per month. Accordi ng to Vall ey Waste Management, the average househol din
these areas produces approximately 208 pounds of garbage per month. The
recycl abl es coll ected in the pilot program represent a 23:1 reducti on in
the total amount of househol d solid waste being produced.
Except for the hilly El Pintado area in Danville (currently served by a
mini-packer garbage truck), participation was not significantly affected
by terrain. In the El Pintado area, driveways are long and steep, making
it difficult for residents to carry their recyclables to the curb.
Near the end of the pil ot program, a survey was mail ed to all pil ot
participants, and a 65:1 response was received. Of those peopl e who
responded to the survey, 00" think the recycling containers are easy to
use, and over 95:1 will continue to participate in the curbside recycling
program.
.
.
.
Based on the survey described above, 3 of those who responded to the
survey indicated that they woul d not participate in curbside recycling if
the program cost money.
District staff wishes to acknowledge Valley Waste Management Recycling Supervisor
Tom Ferro and his crew for assisting the District in compiling the statistical
information on participation rates. In the early weeks of the program, Mr. Ferro
and his crew often worked 14 hour days ensuring that the large volumes of
recycl ables were collected. Their hard work has contributed to the success of the
pilot recycling program.
Curbside recycling saves 1 andfill space, conserves natural resources, and reduces
energy. Additionally, it is being required by the Export Agreement with Alameda
County as a condition for accepting our solid waste. Moreover, on the basis of
the overwhelmingly successful results of the three-month pilot curbside recycling
program, District staff reconrnends that full-scale curbside recycling be
impl emented in Al amo, Danv ill e, and L af ayette.
The cost of recycling to rate payers as well as the cost implications of
impl ementing automated refuse coll ection is addressed in a separate Position
Paper.
RECOI4ENDATION: It is recommended that the Board authorize Vall ey Waste
Management to begi n full-scal e impl ementati on of curbside recycling in Zones 2,4,
and 5, and consider the incremental rate effect in setting the refuse collection
rates effective July 1,1989.
13026-9/85
'-
.
VALLEY WASTE MAN~BENT PILOT PROGRAM
EXEaJTIVE SUMMARY
Th e report rev i ew s th e res ul ts of th e th ree-month pil ot curbs ide
recycling and autanated refuse collection programs operated -by Valley
Waste Management. The pilot programs were operated under the franchise
agreement between the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and Valley
Waste Management. Curbside recycling was provided to approximately 1200
hanes in each community of Al amo, Danvllle, and Lafayette. Of the 1200
hanes in Alamo and Danville, approximately 165 were also given a 60- or
100-gallon "supercart" with wheels to replace their regular garbage
container(s); an additional 150 hanes outside of the pilot recycling
areas were al so provided with these supercarts.
Curbside Recycl1ng S~ary
The results of the three-month pilot curbside recycling program are
summarized below:
· Based on an actual househol d-by-househol d count, monthly
participation in the Valley Waste Management recycling program
was extremely high. During the final month of the pilot program,
Danville's participation was 87.5%, followed by Alamo with 84.2%
and Lafayette with 74.6%. Overall monthly participation averaged
81.7% of all pilot participants recycling. According to a stUdy
on curbside programs in California produced by the Department of
Conservation, Division of Recycling, the average monthly
participation rate is 46%.
· The monthly volume of recyclables collected per household in
Danville was 53.02 pounds; in Alamo 51.5 pounds; and in
1
Lafayette, 40.6 pounds. The overall average for the three
communities was 48.36 pounds. According to Valley Waste
Management, the average household in these areas produces
approximately 208 pounds of garbage per month. The recyc1ables
collected in the pilot program represent a 23J reduction in the
total amount of household solid waste being produced.
· Except for the hilly El Pintado area in Danv1l1e (currently
served by a mini-packer garbage truck), participation was not
significantly affected by terrain. In the E1 Pintado area,
driveways are long and steep, making it difficult for residents
to carry their recyc1ab1es to the curb.
· Near the end of the pil ot program, a survey was mail ed to all
pilot participants, and a 65J response was received. Of the those
who responded to the survey, 90J think the recycling containers
are easy to use, and over 95J will continue to participate in the
curbside recycling program.
· Based on the survey described above, 2J of those who responded to
the survey indicated that they would not participate in curbside
recycling if the program increased refuse collection rates.
In reviewing the high monthly participation rate, the large volume
of recyc1ab1es collected, and the favorable response of program
participants to<<ard curbside recycling, District staff recommends that
full-scale curbside recycling be implemented in the entire Valley Waste
Management service area.
Aut~ated Refuse Collection S...ary
The results of the three-month pilot autanated refuse collection
program can be summarized as follo<<s:
2
__, _~",____~_.~.._____..___________M.'_'''___~__~''~.___'___--..,..--..- ---'-'"~-'--~'"" -..--.---.--.---r---...-----~----.~-.-.~-.,-.~.".--.....-..-----...,-
.
Near the end of the pilot program, a survey was mailed to all
households who participated in the automated refuse collection
program, and a 7'B response was received. Of the those who
responded to the survey, 891 think the supercart provides enough
room for household garbage.
According to the survey described above, less than 40% think the
supercart adequately accommodates garden trimmings. Comments
received from participants indicate that compacting trimmings in
the supercart is difficult and time-consuming.
67% of survey respondents said that the supercart was easy to
use, and 75% indicated they would prefer to keep the supercart.
94% said they would use the supercart if it could reduce rates.
Some participants expressed concern about the elderly or ill
bei ng abl e to move the supercarts to the curb. They requested
that smaller supercarts be available for these people.
Some neighborhoods reported an increase in the amount of spillage
from the automated refuse collection trucks.
.
.
.
.
3
VALLEY WASlE MANAGBENT PILOT PROGRAM EVALUATION
Evaluation Report of First Three Months Operation
Introduction
Central Contra Costa Sanitary Di strict is impl ementi ng curbsi de
recycling in all the communities for which we franchise garbage
collection. State law mandates that Contra Costa County's Solid Waste
Management Plan include ambitious goals for reducing the amount of solid
waste being sent to our landfills. The draft County Solid Waste
Management Plan requires diverting 30% of the total wastestream away from
the landfill through recycling within the next five years. Without
widespread curbside recycling programs, it will be impossible to meet
this goal.
An even more pressing reason for implementing curbside recycling is
the landfill crisis that exists in Contra Costa County. Central County's
most active landfill, Acme Fill, is closing and accepting only a limited
amount of garbage from local haulers. Reducing the amount of solid waste
being sent to the remaining County landfills is vital. In addition,
Central County will have to begi n exporti ng garbage to neighboring
counti es because of the 1 andf ill shortage. These counti es are rel uctant
to accept additional garbage which will use up their landfill capacity.
As a condition for accepting our garbage, counties such as Alameda and
Solano require that we must have curbside recycling programs in
operati on.
As the franchiser for refuse collection and disposal for four cities
and the unincorporated communities in Central County, the District has
asslJlled a primary rol e in coordi nati ng the developnent of recycli ng
4
.. -"'-'--r"" - _.._....'"...,_._.-_.__._-_...,_..._..--r-.--.-'--~._-"."..-.-...--.--.--.-.....-..-...,-..-----.---.-..'..--..--*---"-~
programs throughout its franchise areas. On December 1, 1988, the
District Board of Directors approved a three-month pilot curbside
recycling and automated refuse collection program for the communities of
Alamo, Danvllle, and Lafayette. The pilot program, which began on March
8, 1989, is being operated by Valley Waste Management, the refuse
collection company for Alamo, Danville, and Lafayette.
The recycling program, as proposed by Valley Waste Management, is
intended to be phased in over a nine month period, beginning with the
start-up of the pilot program. After completion of the three-month pilot
program, the Board of Di rectors was to rev iew the resul ts of the program,
as outlined in this report, and decide whether to implement full-scale
recycling in Lafayette, Alamo and Danville. If the Board approved
curbsi de recycling for these communiti es, the full-seal e program was to
be phased in over a six-month period.
This report, which is prepared at the request of the Board of
Di rectors, is an overy iew of the resul ts of both the pll ot curbsi de
recycling and automated refuse collection (supercart) programs.
Background
Responding to the County's draft revision of the Solid Waste
Management Plan, which requires all cities to promote recycling and
impl EJIlent a recycling program in thei r respective communiti es, Central
San coordinated a regional recycling program throughout its franchise
area. In January, 1988, Central San formed the Regi onal Recycling
Committee composed of two District Board mEJllbers and one representative
from each of the cities and unincorporated areas for which we franchise
ga rbage. Ex-offici 0 Commitee mEJllbers i ncl ude the refuse coll ectors, a
County representative, interested recycling entities, and District staff.
5
----------... .~--..".---,--,....-.-" .,-,-.--~-----.--"-----'",.-....--~."--.-"-~--....,..-..~-..+"-...__..--.---.--r--"--..-'-----.,---"-~--.-'_,._._--...~--~-.-..
The purpose of the Committee has been to design and implement effective
recycling programs that address the individual needs of the six District
communities. The Committee has served as a forum to discuss various
recycling options and has promoted a cooperative environment where each
community can learn from the efforts of the others.
At the direction of the Committee, District staff met with
representatives from each city and its respective refuse coll ector to
discuss various recycl ing options and design a suitable program. A
resolution directing the development of recycling plans by the District's
franch ised refuse collectors for thei r service areas was passed by the
Central San Board of Directors on March 17, 1989.
As a result of meetings with the various cities as well as the
Regional Recycling Committee, it was decided that the first program to be
implemented would be a pilot curbside recycling program for the Alamo,
Danv1lle, and Lafayette communities. The recycl ing pl an proposed by
Valley Waste Management was presented to the Board on October 6, 1988,
and public hearings on the proposed recycling plan were held on November
3, 1988 and December 1, 1988.
Progr_ Descr1p't1on
The pilot recycl1 ng program approved by the Board of 01 rectors on
December 1, 1988 provided for the curbside collection of four major
recyclable items: aluminum cans; glass bottles; plastic soft drink
bottl es; and newspapers. Recycl abl e items were separated and stored by
residents in three brightly-colored stackable containers. Curbside
coll ect1 on of recycl abl es occurred on the same day as regul ar ga rbage
collection. Valley Waste Management purchased a special recycling truck
for the collection of the recyclable materials.
6
-'-'---'r-' . ..-..--. -----..--,...-..--.-.----... ..------
Pilot areas were selected in Lafayette, Alamo, and Danville based on
geograph ic (hilly versus f1 at terrai n) and demograph ic (si ng1 e-family
versus multi-unit complexes) variety; efficient utilization of the
recycl ing truck; and as few service day changes as possible. Using the
above criteria, approximately 1200 households were chosen for the pilot
in each of the three communities.
In addition to the pilot curbside recycling program, the Board of
Directors approved a pilot automated refuse pick-up program for Alamo and
Danville. Approximately 165 of the pilot curbside recycl ing homes in
Alamo and Danvllle were selected to participate in automated refuse
collection. Each of these homes was given either a 60-gallon or 100
gallon "supercart", which is a refuse contai ner on wheels, to repl ace
their regular garbage container(s). Additionally, supercarts were also
distributed to another 150 homes outside of the pilot recycling area.
Public Education Efforts
Before the start-up of the pilot curbside recycling program,
District staff and the refuse collector met separately with
representatives from Lafayette, Al amo, and Danv ille to di scuss program
implementation and design a public education program to disseminate
information to the residents in the pilot areas. The members of these
"Publ icity Committees" fel t strongly that the success of any recycl ing
effort would be dependent on the public's interest and participation. In
their opinion, to implement a successful recycling program would require
comprehensive public information and promotional activities. They felt
it was essential that residents be informed prior to start-up of the
pilot curbside recycling program on the how, what, and why to recycle.
7
- .-^-._...~._.".~.~..._,..~".~'~'"~--r--_..~.,._._.._- - --_._~._----r-..~><<=.~..._.~."''''-~~~._~_.."._._.__.._..~.'....m..----...--~---.~..--.-~-
As a resul t of these meeti ngs, it was deci ded to send a 1 etter to
all pilot participants prior to the program start-up informing them about
the forthcoming program and giving them Central San and Valley Waste
Management hotline numbers to call for additional help (see Attachment
1).
Survey I Results
Included with this letter was a survey to solicit community opinion
about current recycling habits (see Attachment 2). Response to the
survey was excellent. Nearly 65% of the pilot participants in Lafayette,
Alamo, and Danville responded. A summary of the survey results (Survey
Number I) is included in Attachment 3.
Overall, 83.6% of those responding to the survey indicated that they
thought recycl ing was a good idea and they woul d partici pate in the
program. Survey responses demonstrated a heightened awareness of the
benefits of recycling: the vast majority (approximately 701) think
recycli ng can save 1 andf ill space, benef it the env ironment, and save
resources. More importantly, over 701 of those responding to the survey
indicated that they already recycle at least occasionally. The most
prevalent recycling method listed was newspaper drop boxes, with 53.4% of
the respondents usi ng them. Another popul ar recycli ng avenue was the
20-20 redemption centers, with 33.3% frequenting them.
No one speci al reason was given as to why some peopl e chose not to
recycle. Basically, the non-recyclers indicated they either do not know
where to recycle (14.6%), recycling is too much trouble (14.5%), they do
not have enough recyclable materials (13.7%), or they do not have enough
space to store the materials (12.4%).
8
- .--.,-.-------.-"-~---,-..------~...~-~--.--:.---~,.-r__.....~---.*'~..-.---..-..---.~.-.---..-'~~..,-~~.-.....'-'--'-,------"'.~-,,-~------.
Many comments were included with the survey. Generally, the
comments demonstrated support and enthusi asm for the recycl ing program.
Most felt that curbside recycl ing was long overdue. The major concerns
expressed were:
· Rate increase implications of implementing curbside recycling.
Most people who addressed the cost issue were under the
impression that the garbage collector would reap great financial
benefits from household efforts to separate recyclable at
curbside; many felt that implementing curbside recycling should
lower their garbage rates, not increase them.
· Impact of curbside recycling on current non-profit organizations
who use recycling as fund-raisers. Concern was specifically
expressed at how this curbside program would affect the ongoing
Boy Scout newspaper drives.
· Convenience of hauling recycling containers to the curb. Some
people were skeptical about the ease of taking the containers to
the curb. These remarks usually came from peopl e who described
themselves as elderly, in 111 health, or living in areas where
the curbs were considered too far from the house to make curbside
or streetside recycling convenient.
· Convenience of storing recyclable containers and sorting
recyclables. Some people resented the idea of having to sort
what they consider "garbage." Others said they did not have
enough room to store the recycling containers.
· Aesthetics of recycling containers on the streets. Some people
thought that the recycling containers would make their
neighborhoods look less attractive.
9
· Collection of other recyclable materials. Many people hoped that
other recyclables such as cardboard, motor oil, tin, and various
plastics would eventually be included in the curbside program.
Survey I also addressed peoples' attitudes about their refuse
collection service. While most felt that garbage pick-up is dependable
(82.1%), only 58.6% thought it was convenient, and even fewer thought it
was an organized operati on (41%). However, very few compl ai nts were
listed other than spilled trash (8.3%) and lids left off garbage cans
(11.7%). The level of dependability seems to be related to the number of
people who place their garbage at the curb. For instance, in Lafayette,
where 48.5% of the respondents 1 eave thei r garbage at the curb, only
67.7% thought garbage pick-up service was dependable. Contrast that with
Danville, where 86.7% of the respondents leave their garbage at the curb
and 89.5% think the service is dependable.
Comments made about automated refuse collection service ranged from
skeptical to enthusiastic. People who had experienced supercarts before
were anxious to begin using them. Those who had not were concerned about
combining household garbage with trimmings. Some people were also not
convinced that a completely full supercart would be easy to move. The
overwhelming concern was with capacity. Residents accustomed to two cans
of garden trimmings per week did not believe that one supercart would be
able to accommodate all of their garbage plus trimmings. People also
expressed concern that the quarterly community Clean-ups continue.
Info~ational Meetings
At the Publicity Committee Meeti ngs, city representatives indicated
that extra effort shoul d be taken to expl ain the recycling program to
community groups. The Town of Danville was particul arly interested in
10
communicating information about the recycling and supercart program.
District and Valley Waste Management staff accompanied Danville staff to
Homeowners' Association meetings in the Greenbrook, Sycamore Valley, and
El Pintado areas. In addition, Danville staff set up a table in front of
the Lucky's store on San Ramon Valley Boulevard to answer questions from
residents in the Town & Country area. District and Valley Waste
Management staff also attended an Alamo Improvement Association meeting.
Marshall Grodin of Valley Waste Management made various presentations to
community groups in Lafayette.
Overall, the presentati ons made to community groups were well
received. Recycling was considered a popular and important issue. While
support for recycling was strong, some people in the Greenbrook
Homeowners' Association were not eager to participate in the curbside
program because they already recycle at buy-back centers or with
non-profit organizations. Although they understood that participation in
the pilot curbside program was not mandatory, they were concerned that
curbside recycling would ultimately increase their garbage rates.
Most of the questions raised at these community meetings involved
the supercart element of the pilot program. People in the El Pintado
section of Danville were not sure how well supercarts would work in their
area. Some of the resi dents who live off of small streets quite a
di stance from the mai n street are served by a smaller garbage truck
(mini-packer); during the pilot supercart program, Valley Waste
Management continued to service these hard-to-reach areas by the smaller
truck.
By far the 1 argest concern of peopl e in the automated refuse
collection pilot areas was the actual capacity of the supercart.
11
Residents were not convinced that the supercart would adequately
accommodate both househol d garbage and garden trimmings. During the
first month of the supercart pilot, several residents called Valley Waste
Management requesting an additional cart for their trimmings. People
were worried that during late spring and summer the increase 'of garden
trimmings would pose a problem.
News Medi a Efforts
Before the start-up of the pilot curbside recycl ing programs, the
various newspapers representing Alamo, Danville, and Lafayette were
contacted. An informal press meeting was arranged with reporters on the
actual start-up date for each community. Reporters were given a copy of
the results of the first survey sent to pilot participants plus a fact
sheet outlining the details of the pilot program. Several articles
appeared in the newspaper as a result of these efforts. Other recycling
articles have appeared from time to time during the three-month pilot
period, updating the public about program participation and recycling in
general.
Other Public Education Efforts
Other public education efforts to promote the recycling program were
al so addressed at the Publicity Meeti ngs. An important education tool
for the curbside pilot was the publication of a brochure outlining how
the curbside pilot program would operate (see Attachment 4). A separate
brochure was designed for Alamo, Danvllle, and Lafayette; each brochure
1 ncl uded a 1 etter s1 gned by the Pres1 dent of the Central San Board of
Directors, the mayor (where applicable), and Valley Waste Management.
This brochure was distributed with the delivery of the recycling
conta1 ners.
12
At these meeti ngs" it was deci ded that midway through the pi 1 ot
program" a doorhanger type brochure would be distributed to all pilot
participants by the Scout Troops of Danville and Alamo. The purpose of
the doorhangers was to serve as a rani nder to resi dents to conti nue
recycl ing with the curbside recycl ing program. The Town of Danville
coordinated three training workshops with Valley Waste Management to
present basic recycling information to the Boy and Girl Scout Troops who
woul d do the actual di stributi on. On April 15" 1989" these troops went
door-to-door in the Danvllle and Alamo pilot areas" answering recycling
questions and handing out doorhangers. The doorhanger distribution was
not done in Lafayette.
A second letter and survey was sent to pilot participants in April,
1989 (see Attachments 5 and 6). The follow-up 1 etter was written to
provide participants with an update on the pilot curbside program as well
as to answer some of the more frequent questions and concerns raised by
the first survey and numerous telephone calls.
Survey II Results
The second survey sent to pilot participants was a more ambitious
effort than the first survey. Three different surveys were designed: one
for recycl ing participants, another for supercart participants, and the
third for recycling and supercart participants.
It was hoped that the surveys would gauge not only the effectiveness
of the curbside recycling and supercarts, but also how people's recycling
habits and atti tudes were affected by the supercarts. The resul ts of
Survey II, incl uded in Attachments 7 through 11, can be broken into the
following categories:
13
· Recycling Pilot only - comparison of responses between Alamo,
Danv ill e, and Lafayette
· Supercart Pilot only - comparison of responses between Alamo and
Danvllle
· Recycling and Supercart Pilot - comparison of responses between
Alamo and Danville
· Recycling Comparison between participants who recycle only and
those who recycle with a supercart
· Supercart Comparison between participants who have supercart only
and those who recycle with a supercart
Recycling Pilot Survey
As in the first survey, response to Survey II was excellent. More
than 62% of the participants responded to this mail-in survey. According
to the survey, over 90% of those who mailed in surveys participated in
the pilot curbside recycling program. Of those who did not participate,
a large percentage stated that they either recycle elsewhere or don't
have enough recyclables. The overwhelming majority think the recycl ing
containers are easy to use and easy to bring to the curb. Almost all of
the respondents who participated in the pilot program indicated they will
conti nue to parti ci pate in the curbsi de program. Over 831 of the
respondents also said they would still recycle if it were not offered
curbside by the garbage collector.
Many comments were included with Survey II. Generally, the comments
about curbside recycling were supportive and enthusiastic. Without the
present program, some peopl e fel t they woul d not be recycl i ng. Most
comments reflect a desire to see curbside recycling implemented
14
throughout the three communities. Aside from isolated remarks about the
stacking abil ity of the containers, lack of storage facil ities, and the
messiness of sorting recyclables, the major concerns expressed by
respondents can be grouped as follows:
· People want the other recyclables to be collected in addition to
al uminum, newspaper, gl ass and P. E. T. bottl es. Other items
mentioned for collection include tin cans, cardboard, magazines,
junk mail, motor oil and grocery bags. Many respondents
requested that different types of plastic, such as water and milk
bottles, also be collected.
· Some participants said they would not participate if the program
raised garbage rates. These people were still not convinced that
the costs involved with recycl ing are justified.
· While most people indicated that the recycling containers were
convenient and easy to use, many comments were made requesting a
wheeled cart or dolly to transport containers to the curb. Such
an apparatus has recently been put on the market, and District
staff are researching its potential use for curbside recycling.
· The brightly colored containers were offensive to some people who
requested that more aesthetically appealing colors be sel ected
for the program.
· People were curious about the effect of curbside recycling on Boy
Scout newspaper programs. Although the Greenbrook area in
Danville reported a drop in newspaper collection for their Boy
Scout drop box, not enough stati stics have been gathered from
this group to support their current claims. Since the pilot area
15
is so small, few of the Boy Scout Troops have been adversely
impacted by the current curbside program. It remains to be seen
how full-scale implementation of curbside recycling might impact
non-profit newspaper drop boxes.
Supercart Pilot Survey
Response to the Supercart Pilot Survey was very high, with 7510
answering the questionnaire. While most people think the supercart
provides enough room for household garbage (9010), less than 4010 think the
supercart adequately accommodates garden trimmings. This coincides with
the type of telephone calls received by Valley Waste Management and
District staff regarding supercart capacity. Overall, the supercart is
considered easy to use and more convenient than traditional garbage cans.
Seventy-five percent (7510) of the respondents indicated that they would
prefer to keep the supercart and nearly 9410 said they woul d use the
supercart if it could reduce rates.
Garbage serv ice duri ng the pll ot was generally consi dered the same
or better. For those who thought the service was worse, the major
reasons were the lack of capacity in the supercart for garden trimmings
and more spillage.
Comments written by respondents were generally favorabl e about the
conveni ence of supercarts as well as thei r cl ean-looki ng appearance.
People appreciated the fact that the supercart lids are attached and do
not blow around. In some homes, the supercart was too large to fit
through the backyard gate. Where possible, Valley Waste Management made
adjustments to the gates.
Other major comments can be summarized as follows:
16
· Respondents are concerned with the lack of adequate capacity for
garden trimmings. Peopl e thought that an additional supercart
would solve this situation, and for those people who called to
request a second supercart, thei r capacity probl em was sol ved.
Many participants found it difficult to compact their trimmings.
· Some people did not like combining household garbage with
trimmings because of the smell. They also commented that not all
the trash comes out when the supercart is emptied, especially if
it is compacted. According to Valley Waste Management, an easy
solution for this is to keep several inches of water in the
bottom of the supercart.
· Participants want to know how automated refuse collection will
affect Valley Waste Management's quarterly clean-ups.
Recycling and Supercart Pilot Comparison
Reviewing the recycling attitudes of participants who only recycled
with those who recycled and used the supercarts does not reveal any major
differences in opinion. Those who participated in both pilots generally
share the same outlook, support, and enthusi asm about the recycl ing
program as those who only participated in the recycling pilot. The
majority think the recycling containers are easy to use, they will
continue to participate in the program, and they would still recycle if
it were not mandatory. Comments from participants in both pilots about
curbside recycling were similar to those received from recycl ing only
parti ci pants.
Reviewing the automated refuse collection attitudes of participants
who only had the supercart with those who used the supercart and
participated in curbside recycling also does not reveal any major
17
differences in opinion. Those who participated in both pilots were
equally enthusi astic about usi ng the supercarts. Both groups th ink the
supercart provides enough roam for household garbage but is not adequate
to accommodate garden trimmings. The majority think the supercart is easy
to use and more convenient than regul ar garbage containers, and they
would prefer to keep the supercart. Garbage service during the pilot was
considered the same or better by participants in both pilots. Comments
from participants in both pilots about automated refuse collection
service were similar to those received from the supercart-only
pa rti ci pants.
Curbside Recycling Participation
District staff conducted two intensive four-week participation
counts during the pilot curbside recycling program. Data on the number
of people participating as well as the type of recyclables being
collected was accurately tabulated through an actual household-by-
household count in Lafayette, Alamo, and Danville. The results of these
participaton counts and set-out evaluations is included in Attachments 12
through 19. Valley Waste Management provided the information on the
amount of glass, aluminum and plastic, and newspaper being collected.
During the first participation count conducted from March 15, 1989
to April 7, 1989, the overall monthly participation rate was an
astounding 78.1%. Most recycling programs consider a 50% monthly
participation successful. Danville had the highest participation, with
83.7% of the residents recycling at least one time per month; Alamo
followed with an 82.4% recycling participation rate; and Lafayette
recycled at a somewhat lower 71.5% rate.
18
... .',.'_'___.n__'__'_"_'~""___'__'__'_____'____'""~_"-~__'..___m--r_"D.__" - ~', ....------'-~-.-T.-"
The amount of recyclables collected for the first evaluation period
was very high, averagi ng 51.04 pounds per househol d per month. Most
successful recycling programs average approximately 38 pounds per month.
Because the pil ot program was well-publicized before it started up,
people tended to save their recyclables for the first weeks of
collection. Valley Waste Management staff reported that they had to use
an additi onal truck to coll act the extremely 1 arge vol ume of newspaper
being left at curbside in Alamo and Danvi11e.
Counting the number and type of recyc1ab1es being left at the curb
confirms that the most commonly recycled material is newspaper. Nearly
85% of the total number of set-outs is newspaper, followed by gl ass at
67%, and aluminum/plastic at 53%.
During the second participation count conducted from May 10, 1989 to
June 2, 1989, the overall monthly participation rate increased in all
three areas, for an 81.7% participation rate. Danville still had the
highest participation with 87.5% participating at least one time per
month, followed by Alamo with 84.2%, and Lafayette with 74.6%.
The pounds of recyclables collected per household was still high
during the second evaluation period, averaging 48.36 pounds per month.
Newspaper continued to be the most commonly recycled material followed by
glass and aluminum/plastic.
A terrain comparison was performed to determine if geography played
a contributing factor in overall curbside recycling for Alamo, Danvi11e,
and Lafayette (see Attachment 20). Except for the hilly El Pintado area
in Danville, where long steep driveways make it difficult for residents
to carry their recyc1ables to the curb, participation rates were not
significantly affected by terrain. In fact several flat areas exhibited
19
lower participation rates than the hilly sections. Overall,
participation in Lafayette, which is the hilliest area of the three
communities, was lower. The Lafayette pilot also included a section of
duplex homes which contributed to its lower participation rate in that
a rea.
20
Financial Operating Results Of The Pl1 at Curbside Recycling Progr.
Fi nanci al reports of the revenues and expenses of the curbsi de
recycling program for the three-month pilot period were prepared by
Valley Waste Management. The basis upon which expenses were allocated to
the curbside recycl ing program, and the revenues from the sal e of the
recyclables were revi~ed by Price Waterhouse in conjunction with the
review of the collector's refuse collection rate application.
The follOtling summarizes the operating results of the curbside
recycl ing program for the 3600 residences in the pil ot program for the
three-month period, as reported by the collector:
Cumul ative Total s
March April May Marl Apr/May Apr/May
Sal e of Recycl abl es $5,3 83 6,860 5,555 17 ,798 12,415
Operating Expenses <8,898> <7,920> <7,259> <24,077> <15,179>
Operati ng Lbss <3,515> <1,060> <1,704> < 6,279> < 2,764>
General & Admi n.
Expenses:
Other < 645> < 645> < 645> < 1,935> < 1,200>
Interest <1,095> <1,095> <1,095> < 3,285> < 2,100>
Total General &
Admi n. Expenses <1,740> <1,740> <1,740> < 5,220> < 3,400>
Pre-tax Loss <5,255> <2,000> <3,444> <11,499> < 6,244>
Recycling Assessment 5 , 930 3,420 4,020 13,370 7,440
Pre-tax Income $ 675 620 576 1,871 1,196
Number of Residences 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600
Monthly Incremental
Expense Per Residence $ 1.65
.95
1.12
1.24
1.03
In each of the three months, an operating loss was reported as the
proceeds from the sal e of the recycl abl e mater1 al s were 1 ess than
operati ng expenses.
The apporti onment of General and Admi ni strative
21
expenses, which included imputed interest on capital equipment, increased
the loss to $5,255, $2,800 and $3,444 for March, April and May,
respectivel y. The crnount necessary to offset the pre-tax loss for each
month, computed on the basis of a 94 operating ratio <6 percent profit
margin>, is shQtln in the above summary as " Recycl ing Assessment". The
allocation of the Recycl ing Assessment to the 3,600 residences produced
the reported Incremental Expense per residence of $1.65, $.95 and $1.12
for March, April and May, respectivel y. Because the start-up month of
March is considered not to be representative because of higher 1 abor
expenses, the collector believes that the Monthly Incremental Expense per
residence of $1.05 <$1.03 rounded to the nearest 5 cents>, based on the
combined April and May operating results, should be assessed.
The major assumption used by the collector in preparing the monthly
operati ng resul ts reported were:
· Recycl abl e materi al s are currentl y bei ng sol d to the buyback
center at the GBF 1 andfill in Antioch at $20 per ton for
newspaper, $1,700 per ton for al uminum and $60 per ton for g1 ass.
· Depreciation is calculated based on a useful 1 ife of eight years
for trucks, five years for equipment and five years for recycling
contai ners.
· The avoi ded cost of 1 andfil 1 di sposal eq uiv al ent to ~ percent of
the recycl abl e tons collected, based on $47 per ton, is netted
against the operating expenses of the recycling program.
· Approximately $30,000 of costs incurred in March rel ated to the
del ivery of containers to residents and establ ishment of
collection routes have been capital ized as start-up costs and are
being amortized over five years.
22
o Profit is computed based on the 94 percent operating ratio used
by the District in setting refuse collection rates.
The 94 percent operation ratio used by the District in setting
refuse collection rates is based on providing a profit margin which is
pre-tax and before interest expense. If interest expense is excluded from
General and Administrative expenses for each month of the pilot program,
the monthly Incremental Expense Per Residence woul d be $.91 for the
th ree-month peri od and $.71 for the two-month peri od, excl udi ng the
start-up month of March. If interest on capital purchased were incl uded,
but the monthly Incremental Expense Per Residence was computed on a break
even basis, the amount woul d be $1.06 for the three-month period.
In its review of the operating results of the Valley Waste Management
curbside recycl ing program and similar recycl ing programs in other
jurisdictions, Price Waterhouse reported that:
o The monthly Incremental Expense Per Residence in other
jurisdictions ranged from $.88 to $1.05.
o Because of the size of the current pilot program and current lack
of storage facil iti es, the collector del ivers the recycl abl es
collected to the Concord Di sposal Buyback Center on a dai 1 y
basis. The current vol ume of recycl abl es del ivered does not
result in the best prices being obtained. Higher volumes of
recycl abl e materi al s produced by full -scal e impl ementati on of the
curbside recycling program, and obtaining a storage capability
coul d all 011 more aggressive marketi ng of recycl abl e materf al s,
thereby lowering the Incremental Expense Per Residence.
23
A TT ACH~1ENT 1
~ v,,,,,, ...... .'M,.mM'
.#c;oST.~
, ~~
f~~\
~
February 8, 1989
Dear
Your home is in an area that has been selected to participate in a special
th ree-month recycl i ng pil ot program. The resul ts of th i s pil ot program will
be used to determi ne the cost and effectiveness of impl ementi ng a curbsi de
recycli ng program th rough out Danv ill e. Four Danv ill e nei ghborhoods will
participate in the pilot which is scheduled to begin in March.
The pilot program will be comprised of three components:
Some homes will participate in curbside recycling along with the
traditional method of garbage pick-up
Some homes will participate in autanated trash pick-up along with
curbside recycling
Sane homes will participate in automated trash pick-up only
As you may know, a severe landfill shortage exists in Contra Costa County.
To help reduce the amount of solid waste being sent to our landfills,
community recycl ing programs are being established. Because of the landfill
shortage, we will soon have to export some of our garbage out-of-County.
Other counties are mandating that we have curbside recycling programs in
operation before they will accept our trash. For these reasons. the Town of
Danville is cooperating with the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
(Central San). the garbage franchisor for Danville. and Valley Waste
Management, your garbage haul er, to conduct a pil ot curbsi de recycli ng
program in the Danville community.
.
.
.
In order to conduct an effective recycling pilot program, we would like to
hear your opi ni ons about recycli ng. Pl ease take a few mi nutes to compl ete
the attached. bri ef survey. A sel f-addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed
for your use. We would appreciate having this survey returned to us by
March 1. 1989.
)
You will be participating in the Curbside Recycling Pilot only. By late
February or early March. three special plastic containers will be delivered
to your home along with directions on how to recycle during the pilot
program. Pick-up of aluminum. glass, plastic beverage containers, and
newspaper will occur on the same day as garbage collection.
Central Contra Coehl SIInlhlry DI,lrlcl
5019 Imhoff Place. Martinez. CA 94553-4392 (415) 689-3890
* Recycled Paper
Page two
Ifyouwouldlikemore information about the type of program inwhich you are
participating, please call Laurie Walsh from Valley Waste Management
at 935-8900, or Harriette Heibel from Central Contra Costa Sanitary
District at 689-3890. An informational meeting for your neighborhood
is also being scheduled. The following meetings will be held:
· Town & Country I-meowners (and other street~ that lIay
not be in an Association
Saturday, February 18, 1989, 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
In front of Lucky's Food Store, 660 San Ramon Valley Blvd.
· Greenbrook Homeowners Association
Tuesday, February 21, 1989, 6:30 - 7:30 p.m.
300 Greenbrook Drive (near Harlan)
· Sycamore HODeS Association
Wednesday, February 22, 1989, 7:30 - 9:00 p.m.
635 Old Orchard Road - Clubhouse Annex
.
El Pintado Road Association
Saturday, February 25, 1989, 11:30 a.m.
755 El Pintado Road
Your parti ci pati on in, and your comments about, the pll ot program are
important. They will be valuable in assisting Central San, Valley
Waste Management, and the Town of Danv1l1e in determining the success
of curbside recycling and automated trash pick-Up.
Please help us conserve resources and save landfill space. We look
forward to receiving your input on the recycling survey.
Sincerely,
~~>x(~ ;2~
Susan MeNul ty Ra1 ney
President, Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
L /J1..fL~aUy
Susanna Schlendorf
Mayor
Town of Danv ill e
~~
Marshall Grodin
General Manager
Vall ey Waste
Management
)
c
ATTACHMENT 1
~ v."" w.... ".~..m'"
,.,.eosr. ...
~
,. ~..
l~\
~
February 8, 1989
Dear
Your hOme is in an area that has been selected to participate in a special
th ree-month recyc1 i ng pfl ot program. The resu1 ts of th is pfl ot program
will be used to determine the cost and effectiveness of imp1anenting a
curbside recycling program throughout Danvf11e. Four Danvil1e neighbor-
hoods will participate in the pilot which is scheduled to begin in March.
The pilot program will be comprised of three components:
.
)
.
Some homes will parti ci pate in curbsi de recyc1 i ng along with the
traditional method of garbage pick-up
Some homes will participate in automated trash pick-up along with
curbside recycling
Some homes will participate in automated trash pick-up only
.
As you may know, a severe landfill shortage exists in Contra Costa County.
To he1 p reduce the crnount of sol id waste bei ng sent to our 1 andfill s,
community recycling programs are being established. Because of the
1 andfil1 shortage, we will soon have to export some of our garbage
out-of-County. Other counties are mandating that we have curbside
recycling programs in operation before they will accept our trash. For
these reasons, the Town of Danvi11e is cooperating with the Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District (Central San), the garbage franchisor for Danvi11e,
and Vall ey Waste Management, your ga rbage haul er, to conduct a pil ot
curbside recycling program in the Danvi11e community.
)
This automated trash pick-up program is being tested because it is more
efficient and cost-effective than normal trash pick-up. If the pilot
program is successful and automated trash pick-up is implemented throughout
Danville, it may be one way to hold down garbage rates that are escalating
steeply due to the County's landfill shortage.
In order to conduct an effective recycling pilot program, we would like to
hear your opi ni ons about recycl i ng. Pl ease take a few mi nutes to compl ete
the attached, brief survey. A self-addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed
for your use. We would appreciate having this survey returned to us by
March 1, 1989.
Cenl,.. Cont,. eo.I8 S8nlt8ry District
5019 Imhoff PI.ce, M.rtinez, CA 94553-4392 (415) 689-3890
(1) R~cled Paper
Page two
You will be participating in both the Curbside Recycling and Auta.ated
Trash Pick-up Pll ot. By 1 ate February or early March, th ree special
pl asti c contai ners w il 1 be del ivered to your home along with di recti ons
on how to recycl e duri ng the pll ot program. Pi ck-up of al urni nurn,
gl ass, pl asti c beverage contai ners, and newspaper wil 1 occur on the
same day as garbage collectior'\. You will also receive ~ither a 60 or
100-gallon wheeled container to replace your 32-gallon garbage can(s).
On collection day, this "supercart", as it is called, must be wheeled
to the curb by each customer where it will be picked up by a special
automated truck.
If you. woul d like more informati on about the type of program in which
you are participating, please call Laurie Walsh from Valley Waste
Management at 935-8900, or Harriette Heibel from Central Contra Costa
Sanitary Di strict at 689-3890. An i nformati onal meeti ng for your
neighborhood is also being planned. The following meetings will be
held:
· Town & Country Homeowners (and other streets that aay
not be in an Association)
Saturday, FAbruary 18, 1989, 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
In front of Lucky's Food Store, 660 San Ramon Valley Blvd.
· Greenbrook Haaeowners Association
Tuesday, February 21, 1989, 6:30 - 7:30 p.m.
300 Greenbrook Drive (near Harlan)
.
Sycamore Homes Association
Wednesday, February 22, 1989, 7:30 - 9:00 p.m.
635 Old Orchard Road - Clubhouse Annex
· El Pintado Road Association
Saturday, February 25, 1989, 11:30 a.m.
755 El Pintado Road
Your participation in, and your comments about, the program are
important. They will be val uabl e in assi sti ng Central San, Valley
Waste Management, and the Town of Danvllle in determining the success
of curbside recycling and automated trash pick-up.
Please help us conserve resources and save landfill space. We look
forward to receiving your input on the recycl ing survey.
Sincerely,
)
~~_'/Ac~ R~
Susan McNulty Rainey
President, Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
~ ")11.AL~aUy
Susanna Schlendorf
Mayor
Town of Danv i 11 e
~~~
Marshall Grodin
General Manager
Valley Waste
Management
ATTACHMENT 1
~ "",' Wu~ .,,,,,m,.,
;toS'A~
6"" ~~
f~~\
~~oJ
February 8, 1989
Your home is in an area that has been selected to participate in a
special three-month pilot program. The results of this pilot program
will be used to determine the cost and effectiveness of implementing
automated trash piCk-up throughout the Alamo community. Alamo i~
cooperating with the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central
San), the ga rbage franch i sor for Al arno, and Vall ey Waste Management,
your garbage hauler, to conduct this pilot study.
Several Alarno neighborhoods will participate in the pilot which is
schedul ed to begi n in March. By 1 ate February or early March, your
32-gallon garbage can(s) will be replaced by either a 60 or 100-gallon
wheeled container. On collection day, this "supercart", as it is
called, must be wheeled to the curb by each customer. There it will be
picked up by a special truck equipped with a mechanical "armtl that will
lift the supercart.
This automated trash piCk-up program is being tested because it is more
effici ent and cost-effective than normal trash pi ck-up. If the pil ot
program is successful and automated trash pick-up is implemented
throughout Al arno, it may be one way to hol d down garbage rates that are
escalating steeply due to the County's landfill shortage.
If you would like more information about the pilot automated trash
pick-up program in which you are participating, please call Laurie
Walsh from Valley Waste Management at 935-8900, or Harriette Heibel at
Central Contra Costa Sanitary Oi strict at 689-3890.
Sincerely,
~~>x<~ R~
Susan McNulty Rainey
PreSident, Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary Oi strict
~~~
Marshall Grodin
General Manager
Valley Waste Management
Central Contra Costa Sanitary DI,trlct
5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, CA 94553-4392 (415) 689-3890
* Recycled Paper
ATTACHi'1ENT 2
. ".',',",-,., ..-, . ..., '.-. .....-:.-, .:.:-:-:.;.;.:.:-:........ . ....... ....:;:::::;:::;:::;:,::::::.::>:::;.;:::: .....' ...... ,", ,.....,'............. ................. . '>;:;:;:;:;:::::::::::;:;:;:>:>.-::;.::::;:;::.:.::,:::::::.::-.:.:::::.:.:::.:::.::;:..;:;:;:;:;:;:;:.::::::":::::::.:::;':::;:;::::::-::'::,:::::-::: ':::::::::::.:::;'::". ., .
. . .... ,.. . ...... .....................................i...<<UUU..:/> :.i.....:::::.....::::QiNYJI.LS....:/:.:..:.>:.....<?U..i>.:...........<.U/Ui..)>..:.................. .
1. Do you think curbside recycling (check those that
apply)
o is a good idea and you would participate
o can save landfill space
o benefits the environment and saves re-
sources
o is not worth the trouble
o Other
2. Do you recycle now? 0 Yes 0 No
If yes, please answer questions a, b, and c.
a. How often, do you recycle, Ie., bring recycla-
ble materials to recycling facility, newspa-
per drop box, or grocery store recycling re-
demption center?
o Weekly
o Monthly
o Occasionally
b. What materials do you recycle?
o Newspaper
o Glass
o Aluminum cans
o Plastic
o Cardboard
o Other
c. Where do you recycle?
o Grocery store 20-20 igloos for glass,
aluminum cans, and plastic bottles
o Recycling buy-back center
o Newspaper drop box
o Charitable organization
o Other
3. If you do NQL recycle, what are the reasons
(check all that apply)?
o Don't have enough materials to recycle
o Don't know where to recycle
o Not enough space to store materials
o Don't know what needs to be done
o Too much trouble
o Difficult to remember when recycling
) centers are staffed.
o Wastes time, energy and gas
o Other
4. What do you think about your present level of
garbage pick-up?
o Dependable
o Convenient
o Organized
o Spilled trash
o Lids left off garbage cans
o Unreliable
o Other
5. Do you currently place your garbage at the curb?
DYes
o No
6. Are you interested in assisting in the implementa-
tion of the pilot curbside recycling program?
DYes
o No
If yes, please give name and phone number.
Name
Ph. No.
7. Do you have any other comments regarding recy-
cling?
W Recycled Paper
ATTACHMENT 3
SURVEY I RESULTS IN VALLEY WASTE MANH2E~NT FRANCHISE AREAS
ALN40 -OANVILLE LAF AYETIE OVERALL
Number of surveys mailed 1172 1202 1191 3565
Number of responses 788/67.21 744/61.91 783/65.71 2315/64.91
Question 1:
· Number who think recycling is a
good idea and would participate 644/81.71 619/83 .21 672/85 .81 1935/83 .61
· Number who think recycling can
save landfill space 529/67.11 528/711 536/68.41 1593/68.81
· Number who think recycling
benefits the environment and
saves resources 548/69.51 560/75.21 563/71.91 1671/72.21
· Number who think recycling is
not worth the trouble 44/5.61 32/4.31 44/5.61 120/5.21
,ther recycling opinions 48/6.31 54/7.21 75/9.61 177/7.51
Question 2:
· Number who recycl e 549/69.71 550/73.91 562/71.81 1661/71.71
· Number who do not recycl e 220/27.91 179/24.11 188/24.01 587/25 .31
Question 2a:
· Number who recycl e weekly 101/12.81 76/10.21 103/13.11 200/12.11
· Number who recycl e monthly 250/31.71 260/34.91 262/33.51 772/33.31
· Number who recycle occasionally 197/251 210/28.21 213/27.21 620/26.81
Question 2b:
· Number who recycl e newspaper 528/671 520/69.91 552/70.51 1600/691
· Number who recycl e gl ass 196/24.91 202/27.11 287/36.61 685/29.61
· Number who recycle aluminum cans 311/39.41 329/44.21 386/49.31 1026/44.31
· Number who recycle plastic 92/17.81 102/13.71 119/15.2% 313/13.51
''- riumber who recycle cardboard 48/6.11 44/61 70/8.91 162/71
· Number who recycl e other 21/12.71 14/1.91 13/1.61 48/2.11
Q.uestfon 2c:
· Number who recyc"i e at 20-20
redemption centers
· Number who recycle at other
buy-back centers
· Number who recycle at newspaper
drop boxes
· Number who recycle with
charitable organizations
· Number who recycle other places
Q.uestf on 3:
· Number who don't recycle because:
· Don't have enough materials
· Don't know where to recycle
· Not enough space to store
· Don't know what needs to be
done
· Too much trouble
· Difficult to remember when
recycling centers are staffed
· Wastes time, energy, gas
· Other
Q.uestfon 4:
o Number who think garbage pick-up is:
· Dependabl e
· Conv en i ent
· Organized
· Spilled trash
· Lids left off garbage cans
~ AJID
216/27.41
115/14.61
383/48.61
139/17.61
18/2.31
105/13.31
114/14.41
100/12.7S
96/12.21
122/15 .51
57/7.21
54/6.81
31/ 41
704/89.31
437/55.41
299/37.91
54/6.8%
51/6.51
DANVILlE
249/33.51
89/11.91
424/571
197/26.51
13/1.7S
93/12.51
54/7.3
89/121
62/8.31
91/12.21
55/7.41
39/5.21
35/4.71
666/89.51
441/59.31
338/45.41
49/6.61
78/10.51
lAF AYETlE
306/39.11
99/12.61
429/54.81
162/20.71
14/1.81
120/15 .3%
55/7.01
99/12.61
61/7.81
122/15 .61
43/5.51
39/5.01
34/4.41
530/67.7S
478/61.01
311/39.71
88/11.21
141/ 181
OVERAll
771/33 .31
303/13.1%
1236/53.41
498/21.51
45/2.21
318/13.71
337/14.61
288/12.41
219/9.51
335/14.51
155/6.7S
132/5.7S
100/4.31
19)0/82.1I
1356/58.61
948/411
191/8.31
270/11.7S
ALAMO ----DANV-IllE --- -LAFAYETlE. ---...-OVElW.l
fiuestfon4: (continued)
· Unreli abl e 7/ .91 1/ .131 6/.81 14/ .61
· Other 86/10.91 70/9.41 65/8.31 221/9.51
fiuestion 5:
· Number who place garbage at curb 539/68.41 645/86.71 300/48.51 1564/67.61
· Number who do not place garbage
at curb 241/30.61 93/12.51 413/52.71 747/31.31
fiuestfon 6:
· Number interested in assisting
with program implementation 475/60.31 372/501 383/491 1230/53.11
· Number not interesting in
assi sti ng with program
impl ementati on 240 /30 .41 284/38.21 300/38.31 824/35.61
ATTACHMENT 4
. .
,". t,'> . .
..,,;/. ...,~ ..:.' ~ '.. .... <" ';';Q.' ;'. '.. .', ,~:. .,'.,' : '>. .8'~'.:{.:\.'~.' ."'.:- <.., . :-,' '/,
~;.: :,,;,,~,:::CIi'c: l':J ;s.<: g: ""l' .':~ ~<, ]..B.g if ~.~"';;~~ ,: . . < : >:! . ~,<,,:<:""" ,
':~"'::':",r!,~ :.,~;C:l ::.,'oa i:::" B '~~"l:'~ i'r,~'!.~':J."}.!: '.;~ ~", I: ;"';.-;~" ';.
~1:.t(;;!':':I~ ~~\r!,~::~'O!ell :5'Jo,1~~;I'.~'-!'.'~::i;:!:~:I'.I'f>';'~:i'}}';:';:j}~~i ':~e:':': )~;~1'\;:1>:L?
~L'~ '0' - '10' ~. H - -~ ~ ":""f 'l. ' ........ . )'1..,
.Jr'-::'l:~,. I' ~~.~:... ~, 0 ca ~ . Yi""...' .," ... ~ ~-.Il:""";'~'\
..:;,:t;'..~" " ".' ~I/~li' ....u 'S..'iS'... .. ,;"t-,"-;/1\}; \:~ l".,})~'..,'J
~t.i;'..;:..~ '. \:'1' j'~> li'S.....srs!:l~.si.r.. ,..... :;;\,~"'-::~':':~' >;;!(",~,~:;;<~...,
6"!";""'.'~" . !.N~ "'1'~ I> ,~):"'.:." .-'...",......'...>:...i.
.:~...':>~:.,..: E:'," 'I ~e I 1::1,~' :,:{~j;tf!-\.;..1.;::'~.-.~:~.. ..;::~1~~:.\W/.I, '~~
,'to: ...,'""'....... :1:1. l fl f o' c; ~"iS' -/O..g" ....,..'.:.., . ,..- ,:".. .\, .~"".: ..
::.\; :'~'III!t~ "'id..~'. .::s,..... '1' .... .,c:,....1i! .>......;.! ':'~ ..."r' ''',"''s,''';'
.,' . .:t.:a .t!'lt,,'" :5 ~ ' ~l ~... . ;0, . i!.a ell" ~'.' ,~"." . -........~'.... .'
~~:...:.V..u...~:/;I-'.:~,~.~l. 6 ~!: '8~-. '.t~! IS:"~ IJ~:.)~:.-~ ';i>.: .~,~;.:~t':r'~:;':.' )/.: :
:\":~')~'I:: li.08'&a~ ~Ji" -l~' ~'I~J,;..:r~ ", i.;".'",..:..<_
:t....r;,:O. , '.s'i;~f~;s('C!II:3~',a ~ r.'.~:;.\:.:~e, ;. -~/:~':'(~':-;.'. ':
.\~~:.::~. '.' >.....~,.llSf-1 ._~~~ ,::, ,.0 .' '1f./r:"::Q; ':<"<~':'::"<'., ',:'
..'l, . ,~. ~"'" '! f . ft {t.. _Q ~ 0 ...~." ~, IIi!I I . r..' '. .., \.' '
\"':." .,... ';'''JS';; .,'.s: J:j , ~;;I ",'S, ~,:, .,,'lCl: ", "'~"~'r .' ,"
:~ ~::. ..;:.~~;i ,t\~i~:d:;i:k,tJi. 'i~ '.~, ;~;;ci:.;/~Ui1~~jji .~~~ .~::'~i." \;('f;'f;:{~':; :g~:~~i~~~t
.:.::.:. :., ".:. ~ '.~' .' '.... .~.', ,,' - .. ... .<. -> .;.',;".: ,.">:>:<:: :...';,.... >'1 .:',,'.';:,'::(.).!~;;!, .'..
:.' '.-:",:.; ~::!~el ,'.'e "-'.'." ',;.-:; ."....,~~..~...'...\'.._.:...,';..lg~.slil~.JlI.";..,..''''.;.c~;.~..':\
.oJ;~.:,'.~ "1,'" "iii i..r:::! '5 ,.!.. :-',. .." .....~~.'.. ,. ~\..... ,~', \'-'~"':',/.' .t.", "*' t. 'O-....,.tb.':,&J=,.... "" '""'l....l....,,~.,;,\l,.:
.; . .,,'-,.,.:~ S''O ..] ',' ;". ;,' ;,., ...'.', .,: '.,<;~ : "";.' ~,.!;.. ,"";::'" :,. ';'. I~. .~;,~ 1[ 'l!>>I''''''';!:,l 8' r i" t"'''';''i'\};''~'':' '.' .!<
"""",'a~'1 .s,' .:~ ......,.;:... "'~'-,".~,'.\"-"'.;":;~'''',';'.'';:';''''.:.(1'''''' .:.,.:-,}.\. Q, i.I'lI) t -''1.)';:'':'"
"':':""'l() ~~,Q,~.:(..'.':..-" . . ','- .. ,.", ....::{\~\~::~:t? ,:f!: '~".,.' :,;'<":i"'('~,>"
.'.. ""s '":to ~ .-.,.... ""').5 ii ~'.-:li'S';'" ,'t .,.. .
,;. -: 'a II ~'l:! .;, . ." :..~ .:\:\:~ '~.,'~~..... .~. .!~~ ,''; ~.,:. ::'."':'
'.' ....s. ,..,. "'; .,.. ".;'_.., .l:lo~ = r:.... It ,....'...,'...,
.-', . -- '. :I'ts ~.s' I" . ...~.\:~;~,.J I:; ~~ fJ.'~ "l{t.':-:( r'.~, :.~
,:; ..:~:.~..s 0 S '!! . .'~.': : ,~). " 'D~-.t''-6~t!!l' c"',,',';;"I, ;.-q
:.; ~ '('~I:f'S i t:I'tii.<.;' . -, ':,',:~:'f.b. 'I\S':'t$'~'-I'Iil:i:";}iti~;:;'.~>.
, ., '... 8 .... j.:g}l >:,,: '. ".' ,~j 'j . ~ t:l '~... 'S'... .,' '>h. "," _, "'..
.:~:; :.~~/'. __ u~~: .~....,,,,,....,.~. :~. /:!~;i'u\: l :J:21~' '1:~<~..:~,...Jt..:,.t::\ ~
~ "',C' ~ S l5 . :. .,f.. t'l-!..C: ,~, '..1 ..I,~ I,,~.., ',.~,.\"
:r:.:i';: :.:1 :a i .ot'~~ija, a'j ,'/',~!~': <(J;:::J~' J~:.I; ~g;. .,! .:'~J';\~:::~~:'::,~>
.;; {~< !~l~ :~~ '.W' ':>"'';'.:'-':;,:; ;:'.>': .~;: '~,.1 ;..; ~...,\'.r '" :'~:j"S~~;i';~ti'W'I~:S\'>JFl'~':S:I:IA?=;~~:: t
.t "~? tJ "", ...... . ~"..~"'. '"...... . .'....1\',:..,..4'l..,.J.. \ ',"" i..... ,EJ ':..~..> ....
<.,.....', . j ~~.as J:,'.:. <,",' ';>:" j.....!' ...,t.....;,;. ..~h...., .' .~...- '-t' -".. \l..:...t,.:',....'.
~:;.' M '^,. I I) 11'~"...oI". :'~"''''~ '1,,1. .."...... .. '..... .'~.;,.l ,..'1. .."?~'~_H, r """,' ~~9 . .~~ :,\'.' ~,~
", ',C"lJ'lll ;;l::l' 's ;'.' ...".,...... . .0>.;'"(,,,;,""" t\",.."" ,;;:~. .'. .~..:o<.,.,.. 4oI;S~ I .-........~,,:;~.
;~1~I; ~~~~,};.!.:~;. '-:;~.;;~ ?!~.~ ';;' .i~~~:;- .~.; ~ ~1::::~:~?j~;~t~:L;~ /.:~: <'i:!::;;~~~b; .,fi~tir~t~~;..2~~1.:.:;K~.;i.~i~,1:'~~r:~'ii~~.~:;t!:}l
f;:,.-;~~i~;': ~~,"~....~..''"f\:} ::;.?;~..{.i' (',~:;~;,:;~,,*?: :.';.~,;.f~.~";~;i:,~~~).~;.ztl ~.: ~ ~~~.~..' ~~1,!:i/::~,,:,~~;;ff\;i~Z;~~f...~~f.-i~~i~~t;"tt..,:,:
, ....... .' '!h ti i ':.b~ ;~"'5~j~e 8~ ~';;:;ll;'i~:;;;:;'~'j":~}i,t~~;:{':::,
~.,. '> . ",:':;':' < /. ,<.' :...:,.: :2 S 1 ~I i 8 ~ ' .i. 8 ~ 'S,' B ~,,1i ~ E e ;.;. ,,~..':c:.;~;' ..~. '8 :?~.~,':.',:': ,,~?
"'. ....,,:.,..:.'.tz::, "f"','J.s''8~1 'i III f .'j"t'a.e':!l H~'j . ba' li-"~""'r' J:1'.'I;.r.t"''',:1'':'
;'..:.:~..\' ~.~,' .,".."',.:-."i.i.is~...i~..} . ~~=~~.~. 'I~C;"~' ;0''';:.1 :~'j' ':,>::;;"'::'.',:
:,;....,Ii!: ~,...:,..;..;.-;~. to ;;:oe~"'" 'l~a'Q,i. '~'!;1i"!"~' ~Q,.. ""'''-''''':'':'.:
t:\~C5 ~\':b "I~~-:: IfJli1jUtil is i . ~l~!\j);s ~:~! ls'.;(~~\';'
.. ,~ ""'O~ :.~ er<1,'~ ; ,.JiDe ~ ~ ~ ~1l :H~].i~~ It'li:;!H~1it~\!,:-:
. .:: i"~' m~.,.i! 'lniifif!iilulittl~l!hH!rl. !}.....
'.',.-=.~..()J)4...;..,:~..JljR.~u~.ei"..'8I~1ii.~.s8fi ' .i.)ill J;.':.,"
" .', .. ,"~~~" '.', ;':,' :;:.~~_i:.~.~~:2~~:_i~L~,~-;~..~~.,',:..{.::L:..::!..<'<.:'...~~:.~_:..._..._.._....__...
ATTACHMENT 5
----
\.
~ Yo"" w,,,,. "'".g~~'
.NC:OSTA~
, ~~
l~~'\
~
Apr11 18, 1989
We are now midway through the pilot curbside recycling program. Danvllle has
been recycling at a healthy 83.7 percent, averaging 64.8 pounds of recyclables
per participating household per monthl Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,
Valley Waste Management, and the Town of Danville are very pleased with these
resul ts.
At this point in the pilot program, we would appreciate if you would take the
time to complete a brief, fOllow-up survey. This will help us to determine how
well the curbside recycling program has been received in your community, and
what speci al efforts may need to be taken before the program can be expanded
throughout Danv11le. A sel f-addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed for your
convenience. Please return the survey by May 15, 1989.
,
You may be interested in knowing that out of the 1200 Danville homes to which we
sent our first survey, 62% responded I Eighty-three percent of those who
responded believe recycl i ng is a good idea, and 74~ i ndi cated they al ready
recycle through non-profit organizations, buy-back centers, and newspaper drop
boxes. Several recurring questions were raised in the comment section of the
survey, and we would like to respond to some of these.
1. Why does curbside recycl1ng cost IIOney if 'the garbage co.pany is able to
sell the recyc1ab1es?
2.
Unfortunately, the revenue received from the sale of recyclables is not
enough to pay for the cost of processing the recyclables, i.e., labor,
equipment (recycling trucks and containers), and transportation costs. At
this time, the cost for operating a curbside recycling program in cities on
the West Coast ranges up to $1.00 per month, depending on participation and
the amount of recyclables collected.
Will non-profit organizations, such as 'Jbe Boy Scouts, who earn IIOney f~
recycling be adversely affected by a curbside recycling progr~?
It is not the intent of thi s prog~am to adversely affect any exi sti ng
vol unteer programs who depend on recycli ng for some of thei r operati ng.
funds. In fact, where possible, such programs have been integrated into
the overall community recyc11ng programs in a very constructive way. It
has been found that large-scale recycling programs often help on-going
recycling programs. We believe that there are more than enough recyclable
materials for several programs. For those people currently recycling with
a non-profit organization, we encourage them to continue with this practice
and to recycle the other materials through the curbside recycling program.
"-
Central Contra Costll SIInltllry District
5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez. CA 94553-4392 (415) 689-3890
* Recycled Paper
\
3. Why is curbside recycling so i.portant all of a sudden?
State law mandates that Contra Costa County's Solid Waste Management Plan
include ambitious goals for reducing the amount of solid waste being sent
to 1 andf 111 s. The draft County Sol i d Waste Management Pl an requi res
diverting 30% of the total wastestream away from the landfill through
recycling within the next five years.. Without widespread curbside
recycling programs, this goal will be impossible to meet. Also, several
pieces of state legislation proposing mandatory recycling are pending.
Currently, the most pressing reason for implementing curbside recycling
programs is the l1m1ted landfill space available within Contra Costa
County. We w1ll soon have to export our trash outside the County, and
counties like Alameda have clearly indicated that they will not accept our
trash unless we have curbside recycling programs in place as they wish to
m1nim1ze the amount of waste that comes into their county.
(
4. W1ll other .ater1als beside newspaper, glass, plastic beverage containers,
an~ alua1nUII cans ever be accepted in the curbside recycling progr_?
At the present t1me, the only economically strong markets that exist for
recyclable materials are newspaper, glass, plastic beverage (soda)
conta1ners, and alum1num cans. As viable markets for other recyclables,
such as. t1n cans and plastic milk bottles, are developed, we w1ll begin
accept1ng them.
We l1ve in a hl1ly area and our driveway is very long and steep. Although
we would like to participate in curbside recycling, the containers are too
heavy for us to carry down to the curb. Any suggestions?
5.
Some people who live in hilly areas with long, steep driveways place the
recycling conta1ners in the trunk of their car and drive them down to the
curb. Ded1cated recyclers find that curbside recycling is more convenient
than transporting their recyclables to the nearest drop-off center.
6. Where can the recycling containers be stored?
Many people store the recycling containers in their garage, next to their
trash can, in the pantry, or in a closet.
If you have other questions regarding recycling, please contact Harriette Heibel
from Central Contra Costa Sanitary District at 689-3890, or Laurie Walsh from
Valley Waste Management at 935-8900.
Your partic1pation 1n Danville's curbside recycling pilot program has been very
valuable. We look forward to your further ideas on the follow-up survey.
S1 ncerely,
'"
~_'lJt,~ R~
Susan McNulty Rainey
President, Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
kna 7J1. //Lth1c:Uy
Susanna Schlendorf
Mayor
Town of Danv i 11 e
~~
Marshall Grodin
General Manager
Vall ey Waste
Management
ATTACHt.1ENT 5
IQ
~
Valley Waste Management
At'toSTA ....,
d"" ~J.
f~~\
~
Ap r il 18, 1989
We are now midway through the pilot curbside recycl ing and automated trash
pick-up program. Alamo has been recycling at a healthy 80.5 percent, averaging
64.7 pounds of recyclables per participating household per month! Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District, Valley Waste Management, and the community of
Alamo are very pleased with these results.
At th i s poi nt in the pi 1 ot program, we woul d appreci ate if you woul d take the
time to complete a brief, follow-up survey. This will help us to determine how
well the curbside recycling and automated trash pick-up program has been
received in your community, and what special efforts may need to be taken before
either or both portiones) of the program can be expanded throughout Alamo. A
sel f-addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed for your conveni ence. Pl ease
return the survey by May 15, 1989.
As you may know, the automated trash pick-up pilot is being tested because it is
more efficient and cost-effective than normal trash pick-up. Central Contra
Costa Sanitary Di strict and Valley Waste Management are 1 ooki ng for innovative
ways to control skyrocketing garbage rates caused by the County's landfill
shortage.
You may be interested in knowing that out of the 1200 Alamo homes to which we
sent our first survey, 65.7% responded! Eighty-two percent of those who
responded believe recycling is a good idea, and 7CB, indicated they already
recycl e th rough non-profit organizati ons, buy-back centers, or newspaper drop
boxes. Several recurring questions were raised in the comment section of the
survey, and we would like to respond to some of these.
1. Why does curbside recycling cost IIOney if 'the garbage COIIpany is able to
sell 'the recyclables?
Unfortunately, the revenue received from the sal e of recycl abl es is not
enough to pay for the cost of processi ng the recycl abl es, i. e., 1 abor,
equipment (recycling trucks and containers), and transportation costs. At
this time, the cost for operating a curbside recycling program in cities on
the West Coast ranges up to $1.00 per month, depending on participation and
the amount of recyclables collected.
2. How can using the supercarts reduce ~ garbage bills?
With the supercarts system, only one person is needed to operate the
special automated garbage truck, thus saving on labor expenses. Also
because the supercart is wheeled to the curb, the actual time spent
collecting garbage in any community is less than with traditional garbage
service. Other cost savings may be realized through less worker injuries.
Centrlll Contra Costa Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, CA 94553-4392 (415) 689-3890
* Recycled Paper
;. ..
3. wn 1 non-prof1't organ1zat10ns. such as 'the Boy Scouts. who earn IIOney fro.
recycling be adversely affected by a curbside recycling progra.?
It is not the intent of this program to adversely affect any existing
vol unteer programs who depend on recyc1i ng for some of thei r operati ng
funds. In fact, where possible, such programs have been integrated into the
overall community recyc1 ing programs in a very constructive way. It has
been found that large-scale recycling programs often help on-going recycling
programs. We believe that there are more than enough recyclable materials
for several programs. For those people currently recycling with a
non-profit organization, we encourage them to continue with this practice
and to recycle the other materials through curbside recycling program.
4. Why is curbside recycling so important all of a sudden?
State 1 aw mandates th at Contra Costa County' s. ~So 1i d Waste Management Pl an
include ambitious goals for reducing the amount of solid waste being sent to
landfills. The draft County Solid Waste Management Plan requires diverting
30% of the total wastestream away from the landfill through recycling within
the next five years. Without widespread curbside recyc1 ing programs, this
goal will be impossible to meet. Also, several pieces of state legislation
proposing mandatory recycling are pending.
Currently, the most pressing reason for implementing curbside recycling
programs is the limited landfill space available within Contra Costa County.
We will soon have to export our trash outside the County, and counties like
Alameda have clearly indicated that they will not accept our trash unless we
have curbside recycling programs in place as they wish to minimize the
amount of waste that comes into their county.
5. W111 other .a"ter1als beside newspaper. glass. plastic beverage containers.
and aluminum cans ever be aooep"ted in 'the curbside recycling progra.?
At the present time, the only economically strong markets that exi st for
recyclable materials are newspaper, glass, plastic beverage (soda)
containers, and aluminum cans. As viable markets for other recyclab1es,
such as tin cans and plastic milk bottles, are developed, we will begin
accepting them.
6. We live in a hilly area and our driveway is very long and steep. Although we
would like to par'ticipa"te in curbside recycling. 'the containers are too
heavy for us to carry down to the curb. Any suggestions?
Some people who live in hilly areas with long, steep driveways place the
recycling containers in the trunk of their car and drive them down to the
curb. Dedicated recyclers find that curbside recycling is more convenient
than transporting their recyc1ab1es to the nearest drop-off center.
7. Where can the recycling containers be stored?
Many people store the recycling containers in their garage, next to their
tr~sh can, in the pantry, or in a closet.
If you have other questions regarding recycling, please contact Harriette Heibel
from Central Contra Costa Sanitary Oi strict at 689-3890, or Laurie Walsh from
Valley Waste Management at 935-8900.
Your participation in Alamo's curbside recycling and automated trash piCk-Up
pilot program has been very valuable. We look forward to your further ideas on
the follow-up survey.
Sincerely,
~~>x<~ R~
Susan McNulty Rainey
President, Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
~~~
Marshall Grodin
General Manager
Valley Waste Management
ATTACHMENT 5
~
~
Valley Waste Management
,;c;OSTA~1
cr "c,~
J~~
6' I"
~
April 18, 1989
We are now midway through the pilot automated trash pick-up program. In order
to effectively eval uate th 1s program, we woul d like to hear your opi ni ons about
the new covered, wheeled trash containers called supercarts, and the automated
trash pick-up service. Your comments are important and will hel p the Central
Contra Costa Sanitary Di strict Board of Di rectors determine if the supercarts
will be introduced throughout the community of Alamo.
Pl ease take a few moments to compl ete the attached survey. A sel f-addressed,
stamped envelope is enclosed for your conveni ence. We woul d appreci ate hav i ng
this survey returned to us by May 15, 1989.
As you may know, the automated trash pick-up pilot is being tested because it is
more efficient and cost-effective than normal trash pick-up. In other parts of
Alamo, some homes that are using the supercarts are also participating ina
pilot curbside recycl ing program. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District and
Valley Waste Management are looking for innovative ways to control skyrocketing
garbage rates caused by the County's landfill shortage.
If you have any questions regarding the surveyor automated trash pick-up,
pl ease contact Harriette Heibel from Central Contra Costa Sanitary Di strict at
689-3890, or Laurie Walsh from Valley Waste Management at 935-8900.
your participation in Alamo's automated trash pick-up pilot program has been
very valuable. We look forward to your ideas on the survey.
Sincerely,
~_ '>>.,~ ;2~
Susan McNulty Rainey
President, Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District
~~~
Marshall Grodin
General Manager
Valley Waste Management
Centrel Contra COlta Sanitary District
5019 Imhoff Place, Martinez, CA 94553-4392 (415) 689-3890
@ "'cl'(I~~ ;:.~.;
ATTACHMENT 6
Recy~g&ypercart Survey
1. Did you participate in the pilot curbside program?
a Yes a No
2. " you did NOT participate In the curbside recycling
pilot, what are the reasons (check all apply):
a Recycle elsewhere
a Don't have enough materials to recycle
a Too far to carry containers
a Too much trouble
a Don't have the time
a Other
3. Are you also recycling with other than the curbside
program?
a Yes a No
" yes, where?
a Grocery store 20-20 igloos
a Recycling buy-back center
a Newspaper drop box
a Non-profit organization
a Other
L As part of the pilot recycling program you received
3 household containers. Were they (check all that
apply):
a Easy to use
a Easy to bring to curb
a Hard to handle
a Too big
a Too small
a Other
5. Will you continue to participate in the curbside
recycling program?
a Yes a No
6. Would you still recycle if It were not mandatory and
counties like Alameda did not require It as a
condition of accepting our trash?
a Yesa No
7. Does the supercart provide enough room for your
household garbage?
o Yes a No
8. Does the supercart adequately accommodate your
yard trimmings?' .
aYes a No
Do you find the supercart handy to use while you
are gardening?
a Yes a No
10. Is the supercart:
a Easy to use
a Difficult to use
a More convenient than traditional trash
containers
a less convenient than traditional trash
containers
11. Would you prefer to:
a Keep the supercart
a Use your regular trash can
a Undecided
12. How would you rate your garbage service during
the automated trash pick-up pilot?
a Same as before
a Better
a Worse
13. If you thought your garbage service during the
automated trash pick-up pilot was WORSE, please
tell why (check all that apply):
a More spillage
a less capacity
a Inconvenient
a Have to do more work
a Other
14. If the supercarts can reduce garbage rates, would
you be more inclined to use them?
a Yes a No
15. Any comments about the supercarts that will help
us evaluate the automated trash" pick-up program?
-'
@ Recycled Paper
ATTACHMENT 6
SURercart Survey.
1. Does the supercart provide enough room for your
household garbage?
DYes
o No
2. Does the supercart adequately accommodate your
garden trimmings?
DYes
o No
3. Do you find the supercart handy to use while you
are gardening?
DYes
o No
4. Was the supercart:
o Easy to use
o Difficult to use
o More convenient than traditional trash
containers
o Less convenient than traditional trash
containers
o Other
5. Would you prefer to:
o Keep the supercart
o Use your regular trash can
D Undecided
6. If supercarts can reduce garbage rates, would you
be more inclined to use them?
DYes
D No
7. How would you rate your garbage service during
the automated trash pick-up pilot?
o Same as before
o Better
a Worse
8. " you thought your garbage service during the
automated trash pick-up pilot was WORSE, please
tell why (check all that apply):
o More spillage
D Less capacity
D Inconvenient
D Have to do more work
D Other
9. Any comments about the supercarts that will help
us evaluat~ the automated trash pick-up program?
Thank you for your cooperation. The Informa-
tion you have provided wUl help us evaluate the
use of supercarts in your community.
Please use the enclosed retum-address enve-
lope to retum your completed survey.
.>
@ Recycled Paper
ATTACHMENT 7
SURVEY II RESULTS
V AlLEY WASTE MANAGEJENT AREAS
RECYQ.ING PILOT ON... Y
AlAMO DANYILLE LAFAYETTE
Number of surveys mailed 1041 1023 1191
Number of responses 670/64.41 671/65.61 690/57.91
Actual Participation 880 904 984
Actual Percent Participation 84.51 88.41 82 .61
1. Number who participated in the
curbside recycling pilot
· Yes 620/92.51 640/95.41 584/84.61
· No 30/4.51 26/3.91 80/11.61
· Other 20/3.01 5/ .71 26/3.81
2. Number who don't recycle because
· Recycle elsewhere 18/601 23/88.51 30/37.51
· Don't have enough recyclables 21/701 19/731 31/38.71
· Too far to carry recyclables 6/201 16/201
· Too much trouble 7/231 5/19.21 16/201
· Not enough time 2/6.71 6/7.51
3a. Number who curbside recycle
and recycle elsewhere
..-yes 147/23.71 209/32.71 181/311
· No 473/76.31 431/67.31 403/691
b. Number (yes) who recycle at:
· 20-20 Redemption Centers 32/21.81 33/15.81 43/23.71
· Recycling Buy-Back Center 27/18.41 43/20.61 34/18.91
· Newspaper drop boxes 71/ 48.31 103/49.31 71/39.21
· Non-prOfit organizati ons 50/341 84/40.21 74/40.91
· Other pl aces 6/4.11 13/6.21 11/6.11
4a. Number who don't participate but
who recycle elsewhere
· Yes 17 /56.71 21/80.81 52/651
· No 13/43.31 5/19.21 28/351
b. Number (yes) who recycle at
· 20-20 Redemption Centers 3/17.61 6/28.61 19/36.51
· Recycling Buy-Back Center 7/41.21 2/9.61 17/32.61
· Newspaper drop boxes 10/58.81 14/66.71 27/51.91
· Non-profit organizations 4/23.51 10/47.61 19/36.51
· Other pl aces 1/5.91 1/4.81 1/ 1.91
RECYQING PIlOTONl Y AlN/l) DANV IllE lAF AYETTE
5. Number who think the recycl i ng
conta ners were
· Easy to use 556/89.71 590/92.21 527/90.21
· Easy to bring to curb 431/69.51 484/75.61 383/65.61
· Hard to handle 20/3.21 23/3.61 27/4.61
· Too big 19/3.11 9/1.41 15/2.61
· Too sma"; 1 13/2.11 13/2.GS 12/2.11
· other 67/10.81 67/10.51 107/18.31
6. Number who will continue to
participate in curbside
· Yes 602/971 615/96.11 557/95.41
· No 6/11 11/1.7S 12/21
· other 12/21 14/2.21 15/2.61
7. Number who would still recycl e
if it were not mandatory
· Yes 564/84.21 558/83.21 579/83.91
· No 69/10.31 79/11.81 44/6.41
&
ATTACHMENT 8
SURVEY II RESUl TS
VALLEY WASTE MANAGEtENT MEAS
SUPERCART PILOT OtI..Y
ALN/t)
DANVILlE
Number of surveys mailed
Number of responses
148
117/79.CJJ
155
111/71.61
1. Number who think Supercart provides
enough room for household garbage
· Yes
· No
· other
100/85.51
15/12.81
2/1.11
105/94.61
6/5.41
2. Number who think Supercart adequately
accommodates garden trimmings
· Yes
· No
· other
47/40.21
67/57.21
3/2.61
41/36.91
69/62.21
1/.91
3. Number who think Supercart easy to
use while gardening
· Yes
· No
· Other
46/39.31
64/54.11
7/61
64/57.71
43/38.11
4/3.61
4. Number who think Supercart was
· Easy to use
· Difficult go use
· More convenient
· Less convenient
· other
71/60.71
3/2.61
51/ 43.61
17/14.51
7/61
73/65.81
2/1.81
60/54.11
10/91
7/6.3%
5. Number who prefer to
· Keep the Supercart
· Use your regular trash cans
· Undeci ded
83/70.91
12/10.31
22/18.81
88/79.31
11/9.91
12/10.81
6. Number who would use supercart if it
could reduce rates
· Yes
· No
· other
106/90.61
5/4.31
6/5.11
108/97.31
3/2.71
7a. Number who think garbage service
duri ng pil ot was
· Same
· Better
· Wor sa
76/651
22/18.81
19/16.21
75/67.61
30/271
6/5.41
SUPERCART ONLY AlN<<l DANVIllE
7b. If serv ice was considered worse,
reasons
· More spill age 13/68.41 6/1001
· Less capacity 19/1001 6/1001
· I nconv en i ent 7/36.81 4/66.71
· More work 5/26.31 1/16.71
· Other 5/26.31 5/83.31
ATTACHMENT 9
SURVEY II RESULTS
V ALLEY WASTE MANAGE~NT AREAS
RECYQ. INS AND SUPERCART
Number of surveys mai 1 ed
Number of responses received
ALAMO
131
84/64.11
107
81.11
DANVILLE
Actual Participation
Actual Percent Participation
1. Number who participated in the
curbside recycling pilot
· Yes
· No
· Other
179
134/74.91
134
74.91
81/96.41
2/2.41
1/1.21
116/86.61
11/8.21
7/5.21
2. Number who don't recycle because
· Recycle elsewhere
· Not enough recycl abl es
· Too far to carry containers
· Too much trouble
· Don't have time
· Other
2/1001
7/63.61
3/ 27 .31
5/45.41
1/9.11
1/9.11
8/72.11
1/501
1/501
3a. Number who curbside recycle and
recycle elsewhere
· Yes
· No
31/38.31
50/61.11
40/34.51
76/65.51
b. Number (yes) who recycle at
· 20-20 Redemption Centers
· Recycling Buy-Back Centers
· Newspaper drop boxes
· Non-profit organizations
· Other pl aces
7/22.61
3/9.11
22/711
12/38.11
1/3.21
8/201
7/17 .51
14/351
21/52.51
4/10.61
4a. Number who don't participate in
curbside but who recycle elsewhere
· Yes
· No
1/501
1/501
8/12.11
3/27.31
b. Number who recycle at
· 20-20 Redemption Centers
· Recycling Buy-Back Centers
· Newspaper drop boxes
· Non-profit organizations
· Other pl aces
1/1001
3/31.51
2/251
5/62.51
2/251
1/1001
RECYQ. ING & SUPERCART
N-NIIJ
DANVILlE
5. Number who think recycling containers
were
· Easy to use
· Easy to bring to curb
· Hard to handle
· Too big
· Too small
· other
70/86.41
51/631
7/8.61
1/1.21
7/8.61
99/85.31
75/64.71
12/10.31
3/2.61
4/3.41
21/18.11
6. Number who will continue to
participate in curbside
· Yes
· No
· other
76/93.81
2/2.51
3/3.71
107/92.21
6/5.21
3/2.61
7. Number who would still recycle if
it were not mandatory
· Yes
· No
61/72.61
16/191
117/87.31
14/10.41
8. Number who think Supercart provides
enough room for household garbage
· Yes
· No
· Other
72/85.71
12/14.31
121/90.31
11/8.21
2/1.51
9. Number who think Supercart adequately
accommodates yard trimmings
· Yes
· No
· other
35/41.61
45/53.61
4/51
55/411
68/50.71
11/81
10. Number who think Supercart is handy
to use while gardening
· Yes
· No
· Other
39/46.41
30/35.71
15/17 .91
57/42.51
60/44.71
17/12.71
11. Number who think Supercart is
· Easy to use
· Difficult to use
· More convenient than traditional
trash contai ners
· Less convenient than traditional
trash contai ners
57/67.91
5/5.91
44/52.41
11/13.11
100/74.61
9/6.71
65/48.51
17/12.71
12. Number who wou d prefer to
· Keep Supercart
· Use regul ar contai ner
· Undeci ded
64/76.21
10/121
10/121
104/77.61
10/7.51
20/14.91
RECYa.. ING & SUPERCART
13a.Number who think garbage service
during automated trash pick up was
· Same
· Better
· Wor se
b.If considered worse, the reasons
· More spillage
· Less capacity
· Inconvenient
· Have to do more work
· Other
14. Number who would use Supercart if it
could reduce rates
· Yes
· No
ALAMO
DANVILlE
59/70.21 99/73.91
15/17 .91 15/11.21
10/11.91 20/14.91
4/401 2/251
10/1001 7/351
3/301 7/351
4/401 7/351
4/401 14/701
76/901
132/98.51
2/1.51
I .._._--"._._._..,_._-_...~..-...,,~----"'_....,.,._.._----,-""-,-",-"",-,,,--,-,-,,'-'"""-"^-'~-_._.._". ~""-"-"'-~---'-'----
ATTACHMENT 10
SURVEY II RESUL T5
VAlLEY WASTE MANAGEtENT MEAS
(Recycling Comparison between participants who recycle only
and those who recycle with a Supercart)
RECYa.. ING COtoPARI5ON AlNIIJ DANVILlE
Recycling f(ecyl SC Recycling Recy/5C
Number in pi lot 1041 131 1023 179
Number who responded to survey 670 84 671 134
Percent who responded to survey 64.41 64.11 65.61 74.91
Actual Monthly Participation 880 107
Actual Percent Partici ation 84.51 81.71
1. Participated in pil ot
· Yes 92.51 96.41 95.41 86.61
· No 4.51 2.41 3.91 8.2S
· Other 3.01 1.2S .71 5.2S
2. If not, the reasons
· Recycle elsewhere 601 1001 88.51 63 .61
· Don't have enough recycl abl es 701 73.01 27.31
· Too far to carry recycl abl es 201 45.41
· Too much trouble 231 501 19.2S 9.11
· Not enough time 6.71 9.11
· Other 501 72.71
3a. Participated in curbside and
also recycle elsewhere
· Yes 23.71 38.31 32.71 34.51
· No 76.31 61.71 67.31 65.51
b. If yes, also recycle at
· 20-20 Redemption Centers 21.81 22.61 15 .81 20.01
· Recycling Buy-Back Centers 18.45 9.71 20.61 17.51
· Newspaper drop boxes 48.31 71.01 49.31 35 .01
· Non-profit organizations 34.01 38.71 40.2S 52.51
· Other pl aces 4.11 3.2S 6.2S 10.01
4a. Did not participate in curbside
but recycl e el sew here
· Yes 56.71 501 80.81 .72.71
· No 43.31 SOl 19.21 27.31
b. If yes, recycl e at
· 20-20 Redem pt i on Centers 17 .6J 28.61 37.51
· Recycl ing Buy-Back Centers 41.2S 1001 9.61 25.01
· Newspaper drop boxes 58.81 66.71 62.51
· Non-profit organizations 23 .51 1001 47.61 251
· Other pl aces 5.91 4.81
-.-____.____.__.__._____._'___'_~.__~____,_.--'-"--...-.~-----~'_r-.---.,---..,..-._..-
RECYQ. ING COtI'ARISON N.. N<<) DANV ILLE
Recycling ... Recy/SC Recycling Recy/SC
5. Think the recycl ing containers are
· Easy to use 89.7S 86.41 92.21 85 .31
· Easy to bring to curb 69.51 63.01 75.61 64 .71
· Hard to handle 3.21 8.61 3.61 10.31
· Too big 3.11 1.41 2.61
· Too small 2.11 1.21 2.01 3.41
· Other 10.81 8.61 10.51 18.11
6. Will continue to participate
in curbside
· Yes 971 93.81 96.11 92.21
· No 11 2.51 1.7S 5.21
· Other 21 3.7S 2.21 2.61
7. Would still recycl e if it were
not mandatory
· Yes 84.21 72.61 83.21 87.31
· No 10.31 19.01 11.81 10.41
ATTACHMENT 11
SURVEY II RESULTS
VALLEY WASTE MAN~EJENT AREAS
<Supercart Comparison between participants who have Supercart only
and those who recycle with a Supercart)
SUPERCART cotf>ARISON AL N<<J DANVILLE
Supercart Recy/SC Supercart Recy/SC
Number in pi lot 148 131 155 179
Number who responded to survey 117 84 111 134
Percent who responded to survey 79.81 M.IS 71.61 74.91
1. Think Supercart provides enough
room for household garbage
· Yes 85 .51 85.71 94.61 90 .31
· No 12.81 14.31 5.41 8.21
· Other 1.71 1.51
2. Think Supercart adequately
accommodates garden trimmings
· Yes 40.21 41.61 36.91 41.01
· No 57.21 53.61 62.21 50.71
· Other 2.61 5.01 .91 8.01
3. Think Supercart was easy to use
while gardening
· Yes 39.31 46.41 57.71 42.51
· No 54.71 35 .71 38.71 44.71
· Other 6.01 17.91 3.61 12.71
4. Think Supercart was
· Easy to use 60.71 67.91 65.81 74.61
· Difficult to use 2.61 5.91 1.81 6.71
· More convenient 43.61 52.41 54. IS 48.51
· Less convenient 14.51 13.11 9.01 12.71
5. Would prefer to
· Keep Supercart 70.91 76.21 79.31 77 .61
· Use regul ar trash cans 10.31 11.91 9.91 7.51
· Undecided 18.81 11.91 10.81 14.91
6. Would use Supercart if it coul d
reduce rates
· Yes 90.61 90.01 97.31 98.51
· No 4.31 2.71 1.51
· Other 5.IS
7a. Th ink ga rbage service during pilot was
· Same 65 . OJ 70.21 67.61 73.91
· Better 18.81 17.91 27.01 11.21
· Wor se 16.21 11.91 5.41 14.91
SUPERCART COM=>ARISON
7b. If considered worse,
o More sp ill age
o Less capaci ty
o Inconven i ent
o More work
o Other
Al. NIIJ
SuperGart - -Racyl SC
the reasons
68.41 40J
100J 1001
36.81 30J
26.31 40J
26.31 40J
DANVILLE
-----Super-cart - - Racy/SC
I
I
I 1001 251
I 1001 351
I 66.11 351
I 16.11 351
I 83 .31 70J
I
ATTACHMENT 12
PILOT aJRBSIDE REcya.I~ PARTICIPATION
FOR
LAFAYETTE~ AL.AMO~ AND DANYIlLE
(3565 pil ot househol ds)
LBS.Al..&
LBS.Glass P1 astie LBS.News
No. Hmles Percent Collected/ Coll ected/ Collected/ Total LBS./
Partie. Partie. Per Household Per Househol d Per Househol d Per Househol d
LAFAYETTE (1191 pilot households)
3/15/89 496 41.61 3 ~ 940 /3 .3 300/ .32 10~3oo/8. 7 14,700/12.3
3/22/89 522 43 .81 3,800/3.2 100/ .15 10,540/8.8 14,600/12.3
3/29/89 457 38.41 3,640/3.0 260/.22 9,460/7.9 13,360/11.2
V5/89 495 41.71 3.220/2.7 100/ .15 8.300/7.0 11.700/9.8
V 12/ 89 3.420/2.9 220/ .18 7.860/6.6 11.500/9.7
V19/89 3.160/2.7 210/.18 8.000/6.8 11.450/9.6
V26/89 3.500/2.9 260/.22 7.820/6.6 11,500/9.7
;/3/89 3.720/3.1 260/ .22 8.760/7.4 12. 740 / 10 .7
;/10/89 492 41.31 3.300/2.8 260/.22 7.000/6.6 11,460/9.6
;/17 /89 504 42.31 3.620/3.0 260/.22 8.720/7.3 12.600/10.6
;/24/89 501 42.11 3.760/3.2 220/ .18 7.900/6.7 11,960/10.04
>131/89 500 42.01 4.000/3.4 200 / .23 7.940/6.7 12,300/10.3
AI ) (1172 pilot households)
3/16/89 566 48.31 3.740/3.2 360/ .31 11.730/10.0 15.830/13 .50
1/23/89 615 52.51 4.220/3.6 320/ .27 13.100/11.17 17 .640/14.05
;/30/89 597 50.91 3.500/3.0 350/.30 10.500/8.95 14.350/12.24
f/6/89 610 52.01 3.160/2.7 300/ .32 11.100/9.54 14.720/12.55
~/13/89 3.500/3.0 440/ .38 10.740/9.16 14.760/12.59
;/20/89 3.200/2.7 350/.30 10.500/9.02 14.130/12.06
./27/89 3.440/2.9 340/ .29 11,240/9.60 15,020/12.82
,; 4/ 89 3,400/3.0 300/.26 11,000/9.45 14,860/12.68
,/11/89 650 55.51 3,400/2.9 200 / .24 10,700/9.20 14.460/12.34
i/18/89 637 54.41 4.100/3.5 300/.26 11,360/9.69 15,760/13.45
;/25/89 646 55 .11 3,900/3.4 200/ .24 11,120/9.49 15,300/13.12 /
i/ 1/ 89 639 54.51 4.300/3.7 320/ .27 10,040/8.57 14.740/12.58
lANYILLE (1202 pll ot househol ds)
;; 17/89 642 53.51 3.400/2.9 400 / .4 13.240/11.03 17 ,200/14.33
;/24/89 513 42.71 3.100/2.6 300/.25 10,960/9.13 14.440 / 12 .03
;/31/89 718 59.81 3.710/3.1 450/.37 13.300/11.15 17 ,540/14.62
~/7/89 696 58.01 3,340/2.8 400/.33 12,120/10.1 15,860/13.22
./14/89 3,300/2.8 300/ .32 12,060/10.05 15.820/13 .19
./21/89 3,100/2.6 300/.25 13,060/10.88 16.460/13.72
.f 28/ 89 3,360/2.8 340/ .28 10.640 /8.87 14,340/11.95
/5/89 3,600/3.0 400/ .33 13,160/10.97 17,160/14.3
/12/89 699 58.21 3.620/3.0 200/ .23 12.000/10.07 15,900/13 .32
/19/89 669 55 .71 3.960/3.3 320/.27 10,900/9.15 15 ,260/12.72
/ - '89 712 59.31 3.940/3.3 320/ .27 12.300/10.25 16,560/13 .8
,/_ 09 657 54.71 4.500/3.7 300/ .32 11,060/9.2 15,940/13 .3
ATTACHMENT 13
PILOT WFeSIDE RECYQ.IJ<<; PARTICIPATION
FOR
lAFAYETIE, 14...N<<), AND DANVIllE
March 15, 1989 to April 7, 1989
LBS.Al..&
lBS.Glass P1 astie lBS.News
No. ttc.es Percent Collected! Collected! Collected! Total lBS.!
Partie. Partie. Per Househol d Per Househol d Per Househol d Per Househol d
_AFAYETIE (1191 pilot households)
3/15/89 496 .41.61 3,940/3.3 300/.32 10,300/8.7 14,700/12.3
U 22/89 522 43 .81 3,800/3.2 100/ .15 10,540/8.8 14,600/12.3
~/29/89 457 38.41 3,640/3.0 260/.22 9,460/7.9 13,360/11.2
lI5/89 495 41.11 3,220 /2.7 100/ .15 8,300/7.0 11,700/9.8
-1ONTHL Y
row- 851 71.51 14,600/12.3 1,000/ .83 38,600/32.47 54,360/45.7
-
"N<<> (1172 pilot households)
1/16/89 566 48.31 3,740/3.2 360/.31 11,730/10.0 15,830/13.50
,/23/89 615 52.51 4,220/3.6 320/ .27 13,100/11.17 17,640/15 .05
,/30/89 597 5O.9J 3,500/3.0 350/.30 10,500/8.95 14,350/12.24
./6/89 610 52.01 3,160/2.7 300/.32 11,100/9.54 14,720/12.55
10NTHL Y
-OTAL 966 82 .41 14,620/12.5 1,410/1.2 46,510/39.68 62,540 /52 .36
)ANVIllE (1202 pll ot househol ds)
:/17 /89 642 53.51 3,400/2.9 400 / .4 13,240/11.03 17 ,200/14.33 _
,/24/89 513 42.11 3,100/2.6 300/.25 10,960/9.13 14,440/12.03
,/31/89 718 59.81 3,710/3.1 450/.37 13,300/11.15 17 ,540/14.62
./7/89 696 58.01 3,340/2.8 400/.33 12,120/10.1 15, 860/13 .22
-1ONTHL Y
-OTAL 1004 83.71 13,710/11.4 1,630/1.3 49,700/41.42 65,040/54.2
)V ERAL L
DNTHL Y 2821 78.lS 43,010/12.0 4,040/1.1 134,800/37.83 181,940/51.04
'ARTICIPATION
ATTACHMENT 14
PILOT aJRBSIDE RECVQ.ING PARTICIPATION
FOR
LAFAYETIE, R..NIIO, AND DANVILLE
May 10, 1989 to June 2, 1989
LBS.Al lilt. &
LBS.Glass Pl as1:1e LBS.News
No. Ho.es Percent Coll ected/ Collected/ Coll ectad/ Total LBS./
Partie. Partie. Per Househol d Per Househol d Per Househol d Per Househol d
_AF AYETIE (1191 pl1 ot househol ds)
;/10/89 492 41.31 3,300/2.8 2601 .22 7, ~0/6.6 11,460/9.6
,/17/89 504 42.31 3,620/3.0 260/.22 8,720/7.3 12,600/10.6
;/24/89 501 42.11 3,760/3.2 220/ .18 7,900/6.7 11,960/10.04
,/31189 500 42.01 4,000/3.4 200/ .23 7,940/6.7 12,300/10.3
-10NTHL Y
roTAL 874 74.61 14,760/12.4 1,020/.86 32,540/27 .3 48,3201 <<).6
~AMO (1172 pilot households)
,/11/89 650 55.51 3,400/2.9 200/.24 10,700/9.20 14,460/12.34
;/18/89 637 54.41 4,100/3.5 300/.26 11,360/9.69 15,760/13.45
,/25/89 646 55 .11 3,900/3.4 200 I .24 11,120/9.49 15,300/13.12
5/1189 639 54.51 4,300/3.7 3201 .27 10,040/8.57 14,740/12,58
""(-'\-fLY
ru'f~ 987 84.21 15,860/13 .5 1,100/1.0 43,300/36.9 60,340/51.5
>ANVILLE 0202 pl1 ot househol ds)
;/12/89 699 58.21 3,620/3.0 200/.23 12,000/10.07 15 , 900 /13/32
;/19/89 669 55.71 3,960/3.3 320/.27 10,900/9.15 15,260/12.72
;/26/89 712 59.31 3,940/3.3 320/.27 12,300/10.25 16,560/13.8
>/2/89 657 54.71 4,500/3.7 300/.32 11,060/9.2 15 , 940 113 .3
<<)NTHL Y
-OT AL 1052 87.51 16,020/13 .3 1,30011.1 46,420/38.6 63,740/53.02
)vERALL
10NTHL Y 2913 81.71 46,640/13 .1 3,500/.98 122,260/34.29 172,400148.36
)ARTICIPATION
ATTACHMENT 15
PILOT QJ~SIDE RECYQ.It12 PARTICIPATION
FOR
lAFAYETlE
( 1191 pll ot househol ds)
LBS.Al..&
lBS.Gl ass P1 astfe lBS.News
No. Hm.es Percent Collected! Collected! Collected! Total LBS.!
Partfe. Partfe. Per Househol d Per Househol d Per Househol d Per Househol d
3/15/89 496 .U.61 3,940/3.3 300/ .32 10,300/8.7 14,700/12.3
~/22/89 522 43.81 3,800/3.2 100/ .15 10,540/8.8 14,600/12.3
3/29/89 457 38.41 3,640/3.0 260/.22 9,460/7.9 13,360/11.2
t/5/89 495 41.11 3,220/2.7 100/ .15 8,300/7.0 11,700/9.8
vtONTHL Y
rOIAL 851 71.51 14,600/12.3 1,000/ .83 38,600/32.47 54,360/45.7
-
V 12/ 89 3,420/2.9 220/ .18 7,860/6.6 11,500/9.7
l/19/89 3,160/2.7 210/.18 8,000/6.8 11,450/9.6
l/ 26/89 3,500/2.9 260/.22 7,820/6.6 11,500/9.7
;/3/89 3,720/3.1 260/.22 8,760/7.4 12,740/10.7
<<>NTHL Y
rOTAL 13,000/11.6 950/ .80 32,520/27 .3 47,270/39.7
;/10/89 492 41.31 3,300/2.8 260/.22 7,roO/6.6 11,460/9.6
;/17 /89 504 42.31 3,620/3.0 260/.22 8,720/7.3 12,600/10.6
;/24/89 501 42.11 3,760/3.2 220/ .18 7,900/6.7 11,960 /10.04
;/31/89 500 42.01 4,08>/3.4 28>/ .23 7,940/6.7 12,300/10.3
-1ONTHL Y
roTAL 874 74.61 14,760/12.4 1,020/ .86 32,540/27 .3 48,320/40.6
ATTACHMENT 16
PILOT QJR3SIDE RECYa..ItG PARTICIPATION
FOR
1LNI>
(1172 pll at househol ds)
LBS.Al...&
lBS. Gl ass P1 astie lBS.News
No. Ha.es Per-cent Collected/ Collected/ Collected! Total LBS./
Partie. Partie. Per Househol d Per- Househol d Per- Househol d Per- Househol d
3/16/89 566 48.31 3,740/3.2 360/ .31 11,730/10.0 15,830/13.50
3/23/89 615 52.51 4,220/3.6 320/ .27 13,100/11.17 17 ,640/15 .05
U30/89 597 50.91 3,500/3.0 350/.30 10,500/8.95 14,350/12.24
U6/89 610 52.01 3,160/2.7 300/ .32 11,100/9.54 14,720/12.56
-1ONlHL Y
roTAL 966 82.41 14,620/12.5 1,410/1.2 46,510/39.68 62,540/52.36
-
~/-,/ 89 3,500/3.0 440/ .38 10,740/9.16 14,760/12.59
~/2O/89 3,200/2.7 350/.30 10,500/9.02 14,130/12.06
./27/89 3,440/2.9 340/ .29 11,240/9.60 15,020/12.82
,/4/89 3,400/3.0 300/.26 11,000/9.45 14,860/12.68
10NTHL Y
'OTAL 13,700/11.7 1,430/1.2 43,640/37.2 58,770/50.15
/11/89 650 55.51 3,400/2.9 200/ .24 10,700/9.20 14,460/12.34
/18/89 637 54.41 4,100/3.5 300/.26 11,360/9.69 15,760/13.45
/25/89 646 55 .11 3,900/3.4 200 / .24 11,120/9.49 15,300/13 .12
1/1/89 639 54 .51 4,300/3.7 320/ .27 10,040/8.57 14,740/12.58
10NlHL Y
'OTAL 987 84.21 15,860/13.5 1,100/1.0 43,300/36.9 60,340/51.48
. ~-"'-""'-"----"-'--"-r--~"'---"*~--'-'"----_._-".''''~.,~--._-.._-"-",...,.~- .~_.._._._.."------~ _._._,,~..._----_._-----~"-_.,._._-
ATTACHMENT 17
PILOT QJ~SIDE RECYa. ItG PARTICIPATION
FOR
DANVIllE
(1202 pfl at househol ds)
LBS.Al..&
lBS.Gl ass P1 astfe lBS.News
No. Hc.es Percent Collected/ Collected/ Collected! Total lBS./
Partfe. Partfe. Per Househol d Per Househol d Per Househol d Per Househol d
3/17 /89 642 53.51 3,400/2.9 400/ .4 13,240/11.03 17 ,200/14.33
U24/89 513 42.71 3,100/2.6 300/.25 10,960/9.13 14,440/12.03
U31/ 89 718 59.81 3,710/3.1 450/.37 13,300/11.15 17 ,540/14.62
U7/89 696 58.01 3,340/2.8 400/ .33 12,120/10.1 15,860/13.22
'>1ONTHL Y
TOTAL 1004 83.71 13,710/11.4 1,630/1.3 49,700/41.42 65,040/54.2
--
U14/89 3,300/2.8 300/ .32 12,060/10.05 15,820/13.19
V21/89 3,100/2.6 300/.25 13,060/10.88 16,460/13.72
U 28/89 3,360/2.8 340/ .28 10,640/8.87 14,340/11.95
;/5/89 3,600/3.0 400/ .33 13,160/10.97 17,160/14.3
-1ONTHL Y
-OTAL 13,440/11.2 1,420/1.2 48,920/.40.7 63,78>/53.1
;/12/89 699 58.21 3,620/3.0 200 / .23 12,000/10.07 15,900/13/32
;/19/89 669 55.71 3,960/3.3 320/ .27 10, 900 / 9.15 15,260/12.72
;/26/89 712 59.31 3,940/3.3 320/ .27 12,300/10.25 16,560/13.8
;/2/89 657 54.71 4,500/3.7 300/ .32 11,060/9.2 15,940 / 13 .3
-1ONTHL Y
roTAL 1052 84.81 16,020/13 .3 1,300/1.1 46,420/38.6 63,740/53.03
ATTACHMENT 18
SET-OOT EVALUATION
BY TYPE OF RECYQ.ABlES
LAFAYETTE.. AL.NIIJ.. AND DANVILLE
(March 15.. 1989 to April 7.. 1989)
No. Alum!
Total No. Glass I of Total Plastic I of Total No. News I of Total
S&t-outs.. Set-outs - - Set-outs - ---5et-outs -- -Set-outs - - - Set-out-s- Set-outs-
LAfAYETTE
3/15/89
3/22/89
3/29/89
4/5/89
MTH TOTAL
AlNl>
3/16/89
3/23/89
3/30/89
4/6/89
~ . TOTAL
496 331
522 329
457 327
495 353
1970 1340
__.. '. __.h_ _ .. _
566 360
615 409
597 435
610 417
2388 1621
861
881
831
881
861
641
671
731
681
681
288
321
331
327
1267
511
521
551
541
531
488
542
474
517
2021
861
881
791
851
851
- - _.---_..,- ----.--.----..---.. -..--..---.--- --,--
_.___.._______n.._m '_.'.m__. _..p___ __.'__.___.... .'. ____"__"_,,,,,,_,
DANVILLE
3/17/89 642
3/24/89 513
3/31/89 718
4/7/89 696
MTH TOTAL 2569
425
357
400
465
1725
661
701
671
671
671
337
279
373
510
521
541
521
731
581
518
432
609
563
till
841
851
811
831
1499
2122
--. .. .-------. ..--~-~.. . ." .... -..- .-~.-.,---.- ....-- _.._-~-- - . - '---'-'___.__ --....__. - _.._ ..._____._.__,_ ... __on. ____o_,_u.________,.. ._... _,._ ._.. ___ _. _ ___. _"" ....__ __' __"_ .___n __ _. ."_ . __". .___.. ____. _ _._,__
_____.._...__u..,._., __..__. .__._____.._ __.__ .__.....__..._._. __.. .._. '.'_ ___., _ ___.._ _____ ___ __.,. __ __________._____ __.___~_____________ ________.____.._________._______________..____ ___ _.___._ __ .._.__..__.. ____.._
SET-OOT EVALUATION
BY TYPE OF RECYQ.ABLES
LAFAYETTE, N..NIIJ, AND DANVILLE
(May 10, 1989 to June 2, 1989)
ATTACHMENT 19
No. Alum!
Total No. Glass I of Total Plastic I of Total No. News I of Total
-- ------ --Set-outs -nSet-outs- - Set-outs --------Set-outs -- Set-outs--$et-outs-- --~et-out_s-
LAFAYETTE
5/10/89
5/17 /89
5/24/89
5/31/89
MTH TOT N.
4921
504
501
500
1997
345
338
342
368
1393
701
671
681
741
701
249
256
250
263
1018
501
511
SOl
531
511
404
446
443
429
821
881
881
861
861
1722
_~..__ ..__.____" __..,.______ ___'__'__'.___. _.______ --.'0-'- ____.__.... .....__.___...______.___... ._.__..____
- --______....__._ _._._._.__."_. ___*___..._._.____._... _.___.__._ ________ .____.__. _ ___. _ __.n_____...__....___...._. _. __. _. ,._~._..______.__.. ._,. ......_.____ _ _
AL NIIJ
5/11/89 650
5/18/89 637
5/25/89 646
6/1/89 639
l.. .j TOTN. 2572
439
465
450
445
1799
681
731
701
701
701
355
325
346
368
1394
551
511
541
581
541
566
543
550
527
2186
871
851
851
821
841
_+.h_".__ _..______._.___
". +-- -----.--".- '-'.'- --_.~-_.- --
DANVILLE
5/12/89
5/19/89
5/26/89
6/ V 89
MTH TOT N.
699
669
712
657
2737
434
418
423
440
1715
621
621
591
671
631
369
327
347
359
1402
531
481
501
551
511
594
586
628
542
2350
851
881
881
821
861
h.1 . ,:.1 i 20
PILOT CURBSIDE RECYQING PROGRAM
lERRAIN COFARISON
(May 10, 1989 to June 2, 1989)
Number Monthly
Number in Monthly Percent
Route Terrain Pfl at Participation Participation
lAFAYETTE
1 Fl at 46 26 56.5%
2 Moderately Hill y 222 173 77 .9J
3 Fl at 59 51 86.4%
4 Moderately Hilly 165 105 63 .6%
5 Hll 1 Y 67 58 86.6%
6 Fl at 242 100 74.4%
7 Hilly 32 30 93.7%
8 Fl at 155 118 76%
9 Hll 1 y 179 133 74.3
AI. AMO
1 Hilly 77 68 88%
2 Fl at 181 157 86.7%
3 Hll 1 Y 226 186 82 .3%
4 Moderately Hll 1 Y 68 58 85 .3%
5 Fl at 333 268 00 .5%
6 Fl at 240 209 87.1%
7 Moderately Hll 1 y 47 41 87.3%
DANYILLE
1 Fl at 122 100 82%
2 Fl at 003 700 86.4%
3 Moderately Hll 1 Y 144 128 88 .9J
4 Very Hll 1 y (El Pi ntado) 79 44 55.7%
.
Centra~ Contra Costa Sanitary .Jistrict
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAGE 1 OF 7
POSITION
PAPER
BOARD MEETING OF
June 22, 1989
NO.
IV.
SOLID WASTE
2
SUBJECT
DATE
RECEIVE DISTRICT ANALYSES OF APPlICATIONS FOR REFUSE
COLLECTION RATE INCREASES SUBMITTED BY V ALLEY WASTE
MANPGEMENT, ORINDA-MORPGA DISPOSAL SERV ICE, INC.
AND PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL
June 19, 1989
TYPE OF ACTION
REV IEW REFUSE
COLLECTION RATE
APPLICATIONS
SUBMITTED BY
INITIATING DEPT.lDIV.
Walter N. Funasaki, Finance Officer
Administrative/Finance and Accounting
ISSUE: The three refuse collection firms franchised by the District have submitted
applications for rate increases effective July 1, 1989. The applications will be
reviewed at a Board Workshop on June 22, 1989, and will be the subject of a Public
Hearing on July 6, 1989.
BACKGROUND: Applications for
refuse collectors as follows:
Disposal Service, Inc., 18.22
percent.
rate increases have been submitted by the franchised
Valley Waste Management, 69.07 percent; Orinda-Moraga
percent; and Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal, 16.07
Analyses of the rate appl ications of Valley Waste Management and Orinda-Moraga
Disposal were completed and distributed on June 8, 1989. The analyses and rate
applications were distributed to the Board of Directors, the affected cities of
Orinda, Moraga, Lafayette and Danville, and the refuse collectors.
The rate application submitted by Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal and the staff
analysis thereon are being distributed to the Board of Directors with this Position
Pa pe r .
The major issues which are common to all three rate applications are the significant
increase in di sposal expenses which has recently occurred and the uncertai nty
regarding future increases, and the implementation of recycling programs.
Disposal Expenses
Acme Fill Corporation increased its disposal fee 87 percent from $25.13 per
ton to $47 per ton on February 1, 1989. This significant increase followed
even more pronounced increases of 118 percent on J ul y 1, 1987 and 140
percent on April 1, 1985. These major escal ations in disposal expenses
have propelled this expense from representing approximately 8 percent of
total operating expenses of the refuse collectors in 1984 to nearly 36
percent for the 1989-1990 rate-setti ng period, even surpassi ng Driver and
Helper labor expense as the highest expense component.
All th ree refuse coll ectors used the Acme 1 andfill for the di sposal of
collected refuse until July 1988. In July 1988, Pleasant Hill Bay Shore
Disposal redirected all collected refuse to the GBF landfill in East
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION
. ~ IN~ TI~ATIN~G DEPT..IDIV. _
~_;za~_LV
1302A-9/85 WN F
SUBJECT
RECEIVE DISTRICT ANALYSES OF APPLICATIONS FOR REFUSE
COLLECTION RATE INCREASES SUBMITTED BY V ALLEY WASTE
MANPGEMENT, ORINDA-MORPGA DISPOSAL SERV ICE, INC.
AND PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL
POSITION
PAPER
2
OF
7
PAGE
DATE
June 19, 1989
County, and Ori nda-Moraga Di sposa 1 redi rected resi denti a 1 and commerci a 1
refuse to the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill in West County; however,
in mid-April 1989, because of concerns of the City of Richmond, Orinda-
Moraga Disposal returned to disposing of residential refuse at the Acme
landfill, and redirected the drop box refuse from the Acme landfill to the
West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill.
Acme Fill Corporation has constructed a temporary transfer station on its
landfill site for use when the Acme landfill ceases operations. It is
anticipated to cease operations during the July 1, 1989 through June 30,
1990 rate-setting period; however, the closing date of the Acme landfill is
unknown. A review of the fee to be charged at the transfer station, as
well as the basi s for the closure and post-closure mai ntenance costs
projected for the Acme landfill, which is being performed by a consultant
commi ssi oned by the County, is schedul ed to be compl eted in August or
September 1989. A preliminary report issued by the County's consultant
proposed al ternatives for financi ng the closure and post-closure
mainentance costs of the landfill. A basic assumption of the alternatives
proposed is the payment of a significant portion of the closure and
post-closure maintenance costs of the Acme landfill as part of the transfer
stati on fee.
The disposal expense to be incurred by Valley Waste Management and
Orinda-Moraga Disposal when the Acme landfill ceases operations during the
rate-setting period is the major uncertainty in the rate-setting process
this year.
RecyclinQ ProQrams
Recycl ing programs proposed by each of the three refuse collectors have
previously been considered and approved by the Board of Directors.
The resul ts of the three-month pll ot program recently compl eted by Valley
Waste Management in the communities of Danville, Alamo and Lafayette are
being presented in a separate Position Paper on June 22, 1989.
Authorization for full-scale implementation of a curbside recycling program
throughout Valley Waste Management's franchised zone is being recommended.
The increment to refuse collection rates for the curbside recycling program
will be determined on the basis of the pilot program results, and a report
prepared by Price Waterhouse of the net expense per residential customer of
other surveyed recycl ing programs.
Orinda-Moraga Disposal is scheduled to implement its curbside recycling
program in September 1989. The increment to its residential refuse
collection rates will be determined on the basis of projected operating
results prepared by the refuse collector's consultant, and the previously
described report prepared by Price Waterhouse.
1302B-9/85
. ___._.____....^__~___."___._.._..____,._.___+".____M_~,.-.----~---__r_--~.-.-..--.----.------~-".,.---.--.-.----
SUBJECT
RECEIVE DISTRICT ANALYSES OF APPLICATIONS FOR REFUSE
COLLECTION RATE INCREASES SLBMITTED BY V ALLEY WASTE
MANPGEMENT, ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERV ICE, INC.
AND PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL
POSITION
PAPER
PAGE
DATE
3
OF
7
June 19. 1989
The curbside and drop-off recycl ing program by Pleasant Hill Bay Shore
Disposal was implemented this month. The recycling program will be
eval uated by Di strict staff throughout the summer, and a report on the
program will be issued to this Board and the Pacheco Town Council in
September 1989. The refuse collector has advised the District that it does
not seek to recover the net expense of the recycl ing program through an
increment to the refuse collection rates at this time.
The above issues, and other issues which are unique to individual refuse collectors,
are described by refuse collector in the balance of this Position Paper.
Vallev Waste Manaaemen~
The analysis of the rate appl ication submitted by Valley Waste Management was
prepared by Price Waterhouse and distributed on June 8, 1989. Since its
distribution, a number of attachments in the analysis were found to be incomplete.
These attachments have been completed and are included in the revised report which
is being distributed with this Position Paper.
The major issues in establishing refuse collection rates for Valley Waste Management
effective July 1, 1989 are summarized in the following sections:
Disposal Expense
Due to the uncertainty regarding the transfer station fee to be charged by
the Acme temporary transfer station and the date the Acme landfill will
cease operations, the disposal expense to be used for rate-setting cannot
be forecasted with a normal level of assurance. A number of disposal fee
assumptions have been presented in Attachment VI of the analysis. One of
the assumptions is based on the present disposal fee of $47 per ton; under
this assumption, it would be appropriate to provide for a subsequent
adjustment to collection rates during the rate-setting period when the
transfer station fee is known, and the resulting forecasted disposal
expense differs si gnificantly from the di sposal expense based on the $47
per ton disposal fee.
Unrealized Profit
When Acme Fi 11 Corporati on rai sed its di sposal fee by 87 percent on
February 1, 1989, Valley Waste Management submitted a request for a rate
adjustment, contending that the collection rates established in last year's
rate-setting process did not provide for so significant an increase in its
major operating expense. The Board denied the request. Valley Waste
Management has included in this year's rate application, a resubm1ssion of
1 ast year's d1 sposal expense 1 ncrease, offset by var1 ances 1 n forecasted
revenues and expenses, as summarized below:
13028-9/85
-'----.-----"--.-'--.,-~-'---___r"-.--..-.-'-.--,-..^.--,---.--.,.-..-----.,---.-.,--.-.-,-----.~..--.
SUBJECT
POSITION
PAPER
RECEIVE DISTRICT ANAlYSES OF APPlICATIONS FOR REFUSE
COLLECTION RATE INCREASES SUBMITTED BY V ALLEY WASTE
MANJlGEMENT, ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERV ICE, INC.
AND PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAl
From Attachment III Of Analysis:
4
7
PAGE
DATE
June 19, 1989
OF
Vari ance Between Revenues and Expenses Forecasted In Last Year's
Rate-Setting For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1989 And Projected
Actual Results
Revenues
Disposal Expense
Driver and Helper Expense
Truck and Equipment-Fixed
Truck and Equipment-Variable
Vehicle Repair Expense
Containers Repair Expense
General and Administrative
Franchise Fee
Operating Expenses
Net Variance
V ari ance
Increase <Decrease>
$<91,000>
705,000
<433,000>
<4,000>
<30,000>
<106,000>
59,000
91,000
16,000
298,000
J389,000
The net amount of $389,000 is described as "Unreal ized Profit" in the Price
Waterhouse report, and is i ncl uded as an addi ti on to forecasted Di sposa 1
Expense for this year's rate-setting period.
Recvclinq Increment
The monthly incremental expense per resi denti al customer for the
three-month pilot program for curbside recycl ing has been computed by
Valley Waste Management. The summaries of revenues and expenses for each
of the three months are included in the report on the pilot program being
submitted on June 22, 1989 by a separate Position Paper. The monthly
incremental expense computed per residential customer in the pilot program
based on averagi ng the resul ts for April and May 1989 is $1.05. A
comparative review of monthly incremental expenses of other curbside
recycl ing programs prepared by Price Waterhouse, and submitted with this
Position Paper, indicates a range from $.88 to $1.05.
Automated Curbside Collection
Included in the three-month pilot program were a small number of
participants who received automated curbside collection. The participants'
comments and opinions regarding their experience with automated curbside
collection are described in the report on the pilot program.
13028-9/85
SUBJECT
RECEIVE DISTRICT ANALYSES OF APPLICATIONS FOR REFUSE
COLLECTION RATE INCREASES SUBMITTED BY V ALLEY WASTE
MANffiEMENT, ORINDA-MORAGA DISPOSAL SERV ICE, INC.
AND PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL
POSITION PAPER
PAGE 5 OF 7
DATE
June 19, 1989
Valley Waste Management has not provided the financial results of the
three-month pilot program related to automated curbside collection. The
collector has indicated it intends to incorporate the results of the pilot
program in a new proposal to the District to provide automated curbside
collection. A letter from Valley Waste Management which presents its
proposal is being received in time for transmittal with this Position
Paper, but without opportunity for study and comment by District staff.
Price Waterhouse has prepared a comparative report of automated curbsi de
coll ecti on programs in other communiti es, which is bei ng submitted with
this Position Paper.
Orinda-Moraaa Disposal Service. Inc.
The maj or issues in th is refuse coll ector's rate-setti ng for the J ul y 1, 1989
through June 30, 1990 period are described below:
Disposal Expenses
Because of the high degree of uncertai nty regardi ng the Acme temporary
transfer station fee and the date the Acme landfill will cease operations,
the disposal expense to be forecasted for this collector's residential
refuse during the rate-setting period cannot be made with a normal level of
assurance. A number of alternative disposal fee assumptions are presented
on Attachment VI of the staff analysis. One of the assumptions is based on
the current $47 per ton di sposal fee; under th is assumpti on, it woul d be
appropriate to provide for adjustment to collection rates during the
rate-setting period when the transfer fee is known, and the resulting
forecasted disposal expense differs significantly from the disposal
expense based on the $47 per ton disposal fee.
Recvcl inQ Increment
Orinda-Moraga Disposal was granted approval to implement a curbside
recycling program during the rate-setting period. The monthly incremental
expense of the recycling program will be established on the basis of
operating results projected by the refuse collector, and the Price
Waterhouse report of comparative monthly incremental expense of other
curbside recycling programs.
Based on the assessment of the monthly incremental expense of the curbside
recycl i ng program to resi denti al and commerci al customers, Ori nda-Moraga
Disposal proposes a $1 per month increment to collection rates.
13028-9/85
SUBJECT
RECEIVE DISTRICT ANALYSES OF APPLICATIONS FOR REFUSE
COLLECTION RATE INCREASES SUBMITTED BY V ALLEY WASTE
MANPGEMENT, ORINDA-~RPGA DISPOSAL SERV ICE, INC.
AND PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL
POSITION
PAPER
PAGE
6
OF
7
DATE
June 19, 1989
Pleasant Hill Bay Shore DispOsal
Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal has submitted an application for a rate increase
based onl y on an increase in disposal expense and high er transportati on expenses,
with all other expenses being the same as in last year's rate-setting period. The
staff analysis has been completed and is being submitted with this Position Paper.
As described in the staff analysis, a rate increase of 2.25 percent was originally
appl ied for, but subsequently changed to 16.07 percent. Because of the need for
further review of the bases for the significant change in the rate increase
requested, the analysis is marked "Draft."
Disposal Expense
All of the refuse collected by this refuse collector is being disposed of
at the GBF landfill. Therefore, this collector's disposal expense is not
subject to the uncertainty surrounding the Acme temporary transfer station
fee, and the terminal date of the Acme landfill.
Recvclinq Increment
Pleasant Hill Bay Shore Disposal has informed the District that it does not
intend to seek reimbursement in this rate-setting period for the
incremental expense of the recycling program which it implemented this
month.
Staff Proposals for Board Consideration
The following staff proposals are made for consideration by the Board:
Disposal Expenses
o It is proposed that the $47 per ton disposal fee at the Acme landfill
be used to establish the collection rates for Valley Waste Management
and Orinda-Moraga Di sposal for the current rate-setti ng period. If
the Acme landfill ceases operations during the rate-setting period and
forecasted disposal expenses increase or decrease significantly
because of the need to use the Acme temporary transfer stati on or
other reasons, collection rates should be re-established.
o The disposal expense increase incurred by Valley Waste Management in
the prior fiscal year caused by the unanticipated 87 percent increase
in the Acme landfill disposal fee on February 1, 1989 should be
permitted as a unique adj ustment in the current rate-setti ng period.
The collector has proposed that the $705,000 excess of disposal
expenses incurred in the prior fiscal year over forecasted di sposal
expenses be netted against a total credit variance in all other
accounts of $316,000, thereby recovering a net $389,000 charge for the
13028-9/85
- --.-----,.---..---...-,.---.--'--.-~------~.-.__r_____-~.-..,-~.-.---_.--~.-~-.._~-."--''".....--.-.,.~.--.-.---.-~-~,-..--,,--..----.-,~-_."._-,-...~..-..
SUBJECT
RECEIVE DISTRICT ANALYSES OF APPLICATIONS FOR REFUSE
COLLECTION RATE INCREASES SlBMITTED BY VALLEY WASTE
MANIGEMENT, ORINDA-MORPGA DISPOSAl.. SERV ICE, INC.
AND PLEASANT HILL BAY SHORE DISPOSAL
POSITION PAPER
PAGE 7
DATE
OF 7
June 19, 1989
prior period through the current rate-setting period. Staff proposes that
such recovery be approved through a surcharge on collection rates which is
to expire at the end of the current rate-setting period.
Recvclina ProQrams
In a report accompanying this Position Paper, Price Waterhouse indicates
that the Incremental Expense Per Resi dence for a small number of simil ar
recycling programs surveyed ranged from $.88 to $1.05 per month.
Staff proposes that the incremental charge for Valley Waste Management and
Orinda-Moraga Disposal be set at $.95 per month. The proposed incremental
charge by Valley Waste Management is $1.05 per month per residential
customer. Orinda-Moraga Disposal proposes an incremental charge of $1 per
month per residential and commercial customer. Staff bases its proposed
incremental charge of $.95 per month on the following:
o The incremental charge is influenced greatly by the vagaries of a
volatile market for recyclable materials; however, higher volumes of
recyclables which would result from full-scale programs and a more
efficient method of marketing the recyclables should reduce the
incremental charge developed in Valley Waste Management's pilot
recycling program. .
o The incremental charge developed in Valley Waste Management's pilot
recycling program' for the full three-month period, excluding interest
expense, was $.91 per month.
o The in1ti al incremental charge of $.95 per month will be adj usted in
the subsequent rate-setting period, based on the recycling program
revenues and expenses recorded during the current rate-setting period.
The adjustment will be incorporated in the refuse collection
rate-setting process covering the July 1, 1990 through June 30, 1991
peri ode
The incremental charge should be added to the refuse collection rate for
billing purposes beginning in the month the recycling program is provided
to the customer. As customers are billed on a quarterly basis,
prescheduling of the month of implementation would be required to reflect
the incremental charge on the affected quarterly billing; otherwise, a
retroactive charge on the subsequent quarter's billing woul d be requi red.
By direction of the Board, billings to customers should separately identify
the portion of the monthly single-can collection rate which is attributable
to disposal expense at the Aane landfill. The disposal expense amount
should be determined by District staff and provided to the refuse
collectors.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive the District analyses of the applications for rate
increases submitted by Valley Waste Management, Orinda-Moraga Disposal Service, Inc.
and Pleasant Hill Bay S~ore Disposal, and provide staff with comments and guidance.
13028-9/85
. '-'.'--".--" ..-.... ....__H ..B....._._.._.__.. .......-.----r..- ...._____..._.. ._B.'._ .._ ......____..