Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout63-City Administrator c - li 00 j - - o o o AGBNDA July 17, 1989 Luncheon Workshop on Refuse Related Issues 1. Paul Ryan, Director of Environmental Health, County of San Bernardino. 2. Jim Wunderman, William Merry, Norcal Company. 3. Meredith Weischad1e, city of Redlands 4. Rudy Umana, City of Colton 5. Bill Jaycocks. 6. Marshall W. Julian, city Administrator - - - - a ~ o C I T Y 0 F ~A N B E R ~ R DIN 0 INTE~FICE MEMORANDUM 8906-910 4 TO: Marshall W. Julian, city Administrator FROM: Fred A. Wilson, Assistant to the City Administrator SUBJECT: Curbside Recycling Program DATE: June 30, 1989 COPIES: James E. RObbins, Deputy City Administrator, Manuel P. Moreno, Jr., Director of Public Services/street, Phil Arvizo, Executive Assistant to Council ------------------------------------------------------------- The purpose of this memorandum is to outline a implementation of a citywide curbside recycling should be noted that there are 3 major types of cost for program. recycling: the It 1. Commercial Recycling 2. Residential Curbside Recycling 3. Yard Composting Since curbside recycling generally only addresses single family residential homes, it only addresses a small part of the waste stream. Various sources consulted indicate that approximately 30% of the waste stream is generated by residential collection with yard materials making up 20% and commercial collection the remaining 50%. The collection of recycled materials from the other sources involve separate issues from a curbside recycling program. with the recent award of contract by the County to Norcal for the operation of the landfill sites, there has been some discussion relative to the construction of a materials recovery facility in east and west valley locations. Although a decision has not been reached regarding whether these facilities will be constructed, this issue should be closely monitored as it will impact a curbside recycling program. o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: 0906-910 CUrbside Recycling Program June 30, 1989 Page 2 o o COST FOR CURBSIDE RECYCLING This cost estimate for establishing a comprehensive citywide curbside recycling program is based on a review of the City of Ontario's recycling program as well as a review of reference materials on the subject of recycling. In the development of these cost figures, the following assumptions were used: 1. Once per week recycling collection. 2. Materials to be collected include aluminum and glass. newspapers, 3. The number of single family homes in the program was assumed to be 28,000. In determining the number of actual routes which would be necessary to service the entire city, the experience of Ontario was utilized as opposed to the recommendations of the reference materials. The greatest difficulty in determining the number of routes was the expected participation rate. The most successful recycling programs have participation rates of approximately 50% of all households. Generally, these participation rates are only achieved with extensive public relations and marketing efforts. Only a few communities including Santa Monica and Irvine have actually achieved participation rates this high. The City of Ontario's participation rate ranges from 15 to 20%. with this level of participation, the City employs 3 recycling vehicles to provide once per week recycling collection on the citywide basis. The program services approximately 23,000 homes. Using this participation rate as a base, it is estimated that a curbside recycling program could be established in San Bernardino with a minimum of 4 recycling trucks. The cost for this element of the program is estimated at: RECYCLING PROGRAM Personnel 3 Recycling Operators 1 Recycling Coordinator Fringe benefits @ 28% $ 90,000 40,000 36.000 166,000 o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM:~906-9l0 Curbside Recycling Program June 30, 1989 Page 3 o o Materials/Services Operation and Maintenance costs ($1.75/mi. x 10,000 mi/yr. x 3 trucks) Maintenance Materials Marketing and Promotion Other Materials/Services 52,500 5,000 20,000 5.000 82,500 Equipment Recycling Vehicles ($75,000 x 3 ) 6 year Amortization 37,500 containers ($lO/home x 28,000 homes) 280.000 $ 317,500 Total Program Cost $ 566,000 Note - processing costs are not analysis as it is assumed that performed by an outside contractor. This budget represents an approximate first year program start up cost to establish a citywide curbside recycling program. The annual recurring cost would be substantially less. included in this service this cost would be Revenues - It is difficult to determine the amount of revenue which could be anticipated from a curbside recycling program because of the cyclical nature of the recyclable market. Ontario estimates that they generate approximate $3,500 to $4,000 per month in revenues from the selling of recyclable materials. The City contracts with a private firm for the processing of all recycled materials. This firm does not charge the City for this service; rather it retains 50% of the revenues which are derived from recycling. The City's revenue estimates listed above represent their actual revenue which is 50% of the total. Ontario has projected collecting approximately 1,000 tons of newspaper, 500 tons of glass and 350 tons of aluminum cans for fiscal year 1988/89. It was noted that their recycling program saved approximately 227 refuse vehicle trips to the landfill sites. Although they could not estimate the savings which resulted because of the reduction in the number of trips to the landfill sites, o INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM: <:)906-910 Curbside Recycling Program June 30, 1989 Page 4 o o it was indicated that this was a substantial savings of a recycling program. without incorporating the savings landfill, it is estimated that the program could be established at $510,000 which would represent an $1.45 in monthly refuse bills. This represents a brief a recycling program. required, please let me analysis If more know. FRED A. WILSON Assistant to the City Administrator FAW/sh in reduced trips to the first year of a recycling a cost of approximately increase of approximately of the cost of establishing detailed information is