REGULAR MEETING OF THE MIDLAND CITY COUNCIL ... - Midland, MI

0 downloads 238 Views 8MB Size Report
Aug 22, 2016 - 2016 St. Andrews Road Bridge Over Snake Creek; Contract No. 10. MCMANUS ..... Texas Buy Board Purchasing
Page 1

City Hall  333 West Ellsworth Street  Midland, Michigan 48640  989.837.3300 * 989.837.2717 Fax  www.cityofmidlandmi.gov

REGULAR MEETING OF THE MIDLAND CITY COUNCIL City Hall, 333 W. Ellsworth Street August 22, 2016

7:00 PM AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER - Maureen Donker, Mayor PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL -

Thomas W. Adams Steve Arnosky Diane Brown Wilhelm Maureen Donker Marty A. Wazbinski

CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: All resolutions marked with an asterisk are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate consideration of these items unless a Council member or citizen so requests during the discussion stage of the "Motion to adopt the Consent Agenda as indicated." If there is even a single request the item will be removed from the consent agenda without further motion and considered in its listed sequence in regular fashion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1.

* Approve minutes of the August 15 regular City Council meeting. TISDALE

PROCLAMATIONS, AWARDS, RECOGNITIONS, PRESENTATIONS: PUBLIC HEARINGS: PUBLIC COMMENTS, IF ANY, BEFORE CITY COUNCIL. This is an opportunity for people to address the City Council on issues that are relevant to Council business but are not on the agenda. ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS:

Page 2

2.

Introduction and first reading of an ordinance amending Sections 15-130, 15-132, 15-135, and 15-136 of Division 2 of Article V of Chapter 15 of the Midland Code of Ordinances - Midland Community Television. BEACOM

3.

Introduction and first reading of an ordinance amending Section 21-121 of Division 4 of Article VII of Chapter 21 of the Midland Code of Ordinances MCTV Use Fees. BEACOM

RESOLUTIONS: 4.

Accepting a report on the 2016 Construction Season Progress. MCMANUS

5.

Accepting a grant from The Herbert H. and Grace A. Dow Foundation for sidewalk construction along Northwood Drive. MCMANUS

6.

* Approving a grant request from the Midland Public Schools for new production equipment to support MPS-TV. BEACOM

Considering purchases and contracts: 7.

Four Residential Refuse Trucks - Public Services. MURPHY

8.

* Installation of stainless steel dump body and equipment for refurbished dump truck. MURPHY

9.

* 2016 Wackerly Road Culvert Replacement; Contract No. 15. MCMANUS

10.

* 2016 St. Andrews Road Bridge Over Snake Creek; Contract No. 10. MCMANUS

11.

* 2016 Cambridge Street Reconstruction and Water Main; Contract No. 09. MCMANUS

12.

* Earth Moving Services - Landfill. SOVA

13.

* Valley Drive Improvements - Water. SOVA

Setting a public hearing: NEW BUSINESS:

TO CONTACT THE CITY WITH QUESTIONS OR FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Citizen Comment Line: City of Midland website address: City of Midland email address: Government Information Center:

837-3400 www.cityofmidlandmi.gov [email protected] located near the reference desk at the Grace A. Dow Memorial Library

Page 3

Backup material for agenda item: 1.

* Approve minutes of the August 15 regular City Council meeting. TISDALE

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Page 10

Page 11

Page 12

Page 13

Backup material for agenda item: 2.

Introduction and first reading of an ordinance amending Sections 15-130, 15-132, 15-135, and 15-136 of Division 2 of Article V of Chapter 15 of the Midland Code of Ordinances - Midland Community Television. BEACOM

Page 14

SUMMARY REPORT TO MANAGER For City Council Meeting of August 22, 2016

SUBJECT:

FIRST READING OF AMENDMENT TO MIDLAND COMMUNITY TELEVISION ORDINANCE

INITIATED BY: Ron Beacom, MCTV

RESOLUTION SUMMARY: This action gives first reading of an ordinance to amend Sections 15-130, 15-132, 15-135, and 15-136 of Division 2 of Article V of Chapter 15 of the Midland Code of Ordinances.

ITEMS ATTACHED: 1. Letter of transmittal 2. Midland Community Television Ordinance

COUNCIL ACTION: 1. 3/5 vote required to give first reading

___________________ Ron Beacom Manager of MCTV & Library Communications

Page 15

Page 16

Page 17

FIRST READING ORDINANCE NO. ______________ AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MIDLAND, MICHIGAN, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 15-130, 15-132, 15-135, AND 15-136 OF DIVISION 2 OF ARTICLE V OF CHAPTER 15 THEREOF. The City of Midland Ordains: Section 1. Sections 15-130, 15-132, 15-135 and 15-136 of Division 2 of Article V of Chapter 15 are hereby amended to read as follows: MIDLAND COMMUNITY TELEVISION (MCTV)* Sec. 15-130. Purpose of MCTV. (a) The Midland Community Television (MCTV) studio has been established at the Grace A. Dow Memorial Library to provide production equipment and support services necessary for the creation of locally produced television programs. (b) It is the purpose of MCTV to provide the people and organizations in the Midland area with an opportunity to be involved in using the television medium to inform, communicate, educate and entertain. It is also the purpose of MCTV to provide the Midland community with locally produced programs of public interest. (c)

The following television channels shall be operated by MCTV:

(1)

Channel 3. This channel shall be known as The "public access channel" and shall be used solely to cablecast non-profit, non-commercial programming produced or sponsored by individuals or organizations in the Midland area. When the aforementioned programming is not scheduled, this channel may cablecast either an electronic message board to be known as the "public access electronic message board" or the Channel 15 electronic message board FROM THE MESSAGE BOARD CHANNEL. The public access electronic message board shall be used solely for promotion of the public access channel and shall not be used for "forprofit" commercials or advertisements. Messages cablecast on the public access electronic message board may not contain any of the following:

(2)

a.

Obscene material as the same is defined and regulated under Act No. 343 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1984, being MCL 752.362 et seq.

b.

Slanderous or libelous material.

Channel 5. This channel shall be known as The "government access channel" and shall be used solely to cablecast non-profit, non-commercial programs produced

Page 18

or submitted by government agencies. When the aforementioned programming is not scheduled, this channel shall cablecast an electronic message board containing only government related messages submitted by government agencies to be known as the "government electronic message board." As determined by the city administration, electronic messages advising of emergencies, including but not limited to weather emergencies, shall take precedence over all other programming on this channel. (3)

Channel 15. The second public access channel SHALL BE KNOWN AS THE “MESSAGE BOARD CHANNEL” AND shall be used primarily to cablecast the electronic message board. Public access programming that would have been cablecast on the Channel 3 PUBLIC ACCESS CHANNEL but for scheduling constraints may also be cablecast on Channel 15 THE MESSAGE BOARD CHANNEL.

(4)

THE EDUCATIONAL ACCESS CHANNEL SHALL BE USED PRIMARILY TO CABLECAST A MESSAGE BOARD AND PROGRAMMING PRODUCED FOR THE MIDLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AS DETERMINED BY THE MIDLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION.

Sec. 15-132. Channel 15 PUBLIC ACCESS electronic message board restrictions. (a)

The electronic message board cablecast on Channel 15 MESSAGE BOARD CHANNEL is for informational purposes only and may be used for:

(1)

The promotion of community activities, meetings or events by organizations or individuals.

(2)

Editorial messages, the source of which shall be identified and included with the message.

(b)

The electronic message board shall not be used for "for-profit" commercials or advertisements.

(c)

No electronic message shall be cablecast that contains any of the following:

(1)

Obscene material as the same is defined and regulated under Act No. 343 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1984, being MCL 752.362 et seq.

(2)

Slanderous or libelous material.

Sec. 15-135. Same--Membership.

Page 19

Membership of the commission shall consist of five (5) voting members appointed by the city council. Three (3) members shall be current registered MCTV access users, one (1) member shall be a school representative as designated by the Midland Public Schools, and one (1) member shall be a citizen at large and must be a current cable television subscriber. Each member shall be a resident of the city. The person from the administrative staff of the city who has been designated by the city manager as the MCTV coordinator MANAGER shall be an ex officio member of the commission but without the right to vote. Sec. 15-136. Same--Term of members. Each member of the commission shall be appointed for a term of three (3) years commencing on July 1 except that the members first appointed shall begin their terms immediately. with three (3) two (2) of said members being appointed for terms ending June 30, 2003, two (2) of said members being appointed for terms ending June 30, 2002, and two (2) one (1) members being appointed for terms ending June 30, 2001.

Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT: I, Selina Tisdale, City Clerk, City of Midland, Counties of Bay and Midland, State of Michigan, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an ordinance adopted by a yea vote of all the Councilmen present at a regular meeting of the City Council held Monday,

_______________________________________ Selina Tisdale, City Clerk

Page 20

Backup material for agenda item: 3.

Introduction and first reading of an ordinance amending Section 21-121 of Division 4 of Article VII of Chapter 21 of the Midland Code of Ordinances MCTV Use Fees. BEACOM

Page 21

SUMMARY REPORT TO MANAGER For City Council Meeting of August 22, 2016

SUBJECT:

FIRST READING OF AN AMENDMENT TO MCTV FEES ORDINANCE

INITIATED BY: Ron Beacom, MCTV

RESOLUTION SUMMARY: This action gives first reading of an ordinance to amend Section 21-121 of Division 4 of Article VII of Chapter 21 of the Midland Code of Ordinances.

ITEMS ATTACHED: 1. Letter of transmittal 2. MCTV Fees Ordinance

COUNCIL ACTION: 1. 3/5 vote required to give first reading

___________________ Ron Beacom Manager of MCTV & Library Communications

Page 22

Page 23

Page 24

Page 25

Page 26

Backup material for agenda item: 4.

Accepting a report on the 2016 Construction Season Progress. MCMANUS

Page 27

SUMMARY REPORT TO THE CITY MANAGER for City Council Meeting of August 22, 2016

SUBJECT:

2016 Construction Season Progress Update

INITIATED BY:

City of Midland Engineering Department

RESOLUTION SUMMARY: This resolution receives and files a report from the City Engineer regarding street construction progress in the 2016 construction season.

ITEMS ATTACHED:

1. Cover Letter 2. Resolution 3. Chart

CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 3/5 vote required to approve resolution SUBMITTED BY:

Brian P. McManus, City Engineer

Page 28

City Hall  333 West Ellsworth Street  Midland, Michigan 48640-5132  989.837.3300  989.835.2717 Fax

August 17, 2016

TO:

Jon Lynch, City Manager

SUBJECT:

Construction Progress Update

Dear Mr. Lynch: As we approach the midway point of the construction season we thought that it would be timely to provide an update on construction progress. The attached chart indicates the project progress. The program in general is on schedule. Several projects are complete or near completion including the W. Sugnet extension, Blarney and Leeway reconstruction, Ottawa Street reconstruction, and others. We are gearing up for the late summer/fall construction with more projects being awarded to contractors in August, such as St. Andrews Bridge replacement, Cambridge Street and the annual sidewalk program. Construction expenditures have been contained within budget allotments as well. We will provide a detailed look at specific projects, including some ongoing MDOT work on Monday evening during the presentation.

Respectfully Submitted,

____________________________ Brian McManus, City Engineer

Page 29

City Hall  333 West Ellsworth Street  Midland, Michigan 48640-5132  989.837.3300  989.835.2717 Fax

BY COUNCILMAN

WHEREAS, the City Engineer reported the status of completion for projects in the 2016 Construction Program to date; now therefore RESOLVED, that City Council hereby receives and files this midseason Construction Progress Report.

YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT: I, Selina Tisdale, City Clerk, City of Midland, Counties of Bay and Midland, State of Michigan, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by a yea vote of all the Councilmen present at a regular meeting of the City Council held Monday, August 22, 2016.

__________________________ Selina Tisdale, City Clerk

Page 30

Page 31

Backup material for agenda item: 5.

Accepting a grant from The Herbert H. and Grace A. Dow Foundation for sidewalk construction along Northwood Drive. MCMANUS

Page 32

SUMMARY REPORT TO MANAGER For City Council Meeting of August 22, 2016

SUBJECT: Accept a grant from The Herbert H. and Grace A. Dow Foundation for sidewalk construction along Northwood Drive.

INITIATED BY: City of Midland Engineering Department

RESOLUTION SUMMARY: This resolution accepts a grant from The Herbert H. and Grace A. Dow Foundation in the amount of $78,000 to fund pedestrian sidewalk construction along Northwood Drive.

ITEMS ATTACHED: 1.

Letter of Transmittal

2. Resolution COUNCIL ACTION: 3/5 vote required to approve resolution

Brian McManus City Engineer

Page 33

City Hall  333 West Ellsworth Street  Midland, Michigan 48640-5132  989.837.3300  989.835.2717 Fax

August 17, 2016

TO:

Jon Lynch, City Manager

SUBJECT:

Accept a Grant from The Herbert H. and Grace A. Dow Foundation

For several years we have observed pedestrian movement from the apartment complexes on the north side of Saginaw Road to Northwood University. Students walking to the university are often seen walking on Northwood Drive within traffic lanes. After discussing this with Northwood University, they requested a grant from The Herbert H. and Grace A. Dow Foundation for the cost to construct the sidewalk. The Foundation has agreed to pay for the sidewalk and Northwood has agreed to perform ice and snow maintenance. The project was discussed at the annual Project Priority meeting in January and was included in the current city budget. At the August 15, 2016 City Council meeting a contract was awarded and the work is expected to begin in a few weeks. We are very thankful to the Trustees of The Herbert H. and Grace A. Dow Foundation for awarding this grant to help relieve a community public safety concern for Northwood University students and others. This resolution formally accepts the grant of $78,000 from The Herbert H. and Grace A. Dow Foundation for the sidewalk construction along Northwood Drive. Respectfully Submitted,

____________________________ Brian McManus, City Engineer

Page 34

City Hall  333 West Ellsworth Street  Midland, Michigan 48640-5132  989.837.3300  989.835.2717 Fax

BY COUNCILMAN

WHEREAS, the City of Midland has received a grant in the amount of $78,000 from The Herbert H. and Grace A. Dow Foundation to fund sidewalk construction along Northwood Drive; and WHEREAS, The Herbert H. and Grace A. Dow Foundation has pledged funding for the sidewalk in order to relieve a community safety concern with students walking in traffic lanes; now therefore RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Midland hereby accepts the grant of $78,000 from The Herbert H. and Grace A. Dow Foundation to fund sidewalk construction along Northwood Drive.

YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT:

I, Selina Tisdale, City Clerk, City of Midland, Counties of Bay and Midland, State of Michigan, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by a yea vote of all the Councilmen present at a regular meeting of the City Council held Monday, August 22, 2016.

____________________________________ Selina Tisdale, City Clerk

Page 35

Backup material for agenda item: 6.

* Approving a grant request from the Midland Public Schools for new production equipment to support MPS-TV. BEACOM

Page 36

SUMMARY REPORT TO MANAGER For City Council Meeting of August 22, 2016

SUBJECT:

MPS-TV Grant

INITIATED BY: Ron Beacom, MCTV

RESOLUTION SUMMARY: This resolution approves a request from the Midland Public Schools for a grant from the City of Midland’s MCTV Fund for $47,800 for the purchase of new production equipment to support the Midland Public Schools TV channel. ITEMS ATTACHED: 1. Letter of transmittal 2. Letter from Midland Public Schools 3. Resolution

COUNCIL ACTION: 1. 3/5 vote to approve resolution

___________________ Ron Beacom Manager of MCTV & Library Communications

Page 37

Page 38

Page 39

City Hall  333 West Ellsworth Street  Midland, Michigan 48640-5132  989.837.3300  989.835.2717 Fax

BY COUNCILMAN

WHEREAS, the Midland Public Schools operate an educational access TV channel, MPSTV, with annual financial support from the City of Midland’s MCTV Fund; and WHEREAS, the Midland Public Schools is requesting $47,800 for new production equipment for MPS-TV; and WHEREAS, funding is available in the 2016-17 MCTV Fund; now therefore RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby approves the request from the Midland Public Schools and authorizes the City of Midland to disperse $47,800 to the Midland Public Schools. YEAS: NAYS: ABSENT: I, Selina Tisdale, City Clerk, City of Midland, Counties of Bay and Midland, State of Michigan, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution adopted by a yea vote of all of the Councilmen present at a regular meeting of the City Council held Monday, August 22, 2016. ______________________________ Selina Tisdale, City Clerk

Page 40

Backup material for agenda item: 7.

Four Residential Refuse Trucks - Public Services. MURPHY

Page 41

SUMMARY REPORT TO MANAGER For City Council Meeting of August 22, 2016

SUBJECT:

Purchase of four residential refuse trucks

INITIATED BY:

Department of Public Services

RESOLUTION SUMMARY:

This resolution authorizes a purchase order in the amount of $1,179,100 to Grande Truck Service C/O Standard Equipment Company of Chicago, Illinois for the purchase of four residential refuse trucks based on the Texas Buy Board Purchasing Cooperative agreement. This resolution also authorizes the City Manager to approve changes to the purchase order not to exceed 5% of the total cost.

ITEMS ATTACHED: 1. Transmittal letter to City Manager 2. GBB Report 3. Resolution

CITY COUNCIL ACTION: 1. 3/5 vote required to approve resolution

___________________________________ Karen Murphy Director of Public Services

Page 42

Department of Public Services 4811 North Saginaw Road  Midland, Michigan 48640  989.837.6900 989.835.5651 Fax www.cityofmidlandmi.gov

August 16, 2016 Jon Lynch City Manager Midland, Michigan RE: Purchase of four residential refuse trucks There is a current need to replace four of the City’s front-line refuse trucks at a proposed cost of nearly $1,200,000. In consideration of this large expense, staff expended great effort to ensure that their recommendation on which trucks to purchase was well thought out so as to get the best value for the City. The following report details the steps taken by staff which includes:  A review of the replacement demand for the trucks  A comparison of costs for in-house provision of the service versus hiring a private contractor to provide the service  A study on the current semi-automated collection method versus converting to a fully automated method  A comprehensive evaluation of which brand of trucks to purchase  A summary of recommended action

REPLACEMENT DEMAND The City’s curbside refuse collection system utilizes custom-built dual stream front load refuse trucks that allow one driver to collect both yard waste and refuse in one stop. The trucks have a split body to keep both commodities separate until the truck reaches the Landfill, where the refuse is dumped into the landfill cell and the yard waste is dumped at the compost pad for processing. Keeping the two commodities separate is a requirement by the State of Michigan as yard waste is not currently allowed to be disposed of in a landfill cell. The City has six front-line refuse trucks that are on a 6-year replacement plan. Two of the trucks came due for replacement in FY2015/16 with two more due in FY2016/17. With the cost to replace each truck estimated at over $300,000, staff felt it prudent to do some research into the methods used for refuse collection to ensure that the current dual stream system remains relevant in terms of efficiency and cost effectiveness.

Page 43

Jon Lynch August 16, 2016 Page Two

IN-HOUSE CITY SERVICE VERSUS PRIVATE HAULER CONTRACTED SERVICE To start with, staff conducted a review of the bids that were solicited in 2009 for all curbside collection services to see if the City’s current costs for refuse collection continue to be the same or lower than what the private sector offers. At the time this bid was advertised, prices were requested for curbside refuse and yard waste collection for a five year term. Staff did a comparison of the City’s current costs for refuse collection against the 2014 bid price received from the lowest bidder with a 3% inflationary factor per year that is in line with the cost increases we have experienced for curbside recycling collection services. The results of this are as follows: 2014 low bid for refuse & yard waste using a private hauler contracted service – annual cost: $7.32/collection stop per month x 13,875 collection stops x 12 months = $1,218,780*

2015 estimated cost based on 3% inflation factor = $1,255,343* 2016 estimated cost based on 3% inflation factor = $1,293,004*

*This cost includes only the expense for the refuse trucks and drivers, along with the associated costs for fuel and maintenance. It does not include what the City’s refuse budget pays the Landfill fund for annual tipping fees nor does it include the City’s cost for supervisory services. Both of these costs need to be added to the estimated cost above to get a total cost estimate for converting to a private hauler service. Landfill tipping fees average $200,000 per year and a supervisor charges half of their time each year to oversight of the refuse program at a cost of $93,400, which includes labor, benefits and on-call compensation. Total estimated annual cost for contracted service using a private hauler: $1,586,004

The actual City expenses for in-house refuse collection service for FY 2015/16 were $1,429,996. This figure includes the tipping fees paid to the Landfill along with the supervisor’s expenses. The City’s current costs, when compared to these bid estimates from private haulers, continue to be cost effective and from an environmental standpoint, the work is done with one truck using the City’s dual stream method versus the competitors’ bids that require two trucks to travel down each street – one to collect refuse and one to collect yard waste.

Page 44

Jon Lynch August 16, 2016 Page Three

SEMI-AUTOMATED DUAL STREAM VERSUS AUTOMATED COLLECTION METHODS Next, we wanted to look closer at the dual stream model itself to see if there are other options to make collection more efficient. Many communities that are serviced by private collectors have converted to automated collection methods to improve efficiency. The City currently uses a semi-automated method, where residents can opt to purchase a 95-gallon wheeled refuse and/or yard waste cart, which City staff hook to the front of the truck hopper and tip with a hydraulic tipping unit, or residents can use their own smaller cans and bags that are then manually thrown into the truck hopper by staff. Converting to automated methods would require all residents to have wheeled carts for both refuse and yard waste that are picked up using an automated arm that dumps the contents into the truck. Note that this would present a significant change from the current guidelines for curbside collection by limiting collection to wheeled carts versus trash bags, paper compost bags and smaller residential refuse cans that residents are able to use under the existing collection method. With regard to the logistics of using automated trucks, the City’s recycling program utilizes a fully-automated method where Republic Services has provided all residents with wheeled carts for use, so we know that this method is compatible with the layout of Midland’s streets and neighborhoods in terms of overhead clearance for dumping of the carts and the majority of residents have adjusted to the need to use the cart in order to receive service. In order to look in depth at this process, City Council approved a contract with GBB Solid Waste Management Consultants of Fairfax, Virginia in October 2015 to evaluate the city’s current methods and to make a recommendation on converting to automated methods. GBB visited Midland and spent two days with the supervisors out on the refuse routes to get a good feel for our method of collection. Staff also provided GBB with extensive data related to refuse collection statistics and budgets, along with research done in-house on evaluating various types of automated refuse collection vehicles. GBB spent several months analyzing the data, looking for operational efficiencies and benchmarking City operations against similar communities across the country. Upon completion of their review, GBB reported back that the City’s current operation of dual stream semi-automated collection is much more efficient than they anticipated it would be going into the study. GBB’s initial thoughts were that the City would be able to convert to automated collection vehicles and eliminate one entire collection route, which would mean one less truck and driver required and therefore a significant annual cost savings to provide the service. However, after analyzing the routes and the time needed to collect yard waste and refuse in Midland, GBB found that eliminating a route is not feasible given the volume of materials and time frame to complete collection. Without being able to consolidate routes and eliminate a truck, there would be no significant cost savings or efficiencies realized by converting to automated collection. In fact, converting to automated collection would have additional costs related to providing wheeled carts for refuse and yard waste to every resident so they could

Page 45

Jon Lynch August 16, 2016 Page Four

participate in the new collection method and increased capital costs associated with purchasing the automated trucks. GBB estimated this additional capital expense at $914,500 over a 3 year phase-in period. GBB’s final report recommended that the City of Midland convert to automated collection because they believe there are tangible benefits associated with this method of collection, including a cleaner community with uniform cart service, a happier work force that is not lifting heavy refuse daily and less exposure to potential injury. While the study did not yield the results staff thought it would with regard to an anticipated reduction in fleet size by converting to automated collection, the study did confirm that the current methods being used by the City are indeed efficient and providing a cost-effective method of collecting two curbside commodities with a single truck. Given the added cost to convert to automated refuse collection methods and consideration of the significant change that the residents would experience in switching to the use of City-provided carts only for refuse and yard waste collection, it is our recommendation to continue with the dual stream collection method at this time and move forward with the purchase of replacement dual stream semiautomated refuse trucks. In following the fleet’s standard for equipment replacement recommendations, the Fleet Manager and Vehicle Maintenance supervisor evaluated the four refuse trucks currently budgeted for replacement. Based on condition, mileage and maintenance needs, all four trucks were deemed eligible for replacement as it is no longer cost-effective to continue putting maintenance funds toward repairs on these units. Two of the trucks were included in the FY 2015-16 budget for replacement and two of the trucks are included in the FY 2016-17 budget of the Equipment Revolving Fund.

SELECTION OF WHICH BRAND OF REFUSE TRUCK TO PURCHASE The next step in the replacement process is to have the Fleet staff work with the user department to determine what make and model is preferred for the replacement unit. To date, the City has used a Kann split stream refuse body mounted on two different brand chassis – Crane Carrier and Mack. The Crane Carrier was the chassis of choice for many years until a change in emissions led to modifications in the layout of the cab, making installation of a Kann refuse body problematic. The last two trucks purchased by the City have been on the Mack chassis, and both the user department and the fleet division have reported numerous problems with the Mack. As such, the Fleet Manager did some research on other chassis options to see what other refuse collection agencies have experienced. The results of his research are as follows:

Page 46

Jon Lynch August 16, 2016 Page Five

Extensive research has been performed over the past three months to determine which residential refuse truck would be the best long-term value for the City of Midland. Staff reached out to various residential refuse users in the Midwest ranging from municipalities and universities to commercial refuse collection companies (see below). These entities’ fleet sizes range from 10 refuse trucks to as many as 1,200 trucks. Results indicate that 8 out of 9 users surveyed recommend purchasing the Autocar chassis residential refuse truck over the competitors. Organization Arrow Waste City of Bay City City of Cleveland City of East Lansing Muncie Sanitary District Rock River Environment Potluck Pickup Waste Management University of Michigan

Autocar Fleet Customer Reference List City State Contact Title Holland MI Chris Greendyke Operations Manager Bay City MI Bob Harrison Supervisor Cleveland OH Jeffrey Brown Commissioner East Lansing MI Cathy DeShambo Environmental Services Admin Muncie IN Phil Reagon Superintendent of Sanitation Rockford IL Dick Polnow Operation Manager Allendale MI Gary Zeinstra Owner MI,IN, Ohio Area Allen Wells Fleet Director Ann Arbor MI Sam Moran Operations Foreman

Based on the information collected, results indicate it would be in the City’s best interest to purchase the Autocar Residential Refuse truck based on the following:         

Chassis Warranty for 2 years versus 1 year warranty offered by competitors. Emission Warranty for 5 years valued at $7,500 versus 1 year warranty offered by competitors. City can become an authorized warranty repair facility and will be reimbursed for ALL work performed under warranty. Standardization with existing City fleet will help with technician’s productivity and accuracy of repair as Autocar runs on a Cummins diesel engine, which is a common engine in the City’s fleet. 24/7 Tech Support available from manufacturer for City technicians. Unlimited live equipment Web training for Technician and Operators. Next day delivery on 90% of all parts with a deep discount with the City being an authorized warranty repair facility. On board diagnostic system that can be monitored by both manufacturer and City repair facility for quick and accurate repairs. The City’s current diagnostic software equipment for Cummins engines will interface with new model trucks.

Page 47

Jon Lynch August 16, 2016 Page Six  

8 out 9 surveyed stated that in their experience, the Autocar Residential Refuse truck has fewer breakdowns than other brands of truck. 8 out 9 surveyed would purchase Autocar again over the competitors’ brands.

With the recommendation in hand to purchase the Autocar chassis refuse truck with the Kann refuse body, the Fleet Manager researched purchasing options with the local Autocar dealer and found that this chassis and refuse body are available via a cooperative purchasing contract that is available to municipalities and would provide the best contract pricing to us. The Texas Buy Board Purchasing Cooperative solicits bids for medium and heavy duty vehicles on a bi-annual basis, including refuse collection vehicles. Vendors and manufacturers nationwide are eligible to submit bids through these programs. Staff experience has shown that the bid prices from these contracts are lower than what could be solicited locally due to the volume pricing that is attained through these larger cooperative programs, and the City of Midland is authorized to make purchases from these extended purchasing contracts. The Texas Buy Board Purchasing Cooperative selected vendor and bid price for these units are as follows: Qty 4

Vehicle Type Autocar dual stream front load refuse trucks w/Kann body

Vendor

Unit Cost

Total

Grande Truck Service Center C/O Standard Equipment Co.

$294,775

$1,179,100

There are sufficient funds budgeted in the Equipment Revolving Fund to cover the purchase of the four residential refuse trucks. The units being replaced by the new refuse trucks will be sold via on-line auction.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTION In summary, staff is recommending that City Council authorize the purchase of four semiautomated dual stream Autocar – Kann refuse trucks for the following reasons: 1. The City’s in-house refuse and yard waste dual stream collection method remains costeffective in comparison to private hauler bid pricing 2. The semi-automated collection method continues to provide efficiency in the field in comparison to newer automated collection methods 3. The Autocar refuse truck chassis is strongly recommended for reliability and offers the best warranty and support services as compared to competitor brands

Page 48

Jon Lynch August 16, 2016 Page Seven

Therefore, we recommend that the Senior Procurement Accountant be authorized to issue a purchase order to the Texas Buy Board Purchasing Cooperative’s selected vendor, Grande Truck Center C/O Standard Equipment Company of Chicago, Illinois in the amount of $1,179,100 for the purchase of the aforementioned refuse trucks. With custom built equipment where the chassis and body come from different manufacturers, our experience has been that often times adjustments need to be made during the production of the vehicle that can change the overall cost of the unit. Therefore, we also recommend that the City Manager be authorized to approve changes to the purchase order up to 5% of the total cost to cover any unforeseen modifications that may come up during the build process.

Respectfully submitted,

Karen Murphy Director of Public Services

Tiffany Jurgess Senior Procurement Accountant

Page 49

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Automated Curotto-Can Collection

Prepared for:

City of Midland, MI Public Services Department

Prepared by:

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.

8550 Arlington Boulevard Suite 304 Fairfax, VA 22031 800-573-5801 www.gbbinc.com

July 21, 2016

Page 50

GERSHMAN, BRICKNER & BRATTON, INC. City of Midland Midland, Michigan Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Automated Curotto-Can Collection

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. 8550 Arlington Boulevard • Suite 304 Fairfax, Virginia 22031 Phone 800.573.5801/ 703.573.5800 • Fax 703.698.1306 www.gbbinc.com

© 2016 Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.

We Print on Recycled Paper

Page 51

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Evaluation and Analysis of Current Refuse and Yard Waste System .................................................... 2 2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Residential Refuse and Yard Waste Collection.......................................................................... 4 2.3 Typical Curbside Refuse and Yard Was ..................................................................................... 6 2.4 Current Vehicle Load Constraints and Use Analysis .................................................................. 6 2.5 Current Residential Refuse and Yard Waste Load Constraints ................................................. 7 2.6 Current Residential Refuse and Yard Waste Vehicle Use Analysis.......................................... 10 3.0 Midland’s Operation using Automated Frontload .............................................................................. 13 3.1.1 Reduced Safety Costs ............................................................................................. 14 3.1.2 Lower Maintenance Costs ...................................................................................... 15 3.2 Automated Residential Refuse and Yard Waste Load Constraint Analysis ............................. 15 3.3 Automated Residential Refuse Vehicle Use Analysis .............................................................. 16 3.4 Automated Residential Yard Waste Vehicle Use Analysis....................................................... 18 3.5 Resident Container Analysis with New Equipment ................................................................. 20 3.6 Collection Costs ....................................................................................................................... 21 3.6.1 Current Refuse and Yard Waste Variable Cost per Driver Hour ............................. 21 3.6.2 Annual Driver Hour Savings .................................................................................... 21 3.6.3 Midland’s Total Cost/Savings to Transition to Automated Collection ................... 22 3.7 Preliminary Route Optimization Evaluation .................................................................................. 24 3.8 Automated Collection Implementation ........................................................................................ 25 4.0 Benchmarking Residential Automated Front Load against Similar Collection Programs ................... 28 4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 28 4.2 Refuse Collection ..................................................................................................................... 29 4.3 Yard Waste Collection ............................................................................................................. 31 5.0 Overall Evaluation on Current versus Automated Refuse and Yard Waste Collection ....................... 34 6.0 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 35 List of Figures Figure 1-1: Residential Front Load Truck Equipped with Automated Curotto-Can ...................................... 1 Figure 2-1: Split Body Refuse and Yard Waste Truck .................................................................................... 3 Figure 2-2: Typical Street Fall Set Outs in Midland ....................................................................................... 4 Figure 2-3 – Resident Three Cart Set Out with Loose Leaves ....................................................................... 5 Figure 2-4 - Resident Owned Container with Bulk Items Set Out ................................................................. 5 Figure 2-5: Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Day Map .............................................................................. 6 Figure 3-1: Residential Front Load Collection Vehicle Equipped with an Automated Curotto-Can ........... 13 Figure 3-2: Curotto Can ............................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 3-3: Drivers View Dumping a Cart .................................................................................................... 15 Figure 3-4: Rear View of Curotto Can ......................................................................................................... 15 Figure 3-5: Three Cart Set Out in Midland .................................................................................................. 20 Figure 3-6: Example of a Fully Automated Cart .......................................................................................... 21

i

July 21, 2016

Page 52

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

List of Tables Table 2-1: Midland’s Current Services and Routes ....................................................................................... 3 Table 2-2: City of Midland Refuse/Yard Waste Collection Equipment (1) .................................................... 7 Table 2-3: FY 14/15 Cubic Yards Reported by Midland ................................................................................ 8 Table 2-4: FY 14/15 Annual Tons Calculated by Midland ............................................................................. 8 Table 2-5: Current Midland Refuse, Loads and Tons per Day....................................................................... 9 Table 2-6: Current Midland Yard Waste, Loads and Tons per Day ............................................................. 10 Table 2-7: Current Daily Time for a Single Refuse Collection Route ........................................................... 11 Table 2-8: Current Dual Collection Route Productivity Averages (1) .......................................................... 12 Table 3-1: Refuse Load Constraint Comparison.......................................................................................... 16 Table 3-2: Yard Waste Load Constraint Comparison .................................................................................. 16 Table 3-3: Daily Route Time for a Single Residential Front Load Equipped with an Automated Curotto-Can Collecting Refuse.................................................................................................. 17 Table 3-4: Automated Refuse Route Statistics ........................................................................................... 18 Table 3-5: Daily Route Time for a Single Residential Front Load Equipped with an Automated Curotto-Can Collecting Yard Waste .......................................................................................... 19 Table 3-6: Automated Yard Waste Route Statistics .................................................................................... 19 Table 3-7: FY 2015/2016 Variable Refuse City of Midland Budget and Cost per Driver Hour (1) .............. 21 Table 3-8: Estimate of Annual Driver Hour Savings with New Automated Service .................................... 22 Table 3-9: Estimated 96-Gallon Cart Needs and CapEx for Automated Collection .................................... 23 Table 3-10: Estimated Incremental CapEx Cost for Switching to Automated Collection ........................... 23 Table 3-11: Midland's Estimated Annual Savings Implementing New Automated Service........................ 24 Table 4-1: Benchmarked Community Demographics (1) ............................................................................ 28 Table 4-2: Refuse Collection Services Comparison ..................................................................................... 30 Table 4-3: Yard Waste Collection Services Comparison ............................................................................. 32

ii

July 21, 2016

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

Page 53

1.0 Introduction The City of Midland (Midland) has not reviewed current household refuse and yard waste collection methods in several years. Therefore, Midland seeks to understand potential collection efficiency gains by switching to an automated form of collection using front load single-compartment trucks equipped with automated Curotto-Cans from its current method of collecting these materials in dual compartment semiautomated trucks. The new form of collection could help reduce work-related injuries caused by collection crews collecting/lifting several thousand Kraft bags of yard waste and refuse cans/bags set out annually by those households that have not purchased carts from Midland. To prepare this potential transition, Midland has earmarked budget requests approximately $305,000 per truck for the next three budget cycles to replace its six (6) front line trucks (i.e. $610,000 per year or $1.83 million over three years) to the Heil front load packer trucks with an automated Curotto-Cans; an example of which is shown in Figure 11.

Figure 1-1: Residential Front Load Truck Equipped with Automated Curotto-Can A major concern that Midland has with switching to automated refuse collection is how to accommodate the yard waste collection service to allow continued use of the Kraft yard waste bags as well as 95-gallon yard waste carts that Midland offers to residents. Midland also wants to understand if its current collection routes and/or new automated routes can be optimized to ensure maximum vehicle efficiency. In September 2015, Midland engaged Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB) to evaluate its refuse and yard waste collection services, particularly with respect to the cost of service impact using the new equipment would have and provide a report to Midland. This Report presents GBB’s findings and recommendations following our evaluation. This Report includes an evaluation of: 1) 2) 3) 4)

Current vehicle use analysis and load (weight) constraints; Residential container analysis with a new fleet; Benchmarking of comparable municipalities using Heil Curotto-Can equipped trucks; and Preliminary route optimization evaluation.

1

July 21, 2016

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

Page 54

In addition, the Report provides recommendations on how to transition to automated collection for refuse and yard waste using Heil front load packers with automated Curotto-Cans. In carrying out this assignment, GBB:    

Reviewed relevant data provided by Midland’s Public Services and conducted Internet searches; Held phone calls and meetings with Midland; Visited Midland and observed refuse and yard waste set outs and collection operations; and Visited Midland’s refuse disposal and yard waste processing facilities and Midland management there.

In addition, GBB held follow-up calls with Midland staff to obtain certain data and documents, clarify or confirm information regarding services provided, and conducted phone conversations with selected communities with comparable services to Midland to obtain information and/or documentation regarding their refuse and yard waste services and the cost/pricing of those services. It should be noted that this review by GBB was neither a financial audit nor a detailed review of each facility and operations over an extended period. Rather, this review was a ‘snapshot’ review of relevant data made available by Midland, information gleaned from limited meetings with Midland staff, observations of facilities, equipment, and personnel and/or route operations and operating practices of collection services, and review of limited data related to workers compensation insurance. Since the subject of this Report relates to household refuse and yard waste only, GBB does not address other household services for recyclables, bulk items, or loose leaf collection that Midland provides or makes available via contract. We believe the information in this Report will assist Midland in its further planning and decision-making regarding the services and equipment reviewed, and we encourage Midland to consider the recommendations we have made herein. We also believe that Midland should continue to closely monitor workers compensation costs and operational performance as Midland continues to achieve its goals of service improvement, productivity gains and cost-saving measures.

2.0 Evaluation and Analysis of Current Refuse and Yard Waste System 2.1 Introduction Midland’s service area is spread out over 36 square miles serving a population of approximately 41,800 for approximately 14,000 households (HHs). Midland’s Public Services Department (Midland) operates a mature, established refuse collection system and seeks to stay up-to-date and embrace best practices, while providing the citizenry with services that are convenient, reliable, and affordable. Midland currently collects household refuse and yard waste with one driver per truck in front load split body collection trucks, using a split bucket with a cart tipper on both sides as shown in Figure 2-1. The inside of the truck body is split inside horizontally into two sections: 60% for refuse and 40% for yard waste. The horizontal floor inside can also be adjusted or removed.

2

July 21, 2016

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

Page 55

Figure 2-1: Split Body Refuse and Yard Waste Truck Collections are conducted Monday through Friday. The available fleet consists of 14 vehicles including six (6) front load packer split body trucks, three (3) spare front-load packer split body trucks, and five (5) rearload packer trucks. On normal collection days, five (5) front load packer split body trucks are used for collection of refuse and yard waste. As summarized in Table 2-1, there are five (5) daily curbside refuse/yard waste routes that run during yard waste season (April through December) and four (4) refuse routes only during the other months (January through March). Midland also dispatches four (4) routes to provide a loose leaf collection service starting in the fall (October through first week of December). Additionally, Midland contracts with Republic Services to collect recyclables set out in brown 96-gallon carts supplied and owned by Republic Services. Each HH is provided one brown 96-gallon cart. Additionally, each HH is allowed up to three 14-gallon recycle bins/or like size container to set out with their 96-gallon brown cart. Midland also collects unlimited bulk items and brush once per month using City-owned front-end loaders and dump trucks. Table 2-1: Midland’s Current Services and Routes Service

Number of Weekly Routes(1)

Number of Daily Routes

Refuse and Yard Waste 5 Routes-April through December

25

Refuse Only

4 Routes- January Through March

20

Recycling

1

5

Bulk Item Collection

2

10

Loose Leaf Collection

4 Routes-October through 1st Week in December

20

Type of Equipment Split Body Residential Front end loaders Split Body Residential Front end loaders Automated side loader Svc. provided by Republic Services Services Rear load trucks; Articulating pay loaders & dump trucks Mini articulating tractors w/sweeper brooms & rear load trucks

Midland provides services five (5) days per week.

3

July 21, 2016

Page 56

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

Figure 2-2 shows a Midland street with typical refuse, yard waste and loose leaf set outs during loose leaf collection season.

Figure 2-2: Typical Street Fall Set Outs in Midland

2.2 Residential Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Refuse is collected in resident-owned cans with handles, tied plastic bags, and/or in grey Midland-supplied 95-gallon refuse carts. The carts can be purchased from Midland for $65 each. Approximately 50 percent of the residents use these 95-gallon carts for refuse. Yard waste is collected in Kraft paper bags and/or blue 95-gallon blue yard waste carts. Residents are required to purchase stickers for the blue Midland 95gal carts each year for $40 for the first cart and $17 for each additional cart. Beginning the first Monday in May, current year stickers are required for all yard waste carts and 40-cent orange stickers1 must be placed on yard waste bags for collection by Midland crews. However, from the first Monday in April through the last week in April residents are not required to use orange stickers for yard waste Kraft bags. Approximately 5,000 HHs (36 percent of total) purchase stickers for their yard waste carts. On average, Midland reports that this results in approximately 1,000 yard wastecarts set out each day, or 250 carts per collection route. Also, since 2008, Midland reports selling an annual average of 50,000 Kraft yard

1

The cost of the sticker ($0.40) is also about the same as the cost of purchasing a Kraft bag retail.

4

July 21, 2016

Page 57

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

waste bag stickers for to residents for use on Kraft bags purchased from local stores. On average, this amounts to about 455 Kraft yard waste bags being set out for collection day during May through December or 91 bags per collection route when orange tags are required to be applied to Kraft bags.2 Figures 2-3, and 2-4, show the different ways residents can set out refuse, yard waste, and recyclables for collection. This variation in the use of containers results in the collection workers having to do different work at the HHs they service. If vehicles are parked in front of refuse carts, bags, containers, etc., the collector then has to walk the items from around the vehicles to the collection truck.

Figure 2-3 – Resident Three Cart Set Out with Loose Leaves

Figure 2-4 - Resident Owned Container with Bulk Items Set Out

2 This assumes that during May through December there are 153 days,

5

or approximately 22 weeks, using five (5) routes per week.

July 21, 2016

Page 58

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection 2.3 Typical Curbside Refuse and Yard Was

Once per week collection of refuse and yard waste occurs Monday through Friday during April through December in collection zones as shown in Table 2-6. During January through March, only refuse is collected Monday through Friday.

Figure 2-5: Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Day Map Midland crews start at 7:30 A.M., normally complete the collection of their routes between 1:30 P.M and 2:00 P.M. and are off-the-clock by 3:30 P.M. A refuse/yard waste driver typically works about a seven to seven and a half hour day while paid for eight hours per Midland’s Collective Bargaining Agreement with United Steelworkers AFL-CIO-CLC on Behalf of Local Union 14009.

2.4 Current Vehicle Load Constraints and Use Analysis Vehicle use and load constraints analysis for the curbside refuse and yard waste collection services is balanced between the amount of time needed to collect from the 14,000 Midland HHs and the number of vehicles needed to collect both refuse and yard waste. Dual collection vehicles came into existence a couple of decades ago to address concerns about collection costs, productivity and minimizing the number of collection vehicles passing each HH on a daily basis. The use of dual collection vehicles provides for the collection of separate waste streams with a single pass vehicle. Sizing dual collection compartments and determining the appropriate level of compaction is a continuous challenge, and has a direct impact on the number of trucks and crews used to achieve the

6

July 21, 2016

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

Page 59

required service, and therefore the ultimate cost of collection. In Midland’s case, the two compartment collection vehicles are sized so that 60 percent of the volume is for refuse and the other compartment volume of 40 percent is used for yard waste. Ideally, both compartments would fill up at approximately the time, so that unused volume in either side remains empty when the collection vehicle needs to start its route to unload the full side. However, because there are different amounts of yard waste set out at different times of the yard waste season, this does not always occur. This creates inefficiencies. The current front load refuse/yard waste collection vehicles are adjustable split body Kann Centurion Bodies on Crane Carrier Chassis. The floor that separates the yard waste on top of the collection vehicle from the refuse below it is adjustable to create different load capacities. As previously mentioned, Midland has determined that it gets the most efficiently by having a split of 60 percent for refuse and 40 percent for yard waste. Table 2-2 lists the nine (9) pieces of equipment used to collect refuse and yard waste in Midland. Table 2-2: City of Midland Refuse/Yard Waste Collection Equipment (1) No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Truck Number 330 331 332 333 335 334 391 392 393

Front line or Back up Front Line Front Line Front Line Front Line Front Line Front Line Spare Back up Back up Back up

Year Make & Model

Miles (2)

2012 MACK LEU 2012 MACK LEU 2010 CRANE/KANN CENTURION 2010 CRANE/KANN CENTURION 2009 CRANE/KANN CENTURION 2009 CRANE/KANN CENTURION 2003 CRANE/KANN CENTURION 2003 CRANE/KANN CENTURION 2004 CRANE/KANN CENTURION

43,520 42,881 41,933 48,511 53,271 56,034 84,000 86,600 27,872

In Service Date 04/29/2011 05/26/2011 03/16/2010 03/09/2010 09/01/2009 09/08/2009 02/19/2003 02/21/2003 12/26/2003

Units 391, 392, and 395 are retired trucks kept as back up and for use on double run holidays (9 times per year). (1) As of November 10, 2015.

2.5 Current Residential Refuse and Yard Waste Load Constraints Midland tracks curbside refuse and curbside yard waste cubic yards and the amount of both streams. Table presents Midland provided refuse and yard waste volume data for FY14/15. Even though there is a scale at the Midland landfill, the practice is that trucks are allowed to by-pass the scale to save time since unloading at two different locations at the landfill is necessary. As a result, Midland tracks deliveries by volume and not weight. This practice does allow for more route time, but does not provide accurate weight data to analyze. To gather some data regarding volume to weight conversion factors, Midland does have drivers periodically use the scales to estimate weight conversion factors. GBB and Midland reviewed this information and agreed upon conversion factors to use in the analysis presented in this report. Table 2-4 presents the FY 14/15 annual truck cubic yards reported to GBB by Midland.

7

July 21, 2016

Page 60

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection Table 2-3: FY 14/15 Cubic Yards Reported by Midland Month/Year July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 Nov-14 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 Total

Refuse 6,507 3,267 3,082 3,391 2,420 3,560 3,640 3,264 3,124 3,904 3,407 3,571 43,137

Yard Waste 1,603 1,544 1,341 2,013 892 109 No Collection No Collection No Collection 2,323 2,072 1,975 13,870

(1) Refuse only, bulk items are tracked separately (2) Yard waste only, loose leaves and brush tracked separately

Table 2-4 converts the volumes presented in Table 2-3 and converts it into tons per month (TPM) and Lbs./HH/Week. Midland uses a conversion factor of 450 pounds per compacted cubic yard (CY) of refuse and 500 pounds of compacted CY of yard waste. For purposes of this Report, GBB used Midland’s estimated weights for refuse and yard waste to determine the load constraints on the current collection vehicles. Table 2-4: FY 14/15 Annual Tons Calculated by Midland Month/Year

Refuse(1)

July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 Total Average

1,464 735 693 763 545 801 819 734 703 878 767 803 9,706 809

Refuse Lbs./HH/ Week 48.3 24.3 22.9 25.2 18.0 26.4 27.0 24.2 23.2 29.0 25.3 26.5 26.7

Yard Waste (2) 401 386 335 503 223 27 No Collection No Collection No Collection 581 518 494 3,467 385

Yard Waste Lbs./HH/ Week (3) 13.2 12.7 11.1 16.6 7.4 0.9 No Collection No Collection No Collection 19.2 17.1 16.3 12.7

(1) Conversion factor for refuse- 450 pounds per CY (2) Conversion factor for yard waste – 500 pounds per CY (3) Assumes a 40-week collection period April -December

8

July 21, 2016

Page 61

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

Midland’s refuse/yard waste collection trucks have a 35 CY capacity and based on Midland’s experience, the refuse/yard waste trucks are split to be 21 CY for refuse (60 percent of the volume) and 14 CY for yard waste (40 percent of the volume). Table 2-5 shows that in FY14/15 the refuse trucks collected a total of 9,706 tons of refuse. This is equal to approximately 37 tons per day (TPD) based on a five day per week collection basis. Breaking this down further, each of the five (5) daily routes averaged 7.5 tons of refuse. Using Midland’s refuse conversion factor of 450 lbs. per CY, the 60 percent section of the collection vehicle can hold an average of 4.7 tons of refuse and 3.5 tons of yard waste, assuming equal and proportional setouts. The data in Table 2-6 indicates that a single collection truck must make an average of two refuse disposal trips per day weighing 4.7 tons per load on average. Assuming that the first load would weigh 4.7 tons, the second load would only weigh 2.8 tons (7.5 tons/route minus 4.7 tons on first load = 2.8 tons second load). Whereas, if the entire truck were dedicated to refuse, it could hold approximately 7.2 tons, or hold almost the entire route in one load. Table 2-5: Current Midland Refuse, Loads and Tons per Day Total/Year Tons Daily Tons Daily Routes Avg. Tons/Route Daily Disposal Trips/Truck(1) Avg. Tons/Disposal Trip

FY 14/15 9,706 37 5 7.5 2 3.7

(1) Assumes 4.7 ton maximum capacity per load of refuse @ 450lbs/CY, compacted in the 60 percent section of a 35 CY packer truck

Table 2-6 shows that in FY14/15, the split collection trucks collected a total of 3,467 tons of yard waste. This is approximately 17 TPD based on 200 days per year of yard waste collection during April through November, assuming the Table 2-1 service schedule. Breaking this down further, each of the five (5) daily routes averaged 3.5 tons of yard waste. Therefore, a typical single 35 CY compartment collection vehicle (using Midland’s yard waste conversion factor of 500 Lbs. per CY) could hold 8 tons of yard waste in one load. Table 2-6 also shows that on average a yard waste truck would need to make one disposal trip per day with approximately 3.5 tons. In June 2314, Bell Equipment provided Midland a quote for a “Heil Odyssey High Compaction Residential Front Loader equipped automated Curotto-Can mounted on a 2015 Mack LEU right hand stand up chassis.” June 23. This Heil vehicle has a 40 CY single compartment collection body that can hold either an entire Midland refuse or Midland yard waste route in one load based on Midland’s FY 14/15 refuse and yard waste volumes reported and converted to tons using Midland’s conversion factors. For refuse, this vehicle could hold approximately 9 tons; while for yard waste, it could hold approximately 10 tons.3

3

Refuse load calculation: 40 CY x 450 Lbs. per CY ÷ 2000 = 9 tons; and yard waste load calculation: 40 CY x 500 Lbs. per CY ÷ 2000 = 10 tons.

9

July 21, 2016

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

Page 62

Table 2-6: Current Midland Yard Waste, Loads and Tons per Day Total/Year (1) Annual Tons Daily Tons Daily Routes Avg. Tons/Route Daily Disposal Trips/Truck (2) Avg. Tons/Disposal Trip

FY 14/15 3,467 17 5 3.5 1 3.5

(1) Assumes yard waste @ 500 Lbs. /CY. (2) Assumes 3.5 ton capacity per load of yard waste compacted in 40 percent section of a 35 CY packer truck

2.6 Current Residential Refuse and Yard Waste Vehicle Use Analysis Midland budgets its refuse collection crews to work 8 hours per day, 5 days per week. Because these are known numbers, GBB needed to determine the collection time available to collect refuse and yard waste from the Midland HHs. The following equation expresses this for refuse collection services:

Y = a + b + c + (d x e) + f + (g + h) Where: Y = total collection time a = pre-route time before leaving garage (muster and pre-trip) b = time to drive from garage to start of route c = actual time collecting waste d = number of trips to disposal site e = time to drive fully loaded truck to disposal facility, unload and return to collection area f = time to drive to garage at the end of the trip g = official breaks, including bathroom visits h = other lost time such as traffic jams, breakdowns, including finishing early time and leaving the garage g + h = off route time   

b, d, and f are a function of distance and speed c is a function of the number of customers, time per customer, number of loads (full or partial) d is a function of the capacity of the vehicle and its compaction ratio

Table 2-7 shows the daily time spent on the various activities as described in the above formula using information gathered during GBB’s limited field time and from discussions with Midland. On average, about 50 percent of the day is spent in productive collection activities servicing HHs, leaving 50 percent of the day for non-collection time. This assumption creates an annual total of approximately 1,040 hours of collection time and 1,040 hours of non-collection time per route. Considering 14,000 HH’s in Midland, and dividing it across 25 weekly refuse routes (5 trucks operating 5 days per day), an average of 560 HHs need to be serviced in each route. Dividing the 560 HH’s by 4.0 hours 10

July 21, 2016

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

Page 63

of collection time, the crews are servicing an average of 140.0 HH’s per productive (collection) hour. This equates to 25.7 seconds per HH serviced (14,400 seconds ÷ 560 HHs = 25.7 seconds per HH), and includes the accumulated time from when the truck stops at a container, completes the dumping the refuse and yard waste at the HH stop, and drive time to the next HH container set out. Based on GBB’s experience, this is well within normal industry productivity for residential front load “dual stream collection” using carts and containers. Table 2-7: Current Daily Time for a Single Refuse Collection Route Non-Collection Time(1)

Collection Time On Route Servicing Cust. (Hours) (c)

Annual Collection Time per Route

Pre Route Time(2) (a)

Yard to Route(3) (b)

Admin time(4) (g,,h)

Disposal Trip time(5) (d x e)

Landfill to Yard (f)

Post Route (6) (h)

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

30 30 30 30 30

18 18 10 10 5

60 60 60 60 60

110 78 86 90 110

13 13 13 13 13

30 30 30 30 30

4.4 3.8 3.8 3.9 4.1

226 198 198 202 215

3.7 4.2 4.2 4.1 3.9

190 218 218 214 201

Averages Totals

30 150

12 61

60 300

95 474

13 65

30 150

4.0 20.0

1040

4.0 20.0

1,040

Route Day

Total NonCollection Time (Hours)

Annual NonProductive Time per Route (Hours)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Non-Collection time is the time a driver spends off-route not servicing customers Driver activity from clock-in to leaving Municipal Service Center Average drive time from Municipal Service Center to route Meal and rest breaks, safety meetings, and other time Based on discussions with Public Services personnel which assumes and average of two (2) disposal trips per day and 20-30 minutes spent in the landfill per trip (6) Driver activity from returning to Municipal Service Center to clock out

Using the information gathered during the GBB field visit, and during additional discussions with Public Services personnel, Midland’s current average collection time equation for a single route and the formula above at the beginning of this section, the average Total Collection Day is made up of these components: 450 minutes = 30 minutes + 12 minutes + 240 minutes + (2 x 47.5 = 95 minutes) + 13 minutes + 60 minutes Table 2-8 shows the current weekly average of the five (5) daily dual collection route days where the crews based on route activity are servicing an average of 140.0 homes/hour during the productive hours on route. For the purposes of the analysis, it is assumed a daily average of 2,800 HHs and 560 HHs per route. Because each truck/route provides both refuse and yard waste collection, the equivalent households/route/day is 1,120. There is a slight variation of the daily HH/collection hour as the travel distances vary between the yard, collection route area and the landfill. A higher productivity number such as Monday’s (153.4 HHs per collection hour) is the result of the ratio of non-collection versus collection time as previously shown in Table 2-6.

11

July 21, 2016

Page 64

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection Table 2-8: Current Dual Collection Route Productivity Averages (1) Route Day Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Average(1)

Average HH/Day 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800

Average HH/Rte./ Day 560 560 560 560 560 560

Est. HH/Collection Hour 153.4 133.9 133.9 136.0 144.8 140.0

Based on average of 4 hours/day on route servicing customers as noted in Table 2-6.

The following equation backs up the need for five (5) daily refuse trucks as the number of homes a driver can currently service is limited by the Collective Bargaining Agreement providing for break time, lunch time, and collecting two waste streams per household. The following equation provides a formula to calculate the number of vehicles required.

N = (S x F) / (Z x W) Where: N = number of vehicles required S = total number of customers (HHs) served per week (14,000 HHs) F = collection frequency (once per week) Z = number of customers (HHs) a truck can serve per day (560 HHs) W = number of work days per week

N = (S x F) / (Z x W) Then, (14,000 weekly customers x once per week) ÷ (560 per truck x 5 days) = five (5) collection vehicles required Even though Midland crews are very productive, the dual collection system necessitates two disposal trips per day. Dual collection systems work more efficiently when there is low refuse generation, low housing density, high driver and crew wages, high off route time, high mileage to unload at processing and disposal locations in close proximity to each other, e.g. within 10 miles. While Midland has low refuse generation, high density routes, and processing and disposal locations at the same location, it does not have high mileage to unload the two compartments. From this perspective, Midland is a candidate for residential front load automated collection with Curotto-Can trucks.

12

July 21, 2016

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

Page 65

3.0 Midland’s Operation using Automated Frontload The transition to automated collection will require Midland to collect refuse and yard waste as separate waste streams. On the surface, it would seem that additional collection vehicles would be required when making the change. However, this might not be an accurate assumption. Currently, Midland collection trucks service an average of 560 HHs per day. However, these vehicles are collecting two waste streams, refuse and yard waste, effectively providing service to an average of 1,120 collection points per day (560 for refuse and 560 for yard waste), assuming a 100 percent set out rate for both refuse and yard waste. What is a Curotto-Can? GBB’s research on the residential front load truck equipped with a Curotto-Can has shown it has a very fast load time and has shown it can increase productivity and reduce driver hours. It also has distinct advantages over automated side loaders (ASL). A collection truck equipped with a Curotto-Can is shown in Figure 3-1. There are three main characteristics, GBB believes, that gives a front-end loader with Curotto-Can an advantage over ASL trucks as follows: 1. The arm is forward of the steer axle; 2. It utilizes a front-loader platform; and 3. It has a low lift-over height. GBB believes that Midland collection crews will find switching over to these vehicles fairly straightforward as they are already operating residential front load trucks so training could primarily focus on operating the Curotto-Can feature of the new vehicle.

Figure 3-1: Residential Front Load Collection Vehicle Equipped with an Automated Curotto-Can Based on application review by GBB, the key benefits reviewed for Midland would include:     

Fast load time: four to five seconds from wheel-stop-to-wheel-go 25 percent faster travel around cul-de-sacs o Driver does not have to get out of the truck to wheel the cart to the tipper Reduces the cost of cart loss and damage o If a cart drops in the carry can it can be removed from ground level Maintenance and repair done with both feet on the ground Utilizes the front-loader truck platform 13

July 21, 2016

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

Page 66



 





Eyes-always-forward operation - no looking backward o Reduces strains due to driver constantly turning his head o Driver does not have to reacquaint his focus ahead, reducing damage to park cars, etc. Operators can preview material before it is packed Hopper is four times larger than current single front load bucket (capable of taking large bulk, if needed) o Hopper typically holds seven (7) full 96-gallon carts before dumping Can load yard waste Kraft bags and regular refuse cans like the current semi-automated trucks when needed o Can grab small items such as lamps or toaster ovens, if needed Will not have to replace internal floor in dual compartment vehicle from packer wear o Packer blade only cycles when truck hopper full

Figure 3-2 shows the large hopper, smaller grippers, and the ease of access to operating components of the Curotto-Can carry can. As pictured in Figure 3-2 by arrow ‘A’, the residential front loader can be driven into the fork sleeves to mount the Curotto-Can onto the truck.

Figure 3-2: Curotto Can A single Curotto-Can Unit is estimated to cost approximately $25,000. Since Curotto-Can has partnered with Heil, the Heil truck would be outfitted with the wiring and hydraulic components to operate the Curotto-Can. Should Midland retrofit a current front load truck, Curotto-Can also offers installation kits. If Midland desires to retrofit a current truck, a modification to the trucks hopper would need to be confirmed Curotto-Can literature also states that a front loader equipped with a Curotto-Can on a typical residential route averages 1,200 HHs per day. This is about 40 percent more HHs per day than a conventional rear loader (at 800 HHs per day) and about 25 percent more HHs per day than an ASL (at 950 homes per day). These metrics compare to Midland’s current metrics with a 35 CY refuse truck averaging about 560 homes per day, with 1,120 potential lifts, assuming a 100 percent set out rate for both refuse and yard waste. 3.1.1 Reduced Safety Costs The Curotto-Can system can reduce the injuries to operators and community residents alike, by eliminating or reducing the use of customer-owned containers, Kraft bags, and having to manually move 14

July 21, 2016

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

Page 67

containers to and from the collection truck. In general, industry experience is that Workers Compensation costs are higher for semi-automated collection residential front loaders than for automated arrangements mostly because of the constant heavy lifting and turning movements a worker must perform. Again, with the Curotto-Can system, the cart pickup-dumpreturn cycle is right in front of the operator, with no lifting or turning necessary except when customerprovided cans or Kraft bags are allowed to be set out. For injury and safety reasons, the transition to a Curotto-Can system should reduce work related injuries. In addition, property damage claims should be less of an issue as well when compared to automated side. Curotto-Can grippers are small and right in view of the driver, virtually eliminating concerns about Figure 3-3: Drivers View Dumping a Cart accidentally leaving them extended and causing damage. With the Curotto-Can system, the operator is looking forward at all times, reducing the potential risk for accidents, as shown in Figure 3-3. 3.1.2

Lower Maintenance Costs The Curotto-Can system uses no high-maintenance electronic components. With modest training, Midland’s maintenance staff who currently maintain the front loaders should be able to also maintain the Curotto-Can. Also, Figure 3-4 shows the Carry-Can has few grease points which are easily accessible. The CurottoCan system provides the ability to have an extra automated carry can on hand as a spare and not have an entire fully equipped truck as a spare. Also, Midland could use a current truck modified to accept the Curotto-Can and have ready to back up a daily route truck that goes down moving the Curotto-Can from one truck to another.

Figure 3-4: Rear View of Curotto Can

3.2 Automated Residential Refuse and Yard Waste Load Constraint Analysis For the analysis here, GBB has assumed that a 40 CY truck would be matched up with the Curotto-Can and have the capacity to hold up to 12 tons or more of refuse, which is enough capacity for one route of Midland-generated refuse. GBB’s research has found automated residential front load trucks average 11 tons per load. It is not unusual for the first of two load during a day to have upwards of 15 tons, assuming no bulk items. Table 3-1 compares Midland’s current dual stream collection to a new automated system using the larger capacity trucks also servicing 37 tons of refuse per day generated on-average. With the new automated higher-capacity trucks, Midland could decrease the number of refuse disposal trips by five (5) per day.

15

July 21, 2016

Page 68

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection Table 3-1: Refuse Load Constraint Comparison Description Daily Tons(1) Daily Routes Tons/Route Truck Capacity (in Tons) Daily Disposal Trips

Existing Dual Stream System 37 5 7.4 4.7

New Automated System 37 3 12.3 12.3

8

3

(1) Source: Table 2-4-Current Midland Refuse, Loads and Tons per Day (2) Assumes 12.3 tons per load, compacted in a 40 CY packer truck

Table 3-2 shows that by using a 40 CY truck, assuming Midland’s yard waste conversion rate of 500 lbs. per CY, the single compartment vehicle can hold an average of 10 tons. However, taking into account the previous 17 tons per day during the yard waste season (refer to Table 2-5), the single daily automated route will need to make two disposal trips per day. This results in a reduction of daily disposal trips by two. Table 3-2: Yard Waste Load Constraint Comparison Description

Existing Dual Stream System

Daily Tons(1) Daily Routes Tons/Route Truck Capacity (in Tons) Daily Disposal Trips

17 5 3.5 3.5 4

New Automated System 17 2 17 10 2

Source: Table 2-5-Current Midland Yard Waste, Loads and Tons per Day Assumes 10 ton average per load of yard waste, compacted a 40 CY packer truck

With the higher capacity of the new automated trucks, Midland would have the ability to run the current number of crews collecting refuse and yard waste separately.

3.3 Automated Residential Refuse Vehicle Use Analysis Table 3-3 shows that by providing capacity to fit the entire daily route on one load (versus two trips per day), the disposal trip time is reduced by half. This alone reduces the daily non-collection disposal trip time from 95 minutes to 37.4 minutes, and allows this time to become “collection time” providing the opportunity to collect from more HHs each day.

16

July 21, 2016

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

Page 69

Table 3-3: Daily Route Time for a Single Residential Front Load Equipped with an Automated Curotto-Can Collecting Refuse Non-Colleciton Time(1) Route Day

(6)

Total NonProductive Time in Hours

Annual NonProductive Time per Route

On Route Servicing Cust. in Hours

Annual Productive Time per Route

13 13 13 13 13

30 30 30 30 30

3.3 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.1

170 156 153 154 159

4.7 5.0 5.1 5.0 5.0

246 260 263 262 257

37.4

13

30

3.0

-

5.0

-

187

65

150

15.2

791

24.8

1,289

Pre Route Time (2)

Yard to Route (3)

Admin Time (4)

Disposal Trip time(5)

Landfill to Yard

Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

30 30 30 30 30

18 18 10 10 5

60 60 60 60 60

45 29 33 35 45

Averages

30

12

60

Totals

150

61

300

Monday

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

Collection Time

Post Route

Non-Productive time is the time a driver spends off-route not servicing customers Driver activity from clock-in to leaving Municipal Service Center Average drive time from Municipal Service Center to route Meal and rest breaks, safety meetings, and other time Assumes and average of 1 disposal trip per day and 15 minutes spent in the landfill per trip Driver activity from returning to Municipal Service Center to clock out

Using the same formula presented in section 2.6, the average eight-hour Total Collection Time for refuse is made up of these components: 480 Minutes = 30 minutes + 12 minutes + 300 minutes + (1 x 37.4 minutes= 37.4 minutes) + 13 minutes + 60 minutes + 30minutes4 For Midland’s 14,000 HH’s collected by 15 weekly refuse routes (3 trucks per day, 5 days per week) results in an average 933 HHs per route per day. Dividing the 933 HHs by the eight (8) hours of total daily operator time, the crews are servicing an average of 116.6 homes per driver-hour. However, by dividing the 933 HH’s by 5 hours of productive “collection” time, the crews are actually servicing an average of 188.2 HHs per on-route collection hour. The five (5) hours of productive collection time for refuse equates to 19.3 seconds per HH serviced (18,000 seconds ÷ 933 HHs = 19.3 seconds per HH). As noted earlier, this includes the time the truck stops at a HH, completes the dumping the refuse at the stop and drives to the next HH. This productivity value is within normal industry productivity for residential front load dual stream collection in carts and containers. It is also approximately 75 percent of the 25.7 seconds for dual stream collection determined in Section 2.6. Table 3-4 shows the weekly average of the five new automated collection route days where the crews based on route activity are servicing an average of 188.2 HHs per hour during the productive hours on route. Overall, it is assumed that the daily average of 2,800 HHs total and 933 HHs per route are serviced each day. There is a slight variation of the daily HH per collection Hour as the travel distances vary between 4

Rounding error total is 482.4 hours.

17

July 21, 2016

Page 70

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

the yard, collection route area and the landfill. A higher productivity number such as Monday’s 197.1 HHs per collection hour is the result of a ratio of non-collection versus collection time as previously shown in Table 3-3. Table 3-4: Automated Refuse Route Statistics Route Day

Average HH/Day

Avg. HH/Rte./ Day

HH/Driver Hour

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Average

2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800

933 933 933 933 933 933

116.6 116.6 116.6 116.6 116.6 -

Est. HH/Collection Hour 197.1 186.6 184.1 185.4 188.5 188.2

According to Curotto-Can, a “typical” 40 CY front loader equipped with a Curotto-Can on a “typical” residential route can collect from an average of 1,200 HH’s per day assuming a 10-hour work day, or about 120 homes/driver hour. For Midland, and based on the non-collection time analysis presented earlier, 960 HHs can be expected to be serviced in an eight (8) -hour work day, providing a reasonable cushion for the requirement of servicing 933 HHs as noted in Table 3-4.

3.4 Automated Residential Yard Waste Vehicle Use Analysis Table 3-5 analyzes the productivity of an automated collection truck for providing yard waste collection services. It shows that with the extra capacity (40 CY using the Curotto-Can system), the entire route can be collected in one load. This also results in fewer disposal trips for yard waste collection. The daily noncollection time is also reduced from four to three hours giving a truck more time per day to service HHs. Using the same formula presented in section 2.6, the average eight-hour Total Collection Time for yard waste is made up of these components: 480 minutes = 30 minutes + 12 minutes + 300 minutes + 37.4 minutes+ 13 minutes + 60 minutes + 30 minutes5 GBB estimates that yard waste set out may average approximately 80% or less. Therefore, the five hours of time collecting yard waste from 800 HHs equates to 22.5 seconds per household serviced (18,000 seconds ÷ 800 HHs = 22.5 seconds/HH). This includes the time the truck stops at a container, completes the dumping the yard waste at the stop and drives to the next container. These values are within normal industry productivity metrics for residential automated front load single stream collection in carts and containers and is approximately 88 percent of the 25.7 seconds for dual stream collection as determined in Section 2.6. The exception may be if a HH sets out a large number of Kraft bags for collection.

5

Rounding error total is 482.4 hours.

18

July 21, 2016

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

Page 71

Table 3-5: Daily Route Time for a Single Residential Front Load Equipped with an Automated CurottoCan Collecting Yard Waste Non-Collection Time(1) Route Day

Landfill to Yard

Post Route (6)

Total NonCollection Time in Hours

45

13

30

3.3

Annual NonCollection Time per Route 170

60

29

13

30

3.0

60 60 60

33 35 45

13 13 13

30 30 30

2.9 3.0 3.1

12

60

37.4

13

30

3.0

-

5.0

-

61

300

187

65

150

15.2

791

24.8

1,289

Pre Route Time (2)

Yard to Route (3)

Admin Time (4)

Disposal Trip time (5)

Monday

30

18

60

Tuesday

30

18

Wednesday Thursday Friday

30 30 30

10 10 5

Averages

30

Totals

150

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

On Route Servicing Cust. in Hours

Annual Collection Time per Route

4.7

246

156

5.0

260

153 154 159

5.1 5.0 5.0

263 262 257

Non-Productive time is the time a driver spends off-route not servicing customers Driver activity from clock-in to leaving Municipal Service Center Average drive time from Municipal Service Center to route Meal and rest breaks, safety meetings, and other time Assumes and average of 1 disposal trip per day and 15 minutes spent in the landfill per trip Driver activity from returning to Municipal Service Center to clock out

Table 3-6 illustrates that in order to service Midland’s 14,000 HHs using five weekly yard waste routes using two yard waste automated trucks, a daily average of 2,800 HHs needs to be serviced by the two trucks, or 1,400 per truck. Using the 80 percent set-out rate gives us 1,120 HHs per day per truck route need to be serviced. Dividing the 1,120 HHs by five hours of productive collection time, each of the two crews need to service an average of 224 HHs per productive collection hour. Table 3-6 also shows the weekly average of the single new automated yard waste collection route days where the crew based on route activity are servicing an average of 224.0 homes/hour during the productive hours on route. For the purposes of the analysis, it is assumed a daily average of 2,800 HHs and 1,120 HH’s for each of the two yard waste trucks assuming an 80% set out rate. There is a slight variation of the daily HH/Collection Hour as the travel distances vary between the yard, collection route area and the landfill. A higher productivity number such as Monday’s 200.8 HHs per collection hour is the result of a ratio of non-collection versus collection time as previously shown in Table 3-5. Table 3-6: Automated Yard Waste Route Statistics Route Day Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Average

Average HH/Day 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800 2,800

Avg. HH/Rte./ Day(1)

Est. HH/Coll. Hour

1,120 1,120 1,120 1,120 1,120 1,120

236.6 224.0 221.1 222.5 226.3 226.0

The yard waste analysis shows there are no time constraints for the crews.

19

July 21, 2016

Page 72

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection 3.5 Resident Container Analysis with New Equipment

In addition to the 5,000 carts that HHs have purchased for yard waste collection, HHs have purchased an average of 50,000 Kraft yard waste bags annually. When spread over the two daily routes for the yard waste season, approximately 27 Kraft yard waste bags will be set out for collection per route per day, or from about 10 percent of the HHs serviced. Assuming an average weight of about 12 Lbs. per Kraft bag, approximately 324 Lbs. of yard waste bags would be collected per route per day in Kraft bags. This is a very low volume to move into yard waste carts so that all yard waste could be collected using an automated system. The result would be higher productivity and less driver fatigue. GBB understands that Midland would like to allow HHs to continue to have the ability to have a choice of how they set out yard waste for collection: either or both purchase and use the yard waste cart offered by Midland and/or purchase Kraft bags and stickers. So, GBB thought it necessary to analyze the yard waste system with all residents using carts. After analyzing current Midland collection operations, there are options for Midland to consider for container size, type, and style that can potentially improve safety, efficiency and/or reduce cost. Included are the operational and management impacts of the options identified. The current carts used in Midland for refuse and yard waste are designed to be used with both semi-automated and fully automated collection as shown in Figure 3-5. All the carts have tipper bars for the current semi-automated collection system and the rounded corners for fully automated collection.

Figure 3-5: Three Cart Set Out in Midland If Midland decides to transition to automated collection, GBB recommends any new carts that are purchased not be fully automated carts that do not have the tipper bars on the cart as pictured in Figure 3-6. Carts without bars will not work on semi-automated cart tippers should the need arise to use one as a spare or helper truck.

20

July 21, 2016

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

Page 73

Midland has provided the following estimate to GBB:    

Approximately 50 percent of the 14,000 HHs have purchased and use 96-gallon carts; The other 50 percent of HHs use customer-owned containers for refuse; Approximately 4,000 to 5,000, assume 4,500 or 32 percent, of the HHs have purchased and use the 96-gallon yard waste carts; and The remaining 66 percent of the HHs use purchased yard waste Kraft bags for yard waste.

Customer owned containers for refuse and yard waste can continue to be used in a new system. However, they will decrease productivity and contribute to causing lifting injuries such as sprains and strains. To fully realize the benefits of an automated collection system and reduce Workers Comprehensive Benefits costs related to injuries, GBB recommends providing refuse containers to the remaining 7,000 HH’s that have not as yet purchased refuse carts and the 9,500 HHs that have not as yet purchased yard waste carts. GBB estimates the cost of carts as follows: 16,500 (7,000 refuse carts + 9,500 yard waste carts) x $50.00 = $825,000 (includes shipping and manufacturer assembly and delivery to each Midland HH).

Figure 3-6: Example of a Fully Automated Cart

3.6 Collection Costs 3.6.1 Current Refuse and Yard Waste Variable Cost per Driver Hour Table 3-7 summarizes Midland’s variable cost for refuse and yard waste collection cost per driver-hour based on the analysis in Section 2. Included in Table 3-7 are the collection expense categories from Midland’s Adopted FY 15/16 Budget. Using this information, Midland provides residential refuse and yard waste services at an estimated variable cost of $67.99 per driver-hour. Within fringe benefits, Midland reports that approximately $13,000 is spent on costs related to Workers Compensation insurance. This is a very modest amount in light of the extent of manual collection that takes place in Midland. Table 3-7: FY 2015/2016 Variable Refuse City of Midland Budget and Cost per Driver Hour (1) Expense Category Payments To Employees Fringe Benefits Operating Supplies Gas and Oil - Vehicles Repairs and Maintenance Total Variable Expense Annual Driver Hours Total Variable Expense /Driver Hour (1)

City of Midland Adopted Budget $248,695 $290,543 $135,000 $32,820 $707,058 10,400 $67.99

Includes both Refuse and Yard Waste Expenses

3.6.2 Annual Driver Hour Savings Table 3-8 shows that there is no annual savings of driver hours by transitioning from the current semiautomated dual stream collection system to an automated refuse and yard waste collection using the Curotto-Can system. GBB’s evaluation indicates that the transition rebalances non-collection time and

21

July 21, 2016

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

Page 74

collection time allowing each driver to be more productive and reduce the amount of time needed to collect dual streams at each HH. The benefits of transitioning to automated services would be realized in other areas such as easier work for the drivers leading to increased job satisfaction and lower costs for workers compensation benefits. Additionally, by transitioning from dual stream to automated collection, the five (5) crews (three (3) for refuse and two (2) for yard waste) would need to work a full eight (8) hour day that they are currently paid for as compared to now not having to work a full day, estimated at seven (7) hours per day currently. Table 3-8: Estimate of Annual Driver Hour Savings with New Automated Service Category/ Service

Current

Weekly Non-Collection Hours Weekly Collection Hours Annual Non-Collection Hours Annual Collection Hours Total Driver Hours

100 100 5,200 5,200 10,400

Refuse w/ Three (3) Trucks 45.7 74.4 2,374 3,866 6,240

Yard Waste w/ Two (2) Trucks 36.7 43.3 1,907 2,253 4,160

Driver Hour Savings 18 -18 920 -920 0

However, using the cost developed in Table 3-7, the true cost to transition requires further analyzation. 3.6.3

Midland’s Total Cost/Savings to Transition to Automated Collection

This subsection discusses several costs and savings that can occur upon converting to automated collection. The first area of potential savings are lower Workers Compensation costs. Cuyahoga Falls has reported seeing an 86 percent reduction in Workers Compensation costs after transitioning from residential front load manual collection to residential front load equipped with automated Curotto-Can and carts. GBB understands that Midland Workers Compensation costs now are low. However, GBB believes that if Midland converts to automated services, these costs are more likely to stay low and even be lower, especially considering that the crew size would be reduced from to one per route without any helpers. The second area is a cost impact to purchase the additional refuse and yard waste carts. If Midland decides to change to automated collection, GBB recommends that Midland provide 96-gallon carts to all HHs for both refuse and yard waste. Having all HHs with carts will help maximize efficiency improvements and assure a continued low level of the risk of injury due to repetitive lifting of resident’s containers, refuse bags, and/or yard waste in Kraft bags. Even though the routes may not be fully automated in Year 1, the semi-automated collection crews would see efficiency improvements. The cost to do this is presented in Table 3-9. GBB estimates that Midland’s cost for the estimated 16,500 additional carts would be approximately $825,000. This cost includes cart assembly and delivery.

22

July 21, 2016

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

Page 75

Table 3-9: Estimated 96-Gallon Cart Needs and CapEx for Automated Collection Service

Est. Current No. of Carts

Carts needed

Refuse(1)

7,000

7,000

Yard Waste (2)

4,500

9,500

Total

11,500

16,500

Cost per Cart(3)

Total Cost

$350,000 $50.00

$475,000 $825,000

(1) Midland estimates that 50 percent of HH have carts (2) Midland estimates that 33 percent of HH have carts (3) Cart cost, including assembly & delivery during procurement assistance is estimated at $50 per cart

A third area is the incremental cost for new automated trucks. Table 3-10 presents the estimated capital expense for Midland to purchase both the carts shown in Table 3-9 and five (5) new trucks. This cost information is presented to be expended over three budget cycles. The incremental truck cost assumes that Midland will already be purchasing replacement trucks and that only the incremental cost of $25,000 is included for adding the necessary fully automated Curotto Can for each of the new Midland trucks. Table 3-10: Estimated Incremental CapEx Cost for Switching to Automated Collection Description

CapEx Year 1

CapEx Year 2

CapEx Year 3

Total

Refuse Cart Costs(1)

$233,300

$116,650

$0

$349,950

Yard Waste Cart Costs(2)

$0

$237,500

$237,500

$475,000

Incremental Curotto-Can Truck Cost(3)

$50,000

$50,000

$50,000

$150,000

Est. Revenue from Auctioning Midland's Crane/Kann Centurion(4)

($20,000)

($20,000)

($20,000)

($60,000)

Total Incremental Capex Needed

$183,300

$304,150

$267,500

$914,950

(1) Assumes 4,666 refuse carts purchased in year 1; 2,333 refuse carts in year 2 and full scale cart roll out (2) Assumes 4,750 yard Waste carts purchased in year 2; 4,750 yard Waste carts in year 3 and full scale cart roll out (3) Based on conversation with Dan Bell (4) Assumes a single front load truck auctioned each year and Midland experience selling used equipment; no value is assumed for selling rear load packer trucks.

Table 3-11 shows estimated savings that Midland could accrue over the first nine (9) years after implementation. This estimate assumes no change in the number of drivers and elimination of helpers. Lastly, no savings have been included for lower Workers Compensation costs nor for savings that can accrue by implementing computerized developed routes, discussed below. If Midland decides to charge the remaining HHs for carts, the costs shown for carts would be reduced/eliminated. Overall, implementing automated services as described

23

July 21, 2016

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

Page 76

Table 3-11: Midland's Estimated Annual Savings Implementing New Automated Service Description

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

Year 9

Variable Cost Savings(1)

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

Refuse Cart Depreciation(2)

$3,240

$1,620

$4,860

$4,860

$4,860

$4,860

$1,620

$0

$0

Yard Waste Cart Depreciation(3)

$0

$3,299

$6,598

$6,598

$6,598

$6,598

$6,598

$3,299

$0

Heil/Curotto-Can Truck Depreciation(3)

$694

$1,389

$1,042

$1,042

$1,042

$1,042

$1,041

$1,041

$0

Truck Auction Proceeds

($20,00 0)

($20,00 0)

($20,000 )

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

Total Estimated Annual ($16,06 ($13,69 ($7,500) $12,500 $12,50 $12,50 $9,259 $4,340 $0 Cost/(Savings) 6) 2) 0 0 (1) From Table 3-7 FY 2015/2016 Variable Refuse Budget and Cost per Driver Hour ($67.99) multiplied by 1,040 drivers hours saved year 1 and $67.99 multiplied by 2,080 drivers hours saved year 2 onward using an average 2.4% CPI for years 2 and 3 (2) Assumes all refuse carts purchased in year 1; purchase price ÷ 72 months (3) Yard waste carts depreciation: purchase price ÷ 72 months

3.7 Preliminary Route Optimization Evaluation Currently, Midland drivers use route maps that show streets in the route but not the path that should be followed. This practice allows drivers to decide which streets to turn on next, whether to turn right or left, whether to avoid school opening or closing hours, etc. The result is potentially inefficient routes being driven, more time required to serve the HHs in the route area, and passing schools and other congested areas at the wrong times of day creating a possible safety and/or accident situation. Additionally, Midland officials indicated that current routes are imbalanced and some drivers are finishing earlier than others. Midland can address these concerns by preparing routes generated with computerized routing software. It can be used regardless of whether Midland transitions to automated services or not. GBB experience has shown that there can be cost savings in the range of 10 to 25 percent. Additionally, routing optimization software can help balance routes, so all drivers are finishing the same time each day. If Midland does implement the new automated collection system, the route areas can be larger as the new vehicles can collect from more HHs with the new automated trucks that have larger capacity than the current trucks. Having new routes will also help Midland with public outreach to advise its citizens for the service and especially if service will be provided on a different day.6

6

There are several computerized software products that can be used. GBB has extensive experience with FleetRoute TM Route Optimization Software. Once purchased, it will take approximately three to four months to conduct the routing work so that it can be used in the field.

24

July 21, 2016

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

Page 77

3.8 Automated Collection Implementation This section outlines how Midland can switch to having its refuse and yard waste services changed over to automated services from the current dual collection method servicing a range of container types. The switch over could be implemented over a three-year period. There are two activities that GBB suggests Midland do as part of planning and implementing the switchover: 1. Conduct several meetings with groups of residential customers reviewing the observations made by GBB in this report and changing over to a new approach. Input should be sought regarding the implementation plan especially how requiring cart use should be made; and 2. Develop new routes using computer-aided software so that the new routes are optimized, safety enhanced, and inefficiencies are reduced so that driver time on the new routes is less and the routes become known and can be used for training purposes. Midland is already planning to replace its fleet. So, replacing it with new automated trucks will have a marginal cost impact on Midland’s budget for new vehicles. Additionally, as presented earlier, more carts for refuse and yard waste would need to be purchased as some 7,000 HHs (50 percent) use refuse carts and only 4,500 HHs (33 percent) currently have yard waste carts out of Midland’s 14,000 HHs served. Therefore, the City would need also phase in cart purchases to coincide with the number of automated truck routes. A suggested implementation approach could be as follows: Year 1:    

Purchase two (2) single waste stream residential front load trucks equipped with automated Curotto-Cans; Purchase and deliver necessary carts for the new automated routes; Remove the adjustable split body floors on existing dual trucks and use the existing trucks to collect a single waste stream, either refuse or yard waste; Sell one (1) semi-automated front load truck and keep one (1) semi-automated front load truck for a spare.

Year 2:   

Purchase two (2) single waste stream residential front load trucks equipped with automated Curotto-Cans (one should have a semi-automated tipper on the left side as well as the automated arm for the one way streets); Purchase and deliver necessary carts for the additional automated routes; and Sell one (1) semi-automated front load truck and keep one (1) semi-automated front load truck for a spare.

Year 3:  

Purchase one (1) single waste stream residential front load truck equipped with an automated Curotto-Can; Purchase and deliver the required number of carts for the additional automated route; and

25

July 21, 2016

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

Page 78



Sell one (1) semi-automated front load truck and keep one (1) semi-automated front load truck for a spare.

After the three-year implementation is completed and all automated trucks are in service, Midland can sell any remaining trucks the City would not use for collection. Midland should also purchase a modest supply of carts for inventory repair and replacement, e.g. 5 percent of total (700: 350 refuse and 350 yard waste). The deployment of the automated trucks is illustrated in Table 3-13. Because all routes would be collecting a single waste stream in year one, rerouting would be required to effectively use the equipment. As mentioned above, GBB suggests Midland invest in preparing new routes with computer-aided software to realize efficiency gains at this time of change. However, if that is not used, rerouting could be completed manually by using the current route maps and redoing the areas so that an automated truck route would have approximately 1,000 households/day and the semi-automated about 600-700 households for both refuse and yard waste. Table 3-12 presents a summary of this implementation plan. Table 3-12: Automated Truck and Cart Purchase Plan Action

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Total

Truck Purchase (1)

2- Residential Front load w/ Automated Curotto-Can

2- Residential Front load w/ Automated Curotto-Can

1- Residential Front load w/ Automated Curotto-Can

5- Residential Front load w/ Automated Curotto-Can

Refuse Cart Purchase(2)

4,666

2,333

0

6,999

Yard Waste Cart Purchase(3)

0

4,750

4,750

9,500

Modify

Remove the adjustable floor on 3Residential Front load w/Semiautomated Carry-Can

N/A

N/A

N/A

Sell

1- Residential Front load w/Semiautomated Carry-Can

1- Residential Front load w/Semiautomated CarryCan

1- Residential Front load w/Semiautomated Carry-Can

remaining rear loads that are not needed for leaf collection

1-modified truck

3-modified trucks to use as spares, double up days, and heavy times of the year

Keep as Spare Trucks

1-modified truck

1-modified truck

(1) Because Midland is planning to replace the current fleet over the next three years, the costs will be the incremental difference between the new automated Curotto-Can vs. the current semi-automated carry can. (2) Assumes 7,000 households currently have a cart (3) Assumes 4,500 households currently have a cart

26

July 21, 2016

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

Page 79

Table 3-13: Automated Truck Deployment Plan (1) Service

Refuse

Yard waste

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

1 modified dual compartment truck collecting refuse only

3 new single compartment trucks

3 new single compartment trucks

2 modified dual compartment trucks collecting yard waste only

2 modified dual compartment trucks collecting yard waste only

2 new single compartment trucks

2 new single compartment trucks

(1) This plan requires rerouting both refuse and yard waste either by providing each driver with two route maps from previous dual stream collection method or the preferred method of computerized rerouting for maximum efficiency.

During the time leading up to the change in collection, Midland will need to educate the public with regard to both use of carts and a new collection day, as necessary. Where possible, efforts should be made to keep HHs with the same collection day. Midland, in consultation with some of its customers, needs to determine how best to bring about the purchase of carts. As an example, Midland could consider changing the current practice of requiring residents to purchase stickers for yard waste carts and Kraft yard waste bags as a “trade” for purchasing carts. Some credit should also be developed for those HHs which have already purchased refuse and/or yard waste carts. GBB recommends phasing in automated collection, by route by collection day to evenly distribute the workload over the course of the phase in period. For example, the same two routes per day Monday through Friday. This way the driver and the residents get use to the collection and the next two routes are built on the following year until all routes are automated. Midland should expect the drivers to use their full eight hours to complete routes using semi-automated trucks. However, as fully automated routes are phased in, GBB expects that route times would decrease as drivers get used to the new routes and the faster time to serve HHs. With computerized routes, there may be up to a 15-20% time savings for route drivers.

27

July 21, 2016

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

Page 80

4.0 Benchmarking Residential Automated Front Load against Similar Collection Programs 4.1 Introduction Three (3) other municipalities have been identified as benchmarks with similar refuse collection services. The benchmarked municipalities were selected, in part, based on population, proximity, and provide the four basic core collection services similar to that which Midland is considering changing to. The information collected provides a high-level observation of the key similarities and variances in the benchmarked residential collection programs. All the municipalities provide roll carts and use automated residential Heil front load packers with Curotto-Cans when providing residential refuse and yard waste collection services. Emphasis was put on comparable service levels, on-street parking, and other operational restrictions such as weather, storms, or snow removal. In addition, the benchmarked communities closely matched Midland in terms of services offered, size of community and population density. The proximity of stops was also a factor considered. GBB collected the necessary data through website searches and telephone interviews, and entered the data collected into the comparison matrix. In addition, pertinent data elements are compared and contrasted to Midland. The three (3) communities that have been benchmarked are: Bay City, MI; Cuyahoga Falls, OH; and North Port, FL. Also, additional information was gathered from a smaller community, Village of Moreland Hills, OH, using the same collection equipment configuration, and is included below separately. Table 4-1 provides Midland’s demographics compared with three (3) other municipalities. It was not possible to get exactly comparable data. All the benchmarked cities were very cooperative in sharing their services structures and costs and expressed interest in the final product for their inspection and review purposes. Table 4-1: Benchmarked Community Demographics (1) Item

Midland, MI

Bay City, MI

Cuyahoga Falls, OH

North Port, FL

Population

42,020

35,521

49,253

60,380

Sq. Miles of Land

33.70

11.21

25.65

74.80

Density (Pop./Sq. Mile)

1,246.9

3,434.0

1,920.2

807.2

(1) From Wikipedia

Village of Moreland Hills, OH As an added data point but not a direct participant in the benchmarking, GBB selected Moreland Hills as a regional municipality in close proximity to Midland. We were able to gather some research data on the automated collection that is worth pointing out. In 2014, the Village of Moreland Hills began transitioning from residential front load manual collection of rubbish (refuse) in customer owned containers to residential front load collection with automated Curotto-Can and carts town-wide. The reason for the transition was not given. The Solid Waste Department Head reported at a Council meeting that the new automated rubbish collection is progressing

28

July 21, 2016

Page 81

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

slowly as all residents had not purchased the new carts for the automated collection. The Council meeting minutes also stated that with the old front loader rubbish truck, the rubbish collection would not be finished until 3:00 P.M., but with the new automated truck, crews have been finishing before noon and workers do not have to stand in traffic to pick up the rubbish, making it much safer for them7. This does demonstrate that there is an increase in productivity switching to carts and safety benefits as well.

4.2 Refuse Collection The refuse collection services in the benchmarked communities are very similar to Midland’s in that they have weekly collection at single family homes. One community, North Port, also collects from duplexes, in carts varying in size from 32-gallon to 96-gallon carts. Midland and Bay City report some one way street collection while Cuyahoga Falls and North Port report none. Also, all three communities report some on street parking. Table 4-2 compares refuse collection services found across the benchmarked communities with Midland. Both Cuyahoga Falls and North Port use residential front loaders equipped with automated Curotto-Cans. Bay City uses automated side loaders for the majority of their refuse collection. Currently, Midland uses semi-automated residential trucks. Midland has the fewest number of collection points per route because Midland is the only City that uses a dual stream collection method (refuse and yard waste) while the others have single refuse collection only allowing for more collection points. Bay City also uses a dual arm collection truck on one-way streets to be able to collect from both sides of the street in two passes. This is something Midland should consider for new automated services.

7

Moreland Hills, OH Regular Council Meeting July 9, 2014 Minutes.

29

July 21, 2016

Evaluation of Transitioning Household Refuse and Yard Waste Collection Services to Curotto-Can Collection

Page 82

Table 4-2: Refuse Collection Services Comparison Types of Collection Services Public or Private Number of Units in Program Annual Refuse Tonnage (1) Pounds per Unit per week Type of Service Vehicle

Midland, MI

Bay City, MI

Public

Public

Cuyahoga Falls, OH Public

14,000

15,362

17,000

28,273

9,706

16,000

16,504

22,375

26.66

40.06

37.34

30.44

Front-load semiautomated split Kann body refuse trucks; two cart tippers (60% on bottom)

Heil residential front load with automated Curotto-Can

Autocar ACX chassis; with either E-Z Pack bodies and Curotto Can (residential) or Labrie SL

8 hours

8 hours

North Port, FL Public

Work day length

8 hours

5 Automated Side loaders ( 3Heil Rapid Rail, 1-Dual Arm Labrie, 1-Single Arm Labrie, 1 Rear loader) 8 hours

Collection Frequency (e.g. weekly or Every other week (EOW)) Number of Average Collection Points/Route/Day Cart Size(s)

Weekly

Weekly

Weekly

Weekly

500-600

819

850

Avg. 840 residential units per route

95-gallons for 50 percent of HHs

96-gallons

96-gallons

Small bulk; customer cans

Some 68-gallons for elderly residents Downtown area only

Small bulk; customer cans

80 percent, 95gallons ; 17 percent, 65-gallons; and 3 percent, 32-gallons Residents can lease additional containers

No

No