HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/28/2014 02 Refuse & Recycling Rate DiscussionBUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No. 2.
For Meeting of: October 28, 2014
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
Refuse & Recycling Rate discussion
Scott Schafer, Public Works Director
Loretta Zammarchi, Refuse & Recycling Manager 576-6421
The following items have been enclosed for the Study Session:
1. Study Session Memorandum
2. Yakima Pilot Report with Rate Study
3. Refuse PowerPoint Presentation
Resolution: Ordinance:
Other (Specify):
Contract: Contract Term:
Start Date: End Date:
Item Budgeted: Amount:
Funding Source/Fiscal
Impact:
Strategic Priority:
Insurance Required? No
Mail to:
Phone:
APPROVED FOR
SUBMITTAL:
RECOMMENDATION:
Improve the Built Environment
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Upload Date Type
Refuse Study Session Memorandum 10/24/2014 Cover Memo
Yakima Pilot Report 10/24/2014 Backup Materliall
Refuse PowerPoint Rate Study 10/24/2014 Presentation
STUDY SESSION MEMORANDUM
OCTOBER 28, 2014
TO: Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council, and Tony O'Rourke, City
Manager
FROM: Scott Schafer, Director of Public Works
Loretta Zammarchi, Solid Waste and Recycling Manager
SUBJECT: Overview of the Solid Waste and Recycling Program
The following information is being provided as part of Refuse's Rate Study and to address
the 2013 Yakima Citizen Survey which supported the implementation of a curbside
recycling program. The Rate Study indicates an annual deficit of nearly $300,000 within
the Solid Waste Division due to the fact that rates have not been adjusted since 2008. In
addition to those findings, a small scale pilot project was conducted this summer to test
assumptions and validate cost estimates for a recycling program. This study session
presents the following findings from the pilot project:
• Reviews the current rates and cost of services as presented by the summer findings.
• Mandatory residential garbage service is proposed to increase by $0.98 for 96 -
gallon and $2 for 32 -gallon containers.
• The cost for residential garbage, yard waste, and recycling services if bundled would
be reduced from $34.20 to $18.62 per month for 32 -gallon and reduced from $40.20
to $24.62 per month for 96 -gallon garbage. These bundled services would be
available starting 2016.
• 74% of the customers participating in the City's pilot recycling program indicated
that they could downsize from a 96 -gallon to 32 -gallon container.
Proposal
In the summer of 2014, the City of Yakima Solid Waste and Recycling Division conducted a
pilot project to explore the potential for providing curbside recycling services to residents.
Green Solutions was hired to assess participation and set out rates, collect refuse and
recyclable tonnages, and conduct a composition test; aligning the results of the pilot with
current and /or projected rate.
The consultants also worked with the Solid Waste staff to incorporate the findings into a
rate proposal of "bundled services" showing the cost of a three stream collection system
(garbage, curbside recycling and yard waste) and to evaluate the effectiveness and
efficiency connected to every other week collection.
The consultants consolidated the findings, including proposed future rates and
recommendation into a report - City of Yakima Curbside Recycling Pilot Project, October
2014.
Program Recommendations
Evaluation of additional curbside recycling and yard waste collection services was
conducted at the same time that the garbage rates for the city were being reviewed. The
current rates for waste collection services have not kept up with increasing costs, and do
not cover all the cost providing the service. In a work session in April, 2014, City Council
was notified of the issue when the cost for residential services was presented for
discussion.
Based on the analysis conducted for the pilot curbside project and rate study the following
recommendation are made:
MANDATORY SERVICES
• Current rates need to be increased for garbage service $0.98 for 96 -gallon and $2 for
32 -gallon containers to cover the actual cost of City mandated residential garbage
collection.
ELECTED/OPTIONAL SERVICES
• Current rates need to be increased to cover cost of service for elected yard waste
collection services.
• For compatibility to existing equipment, inventory, and reduction in administrative
cost overhead, we recommend eliminating the 64 gallon yard waste cart as a
service option.
• A voluntary residential curbside recycling service should be implemented on a twice
a month schedule citywide as part of a bundled service.
• Yard waste collection service is recommended to be reduced from weekly to twice
per month as part of a bundled service.
• Offer a bundled rate for residential garbage, curbside recycling and yard collection
in the base rate for garbage collection, which provides for economies of scale and
reduction in administrative overhead costs. The results of the pilot recycling
program show that most residents (over 90%) will use curbside recycling if it is
available to them. Bundling curbside recycling with the garbage rates allows this
service to be provided for only $3.00 per month. If yard waste service is also
bundled with garbage service, the rate for that service drops to $3.62 per month.
Yakima Waste Systems, Inc. currently offers twice per month recycling at
$8.20/month and yard waste collection at $10.78.
OPTION #1
32 -Gallon 64 -Gallon Yard 96 -Gallon
Garbage Waste Garbage
MANDATORY SERVICE
Current monthly rates
Proposed monthly garbage service
rate
OPTIONAL SERVICES
Proposed curbside recycling, 96 -
Gallon cart
$10.00
$12.00
n/a
Current yard waste rate
n/a
Proposed yard waste W
n/a
1
$7.01
Discontinued
$17.02
$18.00
n/a
$12.82
$14.00
• With the bundled approach, a "typical" customer who currently has only a 96 -
gallon garbage cart could switch to a 32 gallon garbage cart with yard waste
and recycling service for only $0.62 more per month. In the pilot recycling
program, 74% of the customers indicated that they could downsize from a 96 -
gallon to 32 -gallon container due to their recycling efforts.
• A customer who currently has a 32 -gallon garbage cart only (which represents
16% of our customer base) will see an increase of $2 for mandatory garbage
service. However, if they want additional yard waste and recycling services,
the cost increases by $6.62.
• A customer who currently has a 32 gallon garbage cart and yard waste service
will see a $6.20 decrease.
Service
OPTION #2 BUNDLED SERVICES
Al
32 gal
service
La Cart Bundled
Approach
96 gal service
96 gal service
32 gal service
Mandatory Solid Waste F i r
Current
$10.00
$17.01
Proposed
$12.00
$18.00
$12.00
$18.00
Optional
Current Yard Debris j
$12.82
$12.82
Proposed Yard Debris
$14.00
$14.00
$3.62
$3.62
Current Recycling 1
*$8.20
*$8.20
Proposed Recycling
*$8.20
*$8.20
$3.00
$3.00
Total Proposed Cost
$34.20
$40.20
$18.62
$24.62
*Yakima Waste Recycling
Bundled services equates to $15.58 per month savings to our customers.
Fiscal Impact
The current rates for waste collection services do not cover all the cost of providing the
service. Collection costs for the FY 2015 are projected to increase by approximately
$386,000, or 7% over the current year budget.
Public Impact
Under the current rate structure, there is a disparity between the residential rates and the
cost of service. Residents will see a rate increase to reflect the actual cost of service for
collection.
Future Program Vision
To provide residential collection services that are fair and equitable to all residents.
Ensure sufficient fund balances and reserves (12% operating reserve) by establishing cost
of service rates. Introduce every other week single stream curbside recycling as a
sustainable solid waste management alternative to disposal.
GREEN SOLUTIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
CITY OF YAKIMA PILOT
CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROJECT
October 2014
GREEN SOLUTIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
CITY OF YAKIMA PILOT CURBSIDE
RECYCLING PROJECT
Prepared by:
Green Solutions
PO Box 680
South Prairie, WA 98385
rick@green-solutions.biz
(360) 897-9533
with assistance from
Chris Bell & Associates
Camas, WA
360-210-4344
and
Envirolssues
Seattle, WA
206-269-5041
October 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Introduction E-1
What did We Learn from the Pilot Project? E-1
Recommended Changes E-2
I. Pilot Program Performance
A. Introduction 1
B. Design of the Pilot Project 1
C. Tonnage and Participation Results 2
D. Recycling Cart Observations 5
E. Composition of the Collected Recyclable Materials 7
II. Customer Satisfaction
A. Introduction 8
B. Survey Results 8
C. Focus Group 13
III. Rate Analysis
A. Introduction 15
B. Current Needs for Rate Increase 15
C. Rates for Potential New Services 16
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
A. Introduction 17
B. Conclusions and Recommendations 17
C. Comparison to Other Areas 19
Attachments
A. Tags Placed on Recycling Carts
B. Composition Test Results
C Focus Group Results
D Rate Analysis
Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project i Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES
Executive Summary
E-1. Recommended Rates for Current Services E-2
E-2. Bundled Approach for New Services E-2
I. Pilot Program Performance
1. Tonnages Collected and Setout Rates for Pilot Program 3
2. Contaminants found in the Recycling Carts 6
3. Composition Results, Curbside Recycling Samples 7
II. Customer Satisfaction
4. Results of Pre -Survey in Pilot Program Area 9
5. Results of Post -Survey of Pilot Program Participants 11
III. Rate Analysis
6. Recommended Rates for Current Services 15
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
7. Bundled Approach for New Services 18
8. Rates for Other Areas 19
LIST OF FIGURES
I. Pilot Program Performance
1. Number of Setouts in Pilot Program Area 4
Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project ii Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
In the summer of 2014, the Yakima Public Works Department conducted a pilot project
to explore the potential for the Refuse Division to provide curbside recycling services to
residents. The pilot program also tested a different approach for yard waste collection
services. This report discusses the results of that pilot project, including:
• Data on tonnages collected and participation rates
• A cost analysis for a permanent program
• Survey data collected by the City
• The results of a focus group involving pilot program participants
• A composition test of the collected recyclables
The City Refuse Division currently provides yard waste collection on a subscription
basis, while Yakima Waste Systems currently provides curbside recycling services in the
city on a subscription basis. Neither approach is effective in reaching all of the people
that could be using these services and neither approach can capitalize on economies
of scale that could reduce the per -household cost. The results of this analysis show
that the cost of curbside recycling service could be reduced from $8.20 to $3.00 per
household per month through a bundled rate approach, and yard waste services could
likewise be reduced from $13.00 or $14.001 to $3.62 per month.
WHAT DID WE LEARN FROM THE PILOT PROJECT?
The results of the pilot program were generally favorable:
• Pilot program participants weren't sure about the program's benefits in the
beginning, but most of the participants were in favor of it afterwards.
• Over 90% of the households in the pilot program participated in it.
• A citywide curbside recycling program can be provided at a rate of only $3.00
per month.
• A citywide yard waste program can be provided at $3.62 per household per
month.
' The current rate for yard waste collection services is actually $7.01 for a 64 -gallon cart and $12.82 for a 96 -gallon
cart, but the actual cost of providing this service is $13.00 for a 64 -gallon cart and $14.00 for a 96 -gallon cart.
Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project E-1 Executive Summary
RECOMMENDED CHANGES
This evaluation of additional curbside recycling and yard waste collection services is
being conducted at the same time that garbage rates for the city need to be increased
just to maintain current services. Existing rates have not kept up with increasing costs
for the current services, and reserves have now been depleted as a result. It is
recommended that the rates for existing services be increased as shown in the following
table.
Table E-1
Recommended Rates for Current Services
Size and Type of Cart
Current
Monthly Rate
Recommended
New Rate
32 -Gallon Garbage Cart
96 -Gallon Garbage Cart
$10.00
$17.02
$12.00
$18.00
It is further recommended that curbside recycling and yard waste services be provided
to all customers and that a "bundled rate" approach be used for this. The results of the
pilot recycling program show that most residents (over 90%) will use curbside recycling
if it is available to them, although the participation rate for yard waste was not as high.
Including (bundling) curbside recycling with the garbage rate allows this service to be
provided for only $3.00 per month. If yard waste service is also bundled with garbage
service, the rate for that service drops to $3.62 per month. Table E-2 shows the net effect
of the recommended changes.
Table E-2
Bundled Approach for New Services
Service
32 -Gallon
Garbage
96 -Gallon
Garbage
Garbage Service
Curbside Recycling, 96 -Gallon Cart
collected every -other -week
Yard Waste, 96 -Gallon Cart collected
every -other -week
Total
$12.00
$3.00
$3.62
$18.62
$18.00
$3.00
$3.62
$24.62
The full report for this project provides additional recommendations for the
implementation of the new services (see Section Four).
Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project E-2
Executive Summary
SECTION ONE
PILOT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
A. INTRODUCTION
In the summer of 2014, the Yakima Public Works Department conducted a pilot project
to explore the potential for the Refuse Division to provide curbside recycling services to
residents. As part of that pilot program, City staff collected data on setout rates and
conducted surveys of the participants before and after the collections were conducted.
The consulting firm Green Solutions (South Prairie, WA), assisted by Chris Bell &
Associates (Camas, WA) and Envirolssues (Seattle, WA), analyzed the data collected by
the City, conducted a composition test of the recyclables, prepared a rate analysis, and
conducted a focus group to collect additional feedback from the participants. This work
was funded by a Coordinated Prevention Grant from the Department of Ecology.
This section of the report discusses the data collected on the performance of the pilot
project, including:
• Tonnages collected and participation (setout) rates
• A composition test of the collected recyclables
Section Two of this report provides the results of the surveys and the focus group, and
Section Three provides a summary of the rate analysis. Section Four of this report
provides conclusions and recommendations based on the analysis and findings of this
project.
B. DESIGN OF THE PILOT PROJECT
The pilot project was designed to evaluate an approach that could potentially be more
effective in diverting recyclable materials from the waste stream. The pilot program
also tested a different approach for yard waste collection. The City Refuse Division
currently provides yard waste collection on a subscription basis, while Yakima Waste
Systems provides curbside recycling services in the city on a subscription basis.
Neither approach is effective in reaching all of the people that could be using these
services, and neither approach can capitalize on economies of scale that could reduce
the cost of these services.
To implement the pilot program, City of Yakima staff reviewed their routes to choose a
representative area for the pilot program, distributed carts to that area, conducted the
collections, monitored the quality of the setouts, and then collected the new carts at the
Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project 1 Section 1: Pilot Program Performance
end of the pilot program. The choice of the route for the pilot program was considered
carefully so as to choose an area that was as representative of the city as possible. After
narrowing the best choices down to a few routes, the Kissel Park Community was
selected for the pilot program. This area is currently collected on a Tuesday, and is
designated as Route G8. To kick off the pilot program and to help inform the residents
about it, the Refuse Division conducted a Clean Up and Recycling Information Day on
April 26th. For this event, residents were able to bring garbage and metal to Kissel Park,
where City staff were available to answer questions about the pilot program. By the
end of the day, over 100 people had brought 14 tons of waste and 1.32 tons of recyclable
metal to this event.
The route chosen for the pilot program contained 622 residences. Some of these
households were existing recycling customers for Yakima Waste Systems, and those
residences were not included in the pilot program. A few additional households
declined to participate for various reasons, including senior citizens who declined for
health reasons. With these adjustments, a total of 537 households were included in the
pilot program. Each of these homes was provided with a 96 -gallon recycling cart and a
96 -gallon yard waste cart. Residents with 96 -gallon garbage carts were provided with a
32 -gallon garbage cart to use instead. The carts were distributed during the week of
April 21st. After the last collection day in August, these carts were taken back by the
Refuse Division and placed into storage until needed. The customers in the pilot
program area were returned to their previous service level, which consisted of either 32 -
gallon or 96 -gallon garbage service, no recycling service, and yard waste collection only
for those who chose to subscribe to it.
C. TONNAGE AND PARTICIPATION RESULTS
As described above, the pilot program included 537 households after adjustments were
made for those households already subscribing to curbside recycling or who declined
for other reasons. Of these 537 households, about 149 households (28%) were already
subscribed to yard waste collection service. Many of these yard waste subscribers (128,
or 24%) already had a 96 -gallon cart for this service and so did not receive a new cart,
but all of the remaining households (including those with a 64 -gallon cart for yard
waste service) were provided with a new 96 -gallon cart to use for yard waste during the
pilot program. All 537 households received a 96 -gallon cart for recycling, and those
households that did not already use a 32 -gallon cart for garbage were provided with a
new 32 -gallon cart to use for garbage. Of the 537 households, about 161 households
(30%) were already using a 32 -gallon cart for garbage service.
Recyclables in the pilot program area were collected every -other -week on Tuesdays,
beginning on May 6 and ending on August 26. Yard waste collections were conducted
every -other -week on Fridays, from May 9 through August 29. Data was gathered by
Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project 2 Section 1: Pilot Program Performance
the collection truck drivers on which households set out their recycling and yard waste
carts, and data was also recorded on the tonnages of garbage, recyclables and yard
waste from the pilot project area. Table 1 shows the amount of yard waste and
recyclable materials collected in the pilot program area and the setout rates for the carts,
and also the amount of garbage collected in the pilot program area. Figure 1 shows the
number of setouts for each type of cart during the pilot program.
Table 1
Tonnages Collected and Setout Rates for Pilot Program
Notes: NA = material was not collected that week or the data is missing.
* The amount of yard waste collected in the pilot program area before the pilot program began is
an estimate based on the citywide average for pounds of yard waste per subscriber for the last
week of April (39.3) and the number of pre-existing subscribers in the pilot area (149), with the
result doubled to account for the service only being every -other -week in the pilot program.
Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project 3 Section 1: Pilot Program Performance
Tons Collected
Number
Garbage
of Setouts
Yard
Recycling
Waste
Garbage Recycling
Yard
Waste
Pre -Pilot
10.56
5.85*
May 6
8.71
2.53
8.85
493
357
312
May 13
8.15
NA
NA
471
NA
NA
May 20
9.06
3.14
11.8
505
403
347
May 27
9.28
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
June 3
8.32
3.04
9.84
517
415
340
June 10
8.31
NA
NA
460
NA
NA
June 17
8.48
3.05
6.52
492
398
282
June 24
8.43
NA
NA
463
NA
NA
July 1
8.66
2.65
7.52
488
398
282
July 8
8.46
NA
NA
457
NA
NA
July 15
8.89
2.26
6.73
493
385
288
July 22
8.69
NA
NA
463
NA
NA
July 29
9.08
2.75
7.22
487
382
307
August 5
8.74
NA
NA
468
NA
NA
August 12
8.43
2.78
7.77
482
406
310
August 19
7.90
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
August 26
9.80
3.09
9.33
NA
458
NA
Total Tons
147.4
25.3
58.5
Percent of Total
Tons
59.4%
10.2%
30.4%
Averages
8.67
2.81
8.40
481
400
309
Average Setout
Rate
89.6%
74.5%
57.5%
Average Pounds
per Setout
31.0
14.0
54.4
Notes: NA = material was not collected that week or the data is missing.
* The amount of yard waste collected in the pilot program area before the pilot program began is
an estimate based on the citywide average for pounds of yard waste per subscriber for the last
week of April (39.3) and the number of pre-existing subscribers in the pilot area (149), with the
result doubled to account for the service only being every -other -week in the pilot program.
Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project 3 Section 1: Pilot Program Performance
Figure 1
Number of Setouts in Pilot Program Area
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
5/6/2014 6/6/2014 7/6/2014 8/6/2014
Note: This graph shows the garbage setouts only for the recycling weeks.
Garbage Setouts
Recycling Setouts
Yard Waste Setouts
As can be seen in Table 1, the amount of garbage collected in the pilot program area
decreased during the pilot project, dropping from a pre -pilot amount of 10.56 tons per
collection day to an average of 8.67 tons. It should be noted that the weekly amount of
garbage shown in Table 1 includes the garbage collected from the 85 households in that
area that did not participate in the pilot program. The amounts of recyclables collected
during this period were fairly stable. The amount of yard waste increased and then
dropped off, which is likely the result of seasonal fluctuations in rainfall and vegetative
growth. Both the recycling and yard waste amounts showed a slight increase for the
final collection day, which is likely the result of pilot program participants using their
last opportunity to set out these materials. Outreach materials for the pilot program
encouraged participants to do this so that their carts would be empty when City staff
took them back.
The participation data shown in Table 1 is expressed in terms of setout rates, which is
the percentage of the total households that set out that particular cart on that day. The
percentage of households that set out their yard waste carts for each collection day was
the lowest rate of the three carts (57.5% for the yard waste carts versus 89.6% for
garbage and 74.5% for recycling), but the average yard waste cart contained more
material (54.4 pounds per setout) than the other two carts (31.0 pounds per setout for
garbage and 14.0 pounds per setout for recycling). The amount of recyclables set out is
relatively low compared to other areas. In the City of Richland, for instance, recycling
Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project 4 Section 1: Pilot Program Performance
carts contain an average of 23 pound per setout (versus the 14 pounds per setout for the
pilot program in Yakima). The amount of recyclables in Yakima was potentially
affected by the season, the short-term nature of the pilot program and/or other factors.
Setout data is helpful, but it is not the same as a participation rate. Since every
household does not set out their carts every time there is a collection day, there are
actually more households participating than indicated by setout rates. For example,
garbage cans are set out at the highest setout rate (89.6%), but more than likely 100% of
the households are actually participating in garbage collection services. Similarly, the
number of households that participating in curbside recycling was clearly higher than
the 74.5% setout rate shown in Table 1. Based on the pattern of responses seen in the
post -survey and other data, the actual participation rate for curbside recycling was
likely over 90%.
Finally, it is interesting to note that the setout rate for garbage carts was slightly higher
in those weeks when recycling was also being collected. This is a common observation
and can easily be explained by the fact that people are often bringing out their recycling
cart that morning and so it is easier to also put out the garbage cart. The average setout
rate for garbage carts for the weeks when recyclables were also being collected was 92%
and for the non -recycling week it was 86%.
D. RECYCLING CART OBSERVATIONS
Six times during the course of the pilot program collections, City staff or a volunteer
(Christine Funk) checked the contents of the recycling carts and either attached an
"oops" tag noting that the wrong materials had been placed in the cart or attached a
"recycling star" tag stating that that the cart's contents looked good (see Attachment A
for copies of the tags). The carts were "tagged" in this manner on May 6, May 20, June
3, June 17, July 1, and July 29. All of the carts were also tagged a seventh time on
August 12th to inform residents that the carts would be removed after the next collection
day.
Not all carts were checked for the first six tagging events because the cart inspection
and tagging process took longer than the collection truck took to empty the carts (hence,
the tagging staff could not stay ahead of the truck or complete the route in one day).
An average of 91 recycling carts were checked on each collection day and on the
average almost one-third (31%) of the carts were found to have a notable amount of
contamination in them. While this level of contamination may appear high, it should be
kept in mind that the overall amount of contamination was not that large since in many
cases a "contaminated" cart may have only contained a few plastic bags or other small
items. This amount of contamination, in fact, compares fairly well to similar studies
Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project 5 Section 1: Pilot Program Performance
conducted recently in Clark County and suburban King County, which found
contamination rates of 28% and 31%, respectively, in recycling carts.
Table 2 shows the types of contaminants that were tracked for the cart observations and
the number of times that these contaminants were observed. "Clamshells" are clear
plastic, hinged containers often used for deli and take-out foods. "Blister" packaging is
made from a layer of plastic and paper glued together, and is often used as packaging
for small items such as pens.
Table 2
Contaminants found in the Recycling Carts
Type of Contamination
Number of Carts with Percent of Carts with
Contaminant Co . inant
Deli Packaging ("Clamshells")
Pizza Boxes
Plastic Bags
Trash
Styrofoam
"Blister" Packaging
Glass Bottles
Other
Totals
48
30
24
20
12
7
6
58
139*
10.5%
6.6%
5.3%
4.4%
2.6%
1.5%
1.3%
12.7%
30.5%*
Note: * The total number of contaminated carts is lower than the sum of each type of contaminant
because some carts had more than one type of contamination.
A variety of materials were counted in the "other" category. Some of the materials
counted in this category include (roughly in order of occurrence, from most to least):
• plant pots
• food
• paper plates
• tissues
• coated paper food packaging
Non -recyclable items that were found only once or twice in the recycling carts included
a garden hose, plastic pool, floor mat, batteries and yard waste.
Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project 6 Section 1: Pilot Program Performance
E. COMPOSITION OF THE COLLECTED RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
Table 3 shows the results of the composition test that was conducted on the recyclables
collected on August 26, and the full report for this test is shown in Attachment B. As
can be seen in Table 3, the total amount of contamination ("non -program' materials)
found in this test was only 7.4%. This is fairly good compared to many other programs.
Data from two other studies used for comparison purposes (Clark County and Kitsap
County) shows contamination levels of 8.3% and 9.5%, respectively. It is likely that the
intensive outreach during pilot project in Yakima helped to reduce common
contaminants such as plastic bags. It should be noted that pizza boxes are included as a
recyclable material even though program materials discouraged, because the boxes
found during the composition test were generally clean enough to be recycled.
Table 3
Composition Results, Curbside Recycling Samples
Type of Material Average, %
ACCEPTABLE MATERIALS
Recyclable Paper
Newspaper
Cardboard
Mixed Paper
Shredded Paper
Pizza Boxes
Recyclable Plastic
Plastic Bottles
Tubs
Buckets
Metals
Aluminum Cans
Tin Cans
Scrap Metal
NON -PROGRAM MATERIALS
Non -Program Plastic
Bags
Trays and Clamshells
Glass
Glass Bottles
Non -Recyclable Glass
Other
Food Scraps
Yard Debris
Other Non-Recyclables
92.6
79.0
18.8
18.6
39.3
0.2
2.0
8.9
8.5
0.4
0.0
4.8
2.1
2.0
0.7
7.4
0.9
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.04
5.7
0.1
0.03
5.5
Note: All figures are percentages by weight.
Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project 7 Section 1: Pilot Program Performance
SECTION TWO
CUSTOMER SATISFACTION
A. INTRODUCTION
This section of the report discusses the information gathered on customer satisfaction
for the pilot project, including:
• Survey data collected by the City
• The results of a focus group involving pilot program participants
Both of these methods were used to solicit feedback from the pilot program participants
because each method has its advantages. The use of a survey provides an opportunity
to all of the residents in the area to provide their input, and they can do this on their
own schedule and as anonymously as they wish. The use of a focus group, on the other
hand, provides an opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of the recycling program in
much more detail. Focus group participants are also able to react to each other's ideas
and opinions, and this generates additional ideas and conclusions that otherwise might
not be mentioned.
B. SURVEY RESULTS
Refuse Division staff conducted two surveys of the residents in the pilot program area;
one prior to the start of the pilot program and one at the end of it. The "pre -survey"
was mailed to the residents of the pilot program area in late March, and they were
asked to respond by mail or through an on-line survey at the City's website. Out of the
571 surveys sent out, there were 167 responses received by the deadline (May 5, 2014),
for a response rate of 29%. The "post -survey" was mailed out near the end of the pilot
project (mid-August) to the pilot program participants (537 households), and by the end
of September there were 202 responses received from the pilot program participants, for
a response rate of 38%.
The following observations can be made by comparing the results of the pre- and post -
surveys:
• The percentage of households that said that they recycle went up from 39%
before the pilot program to 88% afterwards.
• The percentage of households that recycled specific commodities went up
significantly for cardboard, other types of paper, plastic milk and pop bottles,
and yard waste. The percentage of households that recycled aluminum and tin
cans decreased slightly (from 52.6% to 52.0%). The decrease is likely within the
Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project 8 Section 2: Customer Satisfaction
margin of error for the survey, so it could be assumed this means that about the
same number of people recycled aluminum and tin cans during the pilot as
before the pilot.
• According to the pre -survey, 84% of the respondents said that they would
participate. In the post -survey, 88% of the respondents said that they did
participate.
Most of the respondents to the post -survey thought that:
• The curbside program was good or excellent (79%), with only a minority rating it
as fair (2.5% or needing improvement (4.5%). Adjusting for the 13.9% of the
people that did not answer this question increases the number of respondents
that thought the program was good or excellent to 92%.
• The collection frequency of every -other -week was "just right" (65%, or 76% if this
is adjusted for the 15.3% of the people that did not answer this question).
• They saw a reduction in the amount of garbage that their household produced
(74%, or 84% if this is adjusted for the 12.4% of the people that did not answer
this question).
The results of the surveys are shown in Tables 4 and 5.
Table 4
Results of Pre -Survey in Pilot Program Area
Survey Question
Number of
Responses
Percent of
Responses
1. Do you recycle?
Yes
92
53.2%
No
36
20.8%
Sometimes
45
26.0%
2. What items do you recycle the most?
Cardboard
95
54.9%
Yard waste
59
34.1%
Tin, aluminum cans
91
52.6%
Plastic milk jugs
41
23.7%
Paper, magazines, junk mail
96
55.5%
Plastic pop bottles
38
22.0%
Other
7
4.0%
3. How do you recycle?
Curbside
26
15.0%
Drop-off
102
59.0%
Other
36
20.8%
No Answer
9
5.2%
4. What motivates you to recycle?
Good for the environment
116
67.1%
It benefits the community
73
42.2%
Concerned about preserving landfill space
65
37.6%
Cleaner streets
39
22.5%
Other
27
15.6%
Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project
9
Section 2: Customer Satisfaction
Table 4, Results of Pre -Survey in Pilot Program Area, continued
rvey Questio
Number of
Responses
Percent of
Responses
5. Would you recycle if your community had a successful
recycling program?
Yes
145
83.8%
No
20
11.6%
No Answer
8
4.6%
6. Which of the following statements best describes your opinion?
The major barrier to increased recycling in my neighborhood
is the lack of programs and opportunities
98
56.6%
The major barrier to increased recycling in my neighborhood
is the lack of community interest and motivation
35
20.2%
The major barrier to increased recycling in my neighborhood
is low tipping fees
19
11.0%
Other
21
12.1%
7. How would you find out more about recycling in your area?
Internet
42
24.3%
Call City
39
22.5%
Don't know or not sure
10
5.8%
TV, radio, newspaper
9
5.2%
Ask neighbor or friend
6
3.5%
Call landfill or recycling center
6
3.5%
Other
13
7.5%
No answer
67
38.7%
8. Do you feel there is a need for more information on recycling?
Yes
128
74.0%
No
31
17.9%
No answer
14
8.1%
9. Do you think the closure of the Terrace Heights Landfill will
have an impact on solid waste management?
Yes
151
87.3%
No
9
5.2%
No answer
13
7.5%
10. What strategies should the City explore to reduce the volume
of waste going to the landfill?
Curbside recycling
141
81.5%
Curbside yard waste recycling
106
61.3%
Take -back programs
96
55.5%
Product stewardship
22
12.7%
Other
19
11.0%
11. What is your gender?
Female
110
63.6%
Male
59
34.1%
No answer
4
2.3%
12. What is your age?
19-25
5
2.9%
26-35
20
11.6%
36-45
16
9.2%
46-60
39
22.5%
Over 60
91
52.6%
No answer
2
1.2%
Note: The total number of responses for some questions is greater than 173, or 100%, due to multiple
responses for those questions.
Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project 10
Section 2: Customer Satisfaction
Table 5
Results of Post -Survey of Pilot Program Participants
ey a uestion
Number of
Responses
Percent of
Responses
1. Did you participate in the pilot curbside recycling program?
Yes
178
88.1%
No
23
11.4%
No answer
1
0.5%
2. What commodity did your household recycle the most?
Cardboard
139
68.8%
Yard waste
116
57.4%
Tin, aluminum cans
105
52.0%
Plastic milk jugs
118
58.4%
Paper, magazines, junk mail
146
72.3%
Plastic pop bottles
101
50.0%
Other
16
7.9%
3. Overall, the pilot program was:
Excellent
102
50.5%
Good
58
28.7%
Fair
5
2.5%
Needed improvement
9
4.5%
No Answer
28
13.9%
4. Overall, the pilot program was:
Convenient
152
75.2%
Took too much time
11
5.4%
Didn't like having to sort it out
15
7.4%
Didn't see any purpose in it
15
7.4%
No Answer
9
4.5%
5. Were the instructions for recycling clear and concise?
Yes
175
86.6%
No
11
5.4%
No Answer
16
7.9%
6. How often did you set out your carts?
Once
3
1.5%
Twice
4
2.0%
Every time
151
74.8%
Every other time
26
12.9%
I forgot to set out my carts
1
0.5%
No answer
17
8.4%
7. The collection every other week was:
Just right
131
64.9%
Too often
15
7.4%
Not often enough
25
12.4%
Other
31
15.3%
8. Did your household see a reduction in the volume of your
garbage?
Yes
149
73.8%
No
28
13.9%
No answer
25
12.4%
Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project
11 Section 2: Customer Satisfaction
Table 5, Results of Post -Survey of Pilot Program Participants,
rvey Questio
continued
Number of
Responses
Percent of
Responses
9. Our garbage was cut:
By a little
24
11.9%
In half
69
34.2%
Went from 96 -gallon cart to 32 -gallon cart
64
31.7%
No reduction/no change
21
10.4%
No answer
24
11.9%
10. Did this program have an effect on your household disposal
habits?
Yes
127
62.9%
No
52
25.7%
No answer
23
11.4%
11. If the City offers curbside recycling after the pilot program
ends, would you consider signing up for it?
Yes
142
70.3%
No
30
14.9%
No answer
30
14.9%
12. Do you think curbside recycling is a good way to reduce the
volume of waste we will need to haul?
Yes
159
78.7%
No
14
6.9%
No answer
29
14.4%
13. What motivates you to recycle?
Good for the environment
144
71.3%
It benefits the community
106
52.5%
Concerned about preserving landfill space
118
58.4%
Cleaner streets
49
24.3%
Other
18
8.9%
14. Who in your household is primarily responsible for recycling?
Male
57
28.2%
Female
92
45.5%
Both male and female
34
16.8%
No answer
19
9.4%
15. Who in your household is primarily responsible for recycling?
19-25
4
2.0%
26-35
14
6.9%
36-45
14
6.9%
46-60
34
16.8%
Over 60
92
45.5%
More than one age group
10
5.0%
No answer
34
16.8%
Note: The total number of responses for some questions is greater than 202, or 100%, due to multiple
responses for those questions.
Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project 12 Section 2: Customer Satisfaction
C. FOCUS GROUP
Another important opportunity for customer feedback was provided through a focus
group that was conducted on September 17, 2014. This focus group was organized and
facilitated by Envirolssues, a consulting firm with a great deal of experience in these
types of activities and with offices in the Tri -Cities, Tacoma, Seattle, and Boise. The
focus group was held at the Harman Senior Center and was attended by eight pilot
program participants. The participants were asked a series of questions and were
encouraged to voice their opinions regardless of whether those were positive or
negative. The goals of the focus group were to:
• Learn how participants' waste behaviors changed (or not) through their
participation in the curbside recycling pilot program.
• Identify the effectiveness of the outreach materials used in the curbside recycling
pilot program.
• Determine awareness of and agreement with strategic planning for the Terrace
Heights Landfill closure.
• Determine if curbside recycling is a reasonable and effective tool to include in
departmental strategic planning.
• Learn if there is support for a "bundled" approach to garbage, yard waste and
recycling collection rates.
A full copy of the report on the focus group is shown in Attachment C, and a few
highlights of the findings include:
• Many participants said they were excited about the curbside recycling program
and indicated that it was generally easy after initially learning how to participate
in the program. Additionally, those who participated in the yard waste
collection service noted that it was easy to do so.
• Most participants were more aware of their waste during and after the pilot
program and indicated that their thinking had changed during the pilot.
• Most participants were generally supportive of the City using curbside recycling
as a tool to maintain rates, reduce the amount of garbage hauled to the landfill,
and reduce the environmental impact the city has and felt these are the right
steps to be taking to plan for the closure of the Terrace Heights Landfill.
• Some participants indicated that they would sign up for curbside recycling if it
was reasonably priced and noted that convenience is a key benefit.
• Most residents felt that 50% of the citizens would sign up for the curbside
recycling program based on their perceptions of their own neighborhoods during
the pilot.
• Many participants were supportive of bundling services and providing a "basic
service package" of recycling and garbage collection.
• All participants indicated that they would advise the City Council to proceed
with curbside recycling if asked.
Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project 13 Section 2: Customer Satisfaction
It's interesting to note that, when asked, focus group participants thought that only 25%
to 50% of the residents of Yakima would sign up for curbside recycling, but
significantly more people (over 90%) actually participated in the pilot program.
It should also be noted that after the focus group questions were finished, there was a
discussion about a few questions that had come up during the focus group (about glass,
incineration, and the cost of the pilot program). These questions were addressed by a
City staff person (Loretta Zammarchi) and technical consultant (Rick Hlavka). In
answering the question about costs, it was stated that the pilot program cost about S4.50
per household per month, and there was near -unanimous support from the focus group
participants who felt that this amount was a fair price for the service.
Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project 14 Section 2: Customer Satisfaction
SECTION THREE
RATE ANALYSIS
A. INTRODUCTION
This section of the report discusses the cost analysis for a citywide recycling program
and universal yard waste service. This question comes at a time, however, when the
City of Yakima must also consider a rate increase to adequately fund the services
currently being provided. The existing rates for the current garbage collection services
and the optional yard waste collection service are not adequate to cover the actual costs
of providing these services.
B. CURRENT NEEDS FOR RATE INCREASE
Garbage Collection Rates
The current rates for waste collection services do not cover all of the costs of providing
that service. The disparity between the rates charged to customers and the cost of
providing services has been increasing in recent years. Reserves provided some buffer
but have now been exhausted. As shown in the rate analysis (see Attachment D), there
is a projected shortfall in 2015 of $395,549. Residential garbage service rates and the
rates for bin collection will need to be increased to address this shortfall. The
recommended new rates for residential service are summarized in Table 6.
Table 6
Recommended Rates for Current Services
Size and Type of Cart
Current
Monthly Rate
Recommended
New Rate
32 -Gallon Garbage Cart
$10.00
$12.00
96 -Gallon Garbage Cart
$17.02
$18.00
64 -Gallon Yard Waste Cart
$7.01
$13.00
96 -Gallon Yard Waste Cart
$12.82
$14.00
Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project 15
Section 3: Rate Analysis
Yard Waste Collection Rates
The current rates for yard waste collection services also do not cover all of the costs of
providing that service. Yard waste collection is currently available on a subscription
basis and approximately 25% of the households (6,276 customers) in Yakima subscribe
to this service. A small number of households have a 64 -gallon cart for this service, but
the majority of the households (84%) have a 96 -gallon cart. The current rates charged
for the 64 -gallon and 96 -gallon yard waste carts ($7.01 and $12.81) do not cover the costs
of this service, and the recommended new rates for yard waste service are shown in
Table 6. It should be noted that the true cost of servicing the 96 -gallon carts is only
$0.63 per month greater than servicing the 64 -gallon carts. The rates in Table 6 show a
$1.00 difference between the 64 -gallon carts and 96 -gallon carts, but it probably makes
more sense to simply convert all of the households to a 96 -gallon cart for yard waste.
C. RATES FOR POTENTIAL NEW SERVICES
Residential Curbside Recycling
Based on the results of the pilot program, a rate analysis has been prepared for every -
other -week curbside collection using 96 -gallon carts (see Attachment D). It is
recommended that this service be provided citywide to all residential customers. The
focus group, post -survey results, and pilot program participation data all point to a
majority of people needing, liking and participating in this service. If the recommended
approach is used, the cost for this service would only be $3.00 per household per
month. If this service were to be provided on a subscription basis instead, a lower
number of people would subscribe and the cost per month would increase. The City of
Richland, for instance, allows households to voluntarily subscribe and in their city the
cost of the service is almost twice as much ($5.70 per month) and only 23% of the
households subscribe.
Citywide Yard Waste Collection
Expanding the yard waste collection service to all customers would increase the
efficiencies of providing this service. The cost per household for this service would
decrease significantly from the existing rates, although of course households that are
not currently subscribing would see this as an increase over current waste service costs.
If the yard waste collection service was universal (i.e., provided to all households in the
city), then the cost for this service would only be $3.62 per month for a 96 -gallon cart
collected every -other -week from March to November.
A citywide approach for yard waste services would mean that people who are currently
subscribing to yard waste would experience a rate decrease, while those who do not
subscribe to the service would experience a rate increase for a new service.
Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project 16 Section 3: Rate Analysis
SECTION FOUR
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. INTRODUCTION
This section of the report discusses the conclusions and recommendations derived from
the analysis conducted for this project, and compares the recommended rates to other
areas.
B. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Existing Services
Several recommendations can be made for the current system:
• Current rates need to be increased to cover the actual cost of providing garbage
and yard waste collection services.
• The Refuse Division should switch from the current "weekly" method of billing
to a "monthly" approach.
• There is room for improvements in productivity and these options should be
explored, including changing the drivers' work schedule to 4 10 -hour days and
using software for routing.
• If universal yard waste collection is not adopted, then all subscription yard waste
customers should be converted to 96 -gallon carts.
Residential Curbside Recycling
The primary recommendation for curbside recycling is that this service should be
implemented citywide in 2015-2016. The actual service may not be able to start until
late 2015 or 2016, as much of 2015 will be needed to purchase trucks and carts, hire
drivers, and work out other details.
All households should be provided with 96 -gallon carts, although smaller carts for
senior citizens could be considered. The recycling collections should be conducted
every -other -week on the same day as garbage collection in each neighborhood.
Implementing this program citywide will result in 3,670 to 5,880 tons of recyclables
collected per year (288 to 461 pounds per household per year). A Request for Proposals
(RFP) should be issued in 2015 to solicit bids for processing or transfer of the
recyclables.
Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project 17 Section 4: Conclusions and Recommendations
Yard Waste Collection
The primary recommendation for yard waste service is that it should be implemented
citywide in 2015-2016. The actual service may not be able to start until late 2015 or 2016,
as much of 2015 will be needed to purchase trucks and carts, hire drivers, and work out
other details. The yard waste service should be conducted on an every -other -week
schedule, on a schedule that alternates with the curbside recycling (i.e., recycling one
week and yard waste the next week) and should be on the same day as garbage
collections. If all three carts were on the same schedule, there would be space problems
at the curb for many households.
Implementing this program citywide will result in approximately 8,490 tons of yard
waste collected per year, compared to the 3,865 tons per year collected currently.
Bundling Rates
Including the cost (or "bundling the rates") for curbside recycling and yard waste
collection services in the base rate for garbage collection provides economies of scale
and reduces administrative overhead. This approach provides a standard level of
service that is easier to communicate to residents and easier for them to understand.
Table 7 shows the rates for a bundled approach.
Table 7
Bundled Approach for New Services
32 -Gallon
Garbage
96 -Gallon
Garbage
Garbage Service
Curbside Recycling, 96 -Gallon Cart
collected every -other -week
Yard Waste, 96 -Gallon Cart collected
every -other -week
Total
$12.00
$3.00
$3.62
$18.62
$18.00
$3.00
$3.62
$24.62
If this approach is used, a significant number of residents would likely switch from 96 -
gallon garbage carts to 32 -gallon carts. They should be able to do this by diverting a
portion of their wastes to recycling and yard waste instead of placing these materials in
the garbage carts. To the extent that these households can do this, a resident would
only experience an increase of $1.60 per month over the existing rate of $17.02 per
month for a 96 -gallon garbage cart.
Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project 18 Section 4: Conclusions and Recommendations
C. COMPARISON TO OTHER AREAS
The bundled rates compare favorably to the rates of other cities near Yakima and for
similar -sized cities in eastern Washington. Table 8 shows a sampling of these rates.
Table 8
Rates for Other Areas
Size and Type of Cart
32 -Gallon
Garbage
96 -Gallon
Garbage
Yakima Waste Systems, unincorporated Yakima County;
Garbage Only
$8.09
$14.76
Garbage with EOW Recycling and EOW YW
$27.07
$33.74
City of Selah (Basin Disposal)
Garbage and Monthly Recycling (included)
$10.74
$14.78
Garbage and Recycling with EOW YW
$17.75
$21.29
City of Richland
Garbage and EOW Yard Waste (included)
NA
$17.50
Garbage with EOW Recycling
NA
$23.20
City of Wenatchee (Waste Management)
Garbage and W 64 -Gallon Recycling (included)
NA
$18.75
Garbage and Recycling with EOW YW
NA
$28.27
City of Ellensburg
Garbage and W Recycling (included)
$12.79
$27.98
Garbage with W Yard Waste
$28.18
$43.37
Notes: EOW = every -other -week, W = weekly, YW = yard waste.
Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project 19 Section 4: Conclusions and Recommendations
ATTACHMENT A
TAGS PLACED ON RECYCLING CARTS
The following tags were used to provide feedback to the pilot program participants.
These tags were attached to the recycling carts with a rubber band on six occasions
during the pilot program (May 6, May 20, June 3, June 17, July 1, and July 29.). The
"Recycling Star" tag provided positive feedback for the participants that had put out a
cart with little or no contamination. The "Oops" tag was used for carts where
contamination could be observed. The type of contamination was indicated on the back
of the Oops tag by circling the item that shouldn't have been in the cart. In addition to
informing the participants, the tags also provide an element of peer pressure, since the
tags are visibly a different color and could be observed by neighbors.
The third tag shown in this attachment is the "recycling champ" tag used to inform
participants about the end of the pilot program. All of the carts were tagged on August
12th to inform residents that the carts would be removed after the next collection day.
All three of the following tags are slightly reduced in size from the actual copies used.
1J
Way to Go!
Your Recycling
set -out looks
great.
You are a
Recycling Star
Today we spot-checked your recycling cart
for contamination and didn't find any.
Way to go!
Thanks for your efforts.
Recycling works best when materials are set
out right and problem materials are avoided.
Please remember to keep glass out of your
recycle carts and to recycle plastic bags at
your local grocery stores and not at the curb.
If you have any question about the Pilot
Program, contact your City of Yakima Solid
Waste and Recycling Division at
509 575-6005 or check out
www.yakimawa.gov/recycle
for more information.
Together our efforts won't go to waste!
OOPS!
RECLING
Thank you for participating in
the Curbside Recycling Pilot.
We appreciate your effort,
but your separation requires
further attention.
Please see the marked items
on the other side of this flyer.
Recycling can be so easy if you
just know how. This friendly
message from your City of
Yakima Solid Waste Division is
intended to make recycling
simpler for you.
Thank You for Recycling!
For more information about the Pilot Recycling Project, please
contact your City of Yakima Solid Waste Division at 575-6005 or
go to www.yakimawa.gov/recycle.
City of Yakima Solid Waste and Recycling
Division 2301 Fruitvale Blvd.
Yakima, WA 98902
509- 575-6005.
CONTAMINANT 'ATEGORY GUIDE
CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
Styrofoam
Blocks and Meat Trays
117Z
illik
Blister Pack
—
Plastic attached to a paper board
or foil backing. Examples include
packaging for pills, pens, and
children's toys.
1
Deli/Clam Shell
11117- -II
7
7
Plastic deli containers, clam shells
(often for food, toys, or electron
ics), and plastic berry containers.
IOW 0
Fiber with Plastic
Flats of bulk purchases must be
free of their
plastic wrap.
o
Paperboard
Wet -strength or wax -coated
paperboard can not be recycled.
It often comes from the refrigera-
tor/freezer.
.=y
•14u
HUNGRY -MAN
.s.-., I -
✓
111111,
Glass/Ceramic
Glass of anv kind in not
acceptable in the pilot curbside
program..
itj II
Pizza Box
Grease -stained pizza boxes
cannot be recycled.
Other
Any other non -recyclable items;
trash.
Please do not place garbage, food scraps, ashes, sod,
dirt, building material, rocks, animal waste, large
branches or tree trunks in your yard waste container.
PILOT IS WRAPPING UP
We thank you for your participation
and support. Here are a few tips to
help us assist you in resuming your
regular service.
1) The final pickup for the:
• Recycling Cart is Tues. Aug.26th
• Yard Waste Cart is Fri. Aug. 29th
2) Please have your carts on the curb ready
to be emptied. Do not refill.
3) iemova of the Recycling Carts will begin:
Tuesday Aug 26 until all are collected.
4) Removal of the Yard Waste Carts will
begin Friday Aug.29 until all are collected.
5) Please make sure your carts are accessible
and visible for final removal.
6) Due to the holiday (Labor Day) , your
next garbage picked up day is Wed.,
Sept. 3rd. Your regular service will re-
sume on Tuesdays for garbage and Fridays
for yard waste thereafter. Please use
your pre -pilot carts for regular service.
7) bats collected from the Pilot will be ana-
lyzed and presented to City Council for
review in late Fall.
8) NOTE: The City will not be providing
curbside recycling of household recycla-
bles after the pilot. Your Solid Waste
Program will await direction from Council
on our next recycling steps.
9) If you choose to keep yard service, or
make any changes to your current service,
please contact us prior to the end of the
pilot to establish the service. The fee
for weekly yard waste collection is
$12.82 month.
For more information about the
Pilot Recycling Project please contact:
City of Yakima Solid Waste and
Recycling Division 2301 Fruitvale Blvd.
Yakima, WA 98902 509- 575-6005.
YOU ARE
A
RECYCLING
CHAMP!
THANKS FOR PARTICIPATING IN
THE PILOT CURBSIDE
RECYCLING PROTECT
After 4 months, the City of Yakima's
Curbside Recycling Pilot Program is
nearing an end.
This is a reminder that the Pilot wraps
up on August 29th. With only a few
weeks left, we wanted to help prepare
you for the cart removals and how we
plan to resume your regular service.
Please see the backside of the flyer
for instructions.
ATTACHMENT B
COMPOSITION TEST RESULS
GREEN SOLUTIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING
COMPOSITION ANALYSIS
for the
CITY OF YAKIMA PILOT
CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROJECT
SEPTEMBER 2014
RECYCLING COMPOSITION RESULTS
CITY OF YAKIMA PILOT CURBSIDE RECYCLING PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
This report provides the results of a sorting test that was conducted on the
recyclables collected in Yakima on August 26. This work was performed by Green
Solutions under contract to the City of Yakima, with assistance from Loretta
Zammarchi (Yakima Solid Waste and Recycling Manager), Christine Funk (a
volunteer), and two temporary workers from LaborReady. Overnight storage space
for the recyclables and other assistance was also provided by Yakima Waste Systems.
The goals for this analysis were to determine the amount and type of contaminants
(non -recyclable materials) and to determine the composition of the recyclable
materials. This information will help guide public education efforts for a possible
future program and help determine the market value of the collected recyclables.
APPROACH
The recyclables collected on August 26 were segregated overnight at the Yakima
Waste Systems facility on Terrace Heights Road and then tested on the next day. The
recyclables from the pilot project were normally delivered to this facility, but in this
case the load of recyclables was placed in a separate area apart from the normal
receiving area. At the time of the delivery, about half of the load was removed by
heavy equipment to allow
access on the next day to the
center of the pile, and the rest
of the load secured for
overnight storage (see Figure
1). On the next morning, Rick
Hlavka (Green Solutions)
arrived at 6:00 a.m. to set up
the sorting equipment. Two
temporary laborers arrived
about 7:00 a.m. and were
provided with health and
safety training before
beginning work. The sorting
crew was joined by Loretta
Zammarchi and Christine
Funk shortly after that.
Figure 1: Recyclables stored at Yakima Waste Systems facility.
Sorting Test Results for City of Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project
1
Samples of the recyclables were taken from four locations; the left and right sides,
and the front and back of the pile. The sample from the right side consisted of the
materials that had been in the center of the load originally (before part of the load
had been removed the day before). Samples were taken from different locations in
the pile to account for any segregation of materials that may have occurred in the
collection truck based on the densities of the materials (heavier materials tend to sink
to the bottom of a load while lighter materials float to the top, at least while the truck
is only partly full). The sampled materials at each location were removed in a
wedge-shaped pattern, taking all materials from the top to the bottom of the pile and
extending into the center of the pile, again to account for any segregation of materials
that may have occurred during collection. Samples were taken from the pile by
filling up to twenty 32 -gallon trash cans at each location.
Each sample was brought to a
sorting table and separated
into 18 categories (see Figure
2). After each sample was
completely sorted, the
containers of sorted materials
were weighed, the weights
noted on a form specific to
this project (see Attachment
A), and then work began on
the next sample. Later, the
weight data was entered into
a spreadsheet, the weights
were summed up, and the
percentage of each material
was calculated.
RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS
Sto}
Syskt ; 248-4216
Figure 2: Sorting crew at work, August 27, 2014.
Table 1 shows the results of the sorting tests. As can be seen in Table 1, the material
present in the largest amount was mixed paper (recyclable grades of paper such as
magazines, catalogs, office paper, junk mail, telephone books, cereal boxes, etc.).
The amount of newspaper and cardboard in the samples was nearly equal, and there
was also a substantial amount of plastic bottles. Additional observations for each
type of material are shown below:
Paper: At 79.0%, the recyclable grades of paper make up most of the recyclable
materials set out by residents in the pilot project area. Pizza boxes are included in
this subtotal, even though people were asked not to set these out for recycling,
because almost all of these were sufficiently clean to recycle
Sorting Test Results for City of Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project 2
Table 1
COMPOSITION RESULTS, CURBSIDE RECYCLING SAMPLES
Type of Materia
Average
ACCEPTABLE MATERIALS
Recyclable Paper
79.0
Newspaper
18.8
Cardboard
18.6
Mixed Paper
39.3
Shredded Paper
0.2
Pizza Boxes
2.0
Recyclable Plastic
8.9
Plastic Bottles
8.5
Tubs
0.4
Buckets
0.0
Metals
4.8
Aluminum Cans
2.1
Tin Cans
2.0
Scrap Metal
0.7
Total Acceptable Materials
92.6
NON -PROGRAM MATERIALS
Non -Program Plastic
0.9
Bags
0.4
Trays and Clamshells
0.4
Glass
0.8
Glass Bottles
0.8
Non -Recyclable Glass
0.04
Other
5.7
Food Scraps
0.1
Yard Debris
0.03
Other Non-Recyclables
5.5
Total Non -Program Materials
7.4
Note: All figures are percentages by weight.
(although the pizza boxes were also the source for most of the food waste found
in the samples). The small amount of shredded paper found in the samples was
not bagged or contained in any way.
Recyclable Plastic: 96% of the recyclable plastics found in the samples were
plastic bottles and jars. Only small amount of plastic tubs were found and no
buckets were found in the samples or observed in the rest of the load.
Sorting Test Results for City of Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project 3
Metal: Aluminum and tin cans made up most of the metals that were found,
with only a small amount of scrap metals present (scrap metal made up only 15%
of the metals). Comments made at the focus group indicate that at least some
residents were separately saving their aluminum cans to sell those.
Non -Program Plastic: The amount of plastic bags found was small on a weight
basis (only 0.4% of the total), but this is significant given the light weight of each
bag (meaning that a large number of bags were needed to add up to that much
weight). The same is true for plastic trays and clamshells', although to a lesser
extent since this type of packaging weighs more than plastic bags.
Glass: Only a small number of glass bottles were found in one of the four
samples taken. The small amount of non -recyclable glass (0.04%) found consisted
of broken window glass in two of the samples.
Other: Food waste and
yard debris were
measured separately
from the other
contaminants, and only
small amounts of these
materials were found.
Much of the food waste
found was the result of
pizza crusts left inside
of pizza boxes. Other
contaminants found
included styrofoam,
plastic objects, non -
recyclable paper, and
various other non -
recyclable materials
(see Figure 3).
COMPARISON TO OTHER STUDIES
Figure 3: Contaminants found in Sample #4.
There is not much data available from other areas that can be used for comparison
purposes, but data from a study in Kitsap County last year (May 2013) and an older
study (February 2008) for Clark County provide data that can be compared to
Yakima's results (see Table 2). The data for both of these studies needed to be
adjusted slightly for differences in the studies' methodologies (sorting categories)
1 "Clamshells" are the hinged clear plastic containers frequently used for deli and
take-out foods.
Sorting Test Results for City of Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project 4
Table 2
COMPOSITION RESULTS, CURBSIDE RECYCLING SAMPLES
ype of Materia
KitsapCity
County
Clark County
of
Yakima Pilot
Pro ect
ACCEPTABLE MATERIALS
Recyclable Paper
73.8
78.3
79.0
Newspaper
17.3
23.1
18.8
Cardboard
20.7
15.9
18.6
Mixed Paper
35.6
39.3
39.3
Shredded Paper
0.1
NA
0.2
Pizza Boxes
NA
NA
2.0
Recyclable Plastic
7.7
6.4
8.9
Plastic Bottles
9.4
6.0
8.5
Tubs
0.3
0.4
0.4
Buckets
NA
NA
0.0
Metals
7.1
7.0
4.8
Aluminum Cans
2.7
1.7
2.1
Tin Cans
3.3
3.9
2.0
Scrap Metal
1.1
1.4
0.7
Total Acceptable Materials
90.5
91.7
92.6
NON -PROGRAM MATERIALS
Non -Program Plastic
3.5
0.5
0.9
Bags
1.0
0.5
0.4
Trays and Clamshells
2.5
NA
0.4
Glass
0.1
2.7
0.8
Glass Bottles
NA
2.7
0.8
Non -Recyclable Glass
0.1
NA
0.04
Other
5.9
5.1
5.7
Food Scraps
0.6
NA
0.1
Yard Debris
0.05
NA
0.03
Other Non-Recyclables
5.2
5.1
5.5
Total Non -Program Materials
9.5
8.3
7.4
Note: All figures are percentages by weight. A few materials shown as "Program Materials" are
actually not acceptable materials for Kitsap County's curbside recycling program, including
shredded paper and scrap metal, whereas glass bottles are acceptable for their curbside
program. For Clark County, additional adjustments were also made in the figures to adjust
for materials not collected by their program. NA (not available) is shown for those materials
that were not measured in the Clark and Kitsap County studies.
Sorting Test Results for City of Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project 5
and for differences in the materials considered acceptable for the curbside programs.
In Kitsap County, for instance, glass is acceptable as part of the curbside mix, and so
the results of that study were adjusted (prorated) to remove all of the glass bottles.
Since the Clark County program is a dual -stream approach, with glass collected in a
separate bin placed next to a 96 -gallon cart that is used for much the same types of
materials as in Yakima, the adjustments needed were more minor. For the Clark
County figures, the amount of glass bottles shown in Table 2 are only those bottles
that were mistakenly placed in the 96 -gallon cart.
Compared to the other two studies, the recyclables collected in the City of Yakima
had more paper and plastic and less contaminants, including fewer plastic bags.
CONCLUSIONS
A number of conclusions can be reached based on the data collected through the
composition analysis and related activities:
• Intensive outreach during pilot project in Yakima helped to reduce common
contaminants such as plastic bags.
• From comments made at the focus group, people's habits, and hence the types
of materials set out for recycling, may have been affected by the temporary
nature of the program. At the focus group, several people commented that
they did not invest the time to set up systems or mechanisms to recycle as
much as they might have otherwise, and that this might have affected the
types of materials that were set out.
• The results of the composition analysis were also potentially influenced by:
➢ Seasonal impacts (i.e., hot weather). This test was conducted during the
hottest part of the year and based on observations made for this and other
studies, Yakima residents were probably generating slightly more
aluminum cans and plastic bottles as a result.
➢ The end of the pilot project. This test was conducted on the materials
collected for the last pickup day of the pilot project. This may have
affected the actions of pilot program participants, such as prompting them
to set out more materials or to set types of materials they might have
otherwise not set out on that day.
All in all, the materials set out for the pilot program appear to relatively clean and
had less contamination than other programs. Ongoing public education and
feedback to future participants will of course be necessary to maintain this level of
quality.
Sorting Test Results for City of Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project 6
SAMPLE DATA FORM
YAKIMA PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM
Sample #:
Date: Time:
Sample Location:
MATERIAL
WEIGHTS
COMMENTS
Newspaper
Cardboard
Pizza Boxes
Mixed Waste Paper
Shredded Paper
Plastic Bottles and Jars
Tubs
Clamshells and Trays
Buckets
Plastic Bags
Aluminum Cans
Tin Cans
Scrap Metal
Glass Bottles
Non -Recyclable Glass
Food Scraps
Yard Debris
Other Non-Recyclables
Comments or problems with load, site, other special conditions:
Sorting Test Results for City of Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project
7
DEFINITIONS FOR SORTING CATEGORIES:
In all cases, recyclable grades of materials shown below must be reasonably clean.
PAPER, including;
Newspaper = newspapers and similar grades of paper, including newspaper inserts if found together.
Cardboard = cardboard boxes and brown paper grocery bags.
Pizza Boxes = cardboard pizza boxes.
Mixed Paper = other grades of recyclable paper, including magazines and catalogs (unless paper is
newsprint -grade), office paper, computer paper, junk mail, telephone books, paperboard boxes, egg
cartons, and gift wrap without foil or excessive coatings.
Shredded Paper = shredded paper (if recoverable), whether in paper or plastic bags.
PLASTIC, including;
Plastic Bottles and Jars = plastic bottles and jars of any resin type, with a bottle or jar being defined
as a container with a neck that is as wide or narrower than the body of the bottle. Does not include
prescription vials or bottles that were used for motor oil or other toxic materials.
Tubs = plastic tubs (a tub is a container where the opening is equal to or larger than body of
container, and generally used a lid that snapped on or peeled off) that have been used for food
products (such as yogurt, butter and cool whip).
Clamshells and Trays = plastic containers generally used for take-out or frozen food.
Buckets = plastic buckets that are 4 to 5 gallons in size.
Plastic Bags = all types of plastic bags, including items such as cereal box liners but not including
plastic film.
METAL, including;
Aluminum Cans = cans made solely of aluminum, not including bi-metal cans or aluminum foil.
Tin Cans = tin -coated steel cans used primarily for food, and including bi-metal cans.
Scrap Metal = all other ferrous and non-ferrous metals, including aluminum foil and trays.
GLASS, including;
Glass Bottles = all colors of glass bottles, including pieces of broken bottles.
Non -Recyclable Glass = light bulbs of all types, mirrors, windows, and cookware, but not ceramics.
OTHER, including;
Food Scraps = all types of food waste, including coffee filters and tea bags but not including liquids
or large amounts of grease and oil.
Yard Debris = weeds, leaves, grass clippings, branches and other vegetation, including small
amounts of soil adhering to plants' roots.
Other Non-Recyclables = non -recyclable paper, prescription vials, plastic bottles that were used for
motor oil or other toxic materials, plastic film, nursery pots, other plastic objects, clothing, tires, other
rubber products, carpet, wood, construction/demolition wastes, furniture, ceramics, medical waste,
etc.
Sorting Test Results for City of Yakima Pilot Curbside Recycling Project 8
ATTACHMENT C
FOCUS GROUP RESULS
Yakima Curbside Recycling Program
Focus Group
Final Report
October 2014
Prepared by Envirolssues
44 enviroissues
City of Yakima
Curbside Recycling Focus Group
1
9/24/2014
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 3
Introduction 4
Background 4
Objectives 4
Who participated? 5
Participant Demographics 5
Selection Criteria 5
What did we ask? 6
Background 6
Questions and Handouts 6
What did they say? 9
General Perspectives 10
Key Findings 13
Appendix A 15
Appendix B 18
Appendix C 19
City of Yakima
Curbside Recycling Focus Group
2
9/24/2014
Executive Summary
The City of Yakima conducted a focus group with citizens who participated in the City's curbside
recycling pilot program, held between May and August 2014. The curbside recycling pilot program was
in response to a citizen survey requesting that this service be provided and also in anticipation of major
changes in the manner that the City will be disposing of its future waste. The purpose of the focus
group was to learn how participants' waste behaviors changed through their participation in the
curbside recycling pilot; to identify effectiveness of materials used in the curbside recycling pilot; to
determine awareness of and agreement with City staff strategic planning for the Terrace Heights Landfill
closure; to determine if curbside recycling is a reasonable and effective tool to include in departmental
strategic planning; and to learn if there is support for a "bundled" approach to garbage, yard waste, and
recycling rates.
Most focus group participants knew little about the City's waste management program other than their
trash was collected and sent to the Terrace Heights Landfill. A few participants knew that the landfill was
quickly reaching capacity. Most participants were excited about the curbside pilot program and felt that
it was generally easy to participate in the program. Several participants indicated that they previously
dropped off recycling at the landfill and noted that the convenience of curbside recycling was a major
benefit. Half of the participants participated in yard waste collection during the pilot and indicated that
it was easy to participate in yard waste collection. The majority of participants noted that they were
more conscious of their waste during the pilot program and that their thinking had changed over the
course of the pilot.
Many participants remembered receiving outreach materials before, during, and after the curbside
recycling pilot and felt that they were generally helpful. All participants agreed that the steps City staff
are taking to manage rates, to reduce the amount of garbage hauled to the landfill, and to reduce the
environmental impact the city has are the right steps to be taking to plan for the closing of the Terrace
Heights Landfill. Some participants indicated that they would sign up for curbside recycling if it was
permanent, reasonably priced and some participants indicated that the convenience of curbside
recycling is a key benefit. Most residents believed that approximately 25 — 50% of Yakima residents
would sign up for curbside recycling today. When provided with additional information about the pilot
program participation rate of 73%, a majority of participants indicated that 50% of Yakima residents
would sign up for the curbside recycling program. Many participants were satisfied with the idea of
bundling waste services (garbage and recycling) together and offering a "basic service package." All
participants agreed that curbside recycling is a good thing and is the way the City Council should act on
this matter.
A list of key findings of this focus group begins on page 13.
City of Yakima
Curbside Recycling Focus Group
3
9/24/2014
Introduction
Background
The City of Yakima Solid Waste Management department has been planning for the future closure of the
Terrace Heights landfill and conducted a curbside recycling pilot program from early May through
August 29, 2014. The Solid Waste Management Department wants to ascertain whether a future
curbside recycling and solid waste program would be a viable option to include in the department's
strategic planning.
The curbside recycling pilot program was in response to a citizen survey requesting that this service be
provided and also in anticipation of major changes in the manner that the City will be disposing of its
future waste. The City of Yakima is responsible for providing solid waste services to all residents and has
made a priority of ensuring fair and equitable rates while protecting public health, safety, and the
environment. Additionally, County officials have indicated that the existing Terrace Heights Landfill will
reach capacity in approximately 11 years. Once closed, the City will haul trash to the Cheyne Landfill,
located outside the City of Zillah, which would increase the round trip travel time and increase costs to
the current refuse fees. Curbside recycling is one tool to assist with solid waste reduction. The purpose
of the pilot was to assist the City of Yakima in planning for its long term management of solid waste
generated within city limits.
A focus group with Yakima citizens was intended to understand pilot participant's experiences and
outcomes from the pilot program. Additionally, the focus group discussions would allow participants to
share their thoughts about curbside recycling as a solid waste management tool.
The City conducted one focus group with Yakima citizens on September 17, 2014. Envirolssues
moderated one 2 -hour session from 6:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. The session was held at the following
location:
Harman Senior Center
101 N 65th Ave,
Yakima, WA 98908
This report summarizes the results of the focus group and captures key comments and issues.
Objectives
The purpose of the focus group was to help the City of Yakima's Solid Waste Management Department
learn how participants' waste behaviors changed (or not) through their participation in the curbside
recycling pilot and to identify the effectiveness of materials used in the pilot. Additionally, the City
wanted to determine awareness of and agreement with City staff strategic planning for the Terrace
City of Yakima
Curbside Recycling Focus Group
4
9/24/2014
Heights Landfill closure and determine if curbside recycling is a reasonable and effective tool to include
in departmental strategic planning. Finally, the City wanted to learn if there is support for a "bundled"
approach to garbage, yard waste and recycling collection rates.
Focus groups are valuable because unlike survey or other individually -oriented methods, a focus group
allows participants to react to each other's ideas and opinions. This approach often generates additional
ideas and conclusions that would not be generated by individuals.
Who Participated?
Participant Demographics
Focus group participants were recruited randomly from a list of the 540 homeowners who were
included in the pilot area. The pilot area included neighborhoods east and north of Kissel Park (3000
West Mead Avenue). Each house in the project area was provided with a 32 -gallon garbage cart, a 96 -
gallon yard waste cart, and a 96 -gallon recycling cart. Participants in the focus group were selected to
match the demographics of the City of Yakima in terms of age and gender and included members who
participated in the pilot program by placing recycling or yard waste out for collection during the pilot.
Participants were also selected to represent citizens that already paid for yard waste collection service
prior to the pilot. Additionally participants were not selected if they were employed by the City of
Yakima or Yakima Waste Services.
A total of 8 people participated in the focus group — four men and four women. Their ages ranged from
20 to over 65 years of age. Age ranges were used to ensure a representative sample; however, to ensure
enough participants would attend the focus group, more participants between 55 and 64 years of age
were recruited.
Selection Criteria
All participants met the following selection criteria:
• Resident of the City of Yakima and participated in the curbside recycling pilot program
• Not employed by the City of Yakima or Yakima Waste Services
• May have existing yard waste collection services
• Had set out recycling or yard waste at least one time during the pilot program
City of Yakima
Curbside Recycling Focus Group
5
9/24/2014
What did we ask?
Background
Participants were given minimal information about the topic of the focus group before arriving at the
session. At the beginning of the session, the moderator introduced herself and shared the purpose of
the focus group with the participants. They were informed that the City of Yakima was sponsoring the
focus group and the purpose was to learn more about how residents used the curbside recycling
program and how they viewed future planning for solid waste management. Additionally, they were
informed that the focus group was intended to discern if curbside recycling would be a viable option to
consider for the future.
After introducing the topic and explaining the logistics of the focus group, including that a staff member
from the City of Yakima Solid Waste Department and a technical consultant were observing, the
moderator begin guiding the group through discussion questions.
Questions and Discussion Tools
The moderator guided the group through the following discussion format, beginning with a general
question to be answered by each participant. A recorder was present in the room taking notes. The
focus group was organized into three sections with questions focusing on specific aspects of the pilot
program, the printed materials used to notify the public of the pilot, and questions about planning for
the future. The first question was as follows:
1. How much do you know about the City's waste management program? Where does your
garbage go after it is collected?
After discussing this opening question, the moderator read aloud an overview of the City of Yakima's
curbside recycling pilot program. Participants were shown typical waste collection rates and images of
the collection carts used during the pilot program (See Appendix A for collection cart images).
Participants were then asked to respond to the following questions regarding the curbside recycling
pilot program and perceptions of their household waste.
2. Did you participate in the recycling pilot program? Generally, what did you think about it?
3. How much did you think about your trash before you got into the pilot program?
4. What did you think about, if you did think about your household's trash?
Next, participants were asked to respond to questions about the recycling part of the pilot program. The
moderator asked the following questions.
City of Yakima
Curbside Recycling Focus Group
6
9/24/2014
5. How easy was it to separate your trash and your recyclables?
6. Did it get easier as time passed?
7. Overall, do you think it was easy or hard to participate in the recycling part of the pilot?
8. If hard, what made it so?
9. What did you especially like about the curbside recycling?
After responses were made, the moderator transitioned into questions regarding the yard waste
component of the pilot. She asked the group the following questions.
10. How many of you put out yard waste at least once during the pilot?
11. Was it easy to participate in the yard waste part of the pilot program? Why or why not?
12. Was there enough room in the yard waste cart for your yard waste?
13. Were any of you already signed up for (paying for) yard waste collection before the pilot
program? Which size cart — 64 or 96 gallon? Did you put your weekly yard waste container away
and only use the one provided for the pilot?
14. For everyone — How did you like the every -other -week service? Was it enough?
The moderator asked participants about their waste behaviors during and after the pilot. She asked the
following questions.
15. Did you think more about your waste during the pilot? And now that the pilot is done? If so
what did you think about?
16. Did you change any of your thinking about waste during or since the pilot? How so?
17. Did you notice any difference in how much waste was in your garbage container during the
pilot? If so, what did you notice?
18. What did you think about that?
The moderator then transitioned to asking the group about the notification materials used during the
pilot program. The moderator explained that the City of Yakima distributed several different materials
before and during the pilot program. She asked the following questions.
19. Do you remember receiving any materials?
20. What did you receive
21. How did you receive those materials?
22. Overall, did you find the materials you received helpful or useful?
The moderator then distributed packets of materials the City used to inform people before, during and
after the pilot. She asked the group to review each piece and give it a score from 1— 5, with 1 indicating
that the material was "not helpful at all" and 5 indicating that the material was " very helpful." (A
detailed summary of this ranking exercise can be found in Appendix B). The moderator continued and
asked the following questions about the materials.
City of Yakima
Curbside Recycling Focus Group
7
9/24/2014
23. Overall, looking at the materials the City used for the pilot, did they help you successfully
participate?
24. Were there questions you had that you couldn't find answers to? If so, what?
25. What suggestions do you have to change or improve any of these materials?
The final phase of the focus group included questions relating to future planning for the City of Yakima
Solid Waste Department. The moderator explained that the City of Yakima Solid Waste Department is
responsible for day-to-day management of the solid waste system and for planning for the future. She
explained that currently, solid waste (trash) is hauled from the city to the Terrace Heights Landfill, which
is 6 —16 miles away from the city depending on which end of the city the trucks leave from. An
estimated 19 garbage truck trips are made to the landfill every day. The moderator explained that the
Terrace Heights Landfill is getting close to capacity and it is estimated that it will likely close sometime in
the next 11 years. When this landfill closes, the City will have to haul garbage to the Cheyne Landfill in
the Lower Valley, which is 38 — 54 miles away; depending on where the trucks leave from and that this
extra distance will increase costs to haul the city's garbage to this landfill. The moderator further
explained that City staff are exploring ways now to manage rates and provide affordable services when
the Terrace Heights landfill closes and waste will have to be hauled a longer distance. The moderator
then asked the following question.
26. Are you aware of the Terrace Heights Landfill impending closure and the potential impacts
to the cost of city waste services?
The moderator reiterated that the City staff are preparing for this change by looking for ways to manage
rates, reduce the amount of garbage that has to be hauled to the landfill, and reduce the environmental
impact the city has. She asked the group the following questions.
27. Are these the right steps to be taking?
28. Are there other steps the city should be taking to plan for this change?
The moderator explained that curbside recycling is one way to reduce the amount of waste to be hauled
to the landfill and explained that during the pilot project; more than 22 tons of household recyclables
and nearly 60 tons of yard waste were collected. Consequently, the amount of garbage normally
collected in the neighborhood decreased significantly. The moderator asked the following questions.
29. What are your thoughts about using curbside recycling as a tool to manage waste in the
future?
The moderator then asked the group to rank their support for curbside recycling to be part of the city's
waste services on a scale of 1— 8, with 1 indicating that the participant was not supportive and 8
indicating that the participant was very supportive. (A detailed summary of this ranking can be found in
Appendix C). The moderator then asked the group the following question.
City of Yakima
Curbside Recycling Focus Group
8
9/24/2014
30. If the City announced a permanent curbside recycling program was starting next week for
the whole city, would you sign up for it? Why or why not?
The moderator asked the group to provide a percentage of residents they thought would sign up if the
City announced a permanent curbside recycling program was starting next week. (A detailed summary
of this response can be found in Appendix C). The moderator then explained that during the curbside
recycling pilot, about 400 homes in the pilot project participated on a regular basis or an average of 73%
of the homes in the pilot area set out carts every other week. The moderator then asked the group if
these statistics changed their thinking about how many residents would participate if curbside recycling
was available. (A detailed summary of this response can be found in Appendix C).
The moderator then told the group that as the city staff look to the future and think about how to
manage rates and keep services affordable, they are looking for innovative ideas to try. Currently,
garbage and yard waste collection are paid for separately, with each service level being chosen by each
resident. She explained that one idea the city is looking at is "bundling" services and offering a basic
"package" of services to every household in the city and compared this to the system that cable
companies and other utilities use, where they charge for a "basic level of service" that everyone pays.
Customers would then be able to add more services by paying for additional services at their option. The
moderator explained the benefits of such a service as follows: it would allow for the standardization of
services rather than every house having a different service and so could reduce the need to maintain a
mixed cart inventory. This standardization would provide efficiencies and economies of scale when
services are the same across the city and would decrease administrative or overhead costs for the city. A
basic level of service would also allow for efficiencies in addressing services orders and would limit
exchanges from 96 gallon to 32 -gallon carts. The basic level of service would also encourage more
recycling and composting (for example, moving materials from the more -expensive landfill option to
less-expensive recycling and yard waste). It would also ensure that the true costs of service are covered
and are fair and equitable for everyone. The moderator then asked the following question and showed a
graphic illustrating current billing and bundled billing.
31. What would your thoughts be about the city using a "basic package of services" approach to
rates, where the basic or minimum bundle would include garbage, yard waste and curbside
recycling services?
The moderator concluded by explaining that a summary of the focus group would be provided to City
Council to assist in future solid waste planning. City staff also addressed some questions that were
raised and to thank the participants for their time. Finally, the moderator asked the following question.
32. If the City Council asked you whether the city should have a curbside recycling program, how
would you reply?
City of Yakima
Curbside Recycling Focus Group
9
9/24/2014
What did they say?
Background Knowledge
Most participants knew little about the City's waste management program other than their trash was
collected and sent to the Terrace Heights Landfill. A few participants knew that the landfill was filling
fast and quickly reaching capacity and had learned this information from news articles.
General Perspectives
Below is an overview of responses from the focus group. Please note that the statements below are not
verbatim, but are paraphrased to help present a general idea of the input from the participants. The
bullets below highlight common themes that emerged as the group discussed the curbside recycling
pilot program.
Part 1: Curbside Pilot Experience
• Most participants were excited about the curbside pilot program and felt that it was generally
easy to participate. Some participants indicated that having the pilot start over the summer was
poor timing. Many participants noted that it felt odd having to separate trash and recycling at
the beginning of the program but many developed their own systems for filling the carts each
week. Many participants felt that the frequency of collection was adequate while others
indicated that the volume of yard waste warranted more frequent collection based on their
individual yard size. Many participants also indicated that they were surprised by how much of
their trash was recyclable.
I managed to fill the recycling cart every two weeks and the trash cart never got full; most of the
garbage was recycling.
I noticed we had more room in the trash can as we could recycle things we typically didn't
before.
• Several participants indicated that they previously dropped off recycling at the landfill and
noted that the convenience of curbside recycling was a major benefit. Some participants
suggested creating more drop off recycling centers throughout the city. A few participants
indicated that it was sometimes difficult to remember when recycling or yard waste would be
picked up as some neighbors did not participate.
I used to throw everything in the trashcan. It got easier to sort as the pilot went on.
I liked the convenience, it was good for the planet, good for Yakima, and saves time instead of
driving to the recycling center at Terrace Heights, and it felt good.
City of Yakima
Curbside Recycling Focus Group
10
9/24/2014
• Half of the participants participated in yard waste collection during the pilot program and
indicated that it was easy to participate in yard waste collection. Some participants indicated
that they rarely filled the yard waste container and when it was full, they would mulch or
compost the rest. Most participants noted that collection frequency was adequate while some
indicated that the collection frequency was not enough based on their individual yard size.
We rarely filled the yard waste and when we did we mulched or composted the rest.
I was concerned with the cart size but did not notice since we mulch every other week.
• Most participants were more conscious about their waste during the pilot program and their
thinking was changed during the pilot. Some participants explained that they were very
conscious of their waste during the pilot program as they did not want to make a mistake in
sorting the wrong items. Many participants indicated that they noticed much less garbage in
their cans during the pilot. Some participants noted that since the pilot they continue to sort
recycling and drop it off at the recycling center.
We were filling a 96 gallon trash cart before the pilot and since then we've been conscious about
what's being thrown away. The stuff we can't recycle, we haul to the recycling center.
I don't like to mix everything together, what a waste. I thought about the recycling program
when it was over.
Part 2: Curbside Pilot Materials
• Many participants remembered receiving materials before, during, and after the curbside
recycling pilot and most thought they were generally helpful. Many participants indicated that
they found most of the answers in the materials. Some participants suggested that the materials
were too wordy or could have been simplified by using images or bulleted lists and some
participants indicated that some materials were written better than others. Some participants
suggested that using fewer words, adding bullets, or adding images could improve the materials.
The cover letter was a bit too wordy. Cartoons and pictures work better.
The materials could be less wordy. I didn't want to spend time reading every word.
Part 3: Planning for the Future
• Most participants were aware of the location of the Terrace Heights Landfill and all
participants knew it would be closing. All participants knew of the impending landfill closure
since it had been covered in media outlets and it was mentioned in the introductory letter for
the curbside recycling pilot program.
• All participants agreed that the steps City staff are taking to manage rates, reduce the amount
of garbage hauled to the landfill, and reduce the environmental impact the city has are the
City of Yakima
Curbside Recycling Focus Group
11
9/24/2014
right steps to be taking to plan for the closing of the Terrace Heights Landfill. A few
participants were concerned with the amount of gasoline and money that the City will have to
pay to pick up recycling and indicated that more citizens would recycle if there were more
recycling drop-off stations. A few participants noted that citizens would be willing to pay for
curbside collection based on its convenience.
The convenience would offset the cost.
My concern is the gas and the amount of money that the City pays for collection. It will take
Yakima a while to get on board but / think more people would recycle if there more collection
stations.
• When asked how supportive each participant was for curbside recycling to be part of the
City's waste services, ranking on a scale from 1 (not supportive) to 8 (very supportive),
participants ranked in the following manner:
Ranking Definition
8
7
5
4
Very Supportive
Supportive
Neutral / slightly supportive
Neutral / less supportive
Number of Participants in
agreemen t
3 participants
2 participants
1 participant
2 participants
• Some participants indicated that they would sign up for curbside recycling if it was permanent
and/or if it was reasonably priced and some participants indicated that they would sign up for
the convenience that the program provides. Some participants indicated that curbside recycling
is the right thing to do and that the change in distance for driving to the landfill will increase
costs. One participant indicated that they would not sign up for the program if it were voluntary.
The program was convenient; I would continue to teach my kids to recycle.
Yes, it's the right thing to do.
• When asked what percentage of residents would sign up for a curbside recycling program if
the City announced it was starting next week, participants responded in the following
manner:
Percentage of Yakima residents who would
sign up for curbside recycling
50 % of residents would sign up
35% of residents would sign up
25% of residents would sign up
Number of participants in
agreement
3 participants
1 participant
4 participants
City of Yakima
Curbside Recycling Focus Group
12
9/24/2014
Some participants commented that their scoring was based on what they saw in their
neighborhoods while others were optimistic that if the program was marketed correctly, more
residents would sign up for it.
Even though the pilot was free, many of my neighbors didn't participate. It was too much of a
pain to sort.
People know what's coming in the future and understand the risk. I think the increased distance
is compelling.
• When participants were told that 400 homes or 73% of the homes in the pilot area set out
carts every other week, and were asked again what percentage of residents would sign up for
a curbside recycling program, they responded in the following manner:
Percentage of Yakima residents who would Number of participants in
sign up for curbside recycling
50% of residents would sign up
25% of residents would sign up
agreement
5 participants
3 participants
A few participants were surprised by the percentage of households that participated in the pilot
program.
• Many participants were satisfied with the idea of bundling waste services (garbage and
recycling) together and offering a "basic service package." Some participants explained that
there is a need for an incentive to recycle. A few participants suggested various packages
allowing a resident to pick and choose based on price while other participants indicated that an
"a la carte" menu of services would create administrative inefficiencies.
I pay someone to do my yard work so I don't need yard waste as an option.
Having an option with garbage and recycling (not yard waste) would be useful.
• All participants agreed that curbside recycling is a good thing and would advise the City
Council to institute curbside recycling.
City of Yakima
Curbside Recycling Focus Group
13
9/24/2014
Key Findings
Results from the Yakima focus group will help the City identify the future of a curbside recycling
program and inform other solid waste decisions. Participants' responses and suggestions will help the
City make decisions about future solid waste planning.
Key Findings
The following key findings summarize the main ideas heard from the focus group participants:
• Most participants were aware of the impending closure of the Terrace Heights Landfill and were
mildly aware of the City's waste management programs.
• Many participants said they were excited about the curbside recycling program and indicated
that it was generally easy to participate in after initially learning how to participate in the
program. Additionally, those who participated in yard waste collection noted that it was easy to
do so.
• Most participants were more aware of their waste during and after the pilot and indicated that
their thinking had changed during the pilot.
• Most participants indicated that the materials distributed during the pilot were generally helpful
but suggested that fewer words and more images/diagrams be used.
• Most participants were generally supportive of the City using curbside recycling as a tool to
maintain rates, reduce the amount of garbage hauled to the landfill, and reduce the
environmental impact the city has and felt these are the right steps to be taking to plan for the
closing of the Terrace Heights Landfill.
• Some participants indicated that they would sign up for curbside recycling if it was reasonably
priced and noted that convenience is a key benefit.
• Most residents felt that 50% of the citizens would sign up for the curbside recycling program
based on their perceptions of their own neighborhoods during the pilot.
• Many participants were supportive of bundling services and providing a "basic service package"
of recycling and garbage collection.
• All participants indicated that they would advise the City Council to proceed with curbside
recycling if asked.
City of Yakima
Curbside Recycling Focus Group
14
9/24/2014
Appendix A — Curbside Recycling Cart Images
City of Yakima
Curbside Recycling Focus Group
96 Gallon
Recycling
Cart
15
9/24/2014
City of Yakima
Curbside Recycling Focus Group
96 Gallon
Yard Waste
Cart
16
9/24/2014
City of Yakima
Curbside Recycling Focus Group
2 Gallon
Garbage
Cart
17
9/24/2014
Appendix B — Ranking of Materials
Participant
Welcome Letter
Recycling
Reminders
Recycling
Reminders (Can
Tags)
Recycling Rock
Star (Can Tag)
Oops (Can Tag)
Recycling Hero
(Can Tag)
1
5
5
5
4
NA
5
2
5
5
5
3
3
5
3
3
5
5
3
4
4
4
3
3
2
4
5
5
5
2
5
5
5
4
1
6
5
5
5
NA
NA
5
7
4
5
5
2
NA
3
8
3
5
4
1
1
1
Participants were asked to rank effectiveness of materials on a 5 point scale with 1 being "not effective" and 5 being "very effective."
City of Yakima
Curbside Recycling Focus Group
18
9/24/2014
Appendix C — Participant Responses
Participant
Supportive
(1— not supportive, 8 very
supportive)
What percentage of residents
would sign up for curbside
recycling today?
What percentage of
residents would sign up
for curbside recycling
today, based on pilot
participation rates?
1
7
25%
50%
2
8
50%
50%
3
4
50%
50%
4
8
25%
25%
5
7
25%
50%
6
8
25%
25%
7
4
50%
50%
8
5
35%
25%
Participants were asked to rank their level of support for the curbside recycling program on a scale from 1 to 8 with 1 being "not supportive"
and 8 being "very supportive."
City of Yakima
Curbside Recycling Focus Group
19
9/24/2014
ATTACHMENT D
RATE ANALYSIS
City of Yakima
COST OF SERVICE REPORT FOR SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION SERVICES
Solid Waste Collection Costs and Proposed Collection Rates
Collection Costs
The current rates for waste collection services do not cover all the cost of providing the service.
In a work session in April 2014, City Council was notified of the issue when the cost for
residential services were presented for discussion. Collection costs for the FY 2015 are
projected to increase by approximately $396,000, or 7% over the current year budget. Table 1
below summarizes and compares the increases by cost component for the current year and
next year.
Table 1: Comparison of 2014 Budget to 2015 Projected
Residential Collection
Residential collection rates were adjusted in 2012 for the 6% increase in the City utility tax from
9% to 15%. This was a pass through and while this increase necessitated a rate increase to the
customer it did not generate nor provide operational revenues to the Solid Waste Division. In
2010 the Solid Waste budget was amended due to an unanticipated increase in landfill disposal
fees of 15% and higher fuel costs. Expenses ran 19% higher than expected and required a
budget amendment for the SW division for $47,000 to cover the cost of the increased landfill fee
1
2014 Budget
', ♦
%
Collection Cost Components•
Projected
Wages - Route Drivers
756,244
830,441
74,197
10%
Driver Tax & Benefit Expense
327,007
357,278
30,271
9%
Fuel
278,000
300,000
22,000
8%
Fleet M&O
375,385
420,500
45,115
12%
Operating Supplies & Materials
27,775
28,975
1,200
4%
Replacement Vehicles
630,000
630,000
-
0%
Replacement Carts / Containers
85,000
85,000
-
0%
Other Operational Expenses
268,978
320,577
51,599
19%
Disposal / Processing
940,000
1,039,715
99,715
11%
Admin Wages
268,629
255,591
(13,038)
-5%
Admin Tax& Benefit Expense
97,868
88,195
(9,673)
-10%
Administration Expenses
18,992
16,742
(2,250)
-12%
Customer Service / Invoicing
168,121
198,121
30,000
18%
General Fund / PW Transfers
364,923
372,363
7,440
2%
City Utility Tax
828,000
863,250
35,250
4%
WA State Taxes
242,400
266,124
23,724
10%
Total Department Cost
$5,677,323
$6,072,872
$395,549
7%
Residential Collection
Residential collection rates were adjusted in 2012 for the 6% increase in the City utility tax from
9% to 15%. This was a pass through and while this increase necessitated a rate increase to the
customer it did not generate nor provide operational revenues to the Solid Waste Division. In
2010 the Solid Waste budget was amended due to an unanticipated increase in landfill disposal
fees of 15% and higher fuel costs. Expenses ran 19% higher than expected and required a
budget amendment for the SW division for $47,000 to cover the cost of the increased landfill fee
1
and fuel costs. When the rates were adjusted, the additional costs were added to the existing
rate. The rates implemented over the previously noted years were never set at the costs of
service. During the last seven years, total revenues generated more than the cost of the service.
Since that time, the fund balance has been depleted because the cost of providing the service
has increased at a rate higher than the assessed fees for service.
Under the current rate structure, there is a disparity between the residential rates and the cost of
service. The FY 2015 cost of service for 32 gallon waste collection is $13.68 per month while
the current rate is $10.00. Customers with a 96 gallon cart currently pay $17.02 per month and
the cost of the service is $16.23. If the City were to adjust the rates to reflect the cost of service,
customers with a 32 gallon cart would realize an increase of $3.33 per month. This is an
increase of 33%. Because the variance between the cost of service and rates is very high, we
recommend a phased increase of $2.00. To offset the operational deficit, we also recommend
an increase of $0.98 for the 96 gallon customers. The deficit and surplus would be adjusted
annually until the rates were at the cost of service. Table 2 summarizes the cost of service and
the recommended rate increases for 2015.
Table 2: Collection Costs and Proposed Rates for Residential Waste Collection
Collection Cost Components
32 gallon cart
96 gallon cart
Labor Expense
$2.64
$2.64
Collection Expense
$2.72
$2.72
Admin and Customer Service Expense
$1.35
$1.35
General Fund / PW Inter Fund Transfers
$0.95
$0.95
Waste Disposal
$1.39
$3.33
Truck Replacement
$1.54
$1.54
Cart Replacement
$0.43
$0.60
Total Collection Cost
$11.02
$13.13
WA Refuse and B&O Tax (5.1% of Rate)
$0.56
$0.67
City Utility Tax (15% of Cost)
$1.74
$2.07
Cost of Service Monthly Rate
$13.33
$15.87
Current Monthly Rate
$10.00
$17.02
Proposed Rates
$12.00
$18.00
$ ♦
$2.00
$0.98
20%
6%
2
Subscription Yard Debris Service
Yard debris collection is offered on a subscription basis to approximately 25% of the residential
customers. Participants currently have the choice of either a 64 or 96 gallon roll cart. Of the
6,276 participants, only 1,023 or 16% utilize a 64 gallon cart whereas the balance of the
customers (5,253) use a 96 gallon cart for storage and collection of yard debris. Yard debris
service has a similar problem as garbage in that the lower volume container is
disproportionately priced below the cost of service. However, the 96 gallon cart is also priced
below the cost of service. Table 3 summarizes the cost of service and the recommended rates.
Table 3: Collection Costs and Proposed Rates for Subscription Yard Debris Service
Cost of Service
64 gallon cart 96 gallon cart
Labor Expense
$3.9.
$3.92
Collection Expense
$1.99
$1.99
Admin Expense *
$1.92
$1.92
General Fund / PW Inter Fund Transfers
$0.75
$0.75
Yard Debris Disposal
$0.79
$1.19
Truck Replacement
$1.34
$1.34
Cart Replacement
$0.60
$0.75
Total Collection Cost
$11.31
$11.85
WA B&O Tax (1.5% of Rate)
$0.17
$0.18
City Utility Tax (15% of Cost)
$1.70
$1.78
Cost of Service Rate
$13.18
$13.81
Current Rates
$7.01
$12.82
Proposed Rates
$13.00
$14.00
$ ♦
$6.16
$0.99
o� A
QQo�
Qom
To reduce the sting of the rate increase for the 64 gallon yard debris customers, the City should
consider standardizing yard debris service to the 96 gallon cart. While the customer with a 64
gallon cart would still realize a rate increase, they would be provided with a larger capacity cart
that could lessen the financial pain.
3
Residential Recycling
The proposed curbside recycling program would provide residential customers with a 96 gallon
roll cart collected every -other -week. The 96 gallon cart will provide most customers adequate
capacity to store the recyclable materials until the day of collection. Table 4 summarizes the
cost of service and the recommended rates.
Table 4: Collection Costs and Proposed Rates for Residential Recycling
Cost Component
Cost
Wages - Route Drivers
$0.77
Driver Payroll Tax & Benefits
$0.33
Fuel
$0.29
Fleet M&O
$0.41
Operating Supplies & Materials
$0.03
Vehicle Replacement'
$-0
Roll Cart Cost2
a
$0.31
Other Operational Expenses
$0.13
Recycling Processing
$0.57
Disposal Savings
$(0.36)
Administration Expenses
$0.04
Customer Service / Education and Outreach
$0.25
Inter Fund Transfers
$0.10
WA B&O Taxes (1.5%)
$0.07
Total Cost / Proposed Rate
$3.00
The proposed recycling rate would be charged on a monthly basis and would be in addition to
the current cost of waste collection.
1 Second line trucks would be utilized for collection, thereby eliminating the need to purchase new trucks.
2 The cost of carts are offset in anticipation of future grants awarded to the City from the Washington
Department of Ecology or other sources.
4
Citywide Yard Debris Collection
This program would provide collection service to all residents that generate yard debris.
Services would consist of a 96 gallon cart collected every -other -week from March to November.
Customers that generate more than 96 gallons could subscribe for an additional cart at a
nominal rate. Table 5 summarizes the cost of service and the recommended rates.
Table 5: Collection Costs and Proposed Rates for Citywide Residential Yard Debris
Service
Cost Component
Cost
Wages - Route Drivers
$0.77
Driver Payroll Tax & Benefits
$0.34
Fuel
$0.23
Fleet M&O
$0.32
Operating Supplies & Materials
$0.02
Vehicle Replacement
$0.61
Roll Cart
$1.04
Other Operational Expenses
$0.27
Yard Debris Processing
$0.41
Disposal Savings
$(0.83)
Administration Expenses
$0.04
Customer Service / E&O
$0.25
Inter Fund Transfers
$0.10
WA B&O Taxes (1.5%)
$0.05
Total Cost / Proposed Rate
$3.62
The above cost would be in addition to the current cost of waste collection service but would be
in place of yard waste subscription costs.
Another consideration for the expansion of the yard debris program would be the elimination of
the fall leaf program. If the fall leaf program is eliminated, all residents would incur a $0.22
decrease per month on their garbage bill. However, if the yard debris program were
implemented, all non -subscribing residents would incur an increase of $3.40 ($3.62 - $0.22) a
month. Current yard debris service subscribers would realize rate decreases of $3.51 and $9.32
for the 64 gallon and 96 gallon yard debris cart respectively.
5
Bundled Services
Collection of waste, recycling, and yard debris would be integrated into a bundle of standard
services provided by the City. The amount charged to customers would be a bundled rate
depending on the level of service selected by the City Council. The following tables summarize
the specific services and rate components.
Table 6: Monthly Rate for Weekly Garbage and Every -Other -Week Recycling and Yard
Debris
Service
Current
Rate
Proposed
Rate
$
Garbage - 96 gal. cart Weekly
$17.02
$18.00
$0.98
$3.62
Yard Debris - EOW
n/a
$3.62
$3.62
$21.62
Recycling - EOW
n/a
$3.00
$3.00
23%
Total Rate for 96 gal SW cart
$17.02
$24.62
$7.60
45%
Garbage - 32 gal. cart Weekly
$10.00
$12.00
Garbage - 32 gal. cart Weekly
$10.00
$12.00
$2.00
$3.62
Garbage - 32 gal. cart Weekly
$10.00
$12.00
$2.00
$15.62
Yard Debris - EOW
n/a
$3.62
$3.67
50%
Recycling - EOW
n/a
$3.00
$3.05
Total Rate for 32 gal SW cart
$10.00
$18.62
$8.62
86%
Table 7: Monthly Rate for Weekly Garbage and Every -Other -Week Recycling
Service
Current
Rate
Proposed
Rate
$ .
Garbage - 96 gal. cart Weekly
$17.02
$18.00
$0.98
$3.62
Recycling - EOW
n/a
$3.00
$3.00
$21.62
Total Rate for 96 gal SW cart
$17.02
$21.00
$3.98
23%
Garbage - 32 gal. cart Weekly
$10.00
$12.00
Garbage - 32 gal. cart Weekly
$10.00
$12.00
$2.00
$3.62
Recycling - EOW
n/a
$3.00
$3.00
$15.62
Total Rate for 32 gal SW cart
$10.00
$15.00
$5.00
50%
Table 8: Monthly Rate for Weekly Garbage and Every -Other -Week Yard Debris
Service
Garbage - 96 gal. cart Weekly
Current
Rate
$17.02
Proposed
Rate
$18.00
.
$0.98
Yard Debris - EOW
n/a
$3.62
$3.62
Total Rate for 96 gal SW cart
$17.02
$21.62
$4.60
27%
Garbage - 32 gal. cart Weekly
$10.00
$12.00
$2.00
Yard Debris - EOW
n/a
$3.62
$3.62
Total Rate for 32 gal SW cart
$10.00
$15.62
$5.62
56%
6
City of Yakima
Bundled Rates Comparison to Current Rates
96 gal (City)
Weekly Yd.
(City)
EOW Rec
(YWS)
Total Cost
32 gal (City)
Weekly Yd.
(City)
EOW Rec
(YWS)
Total Cost
Current
Rate
$ 17.02
$ 12.82
$ 8.20
$ 38.03
$ 10.00
$ 12.82
$ 8.20
$ 31.02
96 gal (City)
EOW Yd. (City)
EOW Rec
(City)
Total City
Rate
32 gal (City)
EOW Yd. (City)
EOW Rec
(City)
Total City
Rate
Current
Rate
$ 17.02
Proposed
2015
Rate
18.00
3.62
3.00
0.98
3.62
3.00
$ $
$ 17.02 24.62 7.60
$ 10.00 12.00
3.62
3.00
2.00
3.62
3.00
$ $
$ 10.00 18.62 8.62
45%
86%
Note: 15.9% of the households currently subscribe to 32 -gallon garbage service only
15.7% of the households currently subscribe to 32 -gallon garbage plus weekly yard waste
68.4% of the households utilize a 96 -gallon garbage or a 96 -gallon garbage plus yard waste
Yakima Waste UTC Tariff
Rates (Jan 1, 2014)
without 16% Utility Tax
32 gal Toter $ 8.09
48 gal Toter $ 11.54
64 gal Toter
96 gal Toter
EOW Rec
EOW Yd.
$ 12.12
$ 14.76
$ 8.20
$ 10.78
7
BDI RATES BY SELAH CONTRACT
with 6% Utility Tax
32 gal Toter $10.74
48 gal Toter NA
64 gal Toter $11.72
96 gal Toter $14.28
EOW Rec Included in rate
EOW Yd. $7.01
Bin Collection
The cost of providing bin collection service is projected to increase by $24,019 from $502,107
budgeted in 2014 to $526,189 in 2015. This is an increase of 4.7% over the 2014 budget.
Projected revenues associated with this service will cover only $490,000 of the cost. The
combined increase in costs and deficit in revenue will require a rate increase of 7.4% for bin
service. Table 9 summarizes the costs and rate calculation for bin service and Table 10 details
the current and proposed rates for bin service.
Table 9: Projected 2015 Bin Collection Costs
Cost Components
Cost
Wages - Route Drivers
$90,608
Driver Payroll Tax & Benefits
$36,861
Fuel
$31,110
Fleet M&O
$43,606
Operating Supplies & Materials
$2,768
Replacement - Vehicles
$65,332
Replacement - Carts / Containers
$8,815
Other Operational Expenses
$17,896
Disposal / Processing
$96,820
Admin Wages
$13,872
Admin Tax& Benefit Expense
$4,787
Administration Expenses
$148
Customer Service / Invoicing
$2,183
Inter Fund Transfers
$29,073
City Utility Tax
$62,167
WA Refuse and B&O Taxes (5.1%)
$20,145
Total Cost
$526,189
Projected 2014 Revenue "
$490,000
Projected 2015 Expenses
$526,189
Revenue Increase
$36,189
Bin Rate Increase
7.4%
8
Table 10: Proposed Bin Rates for 2015
Bin Volume
Collection
Frequency
Proposed Rate Increase
I L Tara
1 X ween
4) 10.00
$20.27
4) 1 .JV
2 Yard
2 x week
$30.20
$32.43
$2.23
2 Yard
3 x week
$41.52
$44.59
$3.07
2 Yard
4 x week
$52.84
$56.74
$3.90
2 Yard
5 x leek
$64.16
$68.90
$4.74
4 Yard
1 x week
$30.20
$32.43
$2.23
4 Yard
2 x week
$52.54
$56.42
$3.88
4 Yard
3 x week
$75.48
$81.05
$5.57
4 Yard
4 x seek
$98.12
$105.37
$7.25
4 Yard
5 x week
$120.76
$129.68
$8.92
6 Yard
1 x week
$41.53
$44.60
$3.07
6 Yard
2 x week
$75.50
$81.08
$5.58
6 Yard
3 x *eek
$109.47
$117.55
$8.08
6 Yard
4 x week
$143.44
$154.03
$10.59
6 Yard
5 x week
$177.41
$190.51
$13.10
9
CITY OF YAKIMA
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
2014 RATE AND R CY
CITY OF YAKIMA
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW
Projected Costs and Rates for Collection Services
• Proposed Collection Rates
• Requested City Council Action
• 2014 Recycling Pilot Overview
• Participation
- Collected Materials
Participant's Opinions
• Cost of Service for Future Programs
• Providing the most amount of services for the best rates
Rate increase but providing more services once bundled
- Council Input / Direction
2
CITY OF YAKIMA
SOLID WASTE DIVISION FISCAL POSITION
2015 Budget
Expenditure $6,072,872 / Revenues $5,782,600
Deficit of $290,272
• Current rates do not cover the cost of service
• Increased costs due to inflation and annexation
• SW Fund balance has been depleted
• Last rate increase in 2008
• Inflation Rate since 2008 approximately 13.8%
3
PROPOSED COLLECTION RATES
OPTION #1
Collection Service
MANDATORY SERVICES
Residential SW 32 gal cart
Residential SW 96 gal cart
OPTIONAL//ELECTED SERVICES
Yard Debris 64 gal cart (recommending to $ 7.01
eliminate this as a service option)
Yard Debris 96 gal cart $12.82
Recycling N/A
*Recycling by YWS - Set by WUTC 8.20
Multi -Family Bin Service
Current Rate
$10.00
$17.02
Proposed Rate
$12.00
$18.00
$13.00
$14.00
+ 7.4% increase
4
OPTIONAL SERVICES -BUNDLED
OPTION #2
96 gal SW
17,586 customers (60%)
Current
Rate
Proposed
Rate
96 gal
SW
$17.02
32 gal SW
7,952 customers (16%)
Service
Current
Rat
Proposed
Rat
$18.00 $0.98 32 g a 1 $10.00 $12.00 $2.00
SW
Yard
Debris
n/a
$3.62 $3.62
Recyc-
ling
n/a
Yard
Debris
n/a $3.62 $3.62
$3.00 $3.00 Recyc- n/a
ling $3.00 $3.00
Total
$17.02
$24.62 $7.60
Customer data as of September 2014
Total $10.00 $18.62 $8.62
CURBSIDE RECYCLING AND YARD
DEBRIS PILOT PROJECT
Pilot Participation
• May to August
• 622 Customers
• Every -Other -Week
Collection
• Both Recycling and Yard
Y g
Debris
75% Set out rate for
Recycling
• 57% Set out rate for Yard
Debris
6
CURBSIDE RECYCLING AND YARD
DEBRIS PILOT PROJECT
Pilot Performance
147 Collected Waste Tons
25 Collected Recycle Tons
59 Collected Yard Debris
Tons
Average Set Out Weights
Garbage - 31 pounds
Recycling - 14 pounds
Yard Debris - 54 pounds
36% Diversion Rate
7
CURBSIDE RECYCLING AND YARD
DEBRIS PILOT PROJECT
• Participant's Opinion of the Pilot Program
• 79% rated pilot program as excellent / good
- 75% considered the program convenient
• 65% approved of the collection frequency
• 74% realized a reduction in waste volume
34% of participants reduced their waste in half
32% moved from 96 to 32 gallons of waste volume
• 70% would consider signing up for a City offered
recycling service
8
DOWNSIZING VOLUME TO REDUCE
RATE IMPACT
• During the pilot, 73.8% of the participants
realized a reduction in waste volume
Proposed
Rate
Bun • e
Rate with
Recycling
Increase
96 gal SW
17,586 $18.00 $24.62
$6.62
32 gal SW
7,952 $12.00 $18.62 $6.62
Reduce SW cart
from 96 to 32 gal
$18.00 $18.62 $0.62
Customers who reduce waste volume to 32 gallons per week by
recycling will incur a monthly increase of only $0.62 (3.4%)
9
CUSTOMER WITH MANDATORY AND OPTIONAL
SERVICES
32 -Gallon
Current Proposed
(Al La Cart) (Al La Cart) (Bundled)
96 -Gallon
Current
(Al La Cart)
Proposed
(Al La Cart)
(Bundled)
Service
32 gal
service
32ga1 32ga1
service service
Solid
Waste
$10.00 $12.00 $12.00
Yard
Debris
$7.01 $14.00 $3.62
Recycling $ 8.20 $ 8.20 $3.00
Service
96 gal
service
96 gal
service
96 gal
service
Solid
Waste
$17.02
$18.00
$18.00
Yard
Debris
$12.82
$14.00
$3.62
Recycling
$8.20
$8.20
$3.00
Total $25.21 $34.20 $18.62 Total $38.04
$40.20
$24.62
With the bundled approach, customers that currently subscribe to either
yard debris collection from the City and/or for curbside recycling from
Yakima Waste Systems will realize a reduction in their monthly invoice.
10
CITY COUNCIL QUESTIONS AND
DIRECTION
Which direction does City Council have for the
Refuse Division?
Do any Council members have question on the
program?