Mobility and Infrastructure
Committee
TO: MOBILITY AND INFRASTUCTURE DATE: JANUARY 11, 2024
COMMITTEE
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WARDS: ALL
SUBJECT: PROGRESS REPORT ON STUDY OFFERING OPTIONAL SMALLER RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE BINS ISSUE:
Receive a progress report and provide feedback on offering optional smaller residential solid waste bins.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Mobility and Infrastructure Committee receive a progress report and provide feedback on offering optional smaller residential solid waste bins.
BACKGROUND:
On June 27, 2023, the City Council set a public hearing regarding a Solid Waste rate proposal for September 19, 2023.
On September 19, 2023, the City Council conducted the public hearing and adopted the proposed Solid Waste rates alongside additional recommendations including a study of offering optional smaller residential solid waste bin sizes.
DISCUSSION:
In October 2023, Solid Waste staff started an in-house study to determine the operational feasibility of offering an optional smaller bin to residential customers. Due to the aggressive timeline, consultants were unable to complete the study for less than $125,000, and were not comfortable promising timely deliverables. However, at the time of report submittal for the Committee agenda, staff was negotiating with a consultant to peer review staff’s research.
As we began researching this topic, it was determined that a lot of the information needed could be learned through study of our capabilities and through agency case studies. Our research considered the following:
Vehicles: Our existing Refuse trucks currently pick up 96-gallon bins. What is the capability of our trucks to pick up smaller 64-, 48- and 32-gallon bins without damaging the bin, spilling any debris, or dropping the bins into the truck hopper? If retrofitting existing Refuse trucks is required, what is the cost per vehicle? Are the Refuse trucks currently on order capable of picking up and servicing smaller bins? Case Study: What residential bin size options are being offered by other cities, what are their rate structures, and what are their challenges and lessons learned? Financial Impacts: What are the costs associated with implementing smaller bin options? What is the potential impact to revenue and rates associated with implementing a 32-, 48-, or 64-gallon bin option? What is the estimated customer count that might want smaller bins and is there an expected plateau for residential demand for smaller bin options? What are the fixed cost that will not change with smaller bin sizes? Commodity Adherence / Inspection Demands – Will residents having a combination of small and large bins use the larger bins to co-mingle waste from different commodities when additional capacity is needed? Will the City be required to hire additional staff to oversee the program to enforce and encourage adherence compliance? City staff learned much from conversation with other municipalities and review of their webpages and residential service material. Anecdotes and data from various other cities are provided throughout the following analysis, for comparison purposes and to highlight insights.
A most important lesson that we learned is that municipal approaches to solid waste operations are different in every city, including how they determine rates, what bins they offer, the variety of services offered through the solid waste programs, and how they handle enforcement.
Vehicles
At this time, the City’s existing fleet is capable of servicing the current 96-gallon bin and a smaller 64-gallon bin without requiring modification to the trash trucks. The 10 new automated side loader trucks expected to arrive in Fall 2024 are also capable of servicing both 96- and 64-gallon bins.
In order to accommodate a 48- or 32-gallon bin size and consistently be able to lift and empty these size bins without spilling any debris, or dropping the bins into the truck hopper, each of our 40 trucks would need to be retrofitted with a new arm at an approximate cost of $20,000 per vehicle. Total cost to retrofit the existing fleet would be approximately $800,000.
Case Studies
Our research found that solid waste services generally fall into three business models:
One large bin size offered, like a 96-gallon bin (Riverside’s current service).
Smaller bins offered at the same rate as the largest bin. “Pay as you throw” programs whereby smaller bins are offered to customers at lower flat rates than a traditional large-sized 96-gallon bin, with the lowest “base rate” offset by higher flat rates for larger bin offerings.
Staff studied solid waste programs across California including Turlock, Highland, Fountian Calley, San Jose, Chino Hills, Fresno, Rancho Cucamonga, Anaheim, Claremont, Stockton, and Ontario; and outside of California including Reno, Nevada; Fort Collins, Colorado; Gainesville, Florida; San Antonio, Texas; Boise, Idaho; and Phoenix, Arizona.
One Bin Size Offered
The primary benefit of a single, large container size model is revenue stability. Disadvantages associated with this model are that households may not be incentivized to reduce waste, and large bins may be inconvenient for residents who do not need such a large bin or are challenged physically to pull the bin to the curbside for service.
The current monthly rate for basic City of Riverside solid waste services is $34.72, which provides three 96-gallon bins to each address; one trash, one recycling, and one for organic materials. Additional bins are available to customers for an additional cost. The City does not currently offer any senior discounts, but we do have a no-cost disabled service which assists residents by having the operator pull the bins to the curbside for collection and return the bins to their original location near the house.
The City of Pomona, serviced by Athens as its exclusive hauler for both residential and commercial accounts, operates under a similar model, offering three 96-gallon bins to each residential account at a monthly rate of $35.50. Athens is Riverside’s franchise hauler for residential solid waste services, and the Athens fleet is currently capable of servicing 96- and 64-gallon bins.
Fresno, California offers the same basic service of three 96-gallon bins for $25.37 per month. Additional bins are available to customers for an additional cost. Seniors who are 62 years and older and meet California Public Utilities Commission poverty level guidelines are eligible for a 14% rate discount, though they are not offered a smaller bin size.
Smaller Bins Available at the Same Rate as the Largest Bin The City of Chino Hills, California solid waste service has been provided by Waste Management since July 2022. During the two-year period leading up to the end of their previous franchise agreement, Chino Hills hired a consultant to study their service, develop an RFP, and prepare updates for their Municipal Code. One goal of a switch to a potentially new franchise hauler was to keep rates steady, so that residents would have service consistency. The basic solid waste service includes three 95-gallon bins: one refuse, one recycling, and one for organic materials, at a monthly rate of $27.56. Chino Hills, through Waste Management, offers their 22,000 solid waste customers with 35-gallon and 65-gallon bin options at the same rate as the 95-gallon bin. They have found that demand for the 35-gallon size is mainly among seniors and residents living in mobile home parks where driveway space may be limited or non-existent and a smaller bin is considered “right-size.” Similarly, the City of Santa Ana, California started contracting with Republic Services to provide solid waste service in July 2022. The basic solid waste service provides all residential customers with three 96-gallon bins: one trash bin, one recyclables bin, and one bin for organic material, for a monthly rate of $22.94, which was the lowest rate proposed by the companies that bid on the contract. Smaller bin options are available to residents in 35-gallon and 64-gallon sizes, and rates do not vary based on cart size.
Volume-Based Pay As You Throw
In a Pay As You Throw (PAYT) model, smaller bins are offered to customers at a lower flat rate. This structure may provide an incentive for customers to reduce waste. It can be challenging to administer due to higher complexity in billing and smaller solid waste bins can result in household trash being placed in the larger recycling and organic waste bins causing contamination.
There are currently many examples of PAYT solid waste operations in California. The basic service is typically offered for the largest bin size, with lower rates applied for smaller bin sizes. Various articles dating back to 2000 consistently point to a reduction of about 45% in household trash through this model. PAYT models have helped change behavior over the past 30 years since they were first implemented.
The City of San Jose, California, is a nationally recognized leader in waste management with a pioneering reputation that transitioned from a flat-rate, unlimited collection system into a PAYT structure in 1993. San Jose is the third largest city in California, and its residential curbside solid waste service is presently provided by Garden City Sanitation and Green Team of San Jose. The current basic service in San Jose provides one 96-gallon trash bin and one 32-, 64- or 96-gallon recycling bin for a monthly rate of $154.20. Residents may opt for a 64-gallon trash bin at a rate of $102.80 per month or a 32-gallon trash bin at a rate of $51.40 per month. Residents may place yard trimmings (branches, flowers, grass clippings, leaves, palm fronds, small prunings, sod) in a 5’ x 5’ pile in the street for pickup at no additional cost and residents are required to clean the street area of any smaller material that the heavy equipment was not able to pick up. Yard trimming bins (36, 64, or 96-gallon) are available for an additional monthly rate of $6.25 each. San Jose is currently piloting a program to move away from 32-gallon bins - this is discussed later in this report.
The City of Anaheim, California, contracts with Republic Services for solid waste service and offers residents a choice of either three 96-gallon for a monthly rate of $27.78 or three 64- or 35-gallon bins for $26.61 per month, a nominal 4.2% savings.
Similarly, the City of Ontario, California requires customers to have the same size bin for all three commodities. The City of Ontario Integrated Waste Department within the Public Works Agency is the exclusive hauler for all residential and commercial customers in the city. For residential accounts, the basic solid waste service provides a set of three 96-gallon bins for $39.78 per month. Residents can choose to downsize all three bins to 64-gallons for $35.60 per month or downsize all three bins to 32-gallons for $31.82 per month. Extra bins are available at an additional cost and must be equal to or smaller than the current set.
The City of Phoenix, Arizona branded their program “Save As You Reduce & Recycle (SAY R&R)”. The basic solid waste service in Phoenix includes one 90-gallon trash bin and one 90-gallon recycle bin for $35.17 per month. One 90-gallon green organics bin is available for an additional $5 per month, bringing the total monthly rate to $40.17 per month for all three commodities. Arizona differs from California in that organics bins are not optional in California. Phoenix offers residents a $3 monthly discounted rate of $37.17 should they opt to downsize from the 90-gallon trash bin to a 60-gallon trash bin. A resident’s cancelation of the SAY R&R program may result in a $10 return/switch-out fee for returning to a 90-gallon trash bin. Phoenix parallels Riverside in that the City of Phoenix held solid waste rates steady for 10 years, from 2009 to 2019, and adopted a new rate plan in 2020 to catch up with a booming population, a changing recycling market, higher labor costs, and higher equipment and maintenance costs.
Weight-Based PAYT
Customers are charged for the amount of trash they generate in the same way that we get billed for the amount of electricity, water, and natural gas that we use. This means that the less you throw away, the less you can expect to pay.
The benefit of weight-based service is that it provides a more precise measurement of waste generation than other models of solid waste service. This system tends to be expensive to implement and operate because special equipment is required, and more labor is typically necessary to handle the more complex billing system. Staff did not have much success identifying agencies that provide residential weight-based PAYT solid waste programs in California. This model is common for commercial solid waste services, but residential PAYT services appear to be mainly volume-based.
Financial Impacts
Based on conversation with other cities, the plateau customer count for smaller bins varies widely. City of San Antonio, Texas shared that they did an aggressive advertising campaign over the course of a year and about 20,000 customers switched to a smaller bin (about 5% of the City’s 374,000 solid waste customers). Overall, their experience was that demand flattened to around 15% of customers after a few years and now they typically experience small spikes in demand (about 600 requests) for smaller bins just before new solid waste rates go into effect.
If we apply San Antonio’s experience to Riverside, an initial 5-10% enrollment to convert customers to a smaller bin program would equate to approximately 3,300 – 6,600 accounts. If we experienced a 5% spike in demand for smaller bins, the cost to establish an initial bin inventory for 1,000 homes would cost approximately $670,000 and it would take about 6 months to receive inventory and deliver bins to our customers. Riverside’s Solid Waste operation would need to expand its footprint to store an expanded inventory at the City Corporation Yard, which would include a larger concrete pad for the bins. This may impact other departments operating out of the Corporation Yard.
The City of San Jose has a wide gap between its rates for the largest bin vs. the smallest bin, and as a result, the vast majority of their customers subscribe to the smallest bin size available.
Other cities, such as Anaheim, have a $1-$2 difference in their rates for the largest bin and the smallest bin, so their demand for smaller bins is much lower. Chino Hills, where there is no rate difference for smaller bins, demand is mainly from seniors and residents living in mobile homes where a smaller bin is more convenient.
In order to implement a smaller bin program, an initial investment to establish a bin inventory is necessary. The lowest rate offered by the City’s bin vendor, Toter, is for the purchase of 64-gallon bins in a quantity of 648 bins at a cost of $55.75 each plus sales tax. The investment in this initial inventory of 648 bins would be $39,287 and would provide 216 customers with smaller bins for each of the three commodities: trash, recyclables, and organic materials. The lead time to receive the order is presently 2-3 months. Once the inventory is received, it will take about 3 weeks to complete delivery of the new bins.
Over time, we may experience a decrease in solid waste tonnage transported to the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) as customers who traditionally have generated higher amounts of waste change their habits to adjust to a smaller trash bin; however, a lesson learned by other cities offering smaller bin sizes, is that contamination can increase and become a costly problem, especially where a 32-gallon trash bin is offered. Contamination occurs when trash is placed in the recycling or green waste bins. We found that to help address this issue, cities typically have three approaches: 1) Code Enforcement Officers assigned to “flip lids” and issue warnings and citations; 2) install cameras in trucks to capture images of the waste as it is depositing into the truck hopper, then staff analyzes the images and send notices or citations. AI technology is being developed that will scan the waste as it is being thrown into the truck hopper and then automatically generate warnings and citations based on the scans, but it is not yet ready for the market; or 3) a robust public education program that consistently messages contamination, what is to be placed in each bin, and the potential consequences for high contamination rates.
We learned through conversation with staff from the City of San Jose that approximately 86% of their 225,000 solid waste customers subscribe to 32-gallons, mainly due to steep rate differences for 64- and 96-gallon bin sizes. San Jose has been challenged with combatting contamination and found through routine waste characterization studies that in 2015 the contamination rate was 32% and rose to 56% in 2023. San Jose conducts pilot programs when considering major changes to their programs and is presently working through two pilot programs related to contamination and smaller bins. In 2021, in response to worsened recycling contamination during the COVID-19 pandemic when more residents were at home and generated more waste, San Jose undertook an extensive public education campaign and implemented a pilot program to install recycling cart lids with trilingual (English, Spanish, and Vietnamese) labels showing what is recyclable and what isn’t. The labels were molded into the recycling bin lids and deployed to nearly 5,000 homes along 5 routes where contamination was most prevalent (51% contamination rate citywide vs. 73% contamination rate among the homes in the pilot area). As a result of the pilot program, San Jose found that contaminated recycling dropped by 35% among these 5,000 pilot project homes to a 38% contamination rate.
In 2022, working off the hypothesis that residents with 32-gallon and 64-gallon bins were putting more trash in their recycling bins, San Jose implemented an 18-month pilot program to convert 4,200 customers on routes with high contamination trash weights to a 96-gallon bin. During the pilot, these customers continued to pay the rate associated with their original bin size, so there was no cost increase to the participants. Feedback from the customers, most of whom were switched from a 32-gallon bin for the purposes of the pilot program, shows that the 96-gallon bin is larger than what they need or is difficult to handle. San Jose is extending this pilot through 2024 and is kicking off phase two in January 2024 to study a second group of customers that will be upgraded by 32-gallons, so customers will go from 32- to 64-gallons or 64- to 96-gallons. San Jose’s staff’s sense going into this second phase is that the 64-gallon bin may be the happy medium to reduce contamination and provide customers with a bin that is convenient and easier to handle. San Jose will then undertake a cost-of-service analysis to determine where to set rates going forward to account for customers upgrading to a larger bin size.
The City of San Antonio has one of the more aggressive enforcement programs we encountered. At its peak, San Antonio had about 30 Code Enforcement officers assigned to patrol recycling contamination and found that this was a deterrent. Over the years, as the City has made budget reductions, this enforcement group has shrunk significantly and they have seen an increase in contamination.
In Riverside, Athens deploys a team of six “auditors” who go out ahead of the trucks in the mornings and flip lids. If contamination is identified, the auditor places a tag on the bin that includes a QR for the customer to receive information on what can and cannot go into each bin. Athens’ team of six auditors can check 400-700 homes per day, and auditors will inspect approximately quarterly each of the 36 cities serviced by Athens.
Riverside does not presently have a robust residential solid waste enforcement program for the accounts that serviced by City crews. However, we are working on implementing technology improvements that will assist with monitoring city waste and in February we will be bringing an item to Council for contract approval. This technology will provide improvements such as route optimization and cameras for monitoring late bin set-outs, and the vendor is working to develop scanning features to assist with monitoring the waste stream for contamination. We are currently in recruitment for a new Education Coordinator, whose responsibilities will include public education on trash and recycling, and new SB 1383 requirements for edible food waste diversion. If an optional smaller bin program is implemented, additional Code Enforcement officers may be needed to monitor residential solid waste for co-mingling commodities. Currently Riverside Code Enforcement Officers and Environmental Compliance Inspectors provide support for commercial solid waste compliance; other cities staff spoke with also dedicate Code Enforcement resources to residential solid waste.
In order to determine a tiered rate structure to offer bin size options to our total 63,484 residential customers, a cost-of-service study and Prop. 218 rate setting process would have to be undertaken. The rates for both the 96-gallon and the 64-gallon bins may need to be restructured to properly capture the cost of service for each level. Topics that the cost-of-service study would need to analyze include waste volumes of each route over a period of time to calculate reliable averages for each route, possible customer demand for a smaller bin, costs such as drivers, vehicles, fuel and maintenance, bin inventory, disposal costs, franchise fees, and costs associated with billing and other administrative needs.
Options
Based on what we learned from studying other agencies, we are working on several ways to initiate a small bin option quickly without a change in rates.
On December 19, 2023, City Council will consider a Solid Waste SHARE program that, if approved, will provide financial assistance to qualifying low-income solid waste customers. Should City Council approve the Solid Waste SHARE program, one potential option would be to incorporate a smaller bin offering into the Solid Waste SHARE program for seniors. Through enrollment in the Solid Waste SHARE program, qualifying low-income customers are eligible to receive a discount on their solid waste service, and we could consider coupling that with an optional smaller bin offering to senior enrollees as follows:
Low-income seniors who qualify for the Solid Waste SHARE program, could be offered the option to request 64-gallon bins for trash, recycling, and green waste. This provides the benefit of financial relief and the convenience of smaller bins. Seniors would be 65 years and older with no other person in the household capable of rolling bins to the curb.
If the trash amount exceeds bin capacity or if commodities are contaminated on more than three occasions, we would return the customer to the 96-gallon bin size. This would not affect their enrollment in the Solid Waste SHARE program.
Otherwise, the customers would be required to keep their smaller bin for the entire year of enrollment in the SHARE program and could opt to return to a larger bin size during the annual re-certification process for SHARE program enrollment.
Low-income residents who qualify for the Solid Waste SHARE program, but are not seniors, could also be offered the option to request 64-gallon bins for trash, recycling, and green waste. This could provide both the benefit of financial assistance and the convenience of smaller bins.
If the trash amount exceeds bin capacity or if commodities are contaminated on more than three occasions, we would return the customer to the 96-gallon bin size. This would not affect their enrollment in the Solid Waste SHARE program.
Otherwise, the customers would be required to keep their smaller bin for the entire year of enrollment in the SHARE program and could opt to return to a larger bin size during the annual re-certification process for SHARE program enrollment.
As we do not know what senior demand will be for the Solid Waste SHARE program, it’s difficult to project the quantity of bins that would be requested. The Solid Waste Fund does not have sufficient working capital to implement a large-scale change quickly. For every 1,000 accounts, which represents about 1.5% of all City residential customers, the cost to provide three 64-gallon bins is approximately $195,000 and it would require about 6 months to order, receive, and deploy this quantity of bins to the customers. However, there could be a slower demand rate and we could roll this out with inventory costs spread over several years as demand naturally increases, being mindful of potential impacts to Solid Waste Fund revenue levels and that rate adjustments may need to be considered in the future.
A second option could be to expand the Solid Waste Disabled Service Program to include seniors who may have difficulty pulling their bins to the curb but may not be considered disabled. Solid Waste currently offers a no cost special service to disabled accountholders whereby drivers retrieve bins from the house/backyard of disabled customers, pull the bins to the curb for service, then return the bins to the house/backyard. Registration for disabled service must include a doctor’s statement and accountholders must self-certify that no able-bodied person resides in the household capable of setting out the bins. Currently there are approximately 466 addresses enrolled in this special disabled service. Offering this option to seniors who may have difficulty pulling their bins to the curb but are not disabled, and who do not have an able-bodied person residing in the household capable of setting out the bins, may reduce some of their physical challenges as our drivers would now provide this service. We could also offer these seniors the option for smaller 64-gallon bins. Expanding this program is likely to impact service delivery, as our operators would spend more time out of the truck pulling bins to the curb, which would increase the amount of time required to complete their routes.
Given the myriad of option that cities offer to solid waste customers and the variety of successful program offerings, should the direction be to pursue a citywide rollout of smaller bins, we believe it would be prudent to engage with a consulting firm to conduct a comprehensive cost of service study to propose a tiered rate structure for various bin sizes, costs to establish a bin inventory, possible rate differentials for seniors, changes to the Municipal Code, and other options that may be a good fit for Riverside’s local solid waste needs. The study would factor in our fixed costs such as operators, trucks, fuel, and fees charged by the MRF that are increasing yearly.
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT:
This item contributes to Strategic Priority 5 – High Performing Government.
The item aligns with each of the five Cross-Cutting Threads as follows:
Community Trust –Review of the Solid Waste program for new options to enhance service to the community serves the public interest and results in greater public good.
Equity – Riverside is committed to advancing fair treatment and equitable distribution of services to ensure every member of the community has equal access to share in the benefits of community progress.
Fiscal Responsibility – Riverside is a prudent steward of public funds and ensures responsible management of the City’s financial resources while providing quality public services to all.
Innovation – Riverside is inventive and timely in meeting the community’s changing needs and prepares for the future through adaptive processes.
Sustainability & Resiliency – Riverside is committed to meeting the needs of the present without compromising the needs of the future and ensuring the City’s capacity to persevere, adapt and grow during good and difficult times alike.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no immediate fiscal impact with receiving this report. At the time of report submittal, staff had not completed negotiations with a consultant firm for peer review, so those costs had not yet been identified.
While several options have been identified to more quickly provide smaller bins coupled with some potential cost savings to customers, the costs to implement a large-scale smaller bin option could be very high depending on demand, and implementation would take several months. Due to financial challenges faced by the Solid Waste Fund, a supplemental appropriation from another source such as the General Fund or Measure Z, would be required for the outlay for bin inventory. As a baseline, for every 1,000 accounts (approximately 1.5% of all City residential customers) the estimated cost to provide three new 64-gallon bins is $195,000.
Prepared by: Lee Withers, Deputy Public Works Director
Approved by: Gilbert Hernandez, Public Works Director
Certifies availability
of funds: Kristie Thomas, Finance Director/Assistant Chief Financial Officer Approved by: Kris Martinez, Assistant City Manager
Approved as to form: Phaedra A. Norton, City Attorney
Attachment: Presentation
https://www.fresno.gov/publicutilities/trash-disposal-recycling/ https://chinohills.org/79/Trash-Services
https://www.santa-ana.org/trash-recycling/
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-offices/environmental-services/recycling-garbage https://www.republicservices.com/municipality/anaheim-ca https://www.ontarioca.gov/IntegratedWaste
https://www.phoenix.gov/publicworks/garbage#:~:text=Save%20as%20You%20Reduce%20and,their%20solid%20waste%20services%20bill.
Solid Waste Bin Study - Page 1