Waste Collection Contract Service Level Options Council Workshop May 2015
Purpose and Outline of Meeting Purpose: To collect feedback from Council on service level options for the Town s new waste collection contract Outline: Contract background Options development process Service level options - discussion Next Steps 2
Contract Background Existing contract - awarded February 1999 Annual value approx. $6,000,000 Waste management system shared with York Region Richmond Hill Role: Collecting waste from curbside, multi-residential etc. Town pays contractor on a cost/tonne basis York Region Role: Processing waste - recovering recyclables Disposing waste - energy recovery Managing & operating waste depots - Community Environmental Centres, Household Hazardous Waste Depots 3
Contract Background Richmond Hill s existing collection contract expires October 1, 2017 Procurement o In order for a new contract to be in place at expiration, a tendering process will begin towards the end of 2015 o The procurement method will be decided once the service level requirements have been confirmed Communications o Developing a comprehensive communications approach in support of the waste management contracting process 4
Process: Service Level Options Development Define Existing and Required Services Research & Benchmarking Comparative Analysis Determine Service Level Options Working Group Directors Commissioners EMT Council Workshop Process Participants: Environment Services Parks Operations Asset Management Facilities (Rec. & Culture) Development Engineering Development Planning Policy Planning Finance, Procurement & Legal Communications 5
Service Level Categories 1. 1) Curbside (manual/auto, yard waste, private streets) 2. 2) Multi-Residential 3. 3) Parks 4. 4) Schools Category Overview Current Service Levels Benchmarking Options to consider Rationale Implications 5. 5) Super Mailboxes 6. 6) Downtown Core & Select Small Businesses 6
Curbside RH Existing Service Level: Manual Benchmarking: Manual Collection Set-out Vaughan York Region - N6 Durham Markham Photo courtesy: Toronto Sun Automated Collection Set-out Guelph Peel Toronto Photo courtesy: Standard-Times Photo courtesy: City of Guelph 7
Curbside Rationale: Automated Costs & Savings Increased Efficiency Capital Investment Town Pays for all Totes Annual Operational Savings Return on Investment 50% $10M $1.04M 12 years 100% $10M $1.69M 8 years Town Pays for Existing Totes & Developer Pays for Future Totes 50% $10M $1.10M 11 years 100% $10M $1.74M 7 years TRH (today s equivalent): small tote: $0 (1 bag) medium tote: $0 (1.5 bags) large tote: $0 (3 bags) extra large tote: $78 (4.5 bags) Toronto s Annual Cost Recovery : small tote: $11 medium tote: $89 large tote: $247 extra large tote: $344 Other eligible funding sources: -WDO -Gas Tax 8
Curbside Implications Options for curbside collection service level: Manual Automated Implications Scenario 1: Manual (Status Quo) Scenario 2: Automated Social/Resident Impact Resident familiarity No additional storage space required New program Changes in how residents store totes Financial - Capital Cost No new capital cost Capital cost (containers) Financial Operating Cost No new operating cost Operational cost savings Technical / Operational Storage space and admin. required at Operations Centre (blue box/green bin) No storage at Operations Centre Increase in admin. for tote contract Environmental Litter issues remain Reduction in litter Planning No planning implications Design implications for tote storage 9
Curbside Storage Implications of Automated System Standard garage: 6m x 2.75m Compact garage: 5.8m x 2.75m House Type Total Without Garage Detached 38,787 1,115 Semi-Detached 2,479 658 Townhouse 6,342 86* *May have group parking/bulk pickup Future single family development: 9,000 units in North Leslie All units designed with compact garages (5.8m x 2.75m) Use of totes would require residents to adapt.
Curbside Storage Implications of Automated System Options for front yard storage for future developments 11
Discussion Point #1: Manual vs Automated Curbside Collection 12
Pilot Project: Blue Box Litter Reduction Photo courtesy: Busch Systems Area 1: 469 homes Mostly detached houses One large container with lid Area 2: 601 homes Approx. half townhouses Two blue boxes with vented lids Photo courtesy: PenPlast Summary of survey results: 34% response rate (360/1069) 80% indicated blue box litter was a problem (pre-pilot) 81% saw a reduction in blue box litter (during pilot) 85% (area 1) & 73% (area 2) used the containers and lids provided Do you think totes would be a good idea in Richmond Hill? 53% said yes 64% - area 1 45% - area 2 13 Photo courtesy: Allsource
Curbside Variation on Recycling Bin - Manual RH Existing Service Level: Weekly, manual curbside collection using standard blue boxes Benchmarking: Most GTA municipalities use standard blue boxes without lids for manual collection Current Richmond Hill Set Out Pilot Bin Set Outs 14
Curbside Variation on Recycling Bin - Manual Option for service level: Provide residents with the option of using a large container (without lid), regular blue boxes can still be used Rationale: Reduction in neighbourhood litter Reduced demand for container replacements (more durable container) Additional contract cost for lid removal (pilot cost - $300/week/1070 homes) Implications: Residents purchase bin Storage of containers at Operations Centre 15
Curbside Yard Waste RH Existing Service Level: Bi-weekly Monday collection Apr to Oct 15 Weekly Oct 15 to Nov 30 Benchmarking: Bi-weekly collection corresponding with garbage schedule typically Apr- Nov Vaughan, Markham, Toronto, Peel, Guelph, Durham Option for service level change: Change from bi-weekly Mondays to bi-weekly with garbage schedule Change weekly collection in fall (from Oct 15 to Nov 30) to bi-weekly collection and extend season to Dec 15 16
Curbside Yard Waste Rationale: Easier schedule for residents & reduction in administration requirements at Operations Centre Extended season covers late snow and thaw events Implications: Initial public education Possibly minor increase in contract cost - reduced contractor flexibility 17
Curbside Private & Public Streets RH Existing Service Levels: Town services private streets (grandfathered; reversing, drive through or turnaround design 7 in total) Town does not service private streets constructed recently (5 in total) Town services public streets requiring reversals (10 in total) Benchmarking: Private streets with drive through only serviced by Vaughan, Hamilton Private streets with drive through or hammerheads serviced by Toronto, Peel, Halton, Durham Benchmarked Hammerhead Design: 18 Photo courtesy: Region of Peel
Curbside Private & Public Streets Options for service level change: Provide service to private streets with drive through or approved hammerhead with contract management tools (upon application; new or existing) Implications increased collection cost (additional tonnage and camera/flag person) Use contract management tools on existing public streets with truck reversals on grandfathered private streets with truck reversals Considerations: Approx. 7 existing private streets receive public collection (grandfathered) Approx. 5 existing private streets do not receive public collection Approx. 10 affected public streets require truck reversals 19
Multi-Res Existing Service Level and Benchmarking RH Existing Service Level: Buildings 6+ units - weekly collection for all streams is a mix of front-end and totes 25 unit building set out area for recycling and organics Photo courtesy: Disposall Benchmarking: Toronto 6-30 units tote collection, 31+ units front-end collection Guelph 6-29 units tote collection, 30+ units private collection Peel 6+ units mix of front-end and totes, no organics Vaughan 6+ units mix of front-end and totes, no organics 20
Multi-Res Options, Rationale, Implications Option for service level change: New buildings 6-29 units use totes (all streams) New buildings with 30+ units front-end collection for all streams All existing buildings to be provided the option of status quo Rationale Development flexibility by reducing loading space & access requirements Increases collection efficiency for organics (front-end instead of totes 30+) Front-end systems more convenient for 30+ unit buildings Implications: 6-29 unit buildings require set out area for tote collection (avg. of 7 totes per setout) stagger collection 21
Discussion Point #2: Large recycling bin option (manual) Yard waste: bi-weekly, longer season Service to private streets, older public streets Multi-residential: totes 6-29, front-end 30+ 22
Pilot Project: Recycling in Parks Seven parks participated in recycling and organic pilot Area with greatest potential for recycling capture is athletic fields Majority of athletic fields are in Destination and Community parks 3% contamination occurrences in recycling containers at athletic fields Recycling bins filled more than once per week Less litter on athletic fields observed High contamination in organic waste containers 23
Parks Existing Service Level and Benchmarking RH Existing Service Level: Year-round garbage collection, collected by Parks staff and disposed of in roll-off containers at the Operations Centre Staff challenges with winter access (increased during snow events) Benchmarking: 2-stream in Toronto, Vaughan, Peel, York Region - Northern 6 & Durham 3-stream in Markham in select parks 24 Markham Vaughan Toronto
Parks Options, Rationale, Implications Options for service level change: Seek provisional contract cost to collect garbage and recycling in destination (4) & community parks (16) from Apr 15 to Oct 15 Seek provisional contract cost to provide weekly, off-season garbage collection (Oct 15 to Apr 15) to 600 containers Staff to report back with in-house vs contract costs Rationale: Meets public expectation to recycle in parks Pilot program to recycle in parks well received Off-season garbage collection provides consistent service levels to parks year-round Implications: Increased cost to the Town (recycling containers, in-house or contract collection cost) Additional administration for contract management or in-house resources 25
Pilot Project - Recycling at Super Mailboxes Before After 26 Recycling bins installed at super mailbox locations (92 of 1300): o 4 - vandalism o 10 - illegal dumping o 4 - residential blue boxes/green bins Program decreased paper litter around mailboxes More than 100 resident requests for new containers Containers ~50% full prior to weekly collection 5% contamination rate (2014 audit) Included in residential curbside collection Difficulty in accessing containers in winter (resident & contractor)
Super Mailbox Existing Service Level and Benchmarking RH existing service level: Weekly recycling collection at pilot locations (92/1,300 locations) included in curbside collection contract Benchmarking: Markham all locations (1,500) serviced with blue boxes Peel requested locations only Vaughan s education program implemented at 32 locations Toronto, Guelph, N6, Durham service not offered 27 Photo courtesy: metrolandmedia Photo courtesy: City of Markham Richmond Hill Peel Markham
Super Mailbox Options, Rationale, Implications Option for service level change: Seek provisional contract cost for year-round recycling collection at super mailbox locations (per unit cost) Staff to report back with in-house vs contract costs Rationale: Addresses Council & residents concerns to reduce litter at super mailboxes Implications: Increased cost to the Town (containers, collection contract or in-house) Canada Post plans to add super mailboxes as door-to-door service is removed (approx 350 conversions) Containers can be placed only at locations where residents and contractor can access year-round 28
Schools Existing Service Level and Options 29 RH Existing Service Level: Town s contractor collects recycling totes from 13/15 Catholic schools (elementary) School Board is invoiced by the Town for the service Town is not reimbursed for administration costs Benchmarking: Vaughan no service to schools Markham organics service to 15/36 public schools, recycling and organics to Catholic schools Guelph recycling only at some private schools Option for service level change: Town could phase out recycling service to all schools (by 2017) Rationale: Consistent approach to waste management at schools Implications: School Board will be required to coordinate program for all schools
Downtown Core Service Level and Options RH Existing Service Level: Downtown core - weekly collection prior to residential pickup (6-7am) Some small businesses receive public collection throughout Town Benchmarking: Most municipalities provide specialized service to downtown core Options for service levels: Maintain current service to the downtown core (weekly garbage for residential and small business) Businesses outside of downtown core could retain private services, or Businesses outside downtown core could receive public collection provided they meet small business criteria Staff to report back to Council if Town converts to totes (implications) Implications: Cost of service may increase as downtown core grows Storage/setout implications if Town converts to totes 30
Discussion Point #3: Parks recycling On/off-season parks waste collection Supermailbox recycling Schools Downtown core 31
Service Level Categories 1. 1) Curbside (manual/auto, yard waste, private streets) 2. 2) Multi-Residential 3. 3) Parks 4. 4) Schools 5. 5) Super Mailboxes 6. 6) Downtown Core & Select Small Businesses 32
Next Steps Summarize feedback from Council members Staff Report to COW/Council - June 16th/22nd Seek direction for service level decisions to issue tender documents 33