03/15/1993 - Packet AGENDA
` w
SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MARCH 15, 1992, 7:00 PM
TIGARD CIVIC CENTER - TOWN HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
13125 SW HALL BLVD.
TIGARD, OR
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: Wogen_ Dispenza_ Irwin_
Jacobs_ McReynolds_ Sullivan_
VACANT
3. CALL TO AUDIENCE FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS
4. APPROVE MINUTES: 1/23/93& 2/17/93
5A. REVIEW OF 1992 ANNUAL REPORTS FROM HAULERS materials will be handcarried to meeting
5B. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Solid Waste Advisory Committee will go into Executive Session under
the provisions of ORS 192.660(i)(f) to consider records that are exempt from public inspection.
5C. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING-RATE CHANGE
6. STATUS OF AUTOMATION PILOT PROGRAM - FUTURE FOR MECHANICAL ASSISTED
GARBAGE COLLECTION
7. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Next meeting - April 19, 1993?
8. ADJOURNMENT
NOTE.TO ENSURE A QUORUM TO CONDUCT BUSINESS, PLEASE CALL LIZ NEWTON AT 639-4171,
EXTENSION 308 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND.
le/swacagen
SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
January 25, 1993
1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: Eldon Wogen, Chairman
Don Jacobs Tom Sullivan
Mark Irwin Gerry McReynolds
Mike Leichner, Pride Disposal
Larry Schmidt, Schmidt's Sanitary Service
Bill Martin, Wash. County Haulers' Assn. Dir.
Loreen Edin, Staff Liaison
3. CALL TO AUDIENCE FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS - No one appeared before the
Committee to speak.
4. APPROVE MINUTES: 12/21/92 - Motion by Committee Member McReynolds,
seconded by Committee Member Irwin to- approve. Approved by unanimous vote
of Committee present.
5. UPDATE ON CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT, TEAM CONCEPT - Councilor John Schwartz and
City staff member Liz Newton presented, information about the CIT approach
that Council is considering to encourage more citizen involvement.
Cduncilor Schwartz noted that Council was questioning whether special
interest committees could accurately represent the broad base of citizen
interest. He provided the Committee with an outline of his notes (see
attached) .
Councilor Schwartz noted that Council-had not made any decisions but that
the role of the Park Board and SWAC may be incorporated into the CIT
process' and not remain as standing committees. He stated that if there
were special needs for solid. waste review in the future, perhaps a task
force could be pulled, together from the CITs. He envisioned SWAC members
serving. on the' CITs. Councilor Schwartz .noted that July of 1993 was the
target date for CIT formation.
Liz Newton stated that the CITs would not be as technically oriented as
specialized committees have been. The•CIT purpose is to share information
with more individuals and get more feed back, from citizens for the
Council.
Committee Member McReynolds stated that when SWAC was formed, Metro and
the Washington County Wasteshed was not in place to deal with solid waste
issues. Many policy issues and much coordination now takes place on a
regional basis. He stated that Tigard could continue to recreate the
wheel with SWAC or could become a member of a unified team with Washington
County Wasteshed cities and the regional efforts. Committee Member
McReynolds felt that the functions and duties addressed in Section 3 of
the SWAC forming resolution (#91-35) could be done by City staff and the
Washington County Wasteshed with action (when needed) by City Council.
Chairman Wogen asked how the Council would measure whether CITs were
successful. Liz Newton stated that Council would develop goals for a 1 to
5 year period and have measurable criteria to judge the effectiveness of
the program.
Mike Leichner was concerned with confidential rate information being
shared with the CITs. Liz Newton stated-that technical issues and rate
reviews could be worked on the staff level. Staff would then share non-
confidential, overview type. information with the CITs.
PAGE 2 OF 2
SWAC MINUTES
JANUARY 25, 1993
Committee Member McReynolds cautioned.Councilor Schwartz that while a town
hall forum, as proposed for the CITs, can work well, it can also be
destructive if a negative faction controls the program. McReynolds
suggested that the CIT advisory groups need to be positive thinkers.
Councilor Schwartz agreed and noted that the programs must be interesting
and should include focus on many issues. That model could then reduce the
possibility of single purpose groups controlling the meeting.
Tom Miller encouraged Councilor Schwartz to define the CIT authority for
the citizens so that there is less misunderstanding after formation when
issues arise. Loreen Edin stated that the CIT process was not a decision
making group, but an arena in which to share information. The opportunity
for citizens to have "formal" input into the hearing process would be at
City Council meetings or Planning Commission meetings.
Councilor Schwartz encouraged SWAC members to get their recommendation on
the future of SWAC to Liz by 2/28/93. Chairman Wogen thanked both
Councilor Schwartz-and Liz Newton for attending to share information. .
6. UPDATE ON SOLID WASTE ANNUAL REPORT FORMAT - Staff Liaison Edin reported
that the Washington County Wasteshed cities had developed a revised annual
report format that the haulers accepted countywide. The Committee quickly
reviewed the highlights of the format.
Bill Martin asked for clarification as to whether the CIP increase was to
be calculated on the owners compensation for the 1992 report form or for
n noted that this would be for the 1992 report 1993. Loree of year.. After
P
some.discussion, Committee Member McReynolds moved to have the most recent
CPI figures available as of 12/31 of year be the CPI figures to be used
for the calculation of owners compensation. Motion seconded by Committee
Member.Sullivan. Approved by unanimous vote of Committee present.
Motion by Committee Member McReynolds, seconded by Committee Member
Sullivan to adopt the annual format as revised. Approved by unanimous
vote of Committee present.
7. SERVICE STANDARDS DRAFT REVIEW - Motion by Committee Member McReynolds,
seconded by Committee Member Sullivan to defer review of the draft until
the next meeting. Approved by unanimous vote of Committee present.
8. OTHER BUSINESS: Consensus of Committee was to hold the next meeting on
Wednesday, 2/17/93 at 7:00 PM since the regular meeting night fell on a
City holiday.
9. ADJOURNMENT: Consensus of Committee to adjourn at 8:10 PM.
le:swacmin
SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Board and Committee Restructuring
January 25, 1993 Meeting Notes
Purpose tonight:
Review where we are in board and committee restructuring
process
Discuss Shift of SWAC responsibilities .
January 19, 1993 City Council meeting
Reviewed Councilos objectives for Citizen Involvement (from
5/17/93 training session)
• Training ground for potential leaders
• Broad based (truly representative) .
• Realistic in terms of time constraints of
participants and complexity of issues.
• Fewer groups with broader responsibilities.
• Should not imply 'a false sense of authority or
power.
• Should involve citizens on pro-active issues
(community policing, surveys)..
• Should not exacerbate lengthy processes.
In an effort to modify existing structure to accommodate
f Council objectives, "CIT" developed. Goals of "CIT":
• Involve more citizens on more issues using Town
Hall format.
Educate citizens on issues and process by
committing necessary resources.
• Encourage citizens to identify neighborhood issues-.
• Create better access to the process.
Council discussed the role of standing committees:
• Have incorporated role of Economic Development
Committee and Transportation Committee into
If Planning Commission.
• Have asked staff to review roles and
responsibilities of other standing committees
(Library Board, Park and Recreation Board, and
Solid Waste Advisory Committee) to shift, away, from
specialists, using existing committee members as
steering committee members on "CITs".
REVIEW ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN RESOLUTION
WHAT NEXT:
Review roles and responsibilities of standing committees.
Prepare specific CIT program:
geographic boundaries
structure
agreements (responsibilities of CITs and city)
land use component
Review with Council in March
Present to Board and Committees for feedback
i�
SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
February 17, 1993
1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: Gerry McReynolds, Acting, Chairman
Don Jacobs Tom Sullivan
Cece Dispenza (arrived at 7:15 PM)
Tom Miller, Miller's Sanitary Service
Mike Leichner, Pride Disposal
Bill Martin, Wash. County Haulers' Assn. Dir.
Loreen Edin, Staff Liaison
3. NO QUORUM AT 7:00 PM - Consensus of group was to have Gerry McReynolds
serve as Acting Chairman. McReynolds requested that until a quorum
arrived, that the Committee should discuss agenda items but take no
action.
4. CALL TO AUDIENCE FOR NON-AGENDA ITEMS - No one appeared before the
Committee to speak.
5. APPROVE MINUTES: 1/25/93 - Consensus of Committee to consider adoption of
minutes at the February meeting.
6. REVIEW OF SWAC ROLE & PREPARATION OF COUNCIL RESPONSE. ON SWAG FUTURE -
Acting Chair McReynolds synopsized the last meeting when, Councilor
Schwartz requested SWAC make a recommendation to the Council of their role
in the future with CITs being formed. McReynolds stated that with the
Washington County Wasteshed, Tigard's staff serving on the County
Technical Committee and meeting regularly with the haulers, that Tigard
has less need for SWAC now than when it was first formed.
Committee Member Sullivan expressed a need for a citizen's group to
continue reviewing solid waste issues and an ongoing need for more
braining and education of the committee members. Committee Member Jacobs
expressed concern that Loreen Edin would have to do more work if SWAC was
disbanded. Acting Chair McReynolds stated that SWAC support was expensive
for the City. Metro and Washington County weren't taking action in solid
waste issues in the past. McReynolds saw SWAC .efforts in Tigard now as
duplication of regional efforts and did not want to reinvent the wheel.
While he appreciated the opportunity to serve on SWAC and would miss that,
he� believed that advise from SWAC was no longer needed.
COMMITTEE MEMBER DISPENZA ARRIVED - QUORUM ACHIEVED
Loreen Edin highlighted the comments and concerns expressed to SWAC over
the last few months by Councilor Johnson in 1992 and Councilor Schwartz in
January of 1993. Acting Chair McReynolds stated the Council was trying to
minimize the number of specialized committees and noted that SWAC's tasks
had been accomplished. McReynolds recommended the Committee , agree to
disband and make themselves available to start up again. in a year or serve
as a special task force if needed in the future. Committee Member
Dispenza agreed.
After discussion by the Committee, Committee Member Sullivan moved as
follows: "Motion to advise Council that we support the CIT process but
oppose the disbanding of the SWAC Committee. We believe that SWAC should
continue to meet periodically as the citizen body with enough expertise to
research, review, and respond intelligently to the professional
recommendations presented to Council in solid waste matters." Motion was
seconded by Committee Member Dispenza. Approved by unanimous vote of
Committee present. NOTE: The haulers in attendance were in support .of
the motion.
PAGE 2 OF 2
SWAC MINUTES
FEBRUARY 17, 1993
7. SERVICE STANDARDS DRAFT REVIEW - Staff Liaison Edin reviewed the draft and
highlighted the significant changes or issues which were discussed at the
staff meetings with haulers. She noted that this process started in May
of 1992. After short discussion, Committee Member Jacobs moved to
recommend to the City Administrator that the standards be adopted as
presented. Motion seconded by Committee Member Sullivan. Approved by
unanimous vote of Committee present. Acting Chairman McReynolds
congratulated the haulers and staff for a job well done.
8. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. NEXT MEETING - Consensus was to hold the next meeting on the regular
meeting date of 3/15/93.
B. STATUS OF RESIDENTIAL CART SERVICE PROPOSAL - Staff Liaison Edin
stated that a pilot program was begun last spring by Pride Disposal
to determine whether semi-automated or fully automated curbside
service would be effective for Tigard. Haulers had provided a draft
timeline for reviewing this type of program for all of Tigard. Edin
noted that not all haulers were in agreement as to how and when to
start a program. Tom Miller stated that a mandated system versus a
system that allows the customer to request cart service should be
reviewed., He believed that before the Wilsonville Transfer Station
went into service, it would be too expensive to mandate cart
service. Edin stated she would bring an update back to SWAC at the
March meeting.
C. YARD DEBRIS TIMING AT CURBSIDE - Staff Liaison Edin reported that
METRO has now moved the deadline for curbside yard debris mandate
from 7/1/94 to 7/1/95. This will allow more time before a curbside
cart service would be required.
9. ADJOURNMENT - Motion by Committee Member Sullivan, seconded by Committee
Member Jacobs to adjourn at 9:03 PM. Approved by unanimous vote of all
Committee present.
le/swacmin
s e
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
MEMORANDUM
TO: SWAC
FROM: Loreen Edin
SW
DATE: March 8, 1993
SUBJECT.• AGENDA ITEJ# 6 - STATUS OF AUTOMATION PILOT PROGRAM - FUTURE FOR
MECHANICAL ASSISTED GARBAGE COLLECTION
QUESTION: SHOULD RATES BE INCREASED THIS YEAR TO ENCOURAGE CURBSIDE CART
COLLECTION FOR RESIDENTIAL GARBAGE? Staff's recommendation is no rate
increase and allow carts to be placed by haulers at citizen's request.
HISTORY:
SWAC MEETINGS:
12/16/91 SWAC offered support for a pilot program for Pride Disposal to run semi-automated collection
in Tigard.
07/27/92 Pride Disposal presented findings from pilot curbside program. SWAC voted to extend pilot
program another 90 days to allow haulers to provide cost analysis to City to identify equipment
upgrade needs for rate consideration(this was proposed to be a feasibility report which would
include an implementation plan and cost projections and would include suggestions for financing
mechanisms for equipment).
11/16/92 SWAC received a brief update, haulers noted that until the ordinance revision for franchise term
was resolved by Council that the curbside collection study was put on hold.
STAFF MEETINGS:
8/92-3/93 Through out the last 7+ months, Wayne Lowry and I have met with haulers and periodically
discussed automation or mechanical assisted garbage collection.
INFORMATION:
The City has made clear its desire to have cart collection at curbside for residential customers for almost
two years. Pride Disposal has been running a pilot program in Tigard at the direction of SWAC. This
program has been in existence for 12 months now. During that period, the haulers have been jointly trying
to develop an implementation plan and cost projections for a citywide program.
At the last SWAC meeting, it was noted that not all haulers were anxious to start a program at this time.
Tom Miller suggested a program which allowed citizens to request the service rather than the City
mandating the program would be easier for haulers to implement.
Since it has been difficult for the haulers to present financial analysis to the City in time to adequately
review for this year's rate hearing process, Wayne Lowry and Loreen Edin would recommend the City
honor the haulers'suggestion to allow the service to be provided at the citizens request. This would allow
haulers who are ready to implement, the authority to do so now without further delay. Those haulers who
wish more time to implement can proceed more slowly and implement at the time their customers request
the service.
This approach would not constitute a new or altered service, only a change in the method by which service
is provided. Staff does not recommend a rate increase since retrofitting equipment and cart costs would
not require any of the three haulers to spend more than their company's financial statement would allow.
After reviewing the 1992 financial reports from the haulers, Wayne Lowry believes the carts and minor
retrofit costs could be accomplished in 1993 for all companies and not require a rate increase.
Assuming SWAC is in agreement with staff's position, I have attached a draft administrative rule which
would require cart service be at curbside. Please review and comment at our meeting.
CI7 Y OF TIGARD LID WASTE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE (TMC 11.04)
Per Tigard Municipal Code Section 11.04.160, Administrative Rules are to be developed
to assist with interpretation of the Solid Waste Management Ordinance.
ADMINISTRATIVE RULE 93-1 PROPOSED
RESIDENTIAL CART PLACEMENT EFFECTIVE
The purpose of this rule is to clarify the intent of Section 11.04.100.A.1 (container
requirements and collection limitations) of the Solid Waste Management Ordinance.
The subsection 1 states that the purpose of the chapter is to prevent recurring back and
other injuries to collectors and to comply with safety, health and environmental
safeguards. However, it is unclear as to when a solid waste receptacle must be placed
at curbside for mechanically assisted collection. Since carts, provided by the hauler, are
too heavy for manual collection, and collection vehicles cannot enter a driveway to
achieve collection with a mechanical assist device, cart collection does require the
customer to place the cart at curbside.
Curbside is defined in Section 11.04.030.C as being within five feet of a public roadway
or at a location approved by the franchisee.
New Jersey Town
Weighs In On 'Dash
By The Pound
■ World Wastes, in an exclusive interview, speaks LS: Due to an increase in recy-
with the recycling coordinator of Mendham clable products.and participation in
y 9 the recycling program, Mendham
Township, N.J., on why his town has opted for Township has achieved a recycling
variable waste collection rates. rate in excess of 50 percent of the
total residential solid waste. This
dramatic reduction in the volume of
Charging customers for the a- which was limited to aluminum, solid waste forced a change in the
mount of waste they dispose is three colors of separated glass and handling of residential garbage.
gaining popularity in commu- newspapers. By the spring of 1992, Before the variable rate system,
nities throughout the United States. the program had added additional each household was charged ap- .
Mendham Township, N.J., is no products and a bimonthly depot. . proximately$400 per year for pick-
exception. Spurred by the demand Effective April 1992,the depot was up and removal of household gar-
for equitable rates, recycling incen- deleted and the curbside program bage, for twice weekly service of up
tives and waste reduction, the town- now includes commingled aluminum to 150 pounds per service (or 300
ship implemented a weight-based cans, ferrous cans, PET and HDPE pounds per week). The rates and
variable rate system in 1992. plastics(#1 and#2),newspaper,cor- number of pick-ups were set by the
Larry A. Shipper, recycling and rugated cardboard and mixed paper, Bureau of Public Utilities(BPU).
solid waste coordinator for Mend- including office-type and junk mail. The reduction in garbage resulting
ham Township, helped the township Service is bimonthly with an addi- from the dramatic increase in recy-
implement the system. In January, tional annual service for telephone clables.left the residents paying for
he spoke to World Wastes about the books. Tires, oil and batteries are services that were unnecessary. In
effects of variable rates.. collected biannually through the order to circumvent the rates set by
public works department. the BPU, the township was able to
WW: How is the township's waste Commingled recyclables and pa- bid a contractor to provide services.
''"""-"•"` ' management system organized? per products are sold to a single This allowed a bid to be produced
LS: Prior to 1989, Mendham Town- hauler/recycling firm which process- which included a fixed or tax-based
ship provided biannual removal of •es the recyclables at its facility or service portion and a variable fee per
bulk trash and monthly drop-off for sells the material to a MRF [materi- bag or container. Service was re-
limited recyclables. Residents inde- als,recovery facility].The firm with duced from two times per week to
pendently contracted for garbage the recycling contract does not nec- once per week due to the reduction
removal with waste vendors.Two to essarily have to be the same firm in volume and included pick-up and
three vendors serviced the commu- with the residential garbage or bulk disposal of bulk trash and pick-up
nity of about 1,750 homes.There is trash contract. In our bid,we award- only of residential garbage.The dis-
no industrial base in Mendham ed contracts to one firm for recycla- posal cost of residential garbage is
Township, and-commercial waste is bles and a separate firm for garbage covered by the per bag/container
limited to two schools, a few munici- and bulk trash. fee.
pal buildings and the post office.
In 1989, the township instituted WW:Why did the township opt for WW:Why did you choose to sell
the first curbside recycling program, variable rates? stickers by weight rather than charg-
ing by volume?
LS:The decision to charge on a
weight basis was made by calculat-
ing the cost per pound charged by
Township'
the county transfer station in 15-
has achieved a and 30-pound increments at a cur-
rent rate of approximately$132 per
recycling rate in net ton.The $1 and$2 stickers, for
excess of 50ercent 15- and 30-pound parcels respec-
tively. are placed on individual bags
of the total or on the top bag if multiple bags are
placed in a container. Stickers may
residential waste. be used individually or in combina-
tion. An increase or decrease in the
—Larry Shipper county's cost of disposal will be ad-
justed accordingly with new sticker
purchases.
3 6 w o r I d w a s t e s
WW:What types of bags are use The 30-pound weight would equal Q: A comparison of October
LS:There are no specific types o 3.5 gallons of water. 1991—March 1992 vs.April 1992—
bags to be used. Cans should be of During the first few months resi- September 1992(the last six months
the 30-gallon type. dents were uncertain whether the of the old recycling ro ravs. the
weight placed in their containers/ first six months of
the new) showed
WW: Where are the stickers pur- bags was correct. However, the con- an increase of recyclables from 225
chased? tractor was tolerant of this and roti_ tons to 4i2 tons 83
LS:Stickers are sold directly to re- fled those with overweight contain- The Mendham Towshi percent).R
clin
sidents from the trash hauler via ers.The contractor still removed the Committee received an award for
the mail or the hauler's office. overweight containers as long as Outstanding Community Service for
stickwere present.
me
WW:How do residents estimate the s Within a few months, overweight 1992
weight of their garbage? containers no longer presented a WW: What change has occurred in
LS: During the initial few months problem. Trash rejection due to im- the amount of waste collected?
of the variable weight system, the proper sticker values almost never LS:The amount of solid waste col-
recycling and solid waste committee occurs. In the event that trash is left lected as residential garbage and
made available at Town Hall trash behind, the vendor will on its next bulk trash for the first seven months
containers filled with different visit through town make every effort of the program as compared to the
weights. This enabled residents to to pick up the trash.The vendor is in same seven-month period from the
get an idea of 15-pound, 30-pound town four days per week in different prior year has been reduced by 54.7
and greater than 30-pound weights quadrants.
in a standard trash can. percent, according to tonnage re-
The committee also suggested that WW: Has the system raised or low- ports issued by the county.
at first, residents weigh the filled ered the average resident's sanitation WW: Has the diversion of waste en-
cans or bags on a standard bath- bills? couraged by variable rates lowered
room scale to get an idea of how LS:The system has resulted in an overall waste management costs for
much weight their containers could average reduction in excess of$200 the city?
hold. An alternative suggestion for per household annually for those LS:Prior to the variable weight sys-
those particularly concerned about residents opting for the variable rate tem, Mendham Township (as a gov-
exceeding weight limits was to pur- system(using the average home val- erning body)was responsible for the
chase an inexpensive fish scale for uation of$440,000), payment
about$5 to$10.Another estimation oulk trash and of the removal and disposal
method was a comparison of trash WW:What change has occurred in Since the inception rofyles thisbprogram,
cans or bags to a one-gallon jug of the percent of recyclables•recovered Mendham Township pays addition-
water, which weighs 8.3 pounds. since the program went into effect? ally for the pick-up of residential
oieaax«NF'w3KNnu,htN+W5�5Z5......3:W5'.;i�e524hx2..-t re,x:4.i-+•HSndA�n.uSY+ >Mt-'tirr..++,hnMits++yw+7w.Jnr+Ja!t•.bi4MwMS�i+aiwvxv+ini+xu ....er31H>V..:v ..'na<y.{Zvv4M:,1!x.x?ci:xen;+3xlxxK K:w..;x
garbage. This has theref in- lar system. Since the system iso
` creased to the townshipthrawback between
each residence an identical
of in its infancy, at this time our corn- amount•
service, with the cost being orne mittee has had no feedback as to its theseetwo amethod is the collection
through tax payment. However, success.
there is a much greater offset due to and accounting of fees. Property .
taxes will the reduction of individual payment WW:What questions should a city than a fixed c1 arge,be easier
hichtmustl be
to the haulers. I ask,itself when considering variable billed and collected independent of
WW:Have there been any problems
rates? the regular community tax bill. A-
with illegal dumpinLS: In considering a variable rate long with the service fees, communi-
g, dumping resi- system, Mendham Township had ties may or may not wish to allow a
dential garbage in commercial dump- three main considerations. First, will portion of the disposal (i.e. one
sters or removal of stickers? this increase the rate of recyclables can/bag per week) to be included
L5:The committee and the govern- by attaching a direct monetary with the base fee.
ing body are not aware of any illegal charge to those goods which could When attempting to assess the i
dumping or improper dumping of be recycled but are not currentl
residential garbage in commercial y re- value for the variable fee, the prima- j
cycled? Secondly, will there be a ry determination is whether or not
dumpsters. Residents do have the majority of the population that will the bulk of the cost of trash service !
option of disposing their own trash benefit financially through the use of
at any other approved site. The only variable rates because of an ahead (collection and disposal) is based on
ll costs. If
impropriety in the system was the increased rate of recycling or an ex it is, thenma fee should belandfcalculated
feeg and
removal of stickers from one resi- pected future increase in the rates of per ton cost of disposal. If the bulk
dent's garbage. A telephone call to recycling? Lastly, are either of these of the cost is not due to tipping fees
the hauler arranged for the trash to considerations alone or in combina- and landfill costs, then reduction on in
be picked up the following day with- tion a great enough motivation to the volume should be the key. Attach
out the need for new stickers, general population to make the the variable fee to a specific volume
WW:Does the change? of residential garbage per sticker(i.e.
type of city or neigh- With respect to the financial con- per can/bag).
rates? i
boyhood affect the success of variable siderations, pay attention to the dis- Other considerations are the num-
ues if
LS: Our experience is restricted to community property
t col sider the
ni r of vendors servicing the r week and the
an affluent, suburban, non-commer- taching their service fee to property length of contract.ce days Mendham Towne
cial community.Another community takes. If the distribution is severely ship chose a three-year contract pri-
within the county that is more urban skewed, it might be more'advisable marily because it expected that the .
and diverse in its socio-economic to consider charging the service fee cost of service in the future will not
demographics has patterned a simi- through a utility, thereby charging decrease.
y�i,a:4`w;l)i$l1a)Y�)<)bCV!1171).li+i4leji.)2)717�K1;Ni;i'x�e\1ih14Zae?>w,�N�J\t:M�;-,,e,t)i,hillSM✓:iRHi;•!+`t .`!n,4;ryt4 7\tfr,.;;•jui...•.)riM:,tSi�.WI\n�♦H.f�r)J)i\i\hl\!, :;w)tw�ry[Rryi)i.;V)1••/\/!N!i!.�(avi•2<'Kiai;)- <i.}.'4cticia),ic�<r.><ww\7�1t
l .. ............. ......... ....i.'... ..............:.............0.....,. .. .. .... ... .. ... ........ ........ ....... ..... .. ......... ... ... ..-.. .• ........a...
1
Manual Machine
■ The question of conversion to semi- other systems. The crew must be physically capable of
or fully automated systems hinges Performing repetitious, sustained lifting of 50 lbs. or
more.
on whether increased efficiencies
Semi-automated systems are a bridge between manu-
will compensate for the up-front al and fully automated collection. In semi-automated col-
investment. lection, any type of container can be handled manually,
but specialized containers can be dumped mechanically. J
The operator has to bring the container to the vehicle and 1
By Bill Knapp if it cannot be dumped by mechanical means, it must be
dumped manually.
P Y
he move from manual collection to a semi-auto- The crew size may be the same as in manual collection,
mated or fully automated system involves many and the physical ability of the crew members remains
changes: the type of vehicle needed, the source of important. Some manual dumping is still performed and
power used to collect large containers or
and dump the waste, bins sometimes must
the way waste is con- be moved into position
tainerized, where it is for the lifting device.
placed for collection, The driver or helper
what constitutes a _ must still dismoui.,
crew and how the sys- t the vehicle at almost
tem is financed. In the every stop to dump
process some flexibility '' refuse or move con-
is restricted, econo- tainers.
mies are made and Semi-automated
lost, and capitalization vehicles usually have a
vs. operational costs mechanical dumping
are juggled. device fitted to a man-
In manual collec- ual collection packer
tion systems, one or truck. Some devices
more workers bring will dump only spe-
waste to the vehicle, ` I cially designed con-
""""' then lift and dump the tainers but others will
material.The collection dump any container
and lifting device is the • sturdy enough to with-
human hand, so al- stand the grasp of the
most any type of con- lifting device. The con-
tainer within the limi- tainers are available in
tations of the crew's a variety of shapes and
strength can be collect- sizes, either with or
ed including tied up without wheels. The
brush, plastic bags, device dumps the con-
etc. tainers into the hopper
The refuse can be of the truck and then
placed wherever it is deposits the emptied
accessible to the collec- containers on the
tors, including back ground.
yards or inside build- The collector can
ings. The cost of con- charge a fee for the
tainerization is usually special containers, or
the responsibility of the the fee can be part of
waste producer. the tax cost. Alterna-
Manual collection r t � tively, residents may
vehicles can be of any ' <� purchase the contain-
size or configuration. r {" � ,', *, ; ers.
The loading hopper can a "` ''`" A fully automated
be in the rear, side or front.The body may be of the non- system entails complete mechanical collection and
compaction type but usually is a compaction model. dumping of a specialized container. The crew rarely dis-
Crew size ranges from one person who drives and loads mounts from the vehicle during collection, so waste must
to five or more workers. One of the most common sys- be placed where it is accessible to the lifting device.
tems has two people, one to drive and one to load. As the The collection vehicle usually has large capacity to take
day progresses, crew fatigue can reduce the speed of advantage of its speed of operation. It has a crane-like
operation. Injuries are highest in this system and there arm of four to 13 feet in length that can be operated by
are a greater percentage of severe injuries than in the the driver inside the vehicle cab. The arm reaches out,
2 2 w o r t d w a s t e s
grasps the container, dump*nd places it
between the vehicle and the farthest reach of
the arm.The container must be sturdy enough Semi vs. Full Automation
to allow the claws to grasp without damaging
it.The claws handle containers from 32 to 440 Semi Automation
gallons. PRO-This system enables customers to use larger containers
Since no dismounting, manual collection or and bins that cannot be dumped by muscle power, adding to
dumping takes place,both crew size and phys- their convenience. It allows for a reduction in crew size, injury
ical capabilities can be reduced. Often one rates and their severity as well as a possible reduction in the
crew member can handle the task. Women total crews needed.
and physically handicapped people can be This system is not a radical change from manual collection.
considered. Fatigue is minimal and injuries Residents can still use traditional containers or bundles unless
are lessened in both frequency and severity. specialized containerization is made mandatory. The cost of
additional equipment or components is relatively modest and
Manual vs. Machine original vehicles do not have to be replaced or substantially
When the source of lifting power is trans- altered.The terrain or housing density is irrelevant.A very con-
ferred from human muscles to mechanical servative estimate of cost reduction for the City of Los Angeles
devices (electrical or hydraulic power), there predicted a savings of about 15 percent for a mandatory con-
are shifts from flexibility of containerization tainerization, semi-automated program over the existing manu-
and placement of the waste to progressively al system for residential collection.
restricted containerization and placement.The CON- If manual crew size is already minimal (one), a helper
specialized containers are not inexpensive may have to be added to some crews to help with heavy bins. If
compared with the bags, bundles and common the lifting arm breaks, the larger containers cannot be collected
garbage cans of the manual system. manually and must await the arm's repair or the arrival of
Greater mechanization also costs more. anothervehicle. Costs of publicity and public relations are
Vehicles and devices add to the up-front cost increased. New positions may be required for public relations,
of capitalization. A$70,000 manual collection, and operational jobs may be eliminated.
25-yard compaction truck needs one or more
$3,000 to $6.000 flippers to become a semi- Full Automation
mechanical vehicle. A similarly sized, fully PRO-This system also allows the use of larger containers. It
automated vehicle can cost $130,000 and requires a minimal crew size of one person, regardless of con-
more. tainer size.The crew member does not have to dismount the
The increase in mechanization increases the vehicle during operations,and there is no time involved in bring-
speed of operation. Manual collection requires -ing the container to the dumping mechanism.The entire cycle of
the dismounting of at least one crew member collection can take just eight seconds. The'only other time is
per stop, as does semi-automated collection. travel time to each stop.
Fully automated collection requires no time for Injuries are minimal and of less severity than other collection
dismounting. systems. My study while working for the City of Los Angeles
Both semi-automated and fully automated recorded only one injury caused by dust blowing in a driver's
collection allow for the use of larger contain- eye during a two-year period. Before automation,`the same area
ers, reducing the number of dumps required showed six back injuries requiring time from the job.Jobs may
without increasing the dumping cycle time. be opened up to previously unqualified'individuals.
Since fatigue is less of a factor with mechani- Larger containers mean fewer containers per stop. Since the
cal collection, there is no slowing down as the collection time per container is the same regardless of size, less
collection day progresses. time is needed to collect the same amount of material.
The number and severity of injuries also Therefore, less personnel is needed to collect the same amount
decreases. In addition, less fatigue means of material.
fewer turnovers of workers, less need for The requirement that all waste be placed in a special contain-
replacement workers and longer work lives. er can be used to restrict the amount of waste that can be dis-
Combined with the fewer personnel required, posed, encouragingwaste reduction and recycling.This can also
these factors mean lower costs and insurance occur in a semi-automated system where special containeriza-
premiums. tion is required. -
There may, however, be less convenience for Street cleanliness is markedly improved with containerization.
the customer. Material placement and contain- This reduces the need for street sweeping and enhances aesthet-
er type are restricted.The cost of the container ics. Many customers view mechanization as progressive and
may be borne directly by the customer or as positive.
an increase in taxes by the customer. Special- CON- Full automation eliminates jobs. While some new open-
ized containers are one of the single largest ings may develop in public relations, customer service or office
costs of a mechanical operation, but they usu- jobs, there is a loss in operational jobs. Depending on the num-
ally are offset by lower operational costs over ber of previous crew members, operational job loss may run 50
time. to 80 percent of the work force, though manual or semi-auto-
Automation increases the moving parts on mated crews may have to be used in terrain unsuitable for the
vehicles. This can lead to an increase in main- automated equipment.
tenance costs. Since the work is transferred to More mechanics and reserve equipment may be needed than
mechanical devices from muscles, the "injury" with other types of equipment. Publicity and public relations are
frequency is transferred also. more critical and new employees and resources may be needed
Since mechanical collection requires special- for this purpose.
ized containerization, it is a clean system. Finally, the system is dependent on the containers.The capi-
Waste must be inside a lidded container to be tal investment for the equipment is useless without the correct
collected. Less waste is spilled and fewer vec- containers in place.
tors are attracted. An area with fully automat- —Bill Knapp
ed service is much cleaner than one served by
2 4
manual or semi-automated sys� end after the implementation of
x e tion is a semi-automated changes in waste collection is
Thi� e p In the end, g at
area where all waste is container- least as important as the equipment
ized. choosing collection purchased and personnel employed.
If customers are confused, upset
Cost Factors options is like and uncooperative due to being
Automation causes decreases in making y an other poorly informed or not consulted,
operational costs and increases in the proposed changes might not
capital costs. Influencing factors business decision. work. But if the customer and the
include: Is there an existing manual employees think it will work, then it
system? What are the possible de- You must ask, probably will.
creases in operational costs of awill automation The type of terrain, the kind of
semi-automated or fully automated housing and other geographical and
system? What would be involved in efficiencies demographical considerations have
implementing a system? a profound influence on whether one
Vehicles are a primary cost con- bring sufficient system is more suitable than anoth-
sideration. Manual vehicles range in er. }
size from six yards up to legal limits. return on
The bulk range is from 20 to 33 investment?' Know The Waste
cubic yards in body size. Costs range The character of the waste stream
from $50,000 to $100,000. Semi- is also key to determining if special-
automated vehicles are usually simi- ized containerization and placement
lar to manual vehicles, with a fork or needs can be adapted. Distance to
flipper lift added. Flippers range vehicle. Containers are usually war- the disposal point can influence the
from $3,000 to $7,000 a piece. A ranted for five to 10 years, depend- usefulness of automation, because
front-lift vehicle ranges from about ing'on the material and the manu- long haul distances lessen the
$90,000 to$120,000+. facturer. impact of faster collection.
Fully-automated trucks range Narrow streets with on-street
from about $27,000 to $40,000 for Personnel Issues parking may be unsuitable for full l
converting an existing manual vehi- Lifting injuries are usually the automation, as are tight alleys or 1
cle to $130,000 and up for a new most frequent injuries in waste col- any area where containers cannot be
one. They can be any size but are lection. They are also among the placed near the automated arm. k
most often seen in mid-20 to mid-40 most debilitating, along with those Remote stretches may not be pro-
cubic yards. These are only esti- due to vehicle crashes and packer ductive enough to warrant the more }
mates, but they can help judge the accidents.As more lifting and dump- expensive equipment. Semi-automa- {
differences between the types of ing is done by mechanical means, tion may be better suited to these
,
vehicles. these type of injuries begin to disap- instances.
In a fully automated system, fewer pear. Fatigue lessens as well, and Multiple-family housing can be
vehicles are needed, but the risk of fewer reserve personnel are needed. collected faster with use of large con-
mechanical failure may dictate a Most operations using full automa- tainers than many smaller ones.
larger reserve fleet. Manual and tion report injury rates around sin- Larger containers can be used by
semi-automated fleet reserves may gle-digit percentages or zero. either semi- or fully automated sys-
be 20 to 25 percent while full auto- Less fatigue, faster operations and tems but not with manual collection.
mation may require 25 to 30 per- larger containers mean more waste Single family collection requires
y g t
cent. is handled over the same period and more travel time than multiple fami-
Larger bodies allow collectors to fewer crews are needed. Crew size is ly neighborhoods.
spend more time working and less reduced by 50 to 80 percent since In the end, the decision is the
time traveling. only one person is needed for full same as any other business deci-
Containers are the next issue. In automation. There is also less sion. How much increase in revenue,
manual collection, the customer turnover and less training of new or decrease in cost, can be realized
either buys or rents containers.The employees. by changing to semi-automation?To
collector dictates the size, weight or The person selected as a crew full automation? How much will it
shape of the receptacles that can be member can change also. Since cost to do it— how many dollars,
used, but seldom pays for them. In muscle power gives way to manual how many jobs, how much time and
semi-automated collection, the col- dexterity in full automation, there is effort? Do you have, or can you bor- t
lector often rents bins or barrels to less of a need for physical standards. row, the capital?Will that capitahza-
the customer but seldom provides The dynamics of the facilities will _ tion earn you more money in the i
them free. Operators of fully auto- change because of the smaller automation investment than in i
mated systems rent to customers or crews. Fewer personnel and vehicles another investment? How long will it
require them to purchase the con- with higher maintenance translates take to recoup the cost? How long is
tainers. to less parking but more repair' the life span of the equipment?
Public entities often provide a con- space. New types of personnel may When you answer these questions
tainer to every customer and use tax require differentiated restroom facili- you can weigh the benefits. Then
money or a surcharge to pay for ties or adaptation of the workplace you will know if automation is a
them. Private agencies are more like- to handicapped personnel. cost-cutting opportunity or an ques-
ly to rent the containers to the cus- The mechanics and their over- tionable investment. ■ S
tomer. Depending on size, these con- head, however, will not reflect the I
tainers can cost $50 to several same proportion of savings as collec- Bill Knapp is a contributing editor
hundred dollars each. The total tion. and columnist for World Wastes. He
amount of containers on a weekly The careful explanation of the pro- managed the city of Los Angeles
collection route costs at least as gram to the customer is essential. Refuse Collection and Disposal Divi-
much and usually more than the Precise information before, during sion.
2 6 w o r 1 d w a s t e s
2
a Ia3 Jq_3
7"M� n �J
OPINION&T COMMENTARY
Recyclingnot totsI answer
Bans mandates wont improve best way to support recycling is to force communities to col-
lect and separate large volumes of materials,which would in N
environmental infrastructure turn create a demand for them.Would a shoe manufacturer
double the production of shoes in order to stimulate de-
By RANDALL FRANKE mand?
In a free market, demand creates supply, not the other
resident Clinton's call to rebuild the infrastructure way around.Yet this kind of non-economic thinking has led •
of America's cities and municipalities is welcome to mountains of color-sorted glass and millions of tons of old •.�
news to the local official. But while we're newspapers, much of which eventually end up in landfills
rebuilding our commercial infrastructure of roads after being separated and stored at great expense.
and bridges, let's not forget our environmental infrastruc- The final premise of the bans-and-mandates approach is
ture of municipal water, sewer, wastewater treatment and, that recycling is quick, easy and cheap. Pass a law, and the
in particular,solid-waste management facilities. rest will take care of itself. In Marion County, we began re-
The president's policy statements have so far focused pri. cycling more than 10 years ago.After a decade of promotion,
marily on how to make recycling work better,and that,too, public education and investment,we now recycle 25 percent
is welcome news to local officials, who must deal with soft of our trash. r
recycling markets and recession-battered budgets.Local offi- That isn't as high a number as some communities publish,
cials could use help with project financing, removal of tax but it represents real recycling, not auto bodies or other
incentives for "virgin" materials, and changes in federal "closed loop" industrial recycling, which have never tradi-
procurement practices to create markets for recycled prod. tionally been considered as part of the sanitation depart-
ucts. ment's responsibility. Also, every bit of that 25 percent has
What we don't need is federal recycling mandates and been re-introduced — in one form or another — back into
bans on waste incineration and landfills,
the economy, not just separated into different bins. Unless t
rated materials find a real use you're not helping
separated , Y ' in P g the
Creating markets for recycled goods increases the options environment.
available to local officials. Bans and mandates limit our op- We have learned two things in 10 years: Recycling is an TIM BRINTON
tions. Options and flexibility mean a lot when your trucks expensive option, and recycling can only solve part of the
roll at dawn each day, when you operate the recycling pro cycling programs. Recycling markets are local and notori�
grams, waste-to-energy plants and landfills, when you must problem. ously volatile. "Waste streams" vary widely from commu-
face a suspicious public that takes out the garbage twice a Communities need other options to deal with waste that nity to community. Some communities are blessed with
week and never wants to see it again. can't be recycled. One option is to recover energy from the good scrap markets. Others are a thousand miles from the
One premise of the "bans-and-mandates" approach to re- rest of the trash. Marion County built a waste-to-energy nearest paper mill or plastics processor. In Connecticut,
cycling is that local officials must be forced to recycle.This plant in the mid-1980s, which burns 550 tons of trash a day newspaper recycling is a money-loser,but glass and cans are
is politically naive. Recycling is politically popular, and to and produces 11 megawatts of electricity. Burning reduces worth something. In Oregon, glass is a loser, but old news-
cal officials are trying hard to make work. the volume of trash about 90 percent,and it allows us to re- print brings good money.
cover 3,200 tons of iron and steel scrap a year that slips Mandating a "one-size-fits-all" federal recycling per-
The limits to recycling are technical, not political. Recy- through the recycling system. We still need small landfills tentage will cost communities heavily and do little to stimu-
cling simply cannot do the job alone. Communities must for construction and demolition debris, combustion as and late the demand for recycled products.Mandating that feder-
have a number of disposal options—source-reduction mea- whatever trash can't be handled by the other systems. al purchasing agents"buy recycled" when feasible will help
sures like bottle bills, recycling programs, composting, All this is done without harm to the environment,and we recycling, since the federal government is the nation's larg- Q
waste-to-energy combustion and landfilling. are an Environmental Protection Agency test site,so we are est consumer.
Another premise behind bans and mandates is that the closely monitored.The air-pollution controls on these plants Communities need affordable alternatives. The federal
are now so effective that the only visible product coming out government can play a positive role by setting sound eco-
Randall Franke is a member of the Marion County Board of the stack is steam. Our landfills use advanced liner tech- nomic and regulatory ground rules, creating markets, and
of Commissioners and second vice president of the National nology to protect groundwater. eliminating the hidden subsidies enjoyed by some raw
Association of Counties. Having flexibility in our solid-waste systems helps our re- materials.
• • �
a�
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
MEMORANDUM
TO: Liz Newton
FROM: Loreen Edin
DATE: February 26, 1993
SUBJECT., SWAC FUTURE RECOMMENDATION
At the 2/17/93 SWAC meeting, the Committee voted unanimously to forward the following recommendation
for SWAC's future to the City Council.
"Motion to advise Council that we support the CIT process but oppose the disbanding of the SWAC
i
Committee. We believe that SWAC should continue to meet periodically as the citizen body with
enough expertise to research, review, and respond intelligently to the professional
recommendations presented to Council in solid waste matters."
SWAC minutes for our information. If you
I
have also attached draft copies of the 1/25/93 and the 2117193y
have any questions about this, please contact me.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Loreen Edin
FROM: Wayne Lowry
DATE: March 12, 1993
SUBJECT: Haulers 1992 Financial Reports
The City has received the annual reports from all three franchised haulers for 1992.
I have reviewed the reports and summarized the results on the attached financial
summary.
For the first time, the City required the implementation of limits on the amount of
related party compensation for reporting purposes. The limits as applied to 1992
operations resulted in the disallowance of nearly $92,000 in compensation expense.
Had this limit not applied,the overall rate of return would have been 9.86% or 1.79%
lower, but still within the allowable rate spread.
The Summary indicates that in the aggregate, the haulers earned a rate of return on
gross revenues of 11.65%. This falls between the allowable range of 8% to 12%. As
sa
a result, no adjustment to the Solid Waste rates is necessary due to the outcome of
operations for 1992.
The aggregate results by service were as follows:
Service Type
Drop Box (17,483) (1.42%)
Residential (20,589) (1.48%)
Multifamily 192,994 31.69%
Commercial 541.036 28.59%
The drop box service line continues to be operated at a loss, however the loss is the
lowest of the past four years.
Residential, multifamily and commercial are all profitable standing alone. Recycling
past,the
costs, however, continue to far exceed recycling revenues. As in p , when
recycling costs are taken into account, the residential service line shows a loss which
has been declining for the past three years.
The other costs figure of$102,474 is consistent with figures shown in prior years and
includes interest related to the purchase of business assets.
h:\login\ahce\wayne\1oreen.312
l
I . • City Of Tigard 03/12/93
M.4
2 Hader *Financial Summary- Franchised Garbag0aulers
3 For The Years Ended December 31, 199
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
Drop Boxes
Operating Revenue 327,776 595,856 804,668 1,023,720 1,070,859 1,230,542
Operating Costs 420,596 592,825 879,112 1,061,655 1,104,912 1,244,675
Net Income (92,820) 3,031 (74,444) (37,935) (34,053) (14,133)
-28.32% 0.51% -9.25% -3.71% -3.18% -1.15%
Drop Box Recycling
Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 3,946
Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 0 6,470
Net Income 0 0 0 0 0 (2,524
ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR -63.96%
Total Drop Box Net Income (92,820) 3,031 (74,444) (37,935) (34,053) (16,657)
-28.32% 0.51% -9.25% -3.71% -3.18% -1.35%
Residential Cans
1,066,829 1,092,545 1,247,835 1,364,323
Operating Revenue 679,257 830,141
931,536 1,063,139 1,080,970 1,035,424
Operating Costs 634,650 818,184
Net Income 44,607 11,957 135,293 29,406 166,865 328 899
1.44% 12.68% 2.69% 13.37% 24.11
6.57%
Residential Recycling
Operating Revenue 21,472 34,588 27,259 20,063 33,594 29,156
Operating Costs 43,444 90,086 153,781 214,165 234,857 377,101
Net Income (21,972) (55,498) (126,522) (194,102) (201,263) (347,945)
-102.33% -160.45% -464.15% -967.46% -599.10% -1193.39%
Total Residential Net Income 22,635 (43,541) 8,771 (164,696) (34,398) (19,046)
3.23% -5.04% 0.80% -14.80% -2.68% -1.37%
Multifamily Cans
Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 602,231
Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 0 342,421
Net Income 0 0 0 0 0 259,810
ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR 43.14%
Multifamily Recycling
Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 6,702
Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 0 73,395
Net Income 0 0 0 00 66,693
ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR -995.12%
Total Multifamily Net Income 0 0 0 0 0 193,117
ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR 31.71%
wa jai
vW i�4 allv1�11n � :
Cell cell
�Q Cell 0 al
Pagel
2 Hauler
3 0
Commercial Containers
Operating Revenue 1,060,043 1,307,602 1,699,500 1,942,189 2,147,476 1,821,499
Operating Costs 749,846 880,463 1,154,262 1,153,563 1,385,438 1,146,363
Net Income 310,197 427139 545,238 788,626 762,038 675,136
29.26% 32.67% 32.08% 40.61% 35.49% 37.06%
Commercial Recycling
Operating Revenue 0 0 0 52,468 72,479 70,972
Operating Costs 0 0 0 135,104 232,607 204,379
Net Income 0 0 0 (82,636) (160,128) (133,407)
-157.50% -220.93% -187.97%
Total Commercial Net Income 310,197 427,139 545,238 705,990 601,910 541,729
29.26% 32.67% 32.08% 35.39% 27.11% 28.63%
Medical Waste
Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 47 998
Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 2,374 1,668
Net Income 0 0 0 0 (2,327) (670)
Yard Debris
Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 1,878 2,813
Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 4,105 6,035
Net Income 0 0 0 0 (2,227) (3,222)
Consolidated Net Income 240,012 386,629 479,565 503,359 528,905 695,251
Other Revenue 1,052 6,121 8,519 8,869 9,419 6,191
Other Costs 85,983 118,581 99,738 107,304 118,611 102,474
1 274169 388,346 404,924 419,713 598,968
Grand Total Net Income 155,08 ,
Total Revenues 2,089,600 2,774,308 3,606,775 4,139,854 4,583,587 5,139,373
Profit Percentage 7.42% 9.88% 10.77% 9.78% 9.16% 11.65%
'SAC
3, C)
Page 2
1 HaulerO City Of Tigard � 03/03/93
a - Financial Summary- Franchised Garba aulers
For The Years Ended December 31, 1992
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
Drop Boxes
Operating Revenue 1,989 48,853 82,313 118,812 153,215 313,325
Operating Costs 616 41,801 79,907 115,075 129,404 297,246
Net Income 1,373 7,052 2,406 3,737 23,811 16,079
69.03% 14.44% 2.92% 3.15% 15.54% 5.13%
Drop Box Recycling
Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0
Net Income 0 0 0 0 0 0
ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR
Total Drop Box Net Income 1,373 7,052 2,406 3,737 23,811 16,079
69.03% 14.44% 2.92% 3.15% 15.54% 5.13%
Residential Cans
Operating Revenue 204,621 224,613 311,041 309,495 362,569 400,062
Operating Costs 201,371 222,244 272,902 327,936 343,290 268,386
Net Income 3,250 2,369 38,139 (18,441) 19,279 131476
1.59% 1.05% 12.26% -5.96% 5.32% 32.91%
Residential Recycling
Operating Revenue 10,454 10,111 5,669 7,291 15,232 9,222
Operating Costs 13,753 20,341 30,986 36,632 43,714 110,350
Net Income (3,299) (10,230) (25,317) (29,341) (28,482) (101,128
-31.56% -101.18% -446.59% -402.43% -186.99% -1096.60%
Total Residential Net Income (49) (7,861) 12,822 (47,782) (9,203) 30,548
-0.02% -3.35% 4.05% -15.08% -2.440/6 7.46%
Multifamily Cans
Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 161,190
Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 0 116,507
Net Income 0 0 0 0 0 44,683
ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR 27.72%
Multifamily Recycling
Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 3,040
Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 0 33,623
Net Income 0 0 0 0 0 (30,583)
ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR -1006.02%
Total Multifamily Net Income 0 0 0 0 0 14,100
ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR 8.59%
Pagel
1 Hauler � •
"0 0
0 0
Commercial Containers
Operating Revenue 102,310 110,630 153,199 211,541 235,291 114,189
Operating Costs 94,652 102,403 126,888 158,290 210,244 78,778
Net Income 71658 8,227 26,311 53,251 25,047 35,411
7.49% 7.44% 17.17% 25.17% 10.65% 31.01%
Commercial Recycling
Operating Revenue 0 0 0 1,518 2,174 2,602
Operating Costs 0 0 0 10,068 8,207 17,135
Net Income 0 0 0 (8,550) (6,033) (14,533)
-563.24% -277.51% -558.53%
Total Commercial Net Income 7,658 8,227 26,311 44,701 19,014 20,878
7.49% 7.44% 17.17% 20.98% 8.01% 17.88%
Medical Waste
Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 47 235
Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 1,358 7
Net Income 0 0 0 0 (1,311) 228
Yard Debris
Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0
Net Income 0 0 0 0 0 0
Consolidated Net Income 8,982 7,418 41,539 656 32,311 81,833
Other Revenue 0 3,086 3,087 4,430 4,125 1252
Other Costs 568 2,594 631 6,459 10,666 9525
Grand Total Net Income 8,414 7,910 43,995 (1,373) 25,770 73,560
Total Revenues 319,374 397,293 555,309 653,087 772,653 1,005,117
Profit Percentage 2.63% 1.99% 7.92% -0.21% 3.34% 7.32%
Page 2
City Of Tigard 03/12/93
2 aider Winancial Summary- Franchised Garba0aulers
For The Years Ended December 31, 1992
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
Drop Boxes
Operating Revenue 102,686 296,880 340,400 440,729 428,080 436,394
Operating Costs 113,647 297,646 391,562 449,987 469,940 463,551
Net Income (10,961) (766) (51,162) (9,258) (41,860) (27,157
-10.67% -0.26% -15.03% -2.10% -9.78% -6.22%
Drop Box Recycling
Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0
Net Income 0 0 0 0 0 0
ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR
10 961 766 51,162 9,258 41,860 27,157
Income ,
Total Drop Box Net Inco ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
P
-10.67% -0.26% -15.03% -2.10% -9.78% -6.22%
Residential Cans
003 321,444
Operating Revenue
295 92,571 180,254 240,887 262,050 ,
Operating Costs 85,484 175,243 198,317 234,210 261,024 290,735
Net Income 7 087 5 011 42 570 27 840 33 979 30 709
° °
7.66% 2.78% 17.67% 10.62% 11.52% 9.55/°
Residential Recycling
Operating Revenue 8,084 15,522 7,765 4,196 8,801 9,403
81 749
100,471
Operating Costs 15,650 48,324 56,827 61,214 ,
9
Net Income (7,566) (32,502) (49,062) (57,018) 724891 068
-93.59% -211.33% -631.84% -1358.87% -828.86% -968.50%
Total Residential Net Income (479) (27,791) (6,492) (29,178) (38,969) (60,359)
-0.48% -14.20% -2.61% -10.96% -12.83% -18.24%
Multifamily Cans
Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 80,433
Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 0 28,008
Net
Income
0 0 0 0 0 52,425
ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR 65.18%
Multifamily Recycling
0 501 I
Operating Revenue 0 0 0
0
Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 0 6,938
Net Income 0 0 0 0 0 (6,437)
ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR -1284.83%
Total Multifamily Net Income 0 0 0 0 0 45,988
ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR 56.82%
Pagel
0 0 •
2 Hauler
0 0
Commercial Containers r
Operating Revenue 218,900 303,692 417,770 449,503 476,081 510,633
Operating Costs 135,830 181,439 296,554 293,306 303,378 302,911
Net Income 83,070 122,253 121,216 156,197 172,703 207,722
37.95% 40.26% 29.02% 34.75% 36.28% 40.68%
Commercial Recycling
Operating Revenue 0 0 0 21,048 28,481 30,868
Operating Costs 0 0 0 22,168 50,787 25,271
Net Income 0 0 0 (1,120) (22,306) 5,597
-5.32% -78.32% 18.13%
Total Commercial Net Income 83,070 122,253 121,216 155,077 150,397 213,319
37.95% 40.26% 29.02% 32.96% 29.81% 39.39%
Medical Waste
Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 0
Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 0 0
Net Income 0 0 0 0 0 0
Yard Debris
Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 0
Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 0 3,333
Net Income 0 0 0 0 0 (3,333)
Consolidated Net Income 71,630 93,696 63,562 116,641 69,568 168,458
Other Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Costs 20,562 30,678 4,278 4,416 13,265 0
Grand Total Net Income 51,068 63,018 59,284 112,225 56,303 168,458
Total Revenues 422,241 796,348 1,006,822 1,177,526 1,236,446 1,389,676
Profit Percentage 12.09% 7.91% 5.89% 9.53% 4.55% 12.12%
Page 2
City Of Tigard 03/03/93
Financial Summary- Franchised Garbiwaulers
3 Hauler For The Years Ended December 31, 1992
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
Drop Boxes
Operating Revenue 223,101 250,123 381,955 464,179 489,564 480,823
Operating Costs 306,333 253,378 407,643 496,593 505,568 483,878
Net Income (83,232) (3,255) (25,688) (32,414) (16,004) (3,055)
-37.31% -1.30% -6.73% -6.98% -3.27% -0.64%
Drop Box Recycling
Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 3,946
Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 0 6,470
Net Income 0 0 0 0 0 (2,524)
ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR -63.96%
Total Drop Box Net Income (83,232) (3,255) (25,688) (32,414) (16,004) (5,579)
-37.31% -1.30% -6.73% -6.98% -3.27% -1.15%
Residential Cans
Operating Revenue 382,065 425,274 514,901 521,000 590,263 642,817
Operating Costs 347,795 420,697 460,317 500,993 476,656 476,303
Net Income 34,270 4,577 54,584 20,007 113,607 166,514
8.97% 1.08% 10.60% 3.84% 19.25% 25.90%
Residential Recycling
Operating Revenue 2,934 8,955 13,825 8,576 9,561 10,531
Operating Costs 14,041 21,421 65,968 116,319 109,394 166,280
Net Income (11,107) (12,466) (52,143) (107,743) (99,833) (155,749)
-378.56% -139.21% -377.16% -1256.33% -1044.17% -1478.96%
Total Residential Net Income 23,163 (7,889) 2,441 (87,736) 13,774 10,765
6.02% -1.82% 0.46% -16.57% 2.30% 1.65%
Multifamily Cans
Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 360,608
Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 0 197,906
Net Income 0 0 0 0 0 162,702
ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR 45.12%
Multifamily Recycling
Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 3,161
Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 0 32,834
Net Income 0 0 0 0 0 (29,673)
ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR -938.72%
Total Multifamily Net Income 0 0 0 0 0 133,029
ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR 36.57%
Pagel
0 0 •. - o . o
3 Hauler
Commercial Containers
Operating Revenue 738,833 893,280 1,128,531 1,281,145 1,436,104 1,196,677
Operating Costs 519,364 596,621 730,820 701,967 871,816 764,674
Net Income 219,469 296,659 397,711 579,178 564,288 432,003
29.70% 33.21% 35.24% 45.21% 39.29% 36.10%
Commercial Recycling
Operating Revenue 0 0 0 29,902 41,824 37,502
Operating Costs 0 0 0 102,868 173,613 161,973
Net Income 0 0 0 (72,966) (131,789) (124,471),
-244.02% -315.10% -331.90%
Total Commercial Net Income 219,469 296,659 397,711 506,212 432,499 307,532
29.70% 33.21% 35.24% 38.61% 29.26% 24.92%
Medical Waste
Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 0 763
Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 1,016 1,661
Net Income 0 0 0 0 (1,016) (898)
Yard Debris
Operating Revenue 0 0 0 0 1,878 2,813
Operating Costs 0 0 0 0 4,105 2,702
Net Income 0 0 0 0 (2,227) 111
Consolidated Net Income 159,400 285,515 374,464 386,062 427,026 444,960
Other Revenue 1,052 3,035 5,432 4,439 5,294 4,939
Other Costs 64,853 85,309 94,829 96,429 94,680 92,949
Grand Total Net Income 95,599 203,241 285,067 294,072 337,640 356,950
Total Revenues 1,347,985 1,580,667 2,044,644 2,309,241 2,574,488 2,744,580
Profit Percentage 7.09% 12.86% 13.94% 12.73% 13.11% 13.01%
Page 2