Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout49-17 RESOLUTION113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Resolution: 49-17 File Number: 2016-0506 SOLID WASTE REDUCTION, DIVERSION AND RECYCLING MASTER PLAN: A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT AND ADOPT AN AMENDED SOLID WASTE REDUCTION, DIVERSION AND RECYCLING MASTER PLAN, AND TO REVISE THE CITY'S DIVERSION GOAL BY MORE THAN DOUBLING OUR CURRENT DIVERSION RATE TO 40% BY 2027 WHEREAS, the City Council passed a Resolution in December 2013 to hire a consultant to develop a master plan to help attain the highest possible waste diversion rate by 2025; and WHEREAS, the consultants have advised that a 40% waste reduction rate is reasonably attainable and have suggested ways to increase the current waste reduction rate; and WHEREAS, no adequate recycling materials processor has been located which would deliver the state of the art processing center needed for a single stream recycling plan; and WHEREAS, the Administration is not in support of all recommendations within the original master plan as pointed out in the Chief of Staff s memo of November 22, 2016, and further recognizes that even if the entire plan was implemented the former 80% diversion goal is not attainable; and WHEREAS, the Administration recommends that the proposed master plan be amended to focus on organics composting, the recycling of construction and demolition debris, and multi -family and apartment recycling and to change the implementation schedule; and WHEREAS, the administration does not support prioritizing single stream recycling or mandatory recycling and disposal bans, but wants to continue studying the feasibility of a regional recovery facility that would meet the standards of the City of Fayetteville. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF Page 1 Printed on 2122117 Resolution: 49-17 File Number.' 2016-0506 FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby adopts the Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion and Recycling Master Plan as developed by Kessler Consulting, Inc. with page 105 of the proposed plan, which contains the recommended initial implementation steps, replaced by a new implementation schedule, attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution. Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends Section 1 of Resolution No. 260-13 and sets a goal to achieve a 40% diversion rate of solid waste generated by residents and businesses within the City to be attained by 2027. PASSED and APPROVED on 2/21/2017 Page 2 Attest: Sondra E. Smith, City Clerk Tr;'p�`�/7F >•�� 61 Y Oi C `.(fi N e! FAYETTEVILLL ref 4� a ���.11��'9"'�;' +,�^�• Printed on 2/22/17 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville. AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Text File File Number: 2016-0506 Agenda Date: 2/21/2017 Version: 1 Status: Passed In Control: City Council Meeting File Type: Resolution Agenda Number: B. 1 SOLID WASTE REDUCTION, DIVERSION AND RECYCLING MASTER PLAN: A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT AND ADOPT AN AMENDED SOLID WASTE REDUCTION, DIVERSION AND RECYCLING MASTER PLAN, AND TO REVISE THE CITY'S DIVERSION GOAL BY MORE THAN DOUBLING OUR CURRENT DIVERSION RATE TO 40% BY 2027 WHEREAS, the City Council passed a Resolution in December 2013 to hire a consultant to develop a master plan to help attain the highest possible waste diversion rate by 2025; and WHEREAS, the consultants have advised that a 40% waste reduction rate is reasonably attainable and have suggested ways to increase the current waste reduction rate; and WHEREAS, no adequate recycling materials processor has been located which would deliver the state of the art processing center needed for a single stream recycling plan; and WHEREAS, the Administration is not in support of all recommendations within the original master plan as pointed out in the Chief of Staff's memo of November 22, 2016, and further recognizes that even if the entire plan was implemented the former 80% diversion goal is not attainable; and WHEREAS, the Administration recommends that the proposed master plan be amended to focus on organics composting, the recycling of construction and demolition debris, and multi -family and apartment recycling and to change the implementation schedule; and WHEREAS, the administration does not support prioritizing single stream recycling or mandatory recycling and disposal bans, but wants to continue studying the feasibility of a regional recovery facility that would meet the standards of the City of Fayetteville. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby adopts the Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion and Recycling Master Plan as developed by Kessler Consulting, Inc. with page 105 of the proposed plan, which contains the recommended initial implementation steps, replaced by a new implementation schedule, attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution. Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends Section 1 of Resolution No. 260-13 and sets a goal to achieve a 40% diversion rate of solid waste generated by City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 2/2212017 File Number.' 2016-0506 residents and businesses within the City to be attained by 2027. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 2 Printed on 2/22/2017 City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2016-0506 Legistar File ID 12/6/2016 City,Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item Brian Pugh 11/14/2016 Recycling & Trash Collection / Transportation Services Department Submitted By Submitted Date Division / Department Action Recommendation: Approve a resolution to adopt the Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan developed by Kessler Consulting, LLC. Budget Impact: Account Number Fund Project Number Project Title Budgeted Item? NA Current Budget $ - Funds Obligated . $ - Current Balance Does item have a cost? NA Item Cost Budget Adjustment Attached? NA Budget Adjustment Remaining Budget $ - V20140710 Previous Ordinance or Resolution # Original Contract Number: Comments: Approval Date: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT AND ADOPT AN AMENDED SOLID WASTE REDUCTION, DIVERSION AND RECYCLING MASTER PLAN, AND TO REVISE THE CITY'S DIVERSION GOAL BY MORE THAN DOUBLING OUR CURRENT DIVERSION RATE TO 40% BY 2027 WHEREAS, the City Council passed a Resolution in December 2013 to hire a consultant to develop a master plan to help attain the highest possible waste diversion rate by 2025; and WHEREAS, the consultants have advised that a 40% waste reduction rate is reasonably attainable and have suggested ways to increase the current waste reduction rate; and WHEREAS, no adequate recycling materials processor has been located which would deliver the state of the art processing center needed for a single stream recycling plan; and - WHEREAS, the Administration is not in support of all recommendations within the original master plan as pointed out in the Chief of Staff s memo of November 22, 2016, and further recognizes that even if the entire plan was implemented the former 80% diversion goal is not attainable; and WHEREAS, the Administration recommends that the proposed master plan be amended to focus on organics composting, the recycling of construction and demolition debris, and multi -family and apartment recycling and to change the implementation schedule; and WHEREAS,, the administration does not support prioritizing single stream recycling or mandatory recycling and disposal bans, but wants to continue studying the feasibility of a regional recovery facility that would meet the standards of the City of Fayetteville. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby adopts the Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion and Recycling Master Plan as developed by Kessler Consulting, Inc. with page 105 of the proposed plan, which contains the recommended initial implementation steps, replaced by a new implementation schedule, attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution. Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends Section 1 of Resolution No. 260-13 and sets a goal to achieve a 40% diversion rate of solid waste generated by residents and businesses within the City to be attained by 2027. PASSED and APPROVED this 21" day of February, 2017. APPROVED: ATTEST: L-12 By: LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer Exhibit A Recommended Initial Implementation Steps (to replace page 105 of Proposed Recycling and Trash Master Plan) To develop an environmentally and economically sustainable materials management system that maximizes waste diversion and minimizes waste disposal, the following steps are recommended to initiate implementation of the proposed action plan: 1. Provide conceptual approval of the proposed action plan with implementation of key elements dependent on acceptance of detailed implementation plans. 2. Obtain a Type CO permit for the City's compost facility. 3. Develop a detailed plan and schedule for initiating a voluntary organics recovery program, focusing initiall} on large food waste generators and schools. 4. Release an RFP to secure a contract with a processor for the recovery and recycling of construction and demolition material. 5. Develop a communications plan to announce the City's commitment to waste_ diversion and to get buy -in to new initiatives. 6. Develop a technical assistance. program to inform businesses, institutions, and multi- family complexes of the City's waste diversion commitment and help them prepare for new recycling initiatives. 7. Adopt a Green City initiative directing all city -owned or operated buildings to establish comprehensive recycling, organics recovery, and environmentally preferable purchasing programs. B. Modify City building codes to require new commercial and multi -family developments to provide adequate space and access for recycling and organics recovery (for large commercial food waste generators). 3 CITY OF a e eve e ARKANSAS TO: Lioneld Jordan, Mayor THRU: Terry Gulley, Transportation Director Jeff Coles, Recycling and Trash Collection Director FROM: Brian Pugh, Waste Reduction Coordinator STAFF MEMO DATE: February 10, 2017 SUBJECT: City Administration's Recommendations regarding Adoption of the Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion and Recycling Master Plan RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the plan with a modified implementation schedule to prioritize Organics Composting, the release of an RFP to secure a contract with a processor for the recovery and recycling of construction and demolition material, and the development of a communications plan to increase community participation in support of the city's commitment to waste diversion. BACKGROUND: Based on discussions throughoutthe study period regarding the adoption of the Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion and Recycling Master Plan as developed by Kessler Consulting, Incorporated, staff proposes adoption of the plan with the revised implementation schedule (attached). DISCUSSION: The Administration supports organics composting and the release of an RFP to secure a contract with a processor for the recovery and recycling of construction and demolition material. At this time, the Administration does not support prioritizing single stream recycling or mandating recycling or disposal bans. The Recycling and Trash Collection Master Plan provides invaluable data that have helped us evaluate the overall composition of the city's residential and commercial waste, the increased volume in the landfill, set new goals for increased participation and education, and review the attainability of the previously set 80% diversion rate goal. The Administration and staff realize that the 80% diversion goal is not attainable even if everything in the plan were adopted. The Mayor and staff agreed to try to set a more attainable goal. Staff recommends that we set a new goal, doubling where we are today, with a 40% diversion rate as the new target. The goal is to move from 20-30% diversion between 2017 - 2022 and 30-40% diversion between 2022-2027. Another idea that has been discussed is that a collaborative partnership with the Benton County and Boston Mountain Solid Waste Districts and the other municipalities could be pursued to plan a regional recovery facility which meets the standards set by the City of Fayetteville. While Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 the plan put forward by Kessler Consulting describes a "mini-MRF" option which would serve only Fayetteville, that option is not recommended because it would be superseded by the eventual development of a regional facility. In support of the original resolution to improve multi -family and apartment recycling, staff will evaluate the potential to provide curbside recycling service for a limited number of multi -family residential units for which recycling services are not currently available. This service would be considered for those occupants in multi -family units of 3 (tri-plexes) up to 24 (with exceptions to be considered at the discretion of the Director of Transportation), and predicated on reasonable access to roadway (curbside) access for bin placement and collection. Participation would be strictly voluntary and contingent upon the property owner or management consent. It must be clear, however, that we are currently at capacity and any increase in multi -family participation will come with an increase in staff and fleet needed to process higher volumes. The Administration requests a resolution of direction in these areas, as they are critical for the planning of our rate study, potential new headcount, and capital planning for fleet purchases. We cannot continue to delay these decisions and meet the needs of the enterprise fund. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT None Attachments: Recommended Initial Implementation Steps Recommended Initial Implementation Steps (to replace page105 of Proposed Recycling and Trash Master Plan) To develop an environmentally and economically sustainable materials management system that maximizes waste diversion and minimizes waste disposal, the following steps are recommended to initiate implementation of the proposed action plan: 1. Provide conceptual approval of the proposed action plan with implementation of key elements dependent on acceptance of detailed implementation plans. 2. Obtain a Type CO permit for the City's compost facility. 3. Develop a detailed plan and schedule for initiating a voluntary organics recovery program, focusing initially on large food waste generators and schools. 4. Release an RFP to secure a contract with a processor for the recovery and recycling of construction and demolition material. 5. Develop a communications plan to announce the City's commitment to waste diversion and to get buy -in to new initiatives. 6. Develop a technical assistance program to inform businesses, institutions, and multi- family complexes of the City's waste diversion commitment and help them prepare for new recycling initiatives. 7. Adopt a Green City Initiative directing all city -owned or operated buildings to establish comprehensive recycling, organics recovery, and environmentally preferable purchasing programs. 8. Modify City building codes to require new commercial and multi -family developments to provide adequate space and access for recycling and organics recovery (for large commercial food waste generators). 4 Branson, Lisa From: Smith, Sondra Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 4:08 PM To: Alan Long (Longward4@gmail.com); Pennington, Blake; citycouncil@matthewpetty.org; Marr, Don; Eads, Gail; Roberts, Gina; Johnson, Kimberly; Williams, Kit; Branson, Lisa; Jordan, Lioneld; Lynch, Rhonda; Mulford, Patti; Norton, Susan; Pate, Jeremy; Smith, Lorinda; Smith, Sondra; Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Tennant, Justin; Bunch, Sarah; La Tour, John; Long, Alan Cc: bidslam.smith@gmail.com Subject: FW: Recycling Aldermen Please read the email below. Thanks! Sondra From: Marty & Bob Smith [mailto:bidslam.smith@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 2:47 PM To: Smith, Sondra <ssmith@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Fwd: Recycling Sandra, Thank you for calling. Please find my original email below. I appreciate your time to forward my email to all Fayetteville Ward Representatives. Best regards, Bob Smith Begin forwarded message: From: Marty & Bob Smith <bidslam.smithkgmail.com> Date: February 21, 2017 at 11:24:55 AM CST To: sarahbunch.realtora_,gmail.com, ward3 poslAfMar.onmicrosoft.com Subject: Recycling Ms Bunch and Mr Tennant My wife and I are opposed to a single stream recycling program. Let's keep our current, clean, curb sort program in place. 1 Thank you. Bob and Marty Smith 2654 E Meandering Way Fayetteville AR 72701 Phone: 479.200.2554 John So La Tour CetVrred FublkAccountrant 112 W. Center Street, Suite 560 • 479-443-7878 ° Fayetteville, AR 72701 VIA EMAIL ssmith@fayetteville-ar.gov December 1, 2016 Ms. Sondra Smith 113 West Mountain Street Room 308 Fayetteville, AR 72701 Re: Resolution 2016-0506 The Kessler Report Dear Colleagues: I am writing to you in order to request that no vote be taken on the Kessler report at our December 5, 2016 City Council meeting. I will be out of town and unable to attend this meeting. I have read this report. It has the potential to impact every family, business and institution in our City. Because of this impact, every member of our community should be given at least three meetings to learn about the issues, formulate an opinion and express those opinions. This cannot be accomplished if this Resolution is adopted in only one meeting. Although state law does not require these three readings, simple fairness to our constituents does. We need an open, full -throttled and robust debate in this area. Please have a good discussion about these issues on December 5th, but please table this Resolution until our December 20th meeting, without a vote. Respectfully, John S. La Tour F CITY OF i Tay ARKANSAS MEETING OF DECEMBER 6TH, 2016 To: Fayetteville City Council Thru: Jeff Coles, Recycling and Trash Collections Director From: Brian Pugh, Waste Reduction Coordinator Date: November 14, 2016 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO SUBJECT: Approve a resolution to adopt the Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan developed by Kessler consulting, LLC. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving a resolution to adopt the Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan developed by Kessler Consulting, Inc. The Legistar number for approval of a contract with Kessler Consulting is 2014-0396 and the resolution number is 171-14. BACKGROUND: The City Council passed Resolution Number 260-13 on December 17, 2013 to develop a Request for Qualifications to hire a consultant to develop a 10 year solid waste master plan in order to attain a waste diversion rate of 80%. Resolution 171-14 was authorized for development of a ten year solid waste master plan in an amount not to exceed $264,890.00 and to.approve a budget adjustment. Resolution 136-15 was approved to amend the contract with Kessler Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $39,980.00 for assistance with the design and implementation of a commercial food waste pilot program and a single stream recycling pilot program, and to approve a budget adjustment.. DISCUSSION: The Master Plan has been created with different scenarios in which waste programs can be changed, altered and developed in order to obtain higher diversion from landfill rates for the City. The plan lays out steps in order to obtain higher diversion numbers and staff will be bringing action items of the plan forward in future years for final discussion and implementation of the different aspects of the plan. BUDGET IMPACT The adoption of the plan does not have a budget impact. Action items of the plan will be brought forward in future years and budget impacts will be developed and outlined at those times. Attachments: Kessler's Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Tech Memo #1, #2, A #4, #5 and #6 Resolution 260-13 Resolution 171-14 Resolution 136-15 No fee Contract Agreement with Georgia Pacific Harmon Recycling Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 TO: , Mayor and City Council FROM: Fayetteville Environmental Action Committee DATE: November 22, 2016 SUBJECT: Recommendation on Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion and Recycling Master Plan RECOMMENDATION: At the November 21, 2016, Environmental Action Committee, members voted unanimously to support the Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion and Recycling Master.Plan. Their detailed recommendation language is discussed below. DISCUSSION: After reviewing Kessler Consulting's Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan for the City of Fayetteville, the Environmental Action Committee (EAC) makes the following observations and recommendations: The EAC supports the analysis of Kessler Consulting regarding the relationship between waste diversion and single stream recycling. It is inarguable that a switch to single stream will increase contamination; however the increase in recycling participation and volumes outweighs the increase in contamination in a state-of-the-art recycling facility. There is an overwhelming consensus of data to support this, which Kessler has outlined and accurately applied to our community. In pursuit of that solution, the EAC encourages staff and council to develop a clear communication strategy to address the concerns of residents who doubt single -stream's overwhelming ability to drastically increase our diversion of recyclable material. The EAC also wholeheartedly supports the City's dogged investigation of a regional state-of- the-art single stream recycling facility in partnership with private sector companies and other municipalities that are willing to make such an investment. The Kessler report makes clear that the City of Fayetteville, by itself, does not produce the amount of solid waste necessary to support private sector investment in a large regional single stream material recovery facility. Therefore, a regional single stream facility is only a viable solution for capturing and recycling material if partnerships can be developed with several other Northwest Arkansas communities. The EAC has serious reservations about some aspects of the smaller -scale plans. The economics and technology involved in recycling is changing rapidly. Should a state-of-the-art facility prove infeasible or if no private company is prepared to invest in its development, the EAC would encourage City Council to re-evaluate steps to achieve our diversion goals under the economic conditions at that time before pursuing the additional options in the Kessler plan. Before the EAC could support the prescribed secondary options, we would need to see an analysis that demonstrates the economic, environmental and social feasibility of such a solution. The Environmental Action Committee thanks Kessler Consulting and our City's Recycling and Trash Division for appropriately meeting the scope of work and providing invaluable data to move this discussion forward. We see this report as an important first step in a long process for increasing our recycling diversion rate in the City of Fayetteville and Northwest Arkansas region. The Environmental Action Committee supports the adoption of this plan, with caveats, as a guide for identifying and prioritizing the actions necessary to reach the City's recycling goal. CITY OF IAV�� s . a. y. eCITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ARKANSAS MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 2016 TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Mayor Lioneld Jordan --/ i FROM: Don Marr, Chief of Staff DATE: November 22, 2016 SUBJECT: Recycling & Trash Master Plan Single Stream Recommendation Concerns BACKGROUND: The staff is recommending the adoption of the Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion and Recycling Master Plan as developed by Kessler Consulting, Inc. While this is a recommendation by the staff to do so, I want to take this opportunity as the Chief of Staff for the City to make some specific points regarding this plan and it's recommendations. The City Council passed a resolution in December of 2013 to develop a master plan that would help attain a waste diversion rate of 80% by January 1st, 2025. While the plan its self does not have a budget impact outlined in the staff memo for this agenda item; future budgets would be impacted as the individual recommendations are brought forward. Some of these will have direct impact on the future rate study and rates of service as implemented. The primary areas of interest. from the Administration are increasing recycling participation by citizens, increasing eligible recycled volume tonnage during collection, and expansion of recycling into multi -family establishments and organics composting/collection. While these goals are in alignment with the City Council's resolution, we do not have a set diversion goal percentage in mind since there are numerous challenges — specifically around the processing of collected recyclables. While the resolution states a goal of 80%, this master plan clearly points out that the ability for the city to reach 80% is not realistic based on our current market trends and services available. DISCUSSION: As an administration and as your Chief of Staff, we are not fully in support of single stream implementation in 2017/2018 as outlined in Table 6-1: phase 1 Proposed Action Plan on page 91 of the report. The recommendation of issuing an RFP/Contract for single stream processing & services is an area of significant concern to us. During the pilot project and during the Master Plan Study period, we have not identified an adequate recycling materials processor that has demonstrated or been willing to deliver a state of the art facility and the accountability we expect in the final disposition of commodities. Nor have we been able to garner regional interest in participation from our other local market governmental entities (other than possibly The City of Siloam Springs). Nor have we identified any regional recycling providers to partner for a processing center while conducting the study. The needed volume to make such a facility Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 economically viable has not been identified at this time. Bentonville has stated that they have no interest in such a facility, and Rogers and Springdale both contract with private companies for their services who already have processing centers that handle their recycling collections. The Mayor has concerns that any facility that the City of Fayetteville seeks to partner with would have to have state of the art equipment to minimize worker risk and social & environmental aspects of such a work environment. Additionally, we are concerned about the contracting feasibility to obtain true accountability of where our collected commodities end up after being recycled by our citizens and collected by the city. We do not want to have any program that does not allow us to maintain the level of accountability necessary to maintain a credible program. We are concerned about the pressure to collect items that make it easier for the customer to participate (such as collecting all plastics 1 through 7) yet having difficulty in disposing of these 3 — 7 plastics with viable market options. Having these items collected that are not feasible to recycle because of limited market availability or limited resale interest brings credibility risk to our program that does not exists today. While during the pilot project we were able to sell the 3-7 products, that may not always be the case as some communities have not had providers available to buy those commodities. The last thing we want is for our citizens to think that something is being recycled that may end up in a landfill. So it is important -that those commodities that we collect have viable markets for the products and numerous markets, or their collection should not be done. We are not willing to risk the credibility of our entire recycling program without assurances that such services and markets exists.- Based on the technology, and the financial commitments necessary in today's environment, we have no interest in a mini -materials recovery center at this time. The technology capabilities may change in the future, but based on what we know today, we do not believe this is a good economic or work environment option for the City of Fayetteville at this time. Another point is that currently our rates for recycling & trash services are subsidized by the money.received from the sale of recycled materials. Outsourcing this processing could potentially result in a charge for processing and a loss of commodity sales. With the potential loss of offsetting our rates with the recovered dollars from the resale markets, this could result- in an increase in costs. While this is a number that has been going down for the last several years, it is a financial change that could be lost if we don't process our recyclables ourselves. Significant work would need to be done before a 2017/2018 single stream collection method could be considered. Finally, the Mayor is not currently in support of recommendations in Table 6-3, Phase 3 Proposed Action Plan, which states to establish a recyclable material disposal ban, and establish a food waste disposal ban. This would require the development of an enforcement officer program, to enforce the material disposal, and he believes that further education efforts need to be done, and that a punitive program is not something the Mayor feels is the best approach to gain citizen participation. In conclusion, until the processor question, and volume of recycling meets an economic threshold that makes it viable to have such a facility, it will be very difficult to implement this plan. Attachments: Page 91, 92 and 93 of the Kessler Study City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 6: Proposed Action Plan Table 6-1: Phase 1 Proposed Action Plan • Establish universal • Implement residential and commercial and commercial/multi-family multi -family singlestream recycling; add recycling (base material types service fee includes Provide technical assistance the cost of recycling to businesses and multi- service) family complexes to • If City mini-MRF is implement universal recycling developed, require • Continue to expand franchised haulers commercial organics recovery to deliver . Expand Green City Program recyclables collected within the • Continue implementing City to the MRF communications plan • "Establish"universal • implement voluntary • Deliver recyclables to private single stream MRF or initiate processing single stream recyclables at City - owned mini-MRF 22% commercial curbside residential organics organics recovery recovery for large . Provide technical assistance . comme.rcialfood " fo"Imp lement.universal­" waste generators commercial organics recovery communicalc • Possibly cond recovery pilot 91 Fayetteville/T6JMaster Plan —Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions 1 City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 6: Proposed Action Plan Table 6-2: Phase 2 Proposed Action Plan • Continue implementing communications plan • Continuetechnical assistance to businesses and multi- family complexes • Continue to monitor and - enhance Green City Program .<Monitor.and implement operational efficiencies at all 40% facilities (mini-MRF, compost facility, C&D facility, transfer station) 92 kessler consulting inc. Fayetteville/T6/MasterPlan Final innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction,Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 6: Proposed Action Plan Table 6-3: Phase 3 Proposed Action Plan Establish food • Enforce recyclable material • Monitor and waste disposal ban disposal ban implement • Continue implementing operational communications plan efficiencies at all o facilities (mini-MRF, 46/. • Continue technical assistance 'compost facility, to businesses and multi- ' C&D facility, transfer family complexes -station) • Continue Green City Program • Evaluate every. • Enforterecyclable material Monitor and other week waste anii yard„vJastedisposal loans ;implement; . '. .collection anii other , .. Continue imp leme;ntmg operational policies to increase communications plan 'efficiencies at all efficiency, lower _ • Continue technical assistance -facilities (minkMRF, costs; and to businesses and compost facility, encourage waste ,multi- family,complexes C&D facility) transfer diversion station) 50% • Evaluate other • Continue Green City Program policies, such as product bans, that wouid'minimize generation of non - recyclable, or non- compostable waste 93 kessler consulting inc. Fayetteville/T6/Master Plan_Final innovative waste solutions CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, AR SOLID WASTE REDUCTION, DIVERSION, AND RECYCLING MASTER PLAN SEPTEMBER 2016 Prepared for: -City of Fayetteville Recycling & Trash Division 1560 S. Happy Hollow Road Fayetteville, AR 72701 Submitted by: Kessler Consulting, Inc. innovative waste solutions 14620 N. Nebraska Ave., Bldg. D Tampa, fL 33613 813-971-8333 kessl r onsulting inc. €nnowifive waste sdutions Printed on recycled paper This report has been prepared for the use and benefit of the client for the specific purposes identified in the report. The conclusions, observations, and recommendations contained herein attributed to Kessler Consulting, Inc. constitute the opinions of Kessler Consulting. The -services provided by Kessler Consulting and this report are not intended for the benefit of any third party and shall not be relied upon by any third party. To the extent that statements, information, and opinions provided by other third parties have been used in the preparation of this report, Kessler Consulting has relied upon the same to be accurate, and for which no assurances are intended and no representations or warranties are made. Kessler Consulting makes'no certification and gives no assurances except as explicitly set forth in this report. Copyright 2016, Kessler Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved. Kessler Consulting, Inc. is a proud member of or was awarded the following: Sustainablel3usinessAward Winner2p08 1 Section1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Goals and Objectives............................................................................................... 1 1.2 About Fayetteville................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Sustainable Materials Management....................................................................... 2 1.4 Stakeholder Input.................................................................................................... 4 1.4.1 Stakeholder Meetings.............................................................................. 4 1.4.2 Resident Survey........................................................................................ 5 1.4.3 Business Survey........................................................................................7 1.4.4 Vendor Meetings...................................................................................... 8 1.5 Planning Process...................................................................................................... 9 Section 2 Existing Materials Management System............................................................... 11 2.1 Recycling and Trash Division................................................................................. 11 2.2 Waste Generation and Diversion.......................................................................... 14 2.3 Waste Composition............................................................................................... 15 2.4 Collection...............................................................................................................17 2.4.1 Residential Curbside Collection.............................................................. 17 2.4.2 Multi -Family Collection .......................................... :............................... 18 2.4.3 Commercial Collection........................................................................... 18 2.4.4 Drop -Off Collection................................................................................. 20 2.5 Materials Recovery................................................................................................ 20 2.5.1 Recycling.................................................................................................20 2.5.2 Composting.............................................................................................23 2.5.3 Other Related Programs......................................................................... 23 2.6 Transfer and Disposal............................................................................................ 25 2.7 Education and Outreach........................................................................................ 25 2.8 University of Arkansas........................................................................................... 27 Section 3 Diversion Opportunities and Options.................................................................... 29 3.1 Overview of Opportunities and Options............................................................... 29 3.2 Single Stream Recycling......................................................................................... 31 3.3 Organic_ Material Recovery....................................................................................34 3.4 Education and Outreach........................................................................................ 38 3.5 - Technical Assistance..............................................................................................41 3.6 Incentives.............................................................................................................. 43 3.6.1 Financial Incentives................................................................................ 43 3.6.2 Non -Financial Incentives........................................................................ 46 3.7 C&D Debris Reuse and Recycling........................................................................... 46 3.8 Reuse, Repair and Repurposing............................................................................ 50 3.9 Supporting Policies................................................................................................52 kessler consulting inc. Faye' �r aster Plan._1'inal innovative waste solutions City & Fayettevii e, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, <nd Recycling Master Dian Tale of Contents Section4 Pilot Programs....................................................................................................... 55 4.1 Commercial Food Waste Composting Pilot.......................................................... 55 4.2 Residential Single Stream Recycling Pilot............................................................. 58 Section5 Scenario Modeling................................................................................................ 65 5.1 Introduction to System Model.............................................................................. 65 5.2 Population and Waste Generation Projections.................................................... 66 5.3 Baseline................................................................................................................. 68 5.4 Material Recovery................................................................................................. 71 5.4.1 Recycling Drop-Offs................................................................................ 71 5.4.2 Single Stream Recycling........:................................................................ 74 5.4.3 Comparison of Material Recovery Results ............................................. 78 5.5 Organic Material Recovery.................................................................................... 79 5.6 C&D Debris Recovery............................................................................................ 82 5.7 Combined Scenario Analysis................................................................................. 85 Section 6 Proposed Action Plan............................................................................................ 89 6.1 Phased Plan............................................................................................................ 89 6.2 Implementation of Key Elements.......................................................................... 94 6.2:1 Single Stream Recycling......................................................................... 94 6.2.2 Organics Program................................................................................... 97 6.2.3 C&D Debris Processing........................................................................... 99 6.2.4 Communications and Technical Assistance ......................................... 101 6.2.5 Green City Program — Lead by Example ............................................... 102 6.2.6 Supporting Policies................................................................................ 103 6.3 Next Steps........................................................................................................... 103 Tables Table 2-1: Recovered Materials Marketed (tons)...................................................................... 21 Table 2-2: Average Revenue by Recovered Commodity ($/ton) ................................................ 22 Table 2-3: University of Arkansas Waste Landfiiled, Recycled, and Composted, 2014 ............. 27 Table 3-1: Potential Waste Diversion Options........................................................................... 30 Table 3-2: Potentially Compostable Materials Disposed, 2015.................................................. 34 Table 3-3: Resident Preferences for Information Distribution Methods ................................... 39 Table 3-4: PAYT Service Fee Analysis.......................................................................................... 44 Table 3-5: Mechanisms Utilized to Increase C&D Debris Reuse and Recycling ......................... 48 Table 4-1: Curbside Single Stream Collection Pre -Pilot and Pilot Data ...................................... 59 Table 4-2: Summary of Manual Processing of Curbside Recyclables (% by weight) .................. 61 Table 4-3: Comparison of Multi -Family Data Results................................................................. 63 Table 4-4: Summary of Manual Processing of Multi -Family Recyclables (% by weight)............ 63 Table 5-1: Projected Population and Waste Generation........................................................... 67 Table 5-2: Baseline Scenario Results.......................................................................................... 70 kessler consulting inc. Fayettevdle/1'6/Master P an...Fina! innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan 'Fable of Contents Table 5-3: Drop -Off Center Scenario Results.............................................................................. 73 Table 5-4: Single Stream Recycling Scenario Results.................................................................. 77 Table 5-5: Organics Recovery Scenario Results.......................................................................... 81 Table 5-6: C&D Debris Recovery Scenario Results...................................................................... 84 Table 5-7: Combined Single Stream, Organics, and C&D Debris Recovery Scenario Results..... 86 Table 6-1: Phase 1 Proposed Action Plan................................................................................... 91 Table 6-2: Phase 2 Proposed Action Plan................................................................................... 92 Table 6-3: Phase 3 Proposed Action Plan................................................................................... 93 Figure 1-1: Sustainable Materials Management Diagram............................................................. 2 Figure 1-2: Upstream, Midstream, and Downstream Materials Management ..............................3 Figure 2-1: Materials Managed at City Facilities, 2015................................................................ 12 Figure 2-2: Operating Revenues, 2015......................................................................................... 13 Figure 2-3: Operating Expenses, 2015......................................................................................... 13 Figure 2-4: Waste Landfilled, Recycled, and Composted, 2006-2015 (tons)...............................14 Figure 275: Tons per Capita Generation....................................................................................... 15 Figure 2-6: Composition of Materials Landfilled (% by weight)...................................................16 Figure 2-7: Composition of C&D and Bulky Waste Landfilled......................................................16 Figure 2-8: Average Revenue per Ton for Various Recovered Commodities ($/ton) ...........:...... 22 Figure 3-1: Composition of Materials Managed by the City in 2015 (tons, % by weight)........... 29 Figure 3-2: Recycling Bin and Recycling Cart Volumes and Footprints ........................................ 32 Figure 3-3:. EPA's Food Recovery Hierarchy................................................................................. 35 Figure 3-4: Bulky Waste Visual Audit Results (% by volume).....................................:.................. 47 Figure 4-1: Food Waste Collected Weekly (tons)......................................................................... 56 Figure 4-2: Weekly Recycling Container Setout Rates................................................................. 60 Figure 4-3: Tons of Recyclables Collected per Week................................................................... 60 Figure 5-1: Balancing the Business Components of Materials Management .............................. 65 Figure 5-2: Population and Waste Generation Data and Projections, 2006 2025 ...................... 67 Figure 5-3: Projected System Net Costs for Baseline, Drop -Off, and Single Stream Scenarios... 78 Figure 5-4: Projected Diversion Rates for Baseline, Drop -Off, and Single Stream Scenarios...... 78 Figure 5-5: Projected System Net Costs of Baseline and Cumulative Scenarios ......................... 85 Figure 6-1: Composition of Materials Managed by the City in 2015 (tons, % by weight)........... 89 Picture 2-1: Curbside Residential Trash, Recyclables and Yard Waste ... Picture 2-2: Sorting Recyclables Curbside ............................................... Picture 2-3: Partitioned Recycling Roll -off at Multi -Family Complex...... Picture 2-4: Commercial Glass Recycling Carts ....................................... .................................... 17 .................................... 17 ....................................18 .................................... 19 ?ayetteville/fr6/1'Aaster Plan Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Dian Table of Contents Picture 2-5: Happy Hollow Road Drop -Off Recycling Center........................................................ 20 Picture 2-6: Collection Vehicle Tipping Paper at Recycling Facility ............................................... 20 Picture 2-7: Collection Vehicle Tipping Containers at Recycling Facility ...................................... 21 Picture 2-8: Baling Paper at Recycling Facility............................................................................... 21 Picture 2-9: Windrow Turner at Composting Facility.................................................................... 23 Picture2-10: Adopt -A -Street Volunteers........................................................................................24 Picture 2-11: City Transfer Station.................................................................................................. 25 Picture 2-12: Recycle Something Logo............................................................................................ 25 Picture 2-13: Recycling Mascot, Rooty............................................................................................ 26 Picture 2-14: Participating Family in Waste -Saving Educational Campaign ................................... 26 Picture 2-15: Razorback Recycling Logo.......................................................................................... 27 Picture 3-1: Trash, Recycling, and Green Waste Containers Placed Curbside in Portland, OR .... 36 Picture 372: Recycling Slogan Examples........................................................................................ 40 Picture 3-3: University of Denver Move -Out Program Sign.......................................................... 51 Picture 4-1: Food Waste Tipped at Compost Facility.................................................................... 55 Picture 6-1: Example of 10 TPH Mini-MRF in Maryland................................................................ 94 Picture 6-2: Trash and Recycling Carts during Fayetteville Pilot ................................................... 95 Picture 6-3: Food Waste in Compost Pile during Fayetteville Pilot .............................................. 97 Picture 6-4: Turning Food Waste into Compost Pile..................................................................... 97 Picture 6-5: Screening Finished Compost...................................................................................... 98 Picture 6-6: Vibrating Finger Screen at C&D MRF....................................................................... 100 Picture 6-7: Manual Sorting Line at C&D MRF............................................................................ 100 i f f Appendix A Resident Recycling Survey Appendix B Commercial Recycling Survey Appendix C Waste Composition Study Appenidx D Commercial Food Waste Pilot Appendix E Single Stream Recycling Pilot iv Fayetteville; 16!/Master Plan Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Wart • no 11TUR In December 2013, the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, AR (City) passed Resolution No. 260-13, which established a goal to achieve an 80% diversion rate of solid waste generated by residents and businesses within the City to be attained by January 1, 2025. The resolution also called for enlisting a consulting firm to assist in developing a plan to achieve this goal. The City subsequently hired Kessler Consulting, Inc. (KCI) to assist in the planning process and in developing the Master Plan provided herein. This primary objective of this Master Plan is to provide policy, program, and facility recommendations for the City to develop an efficient, cost-effective solid waste system that maximizes waste reduction and recycling and puts the City on a path to attaining its goal of 80% waste diversion. The Master Plan was developed with a 10-year planning period. The City is keenly aware of the difference between what is collected for recycling and what is actually recycled. In 2011, the City Council passed Resolution No. 19-11, recommending that the City's Recycling and Trash Collection Division post quarterly reports regarding the volumes of materials collected for recycling and the primary or end -use of those materials. The resolution also acknowledged that technology is constantly changing, and encouraged staff to seek new markets and cost-effective ways to increase the materials diverted from the waste stream. Although. a quantitative statewide recycling goal does not exist, in 1991, the Arkansas Legislature passed Act 749, making it the policy of the state "to encourage and promote recycling in order to conserve natural resources, conserve energy and preserve landfill space." The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) prepares an annual State of Recycling report. In 2015, ADEQ reported a statewide recycling rate of 45.5%, an increase over the 2014 rate of 30%.1 Fayetteville covers a geographic area of 55.2 square miles in northwestern Arkansas. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the City is the third -largest in the state and the fastest growing with a population of 80,621 (July 2014).2 The City is the county seat of Washington County and is part of the Boston Mountain Solid Waste District (SWD), which encompasses Washington and Madison counties. ' Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, State of Recycling in Arkansas — 2015, November 2015. Z U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts for Fayetteville, AR. kessler consulting inc. i ayettevilie/ r6/ [Master Plan Final innovative waste solutions City o` Fayetteviie, AR Solid Waste Reduction; Diversion, and Recycling Mastcr 'Plan Section 1: Introduction The City is home to the University of Arkansas, the state's largest university, with a student enrollment of 26,754 (Fall 2015) and employment of 1,384 faculty and 2,035 staff.3 The large student population is reflected in the relatively low level of home ownership (41.4%) and high number of housing units with five or more units per structure (34.2%).4 In 2016, US News & World Report ranked the Fayetteville Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) as the third best place to live in the US, noting that the area "has transformed from a small town to a center of higher education, culture, commerce and entrepreneurialism." 5 In 2015, Forbes listed the MSA as one of the 25 best places for business and careers in the US.6 Wal- Mart Stores and Tyson Foods are headquartered in the neighboring cities of Bentonville and Springdale, respectively. Hundreds of companies, including Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola, and Rubbermaid, have offices located in the area to be close to Wal-Mart. The City boasts, numerous amenities, including parks, playgrounds, and walking trails. The Fayetteville Farmers Market draws visitors to the downtown square from April through November.7 Dickson Street, running through the center of the City to the University of Arkansas campus, is a hub for shopping and dining. The Walton Arts Center is a first-class performing arts center, which is supplemented by numerous other entertainment venues, festivals, and cultural events. The City's Recycling and Trash Division provides waste management and recycling services throughout the City. These services are discussed in Section 2. 1 Sustainable materials management is a systematic approach to using and reusing materials more productively over their entire lifecycles (see Figure 1-1). It is an important concept when striving for 80% waste diversion and is also consistent with the City's participation in the Sustainability Tools for Assessing and Rating (STAR) Communities program. The STAR program is a voluntary, self - reporting framework for evaluating, quantifying, and improving the livability and sustainability of communities in the United States. Figure 1-1: US EPA Sustainable Materials Waste minimization is one element of Management Diagram s https://admissions.uark.edu/apply/abouttheuofa.php. " U.S. Census Bureau, Selected Housing Characteristics for Fayetteville, AR. 5 US News & World Report, "Best Places to Live" (http•//reaIestate usnews.com/places/rankings-best-places-to-live). 6 Forbes Magazine, "The Best Places For Business and Careers" (http://www.forbes.com/best-places-for-business/list/). 7 http://www.favettevillefarmersmarket.org/. kessler consulting inc. i:ayetteviiie/'' 5/N61aster NanPbai innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling rviaster Plan Section 1. introduction the STAR climate and energy goals. The City has used the STAR structure to measure overall sustainability and as a gap analysis for future initiatives. Sustainable materials management goes beyond simply recovering materials through recycling and composting practices. It involves all stages of the entire materials management system. Sustainable management strategies are often categorized as upstream, midstream, and downstream to reflect which segment of the material lifecycle is being impacted (see Figure 1- 2). Figure 1-2: Upstream, Midstream, and Downstream Materials Management • Upstream strategies address resource extraction and product or packaging manufacturing. The objective is to conserve resources and prevent downstream waste by effecting actions at this stage. Upstream strategies include producer responsibility, product redesign, environmentally preferable purchasing, and other similar policies. • Midstream strategies address extending the longevity of product use. These strategies include reuse, repair, donations, sharing, and durable design. • Downstream strategies strive to maximize the recovery of resources from the items we discard. These strategies include recycling, composting, and various other material and energy recovery technologies. Many of the upstream policies are more appropriate for state or national level consideration; therefore, primary focus during the planning process for the Master Plan was placed on midstream and downstream strategies. Sustainable materials management considers not just the financial costs of collection and disposal, but also what is known in sustainable business practices as the "triple bottom line." kessler consulting ins. iayetfeville?75(tv7aster Plaq„Final innovative waste solutions CPty o* Fayettevi e, AR Solid Waste Reduction; Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 1: Intreduc`ion The triple bottom line incorporates three areas of business performance: financial, social, and environmental (also referred to as the three Ps — people, planet, and profits). Social factors relate to the standard of living, human health, employment opportunities, education, and community or people. • Environmental factors relate to natural resources, pollution prevention, and the natural environment or planet. • Financial factors relate to the cost of services and facilities, avoided costs, revenues, savings, economic growth, and product development or profits. When evaluating various waste diversion scenarios, the analysis included not only the financial impacts to the City, but also environmental (e.g., waste diversion). Social measures are difficult to assign appropriate means of measurement, but were considered as well. Early on in the planning process, the project team sought input from various stakeholders through meetings and surveys. In April and June of 2015, the project team met with various stakeholders to discuss the planning process and to seek input. Public Meeting: In April 2015, an advertised public meeting was held at Woodland Junior High School with more than 50 residents in attendance. Following a brief . presentation by KCI, the public was encouraged to share their thoughts on current and potential future waste diversion opportunities for the City. Quite a few individuals spoke to the need for more multi -family recycling. Support was expressed for a wide range of recycling options, from more drop-offs to dual stream to single stream recycling, as well as for food waste recovery and recycling in public areas. Multi -Family Property Managers: Also in April 2015, a meeting was held with multi- family property managers. Although numerous property management companies were notified of the meeting, only five individuals attended. Two individuals were with Lindsey Management, two with Specialized Real Estate Group, and one individual manages various smaller properties. Both of the larger management companies have complexes currently participating in the City's recycling program. Key comments included the following: o The partitioned recycling roll -off container (referred to as the "battleship") requires up to 11 parking spaces (including space needed to service the container), so it needs to be located out of the way, but then it is not convenient. o Having only one container per complex is not convenient, especially in large complexes, and many residents therefore do not use it. kessler consulting inc. Fayetteville/?5/Plaster Plan,,. Final innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid waste Reduction, Diversion, and RecycEng Master Flan Section 1: introduction o One company refused to distribute the 6-gallon bins offered by the City for residents to carry recyclables from their apartment to the recycling container, because they felt it would be "one more thing to worry about" during move -outs. The other company includes the bin on a move -out checklist, charging the tenant if the bin is not left behind. o Providing recycling can be considered an amenity offered to tenants. o At least one individual did not feel that social media and emails were a good way to communicate important information. Some complexes send monthly calendars to tenants. • Chamber of Commerce: The project team also met briefly with the Chamber's Director of Economic Development to get a business perspective on commercial recycling in the City. The Chamber participates in recycling and promotes it to other businesses. Chamber of Commerce representatives also participated in the regional stakeholder meetings discussed below. University of Arkansas: In April 2015, the project team met with the University of Arkansas Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities and representatives from the Office for Sustainability, University Housing, Athletics, and Arkansas Union to discuss results of the University's waste composition study and the potential for working jointly on waste diversion and organics recovery efforts. University representatives expressed interest in jointly working on food waste composting and later participated in the City's food waste pilot program, but may also be considering delivering food waste to an anaerobic digestion facility under development in Missouri. • City Council: In June 2015, the project team met one-on-one with interested Council Members to provide an update on the project, gauge interest in conducting commercial food waste and residential single stream recycling pilot programs, and obtain input on what each felt were key solid waste and recycling issues to be addressed in the Master Plan. .• Regional Stakeholder Meetings: The project team participated in several meetings with regional stakeholders to gauge interest in regional recycling cooperation, especially as it pertains to developing a state-of-the-art single stream material recovery facility (MRF). In addition to the project team, meetings were attended by representatives from Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission (NWARPC), Boston Mountain SWD, Benton County SWD, Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce, municipal representatives, University of Arkansas, and Closed Loop Fund. In April 2015, an online survey was conducted to allow the residents to provide input on existing solid waste practices and future trash diversion and recycling in the City. Responses were received from 447 individuals. For a survey of this type, this is a very high response rate and demonstrates the level of public interest in this topic. Results of the survey are summarized below, with complete results provided in Appendix A. kessler consulting inc. fayettevillefT61' `aster Plan.. -final innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Recuction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Flan Section l: Introduction Approximately 74% of respondents resided in single-family homes, but a number of individuals wrote in comments asking for better opportunities to recycle in apartments QUOTES FROG and other multi -family complexes. Key responses included RESIDENT SIUVEY the following: • Respondents expressed broad support for the City's 80% diversion goal (94% strongly support/support). • The main reasons respondents gave for not recycling more were: o Inconvenient (26%) o Not sure what items are recyclable (21%) o Takes up too much space to store (13%) o Don't like having to sort materials (13%) • The main things that would encourage respondents to recycle more were: o Getting an additional or larger recycling container (51%) o Rewards or incentive program (45%) o Not having to separate recyclable paper from containers (33%) o Receiving printed instructions on what torecycle and how (30%) o Knowing where to find instructions on the web (20%) • Respondents' preferred methods for receiving information on recycling were: o Internet, such as City website and YouTube videos (54%) o Water/utility bill (46%) o E-mails (44%) -o Social media, such as Twitter and Facebook (37%) o Printed materials, such as brochures, flyers, and newsletters (22%) o Mail (15%) • The majority of respondents supported or strongly supported -utilizing the following policies and programs to help achieve the City's 80% diversion goal: o Adding more types of recyclable materials to the curbside program (97%) o Construction and demolition debris recycling program (85%) H. Fayettevldle;?5/Master Fian.,_Finai kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Faye-gi.eville, AR Solid waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Fran Section i.: rrroduction o Curbside single stream recycling (81%) o Mandatory commercial business recycling (70%) o Residential food waste collection program (68%) o Banning the use of certain problematic materials, such as retail plastic bags and Styrofoam"l-type food ware (62%) o Banning the landfilling of certain types of materials such as paper or recyclable containers (60%) o Mandatory residential recycling (60%) 1.4.3 Business Survey Concurrent with the residential survey, a business survey was conducted to enable businesses to provide input on current recycling practices and future commercial waste diversion and recycling in the City. Of the 32 respondents, the majority were professional service/office (39%) and food service (21%) businesses. The remaining respondents were a mix of business types, including retail, manufacturing/warehouse, medical, veterinary, education, multi -family complex, transportation, janitorial, and nonprofit. A majority (73%) of respondents were already recycling on a regular basis and an additional 20% recycled occasionally. Results of the business survey are provided in Appendix B. Key responses included the following: • Business respondents expressed broad support for the City's 80% diversion goal (97% strongly support/support). • The main reasons business respondents gave for not recycling were: o Inconvenient (60%) o Drop-offs are too inconvenient (60%) o Not enough space (60%) o Have to sort material (20%) o Too costly (20%) • The main things that would encourage business respondents to recycle or recycle more were: o Free recycling containers (74%) o Recycling service included in basic waste collection fees (48%) o Green Business program to receive recognition for recycling (45%) o Not having to separate recyclable paper from containers (35%) o Various write-in comments were received that related to convenience, including the ability to share recycling receptacles, curbside collection, bigger containers, and Monday pick-ups • The majority of business respondents (67%) would participate in food waste composting if the City provided and serviced a container, while only 1 respondent indicated a willingness to take food waste to a drop-off center. 7 kessler consulting inc. 1:ayetteville/'i6j ;;aster Plan._Hnal innovative waste solutions Ci y of Fayettev le, AR Stolid `.^J stc Redaction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 1.: €ntroductior:. The majority of business respondents supported or strongly supported utilizing the following policies and programs to help achieve the City's 80% diversion goal: o Adding more types of recyclable materials to the program (91%) o Single stream recycling (87%) o Construction and demolition debris recycling program (78%) o Commercial food waste collection program (69%) o Mandatory commercial recycling (69%) o Banning the use of certain problematic materials, such as retail plastic bags and StyrofoamTM_type .food ware (66%) o Banning the landfilling of certain types of materials such as paper or recyclable containers (61%) , The project team met with the companies listed below to discuss the current processing infrastructure in the region and the potential for future partnership with the City on various waste diversion programs. • GP Harmon Recycling (GP): GP operates. a recycling facility in Fayetteville, processing about 2,000 tons of commercial recyclables monthly. GP representatives expressed interest in constructing a MRF should the City transition.to single stream recycling, as well as a willingness to process single stream recyclables during a pilot program. Waste Management of Arkansas (WMA) and Marck Recycling (Marck): Marck leases a recycling facility, located in Rogers, from WMA. Marck currently receives single stream recyclables (excluding glass) from various cities (e.g., Springdale, Rogers, Bentonville, and Bella Vista) and processes the material with limited automation. Marck did not indicate having any plans to increase mechanization of its MRF or to accept glass in the future. WMA did not indicate an intent to develop recyclables processing capacity in Northwest Arkansas. Carbon Cycle and Carbon Transport: Carbon Cycle is developing an anaerobic digestion facility to be constructed near Pineville, MO, approximately 60 kessler consulting inc. F:ayettevllle;' 5/Master P€an Final innovative waste solutions City of Fayeeville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section; Introduction miles from the City, and was seeking commitments of food waste. Carbon Transport was offering to transport materials to the facility. r Developing this Master Plan involved an organized process of information review and analysis, input from various stakeholders, and actual piloting of several potential waste diversion programs. Provided below is a summary of the steps involved in this planning process. Waste composition study: A composition study was conducted of waste received at the City's transfer station for disposal, the results of which are provided in Section 2.3 and Appendix C (Technical Memorandum No. 1) of this plan. This study helped to identify the opportunities for additional material recovery. A waste composition study was also conducted of waste disposed by the University of Arkansas, the results of which were provided in Technical Memorandum No. 2 submitted to the City on April 20, 2015.1 Baseline and operational assessment of current system: This step benchmarked existing operations and waste diversion rates, which are summarized in Section 2 of this Master Plan.9 KCI also conducted an operational assessment of the City's collection operations and City -owned and operated transfer station, recycling facility, and compost facility. Findings and recommendations were provided in Technical Memorandum No. 4 submitted to the City on May 22, 2015.10 _ • Community input: Early on in the planning process, community input was obtained through a public meeting and online surveys, as well as meetings with various stakeholder groups and vendors. These meetings and surveys are further -discussed in Section 1.4 and Appendices A and B of this plan. Reduction and diversion options: Based on the waste composition study and analysis of the City's current system, opportunities and options were identified that offered the greatest potential to increase material recovery and waste reduction/diversion. These options are summarized in Section 3 of this plan. Pilot programs: Two waste diversion options that were initially identified as having the potential to substantially increase waste diversion were single stream recycling and organics recovery. To assist in evaluating the feasibility of these options, commercial food waste composting and residential (curbside and multi -family) single stream recycling pilot programs were developed and implemented. The results of these pilot programs are provided in Section 4 and Appendices D (Technical Memorandum No. 5) and E (Technical Memorandum No. 6) of this plan. 8 All technical memoranda developed in conjunction with this project are provided on the City's website (http://www.fayetteville- ar.gov/1907/Recycling-Master-Plan). Because the City is not directly involved in collecting or managing the University of Arkansas waste at this time, Technical Memorandum No. 2 is not included as an appendix to this plan. 9 The system summary was initially submitted as Technical Memorandum No. 3, which has been updated and is included as Section 2 of this plan. to Technical Memorandum No. 4 can be found on the City's website (http://www.fayetteviIIe-ar.gov/1907/Recycling-Master-Plan). kessler consulting inc. 1 ayeiteville? r5r':4aster Plan_.Final innovative waste solutions Ci y of Fayetteville, e, AR Stolid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 1: Introduction Scenario modeling: Following discussions regarding the various waste diversion options identified, the project team selected diversion scenarios to be further evaluated through modeling. Results of the scenario modeling are presented in Section 5 of this plan. • Master Plan: This Master Plan is the culmination of the tasks outlined above, as well as ongoing review and discussions with City staff. The proposed action plan outlined in Section 6 provides a phased approach toward more sustainable materials management and the City's 80% waste diversion goal. 10 Payettevi3 e/I6A faster Plan._ibai kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Section ExistingMaterialsManagement ' s The City's Recycling and Trash Collection Division (Division) provides solid waste and recyclables collection services to City residents and businesses. All materials are delivered to the City -owned and Division -operated facility located on South Happy Hollow Road where solid waste is transferred for disposal, recyclables are baled or prepared for market, and yard waste and brush is mulched or composted. Figure 2-1 depicts the sources and quantities of materials received at the City's facility in 2015. This figure includes non -city waste, or waste that is not generated within the City but is accepted and transferred by the City for disposal. Non -city waste represents approximately 18% of all materials received at the facility and 21% of trash/garbage received. The City has no direct influence or control over waste generated outside of its borders; therefore, discussions in this plan related to waste reduction and recycling generally do not include this non -city waste. However, receipt of non -city waste impacts operations; therefore, this waste was included in the scenario modeling, which is further discussed in Section 5. The Division operates through an enterprise fund, the Recycling and Trash Collection Fund. Revenues for the fund are derived from fees levied for trash collection, recycling revenue, and container sales and leases. Based on final 2015 financial information provided by the City, Figures 2-2 and 2-3 summarize revenues and expenses for that year. In 2015, operational expenses exceeded revenues by nearly $1.2 million, which was covered by fund reserves. In 2015, capital improvements were made totaling $4,428,262. These improvements included building upgrades, solid waste compactors and containers, and office and transfer station expansion. 11 i:ayettmItee/ l"61 Muster Plan.. F ina I kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City Fayetteville, AR Sofid Was;le Re.f.iuction, Diversir,,n, and Re.cycling Kilastec Section 2: Existing Materials Managernen. Systerrl Figure 2-1: Materials Managed at City Facilities, 2015 100% Scrap Metal (2%) 90% is Drop -Off (151%) 60% 1 W Commercial (30%) 40% Multi -Family (1%) 21% Z Residential (52fl. FA ux 100% Non -City (19%) 80% E Drop Box/Bulky 60% (21%) 9 Commercial/Multi 40% -Family (395G) 20% N Residential (21%) 0% a Other Sources (65%) a Curbside (35%) ....... ...... . .......... .... . .... .......... . ......... .............. ................... I 1 Recovered Materials Eco-Vista Landfill Mulch & Compost. . . ........... ............. 12 kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, Aft Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling; Master Pan Section 2: Exlsti€7g Materials Management System Figure 2-2: Operating Revenues, 2015 Total - $10 766 741 Other, $121 604 w€' I 1%, Franchise Fees, _ $182,026, Commercial Drop Box, $1,273,871, 12% Compost, $39,490; Y% Recycling, $562�628, Transfer Station, 5% $545,714, 5% Figure 2-3: Operating Expenses, 2015 Projects, $942,869, 8% _. Education & Outreach, $127,866, 1% -- Composting,._.; $856,787, 7% Recycling, $1,830,635, 9 t Hauling & Disposa $2,513,009, 21% Transfer to General Fund, $705,000, 6% 13 Total - $11,962,840 Operations & Administration, $1,526,966, 13% Commercial Collections, $1,490,699, 12% Residential Collections, $1,407,746, 12% Comm. Drop Box Collections, $361,319, 3% Transfer Station, $199,944, 2% ayetteville(I"'6Ev'aster Nan Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion:., and Recycling ILlastcr Plan Section 2: Existing Materials Management Syste Figure 2-4 provides the quantities of waste Landfilled, recycled, or composted by the City during the last 10 years. It does not include non -city waste managed by the City or waste generated in the City but not managed by the City. In 2015, the City managed 71,653 tons of material generated within the City, 5,953 tons of which were recycled (8%), 6,895 tons composted (10%), and the remainder landfilled.11 The waste diversion rate has ranged from 16-20% over the last 10 years, with an 18% diversion rate in 2015. Figure 2-4: Waste Landfilled, Recycled, and Composted, 2006-2015 (tons) .................................................. _.............................................. 80,000 ...................................... _ ........................... ....._.__............. .......................... ................................. ........................................................ ........................... ................ ........................ .......................... 25% ............... ......... 70,000 _ 20% 60,000 ° I 50,000 15% 0 40,000 ~ 30,000 I Al _ o 10/ 20,000 _ 5% o 10,000 0 0/ 2006`2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012'2013 2014 2015' Composted 7,5455,127 4,814 5,498 3,689 3,749 4,880 5,681 7,011 6,895' ! Recycled 5,651 5,687 5,883 5,514 5,215 5,301 5,189 6,016 5,728 5,953 1 Landfilled 53,135 52,640 51,039 47,023 45,358 47,159 47,458 51,922 50,443 58,805 Diversion Rate' 20% 17% 17% 19% 16% 16% 18% 18%_ 20% 18% mm Landfilled EM Recycled Composted Diversion Rate Table Note: Landfilled data does not include non -City waste and, therefore, does not. match the Trash/Garbage tons in Figure 2-1. 11 Recycling tonnage is based on materials marketed. Composting tonnage is estimated by the City based on type of materials received, approximate cubic yards, and conversion factors. 14 kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Fayetteville, 6/Master Plan Final City of Fayetteville, AR Solid waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 2: Existing Materials Management System Figure 2-5 depicts waste generation (residential and commercial) on a per capita basis during the same time period. Per capita waste generation declined during the recessionary years of 2008 through 2011, which was the trend nationally, and began increasing again in 2012. Figure 2-5: Tons per Capita Generation 2.3 Waste Composition As part of the planning process, a waste composition study was conducted in January 2015. Appendix C provides Technical Memorandum No. 1 that details the study results. Figure 2-6 depicts the composition of residential and commercial/multi-family waste that was landfilled.1Z As can be seen by these pie charts, substantial opportunities exist to increase recycling. These opportunities include recyclable materials that are currently Iandfilled.but could have been collected in the City's existing recycling program (27% of residential waste and 30% of commercial waste): Compostable materials, food waste in particular, also represent an important opportunity to divert additional materials from the landfill. During the composition study, bulky waste received at the transfer station was visually audited to estimate the types and percentages of materials in this waste stream. Figure 2-7 depicts the composition of construction and demolition (C&D) and bulky waste as a percentage by volume and percentage by weight. Substantial diversion opportunities also exist in bulky waste, with more than half the material by weight consisting of wood waste. 12 Multi -family waste placed in dumpsters is collected as part of commercial waste. 15 S ayetteville/ f6l;N- aster Plan.. Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Ci y of Eayetteviile, AR Stolid ,ar aste Reduction, Diversion, , and Recycling Pilaster Plan Section 2: Existing Materia s Mianagerne€it Sys e„) Othe Compost; 11% Figure 2-6: Composition of Materials Landfilled (% by weight) Residential Other otential cyclables, Other 10% Compostal 11% Commercial/Multi-Family Figure 2-7: Composition of C&D and Bulky Waste Landfilled Percent by Volume Other Materials, Percent by Weight Other Materials, 13.3% Other Potential ecyclables, 11% Treated & Untreated Wood, 56.2% 16 kessler consulting inc. s ayettevi?Se; T: 6/t,,aster Plan ,,.F ina innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling; Master Plan Section; 2: Existi=ig Materials Management System u' l i The City has the exclusive right to collect solid waste and recyclables generated within the City limits, but franchises (grants the right to) private haulers to provide some services. In March 2003, the City implemented a Pay -As - You -Throw (PAYT) curbside residential collection program. Waste, recyclables, and yard waste are collected once per week and on the same day of the week. Waste — Residents may choose from the following three cart sizes: 0 32-gallon - $9.37 per month service fee 0 64-gallon - $14.30 per month service fee 0 95-gallon - $20.31 per month service fee Residents may switch to a larger cart size for a $20 service fee; switching to a smaller size cart may be done at no additional cost. In addition, each residential unit may place up to four additional bags of waste curbside annually for no additional fee, after which they are charged $6.20 per bag. Recyclables — Recyclables are collected in 18- gallon plastic recycling bins with lids and manually sorted at the curb into multiple compartments in the collection truck (curb - sort). Materials accepted in the recycling program include newspaper, mixed. paper, . Picture 2-1: Curbside Residential Trash, Recyclables and Yard Waste Picture 2-2: Sorting Recyclables Curbside corrugated cardboard, paperboard or chipboard, plastic #1 and #2 bottles, aluminum cans, steel or tin cans, and glass bottles and jars of all colors. In 2015, the City collected 3,103 tons of recyclables curbside, which averaged approximately 280 pounds per residential unit annually.13 • Yard waste — Grass clippings and leaves must be bagged in compostable brown paper yard waste bags, not to exceed 50 pounds each, or placed in a trash can visibly marked as "Yard Waste." Brush must be bundled and tied, and is restricted to no more than 4 feet in length, limbs no greater than 5 inches in diameter, and bundles no more than 50 pounds in weight. Currently, an unlimited amount of yard waste is accepted. 13 The number of customer accounts fluctuates throughout the year. This figure is based on the number of active residential accounts (18,150) and number of commercial businesses participating in curbside recycling (276) as of April 2015. Businesses using 18-gallon recycling bins are serviced as part of curbside residential recycling routes. 17 kessler consulting inc. i ayettevllle/m/, 9aster Plan ._Final innovative waste solutions it cf Fayettev; ie, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 2: Existing Materials Mianagement System Bulky waste — Bulky waste is divided into three categories: household, metal, and yard waste. Each residence if offered one free bulky waste pickup per year consisting of no more than 5 items within the same category. Additional bulky waste pickups of up to 5 items within the same category may be scheduled for a fee of $45. Multiple items in different categories must be picked up on different days and each collection is counted as a separate bulky waste pickup. Alternatively, residents may self -haul up to 5 accepted bulky items in multiple categories to the City's transfer station in lieu of the free bulky waste pickup. In addition, the City conducts free cleanup events for bulky waste in the 4 wards of the City twice per year, spring and fall. Residents may also deliver yard waste to the City's compost facility for free. � City crews also collect multi -family residential waste and recyclables. In the fall of 2011, the City implemented a multi- family recycling program targeting apartment complexes with 100 or more units. The program is dependent on the apartment complex's ability to provide space for a partitioned roll -off container. Residents are required to sort recyclable materials before placing them in the appropriate compartment. The City has.since expanded the multi -family Picture 2-3: Partitioned Recycling Roll -off at Multi -Family Complex recycling program to smaller complexes as well. . In addition, the City obtained a grant to offer 6-gallon recycling buckets or bags to assist residents in participating complexes with collecting and transporting recyclables to the roll - off container. Six complexes are currently participating in the multi -family recycling program. In 2015, 40 tons of recyclables were collected from the 6 participating multi -family complexes, which equates to approximately 40 pounds annually per residential unit. Even given the fact that units are not occupied all of the time, this low recovery rate reflects the lack of convenience and therefore participation in this collection system. The City has the exclusive right to collect commercial waste within the City limits, except for collection services franchised to private haulers. The City also provides collection of recyclables. 18 Fayetteville,,"! 6/master Plan ,,.Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 2: Existing Materials Management System The City's commercial recycling program consists of 3 key programs as outlined below. Separate routes are run to collect each of these recycling streams, which requires multiple passes by businesses that recycle more than one of these material streams. Cardboard and paper recycling program: Segregated cardboard collection is a long- standing program and the paper program was implemented in October 2008. The City uses a front -load collection vehicle to service about 175 cardboard dumpsters and 25 paper dumpsters. • Curbside recycling program: Established In 2009, approximately311 small businesses utilize up to 518-gallon recycling bins each, which are serviced by the City in similar manner and on the same routes as the residential curb -sort program. Glass recycling program: Initiated in July 2013, the City places and services roll carts at businesses in the entertainment district along Dickson Street and several other locations to collect glass. This program was made feasible by the City's contract with Ripple Glass, which allows various colors of glass to be recycled together. Currently, 50 roll carts are in use. The City operates a dropbox program. Six-yard dumpsters are available to rent for small cleanup projects, and 20-40 cubic yard roll -offs are available for large projects such as construction and remodeling. Picture 2-4: Commercial Glass Recycling Carts The City franchises with 3 private companies (Hog Box, Waste Management, and Allied Waste) to provide the services listed below, some of which are provided in competition to the City. Collection of solid waste generated from industrial, large commercial, or construction/ demolition activities in roll -off containers (open -top or compactors) of 20 cubic yards or greater in size. Collection of special waste such as hazardous waste, grease, or any other type of solid waste requiring special handling or disposal. Collection of recyclables outside the residential recycling program. Recyclables must be separated by type, with two exceptions. Contractors are allowed to collect commingled recyclables as part of C&D debris and commingled containers collected at University of Arkansas events. The companies are not required to deliver waste or recyclables to the City's transfer station or recycling facility. They are required to pay franchise fees of 10% of gross revenue received for solid waste hauling services, but not for revenue received for recycling services. The agreements were originally approved in August 2012. 19 Fayetteville/'l 6/ Master Plaq_!'inal kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of l ayettevi e, AR Solis[ Waste_ Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master ?fan Section 2: Exisfl ng Materia's Management System The City provides two community recycling drop- off sites. The drop-offs are open to everyone, not just Fayetteville residents. The same materials accepted in the residential recycling program are accepted at the drop-off sites. Marion Orton Recycling Center (located at 735 W. North Street) —This staffed center is open on Monday through Saturday from 6:00 am — 5:00 pm, except Thursday when it is open until 7:00 pm. It received 311 tons of recyclables in 2015. Picture 2-5: Happy Hollow Road Drop - Off Recycling Center City of Fayetteville Recycling Center (located - on Happy Hollow Road near the transfer station) —This center is open 24 hours a day, 7 days per week, and is staffed 25-30 hours per week. It received 549 tons of recyclables in 2015. The City also services a recycling drop-off center installed by Ozark Natural Foods (1554 N. College Avenue) that is accessible 24 hours per day. Approximately 25 tons of recyclables were collected at this drop-off location in 2015. 2.5.1 Recycling City collection crews deliver curb -sorted recyclables to the City's recycling facility where they are tipped by material type. Paper is tipped by grade into bunkers located inside of the building. Vehicles then travel outside to a raised platform and tip containers, by type, into roll -offs abutting the platform. The City bales the recovered materials, with the exception of glass. Once a sufficient quantity of baled material is stockpiled, the City markets the material. The City contracts with Ripple Glass of Kansas City, MO to haul and recycle glass bottles and containers at no cost to the City. P Fayetteville,":'6/Master Plan Final Picture 2-6: Collection Vehicle Tipping Paper at Recycling Facility kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of F'ayet-:ev€lle, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 2: Existing Materials Maragernent Systern In 2011, the City Council passed a resolution recommending that the Division post quarterly reports on the types of materials collected for recycling and the primary or end -use markets for those materials. The Division posts this information on its webpage. Table 2-1 provides the quantity of each type of recovered material sold annually during the last 10 years. Changes in the amount of certain material types reflect national trends in product packaging and online shopping and news outlets. For example, the substantial drop in recovered newspaper is likely a result of reduced readership and downsizing of printed newspapers that have been experienced nationwide. The increase in cardboard is likely in part because of increased online shopping, as well as the combining with chipboard. Plastics gradually increased as they claim a greater share of product packaging; however, glass has also been on the rise. Table 2-1: Recovered Materials Marketed (tons) Picture 2-7: Collection Vehicle Tipping Containers at Recycling Facility Picture 2-8: Baling Paper at Recycling Facility 21 ette:,lierrs-rr kessler consulting inc. (a y f lasterPlar:_}inal innovative waste solutions Ciy of Fayetteville, AR Solid ^•.` ste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 2: Existing Materials Management Syster,, Table 2-2 summarizes the average revenue received by the City for each material type and Figure 2-8 depicts the variability of pricing for several of these recovered commodities. Market values fluctuate overtime and markets for most commodities experienced a significant drop in 2008-2010. Table 3-2 also provides the average commodity market price in the Southeast United States in 2015 according to an industry pricing index (Recycling Market. net). The City's revenue exceeded the market index for glass and all fiber commodities, but was slightly less than the index for other container types. Table 2-2: Average Revenue by Recovered Commodity ($/ton) * Pricing based on RecyclingMarkets.net. Figure 2-8: Average Revenue per.Ton for Various Recovered Commodities ($/ton) $1,800.00 $1,600.00 $1,400.00 $1,200.00 $1,000.00 $800.00 $600.00 $400.00 $200.00 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Aluminum Mixed Paper ,..,..,,.,.-News Cardboard —Steel Cans ----Plastic Bottles Figure Note: Figure is intended to provide a general understanding of fluctuations in the value of recovered commodities. It does not include all recovered commodities sold by the City because of scale differences. 22 kessler consulting inc. Fayetteville/'1"5/Ma5ter Plan__.Rnaj innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling N/laster Flan Section 2: Existing Materials Management System C5.2 Composting The City owns and operates a Class CY Compost Site, meaning it is permitted to receive only yard waste and other woody wastes.14 The City processes yard waste collected curbside from residents, as well as yard waste delivered directly to the site. City residents may deliver yard waste at no charge; commercial businesses and non-residents are charged a fee. Picture 2-9: Windrow Turner at Composting Facility In 2015, the City estimated receiving 6,895 tons of yard waste; however, this is an estimate since no scales are used at the compost facility. The compost facility offers mulch (wood chips) throughout the year for purchase by residents and non-residents. A portion of the organic waste is also composted. The composting process takes approximately 4-6 months and the City has compost samples tested each April by a lab to determine quality of the end=product. Only City residents are. allowed to purchase compost and quantities are limited. The City sponsors or participates in other programs to collect and manage solid waste and recyclables, including the following:. Festival Recycling: The City supports recycling programs for festivals by providing recycling guidelines and working with event coordinators to implement recycling. For small events, the City offers ClearStreamTm recycling stands at no charge and event organizers deliver bagged recyclables to the City when they return the stands. For '" In Arkansas, composting facilities are classified according to the type of waste authorized for composting: • Type TY" facilities may accept only yard waste and other woody wastes. Type TY" facilities qualify for coverage under a general permit in which permit coverage is granted within 30 days of receiving a complete application. • Type "CO" facilities may accept any source separated organic wastes such as paper, sewage sludge, food processing wastes or other specific organic wastes, including type "CY" wastes. • Type "CS" facilities may receive all types of suitable solid waste for composting including household garbage, commercial wastes, suitable industrial wastes, and all type "CO" and "CY" wastes. 23 Fayetteville/16/trlaster Plan... Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions t ity o` Fayetteville, AR Sco icl Waste, Recuction; Diversion, and Recycling (Master ?fan Section 2: Existing A/lateria's Management System larger events, the City offers to provide and service carts or other recycling containers for a fee. Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) & Electronics (e-waste): The Washington County Environmental Affairs Office, located at 2615 Brink Drive in Fayetteville, operates an HHW Collection Center where City residents may drop off HHW for free. In addition, the center accepts household a -waste and tires. Coupons waiving the e- waste fee are available to City residents through the Division. City residents may bring in four passenger tires for free and a $2.00 fee is charged for each additional tire. In addition, the City began accepting a -waste during the ward cleanups if delivered to the Recycling and Trash Facility on Happy Hollow Road. Boston Mountain SWD provides a trailer for e-waste collection and recycles the collected a -waste through its contractor. Adopt -A -Street: In this City -sponsored program, individuals -or groups adopt a street and are responsible for picking up litter on that street at least four times annually. The City posts a sign displaying the group's name and provides all materials and supplies (e.g., trash bags, gloves, and safety vests) needed for the cleanups. Groups are asked to complete an activity form and record the amount of material collected. Currently, 62 areas covering nearly 40 miles of streets are included in the program. Picture 2-10:Adopt-A-Street Volunteers Keep Fayetteville Beautiful (KFB): KFB is an affiliate of Keep America Beautiful and Keep Arkansas Beautiful. The organization coordinates volunteers for the Adopt -A -Street program, to assist with site cleanup and education at the recycling drop-off centers, and to generally assist with City beautification projects. Each spring and fall, KFB partners with the Lake Fayetteville Watershed Partnership to sponsor a lake cleanup at Lake Fayetteville. In addition, KFB spearheaded an anti -graffiti program in cooperation with the Police Department in which select utility boxes throughout the City are painted. Public School Waste Reduction: Each public school has dumpsters for paper and cardboard and 18-gallon bins for containers that are serviced by the City. Green Teams at many schools also hand out reusable bags to replace disposable plastic bags and are working to reduce waste in cafeterias. Ten schools have onsite gardens and compost plant debris associated with those gardens. 24 4'ayette0iie;'i'5!Master Plan_.ianal kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City; of Fayetteville, AR Solid waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Seo ion 2: Existing Materials Management System The City's transfer station is intended to serve the City and south Washington County and is permitted to receive and transfer 80,000 tons of materials annually. In 2015, the transfer station received 72,166 tons of waste (including 13,361 tons of non - city waste) for an average of about 260 tons per day. Facility modifications were initiated in 2014 for an additional administration office, a larger reception area with an information center, an expanded break/training room, and more storage. Picture 2-11:City Transfer Station City staff operates the transfer station and loads the transfer trailers. The City contracts with Waste Management of Arkansas (WMA) to transport waste from the transfer station and dispose of it at Eco-Vista Landfill located in Tontitown, Arkansas, approximately 15 miles from Fayetteville. WMA provides standard walking floor trailers with a capacity of 115 cubic yards capable of containing at least 20 tons of solid waste. This contract was recently renewed and expires November 2, 2019. In 2015, the City paid WMA $8.00 per ton to haul waste to the landfill and $26.80 per ton to dispose of it (total of $34.80 per ton). In 2016, the haul rate remained the same, but the disposal fee increased to $27.58 per ton (total of $35.58 per ton). The City currently charges a tipping fee of $46.80 per ton. The City utilizes an array of media to distribute information to residents and businesses regarding recycling and proper waste -management, including the following: City Website: The Division has extensive information on its webpage regarding all aspects of its recycling and solid waste programs. Links are provided to flyers, brochures, instructional videos, and reports. Recycle Something Campaign: The City's recycling slogan is "Recycle Something." The campaign's website (www.recyclesomething.org) defines the types of recyclables accepted in the City's program, options for collecting them, and other related information. It also includes YouTube videos and printed informational materials. • Social Media: The City has both a Facebook page and a Twitter account on which important information, actions, events, and reminders can be posted. 25 Picture 2-12:Recycle Something Logo Fayettevillefr6f 0laster Plan Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayet'tev'rie, AR Solis( Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 2: Existing Materials Management System • Printed Materials: The City has printed brochures and flyers available to residents covering a variety of topics, including the PAYT program; curbside, apartment, and business recycling; drop- off facilities; yard waste composting; and bulky waste cleanups. Recycling Mascot: The City has a recycling mascot called Rooty the Recycling Pig. Rooty attends special events, does school programs for pre-school through elementary grades, and periodically walks around town creating recycling awareness. Door -to -Door Recycling Outreach: In 2012, the City initiated a door-to-door outreach program. This community -based social marketing program includes asking residents to complete a survey and sign a recycling pledge, as well as handing out recycling educational materials. Several door-to-door outreach events have been conducted, including those in the Walnut Grove neighborhoods and the Walker Park area. Picture 2-13:Recycling Mascot, Rooty Waste Saving Campaign: The City conducted a PAYT Waste -Saving educational campaign. During this program, eight households volunteered to save their household garbage and recycling for a full week. At the end of the week, the waste and recyclables were weighed and categorized. Volunteers were photographed with their waste. The program was designed to encourage residents to think about their waste habits and to inform them of ways to reduce waste and make the most of the PAYT program. Rawn Household Percentages based on weights iin"VIC vta€t, 1% 26 Sayettevi le/ 6/Master Plan_.; inai Picture 2-14:Participating Family in Waste -Saving Educational Campaign kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recyciing Wster Ran Section 2: Existing Materials Management System .11141PIM As part of its sustainability goals, the University of Arkansas is striving to become a zero waste institution (90% diversion) by the year 2021. The Office for Sustainability is developing a Zero Waste Action Plan, which will lay out motivations, goals, and strategies for reducing waste within a framework of continual improvement. The City currently has no direct involvement in managing the waste or recyclables generated at the University. The University contracts with WMA for waste collection services, which does not utilize the City's transfer station. Razorback Recycling is the University's central recycling operation. They collect cardboard, white paper, mixed paper, aluminum and steel cans, plastic and glass bottles, and organics using a desk -side quad system and a network of outdoor containers. Table Picture 2-15:Razorback Recycling 2-3 provides the quantity of University waste that logo was landfilled, recycled, and composted in 2014, broken down by the 4 primary sectors and based on data provided by University staff. This data does not include C&D debris or other types of special waste such as hazardous waste. In addition, the quantity of waste landfilled is estimated by the contracted haulers and, therefore, might be underestimated. Table 2-3: University of Arkansas Waste Landfilled, Recycled, and Composted, 2014 As mentioned above, the City currently has no involvement in collecting or managing waste or recyclables generated on the University campus. As the City develops additional recycling and composting infrastructure, opportunities to partner with the University should be explored to take advantage of economies of scale. 27 f'ayettev;1k/T6jN-,aster Plan Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid :".`rite Rediaction, Diversion, a:-Icl Recycling Master Plan Section 2: i=xistjnF, g Mitefials Management Sys-elm This page intentionally left blank. ff-�I Fayetteville/"]Vtviaster Nan Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Section 3 Diversion Opportunities Options Results of the waste composition study were applied to 2015 tonnage data to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the materials managed by the City. Figure 3-1 depicts the overall composition, including materials that were recycled, composted, and landfilled. This figure helps identify the greatest opportunities for increasing waste diversion. Figure 3-1: Composition of Materials Managed by the City in 2015 (tons, % by weight). Composted, 6,895, Recycled, 5,953, 8% 10% RES Paper & ICES Compostables, Containers, 3,996, 6% 4,440, 6% A om -411 == COM/MF Paper & ® ®_ COM/MF m® v Containers, 8,631, Compostables, 12% 8,094,11% RES Other 67 Recyclables, 1,484, 2% COM/MF Other Recyclables, 3,103, 4% Sulky/C&D Debris, �® — RES Other, 5,124, 15,304, 22% 7% COM/MF Other, 8,630,12% Note: For the purpose of this chart: • RES=Residential; COM/MF = Commercial/Multi-Family. • Paper & Containers includes newspaper, corrugated containers, office paper, other recyclable paper, PET and HDPE bottles, tin/steel and aluminum cans, and glass containers. • Other Recyclables includes aseptic containers, non -bottles plastics #1 and #2, other plastic containers, bulky rigid plastics, EPS food service and packaging, white goods/small appliances, ferrous and nonferrous metals, and electronics. • Compostables includes low-grade paper, clean wood waste, yard waste, and food waste. • Waste includes retail bags, plastic film, all other plastics, other glass, textiles, special wastes, household batteries, treated wood waste, tires, and rubber, all other garbage, grit, and liquids. 29 3aYetteville/ 6/NAasterPlay:linal kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of i ayettev e, AR Solid Waste, Reciuction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 3: Dive, sion Opportunities and Options As depicted in Figure 3-1, the City diverted nearly 18% of materials it managed from disposal in 2015. This includes materials that were recycled or composted (solid blue and green wedges). The greatest opportunities for increasing diversion include the following: • Recyclables materials: Recyclable materials currently accepted by the City in its existing program comprise approximately 18% of waste that was landfilled. Residential recyclables (dotted blue wedge) represent 6% and commercial/multi-family recyclables (striped blue wedge) the remaining 12%. • Compostable materials: Compostable materials comprise approximately 17% of waste that was landfilled. Residential compostables (dotted green wedge) represent 6% and commercial compostables (striped green wedge) represent 11%. More than 60% of this compostable material is food waste. The remaining is low-grade paper, clean wood waste, and yard waste. • C&D debris: C&D and bulky wastes make up about 22% of the material managed by the City. Based on visual audits, more than half of this material consists of wood, in addition to other types of material that are potentially recyclable (e.g., metals, paper, plastic, etc.). • Other recyclables: Other types of materials that could potentially be recycled if the infrastructure were developed to collect and process these materials (dotted and striped orange wedges) represent an additional 6% of waste that was landfilled. This includes various types of plastics, -metals, aseptic containers, and electronics. To progress from 18% to 80% diversion, or even to 50% diversion, in the next 10 years will require a fundamental change in how materials are managed. It will require putting the necessary policies, programs, and facilities in place to bring about this change. Table 3-1 lists options that were identified as having the potential to divert additional waste from the landfill. These various options and their potential application to the City of Fayetteville are discussed in this section. Table 3-1: Potential Waste Diversion Options • Carted single stream recycling • Single stream recycling • Expanded organics recovery • Organics recovery • Revitalized education and outreach • Incentives • Bans or mandates Fayetteville;"r 5/Master Plan_.Final • Education and outreach • Technical assistance • Incentives • Green City program (lead by example) - • Bans or mandates 30 • Processing after collection • Source separation prior to collection o Incentives o Education and technical assistance o Bans or mandates kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville; AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling (,Waster Flan Section 3: Diversion Opportunities and Options f Over 2,500 communities servicing more than 75% of the urban American population reportedly utilize single stream recycling. The growth of single stream over the last 20 years is a result of the benefits it provides, including collection efficiencies, customer convenience, and higher material recovery. According to the five leading MRF equipment manufacturers, nearly all medium- or large-scale MRFs constructed in the United States in last 5 years have been single stream MRFs. In the last 10 years, more than 127 single stream MRFs have been built in the United States.15 These MRFs vary in terms of the types and sophistication of equipment, which has a direct impact on the recovery of marketable materials and level of processing residue. Carted (usually wheeled 64- or 96-gallon carts) single stream recycling offers the following advantages: Increased recycling tonnage: Communities that convert to single stream recycling generally report recycling tonnage increases ranging from 25% to more than 100%, depending on the effectiveness of the previously established program. During the City's single stream pilot program, the quantity of recyclables collected curbside increased by 94% and the quantity collected in the multi -family complex that had been participating in the City's recycling program increased by 126% (see Section 4.2). Even adjusting these figures for potential loss due to contamination or processing residue, this still represents at least a 69% increase in curbside recyclables and 83% increase in multi -family recyclables. Enhanced collection efficiency: Servicing a single cart requires significantly less time than sorting recyclables curbside. This was also clearly demonstrated during the single stream pilot program during which the collection time at each household was reduced from 1 minute during the pre -pilot (curb -sort) to 7 seconds during the pilot (carted single stream). For businesses, single stream allows all recyclables to be collected on the same route, eliminating the need for multiple passes by different vehicles for each material type. • Increased worker safety: Rather than curb -sorting recyclables during all types of weather and traffic conditions, workers can remain inside the truck, which substantially increases worker safety. Sorting recyclables curbside is difficult work resulting in worker injuries and high employee turnover. • Increased customer convenience: For curbside customers, only one trip to the curb is needed and carts are easily rolled to the curb instead of being lifted or carried, which can be difficult for physically challenged or elderly residents. At multi -family complexes, the single large partitioned roll -off can be replaced by other types of smaller collection containers (carts or dumpsters) placed throughout the complex, ideally adjacent to all trash containers, making them more convenient and accessible to residents. Businesses would no longer need to place glass in carts, place paper in one bin and containers in another, and stack cardboard separately; all materials could be commingled in the same containers. In the pilot surveys, 97% of curbside respondents and 100% of the multi -family respondents is Berenyi, Eileen, Resource Recycling, "What Comes After Single Stream?" January 2015, p.22. 31 i:ayettevillel'I'o(rvlaster Plan.Jinel kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City o' Fayette, e, AR SDlid Waste Recuction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Man Section 3: Uvet sign Opportunities and Options cited convenience as one of the main benefits they experienced with single stream recycling. Program expansion: Eliminating the need for separate containers or compartments on the vehicle for each material type enables additional material types to be added to the program, such as plastics #3-7 and aseptic containers. In the pilot program surveys, 92% of curbside respondents and 89% of multi -family respondents considered this a key benefit of single stream. Greater capacity with similar or smaller footprint: As depicted in Figure 3-2, a 64-gallon cart (the size typically used for curbside recycling) provides nearly double the capacity of two 18-gallon recycling bins, but with a smaller footprint (approximately 756 square inches) than two side -by -side bins (approximately 900 square inches). For businesses, because separate containers are not needed for cardboard, paper, glass, and other containers, less space is required. Figure 3-2: Recycling Bin and Recycling Cart Volumes and Footprints 18" x 25" _ 450 in2 . 20" x 23" = 27" x 28" = 28" x 33" = 460 in2 756 in2 924 in2 Improved aesthetics: For curbside collection, larger standardized carts eliminate multiple and/or overflowing recycling bins. Servicing these carts also creates less noise than sorting materials into the truck at the curb. For businesses, because separate containers are not needed for cardboard, paper, glass, and other containers; less space is required; and material would no longer be piled on the ground, thereby improving street -side aesthetics. Concerns about the City converting from curb -sorting to single stream recycling have been expressed in public meetings, newspaper articles, and on the internet. Provided below is a discussion of potential disadvantages or challenges with carted single stream recycling, as well as other concerns that have been raised. • Contamination: Customers can become overly exuberant and try to recycle materials that are not accepted in the program. An education campaign and clear instructions are critical. Recycling carts and dumpsters typically are not inspected for contamination prior to collection. WN fayetteviiiej 6/Master Man._3:inai kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 3: Diversion: Opportunities and Options • Higher processing costs and lower net revenue: Processing single stream recyclables requires more sophisticated processing equipment; therefore, processing costs will be higher. Once processed in a modern MRF, the sorted material is of comparable quality to the existing program and bears similar revenue on a per ton basis. The net revenue per ton will be lower because of the higher processing costs; however, total revenue will increase because of the substantial increase in tons collected and recovered in a single stream program. If the City contracts with a private processor, the competitive procurement process would determine the processing fee paid and revenue share received by the City. Higher processing residue: Processing single stream recyclables will result in higher residue levels than the current curb -sort program. Depending on materials collected, level of contamination, and type of processing equipment, processing residue of approximately 15% of inbound material is reasonable in a state-of-the-art single stream MRF. The substantial increase in the quantity of materials collected in a single stream program more than offsets the processing residue, resulting in a significant net increase in the quantity of materials recycled. • Cart size: During the pilot, 88.2% of survey respondents stated the 64-gallon cart was a good size, 8.3% felt it was too big, 2.4% considered it too small, 0.7% had no opinion, and 0.4% preferred the recycling bin. Cart size can be addressed by offering smaller (32-gallon) or larger (96-gallon) carts as options. Safety issues: Concerns have been raised about worker safety in MRFs. Safety is constantly an issue of concern in all aspects of the solid waste industry (collection, processing, and disposal). In fact, refuse and recyclable material collectors rank fifth among American workers with the highest fatality (27 fatalities in 2014).16 In 2014,refuse and recyclable material collectors accounted for two-thirds of fatalities in the solid waste industry.17 While state-of-the-art MRFs utilize equipment for much of the sorting, they also require some manual sorting. Potential dangers to workers can be minimized through personnel training and oversight; personal protective equipment; air filtration/ventilation - systems; enclosed, temperature -controlled sorting areas; established health and safety reporting/response procedures; and other similar actions. Worker wages:. MRF operators must follow minimum wage requirements established by the local, state, or federal government. The minimum wage in Arkansas is currently $8.00 per hour and will increase to $8.50 per hour on January 1, 2017. This exceeds the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Twenty-nine local governments in the United States have established minimum wage requirements that exceed their state minimum wage. That option is available to the City if the state level is considered inadequate to be a living wage. Lack of state-of-the-art processing infrastructure: No state-of-the-art single stream MRF currently exists in Northwest Arkansas. Therefore, converting to single stream would 11 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, News Release: National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2014, September 17, 2015. Note: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has not yet released 2015 fatality data. Occupations with higher fatality rates than refuse and recyclable material collectors were logging workers, fishers and related fishing workers, aircraft pilots and flight engineers, and roofers. 17 Bodamer, David, Waste 360, "What the Final 2014 Occupational Fatality Data Means for the Waste & Recycling Industry," April 22, 2016. 33 kessler consulting inc. Fayetteville(76f,Master plan.. Final innovative waste solutions Ci;y o' .ayettev'•: e, AR Solidi Waste Reduction; Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 3: Diversicr€ Opportunities and Options require either a competitive procurement to determine private sector interest in developing a regional state -of -the art single stream MRF or development by the City of a small or "mini" single stream MRF to process the recyclables. To assist in evaluating the viability of single stream recycling, a pilot program was conducted, the results of which are discussed in Section 4.2. 0.3 Organic Material Recovery Food waste represents one of the greatest opportunities for the City to increase its diversion rate. Nearly 30% of residential and commercial waste collected by the City consists of potentially compostable material (see Table 3-2). As noted in the table, approximately 60% of this compostable material is food waste. Table 3-2: Potentially Compostable Materials Disposed, 2015 *Arkansas law bans the landfilling of yard waste, except for fugitive amounts. This small percentage of yard waste would be considered fugitive. Source: KC], Technical Memorandum No. 1: Waste Composition Study, April 20, 2015; applied to 2015 tonnage. In September 2015, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a national goal to reduce food waste by 50% by 2030. The EPA Food Recovery Hierarchy (Figure 3-3) recommends first reducing the volume of food wasted, followed by feeding hungry people and animals, then options such composting and digestion, with disposal as the last resort. 34 f:ayetteviHej 6/Master Plan Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion; and Recyding rrl aster Plan Section 3: Diversion Opportunities and Options Figure 3-3: EPA's Food Recovery Hierarchy s • ' - s Source Reduction Reduce the volume of surplus food.generated Solutions that prevent or recover edible food from being wasted provide the greatest economic benefit on a per pound basis.18 A local government's role in prevention and recovery of edible food waste generally takes the form of consumer education and promotion or facilitation of donation programs. Feed Fayetteville is a local organization founded in 2011 to promote programs to reduce hunger and food insecurity in the Fayetteville area. According to Feed Fayetteville, 27.6% of Arkansas children are food insecure, 37% of Washington County children live in a hungry home, and Washington County has the third highest food insecurity in the State.19 Fayetteville also has a number of food banks, including Northwest Arkansas Food Bank, Lifesource International, Cooperative Emergency Outreach, and Full Circle Food Pantry on the University of Arkansas campus. One of the most commonly cited barriers to food donation is the perceived risk of liability. To alleviate this concern, Congress enacted the Bill Emierson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act in 1996, which absolves an entity that donates food from criminal or civil liability except in cases of gross negligence or intentional misconduct. In 2012, the University of Arkansas Law School, with support from the Women's Giving Circle, initiated the Food Recovery Project to spread awareness of the opportunity of "food recovery as a key tool for waste reduction and hunger amelioration." The project developed two documents on the legal implications of food donations and the Good Samaritan Act: The Legal Guide to the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act and Food Recovery: A Legal Guide. is ReThink Food Waste through Economics and Data (ReFED), A Roodmop to Reduce U.S. Food Wastes by 20 Percent, 2016. to Feed Fayetteville, Hunger Data: http://www.feedfayetteville.org/about/hunger-data/. 35 kessler consulting inc. Ia'reiteville!'i'6j`v'aster Plary.,Pinal innovative waste solutions Ci y of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction; Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 3: Diversion Opportunities and Options Donating edible food can benefit businesses financially. In addition to potential disposal cost savings, Section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code allows some businesses to earn an enhanced tax deduction for donating selected surplus property, including food. The Code provides that wholesome food that is properly saved, donated to an approved agency, and properly receipted is eligible for an enhanced tax deduction. Opportunities for the City to take a more active role in educating consumers about food waste reduction and facilitating partnerships between commercial edible food waste generators and organizations that accept food to feed people are further covered in the Education and Outreach and Technical Assistance discussions later in this section. Solutions that recycle food waste offer the highest diversion potential.20 Local governments have a greater role to play in food waste recycling than they do in prevention or recovery. Collection and processing of food waste and other organic materials is increasing throughout the United States. In the past decade, the number of communities in the United States with curbside food waste collection has grown by over 700%, from 24 municipalities in 2005 to 198 in 2014. The number of households these programs serve has increased from less than 600,000 in 2005 to 2.7 million in 2014.21 r Collecting commercial food waste, especially from large food waste generators, is often the first step in initiating a food waste recycling program. It enables a community to focus on a smaller number of generators and to help ensure a relatively clean stream of source -separated food waste. Residential food waste is generally more challenging to collect than commercial food waste, especially from multi -family units. Below are a few examples of cities that have implemented comprehensive organics collection programs. 20 ReThink Food Waste through Economics and Data (ReFED), A Roodmap to Reduce U.S. Food Wastes by 20 Percent, 2016. 21 Yepsen, Rhodes, BioCycle: "BioCycle Nationwide Survey: Residential Food Waste Collection in the U.S.," January 2015, p. 53. 36 Fayetteviilat1 6/Master Pla n,,.F inai kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 3: Diversion Opportunities and Options schedule to incentivize recycling and composting. The residential curbside program collected an average of 1,089 pounds of organics per household in 2014, compared to 815 pounds of garbage and 776 pounds of recyclables per household in the same year.22 Seattle, WA: In 2014, Seattle banned food waste and food -soiled paper from residential and commercial garbage, in addition to a 1989 ban on yard waste. All residential properties in the city are required to have weekly curbside collection of organic waste, with an exception for approved backyard composting. The city offers 13-, 32-, and 96-gallon carts for $5.45, $8.20, and $10.50/month, respectively. Commercial and multi -family properties with more than 10% food waste in their waste stream must also have organics collection service (64- or 96-gallon carts). Accepted materials include all food waste, food - soiled paper, yard waste, compostable bags, and other certified compostable plastics. Initially, the city was to impose a $1 fine on single-family residential households and $50 on commercial and multi -family properties that were found to have more than 10% food - waste in their garbage containers upon visual inspection; however, the fine on single-family residents was suspended in early 2015. In 2014, the city reported a recycling rate of 57.1% overall and 71.1% for the single family residential sector.23 Nearly 137,000 tons of organic material were composted in 2014, which represented approximately 19% of the waste strea m.24 Austin, TX: Austin implemented a residential curbside organics collection pilot at 14,000 households as part of its Master Plan to reach zero waste (90% diversion) by 2040. Organics, including all types of food waste, food -soiled paper, and yard waste, are collected weekly in 96-gallon roll carts. The city does not accept any compostable plastics, including compostable bags, but encourages participants to line kitchen collection bins with paper and layer food waste with paper and yard waste in the cart. Austin also has a PAYT rate schedule that helps to incentivize organics diversion. In FY 2015, the pilot collected 4,219 tons of organics25, which equates to approximately 600 pounds per household per year. For commercial and multi -family properties, the city enacted a Universal Recycling Ordinance in 2010 that requires food enterprises with some form of food permit (distributor, processor, retailer, etc.) to implement an organics diversion program on a graduated schedule based on property size, with all -applicable properties required to have diversion by 2018. To assist with this, the city offers rebates of up to $1,800 to reimburse program implementation costs. The City, with assistance from KCI, conducted a commercial food waste pilot program to evaluate the feasibility of composting food waste at the City's existing facility utilizing the Modified Static Aerobic Pile (MSAP) method, which uses a microbial inoculant to enhance the compost process. The pilot program, results of which are discussed in Section 4.1, was very 22 City of Portland, Residential Curbside Collection Service Rate Study for Rates Effective July 1, 2015, 2015 (https://www.portIandoregon.gov/bps/`articIe/404493). 23Seattle Public Utilities, 2014 Recycling Rate Report, 2014 (http://www.seattle.gov/Util/cs/groups/public/@spu/ garbage/documents/webcontent/1 040673 pdf). 24 Seattle Public Utilities, Organics Report 3'd Quarter 2015, 2015 (http://www.seattle.gov/Util/cs/groups/public/ spu/ garbage/documents/webcontent/1 039051 pdf). 21 Beniot, Erin, Records, Analyst, Austin Resource Recovery, email communication on March 7, 2016. 37 kessler consulting inc. Fayettevi lie/'r6jfv'aster Planj:inal innovative waste solutions C4 o' i ayetteviiie, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 3: Diversion Opportunities and Options successful and the City is in the process of applying for a Type CO permit that will allow co - composting of food waste and yard waste at the compost facility using the MSAP method. The City has also been approached by a private company that is developing an anaerobic digestion (AD) facility in southern Missouri. AD is a biological process in which microorganisms digest organic material in an oxygen -free environment. AD produces biogas that can be combusted to produce power or refined to produce a compressed biogas for transportation fuel; liquid digestate commonly used as a fertilizer; and solid digestate for subsequent composting and/or beneficial use as a soil amendment. Based on initial discussion with the company developing this AD facility, they are not able to accept and process yard waste. Therefore, the City would need to continue operating its compost facility to process yard waste. Processing food waste with yard waste at the City's facility is likely more cost-effective, provides economies of scale by more fully utilizing the facility's capacity, and produces a better compost end -product by improving the carbon to nitrogen ratio.26 The City employs a full-time Waste Reduction Coordinator, shares a recycling education position with Washington County, and engages the assistance of Keep Fayetteville Beautiful to conduct waste reduction and recycling education and outreach (E&O). The City utilizes an array of media, from printed materials to electronic media to door-to-door surveys/pledges. The E&O program is more fully discussed in Section 2.7. Clear and effective E&O is an ongoing and integral part of any successful recycling program. Transition periods, such as initiating new or expanding existing programs, offer ideal times to reinvigorate these campaigns and revamp E&O materials. An effective E&O campaign utilizes a full array of communication tools (audio, video, text, and graphics) and provides_multiple "touches" of all affected parties. For an individual to absorb a message, a general rule of thumb has been that 5-7 touches, or points of information receipt, are required. However, because of the increasing number of sources and types of information we are bombarded with daily, some industry experts believe that 9-12 touches may now be required to impact behavior change. Opportunities that were identified to enhance E&O efforts include the following: • Distribution methods: The resident survey results in Table 3-3 provide valuable information for prioritizing outreach efforts and program budget. Many residents expressed a preference to have information conveyed to them through internet interfaces such as the City's webpage, social media, and email. While social media provides a useful outlet for reaching more individuals, marketing specialists caution not to abandon the printed word. Approximately 46% of survey respondents expressed a desire to receive information about recycling in their water/utility bill inserts, and 22% expressed interest in other types of printed materials such as brochures, flyers, and newsletters. 26 Food waste provides a valuable nitrogen source to help achieve the ideal carbon to nitrogen ratio of 3:1. 38 Fayetteviiie."i 6/Master Plan Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recyc ing Master Pan Section 3: Diversion C;ppirtUnities and Options Table 3-3: Resident Preferences for Information Distribution Methods ® v D ® a � • Ma Internet (City website, YouTube videos) 54% Water/utility bill 46% Emails 44% Social media (Twitter, Facebook) 37% Printed materials (brochures, flyers, newsletters) 22% Mail 15% Television 12% Newspaper 11% Radio 10% Special events 8% Other (ex., in person, Farmers Market, movie 6% theaters, refrigerator magnets, signage on vehicles and in public places) Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter offer venues for the City to reach its audience on a daily basis. The City currently utilizes these various social media channels, but could benefit from a scheduled campaign. A well -run Facebook page can generate daily interest in the City's programs. Linking the page to the website and including the page on printed literature will help garner a Facebook audience; however, the best way to increase readership is for your current audience to share City posts with their "friends." Municipalities that do not have the budget and time to maintain a social media campaign can. utilize internship positions to attract young talent. This would be an opportunity for the City to partner with the University of Arkansas. While students might only intern for a semester, as long as the City plans seasonal posts and campaigns ahead of time, the campaign should remain relatively consistent even if the internship position changes each semester. Recycling webpages: The City has made improvements during the past year to better integrate its recycling website (recyclesomething.org) into the City's main website (fayetteville-ar.gov). In addition, the City's Communication Department is visually redesigning the City website, which is scheduled to launch in February 2017. Possible enhancements to make the website more interactive and better promote recycling include the following: o The website should ideally be dynamic with modifications made on a regular basis to continually provide new messages and resources. The website could showcase the ongoing efforts of City staff to increase recycling. o Program information such as City waste reduction and recycling goals, current recycling rate, waste composition data, program participation rates, and tonnages (landfilled and recycled) could be provided in a format that visually shows program progress. For example, a visual display of the City's recycling progress could be a feature element of the Recycling & Trash Service main page. When individuals perceive that their 39 kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions FayetteviIle/ f6 1vlaster Plan Final City o° Fayettev';;e, AR Solid Waste Rec action; Diversion. and Recycling Master Plan Section 3: Diversion Opportunities and Optiom, community's recycling program is active and well supported, a greater number of people will want to participate. o Infographics should be used to the extent possible to visually present data and information. o A blog or newsletter scroll could highlight new information, popular recycling stories, and featured events. Rebranding: The City has branded its program with the slogan "Recycle Something: Be Big, Start Small." This slogan has been effective in raising awareness of recycling and encouraging residents to take the first steps in recycling. However, with an ambitious goal of 80% recycling, this is an opportune time for the City to revitalize its E&O with a slogan that reflects the encompassing nature of the program and desire for residents and businesses to participate in recycling programs to the greatest extent possible. Slogans from Athens - Clark County, GA; Mid -America Regional Council, MO; and the Solid Waste Agency of Lake County, IL are provided in Picture 3-2 as examples that convey a message to maximize recycling and minimize disposal. These communities updated their branding when they launched new recycling campaigns. RECYCLE FIRST,. TRASH LAST Picture 3-2: Recycling Slogan Examples Community -based social marketing: Community -based social marketing (CBSM) seeks to develop and integrate marketing concepts with other approaches to influence sustainable behaviors that benefit individuals and communities for the greater social good. CBSM principles are more hands-on and grassroot efforts to foster sustainable behavior. CBSM typically requires buy -in from participants that what they are doing will make a change or their'action will contribute to an environmental benefit locally. People tend to gravitate to actions that have high benefits and for which there are few barriers. CBSM strategies, such as peer -to -peer education, block leaders, and pledges, while more resource intensive, tend to be more effective than simply information distribution. The City has implemented such strategies through its door-to-door recycling outreach and the Waste Saving Campaign. Food waste education: Incorporating food waste reduction into the City's E&O campaigns will increase awareness of wasteful practices and help promote an ethic of conscious materials management and sustainability. Numerous resources are available, including the programs and app mentioned below that were developed by EPA and USDA. o Food Too Good To Waste (FTGTW; http://westcoastclimateforum.com/food) challenge and toolkit — Developed by EPA with input from the West Coast Climate and Materials Management Forum, the FTGTW program is designed for families and individuals to reduce wasted food at home. The toolkit is made up of simple strategies and tips. 40 kessler consulting inc. fayettev'El(e/16/1VIasterF':a _..€'ina; innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Sections 3: Diversion Opportunities and Options o Food keeper App —This USDA app provides consumers with easy access to clear, scientific information on food storage, proper storage temperatures, food product dating, and expiration dates. It also provides guidance to manufacturers on donating misbranded or sub -spec foods and research on innovative technologies to make reducing food loss and waste cost-effective. Enlisting more multi -family complexes, businesses, and institutions to participate in recycling will require not only a concerted effort to educate them about recycling, but also a comprehensive technical assistance program to provide the tools and knowledge to help them set up effective recycling systems. Approximately 34% of the City's housing units are in complexes with five or more units per structure.27 With the presence of the University of Arkansas and its student population, many of these multi -family complexes likely have high turnover rates. The City will need to work with property owners, managers, and tenants on an ongoing basis to actively engage this sector in waste reduction and recycling. An effective technical assistance program should help establish a simple recycling system with clear instructions and provide property owners/managers with the tools needed to encourage proper participation.. Key elements of a technical assistance program include the following: • Dedicated staff: Communities with high -performing multi -family and commercial recycling programs nearly always have in-house staff specifically dedicated to working with these sectors. To develop -and implement a comprehensive and effective commercial technical assistance program, a full-time staff person, in addition to the City's full-time Waste Reduction Coordinator, would be needed. • Property owner and manager training: Property owners/managers typically are the . individuals responsible for executing the recycling program onsite. Having their buy -in and cooperation is critical to the success of a program. • "Toolkit" for recycling program development: A good toolkit should complement recycling staff's efforts. It should include step-by-step instructions for setting up a recycling program, as well as waste audit instructions, a list of recyclables to target, information on how to request collection service, and sample E&O materials: Toolkits should be available in hard copy or online. • "Toolkit" for food waste reduction and recycling: A toolkit on food waste reduction, donations, and recycling can assist businesses and institutions that generate substantial quantities of food waste. Waste reduction actions that could be encouraged include proper portioning at schools and institutions and selling misshapen or soon -to -expire produce for reduced prices at grocery stores. The toolkit should also educate businesses and institutions about the benefits of making food donations and the liability protection of the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act. 27 U.S. Census Bureau, Selected Housing Characteristics for Fayetteville, AR. 41 kessler consulting inc. iavetteva1e?T6/M3ster Plan -Final innovative waste solutions City of Fayettevi=ie, AR Solid Waste Rec Action, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plait Section 3: Diversion opportunities and options • Hands-on technical assistance: Providing hands-on technical assistance to property owners/managers is generally more effective than training alone. Such assistance might include waste audits, development of in-house collection logistics, and container placement. The City currently provides waste audits for businesses, but is limited by the availability of staff time. Tenant or employee training: City staff can assist property owners/managers with educating their tenants and employees about the program. This should be structured as a "train the trainer" session, with the understanding that the property owner/manager would be responsible for this in the future. Reusable tote bags or plastic mini -bins: Providing a small bin or tote bag for multi -family complex residents to accumulate recyclables in the home and transport them to the collection container increases convenience. The City currently provides mini -bins to some participating multi -family complexes. Some property managers consider these bins an integral part of the unit and charge for replacement if a tenant takes the bin during move - out. Food donation facilitation: The City could proactively work to make connections between businesses with edible food to donate and existing organizations seeking food for human consumption. For example, a list or database could be developed of food banks or other entities looking for food. This could essentially be a digital food clearinghouse and could even be developed as a mobile app for real-time updates on what food is available and what food is needed. For example, Food Connect in Philadelphia has an app that connects donors to people needing food." Food challenge programs: Businesses could be encouraged to participate in the U.S. Food Waste Challenge and/or Food -Recovery Challenge. The City could lead by example by also joining. o U.S. Food Waste Challenge (FWC; http://www.usda.gov/oce/foodwaste/index.htm) — FWC is for organizations in the food chain that create food waste, including producer groups, processors, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, food service, industry groups, nongovernmental organizations, government entities, and Federal agencies. Byjoining the FWC, organizations and businesses demonstrate their commitment to reducing food waste, helping to feed the hungry in their communities, and reducing the environmental impact of wasted food. The FWC's inventory of activities help disseminate information about best practices to reduce, recover, and recycle food waste and stimulate development of more of these practices. o EPA Food Recovery Challenge (FRC; http://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management- food/food-recovery-challenge-frc) — FRC is part of EPA's Sustainable Materials Management Program. It provides participants access to data management software and technical assistance to help them quantify and improve their sustainable food management practices. Participants enter goals and report food waste diversion data annually into EPA's data management system. They then receive an annual climate profile report that translates their food diversion data results into greenhouse gas 28 Food Connect also picks up and delivers food, a role that is not recommended for the City (http://www.foodconnectgroup.com/). 42 kessler consulting inc. i'ayetteville/'? 5/Master P':an.J.inat innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section: 3: Diversion Opportunities and Options reductions, as well as other measures such as "cars off the road," to help participants communicate the benefits of activities implemented. Right -sizing assistance: Commercial, institutional, and multi -family trash service is typically based on container size and frequency of service. If a business or complex initiates a recycling program, it then follows that the quantity of trash generated and level (and cost) of trash service needed should decrease. Property owners/managers do not always realize a potential savings exists and may need help in determining a reasonable service adjustment and subsequent savings. The savings in trash collection and disposal can sometimes more than offset the additional cost for recycling. Partnerships with business groups: Business organizations, such as the local Chamber of Commerce, can be an important ally in encouraging waste reduction and recycling. They can assist in networking within the business community; make businesses aware of the resources and assistance available from the City; and possibly create peer -to -peer mentoring opportunities to set up recycling programs. In 2010, the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce launched the greeNWay Initiative, a fee -based program that identifies, assesses, and certifies businesses that operate in a sustainable manner. Waste management is one of 6 categories that are examined. Currently, 33 businesses are certified. • Program monitoring: The City should monitor and record waste reduction activities and any recycling conducted by entities other.than the City. For example, donating food that would otherwise be discarded is diverting this organic "waste" from the landfill and should therefore be tracked and included in the City's diversion rate. Likewise, recyclable materials recovered and managed outside of the City's solid waste system, by the franchised haulers or individual businesses, should also be included in the City's diversion rate. Incentives to reduce waste or recycle can take myriad forms and can be financial or.non- financial in nature. • One of the best types of financial incentives is a Pay -As -You -Throw (PAYT) system, which the City has already implemented. This system could be modified to create an even greater incentive or other incentive tools could be utilized. Examples of these options are discussed below. Some apply to residents and other to businesses and multi -family complexes, and are grouped accordingly. Adjust residential PAYT fee structure: Various studies indicate that implementing a PAYT system is one of the most effective mechanisms to reduce waste disposal and increase recycling. The difference in service fees between various sizes of carts is believed to impact the resulting level of waste reduction and recycling. One study indicated that fee differentials of at least 50-80% for double the service capacity are most effective, with a bias toward the higher levels, and may result in recycling 43 Fayetteville fl` /Master Plan.. Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Ci y of i ayette " e, AR Solid VV as e Recuction: Diversior, and Recycling Nriaster Plan Section :3: Dive sign Opportunities and Options increases of 4-8%.21 Table 3-4 provides the City's current pricing structure, indicating that the percentage increase for doubling of capacity is 53% for a 64-gallon cart and 84% for a 96-gallon cart.30 These are total service fees with recycling and yard trash collection services embedded. Table 3-4 also calculates the fees if an 80% increase was applied for each doubling of cart capacity. If an 80% increase were applied, existing service fees for 64-gallon and 96-gallon carts would increase 18% and 16%, respectively. While adjusting the current pricing structure to further increase the fee differential for larger cart sizes would likely provide a greater incentive for residents to reduce waste and recycle, any new service fee structure must continue to provide the necessary revenue to support the Division's operations. Table 3-4: PAYT Service Fee Analysis Table Note: Above calculations take into account that an increase from 64-gallons to 96-gallons is only a 50% increase in capacity, not a doubling of capacity. Privately operated residential recycling rewards program: Several privately operated recycling rewards programs exist, but perhaps the most well-known is Recyclebank. It rewards residents for recycling with points that can be redeemed for discounts or deals at local businesses and major national brands. Recyclebank's fees vary based on the program type, services provided, and a jurisdiction's negotiating skills. Pricing models vary and may include a flat annual fee, recycling revenue share, disposal avoidance share, or a combination of the three. A survey of Recyclebank programs revealed fees ranging from $0.30 to $4.00 per household per month, depending on the services included.31 The company reports working in more than 300 communities in the Unites States and claims to increase recycling rates by 15% in communities that have made no other infrastructure changes.31 In a comparison study of three Massachusetts cities working simultaneously to increase recycling, one using PAYT and two implementing Recyclebank, the PAYT community realized three times the diversion increase over the communities that implemented Recyclebank.33 According to a nationwide study, the relative cost per ton of material 29 Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Getting to More: Review of Options for an Area with Robust Recycling, December 5, 2014. 30 Note: This calculation takes into account that an increase from 64-gallons to 96-gallons is a 50% capacity increase, not a doubling of capacity. 31 Skumatz, Lisa, et. al., Resource Recycling, "Recycling Incentives: Part 1," February 2011, p. 20. 32 Recyclebank, 2013 A Year in Review. 33 U.S. EPA, Pay -As -You -Throw Spring 2009 Bulletin, p. 5. 44 Fayetteville/` € 6/Piaster Pian...i'ma€ kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville; AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 3: -Diversion Opportunities and Options diverted for a PAYT program ranged from $0.10 to $10.00, but the cost per ton diverted in a Recyclebank program ranged from $6.00 to $300.00.34 Other rewards programs are also available for purchase, such as Recycling Perks and programs offered by individual collection service providers. A common criticism is that recycling rewards programs establish an expectation that one should be rewarded for recycling and perpetuate the erroneous idea that recycling results in net revenue. City -operated residential recycling rewards program: Some communities have developed their own monetary rewards program to encourage citizens to recycle. Each week, month, or other specified time interval, a household is randomly selected and rewarded for its recycling efforts. The intent is to encourage residents to participate in recycling weekly in hopes of winning. In addition, coverage of the reward winners provides free advertising through public media such as local newspapers, radio, and television. Numerous examples of municipally run rewards programs exist. For example, Morehead City, NC randomly selects ten customers each month. The first one "caught" recycling is awarded a $50 cash voucher that is credited to their solid waste bill. At the end of each year, all monthly winners' names are placed into a hat. The first three names drawn receive $500, $200, and $100 cash prizes, respectively. Although the city could not provide quantitative information regarding the effectiveness of this rewards program, a city representative indicated that converting from recycling bins to biweekly carted collection of single stream recyclables had a far greater impact (approximately 42% increase in recycling tonnage) than the rewards progra m.35 • Universal commercial recycling or all-inclusive fee structure:- Similar to universal residential recycling in which all residents pay for collection and processing of recyclables and yard waste as part of their base solid waste fee, recycling fees can be included in the base cost of commercial waste services. Collection cost is thereby eliminated as a factor in deciding whether or not to participate in recycling. All multi- family complexes,- businesses, and institutions would pay for recycling service as part of a base service fee. • Commercial recycling rebates: Some communities provide a rebate on solid waste fees to commercial customers that document they are recycling. The structure of rebate systems need to be carefully developed to ensure service fees less rebates are sufficient to cover the cost of service. Rebates are often based on business type, square footage, and/or level of trash service. • Commercial advance disposal fee: Another alternative is to assess an advance disposal fee (ADF) to commercial customers that are not recycling. As with rebates, an ADF would is often based on business type, square footage, and/or service level. To increase residential recycling, the City would be better served by first focusing on programmatic and infrastructure improvements (e.g., single stream recycling and organics sa Skumatz, Lisa, et. al., Resource Recycling, "Recycling Incentives: Part 1," February 2011, p. 20. ss Gollehon, Robin, conversation on August 21, 2015. 45 £'ayettevlle?T6j1r9aster Plan„ Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions _" it,/ o h aye'ttevi ie, AR Solid VV astc Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Nan `_ ection 3: Diversion Opportunities and Orations recovery) and revitalizing its E&O program. If recycling targets are not achieved, a rewards program might then be pursued. To increase commercial recycling, programmatic and infrastructure improvements, as well as technical assistance, are critical first steps. However, all businesses care about their financial bottom line. Therefore, an incentive program could help eliminate the perceived financial burden of recycling and increase participation and material recovery. The City has control over collection of commercial recyclables, by providing such services directly or issuing franchises to other companies to provide such service. Therefore, establishing universal commercial recycling (all-inclusive fee structure) might be the most direct approach that would also help ensure sufficient funding for the City to provide commercial recycling services. Some local governments utilize non -financial incentives to encourage businesses to participate in waste reduction and recycling. The Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce greeNWay Initiative, which certifies and acknowledges businesses that operate in a sustainable manner, is a good example of such an incentive program. As mentioned previously, waste management is one of 6 elements that are examined. Limited information is available on the effectiveness of these types of incentive programs to substantially increase a community's waste diversion or recycling rate. While some business owners might find operating their business in a sustainable manner a worthy objective, others might only be inclined to do so if a benefit will be realized. Likewise, some consumers might utilize a green business over other businesses, but for many consumers, price may be a greater factor. The City's resources would initially be better utilized pursuing other program and infrastructure options for increasing commercial waste reduction and recycling. However, the City could promote the greeNWay Initiative as.part of its technical assistance to businesses. The City collected approximately 15,300 tons of construction and demolition (C&D) and bulky waste in 2015, which represented about 22% of all waste managed in the City's system (see Figure 3-1). This is nearly 60% more C&D and bulky waste than was received in 2014 (9,600 tons). Additional C&D debris is collected by private haulers that have nonexclusive franchises with the City to collect this material. These franchisees likely direct haul the waste to the Eco- Vista Landfill. The City has the potential to control the collection and disposal of C&D debris generated within the City through these nonexclusive collection franchises. The composition of bulky waste can be highly variable. Figure 3-4 depicts the composition based on the 2015 visual audit. Nearly half of the bulky waste by volume consisted of wood. Various types of plastics, carpet/padding, paper, metals, drywall, roofing shingles, rock/gravel, and mattresses are some of the other materials received that have the potential to be recycled if viable markets exist. 46 kessler consulting inc. s ayetteviHe/ � 5/Master Plan.,, Final innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section: 3: Diversion Opportunities and Options Figure 3-4: Bulky Waste Visual Audit Results (% by volume) KCI researched local outlets or options for managing C&D debris. Currently, most of the C&D .debris generated in the area is disposed at Waste Management's Eco-Vista Class 4 Landfill. A search of the ADEQ facility database revealed only one permitted C&D Recovery Facility in the state, Delta Recycling Services located 250 miles away in Jefferson County. Delta Recycling is a hauler and processor that claims a 70% diversion rate through processing commingled materials and offers discounted rates for source -separated materials. As of mid -September 2016, the ADEQ facility database listed 2 pending C&D Recovery Facility permit applications in Northwest Arkansas: • USA Metal Recycling in Lowell • Kansas-E3 LLC in Bentonville According to ADEQ staff, permits for these facilities will be issued as soon as the required financial assurance is received. At the Boston Mountain Transfer Station (BMTS) in Prairie Grove, manual labor and loaders are sometimes used to pull pallets, corrugated cardboard, metals, plastics, wood, and other reusable building materials from the tip floor. This occurs only when time permits. BMTS sells the pallets, metals, corrugated cardboard, and plastics, and donates the wood and reusable building materials to the local Habitat for Humanity Restore. Recovery of materials from C&D debris can occur by either source -separating recyclable or reusable materials prior to collection or by processing mixed C&D debris after collection. Either approach can be effective, but they require different policies and infrastructure for implementation. Source -separation places the responsibility on the generator to separate recyclable or reusable materials by type, usually at the job site. The generator can either market these materials individually or hire a single entity to manage them. This deconstruction usually requires more upfront resources (labor and containers) to recover material for reuse and recycling than simple demolition, but can reduce disposal costs. 47 kessler consulting inc. f'ayetteville,''r5(i�aster Plan..Final innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid `s•"• ste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 3: Diversion Opportunities and Optioris Alternatively, mixed C&D debris can be processed and materials recovered for recycling/reuse after it is collected. The type of operation depends on the types and quantities of materials received. Small-scale operations can be initiated at any transfer or disposal location by diverting select materials (usually materials that are easily separated and/or have market value) from incoming loads through the use of a small loader and/or manual labor. This requires low capital investment and minimal space requirements; however, recovery rates are generally low, limited by the number of materials targeted and the ability of the operator to recover and market those materials. Larger -scale operations involve some level of mechanized processing, as well as a manual processing line. Capital investment depends on the degree of mechanization. Material recovery rates are substantially higher than with manual operations. Various policies and programs can be implemented to encourage or require reuse or recycling of C&D debris. They fall into three general categories: education, incentives, or regulation. Table 3-5 summarizes some of the mechanisms used to increase C&D debris recycling under each of these categories. Table 3-5: Mechanisms Utilized to Increase C&D Debris Reuse and Recycling o Education and technical assistance o Educate by example through government building projects o Voluntary Green Building programs o Diversion security deposits o Differential tip fees for segregated materials o Material exchanges o Grants or low interest loans o Disposal bans o Mandatory recycling o Perm it- requirements o Require C&D processing facilities meet recycling targets o Mandatory Green Building standards Approaches are often combined. For example, a number of large cities (e.g., Portland, OR; San Jose, CA; San Francisco, CA) require C&D debris to be delivered to a certified or registered recycling facility and require these certified/registered C&D recycling facilities to achieve certain material recovery rates. Given the lack of C&D recycling infrastructure in Northwest Arkansas, this type of program is not feasible at this time. Provided below are just a -few examples of how other local governments are striving to increase C&D debris recovery. Lee County, FL: Lee County requires contractors of significant projects (construction projects greater than $90,000 and remodels/alterations greater than $10,000) to submit a C&D management plan prior to construction. Demonstration of diversion/disposal of all C&D materials is required as a check -off prior to final inspection. If 50% of C&D debris has not been recycled, the contractor incurs a diversion fee based on the type and size of the project. In 2015, the county reported a 62% recycling rate for C&D debris, not including clean concrete repurposed as fill.36 Lee County has also constructed a C&D MRF to recover reusable or recyclable materials from mixed loads of C&D debris. While the facility has the capacity to process 500 tons per day (TPD) of C&D debris, it currently processes about 300 TPD operating a single shift 4-5 days per week. Approximately 34% of the material 36 Howard, Keith, Solid Waste Director, Lee County, FL, telephone interview, November 2015. 48 i ayettevilleJ'i 6/Plaster Plan._Finai kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayettevil Ie, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 3: Diversion %'ppor:t nit es and Options processed is recovered for recycling or beneficial use and 46% used as fuel for the county's waste -to -energy plant. The facility is projected to meet its return on investment within 5 years. Horry County, SC: To extend the life of its landfill, Horry County Solid Waste Authority built a basic C&D processing facility in 2012. In fiscal year (FY) 2015, the facility processed just over 14,000 tons of C&D debris and recovered 72% of these materials, more than half of which was wood. The Authority also charges a reduced tipping fee for segregated C&D materials to encourage source -separation. Although the tonnage is relatively low, the Authority reports the operation is breaking even. Based on the current status of C&D recovery in Northwest Arkansas, approaches the City might consider include the following: • Reduced tipping fee for source -separated materials: The City could establish a lower tipping fee for segregated wood and other recyclable or reusable materials to encourage customers to source -separate these materials prior to delivery to the transfer station. The tipping fee would need to be low enough to not only compete with the Eco-Vista Landfill, but also provide an incentive for contractors to separately collect and haul these materials. The City would then market these materials for recycling or reuse. Diversion targets: A more proactive approach would be to establish recycling/diversion targets for C&D projects and link these targets to the permitting process. Recycling of materials would become part of the planning process for all construction, demolition, and renovation projects. One of the main benefits of this approach is that it would apply to all building projects regardless of who collects the material or where the material is processed or disposed. Building contractors would potentially have the option of selling source - separated recyclables themselves, hiring the City or one of the City's franchised haulers to collect and market source -separated materials, or hiring the City or a franchised hauler to deliver mixed C&D debris to a C&D Recovery Facility if one is permitted in the area. Contracting for C&D recycling services: If a pending C&D Recovery Facility permit is issued to one or more of the facilities in Northwest Arkansas, the City could explore the feasibility of delivering C&D debris collected or received by the City to such a facility for processing to recover recyclables. The feasibility would depend on a number of factors, including the ability of the facility to accept third -party materials, processing fees, and transportation costs. This option would be limited to only materials managed by the City and would not impact C&D debris collected by franchised haulers. Manual C&D recovery: A small-scale recovery operation at the transfer station could be considered, although space is a major constraint. Utilizing a small loader with grapple bucket, staff could separate corrugated cardboard, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, and rigid plastics from incoming bulky waste loads for recycling. Dimensional lumber and reusable building materials could be separated and marketed for reuse. • Basic mechanized C&D material recovery: The 15,000 tons of bulky waste received at the transfer station in 2015 is a marginal amount to warrant a mechanized C&D material recovery system. However, the City could require its franchised haulers to deliver C&D debris generated within the City to a City -owned recycling facility or could secure the 49 kessler consulting inc. fayettevillefl`6/vlaster Plan .,.Final innovativewaste solutions t:ity & FayettP e, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion:., and Recycling Master Plan Section 3: Diversicn Opportunities and Options exclusive right to collect C&D debris. Materials that might be recovered include untreated wood waste, which could be reused or composted, and treated wood waste, which could potentially be ground and sold for boiler fuel. Other commodities could be marketed and clean aggregate used as fill material. Fostering reuse, repair, and repurposing not only helps reduce overall waste generation, but also engages community members to participate in other waste diversion programs. The City encourages donation programs and partnerships, including the following: • The Second Chance School Supplies program works with teachers during the summer to collect gently used school supplies, which are then donated to smaller rural schools. The City estimates -that 400 pounds of crayons, markers, binders, notebooks, books, and other miscellaneous supplies were donated in 2015. • The City also helped facilitate a donation relationship between two apartment complexes and Habitat Restore. When residents move out, they can call the Habitat Restore directly to pick up unwanted items. Habitat Restore estimates that 6,000-7,000 pounds of usable furniture and washing machines were collected from this apartment donation/reuse program in 2015. In addition to Habitat Restore, Fayetteville is home to other donation and reuse entities, including Salvation Army, Goodwill, and numerous consignment shops. Habitat Restore accepts donations of household goods, furniture, appliances and building materials. Goodwill and Salvation Army accept household goods, appliances, electronics, automobiles, furniture, clothing, and domestic supplies. They accept textiles of all types, including fabric remnants. Textiles that are not resold in their stores are usually sold to textile recyclers. Other types of businesses might also accept materials for reuse, such as packing and shipping service companies that accept and reuse cardboard boxes and packaging materials. In addition, repair shops exist for a variety of products. Substantial quantities of potentially reusable items are likely disposed when students move -in and move -out between semesters. This is common in university towns, but various communities have developed programs to help facilitate reuse of these items. Several examples are provided below. • Goodwill Denver: Goodwill Denver partners with the University of Denver, University of Colorado (Boulder), Regis University, Colorado School of Mines, and Johnson & Wales University to host on -campus donation drives as students move out of their dorms and apartments for the summer. Goodwill donation bins allow students to donate unwanted items instead of disposing of them. In 2013, at the University of Colorado alone, Goodwill collected 31,000 pounds of donations. In 2012, 25% of all donations received by Goodwill Denver came from college campus drives. 50 Fayetteville/' 5/Master Plan_.i lnai kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion; and Recycng Master Plan Section I Diversion Opportunities and Options University of Denver: The University partners with three different non-profit organizations for its move -out program. Goodwill accepts clothes, shoes, furniture, appliances, and other goods. Goodwill provides rolling carts to collect soft goods (clothes, shoes, etc.) and coordinates daily pickups the week of move -out. The Community Ministry Food Bank accepts and sorts through donated food items. St. Francis accepts donated open cleaning supplies and toiletries. By partnering with all three organizations, the University can donate most of the unwanted items generated during move - out. In 2014, more than 15,000 pounds of items were donated. - Northwestern University: Every June, the Office of Sustainability offers the "Take it or Leave it" program. Boxes are placed in the lobby/entry of each* residential l building to collect nonperishable food items, clothing, sheets, and small household items. Food is donated to Campus Kitchen, a student -run F DON'T throw it Out!„ Mon, June 4- Fri, June 8 Donate your gently used and clean shoes, CYS ;:;?d s%ar1�, �s1eC[rchvLS souks. .,. .!nirTg 5:.�pi;e5 We cannot accept: piken5, fa^.�i� e,nttress Foos or <a��{t;xng r.:rry F..mei..o„�....c sFe: e:,:e..,. ca•,rr:c�m..a Bring all items to the designated areas near the front desk. Picture 3-3: University of Denver Move -Out Program Sign kitchen that accepts donated food and turns it into meals for those struggling with food insecurity. Clothing and household items are donated to local charities. "Take it or Leave it" donates more than 10,000 pounds of reusables to charity annually. Opportunities for the City to encourage or enhance midstream sustainable materials management include the following: Promote the use of existing outlets: At a minimum, the City could promote donation and reuse opportunities in its E&O materials. This would include educating businesses and residents about the benefits of donating gently used goods, and providing a comprehensive list of outlets for these goods. Facilitate partnerships: The City could take a more active role to facilitate partnerships between the University, off -campus student housing locations, and local reuse nonprofits to strengthen the move -out donation drive. Providing collection containers or carts at the move -out location would make reuse a more convenient option. Swap shop: Washington County accepts HHW from county residents and has a reuse shelf at the HHW facility for products that can still be used. The City could strive to increase community awareness of this program through its education and outreach program. 51 E'ayetteville/T6(Ev4,aster Plan...Pinal kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City o' rayettevie, PAR Solid Waste Reruction, Diversion, and Recycling, Master Plan Section 3: Diversion Opportunities and Optkon In addition to the opportunities and options already discussed in this section, additional policies were identified that help support or encourage waste reduction and recycling. Nonexclusive franchises: The City currently has the exclusive right to collect most residential and commercial materials, but franchises several private companies to collect commercial recyclables and waste in large roll -off containers. Commercial recyclables collected by the franchisees are not reported to the City and, therefore, are not included in the City's diversion rate. At a minimum, the City should require these franchisees to report the quantities of materials collected within the City and where these materials are delivered to gain a more complete picture of how all waste generated within the City is managed. • Material flow: Increasing waste diversion will require an investment by the City in equipment and facilities. The City should ensure that sufficient materials are received to ensure full utilization of this investment. Depending on development of future programs and facilities, the City may want to designate facilities to which materials collected by franchisees must be delivered. • Building codes: A common reason for not recycling at multi -family complexes or commercial businesses is a lack of space for recycling containers. To eliminate this concern_ in new developments, building code requirements should be modified to require new multi -family and commercial developments to provide adequate space and access for recycling. • Green City Program: Green government programs can serve as models to other businesses. This includes establishing comprehensive recycling programs in government facilities, parks, and other public venues and places. For example, "twinning the bins" (pairing all trash containers with recycling containers) in all public buildings and places would ensure that recycling is widely available and always an option. Highly visible recycling in public areas helps instill an ethos of sustainability and encourages recycling at home, work, and play. Environmentally preferable purchasing: The City adopted an Environmental Purchasing -Policy (EPP) in 2008. The EPP established a Task Force to identify opportunities to implement the policy and measure progress. One of the initial priorities defined in the EPP was the purchase of recycled content products. Proactive implementation of the EPP for not only City purchases, but also contractor actions on behalf of the City, is critical for the policy to be effective. Disposal bans: Statewide disposal bans are common for materials or products that have the potential to cause harm if landfilled or not properly managed. Some states have also banned the landfilling or disposal of certain materials to help drive recovery of these materials. At least 47 states ban the disposal of one or more items.37 Included is Arkansas, 37 The Northeast Recycling Council, Inc. (NERC), Disposal Bans and Mandatory Recycling in the United States, June 24, 2011, p.1. 52 fayetteviile; PS/Master Plan ...Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section. 3: Diversion CIPPW unities and Options which bans the landfilling of lead -acid batteries and yard waste.38 In addition, 19 states mandate the recycling of at least one commodity.39 Communities with some of the highest reported recycling rates have employed disposal bans or recycling mandates to help them achieve these rates. Examples includes the following: o Seattle, WA: Seattle has banned disposal of residential yard debris since 1989. In 2005, the city passed an ordinance prohibiting single-family and multi -family homes from disposing of "significant amounts" of aluminum, paper, cardboard, glass, plastic bottles, and plastic jars. Before the disposal ban, Seattle reported diverting 58.9% of residential waste from disposal; by 2014, that figure increased to 71.1%. As of January 2015, the city also bans disposal of food waste and compostable paper. Because this ban became effective so recently, its impact has not yet been measured. Violators first receive warnings, but are then subject to. fines. o Fresno, CA: Fresno had offered recycling services to commercial customers, but most were not taking advantage of the opportunity. In 2005, the city mandated commercial recycling. Prior to enactment, the citywide diversion rate was 32%. Following implementation of mandatory.commercial recycling, the rate climbed to 62%. o Lee County, FL: Lee County implemented mandatory business recycling in 2008. All business owners are required to establish an onsite recycling program that includes a service agreement for recycling collection, internal collection containers, documented education program, and documentation that a minimum of one recyclable material that makes up the largest portion of the business' waste stream is being recycled. For the first offense of non-compliance, county staff issues a warning and provides educational material and assistance in setting up a recycling program. Upon a second offense, an advance disposal fee (ADF) may be assessed monthly until the business is compliant. The ADF varies based on business classification. Elected officials and business groups, such as the Chamber of Commerce, were supportive of the program. Lee County reports nearly 100% of businesses are in compliance, with the exception of new businesses. To date, the county has not had to assess ADFs.40 o Portland, OR: Commercial businesses and multi -family complexes of five or more units are required to recycle paper and containers. If found to be in violation, a business has 30 days to come into compliance before fines are issued. Fines are $200 per month for the first infraction; subsequent infractions increase by $200 each month. Enforcement has historically been complaint -based and penalties have rarely been levied because businesses typically respond within 30 days. The city estimates that 85-90% of the commercial sector recycles to some extent.41 Disposal bans and mandates are utilized in jurisdictions with established infrastructure and mature programs if voluntary programs have failed to achieve desired diversion rates. In addition, jurisdictions implementing such bans and mandates also utilize other tools, such 38 NERC, p.10. 39 NERC, p. 1 40 Smith, Emory, Lee County, FL, personal communication, January 2016. 41 Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, City of Portland 2015 Recycling Program Summary, 2015. 53 kessler consulting inc. :ayettevil1e/T6j 1asterPlan_.Final innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid 1^ aste Reduction; Diversion, and Recycling Master Platt Section 3: Give: sion Opportunities and Options as single stream recycling, technical assistance, and incentives in support of their recycling programs. Most bans and mandates are phased in overtime, preferring to use notifications and technical assistance to encourage compliance first. After an initial grace period, they then utilize Code Enforcement staff to monitor compliance and have the ability to impose fines or fees on non -compliant businesses. Product or packaging bans: Such bans prohibit or place a fee on the use of certain types of products or packaging. Two products that have been targeted are single -use carryout plastic bags and expanded polystyrene (EPS) food -ware. In addition to recycling challenges, both products have negative impacts to wildlife if released into the environment and ingested. Based on the waste composition study, EPS food -ware and retail plastic bags each constitute approximately 1% of the waste received at the transfer station for disposal. While this may seem inconsequential, it should be noted that other materials, such as aluminum cans and HDPE plastic containers also constitute about 1% of waste disposed. In addition, striving to reach 80% diversion requires -incremental gains. Extended producer responsibility (EPR): EPR legislation and programs place responsibility for managing end -of -life products and packaging on manufacturers, which in turn provides an incentive for them to develop more sustainable products and packaging. EPR legislation is typically enacted at the state level. 54 flayetteville/i6/ [asterPlar._,Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Section 4 Pilot Proarams Based on an initial identification of diversion opportunities, two pilot programs were conducted to assist in evaluating potential implications to the City: (1) commercial food waste collection and composting and (2) residential single stream recycling. Provided below are summaries of the results of the pilot programs. More detailed reports regarding the pilots are provided in Appendices D and E. The purpose of this pilot program was to evaluate the collection logistics and composting of food waste to better determine the feasibility of a citywide commercial food waste program. The City collected food waste from 9 pilot participants during a 21-week period, from January 20, 2016 through June 10, 2016. The participants included 6 restaurants, an elementary school, the Fayetteville Senior Activity and Wellness Center, and University of Arkansas (4 locations). The City provided each participant with an appropriate number of 64-gallon carts and serviced these carts 3 times per week. Several participants were also provided with compostable bags to line the carts; others were requested to rinse the carts regularly to keep them clean. The City obtained permission from ADEQ, through a Memorandum of Agreement, to compost the food waste at the City's compost facility located at 1560 S. Happy Hollow Road. The City used the Modified Static Aerobic Pile (MSAP) composting method, instead of the traditional turned windrow method they had been using.for yard waste composting. The MSAP method utilizes a proprietary microbial inoculant that expedites the composting process. A total of 69.3 tons of food waste was collected Picture 4-1: Food Waste Tipped at during the pilot. Figure 4-1 shows the tonnage Compost Facility collected each week of the pilot. After the initial ramp up during the first few weeks, tonnages remained fairly consistent at 3-5 tons per week, with a few exceptions. A dip occurred in week 10 during spring break at the University. Weekly tonnages declined after week 17, when only minimal food waste was collected from the University as it entered the summer term and several participants were under the impression the pilot had ended and stopped collecting food waste. 55 Sayettevillefr6jtviaster Plar:._i inal kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City a, Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 4: Pilot Programs Figure 4-1: Food Waste Collected Weekly (tons) 6.00 5.00 4.00 Y 3.00 v ai c 2.00 — 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Week of the pilot The pilot demonstrated the effectiveness of the MSAP method for composting commercial food waste at the City's compost facility. • Quality compost: The temperature profiles indicated a healthy compost system and the laboratory tests showed a high quality, clean compost. . • Faster composting: The MSAP method provided a faster composting process than the turned windrow method -currently used by the City, which requires 4-6 months. Using the MSAP method for composting food waste and yard waste, active compost -required only about 60 days. Faster composting time allows more material to be processed. on the existing site annually. • Less turning: Because the inoculant pulls air into the windrow, fewer turnings were required compared to the turned windrow method, which requires about 12 turns on average for a full composting cycle. The MSAP method only required 2 turns per cycle. • Odor control: The MSAP method appeared to successfully control odors. The greatest potential for odor release occurs when a windrow is turned. Because the MSAP method only required 2 turnings and the first turning did not occur until after day 30, the potential for odor release was reduced. In addition, the capping layer is intended to act as an in -situ biofilter to prevent releases of odors during active composting. • Potential cost savings: Because of the faster composting time and reduced number of turnings, the MSAP method should result in reduced labor, operational, and maintenance costs than traditional windrow composting, even factoring in the cost of the inoculant. 56 Fayetteviiie/ l 6/miiaster Plan Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section. 4: Piiot Prograrns The pilot also demonstrated the success of the commercial food waste collection system. Feedback was solicited from participants through an online survey, to which all 9 participants responded. Key results areas follows: • All participants rated their experience as positive or somewhat positive. • Most participants estimated they decreased the volume of disposed garbage by 25-50% during the pilot, while two participants estimated their waste reduction was more than 50%. • All participants would continue to collect food waste if it was at no additional cost or if the cost was offset by a decrease in garbage collection costs. Two participates would continue if it cost 10% more. • All participants would support a citywide mandate requiring food waste separation by businesses generating a substantial amount of food waste: • Some suggestions from participants to make food waste collection easier included more roll carts, more frequent collection, assistance with employee and customer training and marketing materials, City - provided in-house collection containers, and.use of compostable bags. • Concerns expressed by some participants included not having sufficient space for carts.or collection containers, odor, people not properly sorting food waste, having to rinse the carts, or issues with compostable bags. The pilot also provided valuable information regarding future considerations in developing a citywide food waste collection and composting program. These include the use of compostable bags, potential equipment modifications, controlling contamination, and cost considerations. Based on the overall results of the pilot, pursuing a full-scale citywide food waste program appeared feasible and was therefore modeled as a potential waste diversion program. The success of the pilot was underlined by the fact that the City is in the process of applying for a Typo CO permit for its compost facility that will enable acceptance and composting of food waste. Additional details regarding the food waste pilot program are provided in Appendix D. 57 Eayettevilletl'Sjiv"aster Plar:_ 1 inal s kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Cry oe i avettev i e, AR Solid Was.e Rec action; Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section Pilot Prorarns The purpose of the residential single stream pilot was to evaluate the potential impacts of converting from the City's existing recycling program, in which materials are curb -sorted by type from recycling bins or collected by individual material stream on separate routes or in partitioned roll -off containers, to single stream recycling. In a single stream program, all recyclables are commingled in the same collection container and then sorted by type at a processing facility. The pilot program included two generator sectors: curbside residential and multi -family residential. The curbside residential pilot was conducted for 14 weeks, February 18-May 19, 2016. The City selected a curbside route of approximately 1,010 households located in the southeastern part of the City for the pilot. It aligned with an existing garbage route, but combined the majority of 2 existing curbside recycling routes. The City first gathered 6 weeks of pre -pilot data for this pilot area. The City then provided each residence with a 64-gallon recycling cart with a blue lid to differentiate the cart from the garbage cart. A City sanitation crew serviced the recycling carts each Thursday, the same service day residents were already accustomed to, using automated side -load vehicles. The City notified residents in the pilot area of the pilot program through a direct -mail postcard, utility bill stuffer, newspaper ads, brochure, and the City's website. The multi -family residential pilot was conducted for 12 weeks, April 5-June 28, 2016. The City selected two apartment complexes to participate in the pilot: • At The Cliffs II, recycling containers were placed throughout the complex parking lot adjacent to the existing garbage dumpsters. These new recycling containers replaced the single large roll -off recycling container previously located in the parking lot that had separate storage compartments for each type of recyclable material. At The Academy at Frisco, the recycling chute was used. Prior to the pilot, the recycling chute was utilized as a -second garbage chute. Residents wishing to recycle had to take their recyclables to one of the City's recycling drop-off centers. During the pilot, this chute was clearly labeled for recycling. City staff met with the property managers at these two complexes several times to discuss the pilot and to provide education on the single stream program. Educational materials were provided, including brochures, posters, and container signs. Single stream processing could not be evaluated as part of this pilot program because a state- of-the-art single stream MRF that accepts a full range of commingled recyclables does not currently exist in Northwest Arkansas. The City entered into an agreement with GP Harmon to accept and manually sort the single stream recyclables collected during the pilot at GP Harmon's facility located at 1421 E. 15th Street in Fayetteville. GP Harmon chose to hand sort recyclables off of the tip floor. Recovered materials were weighed and recorded by material type. The remaining residue, which consisted of non - recyclable materials and recyclables that were not recovered by this rudimentary manual sorting system, was also weighed and recorded. To determine what percentage of this residue 58 kessler consulting inc. Fayette0Pe. TS/Pr.asterPan ::ina innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 4: Pilot Programs consisted of recyclables versus contaminants, GP Harmon staff conducted a second sort of residue from four loads. The residue was placed on a table with a 1.75" x 0.75" screen. Recyclable materials that did not fall through the screen were hand -sorted. Table 4-1 provides a comparison of the pre -pilot and pilot averages for the metrics that were monitored and recorded for curbside residential collection in the pilot area. Figure 4-2 depicts the percentage of households in the pilot area that placed their recycling cart curbside during each week of the pilot program as compared to the average pre -pilot recycling bin setout rate. Figure 4-3 depicts the quantity of recyclable materials collected during each week of the pilot as compared to the average weekly tonnage during the pre -pilot. Collection efficiency improved dramatically during the pilot program. Collection times at each household dropped from just over 1 minute during the pre -pilot to an average of 7 seconds during the pilot. Collection time for the entire pilot area dropped from more than 12.5 hours for the curb -sort program to 5.25 hours for automated single stream collection, a 58% reduction. Table 4-1: Curbside Single Stream Collection Pre -Pilot and Pilot Data *Time is recorded as hours, minutes, seconds (i.e., hh:mm:ss). **Number of households in pilot area increased as additional units became occupied; therefore, and average was used. The percentage of households placing a recycling container curbside for collection each week increased by nearly 53% and the average quantity of materials collected each week increased by approximately 96%. Extrapolated to an annual basis, conversion to single stream recycling would be expected to increase the quantity of recyclables collected per household in the pilot area from 222 pounds per year to 433 pounds per year, or approximately 94%. This is consistent with reported increases in various other communities that have converted to single stream recycling. In addition, communities striving for high diversion rates often target per household recycling rates of 400-600 pounds per year. 59 i'ayettevdle/1"61F:gaster Plan._PinaI kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Ci y of Fayetteville, Aft Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion:, and Recycling Master Dian Section 4: Pilot Proarams Figure 4-2: Weekly Recycling Container Setout Rates Figure 4-3: Tons of Recyclables Collected per Week 6.00 5.00 4.00 r 3.00 � S l 1.00 w� 0.00 •1 > • • Table 4-2 provides a summary of the data provided by GP Harmon. The table includes the types and percentages of materials recovered from the initial manual floor sort of all materials collected during the pilot. It also provides the total percentage of materials recovered from loads #7410 during the initial floor sort and a secondary sort using a rudimentary screen. Although the pilot was not intended to evaluate processing, the initial floor sort recovered an average of 87% of the materials. During the secondary sort, GP Harmon estimated that approximately 90% of the large grit (i.e., materials that did not pass through the screen but was. M l:ayetteviilej 'S/Master Plan Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid waste Reduction, Diversion; and Recyciing Master Plan Section: 4: Pilot Programs not manually sorted) consisted of recyclable glass. Therefore, Table 4-2 provides data for Loads #7410 in two ways, one counting all large grit as residue and the other counting 90% of large grit as glass. Table 4-2: Summary of Manual Processing of Curbside Recyclables (% by weight) An average residue rate of 15% is realistic to assume for a single stream MRF. Applying a 15% residue rate to the quantity of recyclables collected during the pilot program results in an average of 7.1 pounds per household per week, a net increase of 64% over the existing bin p rog ra m. The City conducted a participant survey to obtain feedback about the curbside residential pilot program. Nearly 29% of households in the pilot area responded to the survey (288 responses). These responses reflected overwhelming support for the carted recycling system. Survey results are summarized below: Prior to the pilot, only 69% of respondents placed their recycling bins curbside each week and more than 10% stated that they rarely or never placed their bins curbside. During the pilot, 81% placed -their cart at the curb every week. 92% of respondents stated they recycled more materials during the pilot than they had previously. • 88% found the 64-gallon cart to be a good size. 61 layettevillelr6%iv,aster Plan ._rinal kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City o* Fayettevlle, FAR Solid'Aaste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 4: Pilot Prag?ams The majority of respondents were excited (72%) or interested (26%) to participate in the single stream pilot. When asked what benefits they experienced from single stream recycling: 0 97% stated convenience, putting all materials into a single cart. 0 92% stated more recyclables, recycling the additional plastics. 0 90% stated convenience, cart easier to roll to the curb for collection. 0 83% stated the larger cart allowed them to recycle more. 0 69% stated neighborhood aesthetics, no open bins or recyclables lost in the wind. 0 56% stated collection service was quicker/less bothersome. • 98% of respondents believe single stream should be available to households citywide. The survey also requested general comments from respondents and over 200 comments were received, the overwhelming majority of which expressed support for the program. Most of the negative comments raised concerns about contamination levels. The City also received unsolicited comments about the pilot program via email. Just a few of these comments are provided in the sidebar. Table 4-3 presents the results of the pilot program at the two multi -family residential complexes, as well as pre -pilot data for The Cliffs II and the City's overall multi -family recycling program. Prior to the pilot program, The Cliffs II collected an average of 0.91 pounds of recyclables per unit per week. The City's overall multi -family recycling program averaged 1.11 pound of recyclables per unit per week. This latter figure was increased by more than two -fold during the pilot program. In fact, the tonnage of materials collected from the two complexes during the pilot program was only 100 pounds less than all multi -family recyclables collected in 2015. Table 4-4 provides a summary of the multi -family materials data provided by GP Harmon, including the types and percentages of materials recovered. 62 F ayetteviile/ J 5/Master Plan Final QUOTES FROM SINGLE STREAM kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville AR Solid waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Sectio€? 4: Prot Programs Table 4-3: Comparison of Multi -Family Data Results *No pre -pilot data available for The Academy at Frisco Table 4-4: Summary of Manual Processing of Multi -Family Recyclables (% by weight) Depending on the level of contamination of inbound material, a state-of-the-art single stream MRF should achieve more than an 81% recovery rate. However, even assuming 19% of the multi -family materials collected were lost as residue, the pilot resulted in an average of 2.03 pounds of recyclables per unit per week, an 83% increase over the 2015 multi -family average. A survey was also conducted of residents in the participating multi -family complexes. Only 18 surveys were completed, 15 by residents of The Cliffs II and 3 by residents of The Academy at Frisco. Survey results are summarized below:. • Prior to the pilot, 89% of respondents recycled at least once per month. During the pilot, all respondents recycled at least once per month. • 89% of respondents reported recycling more during the pilot than they had previously. • Prior to the pilot, 56% utilized the recycling roll -off at The Cliffs II to recycle and 17% utilized the Happy Hollow Recycling Center. 63 kessler consulting inc. Fayettevillei'I'61%,faster Plan.., Final innovative waste solutions City e* Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction. Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 4: Pilot Prograrns • When asked what benefits they experienced from single stream recycling: 0 100% stated convenience, putting all materials into a single container. 0 89% stated more recyclables, the additional plastics. 0 89% stated convenience, location of containers/recycling chute. • All respondents (100%) stated that the program should be available to apartment complexes citywide. Results of both the curbside and multi -family residential pilot programs were very promising in terms of participation, tonnage, and collection efficiencies. These results were utilized to further evaluate and model citywide conversion to single stream recycling and the potential implications to the City. Additional details regarding the single stream pilot program are provided in Appendix E. 64 F:ayetteviile;' 6 Master Han...S:inal kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Section 5 Scenario Modefinj Based on the initial assessment of the City's materials management system and results of the waste composition study, various options were identified with the potential to increase waste diversion (see Section 3). Several of these options were further explored through pilot programs (see Section 4). The project team then selected waste diversion scenarios that warranted conceptual modeling to further evaluate the potential waste diversion and economic implications to the City. System modeling is a tool to estimate and project potential costs, revenues, diversion rates, and other impacts of programmatic and infrastructure changes that may be implemented over the planning period. How these changes are implemented can be highly variable and numerous decisions made throughout the process can significantly alter the end results. Therefore, modeling of this type with so many variables and assumptions is not an exact science, but rather a guide post. Results can provide an understanding of the relative costs of a system and comparisons between options. Collection, processing/handling, and marketing/disposal are interrelated elements of a materials management system (see Figure 5-1). All three elements have a cost and are critical to maintaining a..balanced, sustainable management system. Changes to one of these elements will impact the others; therefore, the model links all three elements to ensure implications to the overall materials management system are factored in. Figure 5-1: Balancing the Business Components of Materials Management COLLECTION PROCESSING/ MARKETING/ HANDLING DISPOSAL E 1 1 t City of Fayetteville Materials Management OKesslerconsultin�Inc. 65 £'ayettev1le/T6/N1aster Plan.._Hnal kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solis) Waste Reduction, Diversion:., and Recycling Plaster Plan Section Scenario Modeling The system model stratifies the City's various waste streams by collection program (residential, multi -family, commercial, dropbox, and various drop-off options). The change in tonnage calculates the associated operational costs for the collection, processing, hauling, and disposal of the City's various material streams, as well as revenue. Collection infrastructure modules calculate the routes required based on projected tonnage and customers and the associated collection costs. Processing, hauling, and disposal modules identify fixed and variable costs and calculate projected costs based on the shift in materials. Because service rates are policy - driven, the system model only identifies projected revenue based on the sale of recyclable materials, compost, and mulch. Population and waste generation projections for the 10-year planning period were first calculated. A baseline model of the City's existing system was then developed and served as the foundation for modeling the diversion scenarios listed below. • Two recyclable materials recovery scenarios: o Establishing a network of drop-off centers'that would primarily service multi -family residents, businesses, and institutions. o Converting to single stream collection and processing for residential, commercial, and institutional recyclable. materials. • Organics recovery: Phasing in collection of food waste and other compostable materials generated by businesses, institutions, and residents with curbside collection service. • C&D debris processing: Establishing a processing system to recover reusable or recyclable materials from mixed C&D debris collected or received by the City. • Combined recovery efforts: Combines single stream recycling, organics recovery, and C&D debris processing. - The remainder of this section discusses the results of these analyses and various scenario models. 5.2 Population.a Generation Projections The first -step was to project population and waste generation over the 10-year planning period (2016-2025). Figure 5-2 depicts the City's population and total waste generation during the last 10 years and also projects population growth and total waste generation over the next 10 years. Table 5-1 provides the population and waste generation projections for the next 10 years. Population is assumed to increase at 2.3% annually (average rate of increase since the 2010 census) and to exceed 103,500 residents by 2025.12 Per capita waste generation declined during the recessionary years of 2007 through 2010, which'was the trend nationally, and began increasing again in 2011. Future waste generation is estimated based on the average per capita waste generation during the last 10 years (0.83 tons 42 The Northwest Arkansas Planning Commission estimates the 2025 population of Fayetteville at 97,191 (per communication with Jeff Hawkins, October 28, 2014). Fayetteville;?? 6/Master Plani:inat kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions a City of Faye' evil le, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 5: Scenario Modeling per capita annually). Based on these assumptions, nearly 86,000 tons of materials will be generated in 2025. Figure 5-2: Population and Waste Generation Data and Projections, 2006-2025 110,000 -a 100,000 m c 90,000 V) c 0 80,000 - c 0 70,000 m 0 60,000 - n. m r 0 50,000 _ oa do titi titi ti� ti� tih ti� ti� ti� ti� �o titi titi ti3 . ti� do ,yo ,yo do ,yo ,yo do ,yo do do do do ,�o do ,�o ,yo Table 5-1: Projected Population and Waste Generation 67 Fayetteville/'I'S/PvSaster Plan.. Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction; Diversion, and Recycling Plaster Plan Section S: Scenario Modeling 5.3 Baseline The baseline scenario assumes the status quo is maintained with no program or infrastructure changes other than that required to accommodate population growth and associated increases in waste disposal and material recovery. This scenario is the foundation upon which other scenarios were built and is useful for comparison purposes to understand the impact of the other scenarios throughout the planning period. Actual expenses and material revenues for 2015 were utilized to develop the baseline and to allocate expenses and revenues by service or line of business. These allocations were made based on how service is provided rather than who is generating the material. The following cost allocations are worth noting and apply to the tables provided in the remainder of this section: •. As noted in Table 5-1, waste generation projections for 2016 and 2017 (70,029 tons and 71,640 tons, respectively) were lower than the actual quantity of waste generated in 2015 (71,653 tons). For modeling purposes, no drop is tonnage was assumed for 2016 or 2017 (71,653 tons were assumed for -both years). For subsequent years, the waste generation projections in Table 5-1 were utilized. • Residential municipal solid waste (MSW) includes waste collected curbside in carts, as well as residential bulk waste collected curbside and commercial solid waste collected in roll carts. • Commercial/Multi-Family MSW includes commercial and multi -family waste collected in dumpsters or roll -offs and the 6-cubic yard dumpster service, of which approximately 90% was estimated to service residential customers. • Commercial/Multi-Family Recyclables includes cardboard, mixed paper, and glass collected from businesses; commercial recyclables collected in recycling bins are included in residential curbside recycling. • Multi -Family Recyclables includes recyclables collected in the partitioned roll -offs placed at multi -family complexes. • Drop -Off MSW and Organics are solid waste and vegetative waste dropped off at the City's solid waste facility, not the recycling drop-off centers, and therefore do not incur any collection costs. • Drop -Off Recyclables includes scrap metal delivered to the City's facility and materials collected at Ozark Natural Foods drop-off site in order to capture these additional recyclable materials in the model. • Dropbox/C&D Debris includes C&D and bulky waste collected by the City through its dropbox program. • Non -City Collected MSW is included in the model for cost analysis purposes, but is not included in waste diversion calculations. • A capital reserve for facility improvements was built into the model absorbing some of the building and solid waste improvement costs expended as special projects in 2015. 68 kessler consulting inc. Fayettevi':iej"6/Master Plan_.I Inal innovativewaste solutions City of Fayel eviile, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Flan Section S: Scenario Modeling Costs associated with administration, education and outreach, special projects, and transfers to the general fund were compiled from direct operational costs. These costs are noted as General and Administrative on the tables provided throughout this section. The net cost per ton for these expenses was calculated based on the total tons managed in the system. The following assumptions were made in modeling the baseline scenario, and were carried through to all scenarios unless otherwise indicated in subsequent scenario discussions: • Non -City waste managed by the City's system was estimated using the most recent four- year average, with no increase over time assumed. The material compositions for residential curbside recycling and recycling drop-off facilities were calculated based on 2015 actual tonnage. The estimated average market value per ton for each stream was then calculated based on these compositions and the five-year average of an industry -accepted market index for individual commodities. Based on City information, residential curbside recycling was assumed to have a 2.5% contamination rate and recycling drop-offs were assumed to have a 5% contamination rate. Compost revenue was based on 2015 actual compost revenue divided by inbound tons of yard waste. Outbound tons, or tons sold; were assumed to be 65% of inbound tons to account for decomposition that occurs during the composting process. Education and outreach expenses for 2015 were divided by the estimated population to determine the expenditure per capita ($1.55 per capita) and increased annually in relationship to population. • An annual inflation rate of 2.0% was assumed and applied to all costs Table 5-2 provides the baseline model results for the planning period, including net costs (estimated expenses less revenues) and net cost per ton by line of business and for the system overall. Based on the cost allocations and assumptions .outlined above, key findings of the baseline model include the following: The most costly program on a per -ton basis is the multi -family recycling program. This was expected given that these partitioned roll -offs are serviced when one compartment is full; therefore, payload is not maximized. In addition, this program yielded only 40 tons of recyclables in 2015. • The second most costly program is the curbside residential recycling program primarily because of the time and cost of sorting recyclables at the curb. Because the baseline scenario assumes the status quo, no changes in waste diversion are anticipated. Recyclable materials provide an 8% diversion rate and compostable materials - a 10% rate, for a total of diversion rate of 18%. Fayettevilie/ 'C6/Master Plan_ final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayet evilly, AR Solid Waste Reduct':on, Diveislots, and Rec:yding riaster Plan Section S: Scenario Modeling Table 5-2: Baseline Scenario Results 70 Pa;+eE�fevillejTGji �n:;ter f�lan_Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Faye eville, AR Solid Waste Redu tion, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section .5: Scenario Modeling Capturing recyclable materials that are currently landfilled as part of the City's MSW stream has the potential to increase the City's diversion rate by up to 20%. Following a discussion of various options to increase recovery of these materials, the City requested that two scenarios be modeled: • Recycling drop-offs: This scenario assumes that a network of recycling drop-off centers are developed throughout the City for use primarily by multi -family residents, businesses; and institutions. The City requested this scenario be included because of an apparent interest on the part of some local stakeholders. Single stream recycling: This scenario assumes that single stream recycling is implemented for residential curbside, multi -family complexes, businesses, and institutions. .. 1 to 1 The drop-off center scenario assumes that a network of eight additional recycling drop-offs would be established throughout the City, two per ward, and serviced by the City. The model was based on the following assumptions: The centers would be developed and constructed in 2017 and would become operational in 2018. Based on information provided by the City, the assumed costs to develop and service the centers were as follows: o Capital and site development were assumed at $500,000 per site, financed over 20 years with a 3% finance rate. o Based on the anticipated tonnage of recyclables, each site was assumed to have.5 receiving boxes (roll -offs) with a purchase cost of $6,500 each, straight -lined over ten years. These roll -offs would be partitioned to accommodate the various types of segregated materials accepted in the program. o Operational costs include utilities, lawn service, and container maintenance and replacement costs. The City provided costs for utilities and lawn service; KCI applied industry standard costs for container maintenance and repair. o A part-time attendant was assumed at each site. o Servicing receiving boxes was estimated based on the percentage of pulls to tons in 2015 for the Marion Orton drop-off and an average round-trip transportation time of two hours, including tipping. This cost included labor, operational expenses, and vehicle replacement cost. It, therefore, factored in the need to purchase another vehicle to service the roll -off containers. - • Curbside recycling would continue; therefore, these drop-offs would primarily be utilized by multi -family residents, businesses, and institutions. It was assumed that approximately 10% of the recyclable materials currently disposed by these generators would be collected through the expanded drop-off network. For multi -family complexes, this would equate to an estimated 61 pounds of recyclables materials 71 kessler consulting inc. i'ayEitEvillelTTSj€;aster Plaq_(-ina) innovative waste solutions recovered per multi -family unit annually, which exceeds the 58 pounds per unit collected at the multi -family complexes that participated in recycling in 2015. Since use of drop-off centers would be less convenient than a recycling roll -off located on a multi- family complex premises, a 10% recovery rate is likely optimistic. • It was also assumed that the existing multi -family recycling program (partitioned roll - offs) and commercial recycling program (collection of recyclables by type) would continue at the current level. Table 5-3 provides the drop-off center model results, including net costs and net cost per ton for each line of business and for the system overall, as well as projected diversion rates. Key findings of the drop-off scenario model include the following: • Although more drop-off centers increase convenience, they do not offer the convenience of collection at a business or multi -family complex location. Based on industry experience, high participation and recovery rates are not anticipated for a drop-off program in an urban city such as Fayetteville. This scenario is projected to increase the diversion rate to 20%. The cost per -ton to operate the drop-off recycling centers (Drop -Off Recyclables) increases substantially in this scenario because of the cost to establish each center and the low participation traditionally associated with drop-off programs. Establishing fewer additional drop-offs would lower costs, but would still result in low recovery rates. 72 ilavettevilieJ'l5!M€aster Plan Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, Aft Solid Waste. Reduction, Diversion, and Re.cycling Master Plan Section 5: Scenario t/1odeling Table 5-3: Drop -Off Center Scenario Results 73 kessler consulting inc. Fayeaie:viil�/'F,jl,•kste: ian_Fiaa! innovative waste solutions City o' Fayetteville, AR Solid 1. ste Reduction; Diversion , and Recycling Master Plan Section Scenario Modeling The single stream recycling scenario assumed that recyclable paper and containers would be collected in a single container and sorted by commodity at a single stream MRF and marketed. Single stream recycling would be provided to residents receiving curbside service, multi -family complexes, businesses, and institutions. The model is based on the following assumptions: A state-of-the-art single stream MRF does not currently exist in Northwest Arkansas. Therefore, this scenario was based on the City developing a small-scale MRF designed to process 10-15 tons of recyclables per hour (mini-MRF). If a decision is made to convert to single stream recycling, the City would likely conduct a competitive procurement to determine private sector interest in developing a privately owned, regional, state-of-the-art single stream MRF. If private sector interest does not exist, the City could contract for construction of a City -owned state-of-the-art mini-MRF. For modeling purposes, the costs to develop and operate a mini-MRF could more accurately be estimated. Therefore, it was assumed a mini-MRF would be constructed in 2017 and operational in 2018. The following assumptions were used for mini-MRF development and operation: o . Capital costs for site and facility development assuming the use of City -owned land ready to develop ($550,000) and primary equipment ($2.8 million) were assumed for a total of $3,350,000 financed over 20 years with a 3% finance rate. In addition, secondary equipment (rolling stock and baler) costs were assumed at $510,000, financed over 7 years with a 3% finance rate. o Operating costs, which included labor, were assumed at a variable rate of $60.00 - per ton, and maintenance and repair, costs for the facility, primary equipment, and secondary equipment were assumed at a variable rate of $6.00 per ton. The composition of single stream recyclables was estimated based on KCI's experience conducting municipal single stream recycling composition studies over the past two years: An estimated average per -ton market value for this mix of materials was then calculated based on the five-year average of an industry -accepted market index for individual commodities. The current market index for glass, rather than the 5-year index average, was used for a more conservative estimate. A 15% residue rate was assumed and haul and disposal costs were applied to the residue tonnage. • Curbside residential recycling was assumed to utilize 65-gallon roll carts at a cost of $50.00 per cart, which was straight -lined over 10 years. Collection of carted curbside single stream recyclables would be conducted similar to existing collection of carted solid waste. During the single stream pilot, carts were emptied in an average of 7 seconds; however, for modeling purposes a more conservative estimate of 10 seconds was used. • Multi -family and commercial recyclables would be collected on the same routes. It was assumed that 50% of these recyclables would be collected in carts and 50% in 74 kessler consulting inc. Fayetteville," 6/Master Plan „.Final. innovative waste solutions dumpsters. Carted collection was assumed to use 95-gallon carts at a cost of $55.00 per cart, which was also straight -lined over 10 years. Servicing carted recyclables at multi -family complexes, businesses, and institutions typically takes longer than servicing residential curbside carts since the carts often need to be rolled out to the truck and the density of customers is lower. Therefore, assumptions were adjusted to reflect the more time -intensive collection. The model calculates the number of new vehicles needed to collect single stream recyclables based on the projected quantity of recyclables and number of customers. The cost of these new vehicles was straight -lined over 8 years. In addition, future replacement costs were included in accordance with the City's motor pool replacement calculations. The resale or scrap value of the existing partitioned curbside recycling vehicles was not included in the model, again providing a more conservative cost estimate. - Education and outreach costs for 2018 and 2019 were increased by 10% to fund a comprehensive campaign for the rollout and implementation of single stream recycling for residential, multi -family, and commercial/institutional customers. • A commercial recycling coordinator would be hired in 2017 to develop a technical assistance program and assist businesses, institutions, and multi -family complexes with implementing single stream recycling. During the single stream pilot, recycling tonnage in the curbside pilot community increased by 94%; however, the model assumed a more conservative estimate of 67% increase in the first year and gradually increased over time. The model assumes the City would establish universal commercial recycling in which the base service fee for multi -family complexes and businesses would include recycling service: This is similar to the existing fee structure for curbside residential service. Including recycling service as part of the basic service fee would help minimize cost as a barrier to program participation. The model assumed a voluntary single stream program would grow until approximately 25% of multi -family recyclables and 50% of commercial recyclables were recovered. • If needed to further increase material recovery, the model assumed that a disposal ban on traditional recyclable materials (e.g., cardboard, paper, containers) would be established in 2022. The disposal ban, along with technical assistance and enforcement, was assumed to recover an additional 25% of multi -family recyclables and an additional 20% of commercial recyclables. Table 5-4 provides the single stream recycling model results, including net costs and net cost per ton for each line of business and for the system overall, as well as projected diversion rates. Key findings of the single stream recycling scenario model include the following: • Based on the model, converting to single stream recycling reduced the net per -ton cost of collecting, processing, and marketing curbside recyclables by 40-50%. In other words, the savings of converting from curb -sorting to carted collection more than offset 75 kessler consulting inc. Fayetteville/I6/?Aaster Plan Final innovative waste solutions the additional processing and marketing costs. In addition, the model utilized more conservative assumptions for collecting single stream recyclables than were demonstrated during the pilot program. • The cost to collect single stream multi -family recyclables, whether in dumpsters or carts, was projected to be less costly on a per -ton basis than the existing system that uses the partitioned roll -offs. • The per -ton cost to collect single stream commercial recyclables, again whether in dumpsters or carts, was projected to be slightly higher than the baseline. This is primarily because the cost for Commercial Recyclables in the baseline included only collection of paper grades in dumpsters (servicing commercial recycling bins was included with Residential Recyclables in the baseline model). Based on the relatively conservative diversion assumptions utilized in the model, voluntary single stream recycling would increase the City's diversion rate to 23% and establishing a disposal ban on recyclable materials would increase that rate to 28%. The 15% processing residue assumption mentioned above was not included in the diversion calculations, but was counted as disposal. 76 Fayetteville; "6/Master Plan_.Finai kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Mosier Plan Suction S: Scenario Modeling Table 5-4: Single Stream Recycling Scenario Results 77 kessler consulting inc. Fayettevii€�;;/sEj1,-iaster isn_Firiai innovative waste solutions pity of Fayettev: ie, AR Solid waste Reauction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section S: Scenario Modeling 5..3 Comparison of Material Recovery Results Figure 5-3 compares the net system costs for the baseline and the two material recovery scenarios over the course of the planning period, and Figure 5-4 provides the projected diversion rates for each of the three scenarios. The difference in total system costs between the three scenarios for any given year is less than 10% of the total cost. For a modeling tool of this type, this would not be considered significant. However, the single stream model is projected to achieve a substantially higher diversion rate. Figure 5-3: Projected System Net Costs for Baseline, Drop -Off, and Single Stream Scenarios Ln N O N Figure 5-4: Projected Diversion Rates for Baseline, Drop -Off, and Single Stream Scenarios £:ayetteville' 6/Ma5ter Plan_.Fina kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Capturing food waste that is currently landfilled has the potential to increase the City's diversion rate by up to 11%; including other organic materials such as low-grade paper in the recovery program could'divert up to an additional 6%. A program and infrastructure to target these organic materials was modeled based on the following assumptions: • A voluntary recovery program for commercial food waste and low-grade paper would be initiated in 2017. The program would target large commercial and institutional food waste generators, such as schools, supermarkets, and restaurants. A modest recovery rate of 10% of compostable materials was assumed. Since the City would likely be focusing on efforts to divert more recyclable materials from disposal during the 2017-2018 timeframe, it was assumed that additional organic material recovery efforts would not be initiated until 2019. At that time, it was assumed that a residential curbside food waste program would be initiated, with food waste and low-grade paper collected curbside with yard waste. A modest recovery rate of 10% of compostable materials generated by curbside residents was also assumed in that year, and was assumed to grow to 30% over time under a voluntary program. • It was also assumed that service fees for businesses and institutions generating substantial amounts of organic waste would be adjusted in 2019 to include collection and processing of this organic material in the base service fee. As mentioned above under single stream recycling, this fee structure eliminates cost as a factor and encourages participation in the organics recovery program. The model assumes the recovery rate for commercially generated compostable materials would grow to 35% under this voluntary program. • Curbside yard waste routes were adjusted to accommodate the anticipated increase in participation and tonnage resulting from the addition of food waste and low-grade paper to the collection program. s It was assumed that commercial customers would use 95-gallon roll carts to collect food waste and other compostable materials. The cost of purchasing and servicing these carts was modeled similar to carted commercial single stream recyclables. • . Based on the very successful pilot program, all food waste would be processed at the City's compost facility using the MSAP composting method (see Sections 3.3 and 4.1). Because the MSAP method composts material in 60 days instead of the 4-6 months required by the current windrow composting process, more material could be composted on the same amount of land. Therefore, the City's existing compost pad was determined to be sufficient to compost the estimated volume of organics collected through 2025. • No new equipment would be required for composting operations. Replacement costs for - existing equipment were accounted for in the existing equipment replacement schedule. • Operation and maintenance costs for the compost facility were based on standard industry estimates. For a conservative estimate, it was assumed that all operations would be accomplished by 2 full-time employees, although both employees would not be needed at all times. Compost would be tested every other month to ensure quality. 79 kessler consulting inc. Fayetteville,/ 16jr faster Plan,,, Final innovative waste solutions Yard waste, grass, leaves, food waste, and low-grade paper would be composted and sold as finished compost. As in the baseline model, it was assumed that approximately 50% of outbound tons would be mulch and 50% compost, and that the City would use about 40% of material produced. Premium compost made with food waste could be sold'at a higher price point than the City's existing compost made with yard waste only; therefore, anticipated revenue per ton was adjusted accordingly. If needed to further increase organics recovery, the model assumed that a disposal ban on curbside residential and commercial yard waste and food waste would be established in 2023. Recovery rates for compostable materials generated by curbside residents was assumed to increase to 50% and that generated by businesses and institutions was assumed to increase to 65%. Table 5-5 provides the organics recovery model results, including net costs and net cost per ton for each line of business and for the system overall, as well as projected diversion rates. Key findings of the organics recovery scenario model include the following: • The cost of collecting and processing commercial organics was projected to initially be high because of the relatively small quantity of organics assumed to be collected in the first year, but decreased overtime as participation and the quantity of organics recovered increased. • Likewise, the initial cost of adding food waste and low-grade paper to the curbside yard waste program initially increased the per ton cost, which also dropped as participation and tonnage grew. • Based on the model, development of a voluntary organics recovery program was projected to increase the diversion rate to 22%. Implementation of a food waste disposal ban was projected to increase that rate to 26%. smi Fayettev lief' 6/Master Plan._Finai kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste. Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Ilan Section 5: Scenario Modeling Table 5-5: Organics Recovery Scenario Results 81 kessler consulting inc. Fzyeat4.eviarr!-6%t,1as;.er Flan Final innovative waste solutions City o* Fayetteviie, AR Solid ;"v' ste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Mastcr Plan Section Scenario fitiodeling Approximately 15,000 tons of C&D debris and other bulky wastes were collected and landfilled by the City in 2015. Over the last decade, the quantity of material managed by the City through its dropbox program has averaged nearly 9,500 tons annually, with the 2015 tonnage being the highest of any year. Given the growth of residential and commercial development in Fayetteville and Northwest Arkansas in genera1,41 the potential exists for C&D debris tonnage to remain high. An unknown quantity of C&D debris is also collected by private haulers franchised by the City. Based on the visual audit conducted in January 2015, at least 70% of the C&D and bulky waste collected by the City consisted of material that could potentially have been recycled. As mentioned in Section 3.7, material recovery from C&D debris can occur by source separating materials at the job site prior to collection or recovering materials after collection at a processing facility or through manual floor sorting. Communities that have reported the greatest success with source separation programs generally mandate and/or provide a substantial financial incentive for separating materials. The success of a voluntary program can - be highly variable. Regarding recovery after collection, a permitted C&D recovery facility does not currently exist in Northwest Arkansas and floor sorting of C&D debris typically recovers a relatively small percentage of the inbound waste stream. Therefore, for modeling purposes, it was assumed that the City would establish a very basic C&D processing line. To maximize the throughput and therefore the efficiency of the C&D system, the City could potentially expand its C&D collection services or require franchised haulers to deliver C&D debris to the City's processing site. However, for the purposes of the model, it was assumed that only the current tonnage would be processed by the City, adjusted over time to -reflect growth. The C&D recovery scenario was modeled based on the following assumptions: Since the City's priorities are on diverting more residential and commercial MSW from disposal, it was assumed. that these would be the primary focus in 2017-2019. To further evaluate the feasibility -of a C&D debris processing facility, it was assumed that a manual floor sorting pilot program would be conducted in 2019. It was further assumed that this pilot would be conducted utilizing existing staff and would divert approximately 5% of the C&D debris received. • Assuming the pilot program is a success, a C&D MRF would then be initiated in 2019 based on the following assumptions: o The capital costs_for land, site development, facility, and primary equipment were assumed at $1,750,000, financed over 20 years with a 3% finance rate. Secondary equipment (rolling stock) costs were assumed at $110,000, financed over 7 years with a 3%finance rate. 43 Souza, Kim, "Northwest Arkansas Construction Permits Up 103% through June," Talk Business & Politics, August 1, 2016 (https•//talkbusiness net/2016/08/northwest-arkansas-construction-permits-up-103-through-Tune/). OP) i:ayetteville; S5/Master Plan" --Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions o Operating costs, which included labor, were assumed at a variable rate of $30.00 per ton, and maintenance and repair costs for the facility, primary equipment, and secondary equipment were assumed at a variable rate of $3.00 per ton. • Because markets for recovered C&D materials can be highly variable based on local conditions, no revenue was assumed in the model to provide a conservative estimate. • The model assumed an initial diversion rate of approximately 50% of C&D and bulky waste received, which was increased to 70% over time. Table 5-6 provides the C&D debris recovery model results, including net costs and net cost per ton for each line of business and for the system overall, as well as projected diversion rates. Key findings of the C&D debris recovery scenario model include the following: Based on the model, the average cost of collecting and processing C&D debris to recover materials ranged from $82-$85 per ton (weighted average of Dropbox/C&D IVISW and Dropbox/C&D Recovered). This cost was $14-$20 more per ton than simply transferring and disposing of this material; however, the model did not attempt to predict revenue for the recovered materials. As mentioned above, revenue for recovered C&D materials would depend an local markets, but average revenue in the range of $20-30 per ton is not uncommon for a facility of this type. The model assumed that the quantity of C&D debris collected or received by the City would continue to grow. If that does not occur, the per -ton cost to process this material would be higher than projected. Alternatively, the per -ton cost would be reduced if a greater amount of C&D debris were processed at the facility. Because the City controls the management of all waste generated within the City, the potential exists to direct additional C&D debris to a City -owned processing facility. • Based on the material recovery rates assumed in the model, recovery of reusable and recyclable materials.from C&D debris was projected to increase the City's diversion rate to 33% over the planning period. 83 Fayetteville/!1'6/Miaster Plan.. Final kessler consulting inc. innovative wG solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Soiic3 Waste. Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling mas er Plan Ser_t'bn S: Sce.n<ario Madeling Table 5-6: C&D Debris Recovery Scenario Results NET COSTS, .. :-.: ...:. MSW $1,942,327 $1,981,174 $2,020,797 $2,075,148 $2,131,307 $2,189,229 $2,248,967 $2,310,595 $2,374,179 $2,439,788 $2,507,502 Residential Recyclables $957,459 $983,710 $1,010,486 $1,032,737 $1,055,501 $1,078,834 $1,102,755 $1,127,279 $1,152,425 $1,178,211 $1,204,655 Organics $549,647 $560,916 $572,411 $586,280 $600,551 $615,219 $630,296 $645,796 $661,733 $678,120 $694,974 MSW $2,471,420 $2,520,848 $2,571,265 $2,649,511 $2,730,708 $2,814,760 $2,901,761 $2,991,838 $3,085,109 $3,181,696 $3,281,741 Commercial/ Recyclables $162,335 $168,883 $115,563 $180,375 $185,333 $190,458 $195,759 $201,242 $206,914 $212,782 $218,853 Multi -Family Organics Multi -Family Recyclables $18,497 $18,958 $19,429 $19,844: $20,268 $20,702 $21,146 $21,601 $22,067 $22,543 $23,031 MSW $1,479 $1,509 $1,539 $1,605 $1,685 $1,738 $1,810 $1,885 $1,964 $2,045 $2,130 Drop -Off Recyclables $106,596 $110,354 $114,188 $117,232 $120,367 $123,605 $126,949 $130,402 $133,971 $137,657 $141,467 Organics $163,515 $167,299 $171,159 $179,092 $187,413 $196,109 $20S,194 $214,688 $224,606 $234,970 $245,799 Ward Cleanup MSW $38,524 $39,295 $40,081 $41,138 $42,182 $43,142 $44,219 $45,327 $46,466 $47,639 $48,846 MSW $903,255 $921,320 $939,747 $972,965 $970,3381 $827,002 $791,718 $753,065 $710,367 $663,337 $612,165 Dropbox/C&D Debris Recovered I 1 $62,308 $560,895 $620,798 $684,237 $751,188 $821,514 $896,337 Non -City Collected MSW $421,510 $429,941 $438,539 $449,691 $458,851 $462,845 $471,175 $479,648 $488,307 $497,153 $506,151 General &Admin. All tons $2,944,818 $3,009,383 $3,072,700 $3,137,356 $3,270,798 $3,270,798 $3,339,642 $3,409,942 $3,481,729 $3,555,033 $3,629,889 Total System Net'C6sts $10,681,38Z ,$10,913,590 $11,147,904 $11,442,975 $11,837;61Z $12,395,337 „ $12,702,191 Y$13U17,544` ' $13 341;OZ3 $13672,488° $14,013,541 NETCOSTPERTON , MSW $131 $134 $137 $137 $138 $138 $139 $139 $140 $141 $141 Residential Recyclables $309 $317 $326 $325 $325 $325 $325 $324 $324 $324 $324 Organics $228 $233 $238 $238 $238 $239 $239 $239 $240 $240 $241 MSW $87 $89 $90 $91 $92 $92 $93 $94 $95 $95 $96 Commercial/ Recyclables $90 $94 $97 $98 $98 $99 $99 $100 $100 $101 $101 Multi -Family Organics Multi -Family Recyclables $462 $474 $486 $485 $484 $484 $483 $482 $481 $481 $480 MSW $39 $40 $40 $41 $42 $43 $44 $44 $45 $46 $47 Drop -Off Recyclables $106 $109 $113 $114 $114 $114 $115 $115 $116 $116 $117 Organics $36 $37 $38 $39 $40 $41 $42 $43 $44 $45 $46 Ward Cleanup MSW $176 $179 $183 $184 $184 $184 $184 $185 $185 $186 $186 MSW $59 $60 $61 $62 $63 $105 $106 $107 $109 $110 $112 Dropbox/C&D Debris Recovered $105 $66 $67 $67 $68 $69 $70 Non -City Collected MSW $39 $40 $40 $42 $42 $43 $44 $44 $45 $46 $47 General &Admin. All tons $36 $36 $37 $37 $38 $37 $37 $37 $37 $37 $38 Total System Net Cost per Ton $130 $132 $135 $136 $138 $142 $142 - $143 $144 $144 $145 ESTIMATED DIVERSION RATE Recyclable Materials 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% Compostable Materials 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% C&D Debris 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 11% 12% 13% 13% 14% 15% Total Systei» Estimated Diueision 18% , ';' : 18% 18°% 18% ; 19•/ 29'� ;,, ?4°e..,. 31% ' 31% 32 % 33%a 84 kessler consulting inc. Fayett.eviii a;70;' tassar Plan -Final innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Flan Section S: Scenario Modeling Based on the results of the various scenarios outlined above, a combined analysis was conducted of those scenarios deemed to be most promising in helping the City strive toward its 80% diversion goal. These included the following; • Single stream recycling • Organic material recovery • C&D debris recovery The same assumptions for each of these elements was used in this combined scenario analysis as in the individual scenario models. Table 5-7 provides the results of this analysis. Figure 5-5 compares the projected total system net costs and diversion rates for the baseline and combined scenario. Figure 5-5: Projected System Net Costs of Baseline and Cumulative Scenarios Baseline Scenario sCombined Scenario 85 fsayetteJille!/I`5j?viaster Plan Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Give, lion, and Recycling Mast .r Plan Suction S: Scenario Modeling Table 5-7: Combined Single Stream, Organics, and C&D Debris Recovery Scenario Results FarF.tY.evliiE'i!-%.j iviaS4F'.! Pl:an_Fina! kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction; Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section Scenario Modeling Key findings of this combined scenario model include the following: The combined scenarios of single stream recycling, organics recovery, and C&D debris processing resulted in projected total system costs that were comparable to the baseline. Significant savings would be realized in some collection programs, most notably eliminating sorting residential recyclables at the curb and use of partitioned roll -offs to service multi- family complexes. These savings were projected to offset the costs of processing single stream materials. The combined scenario projected achieving approximately 40% diversion through voluntary programs with an increase to at least 50% should disposal bans on select materials be established. These diversion rates are based on the relatively conservative assumptions utilized in the model. Depending on how programs are implemented, the effectiveness of education and outreach, and the efficiency of recovery facilities that are established, higher diversion should be achievable. System models, such as that utilized to evaluate these various diversion scenarios, are tools for planning purposes. They estimate and project potential costs; revenues, and diversion rates based on a set of variables and assumptions derived from industry knowledge and standards. System models are not intended to take the place of more detailed implementation plans for specific programs and facilities the City might wish to develop. Decisions made during the planning and implementation process will determine the overall costs and effectiveness of the resulting recovery program or facility. 87 £'ayettevti e;'1'6/Master Na kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions This page intentionally left blank. m irayettevtlle/.I'S/1-taster Plan Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Section1. Proposed Action Plan Figure 6-1 depicts the quantities and types of material streams managed by the City in 2015, excluding out -of -city waste received at the transfer station. Approximately 18% of the materials managed was recycled or composted and the remaining 82% was landfilled. The figure also breaks down the landfilled materials by type, based on results of a waste composition study, to identify the greatest opportunities for the City to strive toward its goal of 80% diversion. These key opportunities are as follows: 1) Commercial and multi -family residential recyclables materials (blue and orange striped slices) — up to 11,734 tons (16% increased diversion potential) 2) . Organic materials (green dotted and striped slices) —up to 12,534 tons (17% increased diversion potential) 3) C&D debris (brown slice) — up to 10,713 tons, assuming 70% of bulky waste/C&D debris consists of recyclable material (15% increased diversion potential) Figure 6-1: Composition of Materials Managed by the City in 2015 (tons, % by weight) RES Compostables, 4,440, 6 % COM/MF C€ mpostables, 8,094, 11% Bulky/^�C&D Debris, 15,304, 22% RES=Residential; COM/MF = Commercial/Multi-Family Recycled, 5,953, _._ 8% RES Paper & Containers, 3,996, 6% COM/MF Paper & Containers, 8,631, 12% RES Other Recyclables, 1,484, 2% COM/MF Other Recyclables, 3,103, 4% ®rw RES Other, 5,124, 7% COM/MF Other, 8,630, 12% 89 kessler consulting inc. S'ayettevillell'r,(ii`asEer Plaq_Pinzi innovative waste solutions City of Fayettevi e, AR Solis) Waste Recuction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section b: Pr000sed Action Plan During the planning process, various diversion options were identified, pilot programs to evaluate a commercial food waste program and single stream recycling were conducted, and various diversion scenarios were modeled. In addition, stakeholder input was obtained through surveys; public meetings; and meetings with property managers, private sector companies, interested citizens, and elected officials. The results of this planning process are summarized in this document and have resulted in the proposed plan of action outlined in this section. A phased plan is proposed in order to focus on specific generator sectors and material streams to make incremental progress toward the 80% diversion goal. The three phases of the proposed plan are as follows: Phase 1 focuses on establishing the facilities, programs, and policies needed to more effectively and efficiently recover recyclable materials from businesses and residents, as well as to establish an organics program that includes food waste and other compostable materials. • Phase 2 continues to build upon and grow the Phase 1 programs, and also targets recovering recyclable materials in the C&D and bulky waste stream. Phase 3 offers policy options to further incentivize material recovery should the City's goals not be met, as well as policies to help ensure the long-term financial viability of infrastructure developed by the City. The policies, programs, and facilities envisioned in each phase of the plan are detailed in Tables 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3, with additional discussion and explanation in the remainder of this section. This is intended to be a dynamic plan. Various decisions will need to be made when implementing each element of the plan. These decisions have the potential to affect other elements of the plan. System effectiveness should continuously be monitored, progress toward accomplishing City goals evaluated, and adjustments made as needed. 0111 i:ayetteville,'F6/Master Pian_.Fina kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions ^ myol Fayettew|le,/m soii�Waste nsduU|on'Diversion, podRecycling Master Plan �acl/:os:pmpnspdAcuonp|an TableG-1: Phase 1Proposed Action Plan ° Establish universal Implement residential and 0 Deliver recyclables commercial and commercial/multi-family ^to private single multi -family ~ `_ single stream recycling; odd ~ stream MRF or recyo����a�e '�` � serv�efeeindudey^` . � Providesingle - � stream the cost »f - to businesses and multi--.'~ City- service)^ family fami � � complexes �� � � _ u�nedmi»�K�Kp ~ KCity mini-MRFis implement --_-_'_�_--`�_'—`� -�''� ��� ' 22m '` ` developed, require � ° Contnuetoex franchised haulers � commercial organics recovery to deliver - recydu6ks '``^ '* Expand Green CbyP �r~^. collected within the * Continue implementing ' City tothe K8RF communications plan 91 kessler consulting inc. City o' Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion:., and Recycling Master Plan Section 6: Prwosed Action Plan Table 6-2: Phase 2 Proposed Action Plan • Continue implementing • Monitor and communications plan implement • Continue technical assistance `operational to businesses and multi- _ efficiencies at all 40% family complexes facilities (mini-MRF, compost facility, • Continue to monitor and C&D facility, transfer enhance Green City Program station) 92 Fayetteviiie,•'''5/master PlanFina! kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, FAR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 6: Proposed Action Plan Table 6-3: Phase 3 Proposed Action Plan 93 kessler consulting inc. Fayetteville/I :`aster PIa.^._.Final innovative waste solutions City o` Fayetteviie, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 6: Prowsed Action Plan 6 Implementation of This section summarizes the key elements in the three-phase plan aimed at maximizing material recovery and reducing the amount of waste landfilled. The proposed facilities; programs, and policies to implement each of these key elements are discussed. 6.2.1 Single Stream Recyclinj.- Based on the pilot program and industry trends nationally, single stream recycling is a key element to capture additional recyclable materials generated by all sectors. It is therefore included in Phase 1 of the plan. Converting to single stream recycling will allow more efficient and effective collection of recyclables from businesses and multi -family complexes. It will enable the City to implement more cohesive and comprehensive commercial and multi -family recycling programs that do not present the burden of multiple or partitioned containers or the inconvenience of having to separate recyclables by type. In addition, the single stream pilot program demonstrated that - participation and recovered material tonnage in the curbside residential program will also increase. At the same time, curbside collection efficiency and worker safety will be significantly improved compared to the existing curb - sort system. Additional discussion of single stream recycling is provided in Section 3.2 and results of the single stream pilot program can be found in Section 4.2. Because a state-of- the-art single stream MRF does not currently exist in Northwest Arkansas, developing such a facility would be the first step if a Picture 6-1: Example of 10 TPH Mini-MRF in Maryland decision is made to pursue single stream recycling. The City would likely want to first explore private sector interest in developing a privately owned, regional, state-of-the-art single stream MRF through a Request for Proposals (RFP) process. If a private sector option is not viable, the City could then pursue developing a City -owned modern mini-MRF. A mini-MRF_ is designed to process approximately 10-15 tons of recyclables per hour (20,000- 30,000 tons per year with 1 shift), which would provide sufficient capacity for the City to more than quadruple the quantity of recyclables currently collected. If the City chooses to build a mini-MRF, it will be the first modern single stream MRF in Northwest Arkansas. Therefore, the City should be able to source materials from other communities through inter -local agreements to fully utilize MRF capacity. A second shift could be added to increase capacity if needed. 94 kessler consulting inc. Fayettevliie; 6/MasterPian Final innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Ma2ster Pan sectior, 5: Proposed Action, P€an More detailed program plans will need to be developed and implemented for the three primary generator sectors: curbside residents, multi -family complex residents, and businesses/institutions. These plans will more clearly define equipment and vehicle needs, implementation schedules, communication strategies, and technical assistance to customers. Summarized below are some of the main items that should be addressed in these program plans. 1) Curbside residents: Converting curbside residents to single stream recycling should be fairly straight -forward since a curbside recycling program is already in place. Key items in the program plan include the following: o Existing curb -sort collection vehicles will need to be sold or traded in, and additional automated side -load vehicles purchased. o Recycling carts will need to be purchased, assembled, and distributed. o New collection routes will need to be Picture 6-2: Trash and Recycling Carts during Fayetteville Pilot developed to service more houses per routes. These routes could potentially be aligned with trash routes. o A communications strategy for notifying residents of the new system will be a critical component of the program plan. The City could potentially phase in single stream recycling, but this would need to be balanced against providing sufficient tonnage for MRF operations. In addition, once carts are distributed in one neighborhood, residents in other neighborhoods typically start asking for them. 2) Businesses/institutions: The program plan for rolling out single stream recycling to businesses and institutions should strive to provide this service to all entities that generate recyclable materials. As mentioned below under policies, universal commercial recycling is proposed in which the base service fee for businesses and institutions would include the cost of recycling. Therefore, the program plan should encourage and assume high participation. Key items to address in the program plan include the following: o A technical assistance program to assist property owners or managers in establishing recycling programs will be critical. The technical assistance program, which is discussed in greater detail in Section 3.5, should include helping entities to right -size their waste collection services once an effective recycling program is established. o A full-time commercial/multi-family recycling coordinator is called for in the plan to develop and implement the hands-on technical assistance program. 95 kessler consulting inc. Fayetteville!'1`5(i.laster Plan._Final innovative waste solutions Uy of Faye t teve, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Plaster Plan Section 6: €'r000sed Action >>lan o Additional collection containers will be needed. Some combination of carts and dumpsters will likely be utilized for collection depending on the size, type, and space availability of the business or institution. o Some additional collection vehicles might be needed; however, right -sizing trash collection services should help keep this to a minimum. The quantity of materials collected is not changing, just the manner in which they are sorted and collected. o Commercial/institutional recycling and trash routes will need to be reconfigured to maximize efficiency. 3) Multi -family complexes: Establishing effective recycling programs for multi -family complexes is especially challenging. As with businesses, the program plan should envision working with property owners or managers of individual complexes to identify appropriate containers and container placement. Recycling containers should ideally be placed adjacent to waste containers for resident convenience. Space limitations are often a factor, which makes right -sizing waste containers especially important. Educating a diverse and often transient population about the recycling program is critical to its success. The program plan for multi -family complexes will include the same elements as the commercial plan. It should be developed concurrently with the commercial plan since collection services will likely be provided on the same routes. 't The decision to convert to single stream recycling is in itself a policy decision to be made by _ the City Council. Additional policies that are proposed to support the recycling program include the following:- - 1) Modify building codes to require new commercial and multi -family developments to provide adequate space and access for recycling. Lack of space for recycling containers is a reason often given by businesses and complexes for not recycling. Space and access for recycling should be an integral part of all new developments.. 2) Establish universal recycling for businesses, institutions, and multi -family complexes in which the cost of recycling service is included in the base service fee. This is similar to residential pricing in that all residents pay for collection and processing of recyclables and yard waste as part of their base solid waste fee. This would eliminate cost as a factor in deciding whether or not to participate in recycling. 3) Revise and reissue nonexclusive franchises. Franchise agreements with private companies allowing them to collect commercial recyclables and waste in large roll -off containers should be updated and reissued. Two suggested revisions include (a) requirement to report services provided within the City, quantity of materials collected, and facility to which materials were delivered for recycling or disposal and (b) authority for the City to designate facilities for material delivery if so desired. The first revision will provide the City with a more complete understanding of how all waste generated within the City is managed, as well as help ensure that all waste diversion is being counted. The latter revision will enable the City to direct materials to facilities that might be developed by the City, such as the mini-MRF mentioned above. Increasing Fayetteviliej? 6/Master PlanFwinai kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteviile, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Flan Sectior 6: Proposed Action Flan waste diversion will require an investment by the City in equipment and facilities; therefore, the City should ensure that sufficient materials are received to fully utilize this investment. A program to divert food waste and other organics from disposal and to compost these materials using the modified static aerobic pile (MSAP) method at the City compost facility is another key element of the proposed plan. This is also included in Phase 1. The food waste pilot program demonstrated the feasibility of utilizing the MSAP method to compost food waste along with yard waste at the facility. Because of the shorter composting time required with the MSAP method (60 days versus 4-6 months with the existing windrow composting system), more material can be composted on the same amount of land-. The estimated capacity of the City's 3.2-acre composting pad using the MSAP method should be more than adequate to manage the additional organic materials anticipated if the City expands its organics program to include food waste and other compostable materials. The pilot program also demonstrated the feasibility of collecting food waste from businesses and institutions utilizing roll carts. The first step is to obtain a Type CO permit to allow composting of food waste and other organic picture 6-4: Turning Food Waste materials at the City's compost facility. The City into Compost Pile has already initiated the permit application process. Because the existing facility would be utilized, no new equipment should be required for composting operations, and existing equipment would be replaced on the previously established schedule. An operational plan has already been developed for the permit application. Food stock generally produces a higher quality compost, so the City should explore additional markets for this finished Picture 6-3: Food Waste in Compost Pile during Fayetteville Pilot product to maximize revenue. 97 kessler consulting inc. Fayetteville176/rAlaster Plan... Final innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion:., and Recycling Master Plan Section 6: Proposed Action Plan As with single stream recycling, more detailed program plans will need to be developed and implemented for the three main generator sectors. Because the City's compost facility is established and operational, the plan proposes initiating a commercial and institutional food waste program fairly quickly. 1) Commercial sector: The initial focus of a food waste program should be on large commercial food waste generators, such as supermarkets, restaurants, and institutions. The proposed plan includes initiating a voluntary Picture 6-5: Screening Finished Compost commercial food waste and low-grade paper collection and composting program in 2017. The program plan should initially focus on these large generators, but also include a strategy for expanding the program over time. The technical assistance program mentioned above should be a comprehensive program that works with property owners and managers to establish not only recycling, but also organics collection programs. Likewise, the full-time commercial/multi-family recycling coordinator mentioned above will lead this effort. Food waste is typically collected in carts. 2) Curbside residents: Roll -out of a residential food waste program is proposed for 2019 after single stream recycling has been established. This timeframe can be adjusted based on the City's priorities. To minimize collection costs, the plan proposes collecting food waste and low-grade paper with yard waste in compostable bags or resident - provided containers. The City could also consider providing carts for organic materials. The organics program will need to be an integral part of the communications plan and education materials provided to residents. 3) Multi -family complexes: The plan does not include collecting food waste from multi- family complexes because of the inherent difficulties in educating an often transient population to ensure a clean material stream for composting. The proposed policies to support the organics program are similar to those outlined above for single stream recycling. They include the following: 1) Modify building codes to require new commercial developments that are expected to generate substantial quantities of food waste to provide adequate space and access for food waste collection containers. m FayettevilleIT6/1Vlaster Plan... Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recyc ing Master Fran Section 6: Proposed Action Plan 2) Establish universal organics recovery for commercial businesses and institutions that generate substantial quantities of food waste in which the cost of organic materials collection and composting would be include in the base service fee. 3) Require private haulers of segregated food waste to report to the City. During the food waste pilot program, several businesses indicated they were already collecting food waste which was being collected by a private company for use as animal feed. City Code (Section 50.29) prohibits emptying garbage or trash receptacles or conveying garbage or trash on the streets or public thoroughfares of the City without the City's authorization. Therefore, these companies likely require some form of authorization or franchise from the City. At a minimum, the City should require these private companies to report the quantities of food waste collected within the City and where it is delivered so this material can be included in the City's diversion rate. In 2015, the City managed approximately 15,000 tons of C&D debris and other bulky waste, more than 70% of which consisted of materials that could potentially be recycled based on a visual audit. Development within the City has been increasing, which gives reason to believe that this tonnage may remain at this level or continue to increase. Additional C&D debris is collected by private companies franchised by the City. These franchisees typically do not deliver C&D debris to the City's transfer station. The proposed plan places priority on residential and commercial recycling and composting prifgrams first, after which C&D debris is addressed. This prioritization can be adjusted as needed and as Division staff is able to expand its focus. The C&D material recovery industry is evolving in Northwest Arkansas. Although no C&D MRF is currently operating, permits are pending for 2 privately owned facilities. The City should monitor the activities of these facilities and any other local or regional C&D MRFs that might develop to determine the best course of action when ready to address C&D debris. The proposed plan considers 2 approaches depending on whether private C&D material processing capacity develops in the region or if the City decides to develop a C&D MRF. If the City does not develop a C&D MRF but private processing capacity exists, the proposed plan recommends establishing C&D debris recycling and waste diversion (includes reduction and reuse) standards, and linking these standards to the permitting process. If the City develops a C&D MRF, the proposed plan recommends establishing policies that would help ensure the financial viability and operational efficiency of such a facility. These approaches are not mutually exclusive, but both might not be needed depending on the policies the City is willing to establish to implement each approach. This is further discussed below. S.ayetteville?T6j A3ster Plan -Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions C i'y of Fayet'teviiie, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 6: Pro;aosed Addon Plan If one or more privately owned C&D MRFs become permitted and operational in Northwest Arkansas, the City should meet with facility representatives to determine the role each might play in maximizing recycling of C&D debris generated in the City. An analysis would be needed regarding the feasibility of contracting with a private C&D MRF to process C&D and bulky waste collected or received by the City. Factors such as facility location and transportation and processing fees would need to be considered. If no privately owned C&D MRF becomes permitted, the City should consider developing a City -owned facility. Under this option, the proposed plan includes a C&D debris recycling pilot program in 2019 to manually recover recyclable materials at the transfer station. This pilot would provide a more accurate understanding of the types and quantities of materials in the C&D and bulky waste received at the transfer station. Should the pilot confirm the presence of substantial quantities of recyclable materials, the Picture 6-7: Manual Sorting Line at C&D MRF plan includes development of a basic C&D MRF. Although the quantity of C&D and bulky waste collected by the City is relatively low to justify this investment, the City has the potential to grow this business or to designate, through its collection franchises, where C&D debris collected by franchisees is delivered (see policies below). - Picture 6-6: Vibrating Finger Screen at C&D MRF C&D MRFs utilize a combination of equipment and manual labor. Generally the larger the tonnage throughput, the more financially viable to have a more highly mechanized system. Depending on the composition of the infeed materials and local markets, recovery rates of at least 70% are typically achieved. While specific equipment varies, a basic C&D debris processing line utilizes screening/separating equipment to sort material by size; a conveyor with bunkers for manually sorting recyclable materials such as scrap metal; wood, yard waste, shingles, cardboard, etc.; and a magnetic separator to recover ferrous metals. The City currently has markets for metals and cardboard, but would need to identify markets for wood and other recovered materials. Clean, untreated wood could be reused, with the remainder potentially ground for fuel. IM Fayetteviiiej 6/PAaster Plan Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville; AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan 5ectior 5: Proposed Action Plan If the City does not develop a C&D MRF, the proposed plan recommends developing a program to implement C&D recycling and waste diversion standards (as discussed in the policies below). The program would establish a system for those seeking permits to submit diversion plans for review, define the documentation needed to demonstrate diversion, and set fees if diversion standards are not met. It would also involve working with the franchised haulers to inform them of the C&D diversion standards and program. C&D diversion standards could be established even if the City develops a C&D MRF; however, an alternate approach would be to establish policies that direct C&D generated within the City to the City's MRF (see policies below), which would ensure all C&D debris would be processed for material recovery. Policies If the City does not develop a C&D MRF, the proposed plan recommends establishing C&D recycling and waste diversion standards to be met by all projects requiring a permit for construction, demolition, or renovation. Permittees could segregate materials at the work site or contract with the City or a franchised hauler to collect mixed C&D debris and deliver it to a C&D MRF for processing. Permittees would need to document how the material was handled and how much was reused, recycled, and disposed. _ If the City develops a C&D MRF, policies to help maximize the operational efficiency and ensure the financial viability of the facility include the following: Designation of a processing facility for C&D debris in collection franchises: The City could increase tonnage to the MRF by revising its franchise agreements to require delivery of all C&D debris collected within the City to the MRF. Lower tipping fee for source -separated C&D-materials: To further enhance material recovery and improve operational efficiencies, the City could offer a lower tipping fee for source -segregated C&D materials such as wood, metals, etc. This would encourage do-it-yourselfers and contractors to separate materials prior to delivery to the City. It would also provide the City with materials that require minimal processing prior to marketing. Lower tipping fee for C&D debris: If the City does not wish to require franchised haulers to deliver C&D debris to a City -owned MRF, the City could offer a lower tipping fee for C&D debris to entice private haulers to deliver C&D debris to the City's facility rather than to the landfill. A more detailed analysis would be needed to determine a viable tipping fee that attracts more material, but also ensures the financial stability of the facility and program. A well -planned and executed communications plan is an integral part of any effective materials management program. The plan should utilize an array of communication tools 101 kessler consulting inc. i a Yetteville/'N/ :`aster Plan __Final innovative waste solutions ity of Fayettev lle, AR Solid Waste Reciuction, Diversion, znd Recycling Master Plan Seciion d: Proposed Ac ion Plan (audio, video, text, graphics, social media). For an individual to absorb a message, a general rule of thumb has been that 5-7 touches, or points of information receipt, were required. However, because of the increasing number and types of sources of information we are bombarded with daily, some industry experts believe that 9-12 touches may be required to impact behavior change. Specific recommendations on enhancing the City's existing communications program are provided in Section 3.4. A technical assistance program goes hand -in -hand with a communications plan. Owners or managers of businesses, institutions, and multi -family complexes will require not only a concerted effort to educate them about recycling, but also a comprehensive technical assistance program to provide the tools and knowledge to help them set up effective recycling and organics recovery systems. Key elements of a technical assistance program are outlined in Section 3.5. The City will need to work with property owners, managers, and tenants on an ongoing basis to actively engage this sector in waste reduction and recycling. To develop and implement an effective communications plan and technical assistance program will require a commitment of resources by the City. Therefore, the plan proposes a designated commercial/multi-family recycling coordinator. 6.2.5 Green City Program - Lead by Example Initiating a progressive Green City -Program that includes comprehensive recycling and organics recovery programs at City -owned or operated facilities will demonstrate the City's commitment to maximizing waste diversion, as well as serve as models for other businesses and institutions. Establishing comprehensive recycling programs in parks and at public events, venues, and areas instills an ethos of sustainability and encourages recycling at home, work, and play. For example, coupling recycling and trash receptacles (twinning the bins) in all public buildings and places would ensure that recycling is widely available and always an option. Green City Programs usually extend beyond recycling to include broader sustainability policies, such as environmentally preferable purchasing (EPP), which entails establishing purchasing policies that include environmental considerations (e.g., recycled -content, product longevity, etc.) in addition to price when making purchasing decisions. Leveraging the purchasing power of governments can stimulate demand for greener products and has the potential to encourage and drive market innovation. A Green City Program would require establishing a City policy to initiate the program and developing a detailed program plan and schedule. it should complement other sustainability efforts initiated by the City. The education and technical assistance materials previously discussed could be utilized for this program as well. 102 f:ayettevifle/'i 6/Master Plan Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Fayetteville, AR Solid waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 6: Proposed Action Alan • • till • •� ., The key program elements outlined previously in this section have included recommended policies pertaining to that specific element. Should implementation of these action plan elements fail to achieve the City's desired diversion goals, the City may wish to implement additional policies that further encourage or incentivize waste reduction and recycling. Some of the various policies utilized by other local governments were discussed in Section 3.9. Outlined below are several policies that are included in the proposed plan: 1) Disposal bans: At least 47 states ban the disposal of one or more items, including Arkansas, which bans the landfilling of lead -acid batteries and yard waste.44 Communities reporting some of the highest recycling rates have employed disposal bans for items such as recyclable materials, yard waste, food waste, and unprocessed C&D debris. Such bans generally apply to entities that generate substantial quantities of the targeted material. Bans are usually phased in with a grace period prior to enforcement or fines. The plan proposes the City consider disposal bans on recyclable materials included in the City program, yard waste, and food waste should diversion goals not be achieved. Any such ban would need to be carefully developed and executed. 2) Every other week trash collection: Once food waste is captured with the organics stream and the quantity of trash generated by residents is significantly reduced through recycling, trash should no longer need to be collected on a weekly basis. Some progressive communities with effective organics recovery programs offer residents the option of every other week or even monthly trash collection (organic materials continue to be collected weekly).. Should the City wish to implement this policy, .it would also need to be carefully planned and executed. While collecting trash on a biweekly basis would lower costs and further encourage waste reduction and recycling participation, the City would need to ensure all putrescible materials are collected on a weekly basis. As the City progresses in implementing changes to its materials management system, additional policies will undoubtedly warrant consideration. For example, product"bans for items such as expanded polystyrene food service ware and retail plastic bags were considered during the planning process. Once an effective infrastructure is established for recovering and managing greater quantities of recyclable and compostable materials, consideration might then be given to policies that discourage generation of waste products that cannot be reused, recycled, or composted. The primary objective of this Master Plan is to provide policy, program, and facility recommendations for the City to develop an efficient, cost-effective materials management 44 The Northeast Recycling Council, Inc. (NERC), Disposal Bans and Mandatory Recycling in the United States, June 24, 2011, p.1. 103 kessler consulting inc. S ayetteville/161'Master Plan.J inal innovative waste solutions City o` l ayettevi0e, AR Solid Waste Redaction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Section 6: Pio;)oseei Aci3on Plan system that maximizes waste reduction and recycling and puts the City on a path to attaining its goal of 80% waste diversion. The planning process included a baseline and operational analysis of the City's existing waste management system, waste composition study, meetings and surveys to obtain community and stakeholder input, evaluation of potential waste reduction and diversion options, two pilot programs to gain City -specific experience with several of these options, and modeling of various waste diversion options. This Master Plan provides the results of these various tasks, as well as a proposed action plan based on these results to strive to maximize waste diversion. Combined, the key elements of the proposed action plan work synergistically. A scenario model that included these key elements resulted in a 50% diversion rate by the end of the 10- year planning period. Actual results may vary depending on the commitment of resources and decisions made during implementation. If the various elements of the proposed action plan are optimized by establishing supportive policies and incentives, a diversion rate exceeding 50% should be feasible. However, achieving the City's stated goal of 80% diversion will likely require more aggressive actions, such as policies that discourage the use of products resulting in waste that cannot be recycled or composted or programs to recover hard -to -recycle materials. Achieving even a 50% waste diversion rate requires a nearly three -fold increase in the City's current rate of 18%. Change of this magnitude will require an intentional consciousness on the part of elected officials and City staff to commit to and bring about this change. This commitment will need to be communicated to residents and businesses to engage them and bring about behavioral change. A three -fold increase in waste diversion will also require transformation of all facets of the City's existing materials management system, including facilities, operations, programs, public and business outreach, policies, and fee structures. The proposed action plan outlined in this section is intended to help bring about these changes. Outlined on the next page are the first steps recommended to initiate implementation of the proposed action plan. The proposed plan is intended to be dynamic. As key elements are implemented, programs should continuously be evaluated and enhanced, facilities monitored and optimized, and additional supporting policies considered. In conclusion, this Master Plan provides a roadmap to assist the City in significantly increasing its waste diversion rate and to put the City on a path toward 80% diversion. This plan identifies the greatest opportunities to divert additional waste from being landfilled, evaluates options for targeting these materials, and then provides a proposed action plan to implement the key diversion elements considered most applicable and beneficial to the City. The success of the plan will ultimately depend on the City's commitment to its waste diversion goal and proactive implementation of key waste diversion elements of the plan. 104 Faayettevil':-/`6/M[aster Pian.,,i:ina': kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions City of Faye' 'teville,. AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Sedition 6: Proposed Action Plan RECOMMENDED INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION STEPS 105 Fayettevmer wMaster Plan Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions �- kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO.1 DATE: April 20, 2015 TO: Jeff Cole, Recycling and Trash Collection Director City of Fayetteville, AR FROM: Robin Mitchell, Project Manager SUB1: Waste Composition Study PROJ #: 173-00.00 1. Introduction This technical memorandum provides the results of the Waste Composition Study (WCS) conducted by Kessler Consulting, Inc. (KCI) for the City of Fayetteville (City). The purpose of the WCS was to determine the percentage by weight of various types of materials found in solid waste disposed by the City's residents and businesses. In addition, the WCS included roadside litter samples as well as out -of -city materials received at the City's transfer station for disposal. It did not include waste collected by franchisees and delivered to facilities other than the City's transfer station. This information will assist in identifying opportunities for expanding and enhancing waste diversion. Field work took place at the City's transfer station from January 26-30, 2015. During the study, KCI pulled and manually hand -sorted samples from 32 loads of City -collected residential and commercial solid waste, 6 loads of out -of -city waste, and 4 litter samples. In addition, KCI conducted visual audits of 24 loads of drop box waste received at the transfer station. Drop box waste is primarily bulky waste and construction and demolition (C&D) debris collected in roll -off containers. Because of size and weight, drop box waste is not conducive to hand -sorting. KCI also conducted a WCS of waste disposed by the University of Arkansas. The results of this study will be provided in a separate technical memorandum. 2. Methodology KCI worked with City staff to develop a list of 36 material categories into which waste would be sorted (see Attachment A). To develop this list of material categories, KCI considered the following: Recyclable materials accepted in the City's recycling program. Additional types of materials that might potentially be recovered for recycling or composting in the future. KCI provided a Study Supervisor, Sorting Supervisor, additional labor to assist with sorting activities, all sorting equipment, and safety gear. The City's transfer station staff provided the services of a loader and operator to pull samples at the direction of the Study Supervisor and remove waste upon 14620 N. Nebraska Ave., Bldg. D, Tampa, FL 33613 1 Tel: 813.971.8333 1 Fax: 813.971.8582 1 www.kesconsult.com Tr-1 WCS-Fir-al TM No. 1— Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 2 of 33 completion of sorting activities. KCI prepared and City staff reviewed and approved a site safety plan and sampling and sorting protocol, which were followed throughout the field work. Four generator sectors were included in the manual sort: residential, commercial, out -of -city, and litter. Residential loads of waste included waste from multi -family residents using carts and commercial loads included waste from multi -family residents with dumpster service. KCI determined the number of samples to be pulled from each generator sector based on scale house records for the period of October 20 — November 1, 2014 (see Table 1). During the 5-day sorting event, KCI pulled and manually sorted a total of 42 representative samples. Table 1: Number of Samples by Generator Sector Following the field work, KCI analyzed the data as outlined in the ASTMStandard Test Method for Determination of the Composition of Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste (D5231-92; reapproved 2008) to determine the percentage, by weight, of each material category for each of the four generator sectors. in addition to the weighted average, the 90 percent confidence interval was calculated for each material category. The confidence interval indicates that, with a 90 percent level of confidence, the actual arithmetic mean (the arithmetic mean obtained if an infinite number of samples were sorted) is within the upper and lower limits shown. This provides an understanding of how much variation occurred in the quantity of that material category in the samples sorted. Generally, the more homogeneousthe waste stream and the greater the number of samples sorted, the higher the level of accuracy achieved and the narrower the margin between the upper and lower bounds of the confidence interval. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions T M I VVC5 Final TM No. 1— Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 3 of 33 Data for the residential and commercial generator sectors was then combined, based on the quantity of waste each contributed to the waste stream in 2014, to calculate the overall composition of the City waste that is disposed, excluding drop box waste. This is referred to throughout this memorandum as the City Aggregate Waste. In addition to the manual sorting activities, visual characterizations were made of 24 loads of drop box waste over the course of the 5 days of field work. The same person conducted all of the visual characterizations to ensure consistency. These audits were also conducted as specified in the sampling and sorting protocol approved by City staff. The visual characterization data was then analyzed to calculate the volumetric average of each material category, as well as the 90 percent confidence interval using a standard statistical t-test. The percent by volume of each material type present in the samples was then converted to percent by weight using industry -accepted conversion factors. 3. Results The following tables and figures present the results of the manual sorting event for each individual generator sector, as well as for the City Aggregate Waste. Material categories are grouped by their potential to be recycled through the City's existing recycling program, other potentially recyclable materials, organics, and all other waste. • Residential Waste (Table 2 and Figure 1; Attachment B provides the individual sample data) — More than 26 percent of residential waste consisted of paper and containers that could be recycled through the City's existing program. The percentages of newspaper (2.2 percent), recyclables containers (8.4 percent), and yard waste (1.4 percent) were lower than what is typically found in the residential waste stream. Seasonality likely played a factor; fewer cold drinks are generally consumed in colder weather and less yard waste is generated. Food waste comprised 18 percent of residential waste, and other types of potentially compostable material made up an additional 11 percent. • Commercial Waste (Table 3 and Figure 2; Attachment C provides the individual sample data) — More than 30 percent of commercial waste consisted of paper and containers that are readily recycled. Food waste comprised 17 percent of commercial waste, and other types of potentially compostable material made up an additional 11 percent. • City Aggregate Waste —Table 4 presents the combined composition of City residential and commercial waste disposed based on the relative amount of each stream disposed in 2014, as well as the estimated tons of each material type disposed in 2014. • Out -of -City Waste (Table 5 and Figure 3; Attachment D provides the individual sample data) — Out -of -city waste received at the transfer station also contained significant quantities of materials that could potentially be recycled or composted; however, the City does not have direct control over this waste until it is received at the transfer station. • Litter (Table 6 and Figure 4; Attachment E provides the data for the individual samples) —The litter sorted during the study consisted of materials collected by road crews. This table also contains the results of the October 2014 litter sort conducted by the City during the Lake Fayetteville clean-up. Both this study and the October study revealed substantial quantities of recyclable containers (27 percent and 23 percent respectively), the majority, by weight, of which was glass. Litter sorted during this study contained larger quantities of paper and yard waste, kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TIVUWCS -'nal TM No. 1— Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 4 of 33 whereas litter from the Lake Fayetteville clean-up contained more tires and rubber and plastic bags, reflective of the different sources of the litter. Table 7 and Figure 5 provide the results of the visual characterization of the drop box waste. Attachment F provides the data from individual samples. Untreated and treated wood waste comprised the largest amount, both by volume and by weight, of drop box waste audited. Nearly 75 percent by weight of drop box waste audited has the potential to be recycled, including untreated wood, drywall, roofing shingles, corrugated cardboard and other paper, carpet and padding, metals and appliances, rigid plastics, and rock/brick/gravel. The composition of C&D debris and bulky waste can vary significantly over time; therefore, the City might want to periodically conduct additional visual audits. Specific loads in particular offered the potential for diverting materials from disposal. A load from McBride Distributers consisted of 10.5 tons of expired beer in aluminum cans and glass bottles. Another load from Pinnacle Foods contained several Gaylord boxes of new aluminum catering trays. Figure 6 depicts the overall composition of materials discarded in the City in 2014 based on tonnage data provided by City staff and results of the WCS. It includes materials that were recycled, composted, and disposed. As mentioned previously, some material categories might be underestimated due to seasonality. For example, more yard waste and recyclable containers would likely be found during warmer months. The City might want to consider a second composition study in the spring or summer, even if it is shorter or more limited in scope. Even with the potential effect of seasonality, Figure 6 identifies the greatest opportunities for increasing waste diversion. Based on this analysis, if all recyclable paper and containers (19 percent of waste generated), other potentially recyclable materials (7 percent), compostable materials (19 percent), and potentially recyclable materials in the bulky waste stream (75 percent of 15 percent, or 11 percent) were diverted from disposal, the City would achieve a 76 percent diversion rate. This demonstrates the tremendous effort and progressive programs and policies that will be needed for the City to strive to achieve its 80 percent waste diversion goal. The results of this WCS will be further utilized and applied in the analysis of recycling opportunities as part of the broader Master Plan process. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Tfvil WCS-Final TM No. 1- Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 5 of 33 Table 2: Composition of the City's Residential Waste Disposed (% by weight) Weighted 90% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Material Category Average Bounds Bounds 1 Newspaper 2.2% 1.2% 3.1% 2 Corrugated Containers 1.8% 12% 2.4% 3 Office Paper 3.8% 1.9% 5.7% 4 Other Recyclable Paper 10.3% 9.1% 11.6% 7 PET Bottles 1.5% 1.3% 1.8% 8 HDPE Bottles 1.0% 0.6% 1.3% 15 Tin/Steel Cans 1.5% 1.1% 1.8% 18 Aluminum Cans 0.9% 0.5% 1.3% 20 Glass Containers 3.5% 2.1% 4.9% 6 Aseptic Containers 0.3% 0.2% 0.5% 9 Other Non -Bottle Plastics#1 and #2 1.7% 1.2% 2.1% 10 Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7) 2.2% 1.8% 2.5% 11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 1.1% 0.7% 1.5% 13A EPS Food Service 1.2% 1.0% 1.4% 13B EPS Packaging ' 0.5% 0.4% 0.6% 16 White Goods/Small Appliances 0.3% -0.2% 0.9% 17 Other Ferrous 0.7% 0.4% 1.0% 19 Other Non -Ferrous 0.4% 0.3% 0.5% 24 Electronics - 1.5% 0.7% 2.4%i 5 Low Grade Paper 9.40 8.0% 10.8% 26 Clean Wood Waste 0.6% 0.1% 1.1% 30 Yard Waste 1.4% -0.1% 2.9% 31 Food Waste 18.1% 15.6% 20.6%' 12A Retail Bags 12B von -Rigid Plastic Film 14 All Other Plastics 21 Other Glass 22 Textiles 23 Special Wastes 25 Household Batteries 27 Treated Wood Waste 28 C&D Debris 29 Tires and Rubber 32 All Other Garbage 33 Liquids 34 Grit 1.2% 5.6% 0.8% 0.4% 4.3 % 0.2 0.2% 0.8% 4.3% 0.1% 10.8% 0.6% 4.8% 0.8% 1.5% 4.6% 6.6% 0.5% 1.1% 0.2% 0.5% 2.9% 5.7% -0.1% 0.5% 0.0% 0.3% 0.4% 1.3% 0.8% 7.9% 0.0% 0.2% 8.6% 13.0% 0.2% 1.1%' 2.9% 6.7% TOTALS 100.00% 11 Note: Columns might not appear to add correctly due to rounding. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Ttvt1:°:CS Final TM No. 1— Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 I Page 6 of 33 Figure 1: Composition of the City's Residential Waste Disposed (% by weight) C&D Debris & Treated Wood, 5.1 Textiles, Film and Other Plastics, 7.6% Food Waste, 18.1% Corrugated Newspaper, 2.2% Containers, 1.8% Yard Waste,- 1.4% All Other Recyclable Paper, 14.1% Plastic Bottles #1 & #2, 2.5 % Metal Cans, 2.4% Glass Containers, 3.5% Note: For the purpose of this chart: • All Other Recyclable Paper includes the categories of Office Paper and Other Recyclable Paper. • Plastic Bottles #1 & #2 includes the categories of PET Bottles and HDPE Bottles. • Metal Cans includes the categories of Aluminum Cans and Tin/Steel Cans. • Other Recyclable Containers includes the categories of Aseptic Containers, Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2, and Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7). • Expanded polystyrene includes the categories of EPS Food Service and EPS Packaging. • Other Metals includes the categories of White Goods/Small Appliances, Other Ferrous, an-d Other Non -Ferrous. • Film and Other Plastics includes the categories of Retail Bags, Non -Rigid Plastic Film, and All Other Plastics. • Other Garbage includes the categories of Other Glass, Special Wastes, Household Batteries, Tires and Rubber, All Other Garbage, Grit, and Liquids. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions T IVII l VVCS Finai TM No. 1- Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 ( Page 7 of 33 Table 3: Composition of the City's Commercial Waste Disposed (% by weight) 90% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Weighted Material Category Average Bounds Bounds 1 Newspaper 1.8% 1.1% 2.5% 2 Corrugated Containers 6.1% 2.7% 9.6% 3 Office Paper 3.0% 2.0% 4.0% 4 Other Recyclable Paper 8.4% ` 5.6% 11.3% Total Accepted Recyclable Paper ,19 4% .. 7 PET Bottles 1.7% 1.2% 2.2% 8 HDPE Bottles 1.4% 1.0% 1.7% 15 Tin/Steel Cans 1.5% 0.9% 2.2% 18 Aluminum Cans 1.0°lo 0.8% 1.2% + 20 Glass Containers 5.4% 1.0% 9 7% Total,Accepted,itecyclable Eontain'ers ..., ., 10 9'/,' ....... ....... 6 Aseptic Containers 0.4% 0.2% 0.5% 9 Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2 1.0% 0.8% 1.3% 10 Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7) 1.8% 1.3% 2.2% 11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 1.8% ` 0.6%- 3.1% 13A EPS Food Service 1.1% 0.6% 1.6% 13B EPS Packaging 0.496' 0.3% 0.5% _ 16 White Goods/Small Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17 Other Ferrous 1.2% 1 1% 1.3% 19 Other Non -Ferrous 1.6% 1.5% 1.7% 24 Electronics 1.5% -42% 7.3% Total'Potentially Recyclable Materials 5 Low Grade Paper. 8.6% 3.1% 14.1% 26 Clean Wood Waste 1.6% 1.6% 1.6% 30 Yard Waste 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 31 Food Waste 17.2% 14.9% 19.5% Total Organics 12A Retail Bags 0.7% 0.5% 0.9% 12B Non -Rigid Plastic Film 6.9% 5.3% 8.6% 14 All Other Plastics 0.7% 0.3% 1.2% 21 Other Glass 0.5% 0.3% 0.7% 22 Textiles 2.9% 2.6% 3.2% 23 Special Wastes 17% 1.7% 1.7% 25 Household Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 27 Treated Wood Waste 1.9% 0.9% 30% 28 C&D Debris 3.1% 1.2% 5.1% 29 Tires and Rubber 0.3% 0.2% 0.4%` 32 All Other Garbage 6.3% 4.9% 7.8% 33 Liquids 2.0% 1.7% 2.2% 34 Grit 3.2% 2.5% 3.9% Total All Other Materials ,'e,,��461.3% TOTALS 100.0% Note: Columns might not appear to add correctly due to rounding. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TM No. 1— Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 8 of 33 Figure 2: Composition of City's Commercial Waste Disposed (% by weight) C&D Debris & Treated Wood, 5.1 1 Textiles, Film and Othe Plastics, 8.3% Food Waste, 17.2% Newspaper, 1.8% Corrugated _L Containers, 6.1% Yard Waste, 1.0% I Low Grade Paper, Clean Wood Waste, 8.6% 1.6% ..................... ..............I_ ............................ .................................. .................. . Recyclable Paper 19.4% Recyclable Containers 10.9% Other Recyclables . .; 10.9%, Compostables 28 4% E her�Materlals 3 � All Other Recyclable Paper, 11.4% Plastic Bottles #1 & #2, 3.0% Metal Cans, 2.5% Glass Containers, 5.4 % Note: For the purpose of this chart: • All Other Recyclable Paper includes the categories of Office Paper and Other Recyclable Paper. • Plastic Bottles #1 & #2 includes the categories of PET Bottles and HDPE Bottles. • Metal Cans includes the categories of Aluminum Cans and Tin/Steel Cans. • Other Recyclable Containers includes the categories of Aseptic Containers, Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2, and Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7). • Expanded polystyrene includes the categories of EPS Food Service and EPS Packaging. • Other Metals includes the categories of White Goods/Small Appliances, Other Ferrous, and Other Non -Ferrous. • Film and Other Plastics includes the categories of Retail Bags, Non -Rigid Plastic Film, and All Other Plastics. • Other Garbage includes the categories of Other Glass, Special Wastes, Household Batteries, Tires and Rubber, All Other Garbage, Grit, and Liquids. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TM11 WCS Nnal 0 TM No. 1- Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 9 of 33 Table 4: Composition of City Aggregate Waste Disposed Material Category 1 Newspaper 2 Corrugated Containers 3 Office Paper A nthar Rarvrlahla PanPr Average % by Weight Estimated Tons/Year (2014) Residential Commercial Aggregate Residential Commercial Aggregate 2.2% 1.8% 1.9% 307 487 794 1.8% 6.1% 4.6% 261 1,635 1,896'` 3.8% 3.0% 3.3% 539 800 1,339 10.3% 8.4% 9.1% 1,462 2,247 3,709 7 PET Containers 1.5% 1.7% 1.6% 216 443 658 8 HDPE Containers 1.0% 1.4% 1.2% 139 362 502 15 Tin/Steel Cans 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 212 410 622 18 Aluminum Cans 0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 127 266 393' 20 Glass Containers 3.5% 5.4% 4.7% 498 1,425 1,923 6 Aseptic Containers 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 47 100 146' 9 Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2 1.7% 1.0% 1.3% 238 276 514 10 Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7) 2.2% 1.8% 1.9% 308 466 775 11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 1.1% 1.8% 1.6% 156 480 637 13 EPS'Food Service 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 166 297 463 13B EPS Packaging 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 66 113 179 16 White Goods/Small _Appliances 0.3%- 0.0% 0.1% 46 11 57 17 Other Ferrous 0.7% 1.2% 1.0% 95 326 421 19 Other Non -Ferrous 0.4%` 1.6% 1.2% 58 423 482 24 Eiectronics 1.5% 1.5% 1.5% 217 410 627 5 26 30 31 Low Grade Paper Clean Wood Waste Yard Waste Food Waste Total Organics 9.4% 0.6% 1.4% 18.1% 29.5% 8.6% 1.6% 1.0% 17.2% 28.4% 8.951. 1.3% 1.2% 17.5% 28:8% 1,330 90 195 2,565 4,180 2,295 427 - 275 4,574 7,571 3,625 517 470 7,140 11,752 12 Retail Bags 1.2% 0.7% 0.8% 164 183 346 12B Non -Rigid Plastic Film 5.6%. 6.9% 6.5% 799 1,840 2,638 14 All Other Plastics 0.8% 0.7% 0.8% 115 197 312 21 Other Glass 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 53 129 182 22 Textiles 4.3% 2.9% 3.4% 609 771 1,381 23 Special Wastes 0.2% 1.7% 1.2% 27 451 478 25 HouseholdBatteries 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 28 12 40 27 Treated Wood Waste 0.8% 1.9% 1.6% 118 517 635 28 C&D Debris 4.3% 3.1% 3.5% 610 835 1,445 29 Tires and Rubber 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% ° 12 85 97 32 All Other Garbage 10.8%' 6.3% 7.9% 1528 1,687 3,215 33 Liquids 0.6% 2.0% 1.5% 87 520 608 34 Grin 4.8% 3.2% 3.7% 676 845 1,521 I TOTALS 1 100.0% 1 100.0% 1 100.0% ( 14,165 1 26,621 1 40,786 1 kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Tlvtlb':CS Rnal 4 TM No. 1- Waste Composition Study 14/20/2015 I Page 10 of 33 Table 5: Composition of Out -of -City Waste Received at the City Transfer Station (% by weight) Weighted 90% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Material Category Average Bounds Bounds 1 Newspaper 5.3% -0.1% 10.6% 2 Corrugated Containers 4.0% 1.1% 7.0% 3 Office Paper 3.9% 0.4% 7.4%,, 7 PET Bottles 2.1% 1.4% 2.8% 8 ° HDPE,Bottles 1.3% 0.7% 2.0% 15 Tin/Steel Cans 2.2% 1.5% 2.8% 18 Aluminum Cans 0.8% 0.6% 1.1%' 20 Glass Containers 4.1% 2.5% 5.7% 6 Aseptic Containers 0.6% -0.1% 1.4% 9 :.Other Non -Bottle Plastics#1 and #2 1.2% 0.8% 1.6% 10 Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7) 1.7% 0.7% 2.6% 11 ' Bulky Rigid Plastics 2.2% -1.1% 5:6% 13A EPS Food Service 1.2% 0.3% 2.2% 13B EPS Packaging 0.4% 0.2% 0.7% 16 White Goods/Small Appliances 0.5% -0.5%' 1.5% 17 'Other Ferrous 1.4% 0.0% 2.9% 19 Other Non -Ferrous 0.4% 0.2% 0.6% 24 <Electronics 1.1% 0.1% 2.0% 5 Low Grade Paper 6.7% 4.6% 8.7% 26 Clean Wood Waste 0.3% -0.1% 0.7% 30 Yard Waste 0.5% -0.2% 1.2% 31 Food Waste 13.8% 12.0% 15.6% imai ffgamcs z.L zs% 12A Retail Bags 1.1% .0.6% 1.7%. 12B Non -Rigid Plastic Film 4.8% 3.0% 6.5% 14 All Other Plastics 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% 21 Other Glass 4.5% -2.3% 11.3%; 22 Textiles 5.4% 1.2% 9.6% 23 Special Wastes 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 25 Household Batteries 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% 27 Treated Wood Waste ' 0.4% 0.2% 0.6% 28 C&D Debris 3.2% -0.8% 7.2% 29 Tires and Rubber 2.0% -0.6% 4.6% " 32 All Other Garbage 7.4% 5.0% 9.8% 33 Liquids 1.9% 0.0% 3.7% 34 Grit 4.4% 2.1% 6.8% TOTALS 100.0% 1 Note: Columns might not appear to add correctly due to rounding. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TIVU WC5 rina TM No. 1— Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 11 of 33 Figure 3: Composition of Out -of -City Waste Received at the City Transfer Station (% by weight) Newspaper, 5.3% Other Garbage, 20.4% C&D Debris & Treated Wood, 3. Textiles, 5.4% Film and Other Plastics, 6.5% Food Waste, 13.8% Yard Waste, 0.5% Clean Wood Waste, 0.3% Corrugated Containers, 4.0% 6.7% All Other Recyclable Paper, 12.2% Plastic Bottles #1 & #2, 3.4% Metal Cans, 3.0% Glass Containers, 4.1% Note: For the purpose of this chart: • All Other Recyclable Paper includes the categories of Office Paper and Other Recyclable -Paper. • Plastic Bottles #1 & #2 includes the categories of PET Bottles and HDPE Bottles. • Metal Cans includes the categories of Aluminum Cans and Tin/Steel Cans. • Other Recyclable Containers includes the categories of Aseptic Containers, Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2, and Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7). • Expanded polystyrene includes the categories of EPS Food Service and EPS Packaging. • Other Metals includes the categories of White Goods/Small Appliances, Other Ferrous, and Other Non -Ferrous. • Film and Other Plastics includes the categories of Retail Bags, Non -Rigid Plastic Film, and All Other Plastics. • Other Garbage includes the categories of Other Glass, Special Wastes, Household Batteries, Tires and Rubber, All Other Garbage, Grit, and Liquids. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Tfvi1 '1 5 Fnai n TM No. 1- Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 12 of 33 Table 6: Composition of the Litter Stream (% by weight) Weighted 90% Confidence Interval October 2014 Litter Sort Lower Upper Material Category Average Bounds Bounds (% by weight) 1 Newspaper 0.4% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 2 Corrugated Containers 6.4% 1.7% 11.0% 0.0%` 3 Office Paper 1.2% 0.2% 2.2% 0.0% 4 j Other. Recyclable Paper, 5.81 17% 7.9% 0.0% 7 PET Bottles 6.3% 5.9% 6.8% 7.5% 8 HDPE Bottles ' 0.5% x 0.1% 0.9% 0.9%' 15 Tin/Steel Cans 0 0.4/ 0 0.1/ 0.7% 00.0% 18 Aluminum Cans ' 3.1% 2.1% 4.2% 3.3% 20 Glass Containers 16.2% 14.1% 18.2% 11.0% TotaI,JGceptec� Rec c1ak�Je C'onF ° 266/0 M o 227/ ro , < 6 Aseptic Containers 0.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 9 Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and•#2 0.6% 0.5% 0.8% 0.0% 10 Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7) 2.1% 1.7% 2.6% 2.2% 11 ' Bulky Rigid Plastics _ 5J% -2.1% 12.3% 2.8% 13A EPS Food Service 1.3% 1.0% 1.6% 13B EPS Packaging 0.4% M% 0.7% 5.0% 16 White Goods/Small Appliances 0.0% 0.0%% 0.0% 0.0% 17 Other Ferrous 1.9% -0.1% 3.9% 0.2% 19 Other Non -Ferrous 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 24 Electronics 0.2% -0.1% 0.5% 0.0% Total P©fentially ReCycl;ai3 e Materiat 10.551 5 Low Grade Paper 1.6% -0.7% 3.9% 2.1% 26 , Clean Wood Waste 1.5% -1.6% 4.7% 0.0% 30 Yard Waste 6:6% 5.2% 8.0% 0.0% 31 Food Waste 0.8% -0.3% 1.9% 0.0% TotalOrganlcs. 10,5% '10.5%1 2.1%'. 12A Retail Bags 1.2% -0.4% 2.9% 12B Non -Rigid Plastic Film 4.7% 3.2% 6.2% 12.5 14 All Other Plastics 1.0% 0.2% 1.7% 2.7% 21 Other Glass 1.4% -0:7% 3.5% 0.0% 22 Textiles 3.5% 1.2% 5.9% 2.7% 23 Special Wastes 0.1% -0.1% 0.2% 0.4% 25 Household Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 27 Treated Wood Waste 12.0% -13.4% 37.5% 17.2%' 28 C&D Debris 5.0% -4.0% 14.1% 0.7% 29 Tires and Rubber 0.4% -0.1% 0.8% 16.6%' 32 All Other Garbage 4.7% 2.1% 7.2% 11.9% 33 Liquids 3.1% -1.4% 7.6% 0.0% 34 Grit 0.1% -0.1% 0.3% 0.0% Total All, Other Mater[ats • „ • „37_% TOTALS 100.0% 100.0% Note: Columns might not appear to add correctly due to rounding kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Twig na[ TM No. 1— Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 13 of 33 Figure 4: Composition of the Litter Stream (% by weight) Corrugated Newspaper, 0.4% Containers, 6.4% Other Garbage, 9.7% C&D Debris & Treated Wood, 17.0% Textiles, 3.5% Film and Other Plastics, 6.9% Food Waste, 0.8% Yard Waste, 6.6% Clean Wood Waste, VW 1.5 % Low Grade Paper, 1.6% Electronics, 0.2% er Metals, 2. o- All Other Recyclable Paper, 7.0% Plastic Bottles #1 & #2, 6.8% ]lass Containers, 16.2% le l.Vl iLCIII MIZ-, 4-Z' Bulky Rigid Plastics, 5.1% Expanded —Polystyrene, 1.6% Note: For the purpose of this chart: • All Other Recyclable Paper includes the categories of Office Paper and Other Recyclable Paper. • Plastic Bottles #1 & #2 includes the categories of PET Bottles and HDPE Bottles. • Metal Cans includes the categories of Aluminum Cans and Tin/Steel Cans. • Other Recyclable Containers includes the categories of Aseptic Containers, Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2, and Other Plastic Containers (#347). • Expanded polystyrene includes the categories of EPS Food Service and EPS Packaging. • Other Metals includes the categories of White Goods/Small Appliances, Other Ferrous, and Other Non -Ferrous. • Film and Other Plastics includes the categories of Retail Bags, Non -Rigid Plastic Film, and All Other Plastics. • Other Garbage includes the categories of Other Glass, Special Wastes, Household Batteries, Tires and Rubber, All Other Garbage, Grit, and Liquids. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Ttv':1 ;'dC5 Final TM No. 1- Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 14 of 33 Table 7: Composition of the Drop Box Waste Disposed Weighted 90% Confidence Interval Estimated Weighted Estimated Lower Upper Average Volume Density Weight Average Tons/Year Material Category (% by volume) Bounds Bounds (cy) (lbs./cy) (lbs.) (% by weight) (2014) C&D - Untreated Wood 33.9% 24.6% 43.2% 236 400 94,209 39.9% 3,852 C&D - Treated Wood 13.9% 8.2% 19.5%' v 96 400 38,457 16.3% 1;572 C&D - Carpet/Padding 10.1% 5.0% 15.2% 70 84 5,880 2.5% 240 C&D - Drywall 5.2% 1.3% 9.1% 36 600 21,786 9.2% 891 " C&D - Roofing Shingles 2.0% 0.2% 3.8% 14 731 10,173 4.3% 416 C&D - Rock/Brick/Gravel 1.6% -1.9% 5.1% 11 1500 16,950 7.2% 693 ' C&D - Bagged Waste 0.7% -0.6% 2.0% 5 150 691 0.3% 28 C&D - Ceramic Tiles 0.3% ; 2 1214 2,257' 1.0% 92 Total C&D Debris 67.7% 469.7 190,4Q3 80.6% 7,785 Paper - OCC 7.4% 4.3% 10.6% 52 50 2,585 1.1% 106 Paper - Other 0.7% -12.2% 13.5% 5 363 1,649 0.7% 67 Total Paper 8.1% 561 4,234 1.8% 173 Plastic - Rigid 7.1% 3.7% 10.5% 49 50 2,467 1.0% 101 Plastic - Film 2.0% -1.7% 5.8% 14 23 327 0.1% 13 Plastic EPS/Insulation 0.9% -3.2% 5.1% 7 17 111 0.0% 5 Total Plastics 10.1% 70 2,905 1.2% 119 Furniture - Mattresses 0.6% -8.3% 9.5% 4 55 224 0.1% 9 Furniture -`Furniture 0.6% -8.3% 9.5% 4 145 631 U 0.3% 26 Total Furniture 8 855` 0.4% 35 ` Metal - Non Ferrous 5.9% -1.2% 13.0% 41 150- 6,118 2.6% 250 Metal - Ferrous 0.1% -1.0% 1.2% 1 150 117 0.0% 5 Metal - Major Appliances 0.0% - - 0 145 46 0.0% 2 Metal - HVAC Ducting 0.0% - 0 47 10, 0.0%,0 Total Metal 6.1% 42 6,291 257 Other - Glass Containers 2.6% n/c n/c 18 600 10,667 4.5% 436 Other -Bagged Waste 1.7% -3.3% 6.7% 12 150 1,800 1i WI 74 Other - Yard Waste 0.9% -3.1% 4.8% 6 300 1,834 0.8% 75 Other - Liquids 1.5% n/c n/c 11 1600 17,067 7.2% 698 Other -Textiles 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 1 175 126 0.1% 5 Total Other Materials 6.8% 47 31,492 13.3% 1,288 TOTALS 100.0% 693.8 236,181 100.0% 9,657 Note: Columns might not appear to add correctly due to rounding. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TIM1. W C S Final TM No. 1— Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 15 of 33 Figure 5: Composition of Drop Box Waste Disposed Percent by Weight Furniture & Metals, 2.7% Matresses, 0.4% Plastic (Rigid, Film, EPS), 1.2% Paper, 1.89/. P Other 24.z Other Materials, 13.3%_ .... kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Treated & Untreated Wood, 56.2% TNAIV:CS Finaf 4 TM No. 1— Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 16 of 33 Figure 6: Composition of the Materials Discarded in the City, 2014 (% by weight) Note: Columns might not appear to add correctly due to rounding. Note: For the purpose of this chart: • Paper & Containers includes the categories of Newspaper, Corrugated Containers, Office Paper, Other Recyclable Paper, PET Bottles, HDPE Bottles, Tin/Steel Cans, Aluminum Cans, and Glass Containers. • Other Recyclables includes the categories of Aseptic Containers, Other Non -Bottles Plastics #1 and #2, Other Plastic Containers, Bulky Rigid Plastics, EPS Food Service, EPS, Packaging, White Goods/Small Appliances, Other Ferrous, Other Non -Ferrous, and Electronics. • Compostables includes the categories of Low Grade Paper,'Clean Wood Waste, Yard Waste, and Food Waste. • Waste includes Retail Bags, Non -Rigid Plastic Film, All Other Plastics, Other Glass, Textiles, Special Wastes, Household Batteries, Treated Wood Waste, C&D Debris, Tires and Rubber, All Other Garbage, Grit, and Liquids found in residential and commercial waste (not including Drop Box waste). kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions T101 ;^.'CS Final TM No. 1— Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 17 of 33 ATTACHMENT A —Material Category Descriptions # Material Categories Description of Categories 1 News a er Newspaper.(loose, tied; or shredded). including otherpaper p p m ic�rmatlydistributed inside newspaper. such:as ads,,flyers, etc. . 2 Corrugated Cardboard (OCC) Uncoated brown "cardboard" boxes with a wavy core (no plastic liners, waxy coatings). 4 Other Recyclable Paper All magazines, catalogs, paperboard, chipboard, brown paper bags, telephone books, and other printed material on glossy and non -glossy paper. 6 Aseptic Containers I Gable top milk cartons, juice boxes, and other similar 4 containers. a screw on lid or cap. j 8 High density polyethylene (HDPE) Clear/natural and pigmented bottles or jars coded HDPE #2 Bottles (SPI #2) such as milk jugs, detergent bottles, etc. These bottles/jars will typically have a screw -on lid or cap. containers labeled HDPE #2 including lids. Examples ineluc�e- yogurtcups, margarine tubs, Cool Whip® tubs, and other non bottle 'HDPE items. 10 Other Recyclable All other plastic containers and cups, sometimes coded #3-#7. Plastic Containers 11,,Bulky Rigid Plastics Consists of non container rigid plastic items such as plastic drums; crates, buckets, baskets, toys, refuse totes, lawn 01r' iiture, flower pots, laundry baskets, and other large plastic items. Does not include electronic toys. 12 Retail Plastic Bags. Grocery bags, retail checkout bags, and other bags associated A with the retail service industry. 12 Other Non -rigid Plastic Film Garbage bags, bread bags, zipper -lock bags, plastic sheeting, B saran wrap, visqueen, etc. 13 , Expanded Polystyrene Foam {EPS) , Disposable coffee cups, to -go boxes, plates and other items A .(Food Serv�ee) associated with food service. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TMd VVCS Gina1 TM No. 1— Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 18 of 33 ATTACHMENT A — Material Category Descriptions (continued) # Material Categories T Description of Categories 18 1 Aluminum Cans I Aluminum soft drink, beer, and some food cans. 20 Glass Containers Clear, Brown, and Green glass bottles and containers. 21 OtheN Glass ...... mirrors, ceramics, and dr}nking�glasses 22 Textiles Clothing apparel, rags, leather, blankets, curtains, shoes, wallets, purses, belts, and scrap leather. 23� 8peciaFVlFastes � � � so{vehts�etcnersio�that are conssdered'�ous hold Paz rdou�wast€ � 24 Electronics (E-waste) Electronic devices such as televisions, computers, cell phones, cordless telephones, PDA, handheld devices, rechargeable batteries, etc. 26 Clean Wood Waste Untreated and unpainted lumber, pallets and dimensional lumber. Also includes untreated/unpainted wood furniture including chairs, cabinets, dressers, etc. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Tiv:l VV 5 --na[ TM No. 1- Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 19 of 33 ATTACHMENT B - City Residential - Individual Sample Results W N N N N @ a --I ---+ O r1 9 It @ _1 - CU 41 M CU rru Hauler/Location • U C In - g U _ � U i- cc � U Ln Zi Material Categories sample # 7 8 9 16 1 Newspaper 0.58% 1.12% 2.87% 1.17% 2 Corrugated Containers 1.37% 2.65% 1.09% 1.33% 3 Office Paper 13.65% 5.79% 3.09% 3.20% 4 Other Recyclable Paper 9.09% 11.64% 9.80% 10.41% 5 Low Grade Paper 5.37% 12.48% 11.25% 11.06% 6 Aseptic Containers 0.20% 0.00% 0.27% 0.80% 7 PET Bottles 0.63% 1.84% 1.42% 2.27% 8 HDPE Bottles 0.66% 10.91% 0.25% 1.14%' 9 Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2 0.96% 0.87% .1.73% 4.07% 10 Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7) 1.97% 1.44% 2.25% 3.47% 11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 1.71% 1.03% 0.78% 0.00% 12A Retail Bags 0.96% 1.18% 3.10% 1.11% 12B Non -Rigid Plastic Film 6.30% 5.81% 3.24% 10.60% 13A Styrofoam Food Service 0.66% 0.96% 0.75% 1.88%` 13B Styrofoam Packaging 0.53% 0.46% 0.25% 0.39% 14 All Other Plastics 2.00% 2.09% 0.27% 0.66% 15 Tin/Steel Cans 0.58% 0.67% 0.74% 2.78% 16 White Goods/Small Appliances 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 17 Other Ferrous 0.47% 0.77% 0.37% 0.17% 18 Aluminum Cans 0.17% 0.59% 0.58% 1.39% 19 Other Non -Ferrous 0.40% 0.00% 0.50% 0.61% 20 Glass Containers 1.30% 0.80% 1.37% 0.73% 21 Other Glass 0.58% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 22 Textiles 7.36% 4.12%. 0.65% 1.44% 23 Special Wastes - 0.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 24 Electronics 1.10% 1.88% 6:32% 1.74% 25 Household Batteries 0.00% 1.00% 0.00% 0.00% 26 Clean Wood Waste 1.00% 0.45% 3.01% 0.00% 27 Treated Wood Waste 1.97% 2.49% 0.00% 0.00% 28 C&D Debris 0.00% 0.00% 19.12% 0.00% 29 Tires and Rubber 0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 30 Yard Waste 10.24% 1.03% 0.00% 000% 31 Food Waste 10.20% 22.40% 17.61% 14.36% 32 All` Other Garbage 12.42% 13.54°% 7.31% 9.43% 33 Liquids 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 34 Grit 5.48% 0.00% 0.00% 13.81% TOTALS 100.00% 100.00% 100.000 100.00% kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions ITV11 i^1CS Final TM No. 1- Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 20 of 33 ATTACHMENT B - City Residential - Individual Sample Results (continued) 00 t" N N N N C r C Ln -I -�i @ N cm -I C fTD C c1' l0 v "� C N (u C N N `1 U N Y U Y C C Hauler/Location L = a L z Material Categories sample # 17 18 24 25 1 Newspaper 5.36% 4.51% 1.84% 0.56% 2 Corrugated Containers 1.91% 4.89% 2.33% 1.00%" 3 Office Paper 2.73% 1.19% 1.56% 0.89% 4 ` Other Recyclable Paper 9.60% 13:34% 7.65% 14.23%' 5 Low Grade Paper 12.98% 8.61% 7.35% 13.08% 6 Aseptic Containers 0.20% 0.07% 0.25% 0.39% 7 PET Bottles 1.80% 1.75% 0.78% 1.74% 8 HDPE Bottles 1.33% 2.96% 0.60% 1.38% 9 Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2 1.21% 1.57% 2.02% 1.27% 10 Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7) 0.91% 1.87% 2.89% 2.02%' 11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 0.94% 2.64% 1.07% 1.14% 12A Retail Bags 0.78% 1.50% 0.80% 0.81% 12B Non -Rigid Plastic Film 5.14%- 6.04% 3.98% 3.39% 13A Styrofoam Food Service 1.33% 1.25% 0.73% 1.34% 13B Styrofoam Packaging 0.00% 0.80% 0.56% 0.65% 14 All Other Plastics - 0.88% 0.43% 0.225/o 0.44% 15 Tin/Steel Cans 1.52% 1.46% 1.53% 1.97% 16 White Goods/Small Appliances 3.79% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 17 Other Ferrous 0.00% 1.33% 0.11% 0.10% 18 Aluminum Cans 0.44% 2.66% 0.38% 0.81% 19 Other Non -Ferrous 0.60% 0.49% 0.29% 0.26% 20 Glass Containers 4.41% 4.33% 3.84% 5.73% 21 Other Glass 0.86% 0.22% 0.63% 0.41% 22 Textiles 6.01% 3.07% 2.80% 7.41% 23 Special Wastes 1.76% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 24 Electronics 0.00% 0.00% 0.53% 0.96%' 25 Household Batteries 0.02% 0.49% 0.11% 0.02% 26 Clean Wood Waste 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.14% 27 Treated Wood Waste 0.00% 1.72% 1.16% 0.51% 28 C&D Debris 1.46% 3.12% 17.84% - 1.75% 29 Tires and Rubber 0.00% 0.46% 0.00% 0.38% 30 ` Yard Waste 0.00% 0.80% 0.00%, 0.00% 31 Food Waste 15.81% 13.28% 15.05% 19.90% 32 All Other Garbage 12.20% 7.16% 15.19% 10.07% 33 Liquids 0.00% 0.83% 1.29% 1.14% 34 Grit 4.00% 5.15%` 4.62% 3.11%- TOTALS 100.00% 100.00 0 100.00% 100.00% kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions 7iv:1 VJCS Fnai TM No. 1- Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 21 of 33 ATTACHMENT B - City Residential - Individual Sample Results (continued) 00 N N Cn N t1) -0 O -�i ? N A M +' O c: � N *'' O cts a-+ O tts O co cr U V i Ln Hauler/Location '- Weighted Material Categories sample # 26 36 39 40 Average 1 Newspaper 0.58% 1.12% 2.87% 1.17% 2.17% 2 Corrugated Containers 1.37% 2.65% 1.09% 1.33% 1.85% 3 Office Paper 13.65% 5.79% 3.09% 3.20% 3.81% 4 Other Recyclable Paper 9.09% 11.64% 9.80% 10.41% 10.329/.' 5 Low Grade Paper 5.37% 12.48% 11.25% 11.06% 9.39% 6 Aseptic Containers 0.20% 0.00% 0.27% 0.80% 0.33% 7 PET Bottles 0.63% 1.84% 1.42% 2.27% 1.52% 8 HDPE Bottles.' _ 0.66% 0 91% 0.25% 1.14% 0.98%' 9 Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2 0.96% 0.87% 1.73% 4.07% 1.68% 10 Other Plastic' Containers (#3-#7) 1.97% 1.44°% 2.25% 3.479. 2.18% 11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 1.71% 1.03°% 0.78% 0.00% 1.10% 12A Retail Bags 0.96% 1.18% 3.10% 1.11% 1.16% 12B Non -Rigid Plastic Film 6.30% 5.81% 3.24% 10.60% 5.64% 13A Styrofoam Food Service 066% 0.96% 0.75% 1.88% 1.17% 13B Styrofoam Packaging 0.53% 0.46% 0.25% 0.39% 0.46% 14 All Other Plastics - 2.00% 2.09% 0.27% 0.66% 0.81% 15 Tin/Steel Cans 0.58% 0.67% 0.74% 2.78% 1.50% 16 White Goods/Small Appliances 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.83% 17 Other Ferrous 0.47% 0.77% 0.37% 0.17% 0.67% 18 Aluminum Cans 0.17°% 0.59% 0.58% 1.39%' 0.90% 14 Other Non -Ferrous 0.40% 0.00% 0.50% 0.61% 0.41% 20 Glass Containers 1.30% 0.80% 1.37% 0.73% 3.52% 21 Other Glass 0.58% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.37% 22 Textiles 7.36% 4.12% 0.65°% 1.44% 4.30% 23 Special Wastes 0.06°% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.19% 24 Electronics 1.10% 1.88°% 6.32% 1.74% 1.53% 25 Household Batteries 0.00% 1.00°% 0.00% 0.00% 0.20% 26 Clean Wood Waste 1.00% 0.45% 3.01%' 0.00% 0.64% 27 Treated Wood Waste 1.97% 2.49% 0.00% 0.00% 0.84% 28 C&D Debris 0.00%" 0.00% 19.12% 0.00% 4.31% 29 Tires and Rubber 0.07% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.08% 30 Yard Waste 10.24% 1.03% 0.00% 0.00% 1.38% 31 Food Waste 10.20% 22.40% 17.61% 14.36% 18.11% 32 All Other Garbage 12.42% 13.54% ` 7.31% 9.43% 10.799/.' 33 Liquids 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.61% 34 Grit 5.48% 0.00% 0.00%` 13.81% _...-- - 4.77% .._ ...-- TOTALS -------..._..... 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Th':1 WCS Final TM No. 1- Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 22 of 33 ATTACHMENT C - City Commercial - Individual Sample Results i N N N N! N N (�0(�6 00 � O v O O -+U 0 N U N -+U O * co E Y -6 cc E Y-a d' (To E yi -a E Y v 'ZT cra E yi -p a) tra E Y-a E un O E u O E u O E :3 O E z U E u 4J Hauler/Location `� U 2 U L Z �- , i U Material Categories Sample # 1 2 3 5 j 11 12 1 Newspaper 0.81% 0.61% 1.38% 3.07% 2.41% 6.45% 2 Corrugated.. Containers 5.02% ° 7.96% 4.02% 5.86%- 7.88% 4.85% 3 Office Paper 0.47% 0.72% 1.22% 2.99% 0.54% 4.58% 4 Other Recyclable Paper 11.80%' 7.59% 9.455/6 14.18%- 3.82% 9.10% 5 Low Grade Paper 7.83% 2.45% 13.88% 8.68% 2.99%,. 5.53% 6 Aseptic Containers 0.73% 0.00% 0.32% 0.68% 0.02% 0.33% 7 PET Bottles 2.22% 0.59% 1.62% 1.949/c 3.55% 1.73% 8 HDPE Bottles 1.54% 1.37% ; 1.41% 1.77% 0.71%' 1:45%> 9 Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2 1.31% 0.00% 0.69% 1.29% 0.59% 1.399/.' 10 Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7) 2.80% 2.43% 1.32% 0.70% 1.03% 1.22%' 11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 1.22% 0.75% 1.72% 2.58% ' 4.12% 1.26% 12A Retail Bags 150% 0.23% 0.75% ` 0.57% 0.39% 0.63% 12B Non -Rigid Plastic Film 5.36% 10.96% 9.22% 8.29% . 4.87% 7.74% 13A - Styrofoam'Food Service 0.92% 2 66% 1.00% 0.80% 0.71% 1.17% 13B Styrofoam Packaging 1.19% 0.00% 1.03% 0.26% j 0.48% 0.83% 14 All Other'Plastics 0.94% -0.14% 0.85% 1.51% 0.66% 1.50% 15 Tin/Steel Cans 1.19% 0.31% 0.84% 1.21% 1.23% 2.51% 16 White Goods/Small, Appliances - 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.88%- 0.00% 17 Other Ferrous 0.42% 0.52% 0.36% 2.53% 1.77% 0.38% 18 Aluminum Cans 0.65% 0.38% 1.42% 1.62% [ 0.83% 0.66% 19 Other Non -Ferrous 0.25% 0.23% 0.13% 0.39% 0.37% 0.33% 20 Glass Containers 6.55% 0.17% 3.58% 2.12% - 5.40% 0.52% 21 Other Glass 0.76% 0.00% 0.00% 0.09% 1.53% 0.46% 22 Textiles 7.00% 0.81% 2.35% 0.89% 1.73% 5.71% 23 Special Wastes 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 3.19% 0.00% 24 Electronics 0.34% 0.00% 0.86% 0.40% 2.21% 0.00% 25 Household Batteries 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 26 Clean Wood Waste 2.89% 0.09% 3.16% 2.92% 1.71% 3.03%` 27 Treated Wood Waste 0.00% 0.23% 1.23% 1.36% 4.16% 3.19% 28 C&D Debris , 2.91% 0.00% 0.00% 1.94% 12.62% 0.00% , 29 Tires and Rubber 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.11% i 2.49% 0.70% 30 Yard Waste' 0.00% 0,00% 6.54% 0.87% 10.97% ' 0.00%' 31 Food Waste 14.54% 48.75% 14.43% 20.01% i 5.30% 27.45% 32 All Other Garbage 7.62% 10.04% 9.09% 4.32% 3.96% 2.09%' 33 Liquids 2.47% 0.00% 1.28% 1.48% i 2.88% 0.00% 34 Grit 6.74% 0.00% 4.83% 2.57% 2.03% 3.24% TOTALS 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 1 100.00% 100.00% kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Tfvil b!C$ Fna2 TM No. 1- Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 23 of 33 ATTACHMENT C - City Commercial - Individual Sample Results (continued) 00 00 00 00 c c s c c M cc U L 00 >'- U O CD>. O' '' CD O v� U ' 00� U O ' O Vn t ti5 E Y N (0 Y-a N (u Y C 0) N Y C€ �t N Y C �t N E Y C Hauler/Location U - U - L u� u Material Categories Sample # 13 14 19 20 1 21 23 1 Newspaper 4.42% 1.78% 1.93% 1.42% ( 0.41% 0.64% 2 Corrugated Containers 9.45% 8:87% 10.38% 4.75% 8.63% 1.57% 3 Office Paper 7.22%° 2.50% 3.38% 3.77% 2.89% 8.17% 4' Other Recyclable Paper 3.90% 7.33% 7.77% 6.57% 4.58% 10.86% 5 Low Grade Paper 8.59% 14.20% 10.24% 13.99% 7.99% 22.71% 6 Aseptic Containers 0.11% 0.34%j 0.41% 0:55% 0.36% 0.85% 7 PET Bottles 0.78% 1.29% 1.65% 1.25% 0.00% 2.94% 8 HDPE Bottles 0.66% 0.82% 1.75% 0.89% 2.68% 1.06% 9 Other Non -Bottle -Plastics #1 and #2 0.44% 0.73% 1.61% 0.29% I 0.41% 2.09% 10' Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7) 1.69% 1.08% 2.01% 1.04% 1.26% ` 1.17%' 11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 1.13% 3.24% 2.70% 1.76% 2.84% 2 27% 12A Retail Bags 0.13% 0.59% 0.54% 0.36% 1.27% 0.5594. 12B Non -Rigid Plastic Film 4.73% 4.27% 6.31% 12.57% 7.47% 6.24% 13A Styrofoam Food Service 1.16% 1.29% 1.34% 3.37% 0.13% 0.73%. 13B Styrofoam Packaging 2.50% 0.22% 0.08% 0.06% 0.00% 0.64% 14 All Other Plastics 1.23% 1.19% 0.41% 0.85% 0.73% 0.42% 15 Tin/Steel Cans 0.22% 1.58% 2.16% 1.38% 1.18% 0.64% 16 White Goods/Small Appliances 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%- 0.00% 17 Other Ferrous 1.09% 0.31% 2.84% 0.28% 0'.45% 0.38% 18 Aluminum Cans 0.01% 0.60% 0.70% 1.12% 0.84% 0.62% 19 Other Non -Ferrous 0.72% 0.18% 0.09% 0.06% 0.00% 0.55% 20 Glass Containers 0.83% 11.22% 0.32% 3.20% 0.00% 5.49% 21 Other Glass 0.00% 0.49% 1.92% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 22 Textiles 0.26% 0.77% 8.04% 2.89% 2.76% 5.03% 23 Special Wastes 30.87% 0.00% 0.41% 0.00% i 0.00% 0.33% 24 Electronics 0.05% 14.86% 0.32% 0.00% 0.00% 0.07% 25 Household Batteries 0.03% 0.00% 0.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.07% 26 Clean Wood Waste 1.57% 0.11% 2.39% 1.18% ( 0.53% 0.02% 27 Treated Wood Waste 0.00% 2.70% 0.94% 0.78% € 0.00% 0.29% 28 C&D'Debris 0.00% 4.95% 0.40% 2.25% 19.80% 0.00% 29 Tires and Rubber 0.07% 0.29% 1.23% 1.38% 0.00% 0.00% 30 Yard Waste 0.00% 0.00% 0.17% 1.19% 0.00% 0.00% 31 Food Waste 9.82% 6.01% 7.37% 8.61% ; 18.13% 17.14% 32 All Other Garbage 4.36% 3.78% 10.89% 13.96% 6.32% 1.93% 33 Liquids 0.00% 0.58% 1.81% 4.01% ! 7 75% 2 72% 34 Grit 1.95% 1.87% 5.36% 4.24% 0 61% 1.83% TOTALS 100.00% 1 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TIVU Vv'C; Fina; TM No. 1- Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 24 of 33 ATTACHMENT C - City Commercial - Individual Sample Results (continued) rn N rn N rn N rn N t 1 C 10 .0 C N C C (D i O (CS m O (p M -It ; f U T N� U -I T U� O U j U N C U rA C C4J C ,[ to N tU dam' .� E N N dam' E N I N t -Mi E �' N * E T Hauler/Location U" t C ,[ Y Y ,y U" u" 0 Material Categories Sample # 28 29 31 32 j 41 42 1 Newspaper 4.20% 0.23% 1.29% 2.40% j 2.22% 0.74% 2 Corrugated' Containers 8.05% 2.41% 3.77% 5.450/0 3.72% 16.49%' 3 Office Paper 8.96% 1.68% 4.32% 1.86% j 2.55% 0.43% 4 Other Recyclable'Paper 9.41% 8.04% 5.38% 6.81% j[ 18.13%; 5 Low Grade Paper 9.82% 5.60% 7.68% 3.91% `` 5.70% 3.53% 6 Aseptic Containers 0.375o, 0.34% 0.11% 0.33% 0.44%: 0.569/6 7 PET Bottles 0.92% 1.06% 1.06% 1.55% 1.42% 3.43% 8 HDPE Bottles 0.20%' 1.62% 0.42% 0.91% 0.94% 1 61% 9 Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2 1.55% 1.30% 0.70% 0.86% I _ 2.51% 0.55% 10 Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7) 3.26% 1.69% 1.53% 1.23% 1.83% 0.81% 11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 0.46% 1.05% 0.71% 2.68% 1.38% 1.26% 12A 'Retail Bags 0.45% 0.34% 0.60% 0.83% 1.34% 0.54% 12B Non -Rigid Plastic Film 5.29% 6.39% 10.85% 4.51% 4.44% 4.87% 13A Styrofoam Food Service 0.63% 0.80% 0.75% 1.24% 0.47% 0.81% 13B Styrofoam Packaging 0.28% 0.11% 0.12% 0A1% 0.00% 0.42% 14 All Other, Plastics 0.40%' 0.28% 0.39% 0.79% 0.75% 0.29% 15 Tin/Steel Cans 0.82% 5.93% 0.96% 1.74% ' 2.04% 0.82% 16 White Goods/Small Appliances 0.00% -0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 17 Other Ferrous 0.21% 0.69% 10.57% 0.83% 1.38% 0.21% 18 Aluminum Cans 0.25% 0.71% 0.28% 1.69% 0.72% 2.93%' 19 Other Non -Ferrous 0.12% 25.37% 0.32% 1.18% 0.02% 0.07% 20 Glass Containers 0.62% 3.93% _ 2.42% 3.86% 4.85% 3.67% 21 Other Glass 0.11% 0.10% 0.45% 0.52% 1.36% 0.94% 22 Textiles 0.34% 1.43% 1.05% 3.76% 6.41% 4.11% 23 Special Wastes 0.15% _ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 24 Electronics 0.62% 0.24% 0.13% 2.31% 4.07% 0.91% 25 Household Batteries 0.00% 0.00% 0.48% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 26 Clean Wood Waste 0.06% 0.00% 0.42% 10.05% �- 0.00% 0.00% 27 Treated Wood Waste 1.19% 1.73% 0.97% 17.95% ` 1.09% 2.43% 28 C&D Debris ;° 1.71% 2.68% 1.42% 2.92% 2.94%' 1.28% 29 Tires and Rubber 0.00% 0.00% 0.47% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 30 Yard Waste 0.00% 0.00% 0.77% 0.33% 0.00% 1.04% 31 Food Waste 22.71% 8.93% 28.96% 7.85% ' 13.61% 27.56% 32 All Other Garbage 12.45% ' 3.69% 5.33% 5.42% 11.80% 4.57% 33 Liquids 2.39% 2.55% 4.30% 1.68% 0.00% 1.74% 34 Grit 2.00% ` 9.07% 1.04%` 2.12% 6 186%,' 1 90% " TOTALS 100.00% 100.00% 100.00- 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TNU ;'JCS Finai TM No. 1- Waste Composition Study i 4/20/201S I Page 25 of 33 ATTACHMENT C - City Commercial - Individual Sample Results (continued) rn N rn N C C _ m _ (6 _1U Z 00 a) U N T u S_ Y V7 E �/ N Hauler/Location E 7 E u 7 Weighted Material Categories Sample # 43 44 Average 1 Newspaper 0.00% 0.27% 1.83% 2 Corrugated Containers 1.18% 3.12% 6.14% 3 Office Paper 1.63% 0.36% 3.00% 4. Other Recyclable Paper' 10.21% 2.19% 8.44%`' 5 Low Grade Paper 8.76% 7.96% 8.62% 6 Aseptic Containers - 0.40% 0.22% 0.37% 7 PET Bottles 3.99% 0.67% 1.66% 8 HDPE Bottles 3.18% 2.01% 1.36% 9 Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2 1.39% 0.82% 1.04% 10 -Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7) 2.54% 4.51% 1.75% 11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 1.11% 1.80% 1.80% 12A Retail Bags 1.63% 0.22% 0.69% 12B Non -Rigid Plastic Film 9.43% 4.94% 6.91% 13A Styrofoam Food Service 1.84% 0.60% 1.12% 13B Styrofoam Packaging 0.00% 0.00°% 0.42% 14 All Other Plastics 066% 0.67% 0.74% 15 Tin/Steel Cans 2.60% 1.09 o 1.54% 16 White Goods/Small Appliances 0.00% 0.00% 0.04% 17 Other Ferrous 0.00% 0.34% 1.23% 18 Aluminum Cans 2.47% 1.80% 1.00% 19 Other Non -Ferrous 0.37% 0.43% 1.59% 20 Glass Containers 16.48% 31.93% 5.35% 21 Other Glass 0.00% 1.13% 0.49% 22 Textiles 1.49% 0.85% 2.90% 23 Special Wastes 0.00% 0.00% 1.69°% 24 'Electronics 0.00% 0.50% 1.54% 25 Household Batteries 0.00% 0.24% 0.05% 26 Clean Wood Waste 000% 3.37% 1.60% 27 Treated Wood Waste 0.00% 0.00% 1.94% 28 C&D Debris < ` 0.00% 3.12% 3.13% 29 Tires and Rubber 0.00% 0.00% 0.32% 30 Yard Waste 0.00% 0.43°% 1.03% 31 Food Waste 16.57% 18.07% 17.18% 32 All Other Garbage 5.27% 0,.27% 6.34% 33 Liquids 1.07% 0.86°% 1.96°% 34 Grit 5.73% _._ _.. 5.22%' __...._o.._............. . 3.18% ._.._.__..- . TOTALS o 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions i T1v11 jCS Final TM No. 1- Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 26 of 33 ATTACHMENT D - Out -of -City - Individual Sample Results 00 }'1 N N N N N M N O U T C to @ T O M to O T U C M c � O r� Ca 3 LO �. Q kD to � >, , i M 3 >- Q CU M c 'A O r� a, 3� Q -0 U i V U -C: U i Hauler/Location M O O 2 " : M � O L �- 2 O N s- N « s v �- -O U -O to n O � - � N «s O Weighted Material Categories Sample # 4 6 10 is 22 34 Average 1 Newspaper 4.25% 18.03% 1.36% 3.30% 0.01% 5.03% 5.28% 2 Corrugated, Containers 2.11% 0.68% 9.07% 3.39% 1AN " 7.9SI 4.05% 3 Office Paper 2.19% 12.62% 2.29% 2.01% 1.65% 2.74% 3.88% 4 Other Recyclable,Paper 11.08% 4.05% 5.88% 9.53% 750% 12.08% - 8:35% 5 Low Grade Paper 11.20% 5.32% 6.95% 6.36% 6.36% 3.75% 6.68% 6 Aseptic Containers 0.36% 0.00% 2.36% 0.03% 0.75% 0.32% 0.64% 7 PET Bottles 2.41% 1.17% 3.31% 2.56% 1.24% 1.87% 2.11% 8 HDPE Bottles 1.75% 0.25% 1.91% 1.87% 1.70% ' 0.31% 1.31% 9 Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2 2.04% 0.73% 1.12% 1.53% 0.68% 1.08% 1.20% 10 Other Plastic Containers;(#3-#7) r; 0.60% 1.11% 2.23% 3.01% 0.30% 2.61% 1.66%; 11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 0.69% 0.00% 0.24% 1.18% 10.51% 0.90% 2.24% 12A Retail Bags 1.32% 0.68% -2.24% 1.23% 0.84% 0.33% 1.12% 12B Non -Rigid Plastic Film 5.02% 2.94% 8.63% 4.59% 2.82% 4.44% 4.75% 13A Styrofoam Food Service 0.91% 0.00% 2.99% 2.16% 0.30% 0.85% 1.22% 13B Styrofoam Packaging 0.71% 0.70% 0.00% 0.62% 0.21% 0.25% 0.42% 14 All Other Plastics 0.43% 0.87% 0.57% 0.71% 0.82% 0.35% 0.62% 15 Tin/Steel Cans 2.73% 1.34% 3.44% 1.52% 2.17% 1.86% 2.18% 16 White Goods/Small Appliances 3.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0..00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 17 Other Ferrous 1.14% 0.63% 5.01% 0.24% 1.05% 0.59% 1.44% 18 ..Aluminum Cans 1.38% 0.87% 0.75% 0.71% 0.53% 0.74% 0.83% 19 Other Non -Ferrous 0.43% 0.25% 0.36% 0.84% 0.25% 0.17% 0.39% 20 Glass Containers 5.14% 1.71% 1.97% 6.25% 3.66% 5.75% 4.10% 21 Other Glass 0.88% 21.36% 1.07% 2.08% 1.65% 0.12% 4.49% 22 Textiles 7.31% 0.32% 1.94% 3.94% 14.73% 4.40% 5.42% 23 Special Wastes 0.00% 0.00% 0.11% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.02% 24 ' Electronics 0.00% 0.00% 1.78% 2.98% 1.02% 0.41% 1.07%' 25 Household Batteries 0.47% 0.00% 0.00% 0.29% 0.20% 0.18% 0.19% 26 Clean Wood Waste 0.71% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.13% 0.00% 0.30% 27 Treated Wood Waste 0.30% 0.66% 0.00% 0.63% 0.44% 0.41% 0.41% 28 C&D Debris 0.56% 5.46% 0.47% 0.43% 0.38% 12.45% 3.19% 29 Tires and Rubber 0.00% 3.60% 0.00% 0.63% 7.72% 0.00% 1.97% 30 Yard Waste 0.00% 0.00% 0.71% 0.009/o 2.17% 0.00% 0.48% 31 Food Waste 15.29% 11.93% 11.84% 17.35% 12.55% 13.65% 13.81% 32 All Other Garbage 7.09% 2.73% 10.95% 9.35% 5.88% 8.17% 7,40% 33 Liquids 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.90% 4.27% 1.85% 1.87% 34 Grit 6.45% 0.00% 8.43% 3.81% 3.36% 4.37% 4.42% TOTALS 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Tlb':1 VVC-5_F nal TM No. 1- Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 27 of 33 ATTACHMENT E - Litter - Individual Sample Results Hauler/Location Litter Litter Litter Litter Weighted Material Categories Sample # 28 29 31 32 Average 1 Newspaper 0.00% 0.84% 0.36% 0.49% ! 0.41% 2 Corrugated Containers 1.19% 8.80% 5.29% 9.90% 6.37% 3 Office Paper 2.07% 1.95% 0.69% 0.40% j 1.20% 4 Other Recyclable Paper 3.30% 7.10% 7.06% 5.58% 5.76% ' 5 Low Grade Paper 0.85% 4.46% 0.00% 1.61% ; 1.59% 6 Aseptic Containers 0.00% 0.17% 0,19% 0.22% i `; 0.15% 7 PET Bottles 6.10% 6.80% 6.52% 5,97% 6.32% 8 HDPE Bottles 0.00% 0.39% 0.80% 0.75% 0151% 9 Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2 0.41% 0.71% 0.75% 0.64% 0.63% 10 Other Plastic Containers (#347) 1.53% 2.30% 2.20% 2.46% 2.14% 11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 0.76% 3.78% 0.84% 13.68% i 5.09% 12A Retail Bags 0.41% 3.40% 0.86% 0.65% 1 1.23% 12B Non -Rigid Plastic Film 4.28% 2.92% 5.08% 5.95% 4.68% 13A Styrofoam Food Service' 1.15% 1.18% 1.65% 1.11% 1.28% 13B Styrofoam Packaging 0.09% 0.39% 0.80% 0 16% 0.37% 14 All Other Plastics 0.33% 0.58% 1.77% 1.11% I 0.99% 15 Tin/Steel Cans 0.11% 0.68% 0.41% 0 55% 0.43% 16 White Goods/Small Appliances 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0,00% 0.00% 17 Other Ferrous 1.15% 3.49% 0.00% 3 21% _ 1.92% 18 Aluminum Cans 311% 2.87% ` 4.35% 2.21% s� 3.14% 19 Other Non -Ferrous 0.06% 0.20% 0.12%_ 0.19% 0.14% 20 Glass Containers 16.60% 17.50% 17.31% 13.74% 16.17% 21 Other Glass 0.00% 1.74% 3.77% 0.09% 1.41% 22 Textiles - 1.25% 3.00% 3.19% 6.12% 3.53% 23 Special Wastes 0.00% 0.00% 0.27% 0.00% 0.07% 24 Electronics 0.00% 0.00% 0.46% 0.36% 0.23% 25 Household Batteries 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 26 ` Clean Wood Waste 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.36% 1.53%" 27 Treated Wood Waste 44.96% 0.88% 3.22% 1 27% 12.02% 28 C&D Debris 0.49% 0.00% 16.13% 1.96% 5.02% 29 Tires and Rubber 0.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0 72% ` 0.36% 30 Yard Waste 4.97% 6.94% 6.62% 7.80% 6.63% 31 Food Waste 0.65% 2.26% 0.62% 0.00% 0.79% 32 All Other Garbage 3.50% 7.55% 2.68% > 5.45% 4.68% 33 Liquids _ 0.00% 7.14% 6.00% 0.00% 3.12% 34 Grit 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.29% 0.08% TOTALS 100A0% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% ` 100.00% kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TNa ;'JCS Final i TM No. 1— Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 28 of 33 ATTACHMENT F — City Bulky Waste — Individual Sample Results Sample Number 1 2 3 4 Date 1/26/2015 1/26/2015 1/26/2015 1/26/2015 Hauler City City City City Type of Vehicle Roll -off Roll -off Roll -off Roll -off Cubic Yards 30 30 30 30 Truck Number 4003 4007 4003 4003 Time of Day before 7:26 AM 7:26 AM 8:15 AM 10:24 AM Paper - OCC 30% 10% Paper— Other Metal - Major Appliances Metal - HVAC Ducting Metal - Non Ferrous Metal - Ferrous Plastic - Film 20% 9% Plastic - EPS/Insulation Plastic - Rigid 20% 10% 1% C&D - Treated Wood 14.9% 15% 4% 5% C&D - Untreated Wood 84.2% 15% 8% 86% C&D —Carpet/Padding 40% C&D - Drywall 24% C&D - Roofing Shingles 4% C&D - Rock/Brick/Gravel C&D - Bagged Waste C&D - Ceramic Tiles C&D - Porcelain Toilets/Sinks Furniture - Furniture Furniture - Mattresses Other - Bagged Waste Other - Yard Waste Other - Glass Containers Other - Textiles Other - Liquids TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% Comments Dunking il Fa�rv�ew High Butterfield Trails �3 Cor�srtc#rc►r��� Sckxool ; s Net Weight (Tons) 1.81 1.80 3.75 3.00 kessler consulting ins. innovative waste solutions Ttvil b:'C5 Finial TM No. 1— Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 29 of 33 ATTACHMENT F — City Bulky Waste — Individual Sample Results Sample Number 5 6 7 8 Date 1/26/2015 1/26/2015 1/27/2015 1/27/2015 Hauler City City City City Type of Vehicle Roll -off Roll -off Roll -off Roll -off Cubic Yards 30 30 30 30 Truck Number 4003 4007 4007 4003 Time of Day 12:41 PM 12:55 PM 7:00 AM 7:09 AM Paper - OCC 10% 2% Pacer - Other Metal - Major Appliances Metal - HVAC Ducting 1% Metal - Non Ferrous 4% 3% Metal - Ferrous 5% Plastic - Film 3% Plastic - EPS/Insulation 2% 1.0% Plastic - Rigid 15% 1.0% C&D - Treated Wood 38% 24% 24% C&D - Untreated Wood 38% 36% 48% 85% C&D - Carpet/Padding - C&D - Drywall - C&D - Roofing Shingles 8% C&D - Rock/Brick/Gravel 19% C&D - Bagged Waste 10% 2.5% C&D - Ceramic Tiles C&D - Porcelain Toilets/Sinks Furniture- Furniture Furniture - Mattresses' Other - Bagged Waste 2.5% Other - Yard Waste 18% Other Glass Containers Other - Textiles Other - Liquids TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% [Net Weight (Tons) 6.32 2.22 3.96 ( 4.94 kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Ttvtl WCS Fina€ TM No. 1— Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 30 of 33 ATTACHMENT F — City Bulky Waste — Individual Sample Results Sample Number 9 10 11 12 Date 1/27/2015 1/27/2015 1/27/2015 1/27/2015 Hauler City City City City Type of Vehicle Roll -off Roll -off Roll -off Roll -off Cubic Yards 30 30 30 30 Truck Number 4007 4003 4003 4007 Time of Day after 7:00 AM 10:07 AM 12:48 PM 1:26 PM Paper = QCC 3094v i 2% Paper=Other Metal - Major Appliances Metal - HVAC Ducting - Metal - Non Ferrous 30% Metal - Ferrous Plastic - Film:1% Plastic = EPS/Insulation Plastic - Rigid C&D - Treated Wood 45% 58.8% C&D - Untreated Wood 45% 34.3% C&D - Carpet/Padding C&D - Drywall C&D - Roofing Shingles 10% C&D - Rock/Brick/Gravel 4.9% C&D - Bagged Waste C&D - Ceramic Tiles C&D - Porcelain Toilets/Sinks Furniture - Furniture 54% Furniture - Mattresses 36% Other - Bagged Waste 2 Other - Yard Waste 2.0% Other - Glass Containers 25% Other - Textiles 5% Other - Liquids 15% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% Net Weight (Tons) 10.56 1.10 2.48 9.74 kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Trvi1 CS Final. TM No. 1— Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 31 of 33 ATTACHMENT F — City Bulky Waste — Individual Sample Results Sample Number 13 14A 14B 15 Date 1/27/2015 1/28/2015 1/29/2015 1/29/2015 Hauler City City City City Type of Vehicle Claw Truck Roll -off Roll -off Roll -off Cubic Yards 4 30 30 30 Truck Number 762 4007 4003 4007 Time of Day 1:58 PM 10:58 AM 9:06 AM 9:20 AM Paper - OCC 1.0% 5% 10% 'Paper -Other Metal - Major Appliances Metal - HVAC Ducting Metal - Non Ferrous 10% Metal - Ferrous Plastic- Film 30% Plastic - EPS/Insulation 5% Plastic - Rigid 10% 5%' C&D-Treated Wood 10% 4.850% 8.40% 10% C&D - Untreated Wood 92.150% 58.80% C&D - Carpet/Padding 8.40 a C&D - Drywall 8.40% C&D - Roofing Shingles C&D - Rock/Brick/Gravel C&D - Bagged Waste 0.50% C&D - Ceramic Tiles 1% C&D - Porcelain Toilets/Sinks Furniture - Furniture " 18% Furniture - Mattresses 72% Other - Bagged Waste 0.50% 40% Other - Yard Waste Other - Glass Containers Other - Textiles Other - Liquids TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% Comments a call in requesi Pinnacle Foods Net Weight (Tons) 1 0.29 3.51 4.16 2.13 kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TM:1WCS Pin -Al TM No. 1— Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 32 of 33 ATTACHMENT F — City Bulky Waste — Individual Sample Results Sample Number 16 17 18 19 Date 1/29/2015 1/29/2015 1/29/2015 1/30/2015 Hauler City City City City Type of Vehicle Roll -off Roll -off Roll -off Roll -off Cubic Yards 30 30 30 30 Truck Number 4003 4003 4003 4007 Time of Day 10:29 AM 11:15 AM 2:07 PM 7:25 AM Paper - OCC 2% ` 10916 5%, 14% ` Paper - Other 56% Metal - Major Appliances Metal - HVAC Ducting Metal - Non Ferrous Metal - Ferrous Plastic - Film 1:5% 25% Plastic - EPS/Insulation 2/ Plastic - Rigid 30% 20% 1.5% C&D - Treated Wood 6.8% 17.6% C&D - Untreated Wood 20.4% 26.0% 52.8% C&D - Carpet/Padding 40.8% 26% 8.8% C&D - Drywall 13% 8.8% C&D - Roofing Shingles C&D - Rock/Brick/Gravel C&D - Bagged Waste 2.5% 2% C&D - Ceramic Tiles C&D - Porcelain Toilets/Sinks Furniture -furniture Furniture -Mattresses Other - Bagged Waste 2.5% 5% Other - Yard Waste - Other - Glass Containers Other - Textiles Other - Liquids TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% Comments 720 East M�IIs Street Net Weight (Tons) 12.10 9.43 4.26 0.87 kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Tfvll WCS Final TM No. 1- Waste Composition Study 1 4/20/2015 1 Page 33 of 33 ATTACHMENT F - City Bulky Waste - Individual Sample Results Sample Number 20 21 22 23 Date 1/30/2015 1/30/2015 1/30/2015 1/30/2015 Hauler City City City City Type of Vehicle Roll -off Roll -off Roll -off Roll -off Cubic Yards 30 30 30 30 Weighted Truck Number 4003 4007 4003 4007 Average Time of Day 8:40 AM 8:50 AM 9:53 AM 10:21 AM (% by volume) Paper - OCC 5% 10% 16% 7.4% Paper -.Other 4% 0.7% Metal - Major Appliances 4.50% 0.0% Metal - HVAC Ducting 0.0% Metal - Non Ferrous 50% 5.9% Metal - Ferrous 0.5% 0.1% Plastic - Film 8% 6% 1% 2.0% Plastic - EPS/Insulation 32% 5% 0.9% Plastic - Rigid 4% 4% 7.1% C&D - Treated Wood 9% 13.9% C&D - Untreated Wood 20% 12.5% 27% 37.5% 33.9% C&D - Carpet/Padding 18% 10.1% C&D - Drywall 18% 37.5% 5.2% C&D - Roofing Shingles 12.5% 18% 2.0% C&D - Rock/Brick/Gravel 1.6% C&D - Bagged Waste 0.7% C&D - Ceramic Tiles 5% 0.3% C&D - Porcelain 0.0% Toilets/Sinks Furniture - Furniture . 0.6% Furniture - Mattresses 0.6% Other - Bagged Waste 25% 5% 1.7% Other - Yard Waste 0.9% Other --Glass Containers 2.6% Other - Textiles 5% 0.1% Other - Liquids 1.5% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100.0% Comm+ants� AT&T. Net Weight (Tons) 1.04 4.55 4.35 4.69 kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TlV11 VVCS Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO.2 DATE: April 20, 2015 TO: Jeff Cole, Recycling and Trash Collection Director City of Fayetteville, AR Carlos Ochoa, Sustainability Director University of Arkansas FROM: Robin Mitchell, Project Manager SUBJ: University of Arkansas Waste Composition Study PROJ #: 173-00.00 1. Introduction This technical memorandum provides the results of the University of Arkansas (University) Waste Composition Study (WCS) conducted by Kessler Consulting, Inc. (KCI) for the City of Fayetteville (City) and the University. The purpose of the WCS was to determine the percentage by weight of various types of materials found in solid waste disposed at the University. The results of the WCS will assist in identifying opportunities for expanding and enhancing waste diversion programs at the University. Field work took place at Waste Management's Eco-Vista Landfill in Tontitown, AR from February 2-4, 2015. During the study, KCI pulled and manually hand -sorted 20 samples of solid waste, 5 samples from each of 4 generator sectors: Facilities Management, Housing, Arkansas Union, and Athletics. The study included only waste collected in dumpsters, compactors, and roll -offs by the two contracted haulers, Waste Management and Deffenbaugh. It does not include debris from construction, demolition, or renovation projects; hazardous wastes; or other special segregated waste streams. AISo worth noting is that no home athletic game occurred during the time the field work was conducted. 2. Methodology KCI worked with City and University staff to develop a list of 36 material categories into which waste would be sorted (see Attachment A). To develop this list of material categories, KCI considered the following: • Recyclable materials accepted in the University's recycling program. Additional types of materials that might potentially be recovered for recycling or composting in the future. KCI prepared and City and University staff reviewed and approved a site safety plan and sampling and sorting protocol, which were followed throughout the field work. KCI provided a Study Supervisor, +.�. N .€ .,:'aAv^€..> t,1-. ;.a F 31" 13, f:......-.,..:oz3., ...:512 I i.. � ..-, �, c.:1,;..l: r^ Sorting Supervisor, additional labor to assist with sorting activities, all sorting equipment, and safety gear. Several modifications were made to the initial scope of work and sampling and sorting protocol, as outlined below, to accommodate the University's objectives and successfully complete the study. These modifications required an additional level of effort, which were absorbed by KCI. • KCI expanded the scope to include four generator sectors (Facilities Management, Housing, Arkansas Union, and Athletics) rather than three. • The scope of work anticipated working with a single point of contact at the University; however, KCI was asked to directly contact representatives from each generator sector and their contracted service providers to obtain the necessary information for planning the WCS. • KCI anticipated conducting the sorting event at the same location as the City's WCS, but was asked to change locations to the Eco-Vista Landfill to accommodate the contracted haulers. This required breakdown and re -mobilization of sorting equipment. • The sampling and sorting protocol indicated that University staff from each generator sector would be responsible for coordinating with their respective contracted service provider to schedule the collection and delivery of waste to the sorting location. KCI assumed some of this responsibility to ensure delivery of the waste. • Five samples from each generator sector were pulled instead of six samples. Because of harsh weather conditions and the open nature of the requested sorting location (working face of the landfill), sorting activities were suspended during the first day of the study. We do not believe this modification altered the validity of the study results.. Table 1 provides the final sampling schedule. Table 1: University Sampling Schedule Following the field work, KCI analyzed the data as outlined in the ASTM Standard Test Method for Determination of the Composition of Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste (D5231-92; reapproved 2008) to determine the percentage, by weight, of each material category for each of the four generator sectors. In addition to the weighted average, the 90 percent confidence interval was calculated for each kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TN12UArk4'4C5 Fi^a ::.:. material category. The confidence interval indicates that, with a 90 percent level of confidence, the actual arithmetic mean (the arithmetic mean obtained if an infinite number of samples were sorted) is within the upper and lower limits shown. This provides an understanding of how much variation occurred in the quantity of that material category in the samples sorted. Generally, the more homogeneous the waste stream and the greater the number of samples sorted, the higher the level of accuracy achieved and the narrower the margin between the upper and lower bounds of the confidence interval. Data for the four generator sectors was then combined, based on the quantity of waste each contributed to the waste stream in 2014 (as provided by University staff), to calculate the overall composition of University waste that is disposed. This is referred to throughout this memorandum as the University Aggregate Waste. 3. Results The following tables and figures present the study results for each individual generator sector, as well as for the University Aggregate Waste. Material categories are grouped by their potential to be recycled through the University's existing recycling program, other potentially recyclable materials, organics, and all other waste. • Facilities Management (Table 2 and Figure 1; Attachment B provides the individual sample data) . — More than 35 percent of Facilities Management waste consisted of paper and containers that could be recycled. Low-grade paper, food waste, and other potentially compostable material comprised over 32 percent of the waste, while other potentially recyclable materials contributed nearly 14 percent to the waste. • Housing (Table 3 and Figure 2; Attachment C provides the individual sample data) — More than 44 percent of Housing -waste consisted of paper and containers that could be recycled. Food waste comprised more than 16 percent of the waste stream, and other compostable materials comprised nearly 11 percent. Other potentially recyclable -materials contributed another 9 percent to the waste. • Arkansas Union (Table 4 and Figure 3; Attachment D provides the individual sample data) — More than 51 percent of the Arkansas Union's waste was compostable, with low-grade paper and food waste contributing 28 and 23 percent, respectively. Recyclable paper and containers comprised nearly 21 percent of disposed waste. • Athletics (Table 5 and Figure 4; Attachment E provides the individual sample data) — More than 40 percent of Athletics' waste consisted of compostable materials, with food waste and low- grade paper contributing 21 percent and nearly 19 percent, respectively. Recyclable paper and containers comprised over 32 percent. • University Aggregate Waste —Table 6 and Figure 5 present the combined composition of the University waste from the 4 generator sectors based on the relative amount of each stream disposed in 2014. Nearly 37 percent of the University Aggregate Waste consisted of recyclable paper and containers and 33 percent was comprised of potentially compostable materials. Tables 7 and 8 convert these percentages to estimated metric tons and short tons, respectively, of each material type disposed in 2014. It should be noted that the quantity of waste disposed in dumpsters is estimated by the haulers; therefore, the accuracy is uncertain. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions iM2€JArkWCS Final Figure 6 depicts the overall composition of materials generated at the University in 2014, based on data provided by University staff and results of the WCS. While no recycling program captures 100 percent of targeted materials, expanding and enhancing the University's existing paper and container recycling programs has the potential to increase its waste diversion rate by up to 30 percent. Facilities Management and Housing offer the greatest opportunity to recover additional tons of these materials (see Figure 7). Developing comprehensive programs to capture other types of potentially recyclable materials (scrap metals, all plastic containers and packaging, bulky rigid plastics, electronics, and aseptic containers) has the potential to increase the diversion rate by an additional 9 percent. The addition of these materials depends on the availability of viable end -users or markets. Implementing a comprehensive food waste recovery program has the potential to increase the University's diversion rate by up to 13 percent. Facilities Management and Housing also generate the largest quantities of food waste. Expanding the composting program to include other types of biodegradable materials, primarily low-grade paper, could potentially divert an additional 14-percent of waste from disposal. As can be seen by Figure 6, striving to achieve the University's zero waste goal (90 percent diversion) by 2021 would require aggressive policies, programs, and infrastructure to maximize the recovery of potentially recyclable or compostable materials. KCI appreciates the opportunity to conduct this study for the University and is available to assist as the results of the study are used to target each sector for increased diversion. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions M2 UArk 4VCS Fina Uvl No, S, j. A Table2: Composition of Facilities Management's Disposed Waste(% by weight) Weighted 90% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Material Category Average Bounds Bounds I Newspaper 0.7% 0.2% 1.3% 2 :,Corrugated Containers 5.6%, 23% 8.9% 3 Office Paper 3.3% 1.6% 4.9% 7 PET Bottles 4.0% 0.6% 7.5% 9,: H DPt Bottles 1.0% 0.4% 1.6% 15 Tin/Steel Cans 1.0% 0.6% 1.4% 18 AlUMihum,Cans ­'`, 1 .5%: 3.0% 20 Glass Containers 2.7% -0.3% 5.7% 6 Aseptic Containers 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 9 Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2 0.8% 0.0% 1.6% 10 Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7) 3.0% 0.8% 5.1% -11 ...:Bulky Rigid Plast ics 0.5% -0.2% - 1.2% 13A EPS Food Service 0.9% 0.5% 1.3% 13B EPS Packaging 1.3% -0.6% 3.2% 16 White Goods/Small Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% I! Other Ferrous 6.4% -3.4% 16.1% 19 Other Non -Ferrous 0.3% 0.0% 0.5% 24 Electronics 0.6% -0.7% 1.8% 5 Low Grade Paper 17.2% 10.8% 23.6% 26 Clean Wood Waste 1.6% -1.6% 4.8% 30 Yard Waste 0.2% -0.2% 0.6% 31 Food Waste 13.4% 9.3% 17.4% 12A Retail Bags 0.7% 0.6% 0.9% 12B Non -Rigid Plastic Film 4.0% 1.6% 6.4% 14 All Other Plastics 1.1% 0.7% 1.4% 21 Other Glass 0.1% -0.1% 0.3% 22 Textiles 4.2% -2.5% 10.9% 23 Special Wastes 1.4% -1.8% 4.7% 25 Household Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 27 Treated Wood Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 28 C&D Debris 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 29 Tires and Rubber 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 32 All Other Garbage 5.2% 2.1% 8.3% 33 liquids 2.0% 0.5% 3.5% 34 Grit 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% I TOTAL 100.0% 1 Note: Columns might not appear to add correctly due to rounding. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions N12 UArk WCS final U Figure 1: Composition of Facilities Management's Disposed Waste (% by weight) Corrugated 1 xecyclanle raper, Containers, 5.6% I Recyclable Contai Newspaper, 0.7% Other Recyclable Other Garbage, 8.7% Compostables Film and Other Plastics, 5.8%_ Food Waste, 13.4% Yard Waste, 0.2%J Clean Wood Waste, 1.6% Low Grade Paper, 17.2% Note: For the purpose of this chart: I Other Metals, Electronics, 0.6% Other Recyclable Paper, 18.5% Plastic Bottles #1 & #2, 5.0% Metal Cans, 2.5% Glass Containers, ®, 2.7% - _Other Recyclable Containers, 3.9% Bulky Rigid Plastics, 0.5% Expanded Polystyrene, 2.2% • All Other Recyclable Paper includes the categories of Office Paper and Other Recyclable Paper. • Plastic Bottles #1 & #2 includes the categories of PET Bottles and HDPE Bottles. • Metal Cans includes the categories of Aluminum Cans and Tin/Steel Cans. • Other Recyclable Containers includes the categories of Aseptic Containers, Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2, and Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7). • Expanded polystyrene includes the categories of EPS Food Service and EPS Packaging. • Other Metals includes the categories of White Goods/Small Appliances, Other Ferrous, and Other Non -Ferrous. • Film and Other Plastics includes the categories of Retail Bags, Non -Rigid Plastic Film, and All Other Plastics. • Other Garbage includes the categories of Other Glass, Special Wastes, Household Batteries, Tires and Rubber, All Other Garbage, Grit, and Liquids. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TM2UArkLVCS i•`ip;1 Table 3: Composition of Housing's Disposed Waste (% by weight) Weighted 90% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Material Category Average Bounds Bounds I Newspaper 0.8% 0.4% 1.1% ,2:, Corrugated Containers 171.2% -1.6% 32.7% 3 Office Paper 4.9% 3.2% 6,5% 7 1 PET Bottles 1 3.9% 1 2.6% 1 5.2% 15 1 Tin/Steel Cans 1 1.1% 1 0.6% 1 1.5% 20 1 Glass Containers 4.0% I 2.3% 5.6% 6 Aseptic Containers 0.5% 0.2% 0.7% Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2' 1.1% 0.4% 1.9% 10 Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7) 2.0% 1.6% 2.4% 11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 1.9%, 1. 0 Vo, 2.8% 13A EPS Food Service 0.9% 0.4% 1.3% 13B 'EPS Packaging 0.4% 0.0% 0.7% 16 White Goods/Small Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% ,17 Other Ferrous 1.4% -0.4% 3.3% 19 Other Non -Ferrous 0.4% 0.2% 0.6% 24 Electronics 0.3% 0.1% 0.6% 5 Low Grade Paper 26 Clean Wood Waste 30 Yard Waste 31 FoodWaste Total,organics-' 9.9% 0.6% 0.1% 16.3% 26.9%1'J 6.5% -0.2% -0.1% 9.1% 13.2% 1.3% 0.4% 23.4% 12A Retail Bags 1.1% 0.1% 2.0% 12B Non -Rigid Plastic Film 3.3% 2.2% 4.5% 14, All Other Plastics 1.3% 0.7% 1.8% 21 Other Glass 0.7% 0.1% 1.2% 22 Textiles 2.9% 0.8% 5.0% 23 Special Wastes 2.1% -2.1% 6.3% 25 Household Batteries 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 27 Treated Wood Waste 0.1% -0.1% 28 C&D Debris 0.2% -0.2% 0.5% 29 Tires and Rubber 0.1% -0.1% 0.3% 32 All Other Garbage 4.0% 3.4% 4.6% 33 Liquids 2.0510, 4.0% 34 Grit 1.6% 0.2% 3.1% I I TOTALS 100.0% 1 Note: Columns might not appear to add correctly due to rounding. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TWUArkWCS Fha Figure 2: Composition of Housing's Disposed Waste (% by weight) Other Garbage, 10.8% C&D Debris & Treated Wood, 0.3° Textiles, 2.9% Film and Other Plastics, 5.6% Food Waste, 16.3% Newspaper, 0.8% Corrugated Containers, 17.2% All Other Recyclable Paper, 15.3% Plastic Bottles #1 & #2, 5.7% Metal Cans, 1.7% �' Glass Containers, Other Recyclable Bulky Rigid Plastics, 1.9% Containers, 3.7% Expanded Polystyrene, 1.3% v _ Note: For the purpose of this chart: • All Other Recyclable Paper includes the categories of Office Paper and Other Recyclable Paper. • Plastic Bottles #1 & #2 includes the categories of PET Bottles and HDP.E Bottles. • Metal Cans includes the categories of Aluminum Cans and Tin/Steel-Cans. • Other Recyclable Containers includes the categories of Aseptic Containers, Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2, and Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7). • Expanded polystyrene includes the categories of EPS Food Service and EPS Packaging. • Other Metals includes the categories of White Goods/Small Appliances, Other Ferrous, and Other Non -Ferrous. • Film and Other Plastics includes the categories of Retail Bags, Non -Rigid Plastic Film, and All Other Plastics. • Other Garbage includes the categories of Other Glass, Special Wastes, Household Batteries, Tires and Rubber, All Other Garbage, Grit, and Liquids. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TPv12UArkl•+:C; Fna N. 2 .f Paq�,- .. �f Table 4: Composition of Arkansas Union's Disposed Waste (% by weight) Weighted 90% Confidence Interval Lower Upper Material Category Average Bounds Bounds I Newspaper 1.9% 0.0% 3.8% 2 Corrugated Containers 3.7% 2.2%, 5.2% 3 Office Paper 2.3% 1.1% 3.4% 7 PET Bottles 2.2% 0.8% 3.6% HIDPE Bottles 1.7%' 0.8% 2.5% 15 Tin/Steel Cans 1.1% 0.6% 1.6% 18 Aluminum Can��,�, 0.4%, 0.1% 0.6% 20 Glass Containers 1.0% 0.1% 1.8% 6 Aseptic Containers 0.2% 0.0% 0.4% 9 Other Non-Bottle:Plastics #1 and #2 2.5% 1.2%: 3.7% 10 Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7) 1.4% 1.1% 1.8% 11 Bulky Rigid Plastics� 1.0% 0.3% 1.6% 13A EPS Food Service 2.1% 1.3% 3.0% 13B EPS Packaging 0.2% -0.1% 0.5% 16 White Goods/Small Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17 Other Ferrou's 0.3% -0.2% 0.791. 19 -Other Non -Ferrous 0.3% 0.0% 0.6% 24 Electronics 0.0% 0,1% 5 -Low Grade Paper 26 Clean Wood Waste 30 Yard Waste -31 s Food Waste Total Organics 28.2% 0.3% 0.0% 23.0% 51.5% 20.5% 0.0% 0.0% 14.5% 36.0% 0.5% 0.0% 31.5% 12A Retail Bags 0.5% -0.1% 1.1% 12B Non -Rigid Plastic Film 8.5% 7.5% 9.4% 14 All Other Plastics 2.4% 1.4% 3.5% 21 Other Glass 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 22 Textiles 2.2% 0.4% 4.1% 23 Special Wastes 0.1% -0.1% 0.2% 25 Household Batteries 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 27 Treated Wood Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 28 C&D Debris 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 29 Tires and Rubber 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 32 All Other Garbage 3.2% 2.0% 4.5% 33 Liquids 2.3% 1.1% 3.4% 34 Grit 0.3% -0.4% 1.1% I TOTALS 100.0% 1 Note: Columns might not appear to add correctly due to rounding. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TM2 LJArkWCS Finas r.;. Figure 3: Composition of Arkansas Union's Disposed Waste (% by weight) Food Waste, 23.0% Yard Waste, 0.0% n Wood Waste, 0.3% Note: For the purpose of this chart: Low Grade Paper, 28.2% Metal Cans, 1.4% - Glass Containers, 1.0% Other Recyclable Containers, 4.1% Bulky Rigid Plastics, 1.0% Expanded Polystyrene, 2.3% \—Other Metals, 0.6% Electronics, 0.0% • All Other Recyclable Paper includes the categories of Office Paper and Other Recyclable Paper: • Plastic Bottles #1 & #2 includes the categories of PET Bottles and HDPE Bottles. • Metal Cans includes the categories of Aluminum Cans and Tin/Steel Cans. • Other Recyclable Containers includes the categories of Aseptic Containers, Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2, and Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7). • Expanded polystyrene includes the categories of EPS Food Service and EPS Packaging. • Other Metals includes the categories of White Goods/Small Appliances, Other Ferrous, and Other Non -Ferrous. • Film and Other Plastics includes the categories of Retail Bags, Non -Rigid Plastic Film, and All Other Plastics. • Other Garbage includes the categories of Other Glass, Special Wastes, Household Batteries, Tires and Rubber, All Other Garbage, Grit, and Liquids. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions M2 €JArk WCi F r.D 4 Table 5: Composition of Athletics' Disposed Waste (% by weight) 90% Confidence Interval Weighted Lower Upper Material Category Average Bounds Bounds Newspaper 1.1% 0.3% 2.0% 2 Corrugated Containers 5.3% 1. 9 yo" 3] Office Paper 7.2% 1.1% 13.2% 7 PET Bottles 3.5% 1.3% 5.7% 8 : HbPE Bottles 1.4% 0.4% 2.4% 15 Tin/Steel Cans 0.8% 0.2% 1 .5% 18 Aluminum Cans...' 2.2%, 3% 4.6% 20 Glass Containers 2.1% ­ 0.4% 3.8% 6 Aseptic Containers 0.2% 0.0% 0.5% 9- Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2 1.1% 0.1% 2.2% 10 Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7) 2.6% 1.6% 3.5% 11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 1 * 2% -0.5% 2.'8% 13A EPS Food Service 1.4% 1.0% 1.8% 13B EPS Packaging 0.9% -0.4% 2.2% 16 White Goods/Small Appliances 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17 Other Ferrous 0.4% -0.4% 1.2% 19 Other Non -Ferrous 0.7% 0.5% 0.9% 24 ',Electronics 0.4% -0.2% 1.0% 5 26 30 31 Low Grade Paper Glean Wood Waste Yard Waste Food Waste -,jotal Organics 19.5% 0.0yo 0.0% 21.0% 40'4% 11.2% 0.0% 0.0% 14.8% 27.7% 0.0% 0.0% 27.1% 12A Retail Bags 0.4% 0.0% 0.7% 12B Non -Rigid Plastic Film 6.7% 6.1% 7.3% 14 All Other Plastics 1.3% 0.9% 1.8% 21 Other Glass 0. 1 0% 0.0% 0.0% 22 Textiles 2.4% 0.5% 4.4% 23 Special Wastes 0.2% -0.2% 0.6% 25 Household Batteries 0.1% -0.1% 0.2% 27 Treated Wood Waste 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 28 C&D Debris 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 29'.. Tires and Rubber 0.0% 0.0%, 0.0% 32 All Other Garbage 3.3% 2.0% 4.7% 33 Liquids 4.0% 2,2% 5,.8% 34 Grit 0.2% -0.2% 0.6% I TOTALS 100.0% 1 Note: Columns might not appear to add correctly due to rounding. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TM2 EjArk WCS Rn.n. Figure 4: Composition of Athletics' Disposed Waste (% by weight) Other Garbage, 7.7% r- Newspaper, 1.1% C&D Debris & Treated Wood, 0.0% Textiles, 2.4% Film and Other Plastics, 8.4%, j Electronics, 0.4% Note: For the purpose of this chart: Recyclable Paper 22.1% Recyclable Containers 10.0% Other Recyclables 8.99/0 Compostables 40.4% =AII Other Materials '18 6% All Other Recyclable Paper, 15.7% Plastic Bottles #1 & #2, 4.9% rVMetal Cans, 3.0% Glass Containers, ___ 2.1% _Other Recyclable Containers, 3.9% —,Bulky Rigid Plastics, 1.2% Expanded Polystyrene, 2.3% Other Metals, 1.1% • All Other Recyclable Paper includes the categories of Office Paper and Other Recyclable Paper. • Plastic Bottles #1 & #2 includes the categories of PET Bottles and HDPE Bottles. • Metal Cans includes the categories of Aluminum Cans and Tin/Steel Cans. • Other Recyclable Containers includes the categories of Aseptic Containers, Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2, and Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7). • Expanded polystyrene includes the categories of EPS Food Service and EPS Packaging. • Other Metals includes the categories of White Goods/Small Appliances, Other Ferrous, and Other Non -Ferrous. • Film and Other Plastics includes the categories of Retail Bags, Non -Rigid Plastic Film, and All Other Plastics. • Other Garbage includes the categories of Other Glass, Special Wastes, Household Batteries, Tires and Rubber, All Other Garbage, Grit, and Liquids. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions 11,12UArkWC5i-_n g IVI No2 .. Ulniverllizy f A:- "'N"; y . . ......................... ­­­­ Table 6: Composition of University Aggregate Waste Disposed (% by weight) Facilities Arkansas University Material Category Management Housing Union Athletics Aggregate I Newspaper 0.7% 0.8% 1.9% 1.1% 0.9% 2' CorrugatedContainers"; Cont i 'ers'.'; 5.6%, 17.2% 3.7% 5.3% 9.1% 3 Office Paper I I 11 33% 2 3 % 7.2% 4*1% �4 OtherRecyclable Pa0er, 15.3%; : :4.9'% 10.5 67% 1 1 8.5% 1 123% 7 PET Containers 4.0% 3.9% 2.2% 3.5% 3.8% HDPE Containers 1.0% 1.9% 1.7% 1.4% 1.4% 15 Tin/Steel Cans 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 0.8% 1.0% 18 Cans" Aluminum,t, i'.5 M, 0.6% 0.4% 2.2% 1.12% 20 Glass Containers 2.7% 4.0% 1.0% 2.1% 2.9% Ce �ect� ecyelable �Wvl ri 10" 11","lo "'IM, 6 Aseptic Containers a' 0.2% 6.5% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 9 Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2 0.8% 1.1% 2.5% 1.1% 1.1% 10 Other Plastic Containers (43-#7) 3.0% 2.0% 1.4% 2.6% 2.59/6 11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 0.5% 1.9% 1.0% 1.2% 1.0% 13A EPS Food S6rvice 0.9% 0.9% -2.1% 1.4% 1.1% 13B EPS Packaging 1.3% 0.4%, 0.2% 0.9% 0.9% 16 White Goods/Small Appliances 0.0% 0.0%_ 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 17 Other Ferrous 6.4% 1.4% 0.3% 0.4% 3.6% 19 Other Non-Fe'rro,us 0.3% 0.4% 0.3% 0.7% 0.3% 24 Electronics 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% Totat w c Ole Ws 900, 'sbw 0 �9% 1 5 Low Grade Paper, 17.2% 9.9% 282% 19.5% 16.0% 26 Clean Wood Waste 1.6% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 1.0% 30 Yard Waste 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 31 Food Waste 13.4% 16.3% 23.0% 21.0% 15.9% T otal Organics 26.9% 51.5% 404% . 33: Iyo 12A Retail Bags 0.7% 1.1% 0.5% 0.4% 0.8% 12B Non -Rigid Plastic Film 4.0% 3.3% 8.5% 6.7% 4.5% 14 All Other Plastics 1.1% 1.3% 2.4% 1.3% 1.3% 21 Other Glass 0.1% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 22 Textiles 4.2% 2.9% 2.2% 2.4% 3.4% 23 Special Wastes 1.4% 2.1% 0.1% 0.2% 1.4% 25 Household Batteries 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 27 Treated Wood Waste 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 28 C&D Debris 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 29 Tires and Rubber 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 32 411 Other Garbage 5.2% -4.0% 3.2% 3.3% 4.4% 33 Liquids 2.0% 2.0% 2.3% 4.0% 2.2% 34, Grit 0.0% 1.6% 0.3% 0.2% 0.6% 19'.6% TOTALS I 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%1 100.0% 100.0% Note: Columns might not appear to add correctly due to rounding. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions N12 :;Ark WCS Fin.a,' I Table 7: Estimated Metric Tons of University Aggregate Waste Disposed, 2014 Facilities Arkansas University Material Category Management Housing Union Athletics Aggregate 1 Newspaper 10 7 5 3 26 2 Corrugated Containers 79 159 9 16 263 3 Office Paper 46 45 6 22 119 4 Other Recvclable Paper 216 97 16 26 355 7 PET Containers 57 36 5 11 108 8 HDPE Containers 14 17' 4 4 40 15 Tin/Steel Cans 14 10 3 3 29 18 Aluminum Cans 22 6 1 7 35 20 Glass Containers 38 37 2 6 83 Total Acepted,l ecyclable= ,ontairers 1'45 ... 105, ;; • 15,",;,, ., , 31 ..,. ," .,,,. 295; 6 Aseptic Containers 2 4' 9 Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2 11 10 6 3 31 10 Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7) 42 19 4 8 72= 11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 7 18 2 4 30 13A EPS Food Service 13 8, 5 4 31 13B EPS Packaging 18 4 0 3 25 16 White Goods/Small Appliances 0 -0 0 0 0' 17 Other Ferrous 90 13 1 1 105 19 Other Non -Ferrous 4 4 1 2 10' 24 Electronics 8 3 _ 0 1 12 Tota f Potentially Recyclable Materials 195 83 20 27 325 5 Low Grade Paper 243 91 69 59 463 26 Clean Wood Waste 22 5 1 0 28 30 Yard Waste 3 1 0 0 4. 31 Food Waste 189 150 57 64 460 Total Organics 457 248 126" 123 12A Retail Bags 10 10 1" 1 22 12B Non -Rigid Plastic Film 57 31 21 21 129 14 All Other Plastics 15 12 6: 4 37 21 Other Glass 1 6 0 0 8 22 Textiles 59 27 6 7 99' 23 Special Wastes 20 19 0 1 40 25 Household Batteries 0 2 0 0 2 27 Treated Wood Waste 0 1 0 0 1 28 C&D Debris 0 1 0 "0 1. 29 Tires and Rubber 0 1 0 0 1 32 All Other Garbage 73 37 8 10 128 33 Liquids 28 19 6 12 65 34 Grit 0 15 1 1 17 Total_All Other Materials,: _ 26.4 ". 57 " 550' TOTALS 1,413 9241 2451 304 2,886 Note: Columns might not appear to add correctly due to rounding. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TN12 €iArk WCS Fir l8t M No, 2 witv <.`f 'A!,..:,.,�.�.<, "A"a."te SWoy Ale2011'201,5 1 1-. :�f 2< Table 8: Estimated Short Tons of University Aggregate Waste Disposed, 2014 Facilities Arkansas University Material Category Management Housing Union Athletics Aggregate I Newspaper 12 8 5 4 28 2-: Corru ated g , ,Containers 87, '175 10, 18 290 3 Office Paper 51 50 6 24 131 4, 'Other Recyclable Paper i 238 107, 18 29 391 Total Accepted ....... Recyclable;PT 62 39 6 12 120 7 PET Containers ,8,,, HDRE Containers 16 19, 5 5 44 15 Tin/Steel Cans 16 11 3 3 32 18. Aluminum Cans 24 6 1 7 38, 20 Glass Containers 42 40 3 7 92 Aseptic Containers 2 5 1 9 9- Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2 13 12 7 4 35 10 Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7) 46 21 4 9 80 11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 7 19 -3 4 33 13A EPS,,Food S6rvice 14 9 6 5 34 13B EPS Packaging 20 4 1 3 27 16 White Goods/Small Appliances 0 0 0 0 0 17 Other Ferrous 99 15 1 1 116 15' Other Non -Ferrous 4 4 1 2 11 24 Electronics 9 4 0 1 14 iecyc6li e Ml aigriai 5 Low Grade Paper 268 101 76 65 510 26 Clean Wood Waste 25 6 1 0 31 30 Yard Waste 3 1 0 0 4 31 Food Waste 208 166 62 70 507 Total Organics 139 13: 6 12A Retail Bags 1 1 25 12B Non -Rigid Plastic Film 62 34 23 23 142 14 All Other Plastics 17 13 7 4 41 21 Other Glass 2 7 0 0 8 22 Textiles 65 29 6 8 109 23 Special Wastes 22 21 0A 1 44 25 Household Batteries 0 2 0 0 2 27 Treated Wood Waste 0 1 0 0 1 28, C&D Debris 0 2 0 0 2 29 Tires and Rubber 0 1 0 0 1 32 All Other Garbage 81 41 9 11 141 33 Liquids 31 21 6 13 71 34 Grit 0 -17 o'talA FM199 er_,a, na., ,S� -5I' 3 6,' TOTALS 1,557 1,018 271 336 3,182 Note: Columns might not appear to add correctly due to rounding. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions T 102 E;Ark 'OVICS Fira. Figure 5: Composition of University Aggregate Waste Disposed (% by weight) Newspaper, 0.9% Other Garbage, 9.0% Corrugated C&D Debris & Containers, 9.1% Treated Wood, 0.1%, Textiles, 3.4% Film and Other Plastics, 6.5% , Food Wa! 15.9% Yard Waste, 0.1%_/ , Clean Wood Waste, 1.0% Low Grade Paper, 16.0% Electronics, 0.4% 1 Other Metals, 4.0% All Other Recyclable Paper, 16.4% Plastic Bottles #1 & #2, 5.1% Metal Cans, 2.2% Glass Containers, 2.9% Other Recyclable Containers, 3.9% Bulky Rigid Plastics, 1.0% Expanded Polystyrene, 1.9% Note: For the purpose of this chart: • All Other Recyclable Paper includes the categories of Office Paper and Other Recyclable Paper. • Plastic Bottles #1 & #2 includes the categories of PET Bottles and HDPE.Bottles. . • Metal Cans includes the categories of Aluminum Cans and Tin/Steel Cans. • Other Recyclable Containers includes the categories of Aseptic Containers, Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2, and Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7). • Expanded polystyrene includes the categories of EPS Food Service and EPS Packaging. • Other Metals includes the categories of White Goods/Small Appliances, Other Ferrous, and Other Non -Ferrous. • Film and Other Plastics includes the categories of Retail Bags, Non -Rigid Plastic Film, and All Other Plastics. • Other Garbage includes the categories of Other Glass, Special Wastes, Household Batteries, Tires and Rubber, All Other Garbage, Grit, and Liquids. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TK42 UArk WCS Nn-: 4 Figure 5: Composition of Materials Generated at the University, 2014 (% by weight) • Note: For the purpose of this chart: • Recyclable Paper & Containers includes the categories of Newspaper, Corrugated Containers, Office Paper, Other Recyclable Paper, PET Bottles, HDPE Bottles, Tin/Steel Cans, Aluminum Cans, and Glass Containers. • Other Potential Recyclables includes the categories of Aseptic Containers, Other Non -Bottles Plastics #1 and #2, Other Plastic Containers, Bulky Rigid Plastics, EPS Food Service, EPS, Packaging, White Goods/Small Appliances, Other Ferrous, Other Non -Ferrous, and Electronics. • Other Compostables includes the categories of Low Grade Paper, Clean Wood Waste, and Yard Waste. • Other Waste includes Retail Bags, Non -Rigid Plastic Film, All Other Plastics, Other Glass, Textiles, Special Wastes, Household Batteries, Treated Wood Waste, C&D Debris, Tires and Rubber, All Other Garbage, Grit, and Liquids found in residential and commercial waste (not including Drop Box waste). kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions T IA2 :;Ark WCS Fi^a ATTACHMENT A — Material Category Descriptions # Material Categories Description of Categories 1 Newspaper Newspaper (loose tied or shredded) ireluding other paper norma)ly distributedinside newspaper such as ads;: flyers etc .., 2 Corrugated Cardboard (OCC) Uncoated brown "cardboard" boxes with a wavy core (no plastic liners, waxy coatings). 4 Other Recyclable Paper All magazines, catalogs, paperboard, chipboard, brown paper bags, telephone books, and other printed material on glossy and non -glossy paper. 6 I Aseptic Containers Gable top milk cartons, juice boxes, and other similar containers. 8 High -density polyethylene (HDPE) Clear/natural and pigmented bottles or jars coded HDPE #2 Bottles (SPI #2) such as milk jugs, detergent bottles, etc. These bottles/jars will typically have a screw -on lid or cap. bottle HDPE items. 10 .'.... Other Recyclable All other plastic containers and cups, sometimes coded #3-#7. Plastic Containers 11 Bulky Rigid:Plastics Consists of non -container rigid plastic items such as plastic drums, crates, buckets, baskets, toys, refuse totes, lawn .furniture, flower pots, laundry';baskets and other large plastic items.Does not include electronic toys. 12A Retail Plastic Bags Grocery bags, retail checkout bags, and other bags associated with the retail service industry. 12B Other Non -rigid Plastic Film Garbage bags, bread bags, zipper -lock bags, plastic sheeting, saran wrap, visqueen, etc. 14 ( All Other Plastics Any plastic materials not categorized above, such as deodorant cases, toothpaste tubes, tooth brushes, broom heads, etc. 16 White Goods I Household appliances such as refrigerators, stoves, and salvageable items such as machinery. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TM2 ;;lark WCS. ^ # nms^z-on,��rm��v��wa�ecvmo�umn�v�|�u�u��|pw�muzs ATTACHMENT — Material Category Descriptions (continued) Material Categories I Description of Categories 18 1 Aluminum Cans I Aluminum soft drink, beer, and some food cans. 20 | Glass Containers | Clear, Brown, and Green glass bottles and containers. 22 1 Textiles i� Clothing apparel, rags, leather, blankets, curtains, shoes, I wallets, purses, belts, and scrap leather. 24 Electronics(E'mmste) Electronic devices such astelevisions, computers, cell phones, cordless telephones, P0A,handheld devices, rechargeable batteries, etc. 26 Clean Wood Waste Untnatedandunpainted lumber, pallets and dimensional lumber. Also includes unteated/unpainted wood furniture including chairs, cabinets, dressers, etc. - keysevconmmltimg inc. innovative waste solutions NIwA r k �N' C S F in,� ATTACHMENT B -Facilities Management- Individual Sample Results 1-1 U Ln v Hauler/Location LL LL LL LL LL Weighted Material Categories sample # 1 2 3 4 5 Average 1 Newspaper 0.00% 1.42% 1.15% 0.41% 0.70% 0.74% 2 Corrugated Containers 2.86% 7.10% 1.51% 10.20% 6.04% 5.62% 3 Office Paper 4.03% 3.17% 0.73% 5.35% 3.00% 3.26% 4 Other Recyclable Paper" 9.86% 15.53% 10.65% 26.79% 12.09% 15.27% 5 Low Grade Paper 12.89% 25.43% 8.21% 20.21% 19.45% 17.21% 6 Aseptic Containers 0.00% 0.00% 0.36W 0.00% 0.40% 0.15% 7 PET Bottles 4.76% 0.80% 8.52% 0.00% 6.27% 4.01% 8 HDPE Bottles 1.57% 1.11% 0.95% 0.00% 1.54% 1.00% 9 Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2 1.00% 0.47% 0.58% 0.00% 2.18% 0.81% 10 Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7) ` 6.87% 3.17% 1.75% 1.03% 2.60% 2.98% 11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 0.00% 0.00% 1.62% 0.00% 0.70% 0.47% 12A Retail Bags 0.65% 0.95% 0.73% 0.58% 0.75% 0.73% 12B Non -Rigid Plastic Film 2.17% 5.23% 2.99% 1.97% 8.02% 4.00% 13A Styrofoam Food Service 0.72% 1.11% 0.85%` 0.46% 1.56% ' 0.93% 13B Styrofoam Packaging 0.00% 0.00% 0.95% 4.65% 0.26% 1.27% 14 -' All Other Plastics 1.14% 1.54% 0.55% 0.99% .1.25% 1.08% 15 Tin/Steel Cans 0.54% 1.54% 1.40% -0.83% 0.70% 1.01% 16 White Goods/Small Appliances 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% "0.00% 17 Other Ferrous 7.75% 0.00% 23.55% 0.00% 0.00% 6.39% 18 Aluminum Cans 4.36% 1.11% 0.69% 0.53% 1.25% 1.53% 19 Other Non -Ferrous 0.21% 0.00% 0.73% 0.00% 0.31% 0.25% 20 - Glass Containers 8.14%' 1.34% 1.62% 0.00% 3.10% 2.70% 21 Other Glass 0.00% 0.00% 0.47% 0.00% 0.00% - 0.10% 22 Textiles 0.65% 0.00% 2.295/. 16.35% 0.00% 4.19% 23 Special Wastes 7.62% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.42% 24 Electronics 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.00% ` 0.56% 25 Household Batteries 0.00% 0.0046 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 26 Clean Wood Waste 0.00% 0.00% 7.54% 0.00% 0.00% 1.58% 27 Treated Wood Waste 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 28 C&D Debris 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 29 Tires and Rubber 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 30 Yard Waste 0.00% 0.93% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.18% 31 - Food Waste 12.15% 18.08% 14.23% 7.03% 16.08% 13.37% 32 All Other Garbage 10.05% 5.97% 3.91% 1.19% 5.67% 5.19% 33 Liquids 0.00% 3.98% 1.51% 1.44% 3.08% 1.99% 34 Grit 0.00% 0.00%' 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%. 0.00% TOTALS 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TM2 vArk WC.5 1H,3. PV' N r,,,, 2 U;';v.,r�'.fty ATTACHMENT C -Housing- Individual Sample Results U M U Ln on W Hauler/Location 0 M Z3 0 Z3 0 X: V) D 0 D 0 = Weighted Material Categories sample # 6 7 11 12 13 Average I Newspaper 0.96% 1.16% 0.43% 0.28% 1.02% 0.77% 2 Corrugated Containers 101.07% 1.46 % 40.45% 26.83%, 17.17% 3 Office Paper 4.64% 4.24% 7.43% 5.49% 2.62% 4.87% 4 Other Recyclable Paper ,'24.95% 7.42% 9.61% 4.22% 6.06% 10.46% 5 Low Grade Paper 11.51% 11.86% 12.30% 3.81% 10.22% 9.90% 6 Aseptic Containers ' 0.38% 0.26% 0.46% 0.37% 087% 0.48% 7 PET Bottles 5 . 38% 3.08% 5.38% 2.83% 2.68% 3.87% 8 HDPE Bottles 0.83% 0.36% 4.11% 0.54%, 3.25% 1.85% 9 Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2 2.39% 0.58% 1.16% 0.48% 1.00% 1.13% 10 Other Plastic Containers, (#3,-,#7) 2.76% 1.69% 1.86% 1.96% 1.94% 2.05% 11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 1.05% 3.08% 1.66% 1.07% 2.72% 1.90% 12A Retail Bags 2i80% 0.74% 0.65% 0.48% 0.58% 1.05% 12B Non -Rigid Plastic Film 2.15% 4.05% 5.08% 2.53% 2.93% 3.32% 13A Styrofoam Food Service 0,96% 1.64% 0.64% -0.54% 0.67% 0.87% 13B Styrofoam Packaging 0.48% 0.94% 0.17% 0.39% 0.00% 0.38% 14 All Other Plastics 1.97% 1.69% 1.26% 0.96% 0.50% 1.26% 15 Tin/Steel Cans 0.74% 0.87% 1.39% 0.48% 1.75% 1.06% 16 White Goods/Small Appliances 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 17 Other Ferrous 0.38% 1.06% 0.41% 4.88% 0.40% 1.43% 18. Aluminum Cans -0.53% 0.63% 0.73% 0.76% 0.40% 0.61% 19 Other Non -Ferrous 0.33% 0.26%- 0.50% 0.20% 0.62% .0.39% 20 Glass Containers 2.80% 5.01% 6.62% 2.85% 2.71% 3.96% 21 Other Glass 0.37% 0.00% 0.45% 1.57% 0.87% 0.67% 22 Textiles 2.36% 2.12% 6.70% 2.35% 0.92% 2.88% 23 Special Wastes 0.00% 0.00% -0.00% 0.00% 9.88% 2.10% 24 Electronics 0.48% 0.00% 0.65%. 0.48% 0.10% 0.35% 25 Household Batteries 0.37% 0.40% 0.13% 0.10% 0.00% 0.20% 26 Clean Wood Waste 0.48% 0.00% 0.00% 0.24% 1.94% 0.56% 27 Treated Wood Waste 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.63% 0.00% 0.13% 28 C&D Debris, 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.76% 0.00% 0.16% 29 Tires and Rubber 0.00% 0.41% 0.00% 0.00% 0.27% 0.13% 30 Yard Waste 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.67% 0.14% 31 Food Waste 15.24% 27.85% 19.77% 9.69% 10.26% 16.27% 32 All Other Garbage 41.68% 4.63% 3.25% 3.74% 3.70% 3.99% 33 Liquids 1.05% 0.82% 5.74% 1.52% 1.02% 2.03% 34 Grit 1.36% 3.08% 0.00% 3.34% 0.60% 1.65% TOTALS 100.00% 1 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions ATTACHMENT D -Arkansas Union- Individual Sample Results uLn 0 0 0 0 0 Hauler/Location > > 7) > > Weighted Material Categories sample # 16 17 18 19 20 Average 1 Newspaper 0.71% 1.25% 1.01% 1.03% 5.49% 1.90% 2 Corrugated Containers 3.00% 6.18% 4.30% 3.16% 1.95% 3.70% 3 Office Paper 1.43% 1.66% 2.17% 1.69% 4.42% 2.28% 4 Other Recyclable Paper 6.90% 6.70% 4.31% 6.27% 9.37% + 6.72% 5 Low Grade Paper 41.68% 22.09% 23.11% 29.48% 23.95% 28.22% 6 Aseptic Containers 0.00% 044% 0.40% 0.24% 0.00% 0.21% 7 PET Bottles 4.72% 2.05% 1.32% 1.16% 1.65% 2.21% 8 HDPE Bottles 1.63% 2.59°% 0.46%' 1.15% 2.48% 1.66% 9 Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2 3.45% 1.95% 1.92% 4.18% 0.94% 2.49% 10 Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7), 1.16% 1.66% 1.75% 1.69% 0.92% 1.43% 11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 0.00% 1.52% 0.59% 1.08% 1.71% 0.97% 12A Retail Bags 0.00% 0.32% 0.31% 0.37% 1.53% ` 0.51% - 12B Non -Rigid Plastic Film 7.45% 10.00% 8.63% 7.83% 8.48% 8.46% 13A Styrofoam Food Service 2.48% 1.17% 1.13% 3.12% 2.76°% 2.14% 13B Styrofoam Packaging 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.23% 0.77% 0.20% 14_ All Other. Plastics 2.23% 1.12% 1.84% 321% 3.81°% 2.45%' 15 Tin/Steel Cans 0.64% 1.03% 0.55% 1.84% 1.30% 1.06°% 16 White Goods/Small Appliances 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 17 Other Ferrous 0.00% 0.32% 0.00°% 0.98% 0.00°% 0.25% 18 Aluminum Cans 0.00% 0.68% 6.47% 0.34% 0.30% 0.35°% 19 Other Non -Ferrous 0.00% 0.32% 0.70% 0.54% 0.00% 0.31% 20 Glass Containers 0.00°% 1.78°% 1.75°% 1.35% 0.00% 0.96% 21 Other Glass 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.00% 0.02% 22 Textiles` 0.00% 2.05°% 2.13%. 1.74% 5.38°% 2.25% 23 Special Wastes 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.31% 0.06% 24 Electronics 0.00% 0.00% 0.09% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 25 Household Batteries 0.00% 0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.04% 26 Clean Wood Waste 0.00°% ` 0.32% 0.55% 0.00% 0.42% ` 0.26% 27 Treated Wood Waste 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 28 C&D Debris 0.00% 0.00%' 0.00% 000% 0.00% 000% 29 Tires and Rubber 0.00°% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 30 Yard Waste 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 000% 0.00°% 000% 31 Food Waste 14.33% 27.86°% 36.10% 21.25% 16.27% 23.03% 32 All Other Garbage 5.27% 2.88% 3.14% 3.04% 1.71% 3.23% 33 Liquids 2.91% 1.86% 1.27% 1.20% 4.07% 2.28% 34 Grit 0.00% 0.00%` 0.00% 1.74% 0,00% 0.34% TOTALS 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TM2 UArkWCS Firr ATTACHMENT E -Athletics- Individual Sample Results Ln Ln Y, Aj Aj Hauler/Location < Q < < < Weighted Material Categories sample # 8 9 10 14 15 Average I Newspaper 0.00% 1.62% 0.60% 1.14% 2.28% 1.12% 2 Corrugated Containers 2,83%: 1.28% 5.01% 10.04% 7.4 3 5.27% 3 Office Paper 1.92% 1.53% 6.33% 9.35% 16.95% 7.18% 4 Other ,Recyclable Paper 5.57% 10.37% 10.96% 8.60% 7.41%, 8.54% 5 Low Grade Paper 24.12% 27.96% 23.84% 14.54% 6.66% 19.46% 6 Aseptic C66tainers; 0.00 % 0.00% 0.50% 0.42% 0.29% 0.24% 7 PET Bottles 0.17% 3.04% 5.74% 5.86% 2.98% 3.50% 8 HIDPE-Bottles 0.48% 1.32% 0.36% 2.00% 2.95% 1.41% 9 Other Non -Bottle Plastics #1 and #2 2,79% 1.53% 0.53% 0.74% 0.00% 1.14% 10 Other Plastic Containers (#3-#7) 2.66% 3.84% 2.73% 2.49% 1.07% 2.55% 11 Bulky Rigid Plastics 0.00% 0.00% 3.79% 2.17% 0.00% 1.16% 12A Retail Bags .0.00% 0.00% 0.65% 0.46% 0.77% 0.37% 12B Non -Rigid Plastic Film 6.53% 7.02% 7.67% 5.98% 6.48% 6.74% 13A Styrofoam Food Service 1.57% 1.21% 2.00% 1.24% 0.95% 1.39% 13B Styrofoam Packaging 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.12% 1.49% 0.90% 14 All Other Plastics 1.92% 1.29% 0.72% 0.94% 1.68% 1.32% 15 Tin/Steel Cans 0.00% 0.82% 0.72% 0.69% 1.98% 0.84% 16 White Goods/Small Appliances 0.00% - 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%, 17 Other Ferrous 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.89% 0.38% 18 Aluminum Cans 6.53% 2.32% 0.76% 0.42% 0.57% 2.18% 19 Other Non -Ferrous 1.04% 0.72% 0.76% 0.43% 0.50% 0.69% 20 Glass Containers 3.83% 1.749/cf 3.94% - 0.00%- 0.84% 2.10% 21 Other Glass 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 22 Textiles 1.94% 5.68% 1.00% 3.05% 0.50% .2.42% 23 Special Wastes 0.00% 0.91% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.18% 24 Electronics 0.20% 0.00% 1.39% 0.46% 0.00% 0.40% 25 Household Batteries 0.24% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 26 Clean Wood Waste. 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% om% 0.00% 0.00% 27 Treated Wood Waste 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 28 C&D Debris 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 29 Tires and Rubber 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 30 Yard Waste, 0.00% '0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 31 FoodWaste26.65% 19.98% 13.20% 16.23% 28.01% 20.95% 32 All OtherGarbage 4.44% 1.53% 2.45% 3.19% 4.99% 3.34% 33 Liquids 4.57% 4.31% 3.32% 6.44% 1.34% 3.98% 34 Grit 0.00% 0.00% 1.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.20% TOTALS 100.00% 100.00% 1 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions M2 U:Ark WC5 Fnl3: kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO.3 DATE: April 30, 2015 TO: Jeff Coles, Recycling and Trash Collection Director City of Fayetteville, AR FROM: Robin Mitchell, Project Manager SUBJ: Baseline of Existing Waste Management System PROJ #: 173-00.00 Kessler Consulting, Inc. (KCI) was contracted by the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (City) to assist in developing a Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan (Plan). The first step in developing this Plan was to review and analyze available information about the existing solid waste and recycling system, as provided by City staff. This technical memorandum provides a summary of the current system, which will serve as a baseline for future comparison, analysis, and recommendations. 1. Introduction Fayetteville covers a geographic area of 55.2 square miles in northwestern Arkansas. It is the third - largest city in Arkansas with a population of 78,960 (2013).1 The City is the county seat of Washington County and is part of the Boston Mountain Solid Waste District (District), which encompasses Washington. and Madison counties. The City is home to the University of Arkansas (U of A), which has approximately 22,000 undergraduate and 4,000 graduate students. U of A also employs about 1,200 faculty and 3,000 staff members. The large student population is reflected in the relatively low level of home ownership (41.5 percent) and high level of housing units in multi -unit structures (46.3 percent).2 The City participates in the Sustainability Tools for Assessing and Rating (STAR) Communities program, a voluntary, self -reporting framework for evaluating, quantifying, and improving the livability and sustainability of U.S. communities. Waste minimization is one element of the STAR climate and energy goals. The City has used the STAR structure to measure overall sustainability and as a gap analysis for future initiatives. The City has a robust solid waste and recycling collection, processing, and disposal system, as further discussed in this memorandum. The City's Recycling and Trash Division (Division) is funded through an enterprise fund with service fees and recycling revenue covering the cost of services provided. Solid waste fees are billed by the City and included on the customer's utility bill. 1 U.S. Census Bureau estimate. 2 U.S. Census Bureau. 14620 N. Nebraska Ave., Bldg. D, Tampa, FL 33613 1 Tel: 813.971.8333 1 Fax: 813.971.8582 1 www.kesconsult.com Th13 Baselwe Flea! rev TM No. 3 - Baseline of Existing Waste Management System 1 4/30/2015 1 Page 2 of 16 2. Waste Generation Figure 1 provides the quantity of waste generated within the City that was disposed, recycled, or composted during the last 10 years. In 2014, 63,415 tons of material were generated, 5,961 tons of which were recycled (9 percent), 7,011 tons composted (11 percent), and the remainder landfilled. 3 The waste diversion rate has ranged from 16-20 percent over the last 10 years, with a 20 percent diversion rate in 2014. Figure 1: Waste Disposed, Recycled, and Composted, 2005-2014 (tons) 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 c 0 30,000 20,000 10,000 - Composted 6,683 7,545 5,127 4,814 5,498 3,689 3,749 4,880 5,681 7,011 Recycled 5,216 5,651 5,687 5,883 5,514 5,215 5,301 5,189 5,681 5,961 Landfilled 50,065 53,135 52,640 51,039 47,023 45,358 47,159 47,458 51,922 50,443 Landfilled 0 Recycled 0 Composted Figure 2 depicts per capita waste generation during the same time period and also projects population growth and total waste generation over the next 10 years. Population is assumed to increase at 1.9 percent annually (average rate of increase since the 2010 census) and to exceed 97,000 residents by 2025.4 Per capita waste generation declined during the recessionary years of 2008 through 2011, which was the trend nationally, and began increasing again in 2012. Future waste generation is estimated based on the average per capita waste generation during the last 10 years (0.85 tons per capita annually). Based on these assumptions, nearly 83,000 tons of materials will be generated in 2025. Table 1 provides the waste generation projections during the next 10 years, as well as the quantity of materials disposed, recycled, or composted assumingno changes are made to the existing waste management system. a Recycling tonnage is based on materials marketed. Composting tonnage is estimated by the City based on type of materials received, approximate cubic yards, and conversion factors. 'The Northwest Arkansas Planning Commission estimates the 2025 population of Fayetteville at 97,191 (per communication with Jeff Hawkins, October 28, 2014). kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TM3 Baseline -nal :2,r i TM No. 3 - Baseline of Existing Waste Management System 14/30/201S I Page 3 of 16 Figure 2: Population and Waste Generation Projections, 2005-2025 100,000 _ 1.10 Tons/Capita 1.00 O . 0.80 80,000 - ® 0.70 o Population ®' ® 0.60 \ 3 70,000 o ~ ®'_® 0.50 0 0.40 60,000 _ _ _ Tons Generated 0.30 50,000 _ 0.20 Ill l0 n 00 61 CDcq N O O CDO O r e-I c-I M d' In l0 n 00 c '-1 r 4 '-1 c rl M O '-1 .-7 N N N M 't IN N cV N N O O O O O O O O (J N N N N N N N O O O O O O N N N N N N O O O N N N O O O O N r J N N Table 1: Waste Generation and Management Projections Assuming Status Quo (tons) j 2015 68,716 54,973 6,184 7,559 i 2016 . 70,022 56,017 6,302 ;. 7,702 ...................... 2017 ; 71,352 57,082 6,422 7,849 2018 i 9 72,708 58,166 6,544 7,998 .-. 2019 74089 _. �.__. 59,271. - 6,668 8,150 2020 75,497 60,397 ; 6,795 8,305 ......... 2021 1 ..... ..... 76,931 „ . 61,545 ._ 6,924 8,462 ........ ................................................ 2022 j 78,393 62,714 7,055 8,623 1 2023 1 79,882 = 63 3,906 , 7,189 ; 8,787 2024 1 81,400 65,120 7,326 8,954 2025 82,947 66,357 ' 7,465 9,124 Figure 3 graphically depicts the drastic shift that will be required for the City to achieve its goal of 80 percent waste diversion by 2025. A fundamental change in how waste is perceived will be needed - rethinking what traditionally has been regarded as garbage and treating all materials as resources instead of discards. Instead of recycling just 20 percent of the waste stream, that is all that would be disposed. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TM:? Baseline -inai r ., q TM No. 3 — Baseline of Existing Waste Management System 1 4/30/2015 1 Page 4 of 16 Figure 3: Waste and Resource Management Projections —Status Quo versus 80% Diversion Ln lD ih 00 Dl O c1 N M d' Ln LD t` W M O .-1 N rM ZT V1 O O O O O .--1 rq r-I 1-1 c 1 i q e 1 11 N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N rV N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 3. Collection The City has the exclusive right to collect solid waste and recyclables generated within the City limits, but franchises with private haulers to provide some services. In March 2003, the City implemented a Pay -As -You - Throw (PAYT) curbside residential collection program. The program includes the services outlined -below. Waste, recyclables, and yard trash are collected once per week and on the same day of the week. • Waste — Residents may choose from the following three cart sizes: 0 32-gallon - $9.37 per month service fee 0 64-gallon - $14.30 per month service fee 0 95-galIon - $20.31 per month service fee Residents may switch to a larger cart size for a $20 service fee; switching to a smaller size cart may be done at no additional cost. In addition, each residential unit may place up to four additional bags of waste curbside annually for no additional fee, after which they are charged $6.20 per bag. • Recyclables — Recyclables are collected in 18- gallon plastic recycling bins with lids and manually sorted at the curb into multiple compartments in the collection truck (curb- kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TL.3 Baseline rinal ; en TM No. 3 — Baseline of Existing Waste Management System 1 4/30/2015 1 Page 5 of 16 sort). Materials accepted in the recycling program include newspaper, mixed paper, corrugated cardboard, paperboard or chipboard, plastic #1 and #2 bottles, aluminum cans, steel or tin cans, and glass bottles and jars of all colors. In 2014, the City collected 3,213 tons of recyclables curbside, which averages approximately 350 pounds per customer annually.' • Yard trash — Grass clippings and leaves must be bagged in compostable brown paper yard waste bags, not to exceed 50 pounds each, or placed in a trash can visibly marked as "Yard Waste." Brush must be bundled and tied, and is restricted to no more than 4 feet in length, limbs no greater than 5 inches in diameter, and bundles no more than 50 pounds in weight. Currently, an unlimited amount of yard trash is accepted. • Bulky waste — Bulky waste is divided into three categories: household, metal, and yard trash. Each residence if offered one free bulky waste pickup per year consisting of no more than 5 items within the same category. Additional bulky waste pickups of up to 5 items within the same category may be scheduled for a fee of $45. Multiple items in different categories must be picked up on different days and each collection is counted as a separate bulky waste pickup. Alternatively, residents may self -haul up to 5 accepted bulky items in multiple categories to the City's Transfer Station in lieu of the free bulky waste pickup. In addition, the City conducts free cleanup events for bulky waste in the 4 wards of the City twice per year, spring and fall. Residents may also deliver yard trash to the City's Compost Facility for free. City sanitation crews also collect multi -family and commercial waste and recyclables. In the fall of 2011, the City implemented a multi- family recycling program targeting apartment complexes with 100 or more units. The program is.. - dependent on the apartment complex's ability to provide space for a compartmentalized roll -off container. Residents are required to sort recyclable materials before placing them in -the appropriate compartment. The City has since expanded the multi -family recycling program to smaller complexes as well. In addition, the City obtained a grant to offer 6-gallon recycling buckets or bags to assist residents in participating multi -family complexes with collecting and transporting recyclables to the roll -off container. Six complexes are currently participating in the multi -family recycling program. The City's commercial recycling program consists of 3 key programs: Cardboard and paper recycling program —Segregated cardboard collection is a long-standing program and the paper program was implemented in October 2008. The City uses a front -load collection vehicle to service about 175 cardboard dumpsters and 25 paper dumpsters. s The number of customer accounts fluctuates throughout the year. This figure is based on the number of active residential accounts (18,150) and number of commercial business participating in curbside recycling (276) as of April 2015. kessler consulting ins. innovative waste solutions TM3 klaseline.P final e.v TM No. 3 — Baseline of Existing Waste Management System 1 4/30/2015 1 Page 6 of 16 • Curbside recycling program — Established In 2009, approximately 276 small businesses utilize up to 5 18-gallon recycling bins each, which are serviced by the City in similar manner as the residential curb -sort program. Glass recycling program — Initiated in July 2013, the City places and services roll carts at businesses in the entertainment district along Dickson Street to collect glass. This program was made feasible by the City's contract with Ripple Glass, which allows various colors of glass to be recycled together. Currently, 50 roll carts are in use. The City provides two community recycling drop- off sites. The drop-offs are open to everyone, not just Fayetteville residents. The same materials accepted in the residential recycling program are accepted at the drop-off sites. Marion Orton Recycling Center (located at 735 North Street) —This -staffed center is open on Monday through Saturday from 6:00 am _ 5:00 pm, except Thursday when it is open until 7:00 pm. It received an average of 0.9 tons per day in 2014. City of Fayetteville Recycling Center (located on Happy Hollow Road near the Transfer Station) —This center is open 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, and is staffed 25-30 hours per week. It received an average of 1.8 tons per day in 2014. The City also services a recycling drop-off center installed by Ozark Natural Foods and accessible 24 hours per day. The City operates a drop -box program. Six yard dumpsters are available to rent for small clean-up projects, and 20-40 yard roll -offs are available for large projects such as construction and remodeling. The City franchises with 4 private companies (Deffenbaugh Industries, Hog Box, Waste Management, and Allied Waste) to provide the services listed below, some of which are provided in competition to the City. Collection of solid waste generated from industrial, large commercial, or construction/ demolition activities in roll -off containers (open -top or compactors) of. 20 cubic yards or greater in size. • Collection of special waste such as hazardous waste, grease, or any other type of solid waste requiring special handling or disposal. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions T'03 Baseline rinal ?p,v TM No. 3 — Baseline of Existing Waste Management System 1 4/30/2015 1 Page 7 of 16 Collection of recyclables outside the residential recycling program. Recyclables must be separated by type, with two exceptions. Contractors are allowed to collect unseparated recyclables as part of construction and demolition (C&D) debris and the U of A event commingled containers. The companies are not required to deliver waste to the City's Transfer Station. They are required to pay franchise fees of 10 percent of gross revenue received for solid waste hauling services, but not for revenue received for recycling services. The agreements were originally approved in August 2012. 4. Transfer Station and Disposal The City owns and operates a Transfer Station and Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), which are housed in the same building. The facility is intended to serve the City and south Washington County. It is permitted to receive and transfer 80,000 tons of materials annually. In 2014, the Transfer Station received an average of 216 tons per day and the MRF received an average 23 tons daily, for a combined annual total of 65,791 tons (includes 9,661 tons of out -of -city waste). Operating hours are as follows: • Open for operation to City crews Monday -Friday 6:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. and Saturday 6:00 a.m.- 10:00 a.m. • Open to public Monday -Friday 7:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. and Saturday 7:00 a.m.-10:00 a.m. • Hours may be adjusted if necessary to complete loading, transporting, and disposing of received solid waste within the required 24 hour timeframe. • Closed New Year's Day, MILK Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veteran's Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas. Reduced schedule the Friday after Thanksgiving and Christmas Eve day if it falls within the same week as Christmas of 6:00 a.m.- 12:00 p.m. Facility modifications were initiated in 2014 for an additional administration office, a larger reception area with an information center, an expanded break/training room, and more storage. In addition, the scale house is to be renovated and ingress and egress improved. City staff operates the Transfer Station and loads the transfer trailers. The City contracts with Waste Management of Arkansas (WMA) to transport waste from the transfer station and dispose of it at Eco-Vista Landfill located in Tontitown, Arkansas, approximately 15 miles from Fayetteville. WMA provides standard walking floor trailers with a capacity of 115 cubic yards capable of containing at least 20 tons of solid waste. This contract was recently renewed and expires November 2, 2019. The City currently pays WMA $8.00 per ton for transport and $26.80 for disposal ($34.80 per ton total). The City charges a tipping fee of $45.20 per ton. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions T.M3 Basehne Fina' t 2v TM No. 3 — Baseline of Existing Waste Management System 1 4/30/2015 1 Page S of 16 5. Materials Recovery City collection crews deliver curb -sorted recyclables to the MRF and tip them by material type as indicated in the diagram in Figure 4. Paper is tipped by grade into bunkers located inside of the building. Vehicles then travel outside to a raised platform and tip containers, by type, into roll -offs abutting the platform. The City bales the recovered materials, with the exception of glass. According to a 2009 study, the baler is being utilized at 30 percent of its capacity.' Figure 4: Diagram of Recycling Vehicle Movement through MRF . z �r Baler #6 News 7 1 Tipping Floor . =10E3 00 Eil7l #8 News 00 � (loose) #8News rry� � U CE3r 00 L E=l OCCXhipboard 1 (loose) #6 News (loose) r a a IOOE1103010001 i._ OE Transfer Stat=iwRecycling Facilify 6 R.W. Beck, Recycling Program Study, April 2009. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TV3 Baseline !-inai, TM No. 3 - Baseline of Existing Waste Management System 1 4/30/2015 1 Page 9 of 16 Once a sufficient quantity of baled material is stockpiled, the City sells the material on the spot market. The City contracts with Ripple Glass of Kansas City, MO to haul and recycle glass bottles and containers at no cost to the City. In 2011, the City Council passed a resolution recommending that the Division post quarterly reports on the types of materials collected for recycling and the primary or end -use of markets for those materials. The Division posts this information on its webpage. Table 2 provides the quantity of each type of recovered materials sold annually during the last 10 years, and Table 3 summarizes the average revenue received by the City for each material type.' The substantial drop in recovered newspaper is likely a result of reduced readership and downsizing of printed newspapers that have been experienced nationwide. As can be seen in Table 3 and Figure 5, market values fluctuate over time and markets for most commodities experienced a significant drop in 2008-2010. Table 3 also provides the average commodity market price in the Southeast U.S. in 2014 according to an industry accepted pricing index (RecyclingMarket.net). index for all commodities except nixed paper and cardboard. The City's revenue exceeded the market Table 2: Recovered Materials Marketed (tons) 2014 1,365 59 962 722 2,134 69 112 324 '' 75 5,823 2013 1,357 57 952 754 ; 1,925 206 110 252 68 5,681 2012 1,058 65 932 767 1,160 791 87` 267 62 5,189 2011 .......... 1,010 73 __ _ 848 . , . 892 w.�_ 1,175 _ ,_ 827 �_ .� _.. - 110 _ 252 114 ; 5,301 ...._... 2010 _..� 997 . 70 .. _ .. _ _ .. 899 . ,. , ..... 915 W _. a. _ ' ' 1,135 743 112 ', 232 112 5,215 ' 2009 1,144 63 867 1,096 1,113 . 727 , 112 266 126 5,514 ...... 2008 .. 967 .... . 62 880 1,548 .... ........ 1,284 .. ...... 670 ; ... 92 ........... 247 133 5,883 2007 897 48 : 773 1,749 1,153 718 102 247 ......... ....... _.._........ 5,687 2006 ......__ i 897 �.:... 74 ; 824 __.. 1,580 _.. _ 1,133 799 103 . ...................................... 241 ............. . 5,651 ....._ ........ 2005 _E. .... ........ 824: 56 .................. 665 .......... .:: 1,615 .......... ......_ 846 . ....... 861 , .... 124 . 225 - 5,216 _. �. _. �..._ _ .... Average 1 1,052 __ 63 __ ..._ 860 ; 1,164 1,306 641 106 255 , 99 5,516 waste that was recycled. 7 Tables do not include concrete and electronic kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TM.3 FFsOne ina i'^v TM No. 3 — Baseline of Existing Waste Management System 1 4/30/2015 1 Page 10 of 16 Table 3: Average Revenue by Commodity ($/ton) Figure 5: Average Revenue by Commodity ($/ton) kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TM3 Baseline Final : ev TM No. 3 — Baseline of Existing Waste Management System 1 4/30/2015 1 Page 11 of 16 6. Composting The City owns and operates a Class CY Compost Site, meaning it is permitted to receive only yard waste and other woody wastes.' The City processes yard waste collected curbside from residents, as well as yard waste delivered directly to the site. City residents may deliver yard waste at no charge; commercial businesses and non-residents are charged a fee. The site is permitted to receive 6,683 tons of waste annually. In 2014, the City -estimated receiving slightly more than 7,000 tons of yard waste; however, this is an estimate since no scales are used at the facility. The capacity to handle additional tonnage is limited to how much can be stored, ground, and processed. The Compost Facility offers mulch (wood chips) throughout the year for purchase by residents and non-residents. A portion of the organic waste is also composted. The_compost process takes approximately 4-6 months and the City has compost samples tested each April by a lab to determine quality of the end product. Only City residents are allowed to purchase compost and quantities are limited. 7. Other Related Programs The City sponsors or participates in other programs to collect and manage solid waste and recyclables, including the following: • Festival Recycling: The City supports recycling programs for festivals by offering stands for collecting recyclables, providing recycling guidelines, and working with event coordinators to implement recycling. $ In Arkansas, composting facilities are classified according to the type of waste authorized for composting: • Type "CY" facilities may accept only yard wastes and other woody wastes. Type "CY" facilities qualify for coverage under a general permit in which permit coverage is granted within 30 days of receiving a complete application. • Type "CO" facilities may accept any source separated organic wastes such as paper, sewage sludge, food processing wastes or other specific organic wastes, including type "CY" wastes. • Type "CS" facilities may receive all types of suitable solid waste for composting including household garbage, commercial wastes, suitable industrial wastes, and all type "CO" and "CY" wastes. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TUi? Baseline 'inai ;',_v TM No. 3 — Baseline of Existing Waste Management System 1 4/30/2015 1 Page 12 of 16 Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) & Electronics (e-waste): The Washington County Environmental Affairs Office, located at 2615 Brink Drive in Fayetteville, operates a Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection Center where City residents may drop off HHW for free. In addition, the center accepts household a -waste and tires. Coupons waiving the a -waste fee are available to City residents through the Division. City residents may bring in four passenger tires for free and a $2.00 fee is charged for each additional tire. In addition, the City began accepting e-waste during the ward clean-ups, but only if delivered to the Recycling and Trash Facility on Happy Hollow Road. Adopt -A -Street: In this City -sponsored program, individuals or groups adopt a street and are responsible for picking up litter on that street at least four times annually. The City posts a sign displaying the group's name and provides all materials and supplies (e.g., trash bags, gloves, and safety vests) needed for the clean-ups. Groups are asked to complete an activity form and record the amount of material collected. Currently, 62 areas covering nearly 40 miles of streets are included in the program. Keep Fayetteville Beautiful (KFB): KFB is an affiliate of Keep America Beautiful and Keep Arkansas Beautiful. The organization coordinates volunteers for the Adopt -A -Street program, to assist with site clean-up and education at the recycling drop-off centers, and to generally assist with city beautification projects. Each spring and fall, KFB partners with the Lake Fayetteville Watershed Partnership to sponsor a lake clean-up at Lake Fayetteville. In addition, KFB spearheaded an anti -graffiti program in cooperation with the Police Department in which utility boxes in the entertainment district were painted. Public School Waste Reduction: Each public school has dumpsters for paper and cardboard and 18-gallon bins for containers that are serviced by the City. Green Teams at many schools also hand out Habitote bags to replace disposable plastic bags and are working to reduce waste in cafeterias. Ten schools have onsite gardens and compost plant debris associated with those gardens. 8. Education and Outreach The City utilizes an array of media to distribute information to residents and businesses regarding recycling and proper waste management, including the following: City Website: The Division has extensive information on its webpage regarding all aspects of its recycling and solid waste programs. Links are provided to flyers, brochures, instructional videos, and reports. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TM 3 BFsellne Rnai ; ..v TM No. 3 — Baseline of Existing Waste Management System 1 4/30/2015 1 Page 13 of 16 • Recycle Something Campaign: The Division initiated a Recycle Something campaign. The campaign's website (www.recyclesomething.org) defines the types of recyclables accepted in the City's program, options for collecting them, and other related information. It also includes YouTube videos and printed informational materials. • Social Media: The City has both a Facebook page and a Twitter account on which important information, actions, events, and reminders can be posted. • Printed Materials: The City has printed brochures and flyers available to residents covering a variety of topics, including the Pay -As -You - Throw program; curbside, apartment, and business recycling; drop-off facilities; yard waste composting; and bulky waste clean-ups. • Recycling Mascot: The City has a recycling mascot called Rooty the Recycling Pig. Rooty attends special events, does school programs for pre-school through elementary grades, and periodically walks around town creating recycling awareness. • Door -to -Door Recycling Outreach: In 2012, the City initiated a door- to-door outreach program. This community -based social marketing program includes asking residents to complete a survey and sign a recycling pledge, as well as handing out recycling educational materials. currently focusing -on the Walker Park area. • Waste Saving Campaign: The City . mrecently conducted a PAYT Waste -Saving educational campaign. During this program, eight households volunteered to save their household garbage and recycling for a full week. At the end of the week, the waste and recyclables were weighed and categorized. The volunteers were photographed with their waste. The program was designed to encourage residents to think about their waste habits and to inform them of ways to reduce waste and make the most of the PAYT program. Raven Household Percentages based on cieights kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions The program is �Shc7�C45t; ®nsssvrr-„�yt�;. mE FocA waste: TNi3 Baseline. -final TM No. 3 — Baseline of Existing Waste Management System 14/30/201S I Page 14 of 16 9. University of Arkansas As part of its sustainability goals, U of A is striving to become a zero waste institution (90 percent diversion) by the year 2021. The Office for Sustainability is in the process of creating a Zero Waste Action Plan, which will lay out motivations, goals, and strategies for reducing waste within a framework of continual improvement. The City currently has no direct involvement in managing the waste or recyclables generated at U of A. U of A contracts with Deffenbaugh Industries (Deffenbaugh) to collect waste from Facilities Management and Housing, and with WMA to service the Arkansas Union and Athletics. These companies utilize their own transfer stations or directly haul the waste to Eco-Vista Landfill. Razorback Recycling is the University's central recycling operation. They collect cardboard, white paper, mixed paper, aluminum and steel cans, plastic and glass bottles, and organics using a desk - side -quad system and a network of outdoor containers. Figure 6 provides the quantity of U of A waste that was landfilled, recycled, and composted in 2014, broken down by the 4 primary sectors and based on data provided by U of A staff. This data does not include C&D debris or other types of special waste such as hazardous waste. In addition, the quantity of waste landfilled is estimated by the contracted haulers and, therefore, may be underestimated. - Figure 6: U of A Waste Disposed, Recycled, and Composted, 2014 2,000 _ 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 0 800 F 600 _ 400 200 Q Facilities Management Housing Arkansas Union Athletics Composted 0.00 2.14 0.00 0.00 Recycled 376.74 85.80 64.65 154.11 Landfilled 1,557.05 1,018.41 270.53 336.70 Landfilled 0 Recycled N Composted kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TiV13 Baseline. Tinal -e.v TM No. 3 — Baseline of Existing Waste Management System 14/30/201S I Page 1S of 16 Based on the information provided, the overall 2014 diversion rate was 18 percent; diversion rates for each sector were as follows: • Facilities Management —19% • Housing —8% • Arkansas Union —19% • Athletics — 31% The U of A Bookstore accepts rechargeable and non -rechargeable batteries, printer and toner cartridges, and cell phones for recycling. In addition, on the second Friday of every month, the U of A Computer Store accepts personal computer equipment, parts, and other obsolete e-waste for recycling. 10. Financial Summary The Division operates through an enterprise fund, the Recycling and Trash Collection Fund. Revenues for the fund are derived from fees levied for trash collection, recycling revenue, and containers sales and leases. Figure 7 summarizes the revenue sources for 2015 and Figure 8 provides expenses. Solid waste fees comprise the largest source of revenue; however, $2,731,000 is being used from the reserve fund, primarily for capital improvements. These improvements, estimated at $1,759,000, include container maintenance building upgrades, solid waste compactors and containers, and office and Transfer Station expansion. Figure 7: Sources of Funds for 2015 kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TNi3 klaseline Final r^v TM No. 3 — Baseline of Existing Waste Management System 1 4/30/2015 1 Page 16 of 16 Figure 8: Expenses Budgeted for 2015 Capital Operations & Improvements, Administration, $1,759,000, $2,047,703, 14% 16 % Composting, $771,722, 6% Commercial Recycling, Collections, $1,880,396, $2,582,923, 15% 20% F� Transfer Station Residential o $992'937' 8/ Collections, Comm. Drop Box Collections, $1,966,175, $650,144, 5% 16% 11. Summary This technical memorandum provides a summary of the City's existing solid waste and recyclables management system. It will serve as a baseline for analysis and comparison throughout the remainder of the master planning project. KCI also conducted an operational assessment of the City's solid waste system, which will be provided in a separate memorandum. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Tfv1.3 Baseline Rndi 'e�> kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO.4 DATE: May 22, 2015 TO: Jeff Coles, Recycling and Trash Collection Director City of Fayetteville, AR FROM: Robin Mitchell, Project Manager SUBJ: Operational Assessment PROJ #: 173-00.00 Kessler Consulting, Inc. (KCI). was contracted by the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (City) to assist in developing a Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master -Plan (Plan). One of the initial steps was to conduct an operational assessment of the Recycling and Trash Collection Division (Division) and its collection, processing, and transfer operations. The purpose of this technical memorandum is to provide the results and findings of this assessment. Background information regarding the-City's existing solid waste management system is provided in Technical Memorandum No. 3 and, therefore, is not repeated in this memorandum. 1. Introduction The operational assessment was conducted in three parts: 1) advance data request and review, 2) two -person physical site visit, and 3).follow-up analysis of data and observations. In advance of the site visit, KCI developed a request for information from Division staff. The information was used to conduct various preliminary analyses and stress tests in order for KCI to better understand the breadth and width of the Division's scope of services. Data requested was typical of other assessments KCI has conducted and the Division's cooperation in its timely completion was greatly appreciated. Using the tonnage data, vehicle specifications, personnel information, and customer counts_ provided, KCI determined that the service levels being provided were reasonable for the equipment and staffing levels described. Further analysis would be conducted during and following the site visit, but having this data in advance allowed KCI to evaluate the reasonableness of the Division's system and to develop a strategic approach for the in -person assessment so that KCI staff time was maximized while in Fayetteville. KCI conducted a site visit from January 19-23, 2015 to meet with Division staff to discuss the existing system, inspect equipment and facilities, and observe active collection operations. This visit provided first-hand insight into the operation. It allowed KCI staff to view and understand the culture among the collection staff, to verify the advance data collected, and to better understand the level of efficiency at which the Division operated. Various tasks performed during this visit included the following: 14620 N. Nebraska Ave., Bldg. D, Tampa, FL 33613 1 Tel: 813.971.8333 1 Fax: 813.971.8582 1 www.kesconsult.com TWA Qps Assessmer--U:I gal TM No. 4 — Operational Assessment 15/22/2015 1 Page 2 of 24 • Validation of previously requested data. • Group meetings with Division staff to discuss roles, responsibilities, issues facing the Division, and existing operations. • Interviews with operational staff including Managers, Supervisors, and frontline personnel. • Collection of route audit -based data from Division records and on -route observations. • Observations of transfer.station, compost, and recycling processing operations. • Compilation of baseline findings. • Identification and review of system elements and program components. Based on these activities, KCI evaluated the Division's current operations and developed recommendations for consideration. The following sections outline KCI's observations and discusses the Division's strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities. They include the Division's overall organization, collection services, Transfer Station and Material Recovery Facility operations, composting operations, and fleet services. 2. Organization Division staff appears to function very effectively together. The staff consists of 57 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees as shown in Table 1. Average tenure for the Division is impressive at slightly more than 10 years (10.6) per employee. A consistent work force with longevity lends itself to high levels of service, low frequency rate of accidents and injuries, and limited misuse and abuse to equipment. All are the case within the Division. Table 1: Division of Labor KCI conducted a number of meetings, both individually and as a group, during which employees proved to be knowledgeable, confident, and capable at their assigned duties. There is a general willingness to learn and share among the employees at every level and open communication was a standard during the KCI site visit. The Division strongly encourages its employees to grow and learn with a goal of constant improvement across the organization. The Division's management team has been largely promoted from within the organization. In some cases, this can lead to leadership roles being filled by underqualified former frontline employees, but this is not the case in the Division. Not only are the Division's supervisors and managers well - versed in their jobs, they have a solid understanding of current solid waste events of other progressive cities across the country, and they possess the critical thinking skills necessary to make positive change a priority. Over the course of KCI's week-long visit, every employee understood the purpose of the project and was fully accommodating to provide any requested information. They kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions T%44Cps Asstssr-te tt Fi:'al TM No. 4 —Operational Assessment 1 5/22/2015 1 Page 3 of 24 approached the visit enthusiastically, offered opinions open and freely, and accepted feedback willingly. Leadership should focus on maintaining its positive work atmosphere. The Division appears to foster a culture of happiness among its employees. High morale and job satisfaction will have a large payoff for the organization; positive employees are more dedicated and produce better results. As the Division has demonstrated, the foundation for maintaining high morale is effective communication and cooperation from management. The Division places an emphasis on delivering a high level of service with its employees. No service requires a greater commitment from employees than residential curbside recycling. These one - person route employees perform the duties of driver and processor, sorting recyclables into eight categories, curbside. The Division has adopted a program whereby every new employee starts as a residential recycling driver. In fact, most of the current supervisors started their careers with the Division as residential recycling drivers. As a result of this ground -up process, a service work ethic and commitment to the job proliferates through the organization. Beyond promoting employees from within, the Division also regularly rotates its route drivers among different routes. This is considered an industry best practice that, despite the best efforts in many organizations, is never actually implemented. Having a team of drivers that have route knowledge beyond that of -their assigned route is invaluable and the Division has managed to ensure that drivers constantly learn other routes and remain stimulated despite the repetitive nature of waste and recyclables collection. It is highly recommended that this practice continues and is expanded as needed. 3. Collection Services The Division provides comprehensive collection service for its residents and businesses. Curbside service is provided to residential customers, frontend-load container service is provided to businesses, and roll -off container and compactor service is provided to larger commercial and industrial customers. All systems collect both garbage and recyclables; additionally yard and bulky ,waste collection is provided to residents. Table 2 summarizes the types and number of routes operating daily to better visualize the distribution of assets across collection days. Table 2: Route Matrix FEL = Frontend-load kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TM4 ops Assessment --Final. TM No. 4— Operational Assessment 1 5/22/2015 1 Page 4 of 24 3.1. Residential Garbage Despite many cities in the South opting to provide twice -weekly residential garbage collection, the Division performs once -weekly collection. This progressive measure creates a leaner operational structure with fewer resource requirements, and has proven to be satisfactory to residents. In addition, the City has a pay -as -you -throw (PAYT) program in which residents choose between three cart sizes and pay a service fee based on the size selected. This is also a progressive program that, encourages waste reduction and recycling. Residential employees are scheduled for 10-hours, 4 days per week (Monday through Thursday). Fridays are reserved for weeks with holiday service interruption when collection occurs one day later. A drawback to a 4-day work week is providing recovery service (i.e., missed or late set -out pickups). Currently the Division utilizes its commercial crews on Friday to assist with residential service calls. This shift in responsibility is sometimes perceived as "having to do someone else's job" and could lead to animosity between employee groups. This was not evident during our site visit, but it would be prudent to clearly define job responsibilities by allocating some portion of a Friday crew member's time to residential recovery service. The Division utilizes automated side -load (ASQ collection vehicles and 95-gallon roll -carts for its curbside residential collection. The Division is divided into 27 routes; six on Monday and seven on each of the other three collection days. Based on account information provided by staff, route size currently averages 672 residential accounts per route, which does not include commercial roll -cart customers. Based on the number of residential and commercial roll -carts in service as of October 2014, route size averages 817 roll -carts per route.' Based on KCI's knowledge of the City and approximate density of residential units, an opportunity may exist to increase route size. More detailed analysis using a route optimization process would be needed to confirm and quantify this opportunity. KCI conducted a route.audit during the site visit to identify any items that might impact the efficient running of the operation. During the ride -along audit, the driver was interviewed and work activities observed. Information gained during the route audit was consistent with information provided by staff, as well as through other on -site observations conducted by KCI. The driver was positive in his demeanor, took service and safety very seriously, and was diligent in tracking extra bag set -outs for billing purposes. KCI did identify a need for route planning assistance. Over time, routes evolve and shift as new homes are added and waste generation patterns change. When drivers make decisions on -route regarding collection- patterns without planning or optimization assistance, they find themselves driving through areas that have already been serviced or are forced to back up on -route to change direction. Both of these activities were observed by KCI, as well as multiple trucks serving the same neighborhoods. Prior to the inception of computer -based optimization, route planning was typically a time- consuming process where lead drivers or supervisors used maps and highlighters to identify route paths. Figure 1 illustrates an example of hand -drawn routes from another city. Figure 2 provides an example of a modern route optimization system that uses algorithms to route vehicles in order to limit driven miles while also balancing generation rates, truck volume, and collection time. ' This figure includes unit counts provided by Division staff of 21,308 residential roll -carts and 751 commercial roll -carts. Some customers have more than one roll -cart. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TM.10ps Assessment final TM No. 4 — Operational Assessment 1 5/22/2015 1 Page 5 of 24 Supervisors acknowledged that access to route optimization tools could improve the Division's operation. KCI can assist the Division with its route optimization efforts either as a service bureau conducting the optimization or as a software provider, trainer, and support mechanism. Figure 1: Example of Hand -Drawn Routing Figure 2: Example of Computerized Route Optimization - Generally, KCI found that residential garbage collection operators are proficient with the use of their assigned ASL collection vehicle and utilize the vehicle as the manufacturer intended. The units observed operated mechanically as designed. As noted earlier, drivers were observed diligently tracking bags placed outside of carts for the City's additional charge program, but drivers are required to manually track this information. KCI believes that the application of on -vehicle Radio kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TM4 Ops Assessment.... Final. TM No. 4 — Operational Assessment 15/22/2015 1 Page 6 of 24 Frequency Identification tools (RFID) and automated vehicle location (AVL) systems can enhance this process by making it more efficient while improving accuracy. KCI has designed RFID systems that associate assigned roll -carts to residential addresses, verifies collection service, and allows for driver input to collect relevant data that applies to that address or residential account. Such a system could be used to identify extra bags placed outside the roll -cart to the address with a button push (Figure 3) at the time of collection, sending that information electronically to the administrative office for customer billing. Figure 3: RFID Driver Input Buttons Once garbage routes are complete, waste is delivered to the City's Transfer Station on Happy Hollow Road. Because of the Transfer Station design, storage capacity, and throughput, waste delivery can be delayed at times. This delay forces drivers to park vehicles for extended periods of time in order to wait until transfer trailers are available and waste can be trans -loaded. Transfer operations'are discussed later in the report, but improvements in design will reduce downtime. 3.2. Residential Recyclables Residential recyclables are manually collected curbside using 18-gallon bins where drivers sort materials into eight separate compartments in the collection vehicle. Separating recyclables is required because of the material processing system currently in place. Recyclables are delivered to the City's Material Recovery Facility (MRF), adjacent to its transfer station, where materials are tipped separately and stored until baling. Operations staff are eager to explore other potential processing options because of the opportunity to improve collection efficiencies. On route, drivers are required to remove lids from bins, which can be difficult at times and slows the collection process. Drivers estimate that less than half of the bins at the curb have lids in place when they arrive. Lidded bins help limit blowing items and litter while keeping fiber materials dry during inclement weather. They serve a limited purpose, especially when half the residents do not use kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TM40psAssessr"lent Final TM No. 4—Operational Assessment 15/22/2015 1 Page 7 of 24 them; therefore, the City should consider their continued viability. As a result of single stream processing, the industry has generally shifted to roll -carts with integrated lids for recyclables. The collection and curbside sorting of recyclables is a time-consuming process. Drivers spend more time sorting materials into truck compartments than they do actually driving. As a result, recycling route sizes are considerably smaller (average of 454 households per route) than their garbage counterparts (672 households per route) despite set -out rates being lower than on garbage routes. Because of smaller route sizes, more vehicles are required to service recycling routes. Compared to the 27 scheduled garbage routes, recycling requires 40 separate routes across the same 4 collection days. Division staff monitors recycling set -out rates each fall by manually recording the number of households setting out recycling bins on each route during a 3-week period. Table 3 averages the percentage of households on each route that set out recyclables weekly from October 20-November 6, 2014. According to this data, the recycling set -out percentages ranged from a low of 49 percent (Thursday Route 30) to a high of 99 percent (Thursday Route 38), with an overall average of 68 percent. Table 3: Average Daily Recycling Set -Out Percentages by Route 30 81% 55% 53% 49% _.__ __. - 31 62% 79% ... 59% ........ 77% ....................... 32 82% 61% 55% .. ......... . 63% ....... .......... .. 33 ................. ....... 69% ........ ......... 74% 71% 62% 34 87% 52% 58% ... 53% 35 70% 69%..... 78%�79% __. 36 .. ......... 81% _. _ . .._. 62% .... 68% ................ . _.... 63% ....... 37 ...... ........... 73% ..... ... ... 64% 73% 54% 38 _... 78% 80% 66% 99% 39 69% 58% 50% 67% Average 68% These averages are indicative of a well -received program with high participation; however, based on KCI's experience, a set -out rate of 99 percent seems exceedingly high. Even if 99 percent of residents on the route participate in recycling, it is unlikely that all would place recyclables curbside each and every week. Manually recording set -out data can be challenging because of inconsistencies in methodology and variables effecting human behavior such as driving distractions, multi -tasking, and the perception of real or perceived project objectives. RFID technology can also be used to collect and analyze this type of field data and can be adapted to curbside bins or roll - carts, although the majority of new programs are cart -based. KCI has worked with data management software and hardware providers, as well as collection vehicle manufacturers, to help develop tools and systems to make field data collection more accurate and reliable. Because of the collection vehicle (Kann CurbSorter) design and the required separation of recyclables, a lengthy sequence of events occurs when tipping at the MRF. Each of the eight commodities must be emptied separately into its corresponding bunker or container. Fiber kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TM4 Ops Assessment.... Final TM No. 4 — Operational Assessment 15/22/2015 1 Page 8 of 24 materials, including cardboard, newspaper, and mixed paper, are tipped and stored inside the building. Containers, including aluminum cans, tin and steel cans, glass, and two types of plastics (PET and HDPE), are emptied into 40-yard roll -off containers for transfer at a later time. The baling facility is not conducive to vehicle reposition, and space is also constrained when bunkers are full of material. Drivers have to essentially turn the vehicle around inside the small building in order to tip materials in or near the appropriate material bunker. Typically a supervisor, in the role of spotter, assists drivers with vehicle positioning and verifying materials have been fully discharged. Compartment partitions within the vehicle body frequently become dislodged and commodities can be accidently mixed on the tipping floor. Although it is a time-consuming process, supervisors, through careful observation, attempt to prevent this cross -contamination. Table 4 lists the cycle times, in seconds, to empty each recyclable material. A total of 486 seconds (8.1 minutes) was required to empty the vehicle, not including time required to reposition the vehicle between each tipping area or to move the vehicle from inside the building to the container unloading area, approximately 500 feet to the rear of the MRF. Table 4: Recorded Times to Tip Various Recyclable Materials Despite the time-consuming curb -sorting of recyclables and the additional time necessary to keep the 8 streams of recyclables separated for processing at the MRF, the residential program continues to grow. The Division regularly receives orders for new curbside bin deliveries, including 300 new bin orders during the week prior to the KCI site visit. Staff delivered more than 50 bins each day that week to residents. As part of the master planning process, KCI will be evaluating options for enhancing recovery of recyclables. As part of this analysis, we will consider how alternative programs. might also improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the Division's collection and material processing operations. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Ts'.4<b Ops A554'SS[Y1PFlt Final TM No. 4 — Operational Assessment 1 5/22/2015 1 Page 9 of 24 3.3. Commercial Collection The City provides commercial collection service for both garbage and recyclable materials to more than 4,000 commercial customer accounts. These accounts include the following service types: • Commercial waste cart • Commercial waste dumpster • Multi and individual meter multi -family complexes • Drop box • Cardboard and paper dumpster • Commercial recycling bin • Commercial glass cart • Multi -family recycling roll -off Commercial service is provided using a variety of container and vehicle types in order to accommodate the specific needs of the individual customer and the volumes and types of materials generated. The Division is diversified and provides the same service levels and types as that of a typical private hauler using container sizes ranging from a roll -cart to a 40 yard roll -off container. The majority of -commercial service is provided using frontend-load (FEL) "dumpster" style containers. KCI reviewed and analyzed commercial dumpster service data provided by Division staff. The Division utilizes seven FEL vehicles Monday through Friday and two on Saturdays. Six of the seven routes collect garbage, while one unit collects cardboard five days each week. The two Saturday routes collect garbage at customer locations that typically require six day collection or have a specific need for a Saturday pickup. The Division does not collect on Sundays. Table 5 provides metrics for the Division's commercial FEL garbage collection routes. Table 5: Commercial Frohtend-Load Route Metrics (Garbage) The data in Table 5 is consistent with a commercial customer base where levels of service are regularly maintained for efficient operations. Routes are relatively balanced throughout the week with the highest total yards scheduled on Mondays and Fridays and only essential work is scheduled for Saturday. Although this surge is common on Mondays and Fridays in other programs KCI has reviewed and is typical throughout the industry, the second test for identifying efficient commercial collection is the average number of yards per stop or lift. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TP,44 ohs Assessment....Final TM No. 4 - Operational Assessment 1 5/22/2015 ( Page 10 of 24 The Division averages 5.1 cubic yards per stop for all garbage routes and all days of collection with the average being greater than 5.5 on Mondays, Fridays, and Saturdays. Yards per stop or lift should be above a weekly average of 5.0 with a goal of 5.5 or greater. In most of KCI's collection assessments, we identify operations with an average yards per lift well below 5.0 and as a result a wholesale program revision and re-route is necessary to improve efficiencies and asset utilization. That is not the case with the Division and KCI conducted a deeper level analysis to explore potential savings opportunities. Figure 4 graphically illustrates the commercial collection workload throughout an average week. As noted above, the Division has clearly demonstrated that bigger containers are successfully being utilized on Mondays, Fridays, and Saturdays when the yards per stop average 5.5 compared to a weekly average of 5.1. The stops per hour indicate that productivity increases on Mondays and Fridays as well. This is typical of a greater workload for the same scheduled hours, and indicates a demonstrated performance metric that can be established as an attainable goal for container size and production rates. Figure 4: Weekly Commercial Front -Load Workload Analysis (Garbage) 90.0 83.7 80.0 _ _ _ _ _. 74>9 70.0 60.9 60.0 53.3 57.1 50.0 40.0 30.0 _ _ _ _ 23.8 20.0 _ 14. 12.9 11.5 11. _ 135 10.0 5.6 4.7 r9 4,6 4:8 5.5 5.74.2 0.0 Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Yards/ Stop HE Stops/ Hour M Yards/ Hour This figure illustrates a possible improvement opportunity, albeit incremental, on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. An increase in the average yards on these midweek days from 4.7 to 5.1 (average for the week) will result in 132 fewer pickups required to collect the same amount of yardage. That represents the elimination of at least one route day each week, and possibly more considering the average route size is 92 stops per route. Increasing the average container size (yards/lift) further to 5.5 (Monday, Friday, Saturday average) has the potential to eliminate nearly 3 (2.7) route days weekly. Using a standard industry figure of $80 per hour for FEL vehicle operating costs and 8.0 hours per work day, this adjustment alone would result in an estimated savings of $90,000 annually. Further analysis of this type can be conducted for other days and individual routes and a greater level of detail and accuracy can be found through route optimization tools. During the site visit, KCI conducted a route audit of the commercial cardboard FEL collection route, which confirmed a number of the advance data assumptions. On Wednesday, January 21, 2015, KCI kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions ; M4 0ps Assessment Finai TM No. 4 —Operational Assessment 1 5/22/2015 1 Page 11 of 24 observed the complete second load of the route starting at 6:09 AM and finishing at 9:35 AM. The first load is designated as office paper and the second load is designated as cardboard (OCC). Table 6 is a matrix of route performance metrics collected. KCI observed a productive, safe, collection system where stops averaged 7 yards per lift. The Division has made efforts to pick up the largest containers possible as infrequently as possible, which is a best management practice. KCI evaluated the time portion of the on -route metrics and identified that time between customers (3 minutes, 37 seconds) was higher than expected. This indicates that customers are approximately 0.68 miles apart (at a standard 25 MPH), illustrating a possible opportunity for route optimization by improving customer density. However, a detailed study of customers serviced for each day of collection would be needed to estimate the savings opportunity. Table 6: Cardboard Route Metrics Total Container Yards: 246 ... ... .. ..... ...... .. Average Container Size (yards'): 7.0 .......: .::::.. Average pounds per loose yard'. 21.4 .._....... .. Stops per Route Hour: `` -._ 10.2 Yards per Route Hour: 71.7 _. ___� Route Hours including Disposal (hh:mm): 3.43 Time to and from Route (hh:mm): 0:11 TotaIT ime @ Customers (hh.mmas): 1Ir 08:08 — ..........._ Average Time @ Customers (hh:mm ss) 0 01 57 Time between Customers (hh:mm.ss). 0:03:37 tomer (hh mm ss) Disposal and Trip Time per Customer 00 00:53 _. _........ _ . ._. Total Time per Customer (hh mm ss): 00 06:45 Based on route observations, KCI also recommends the Division implement an "Arms Stowed While Traveling (ASWT) policy for FEL operators. In an arms down position, the driver's vision is _ obstructed and the loading mechanism defeats certain safety features of the truck chassis (e.g., the arm blocks the front bumper). Early generation FEL vehicles could not travel between customers with ASWT because early designs did not provide for a legal height condition (under 13 feet, 6 inches). The industry standards group ANSI and its mobile equipment committee, of which KCI is a member, establishes the safety protocols and equipment designs used by haulers in the U.S. Based on reviews of incidents involving FEL arms in the work position (down), ANSI identified the need for a ASWT design and manufacturers complied. Standard commercial FEL bodies manufactured in the last 15 years have been designed to allow for ASWT. For units that are still in service that do not meet an ASWT design, internal safety policies were developed to allow for unobstructed views while traveling. These Arms Above Windshield (AAW) policies include measuring overall height of loading systems, identifying safe positions for arms while traveling, and training operators on the practice. Figure 5 depicts an arms down position compared to ASWT and AAW. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions %14 olts Assessment,,,, final TM No. 4 — Operational Assessment 15/22/2015 1 Page 12 of 24 Figure 5: Arms Down, Arms Up While Traveling, and Arms Above Windshiled PositionS2 Arms Down (While Working) Arms Stowed While Traveling (ASWT) Arms Above Windshield (AAW) KCI can assist with the development or review of this policy, which should include a review of overall height of all Division FEL vehicles in both the work and stowed positions, an evaluation of what policy (ASWT or AAW) applies to which vehicle, corresponding driver training, and follow-up observations and enforcement. KCI also audited the once -weekly commercial glass collection route on January 21, 2015 and observed a total of 14 stops encompassing 17 carts and 4 rear -load dumpsters. From start to finish, the route took 1.5 hours. The route serviced just over nine stops per hour; a productive figure for rear - load systems; however, customer participation might not warrant a dedicated route and specialized container system. Glass is the only material -type currently utilizing rear -load containers, and inventory of and maintenance for this -container type supports very few customers. The Division has since modified its glass collection program and now utilizes only roll -carts, which are serviced on Mondays using the spare ASL vehicle that is not utilized for a residential garbage route that day of the week. The master planning project will further evaluate glass recovery rates, future recycling policies, and processing options. 3.4. Roll -Off Collection Roll -off service is a much smaller segment of the Division's commercial collection business. The system utilizes two trucks to service temporary and permanent roll -off containers. The Division competes with the four private haulers the City has franchised to provide and service roll -off containers greater than 20 cubic yards. The City currently does not have access to customer activity for the private haulers. z Arms Up Photo: http://orlando.ebayclassifieds.com. ASWT Photo: http://www.municiDaleguipment.com/Sanitation.htm]. AAW Photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage truck. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions ?iv QpsAssessment Final TM No. 4—Operational Assessment 1 5/22/2015 1 Page 13 of 24 In addition to servicing open -top and compactor commercial accounts, the roll -off system also supports the City's recycling drop-off program, where residents and businesses can deliver recyclable materials to partitioned containers staged at two community recycling sites, Ozark Natural Foods, and several (currently six) multi- family complexes throughout the City. These recycling roll -offs are hauled to the City's MRF where the separate commodities are emptied into storage bunkers in much the same way the curbside recycling trucks are emptied. Most days, one of the roll -off trucks is available for use by the MRF staff. These three staff members rotate driving responsibilities and, throughout the day, utilize the roll -off truck to move the 40- and 50-yard roll -offs, used for onsite storage of recyclables at the MRF, to the baler. Because roll -off service represents a smaller segment of the Division's collection operation, KCI did not conduct a field -level route audit. KCI did, however, meet with Maury Nelson, Commercial Sales Representative, to discuss other details of the roll -off system. The Commercial Sales Representative is responsible for conducting telephone and in -person sales calls for both commercial FEL and roll - off work. Because roll -off service is primarily an on -call business, the majority of Maury's time is spent on roll -off service, either talking with customers or dispatching drivers. The Division should consider shifting roll -off dispatch responsibilities to an operational supervisor or dispatcher rather than a sales representative. Operational supervisors or dispatchers can better manage and coordinate operations -related resources. The ability to quickly reassign drivers, respond to equipment breakdowns, or manage emergency situations such as accidents or injuries is critical. Roll -off drivers were observed in the sales office looking for work or trying to obtain additional customer guidance from the Sales Representative. The sales order should be booked and documented, and then subsequently forwarded to operations for the work to be completed. This provides an internal check and balance process and frees up time to allow sales staff to generate additional business opportunities. Temporary roll -off pricing includes no rental charges for the first month. If the container is not emptied after the first 30 days, a $3.00 per day rental fee assessed. A best industry practice is to base rental on container availability. As containers become less available due to use, rental fees should increase to encourage containers to be emptied and/or removed. A rule of thumb is free rental for the first week or two and a per day rental fee for periods after that, unless the container is emptied, at which point the rental resets. Shortening the current rental period by two weeks would result in additional rental revenue or, more importantly, an increase in available container inventory. Also discussed was the possibility of expanding roll -off service to Springdale. The City would need to acquire a permit and pay a fee to operate, but staff indicates that capacity is available to serve the area. The Northwest Arkansas market area is currently in flux with the recent acquisition of Deffenbaugh by Waste Management. The merged companies reportedly will be forced to divest assets in the area because it may be viewed as monopolistic. This market shift could create an opportunity for the Division to grow its business; however, City decision -makers should decide if business development is a role they want to play and whether they want to undertake these efforts. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TIM4 Ops Assessment. -Final TM No. 4 — Operational Assessment 1 5/22/2015 1 Page 14 of 24 Furthermore, there could be an increase in competition in a solid waste market shift where companies divest and acquire assets. This increase could create an unstable condition for the City if it were to invest in additional assets or resources for a Springdale expansion. Division staff also mentioned the lack of construction and demolition (C&D) debris recycling opportunities in the local market area. Although this will be further addressed in the forthcoming planning work, it is important to note that the Sales Representative believes that a C&D recycling processing option could create a competitive opportunity for future roll -off sales. 3.5. General Route Observations On route, KCI observed that curbside recycling, residential garbage, and commercial collection is productive. Drivers provide a high quality, safe service to the City's customers. They each demonstrated their ability to safely and properly operate the vehicle, had good knowledge of their route, and were positive about the work they do and the Division they work in. Once off -route however, KCI noted that drivers have a fair amount of downtime prior to clocking out each day. One reason for this downtime is the time required to tip, both because of delays and congestion at the Transfer Station and the involved tipping procedure at the MRF. This is discussed later in the report. Other factors contributing to downtime may include proper route sizing, availability of other work beyond regularly scheduled routes, and employee versatility and cross - training. KCI's scope did not include a detailed route -by -route analysis, but data provided by the Division lead us to believe that route sizes could be increased. On average, residential routes are scheduled to service approximately 817 roll -carts per day. This varies based on day of the week, route density, and scheduled service days. However, by increasing the average route size by 125 homes, less than one hour of on -route time, the Division could eliminate an estimated four route days, or one collection vehicle and driver. There may be mitigating factors KCI is unaware of that could prevent this from occurring, but the exercise should be explored. This route adjustment does not take into consideration the opportunity for route optimization discussed earlier, which can further contribute to operational improvements. This same exercise should also be reviewed for commercial FEL and curbside recycling where other opportunities may exist. 4. Transfer Station and MRF Operation The City's Transfer Station, located at the Happy Hollow Road complex, is approximately 15,000 square feet. It is divided in half, with one side serving as a transfer station for garbage disposal and the other side housing the City's MRF, which is essentially a bailing operation rather than a true materials processing operation. The facility is operated by Division staff and long -haul truck transfer of waste and recyclables is subcontracted. The tipping floor for waste is approximately 7,500 square feet. Two vehicles, and sometimes three, can be emptied simultaneously. The space available is limited but adequate provided that the surge of waste is managed properly and consistently trans -loaded throughout the day. Limited space is available for any amount of waste storage or surge capacity. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions T4$ 06t� A554'SSC12�It Final TM No. 4 — Operational Assessment 15/22/2015 1 Page 15 of 24 One of the unloading bays is typically dedicated for "hand unload" vehicles, i.e., those customers who haul their own materials and whose vehicles do not self -dump. The process to empty these vehicles is time-consuming and can also present safety issues. Customers are physically walking on the tip floor and manually lifting and moving waste from the vehicle to the station floor. Personal protective equipment (PPE) Was not consistently observed in use by hand-unloaders. A PPE policy should be developed and enforced for anyone that utilizes the Transfer Station. Additionally, it is a best industry practice to reduce unnecessary persons from being outside of vehicles at disposal facilities, especially the untrained public. Transfer station tipping floors are considered high -risk environments. They typically have poor lighting, wet surfaces, high levels of noise, and large equipment operating with limited operator visibility. The City's Transfer Station is consistent with these conditions. -The remaining bays are reserved for the unloading of self -dumping vehicles, including the Division's vehicles. In a typical push pit configuration, similar to the City's facility, self -unloading vehicles back straight to the rear and empty their loads from the rear of the building to the front. KCI observed the loader operator directing Division drivers to tip their loads from right to left, horizontally across the rear of the station floor. It was time-consuming for the driver to position the vehicle in this fashion, and waste was then blocking the length of the loading pit. When asked why, staff indicated that it was more conducive to trans -loading because the waste was arranged to more easily load trailers. At other times, trucks were observed unloading rear -to front. Based on KCI's experience, the wheel loader used to trans -load garbage was somewhat undersized, and may contribute to the need for more precise load positioning by delivering drivers. A smaller loader requires significantly more time to move material as compared to a larger machine, and positioning waste closer to the final delivery point could be considered a time-saver. Staff indicated that waste movement and station operations depend heavily on the availability of transfer trailers. The City's operating permit requires that all waste be trans -loaded by the close of kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TM4 ops Assessment ._.PinaI TM No. 4 — Operational Assessment 15/22/2015 1 Page 16 of 24 business daily. Waste Management (WM) is contracted to provide transport services, which they subcontract to a third party. This same operator services other WM locations with the same resources forcing the Division to halt transfer operations while waiting for transfer trucks to arrive. As noted earlier in the collection section, drivers have notable downtime when returning from routes. One of the contributing factors is having to wait to unload their vehicles because of either tipping floor delays or insufficient transfer trailers. Drivers queue their vehicles and then wait in the break room until they can tip their trucks. Depending on trailer availability, these delays could be lengthy at times. Overall, the operation is well run for a small facility. The building's size is constraining, as are the permit requirements, machine size, and the fact that inexperienced, hand -unloading vehicle drivers share the tipping floor with high -capacity, mechanized waste collection vehicles. The biggest limitation, however, is the availability of transfer trailers. The City's service contract with WM requires the contractor to "provide an adequate number of vehicles, trailers and back up equipment ... to insure the daily systematic and orderly performance' of all services specified in the contract within the required time frame." (Section 2(b)) The Division should conduct a waste surge analysis to identify peak times for inbound materials, as well as the pattern of the outbound flow of waste. The Division should let WM know what time transfer trailers are to be delivered so that inbound and outbound flows are better aligned. A trailer should be ready to back in when a full one pulls out, even if it requires WM to commit more resources. This change will positively impact collection operations by reducing driver downtime caused by delays in tipping. The MRF portion of the building is comprised of material storage bunkers, bale storage areas, an infeed conveyor, and an eight -year -old, two -ram baler. The facility bales clean recyclable materials delivered from the City's curbside collection program, drop-off program, and commercial routes. Three employees rotate operating the baler, skid steer loader, and roll -off truck to produce high - quality, mill -ready product. Operators have been experiencing downtime with both the baler and infeed conveyor. KCI_ conducted ancillary research and provided Division staff with preliminary pricing for replacing the conveyor. The baler could be considered slow compared to the newest models currently available and the movement of materials from the various roll -off containers on site is time-consuming. Material, from the point of generation to the final bale, is.handled.multiple times as a result of the source separated collection program. The Division would benefit from adding hydraulic grapple tines to the skid steer loader bucket. This type of tool increases loader operator production and is versatile for floor sorting of materials (see Figure 6). Figure 6: Existing Skid Steer Bucket and Recommended Grapple Attachment kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TIM40psAssessment Final TM No. 4 — Operational Assessment 15/22/2015 I Page 17 of 24 5. Composting Operations KCI conducted the site visit in January. While the facility appeared to be in good working order, further observation may be warranted at other times of the year, such as the spring and summer, when higher material volumes and more putrescible materials such as grass clippings are generated. Yard waste, the sole feedstock, is ground at the adjacent drop-off property and transferred onto the active composting pad for the duration of the process. The pad itself is newer concrete with an area of approximately 3.1 acres and able to accommodate more than 20 230-foot windrows. The Division's windrow turning machine is very effective at maintaining well -structured windrows. During the site visit, the facility was at capacity and was waiting until finished compost is screened and removed before accepting newly -ground materials. Division personnel reportedly monitor temperatures on a daily basis. Because the facility currently composts only yard waste, daily temperature monitoring is typically not necessary. Two to three times weekly is sufficient to monitor the yard waste composting process. The Division successfully piloted the composting of food waste from grocery stores, but reached a point where the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality required the City to either modify its permit or discontinue the process. At the time, the decision was made to discontinue operations because of the small volume being collected. Composting facility operations and future composting options will be further evaluated as part of the master planning process. However, KCI offers several recommendations. In an effort to reduce compost operating costs and to help minimize the potential for malodors, KCI recommends kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TM4 Ops AS1,e55 fC5L. nt__Final TM No. 4 — Operational Assessment 15/22/2015 1 Page 18 of 24 conducting a pilot test of the Modified Static Aerated Pile (MSAP) composting method. This method utilizes a specialized inoculant and reduces the turning frequency significantly. In addition to less turning, more consistent temperatures, and a reduction in odor, the method is also well -suited for facilities that handle highly putrescible materials like food residuals. KCI can immediately assist the Division with establishing an MSAP pilot and providing access to inoculant materials. KCI further recommends that the Division incorporate food waste collection and processing as part of the pilot. Because the City controls its own collection system, a pilot food residuals recovery program at select supermarkets, institutions, and/or restaurants could be quickly implemented. While the additional material will increase the volume composted, the addition of more nitrogenous organics materials can reduce the composting time, thereby enabling the facility to handle more yard waste. 6. Fleet Services The Division's fleet is comprised of 51 pieces of equipment, including 38 collection trucks and various ancillary equipment. Of the Division's collection equipment trucks, 32 are considered frontline units and 6 are classified as spares. Table 7 provides key metrics of the vehicle fleet. The ratios of frontline to spares are within appropriate ranges, with high -maintenance equipment types (e.g., ASL) having higher ratios than low -maintenance vehicles. The overall spare ratio (19 percent) is slightly above average because vehicle types are not interchangeable across service types.- At this time, KCI does not recommend revising spare ratios. Should a roll -cart program for recycling be introduced, a greater number of routed ASLs will be required, which can be interchanged with its residential garbage counterparts and the ASL spare ratio can be addressed. Table 7: Collection Vehicle Fleet Metrics The collection fleet has an average age of less than five years, which is a sign that vehicle replacement is occurring as planned or even slightly ahead of schedule. This is a result of five ASL vehicles being replaced in the same year (2013) and five commercial FEL vehicles being replaced in the previous two years. In most cases, the reason for replacing the majority of a vehicle type in the same year is a program change such as converting to roll -cart service. When feasible and over time, these replacements should begin to be spread back out for a more balanced capital replacement program. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions T 4 Ops Assessment Final TM No. 4 — Operational Assessment 15/22/2015 1 Page 19 of 24 In general, KCI recommends a replacement schedule of 8-10 years for FEL vehicles; 7-9 years for ASL vehicles; and 10-12 years for rear -load, roll -off, manual curb -sort recycling, and support vehicles. Prior to replacing any vehicle, the unit should be reviewed to determine if maintenance expenses are tracking as planned. If a unit falls below the average spending for similar vehicle type, the useful life might be extended. On the other hand, high maintenance expenses are an indicator that a unit might need to be replaced sooner than planned. Should the situation of early replacement arise, an examination of vehicle procurement specifications, warranty, and driver misuse and abuse should be conducted to prevent a reoccurrence. Based on KCI's experience, the Division's average monthly maintenance costs for ASL vehicles is below average. This is likeiy due to the average age being less than three years, but could also be an indication of a lack of preventative maintenance, either on the daily operator -serviceable items (arms and lifters) or the fleet -serviceable items (chassis, motor, etc.). ASL units are high -duty cycle machines that require significant preventative maintenance by both the drivers and Fleet Services. KCI did not conduct a unit -by -unit analysis, but as a general rule, average monthly costs for an FEL vehicle should not exceed that of an ASL for a similarly aged fleet, and FEL costs appeared to be in line with average use. Currently, nearly all of the residential manual curb -sort recycling trucks are 2006 or 2007 models and are, therefore; approaching"the end of their useful lives. If possible, it may be in the Division's best interest to postpone their replacement until future potential programmatic changes are evaluated. A program change, such as a transition to roll -carts and automation, will have a significant impact on new vehicle specifications and unit quantities. KCI conducted interviews with the Fleet Superintendent and his staff in an attempt to identify any issues or concerns they may having with the Division. The Division has an excellent working relationship with its Fleet Repair Facility (Fleet). The two organizations have an open communication process that is necessary to maintain acceptable levels of vehicle downtime. According to Fleet, the Division's workers have become much more diligent in caring for their vehicles in recent years, with drivers reporting problems at the conclusion -of their routes. The clear reason for Fleet's ability to maintain the Division's vehicles is its night shift. Maintenance ideally -occurs when vehicles are not normally in use. The availability of a vehicle for maintenance service should not be contingent on having surplus equipment or high spare ratios, which would require significant capital investment for those extra vehicles. Fleet has reported some indications that not all drivers are thoroughly inspecting vehicles before and after each route. This is evident by small problems that have gone unnoticed and have subsequently grown into larger issues. KCI noted that a robust Driver Vehicle Inspection Report (DVIR) policy was not in place. Although drivers are required to inspect their vehicles and document any necessary repairs, supervisors confirmed the process was inconsistent and needed attention. Solid waste drivers are required by the U.S. Department of Transportation to complete a DVIR every day. This document indicates that the driver has conducted both a pre- and post -trip safety inspection of the vehicle and authorizes that the vehicle is safe to operate. Figure 7 illustrates the DVIR process and how the reporting driver, reviewing driver, and Fleet Services communicate for vehicle roadworthiness. An example of the three-part DVIR form, as well the inspection procedure, is attached. All defects should be corrected prior to departure. Most defects identified by drivers can be repaired by the Fleet Services night shift in advance of the next route day. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions T94 Op. Assessment Final TM No. 4 — Operational Assessment 1 5/22/2015 1 Page 20 of 24 Figure 7: Driver Vehicle Inspection Report Process Flow Driver Vehicle Inspection Report (DVIR) Process Flow 1. Reviews previous shift DVIR for vehicle 2. Signs form as reviewer Sends form to Operations for so - day retention period (vehicle file) Operations retains pink copy until matched with white after repair Driver starts new DVIR form for current shift as Reporting Driver ....... . -1. .....— Driver performs shift, after which driver determines if defect is present 1. Report defect on DVIR form 2. Sign as Reporting Driver 3. Deliver pink copy to operations 4. Deliver white and yellow copies to Fleet kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions L. Fleet makes necessary repairs or determines no repairs needed 2. Checks, appropriate box 3. Signs and dates both copies 4. Fleet retains yellow copy with repair order> 5. Fleet forwards white copy to operations Oy for next g Driver to at repairs- 1. No defect boxes checked 2. Sign as reporting Driver 3. All three copies forwarded to operations 4. Operations posts white copy for next shift reviewing driver 5. Remaining copies are discarded ................. .:__.......... ::: I:.._::-------- - - © kessler consulting, inc. TIA4OosAssessrent Final TM No. 4 — Operational Assessment 15/22/2015 1 Page 21 of 24 7. Conclusion The Division's solid waste operation is a well -run, cohesive operation. Employee morale is high and is demonstrated through considerable department longevity. The Division has developed and implemented a number of best practices seen in other high -performing solid waste organizations, including developing employee career paths through promotion from within, cross -training, and continuing education through industry training and events. The Division's equipment is in good working order and replacement cycles are adhered to. Following is a list of items KCI believes the Division should consider for incremental system improvement. We are available to assist -with any of these items or any additional technical assistance the Division may require. All Collection Services Consider route optimization tools for more efficient collection, reduced driven miles, and possible route reductions. Review and reduce any unnecessary downtime. Delays at the Transfer Station are a key contributor to this downtime, which are addressed below. • Implement a more standardized Driver Vehicle Inspection Report (DVIR) process. Residential Collection • Consider Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tools and Automated Vehicle Location (AVL) service verification systems to manage assets, improve customer service, automate extra bag billing, monitor recycling participation, and target recycling education and outreach efforts. • Continue to aggressively promote growth of the recycling program by promoting bin distribution and other education and outreach efforts. • Delay replacement of compartmentalized curb -sort recycling vehicles until KCI has completed the Master Plan work and a decision has been made regarding future recyclables collection and processing. If such a delay might jeopardize the safety or integrity -of collection operations, then KCI recommends exploring the feasibility of leasing vehicles in the interim. • Conduct a single stream recycling pilot program to better evaluate the operational and financial implications specific to Fayetteville. Commercial Collection • Continue to focus on the highest possible average yards per lift. • Develop and implement an Arms Stowed While Traveling (ASWT) Safety Policy. Roll -Off Collection • Shift dispatch from sales to operations. • Review container rental policy and adjust based on current inventories. Transfer Station and IVIRF • Develop and implement a Personal Protection Equipment policy. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions T %44 ops Assessment Final TM No. 4 — Operational Assessment 15/22/2015 1 Page 22 of 24 • Conduct a waste surge analysis to identify peak times for inbound materials and the pattern of outbound waste flow. Based on the results, specify times that Waste Management should deliver transfer trailers so that inbound and outbound flows are better aligned. • Designate a transfer operator or route driver to empty all trucks queued to dump rather than having a number of drivers waiting to unload. Drivers could rotate throughout the week. • Consider an alternative hand -unload area to eliminate these vehicles from the tip floor. • If hand -unload vehicles are shifted away from tip floor, the Division can consider acquisition of a larger wheel loader for more efficient waste movement. • Consider acquisition of a grapple for the skid steer loader. Compost Operations • Reduce daily temperature monitoring of yard waste to two or three times weekly. • Conduct a pilot to test the Modified Static Aerated Pile (MSAP) composting method to significantly reduce the turning frequency and minimize the potential for malodors. Incorporate food residuals recovery into the pilot program, focusing on supermarkets, institutions, and/or restaurants. The addition of food waste will increase the volume composted and add more nitrogenous organics materials to reduce the composting time and increase throughput. Broader programmatic, infrastructure, and policy opportunities will be further explored and evaluated as the master planning project proceeds. The various options being evaluated will have operational implications. For example, residential recycling program modifications have the potential to alter collection and processing efficiencies. Likewise, exploring C&D debris recycling opportunities has the potential to reduce disposal costs and expand the roll -off service sector. The recommendations outlined above are intended to provide the City with more immediate suggestions for enhancing the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of current operations, as well as to pilot certain program changes that are under consideration. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions ;M4 Ops Assess me nt Fi.nai TM No. 4 — Operational Assessment 1 5/22/2015 1 Page 23 of 24 Appendix A — Driver Vehicle Inspection Form DRIVER'S INSPECTION REPORT — (See reverse side for pre -trip procedure) CHECK DEFECTS ONLY. Explain under REMARKS COMPLETION OF THIS REPORT REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW, 40GFR 396.11 & 396.13 Truck or Traotor No. Trailer No. -- Starl Mileage End Slan Hour Motor End n ran nraca�oram code Numbers for Shop IJsa Only Fuel: gal. POWER GENERAL CONDITION IN•CA13 EXTERIOR 0 02 Cab/Doors[Windows ' G 03 Gauges/Warning Indicators ❑ 34 lights ❑ Oil Leak 0 02 Windshield Wlpers/Wa5hers 0,34 Reflectors _ ❑ Hydraulic Leak __ 0 64 Hom(ej 016 Suspension _ D 42 Coolant Leak ❑ 01 Haelar/Defroster ❑ f7 Tires # of Flats _ D 44 Fuel Leak ❑ 02 Mirrors 0 1B Wheela/RlmsfLues 0 3,1 Charging System Q 15 slaering - D 32 8attery 0 42 Cooling System 0 23 Clutch Q 43 Exhaust 1126 Transmission 0 13 Service Brakas 0 13 Brakes 0 24 Drive Line D 13 Partdng Brake 0 13 Air Lines 0 22 Rear Axle ❑ 53 Triangles/Flares D 34 Light Line 0 41 Frame 1 Frame Bolts ❑ 53 Ore Extinguisher ❑ 40 Fifth -Wheel Q 51 Vehicle paperwork/Shckers D 02 Seat Belts ❑ 49 Coupling Devices ❑ NO PEFECTS SPECIAL :rr 0 65 Hydraulic System 0 71 Hopper Cover 0 $5 Packer B1ado 0 71 Side Shields 065 Lift arms Q 71 Body Metal ❑ 58 Winch 0 5B Cable D 55 Chains ❑ 55 Rollers D "i DEFECTS r � ❑ 71 Body/Doors _ t7 16 Suspension L7 77 Landing Geer 6 79 Rear -End Protection Q 69 Kingpin/Upper Plate 0 85 Hydraulic Vakve ❑ 71 Tarps 0 17 Tiros 1134 Lights 0 18 Wheels/RfmsfLugs 0 77 Walking Floor/Pistons D 34 Reflectors Q 13 Brakes 0 59 Coupling Devices 0 NO DEFECTS REMARKS: REPORTING DRIVER: Date MAINTENANCE ACTION: Date _ Name _ Emp. No. ,.-_._ Repairs Made 0 No Repairs Needed Q Further Work Scheduled ❑ Mechanics Name REVIEWING DRIVER: Date Name _ Emp. No. SHOP REMARKS: _.. _. . - .. _ ._._._ ...:W ..._m ,.,wee .PINK• Onamlions WHITE:Origiral (retain for au gays)• L,nivru,�. goo•���.��� r,.,-........... _.. I kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TM4 Ops Assess me. nt ... Final 4 TM No. 4 — Operational Assessment 1 5/22/2015 J Page 24 of 24 DVIR Form Instructions (reverse of form) 1. Approaching vehicle note general condition. Look for leakage of water, fuel or lubricants under vehicle. 2. Under hood check water and crankcase oil levels. Check fan and compressor belts for cracks and excessive slack and wear. Note general condition of engine space. 3. Start engine and set at fast idle for warm-up. Check for abnormal engine noise. Check gauges for normal readings (pilot lights, if equipped), <LOW AIR> warning should operate if air pressure is below 60 pounds. Anti -lock warning light should light briefly and then go out (vehicles with operable anti -lock). 4. Check emergency equipment, horn(s), and windshield wipers. Turn on all lights including 4-way flasher switch for turn signals. Check steering wheel action. 5. Leave cab to check headlights and turn signals. Switch headlights on and check both beams, then turn off headlights only. Leave all other lights on. 6. Check front clearance and identification lights. 7. Check left and right front wheels, tires, lugs or studs. Check for leaks around hubs. 8. Check right side of cab, door, mirrors, etc. and check lights and reflectors along right side as inspection progresses. 9. Check right rear tractor tires, wheels, lugs or studs. Note any thrown lubricant. 10. Check trailer light and brake lines for secure connections. Be sure manual petcocks are open. Be sure lines are properly secured to prevent entangling or chafing. 11. Check hook-up: fifth -wheel, jaws, release lever on tractor -trailer, pintle hook, towbar, safety chains, converter gear on full -trailer unit (if applicable). 12. Check right trailer tires, wheels, lugs or studs. Check for thrown lubricant (if applicable). 13. Check rear of body, mud flaps, rear light (clearance and identification, stop, tail, turn signals), rear reflectors, rear end protection. 14. Check left trailer tires, wheels, lugs or studs. Check lights and reflectors on left side as inspection progresses. 15. Check left rear tractor tires, wheels, lugs or studs. Check for thrown lubricant. 16. Re-enter cab. Re -check all gauges. Air pressure -should beat maximum. 17. Check parking brake. 18. With fully -charged system, check air brakes as follows: a. Be sure Trailer Air Supply valve is "in" and that trailer brake air system(s) are charged. Apply and release brakes with treadle valve (if applicable). b. Pull out Trailer Air Supply valve to check manual application of trailer brakes. c. Reduce air pressure by rapid application and release of treadle foot valve. "LOW AIR" warning should operate when primary needle reaches 60 psi. Brake should apply automatically when secondary needle reaches a point between 45 and 20 psi. d. Recharge trailer air system to check for leaks. With engine idling, apply treadle foot valve and hold for 1 minute. After initial drop of 5-10 psi, air pressure should not drop more than 4 psi. If audible leaks or rapid pressure drop are noted, have repairs made before departure. 19. Turn-off 4-way flasher and actuate left and right turn signals. Proper operation of turn signals can be ascertained by checking front ones. 20. Make a tesestop before leaving yard. Drain air tanks daily. Check tires twice daily or every 100 miles. Use DVIR form to report vehicle condition at end of run. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions T M4 Ops Assessment Final kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO.5 DATE: June 29, 2016 TO: Jeff Coles, Recycling and Trash Collection Director City of Fayetteville, AR FROM: Robin Mitchell, Project Manager SUBJ: Commercial Food Waste Pilot PROJ #:173-00.00 1. Introduction Kessler Consulting, Inc. (KCI) was contracted by the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (City) to assist in developing a Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan (Master Plan) with the objective of diverting 80% of the waste stream from the landfill. As part of this Master Plan, KCI assisted the City in planning and conducting a commercial food waste composting pilot (Pilot) to determine the feasibility of a citywide commercial food waste collection and composting program. Specific goals of the Pilot included: Evaluate food waste collection logistics, including both onsite collection and transportation to the compost facility. • Evaluate the Modified Static Aerobic Pile (MSAP) method for composting food waste at the City's compost facility. 2. Methodology 2.1. Pilot Site This City owns and operates a 3.1-acre composting facility, which prior to this Pilot was composting only residential and commercial yard waste. In 2015, the City estimated it processed nearly 7,000 tons of yard waste. All food waste collected in the Pilot was transported to this facility for composting. This site was sufficient in size and infrastructure for conducting the Pilot without any physical modifications. 2.2. Operating Plan and State Approval Prior to implementing the Pilot, KCI and the City prepared an Operating Plan as specified under Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission Regulation 22, Chapter 8. The City submitted the Operating Plan to Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) seeking approval to 14620 N. Nebraska Ave., Bldg. D, Tampa, FL 33613 1 Tel: 813.971.8333 1 Fax: 813.971.8582 1 www.kesconsult.com Fayetteville/Food waste Not/Food Was' e Pilot TlVl Fayetteville Food Waste Pilot 1 6/28/16 1 Page 2 of 18 temporarily operate its Type Y (yard waste) composting facility as a Type O (source separated organic waste) composting facility. In November 2015, the City and ADEQ signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MCA) to allow for 90 day operation of a Type O facility for the Pilot. This was later extended to 180 days following an inspection by ADEQ personnel, during which no issues were found. The MOA required all material to be moved offsite by 30 days after the 180-day pilot period. The Pilot was limited to 10 tons of food waste per week. Food waste was collected over 21 weeks, from January 20, 2016 through June 10, 2016. This allowed sufficient time for all material to be composted, screened, cured, and moved offsite by August 17, 2016. 2.3. Participants The City reached out to a number of commercial food waste generators to voluntarily participate in the Pilot. Table 1 shows the list of participants in the Pilot. At some locations, collection of both pre- and post -consumer food waste was not logistically feasible. Table 1: Pilot Participants *Food waste was collected from 4 locations at the University of Arkansas: Fulbright/Northwest Quad, Pomfret Hall, Union Kitchen, and Brough Commons. **Food waste from Greenhouse Grill and Woodstone Pizza was collected together. 2.4. Collection The City worked with each participant to ensure they had the infrastructure in place for their staff and/or customers/students to source separate the food waste in their kitchen and/or dining room for. In most cases, participants used buckets, garbage cans, or other large containers for in-house collection containers. The City also designed and produced a poster to educate staff and customers/students about the Pilot and what can and cannot be included in the food waste (Figure kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Fayetteville/;=ood Pklot,/Food Waste Pilo? TM Fayetteville Food Waste Pilot 1 6/28/16 1 Page 3 of 18 1). For this Pilot, food waste included any pre- and post -consumer food waste (except for raw meat) and compostable or food -soiled paper. Figure 1: Educational Poster for the Pilot I ,ave a one4a -.en xoar c p atik:as;and ltta's,(,ur kit&i xrxate to work. i?e a Part of an exciting nov pr ortunity and turn gait: food waste into comaw,;,t instead of sending it to tLe landfill" �y. ..it: Acceptable' Food Waste Materials' Please a ian9,,cT i-Fie City € f Fayet IeviIle Recycling and Trash Collection Divisinil 7 .57SA2 8 sir re yciiaa arts rash :if yc8tc:viit ar. ray tta le ae ai Mare. The City provided each participant with 64-gallon roll carts for collecting food waste from the in- house containers. The number of carts provided to each participant is shown in Table 1-and was based on the volume of waste estimated at each location and feedback from the participant. The City serviced these carts 3 times per week using an automated side -load truck. At each stop, the driver estimated the volume of food waste collected based on the percentage of each cart that was filled. The driver also monitored for contamination (i.e. non-compostable material) and rejected carts with excessive contamination. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Fayetteville/'"sood Waste F'ilot/Food bvaste Pilot TtA Fayetteville Food Waste Pilot 1 6/28/161 Page 4 of 18 To maintain cleanliness and reduce odor, participants either rinsed the carts or used compostable bags to line their carts. The Senior Center and Happy Hollow Elementary did not have the capabilities to rinse the carts, so the City provided them with 64-gallon and 96-gallon compostable bags for their carts. KCI obtained the bags from 4 different manufacturers (Biobag, Natur-Tec, Bio- Tuf, and Ecosafe), as samples at no cost, all of which are certified compostable by the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI). Starbucks and Khana Indian Grill provided their own compostable bags to line the carts. Khana Indian Grill used bags from Biobag, while Starbucks used compostable bags from IPS Industries, which to the best of KCI's knowledge is not listed by BPI. City staff monitored how well the bags composted. 2.5. Participant Survey The City and KCI developed a survey to receive participants' feedback on the Pilot. Towards the end of the Pilot, the survey was emailed to each participant via Survey Monkey. 2.6. Composting All food waste collected from participants was transported to the City's compost facility located at 1560 South Happy Hollow Road. For the Pilot, KCI worked with the City to implement the MSAP composting method, instead of the traditional turned windrow method they had been using for yard waste composting. The MSAP method was developed by Harvest Quest International, and relies on a proprietary microbial inoculant that expedites the composting process and minimizes turning requirements. In the MSAP method, the City first laid down a bed of ground yard waste, on top of which it tipped the food waste collected that day (Figure 2). Figure 2: Tipping Food Waste at the Compost Facility Photo credit: City of Fayetteville kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Fayette,:if e/Food .Vaste Pi of /Food Waste Pilot TPA Fayetteville Food Waste Pilot 1 6/28/16 1 Page 5 of 18 Additional fresh yard waste was added to obtain a ratio of 3 parts yard waste to 1 part food waste. The City's windrow turner then mixed the material (Figure 3), which also broke open the compostable bags to facilitate their decomposition. Figure 3: Windrow Turner Mixing Food Waste and Yard Waste Photo credit: Russell Cothren, Edible Ozarkansas After mixing, a front-end loader began constructing the pile (Figure 4). Because of the limited amount of food waste collected in the Pilot, the City constructed weekly pile rather than elongated windrows. Figure 4: Pile Construction Photo credit: City of Fayetteville - kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Fayettevill2!'R,odi ,Vaste "iioti'rood';Vas e Pilot'rm Fayetteville Food Waste Pilot 1 6/28/16 1 Page 6 of 18 On Friday, after the third collection of the week, the inoculant was added on top of the mixed material (Figure 5). Figure 5: Adding Inoculant onto the Pile Photo credit: Russell Cothren, Edible Ozarkansas Then a 6-inch capping layer of ground yard waste was added on top of the pile, which essentially acts as an insulating blanket to facilitate the growth of the inoculant and.maintain high temperatures throughout the pile (Figure 6). Figure 6:.Adding the Capping Layer onto the Pile Photo credit: City of Fayetteville After capping, the inoculant spread across the surface of the pile underneath the capping layers. As the microorganisms in the inoculant grow and multiply, they siphon air into the pile, biologically simulating mechanical aeration of a static pile. The pile remained static for 30 days, at which point the City turned it with a front-end loader (Figure 7). The pile was then static for an additional 15 days until it was turned a second time. After 15 more days, the composted material was screened. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Fayetteville/Food Waste Pilot/Foo9` vVaste Pilot TM Fayetteville Food Waste Pilot 1 6/28/161 Page 7 of 18 The screened compost then cured for an additional 14 days before distribution. Screen overs were then returned to be used in future piles as the base layer or capping layer. Figure 7: Mixing the Pile Photo credit: Russell Cothren, Edible Ozarkansas 2.7. Monitoring The primary indicator of effective active composting is high temperatures. High temperatures are also required to meet state and federal regulatory requirements for pathogen reduction. With the MSAP composting method, the surface of the compost (i.e. below the cap) must be above 131°F for 3 consecutive days and for 15 consecutive days in the interior of the pile. City staff monitored temperatures daily using a 4' manual temperature probe (Figure 8). -Temperatures were recorded at depths of 12", 24", 36", and 48". Figure 8: Manual Temperature Probe Photo credit: Russell Cothren, Edible Ozarkansas Odor was monitored empirically by City staff while onsite. Any odor issues were identified and recorded by type, strength, and possible source. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Fayetteville/Food l•Vaste Pilot/Food'dvaete Pilot TNl Fayetteville Food Waste Pilot 1 6/28/161 Page 8 of 18 2.8. Testing Approximately halfway through the Pilot, the City pulled samples of finished (screened and cured) compost to submit to Midwest Laboratories for quality and regulatory testing using the procedures outlined in the Operating Plan. Pursuant to state regulations, Type 0 compost must be tested for the following parameters: • Soluble salts (electrical conductivity) • Fecal coliform • Salmonella • pH • Arsenic • Cadmium • Chromium • Copper • Lead • Mercury • Molybdenum • Nickel • Selenium • Zinc For the Pilot, the City tested the finished compost following the United States Composting Council (USCG) Seal of Testing (STA) program guidelines. This included testing for the above parameters as well as a number of other compost quality parameters. The City also pulled.samples of fresh feedstock material (food waste and ground yard waste) to test for fecal coliform. 3. Results 3.1. Collection Results A total of 69.3 tons of food waste was collected during the Pilot, as measured by the City's scale house. Figure 9 shows the total tonnage of food waste collected during each week of the Pilot. After the initial ramp up in tonnage during the first few weeks, tonnages remained fairly consistent at 3-5 tons/week, with a few exceptions. A dip occurred in week 10 during spring break at the University. Weekly tonnages declined after week 17, when only minimal food waste was collected from the University as it entered the summer term. Concurrently, in early May, Arsagas and Starbucks were no longer collecting food waste, as they were under the impression the Pilot had ended. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Fayetteville/Food Waste piiot/Food 1iJ::s2k,e Pilot TNI Fayetteville Food Waste Pilot 1 6/28/161 Page 9 of 18 Figure 9: Weekly Tonnage of Food Waste Collected During the Pilot 6.00 5.00 kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Fayetteville/Foot; Waste Pilot: Food Waste Pilot TM Fayetteville Food Waste Pilot 1 6/28/161 Page 10 of 18 The driver noted that carts occasionally contained garbage and did not collect these carts. Out of a total of 682 potential pickups in the pilot, 16 incidents occurred where carts were rejected due to contamination. Most of these incidents were early in the Pilot and were corrected by communicating with the participant. The City collected food waste 3 times per week to ensure sufficient service to the participants. Some participants did not require this frequency of service. For example, the Senior Center on average only placed their cart out once per week. 3.2. Participant Survey Results The City received responses from all 9 participants in the Pilot. Below is a summary of the results of this survey: • All participants rated their experience as positive or somewhat positive. • While most participants experienced no issues with the Pilot, a few participants expressed minor- issues, including needing more carts, not having sufficient space for carts or collection containers, odor, people not properly sorting food waste, having to rinse carts, or issues with the compostable bags. • Some suggestions from participants to make food waste collection easier included more roll carts, more frequent collection, assistance with employee and customer training and marketing materials, City -provided in-house collection containers, and use of compostable bags. • Nearly all participants received positive feedback from their employees, including: o "They are all very excited for this program to start full-time." o "They have talked about how easy it is and how much they like that this compost material is staying out of a landfill." b "Very user friendly." • More than half of the participants noticed a change in their employees' behavior and greater awareness of food waste. • Nearly all participants advertised the Pilot to their customers or students, mostly with a poster, sign, or by word of mouth. Some advertised on their website or social media. • Most of the participants received positive feedback from their customers, including: o "Lots of positive feedback from customers on social media, it is well supported in our community." o "They like that we are a part of the program. They gained a lot of respect for us as a company that we were doing this." o "Very educational for the students." • Two participants said some customers were confused about the compost program. • One restaurant noticed more customers using take-out containers. • Most participants estimated they decreased the volume of disposed garbage by 25-50% during the Pilot, while two participants estimated their waste reduction was more than 50%. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Fayetteville/Food +,.Vaste Pilot/Food'1Vaste Pilot Thl Fayetteville Food Waste Pilot 1 6/28/161 Page 11 of 18 • All participants would continue to collect food waste if it was at no additional cost or if the cost was offset by a decrease in garbage collection costs. Two participates would continue if it cost 10% more. • All participants would support a citywide mandate requiring food waste separation by businesses generating a substantial amount of food waste. • Some additional feedback from the survey, included: o "The whole experience was positive for our business. Composting food waste will be nothing but beneficial for the city and the environment. It really is the only smart option." o "We are keeping our fingers crossed that the program can become a permanent part of Fayetteville Waste." o "Thank you for including FPS in the food waste Pilot and including the opportunity for students to tour the compost facility! We're hopeful this expands and all schools can participate in the future." • After the survey, participants provided additional comments through email, including: o "I just wanted to say thanks for all your efforts in initiating this Pilot Program. We're keeping our fingers crossed that commercial food waste collection can become a permanent part of the Compost Program; we need it and the city and citizens of Fayetteville need it too." o "We would really like this program to continue, please be in touch if there is anything we can do to make this happen." 3.3. Compost and Monitoring Results Because of the volume of food waste collected weekly during the Pilot, the composting operation outlined in the Operating Plan was slightly modified. Instead of constructing windrows of 35-40 feet in length, the 3-5 tons of food waste that was collected weekly was placed in round piles approximately 15-20 feet in diameter at the base. Turning these piles with the windrow turner was not feasible; therefore a front-end loader was used. The modified operations did not appear to affect the compost process. The City was able to achieve a mix ratio of approximately 3 parts ground yard waste to 1 part food waste by volume in most piles, which is the ideal mixing ratio for the IVISAP process. Additionally, all piles met regulatory temperatures for pathogen reduction, which indicates robust composting conditions. Figure 11 shows the average temperature at each depth across all piles. This figure also clearly shows the spike in temperature after turning the pile at 30 and 45 days, indicating that using the front-end loader provided sufficient mixing. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Fayetteville/Food Waste Pilot/Food Waste Pilot TM Fayetteville Food Waste Pilot 1 6/28/161 Page 12 of 18 Figure 11: Average Temperatures for all Piles in the Pilot 160 140 12" Depth 24" Depth .w _36" Depth 48" Depth Pathogen Destruction 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Days - Throughout the Pilot, only one incident of major contamination (2 bags of trash) occurred onsite. The contamination was removed and disposed of. The City also reported a few occasions of soda cans in the food waste; these were easily removed by hand prior to composting. This low amount of contamination can be accredited to both the willingness of the participants to train their employees and customers/students and the drivers monitoring for contamination at the point of collection. The City experienced minor issues with the compostable bags at the compost facility. When the windrow turner was used to mix the fresh material, the City noticed that the bags were not easily shredded by the turner and some bags became tangled on the drum of the turner. These needed to be periodically removed from the turner. The City also observed some remnants of bags when the compost was screened. Possible reasons for the last issue include: • Participants used bags that were not certified compostable. • Participants inadvertently placed plastic bags in their food waste carts that were not caught by the collection driver or at the facility. • Certified compostable bags did not break down. This could potentially have resulted from the small pile size in the Pilot, which had more surface area than a larger windrow. A larger surface area means more bags could be at the surface of the pile and not break down as quickly. Also, because the piles were turned with a front-end loader rather than a windrow turner, the bags were not shredded to a great extent in the subsequent turnings. No remnants of bags were found in the finished compost, indicating the screening process effectively removed these bag remnants. City staff reported only minor odor issues. Near piles #3 and #4, the City experienced some ammonia odors during composting, which are often an indication of low carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratios. In fact, these two piles had the lowest yard waste to food waste ratios in the Pilot (2.74 and 2.38, respectively), which could have resulted in low C:N ratios. No odors were detected offsite and no odors were at a severity to be problematic or require corrective actions. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Fayette:-ilie/Food VV• ste Piiot/Food Vvaste Pilo? TPO Fayetteville Food Waste Pilot 1 6/28/16 1 Page 13 of 18 3.4. Laboratory Test Results Table 2 shows the results of the laboratory test for pathogens in the fresh feedstock and finished compost. Fecal coliform and Salmonella levels were below detection limits in the finished compost, clearly indicating that the MSAP compost process effectively eliminated pathogens. Table 2: Test Results for Pathogens in Fresh Feedstock and Finished Compost MPN = most probable number. Allowable limits are from Table 2 of ADEQ Reg. 22 for Type O and S compost. Table 3 shows the heavy metal concentrations in the compost. These heavy metal levels were significantly below the allowable state regulatory limits. Table 3: Test Results for Heavy Metals in Finished Compost All units are in mg/kg dry weight. Allowable limits are from Table 2 of ADEQ Reg. 22 for Type 0 and S compost. Table 4 shows the test results for nutrient concentrations in the finished compost both on an as is and dry weight basis. The macro and micro nutrient levels indicate a nutrient rich compost product. Most of the nutrient levels fall within the acceptable range for garden compost as defined by Woods End Laboratory. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Fayetteville/Foods L.+aste flot/Food'vase No' Tlvl Fayetteville Food Waste Pilot 1 6/28/16 1 Page 14 of 18 Table 4: Nutrient Analysis of Finished Compost *Fertilizer labeling expresses % phosphorus and % potassium as %P205 and %K20, respectively, but these nutrients are not necessarily in this chemical form in the product. Accepted ranges are derived from the compost matrix scorecard for garden compost provided by Woods End Laboratory. Table 5 shows various agronomic parameters of the finished compost, as well as preferred and acceptable ranges according to the USCC's Consumer Compost Use Program. Most parameters were within the preferred or acceptable range. The only unfavorable result was a low percent of seed emergence. While there are a number of reasons why the emergence may be low, this should not present any serious problems with the compost given the positive results with every other parameter. Simply curing the compost for additional time may resolve this low emergence number. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Fayetteville./Food Waste Pilot/Foci Waste Pilot TNI r• Fayetteville Food Waste Pilot 1 6/28/16 1 Page 15 of 18 Organic % dry weight 69.97% >_35% Matter basis >_25% �d. They e difficult Creating a soil containing 5%- 10% organic matter is desirable in typical, well drained soils. _ Desired particle size depends on usage: • Lawn topdressing: 1/4"-3/8" • Planting:'3/8"-1/2" • Mulch:l"-2 Modify soil pH, if necessary, based on soil testing results. Soluble Salts dS/m (mm- 3.0 - <5.0 <15.0 Keep in mind that most (Electrical hos/com) dry soluble salts are also plant Conductivity) ';, weight basis nutrients. Compost' containing a higher soluble salt content should be applied at lower application rates and watered in well. Physical % dry weight None detected <0.5% <1.0% Small stones may be deemed Contaminants basis more acceptable than man- made inerts (e.g. plastic) * Table 2 of ADEQ Reg. 22 requires pH to be between 5.5 and 8.5 for Type 0 and S compost. The above table is derived from information developed for the USCC's Consumer Compost Use Program. Table 6 shows comparisons between the test results of food waste compost produced during the Pilot and the City's yard waste -only compost for parameters that were tested on both composts. The food waste -compost had lower heavy metals, higher phosphorus, higher organic matter, and more neutral pH compared to the yard waste compost. Seed emergence was higher in the yard waste compost, but, as mentioned previously, this was likely due to the food waste compost needing to cure for longer. Direct comparison is cautioned, however, because these are single sampling times and the composts were tested at different laboratories. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Fayetteville/FoodbVaste 'ilotjFood'Mis ePilotTM Fayetteville Food Waste Pilot 1 6/28/16 1 Page 16 of 18 Table 6: Comparison between Food/Yard Waste and Yard Waste Only Compost 4. Findings and Conclusions The Pilot demonstrated the effectiveness of the MSAP method for composting commercial food waste at the City's compost facility. • Quality compost: The temperature profiles indicated a healthy compost system and the laboratory tests showed a high quality, clean compost. • Faster composting: The MSAP method provided a faster composting process than the turned windrow method currently used by the City, which requires 4-6 months. Using the MSAP method for composting food waste and yard waste, active compost required only about 60 days. Faster composting time allows more material to be processed on the existing site. • Less turning: Because the inoculant pulls air into the windrow, fewer turnings were required compared to the turned windrow method, which requires about 12 turns on average for a full composting cycle. The MSAP method only required 2 turns per cycle. • Odor control: The MSAP method appeared to successfully control odors. Turning a windrow often has the highest potential to release odors. Because the MSAP method only required 2 turnings and the first turning did not occur until after day 30, the potential for odor release was reduced. In addition, the capping layer is intended to act as an in -situ biofilter to prevent releases of odors during active composting. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Fayette.-ille/Food `.'rite Not"Food'Waste Pilot TM Fayetteville Food Waste Pilot 1 6/28/16 1 Page 17 of 18 • Potential cost savings: The cost of the MSAP inoculant should be more than offset by the reduced labor, operational, and maintenance costs as compared to traditional turned windrow composting. Potential costs savings will be examined by KCI in a forthcoming financial analysis. The Pilot provided valuable information and important considerations regarding composting operations when implementing a permanent food waste composting program. • Compostable bags: To avoid having to clean out food waste containers, many businesses will likely want to use some form of compostable bag as a container liner. During the Pilot, some bag remnants were found in the compost prior to screening. Full-scale operation with larger windrows (less surface area) and additional shredding by using the windrow turner instead of a front-end loader to turn the piles should help minimize these remnants. Additional actions to reduce bag remnants include: 1) ensure only certified compostable bags or bags that are proven to be compostable at the City's facility are used and 2) ensure adequate participant/employee education and training to prevent plastic bags from being placed in the carts. • Windrow turner: While the City's windrow turner is acceptable for the MSAP method, a larger turner may be beneficial. The larger turner will create larger windrows to allow more compost material on the current site. Larger windrows will generate more heat, thereby enhancing the compost process. In addition, a windrow turner with a larger diameter drum might be less likely to have compostable bags tangle on it. • Thermometer: Temperature monitoring is required to meet state requirements for Type O composting facilities. In the Pilot, the City was using a. manual thermometer, which required a dedicated staff member for monitoring. An automated temperature monitoring system could significantly reduce labor costs associated with temperature monitoring. • USCC's STA program: The STA program is a voluntary, nationally recognized testing certification program that gives assurance to the end -user that the compost is tested using certified methods at a certified laboratory. Under the program, compost would need to be tested either once per quarter or every other month, depending on the amount of compost produced. While the City is not currently a participant in the STA program, joining the program could be beneficial. Labeling the compost as STA-certified could enhance the marketability and value of the compost. If the City establishes a full-scale food waste composting program, the quantity of compost produced will increase, and the STA program could help the City to distribute and sell this compost. The Pilot also provided valuable information regarding collection of food waste. Controlling contamination: This is undoubtedly the most important and challenging aspect of a food waste collection program. As demonstrated by the Pilot, it will require appropriate education and training for participants, as well as possibly assisting participants in training employees. In addition, it would be helpful for collection crews to spot check for contamination, especially at the start of the program and for new customers, and reject carts with excessive contamination. Customized service level: As with commercial waste collection service, the number and size of containers and frequency of food waste collection will need to be tailored to the customers' needs. Businesses that generate food waste throughout the week will likely want multiple collections weekly. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Fayetteville/Food :haste Pilot/Food Vvcste Pilot Tit Fayetteville Food Waste Pilot 1 6/28/161 Page 18 of 18 Collection costs: Cost is clearly a factor in determining whether a business will participate in a food waste composting program. Providing food waste collection has a cost. The cost to a business can be offset to some extent by right -sizing the business' waste collection service, and the cost of this service, to reflect the smaller amount of non-putrescible waste to be collected after food waste is removed. Another option is to develop an "all -in" rate structure that includes all services to be provided to businesses, e.g., garbage, recycling, and food waste collection. • Focus on large food waste generators: Large commercial food waste generators should be targeted first if the City decides to implement a permanent food waste composting program. This would include grocery stores, restaurants, and schools. During the Pilot, Happy Hollow School was one of the best participants with regular cart set -out, no contamination issues, and high volumes of material. The University of Arkansas was the largest food waste generator in the Pilot, but has indicated they may be making other arrangements for collection and processing of their food waste. In conclusion, the Pilot was successful in meeting all of its objectives. It demonstrated the success of the commercial food waste collection system and the effectiveness of the MSAP method in composting these materials. Based on the Pilot results, pursuing a full-scale program appears warranted and will be further evaluated as part of the Master Plan process. The City now has staff trained in both collecting food waste and using the MSAP process to compost food waste. The success of this Pilot is underlined by the fact that the City is already in the process of applying for a Typo O permit for its compost facility that will enable the acceptance and composting of food waste. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions „ayet°evilie/Food Waste Vilotirood'Waste Pilot TM kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NO.6 DATE: July 29, 2016 TO: Jeff Coles, Recycling and Trash Collection Director City of Fayetteville, AR FROM: Robin Mitchell, Project Manager SUBJ: Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program PROJ #: 173-00.00 1. Introduction Following an initial evaluation of the City's existing solid waste management system and completion of a waste composition study, Kessler Consulting, Inc. (KCI) identified waste diversion opportunities that warranted further evaluation, which included single stream recycling. With KCI's assistance, the City conducted a single stream recycling pilot program to evaluate first-hand the potential impacts of such a program, as well as to provide city -specific data on which to model citywide conversion to single stream recycling. . Results of the waste composition study revealed that more than 26% of residential waste and 29% of commercial/multi-family waste disposed consists of recyclable paper and containers that are not being captured in the current recycling programs. In addition, the City's current system of curb -sorting recyclables is highly inefficient because of the time spent at each individual residence, and places significant physical strain on the workers who sort the materials curbside. The purpose of the curbside residential single stream pilot was to evaluate changes in (1) recycling participation, (2) material recovery, and (3) collection efficiency. The need to sort recyclables by type prior to collection has also been an impediment to expanding multi- family recycling; therefore, a multi -family residential single stream pilot was also conducted to gauge the impact on material recovery and obtain participant feedback at two apartment complexes. 2. Methodology 2.1. Curbside Residential Pilot City staff identified a route in the southeastern part of the City in which to conduct the pilot program. The route aligned with an existing garbage route, but combined the majority of two existing curbside recycling routes. These curbside recycling routes were considered representative of the City in terms of recycling participation and demographics. The pilot route initially consisted of 1,006 households, but increased to 1,011 during the pilot as additional residences were occupied. To obtain pre -pilot collection data for the curbside residential program, the City outfitted two curb - sort vehicles with an Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) system that allowed the City to track the 14620 N. Nebraska Ave., Bldg. D, Tampa, FL 33613 1 Tel: 813.971.8333 1 Fax: 813.971.8582 1 www,kesconsult.com T,106 Single Stream Not Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program 1 7/29/2016 1 Page 2 of 9 collection vehicle on a real-time basis. The AVL system was designed to track and record the number of setouts (i.e., the number of recycling bins on the curb), the time to sort materials at each household, the time to drive to the next participating residence, and the time to collect the entire pilot area. The AVL system collected pre -pilot data for six weeks, January 7-February 11, 2016. The tonnage of recyclable materials collected in the pilot area during the same period was recorded by the City. The City notified residents in the pilot area of the pilot program through a direct -mail postcard, utility bill stuffer, newspaper ads, brochure, and the City's website. Copies of these outreach materials are provided in Attachment A. The City utilized existing inventory and acquired additional 64-gallon carts, which were fitted with blue lids to differentiate them from the carts used for garbage collection. All lids were equipped with a sticker explaining the types of materials accepted in the program. On Saturday February 13, 2016, the City delivered a 64-gallon cart to each home in the pilot area, along with a brochure asking residents to place aluminum and steel cans, glass bottles and jars, cardboard and paperboard, newspaper, mixed paper, and plastics bottles and containers #1-#7 in the cart for recycling. During the pilot, participants were able to recycle plastics #347, which are not accepted in the City's existing bin program. - The pilot program was conducted for 14 weeks, February 18-May 19, 2016. A City sanitation crew serviced the recycling carts each Thursday, the same service day residents were already accustomed to, using automated side -load vehicles equipped with AVL systems to monitor collection metrics. The quantity of material collected during each week of the pilot was also recorded. At the conclusion of the pilot program, all recycling carts were retrieved by City staff. The following metrics were recorded and analyzed to evaluate the curbside _residential single stream pilot: • Number of Setouts —the number of bins/carts placed curbside for service each week. • Setout Rate —the percent of households in the pilot area that placed bins/carts curbside for service per week. • Tons Collected per Week—. the total weight of materials collected from the pilot area per week. • Pounds per Setout — the average pounds collected per bin/cart. • Collection Time per Stop —the average time the collection vehicle took to service each curbside bin/cart. • Time Between Stops —the average drive time between curbside bins/carts. • Time in Pilot Area —the total time it took to service all curbside bins/carts in the pilot area. • Average Pounds per Household per Week — average pounds collected per week divided by the total number of households in the pilot area. • Average Pounds per Household per Year —Average Pounds -per Household per Week times 52 weeks per year. The City also conducted an online participant survey between March 20 and May 26, 2016 to obtain resident feedback regarding the pilot program. Participants were notified by the City about the survey via the City's website and a direct -mail postcard sent to all residences in the pilot area on April 13, 2016. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions DOS Single Stream Pi€ot Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program 1 7/29/2016 1 Page 3 of 9 2.2. Multi -Family Residential Pilot The City piloted single stream recycling at two apartment complexes, one that had been participating in the City's multi -family recycling program through the use of a partitioned roll -off in the parking lot and another that was not participating. Different collection systems were utilized during the pilot program. At The Cliffs II, recycling containers were placed throughout the complex parking lot adjacent to the existing garbage dumpsters. These new recycling containers replaced the single large roll -off recycling container previously located in the parking lot that had separate storage compartments for each type of recyclable material. At The Academy at Frisco, the recycling chute was used. Prior to the pilot, the recycling chute was utilized as a second garbage chute. Residents wishing to recycle had to take their recyclables to one of the City's recycling drop-off centers. During the pilot, this chute was clearly labeled for recycling. City staff met with the property managers at these two complexes several times to discuss the pilot and to provide education on the single stream program. Educational materials were produced for the apartment pilot, including brochures, posters, and container signs. Copies of these educational materials are provided in Attachment B. An online survey was also conducted to garner feedback. The multi -family pilot was designed to measure increases in recycling tonnage, benchmark participation, and gather feedback from pilot residents. The multi -family residential pilot ran from April 5 through June 28, 2016. 2.3. Material Processing A state-of-the-art single stream material recovery facility (MRF) that accepts a full range of commingled recyclables does not currently exist in Northwest Arkansas; therefore, single stream processing could not be evaluated as part of the pilot program. To recycle materials collected in the pilot program and to gain an understanding of the relative quantities of materials and contamination collected as single stream recyclables, KCI and the City enlisted the assistance of GP Harmon. The City and GP Harmon entered into an agreement for GP Harmon to accept the City's single stream recyclables at GP Harmon's facility, located at 1421 East 15th Street in Fayetteville, and manually sort and market them. While GP Harmon recorded all quantities of materials received and marketed, all parties realized that this process in no way replicated the operation of a state-of-the-art single stream MRF. GP Harmon chose to hand sort recyclables off of the tip floor. Recovered materials were weighed and recorded by material type. The remaining residue, which consisted of non -recyclable materials and recyclables that were not recovered by this rudimentary manual sorting system, was also weighed and recorded. To determine what percentage of this residue consisted of recyclables versus contaminants, GP Harmon staff conducted a second sort of residue from four loads. The residue was placed on a table with a 1.75" x 0.75" screen. Recyclable materials that did not fall through the screen were hand -sorted. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions T-V.6 Single `:Bream Pilot Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program 1 7/29/2016 1 Page 4 of 9 3. Pilot Results 3.1. Curbside Residential Results Table 1 provides a comparison of the pre -pilot and pilot averages for the metrics that were monitored and recorded for curbside residential collection in the pilot area. Figure 1 depicts the percentage of households in the pilot area that placed their recycling cart curbside during each week of the pilot program as compared to the average pre -pilot recycling bin setout rate. Figure 2 depicts the quantity of recyclable materials collected during each week of the pilot as compared to the average weekly tonnage during the pre -pilot. More detailed data regarding the pilot program is provided in Attachment C. Collection efficiency improved dramatically during the pilot program. Collection times at each household dropped from just over 1 minute during the pre -pilot to an average of 7 seconds during the pilot. Collection time for the entire pilot area dropped from more than 12.5 hours for the curb - sort program to 5.25 hours for automated single stream collection, a 58% reduction in collection time. This reduction in collection time should result in nearly a 40% reduction in curbside recycling collection costs even including the cost of carts. This potential savings to the City will be further evaluated in the scenario modeling. Table 1— Curbside Single Stream Collection Pre -Pilot and Pilot Data Percent Pre -Pilot Pilot increase/ Pilot Metrics Average Average (,Decrease) Number of Setouts per Week 444 678 53% Setout Rate 44% 67% 52% Tons Collected -per Week 2.14 4.20 96% 'r Pounds/Setout 9.66 12.48 29% Collection Time per Stop* 0:01:04 0:00:07 (89%) _Time Between Stops* 0:00:38 0:00:21 (44%) Time In Pilot Area* 12:32:35 5:16:37 (58%) Total Lpilot Households -1,006 1,010.2** Average lbs./household/week 4.3 8.3 94% Average lbs./household/year (est.) 222 433 94% `lime is recorded as hours, minutes, seconds (i.e., hh:mm:ss) **Number of households in pilot area increased as additional units became occupied; therefore, an average was used. The percentage of households placing a recycling container curbside for collection each week increased by nearly 53% and the average quantity of materials collected each week increased by approximately 96%. Extrapolated to an annual basis, conversion to single stream recycling would be expected to increase the quantity of recyclables collected per household in the pilot area from 222 pounds per year to 433 pounds per year, or approximately 94%. This is consistent with KCI's experience, as well as reported increases in various other communities that have converted to single stream recycling. In addition, communities striving for high diversion rates often target per household recycling rates of 400-600 pounds per year. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TN46 Single Stream Pilot Tons/Week p N N W A !-n P, 0 0 C C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D (D 0 m 0 % of Households Setting Out Containers m a) _j 00 l0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 CD 0 CD m cu aPre-Pilot OrQ (D 18-Feb 0 r) o 25-Feb m 3-Mar (D 10-Mar m 0 (D 17-Mar 24 -Mar m 31-Mar 7-Apr 14-Apr 21-Apr 28-Apr 5-May 12-May 19-May Pilot Average MENIMILME INIMI-I C Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program 1 7/29/2016 1 Page 6 of 9 As mentioned previously, the pilot was not intended to evaluate processing because a state-of-the- art single stream MRF was not available. However, Table 2 provides a summary of the data provided by GP Harmon. The table includes the types and percentages of materials recovered from the initial manual floor sort of all materials collected during the pilot. It also provides the total percentage of materials recovered from loads #7410 during the initial floor sort and a secondary sort using a rudimentary screen. During the secondary sort, GP Harmon estimated that approximately 90% of the large grit (i.e., materials that did not pass through the screen but were not manually sorted) consisted of recyclable glass. Therefore, Table 2 provides data for Loads #7-#10 in two ways, one counting all large grit as residue and the other counting 90% of large grit as glass. Additional details regarding data reported by GP Harmon is provided in Attachment C. Table 2 — Summary of Manual Processing of Curbside Recyclables (% by weight) Loads #7, #10 Loads All loads ,:. All �d 4s 0% 9of Large Grit=' Material Irniial Sort„' Residue: as Glass Cardboard 25% 26% 26% Newspaper 13% 11% 11% Mixed Paper 18% 20% 20% #1 PET Bottles 5% 5% 5% #2 HDPE Bottles 3% 3% 3% Plastics #3-#7 2% 2%- 2% Aluminum Cans 2% 2% 2% Steel Cans 3% 3% 3% Scrap Metal . 0% 0% 0% Mixed Glass 15% 16% 20% Total Recovered' 87% 88% 92% Unaccepted Materials 3% 3% Small Grit 5% 5% Large Grit 4% 0% Residue 13% 12% 8% Total Processed' 100% 100% 100% Note: Columns may not appear to calculate correctly due to rounding. With effective education to minimize contamination and a state-of-the-art single stream MRF, a 10- 15% residue rate is reasonable to expect. Applying this range of potential residue to the quantity of recyclables collected during the pilot program results in an average of 7.1-7.5 pounds of recyclables per household per week, an increase of 65-74% over the existing bin program. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions T^.56 Single Stream Pilot Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program 1 7/29/2016 1 Page 7 of 9 Nearly 29% of residents in the pilot area responded to the survey (288 responses). These responses reflected overwhelming support for the carted recycling system. Highlights of the survey are provided below; full survey results are included in Attachment D. • Prior to the pilot, only 69% of respondents placed their recycling bins curbside each week and more than 10% stated that they rarely or never placed their bins curbside. During the pilot, 81% placed their cart at the curb every week. • 92% of respondents stated they recycled more materials during the pilot than they had previously. • 88% found the 64-gallon cart to be a good size. • The educational brochure, postcard, and utility bill stuffer were the most successful in terms of letting respondents know about the pilot study. • 95% of respondents found the educational brochure to contain useful information regarding the new program and how to use the new recycling cart correctly. • The majority of respondents were excited (72%) or interested (26%) to participate in the single stream pilot. • When asked what benefits they experienced from single stream recycling: 6 97% stated convenience, putting all materials into a single cart. 0 92% stated more recyclables, recycling the additional plastics. 0 90% stated convenience, cart easier to roll to the curb for collection. _o 83% stated the larger cart allowed them to recycle more. 0 69% stated neighborhood aesthetics, no open bins or recyclables lost in the wind. 0 56% stated collection service was quicker/less bothersome. 98% of respondents believe single stream should be available to households citywide. The survey also requested general comments from respondents and over 200 comments were received, the overwhelming majority of which expressed support for the program (see Attachment D). In addition, the City received unsolicited comments about the pilot program via email, which are provided in the sidebar. Unsolicited'Resident Comments on Single Stream Recycling "I am writing about the recycle program that ended today. I am very happy with the rolling bins that have been tested the last few months. Another thing to consider is that I am a disabled Veteran and it is a lot easier to roll out a bin on rollers than it is to carry out two containers by hand. I would love to see the city continue with the rolling bins. Thank you for your consideration." "I just delivered my blue lid recycle bin to the curb for the last time - just wanted to let you know how much I love this program and was glad to be a part of the pilot — I sure hope that the City decides to adopt the blue lid in the very near future." "Please tell me you'll be bringing back the single stream recycling program. It was far easier for me, because I have a bad back, but it also made some of my neighbors who never recycled much if any before do it." "The current bluelid container is much too big for our family of 2. Can you coordinate the size with our general garbage container? Otherwise this is a good plan." kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TM6 Single Stream Nlot Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program 1 7/29/2016 1 Page 8 of 9 3.2. Multi -Family Residential Results Table 3 presents the results of the pilot program at the two multi -family residential complexes, as well as pre -pilot data for The Cliffs II and the City's overall multi -family recycling program. Prior to the pilot program, The Cliffs II collected an average of 0.91 pounds of recyclables per unit per week. The City's overall multi -family recycling program averaged 1.11 pounds of recyclables per unit per week. During the pilot program, the pounds of recyclables collected per unit more than doubled. In fact, the tonnage of materials collected from the two complexes during the pilot program was only 100 pounds less than all multi -family recyclables collected in 2015. Table 3 — Comparison of Multi -Family Data Results Number of Units 360 1,392 579 Pounds/Week 326 1,548 1,451 Pounds/Unit/Week 0.91 1.11 2.51 Pounds/Unit/Year (est.) 47 58 130 *No pre -pilot data available for the Academy at Frisco. Materials collected during the multi -family pilot were floor sorted by GP Harmon; no secondary sort of the residue using a screen was conducted. Table 4 provides a summary of the data provided by GP Harmon, including the types and percentages of materials recovered. Additional details regarding data reported by GP Harmon is provided in Attachment E. Table 4 — Summary of Manual Processing of Multi -Family Recyclables (% by weight) Multi -Family Material Materials Cardboard 29% Newspaper 6% Mixed Paper 22% #1 PET Bottles 4% #2 HDPE Bottles 2% Plastics #3-#7 2% Aluminum Cans 1% Steel Cans 1% Scrap Metal 0% Mixed Glass 13% %rota`{ Recovered, : 81% Residue , 19/ Total Processed 100% Note: Column may not appear to calculate correctly due to rounding. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Tfv16 Single Stream Hot Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program 1 7/29/2016 1 Page 9 of 9 Recyclable materials collected in multi -family complexes generally have a higher degree of contamination than curbside recyclables. Because a secondary sort of the multi -family residue was not conducted, the amount of contaminants versus unrecovered recyclable materials contained in the residue is not known. A state-of-the-art single stream MRF would likely have recovered some additional recyclable materials from the residue stream. However, even assuming 19% of the collected materials were lost as residue, the pilot resulted in an average of 2.03 pounds of recyclables per unit per week, an 83% increase over the 2015 multi -family average. Only 18 surveys were completed by multi -family residents in the participating complexes. Of those, 15 were residents of The Cliffs II and 3 were residents of the Academy at Frisco. Full survey results, including participant comments, are provided in Attachment F. Highlights of the survey are provided below. • Prior to the pilot, 89% of respondents recycled at least once per month. During the pilot, all respondents recycled at least once per month. • 89% of respondents reported recycling more during the pilot than they had previously. • Prior to the pilot, 56% utilized the recycling roll -off at The Cliffs II to recycle and 17% utilized the Happy Hollow Recycling Center. • The new containers. (78%), posters in the buildings (61%), and the apartment managers (44%) were the most successful at letting residents know about the pilot. • When asked what benefits they experienced from single stream recycling: o 100% stated convenience, putting all materials into a single container. o 89% stated more recyclables, the additional plastics. _ o 89% stated convenience, location of containers/recycling chute. • All respondents (100%) stated that the program should be available to apartment complexes citywide. 4. Conclusion The single stream pilot program was successful in evaluating (1) recycling participation, (2) material collection, and (3) collection efficiency of converting to curbside single stream recycling in lieu of the City's current curb -sort program. It was also successful in providing material collection and participation information for multi -family single stream recycling as compared to the partitioned recycling roll -offs that are currently utilized. The results for both the curbside and multi -family residential pilot programs were very promising in terms of participation, tonnage, and collection efficiencies. These results will be utilized to further . evaluate and model citywide conversion to single stream recycling and the potential implications to the City, both in waste diversion, collection efficiency, and cost. The pilot results provide city - specific data on which to base this further analysis. The decision of whether or not to implement single stream recycling will be a policy decision made by the City. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TV.6 Single Stearn Pilot Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program 1 7/29/2016 1 Attachment A ATTACHMENT A — CURBSIDE RESIDENTIAL PILOT EDUCATION AND OUTREACH MATERIALS Cart Sticker City of Fayetteville SINGLE STREAM RECYCLING PILOT PROGRAM THANK YOU 17OR PARTICIPATING nus[nxxuuaxA eonuaaie 0".fr4xrrau naec�ecwganarra tCaanc+imy0ienan Qias usaraB ar Nop us aline. Weiavere ralkttash? g� I I b74575.a3987J recyclpyraru#rx3r8fa�wteeNib-m.gov 9"% Utility Bill Stuffer (see Cart Sticker for reverse) s=: The City Council has set a goal ofdiverting 80%of our w aste front the landfill by 2025. As part of the long-term SolidWYasta Reduction, Diversion anti Recycling Master Plan; the Recycling and Trash Collection Division has selearedyour neighborhood for studying alternative methods for collecting : household recycling, Specifically, your household ". is being asked to Participate in a pilot program that will generate data to evaluate theeffectivaness of 5 \ single stream recycling coliection. This means. that p4 for a period of time, the City asks you to store your current recycle bin and instead, use anew City - provided cart for recycling. The City will provide an ore -line communication and feedback mechanism for your comments and input during fbis pilot program (a7.proximatety I,ofsrri partiripafing ltoilseholds). Here's Hover it Works: • Your household will receive one wheeled roll -earl to use during the pilot program. ALL the recyclables will go into this cart — no sorting necessary! Your household's trash and recycling collection day will remain the same. Continue to recycle the same items your household currently recycles. Find a list of what the City recycles at Fayetteville-ar,gov/recyclo, 14620 N. Nebraska Ave., Bldg. D, Tampa, FL 33613 1 Tel: 813.971.8333 1 Fax: 813.971.8582 1 www.kesconsult.com TIv^:6 Single Stream Pilot a Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program 1 7/29/2016 1 Attachment A Educational Brochure Theta& yolt for your participation €tt the ita& Stream cyclha g Pilot program! Tne City C—C,t t±a<. yet aKDal of d-fling 80%p1- v*— From inp Ipntliiltby 2.42s, A& �±Af9 g(Itp:1vYlg"LgYt19 $Adlp1 yYaGtl: fleK�InYwn, DiYlN3�Jrr ann flWQyCling h1asSP.J PWrt, tl.n RecY<ling.'aw Trash CU Irxc:lon M .It>h'seC: <ititl yn1r npigMbn'mocW !Oo' fit4irY�r)g at[prr±attYd YPp1t�F4ts TGMCpilhClil9g Ypu'.6hOld Yncy{ e"tg: SPEt�tiCally,y0ilr Raw3e99aSU ly Ce)ng a^s{2d ?o aavtl<IRate Fi)+.{ti7pr UZUyrilrrt t?±a' w�l`: g4f lrUrJFrk EI YAlya 't f YtrtE pS t So' dCt r".a.».a c Usr e! 5 eh ar1J The C,ty w•:I pr<.'dt pn C,rl.no ,=- y u+ 9ttxEnte dr9t$o t turny tn�sa pw ArcHran) %aptrcx:ma!ey "MC, Take i IRGI .at99' W 9 Va 11. Th: O&A iip¢t cart place#ttm3rt tti.�r-ra^zalt»� att R1to in"ife. s-at fnik %iYc?t: tkup4 R.K.Ik6UItILiMiz+Itx1E1LKu1:RAininllXni'�!!: w!It u:++.RFI� f gggg9t���.ppggg4. City OF LTG •�&� y START SMALL t��� al e Jterpyea t><arrn "Ernst C-fI n Y_l >n AR AR2901 C y te'v;le. 72 .+ 4 9,575,8398 RECYCLE SOMETHING 4 PEER CURBSIDE PLACEI IEN Pt... rarr a frtuv in<:baF Stun, ihrs e;r:rSt will) wheal!: —d h-dia facing away frrttn IF—; 1ra*:5.. Th. rla Shall a r5it9ilrt 11-". Chaasa as fever a x�rfatm ati Rpxsibtc. Cars. Them shaLAW 0n a 31-1 and the car: I. aii—, fur P1ckt;P. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions Pro rr pfa<s, IY±ei, I—k— tPla'auI&r,IFltuR{ �Ylfle«riaet pruea-per wapY .end Sant. Du nrtr pl»cr.. <:.�Yry re.r, x:lou, to 1)tallbaSCS 6r 4ihCr Lbltf l3 aI 1DA clew 9e Inw-. r,ar:Ku'+a; brpra<n<s. TM6 Single Stream Pilot Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program 17/29/2016 1 Attachment B ATTACHMENT B — MULTI -FAMILY PILOT EDUCATION AND OUTREACH MATERIALS Chute Sign at The Academy at Frisco Dumpster. Sign at The Cliffs 11 WHAT N I RECYCLE? "M�­ 10a ........... RECYCLE SOMETHING WV4011f, HUMS Recycle Somothin&arg go )AIWACMIRK ALL PLAITIC IONI Tt"As 05 MARG&V,Rr: !Ua$&VO YOGURT CUPS Pkesc 1.11 ­1 -, ­;k­ ""Pri t­, 14620 N. Nebraska Ave., Bldg. D, Tampa, FL 33613 1 Tel: 813,971.8333 1 Fax: 813.971.8582 1 www.kesconsult.com T11036 Single Stream --Pitot t Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program 17/29/2016 1 Attachment B The Academy at Frisco Recycling Brochure Tli,ink yoo for your parficipation in thL single Screams RmCfialg pigot pro�drmd! mnctrCou "W .1 .--00% 1,—, ffie 1—W b, 2025. M, p- III the fo-v— Solld Wa,,". 01—in. .h0 FWI d a , 0t 1—1-, T,,, C- TraJi CIIIIIII-1 T." I. zlml SUD04 BE BIG-> START SMALL ,,d T—h C111-111 Di-111 .1150 S, H-11, .01— R... as IF701 ph- 1- 479 575,8308 kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions �RE—YCLE T SOMETHING Oz MG, T%1.6 Single 51f earn 4:11iot Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program 1 7/29/2016 1 Attachment B The Cliffs II Recycling Brochure via Al Tlmnk you hi., your atlidpa sotdst h€ " Thn city C., h6l ^as sni a I.W. of di,rnrftrtx 00%a€ F,`tvc•Itawtle s xazce front Iht far:d fi!t by $025. ng �d,'f pCzfsa kn.fF-earn gaurx Wastn fininGtipn, CMmtcbn and Rwiyt!inp Masepr Pisan, ti;.rr CitYa Rr:ulclmb.:trtd TrasF Cu!re<+sun p+�:iglnn has sn!nezcd your aPusmenr Cnmpinr rc narx!crA#:o in a film � pin,:, ,sfudylnC II+I9fnai1Y3 ntr3fW?L14 i9r ,.nine i+f� rnv.et [:Ik.: H':^itA{�qa.ltad;{.:L1�;;CGy:Nidi1.['15{p�l,(L�?I-RZ $p(N xi TMc n:'!ur prn,gsvn uYir gerterar:e Jana to uaAlx �RV['ti7S Ati4Y$t�S<'C•'s'S. nr tr;tfn rF>n nrfre:rY<r.resr. of srrHtr srrrarn PlatertraaxLctn,,,donksae3;xsatrCtcosix>'rxiSafrmryi'xrss r,• l e e!s— ALL. rct•rclaUks Y.n BE o SiAf 4��o AT SLL .Ir;,Sc.rrv..nt uuznp,.ser lnea!ed r.r:krro / .at I,.m {-. mp!na.. RCCYC11nK-xnd TrPzh CalEccnan Dnv^aan Tt -Y f A fa )SE,S f11ey4na Rnad Jcttte'v .n, AR 72701 frr I Y' It 55 (3 T+l _7 8 J8 Te F f' e. n Y Iby,:arfd ra»+tfr faJ<! II argue Y>3� Rat O&St kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TM6 Single Stream Not Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program 1 7/29/2016 1 Attachment C ATTACHMENT C- CURBSIDE RESIDENTIAL DATA Table C-1- Curbside Residential Pre -Pilot Data Week'>6 Setouts 393 414 402 481 491 482 443.8 Setout Percentage 39.1% 41.24% 40.0% 47.8% 48.8% 47.9% 44.1% Tons Collected 1.89 1.84 1,98 2.34 2.38 2.43 2.14 Pounds Per Setout 9.6 8.9 9.9 9.7 9.7 10.1 9.7 Collection Time 0:00:57 0:01:04 0:01:02 0:01:05 0:01:07 0:01:06 0:01:04 Time Between Stops 0:00:41 0:00:34 0:00:40 ` 0:00:39 0:00:42 0:00:33 0:00:38 Time In Pilot Area 10:47:41 11:36:32 11:02:42 13:46:46 14:08:04 13:53:47 12:32:35 Total Pilot Households 1006 1006 10061 1006 1007 1007 1006 Average,lbs/household 18 .33 3.9 , 4.7 4.7 4,8 4,3 Table C-2 -Curbside Residential Pilot AVL and Tonnage Data Week 1 Week2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5; Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 02/18/16' 02/25/16 03/03/161 03/10/16 03/17/16 03/24/16 03/31/16 ] 04/07/16! Pilot Metrics Setouts 664 662 689 679 703 608 703 674 Setout Percentage 65.9% 65.7% 68.4% 67.2% 69.5% 60.1% 69.5% 66.7% Tons Collected 4.00 3.82 4.12 4.17 4.31 4.32 4.41 3.97 Pounds Per Setout 12,05 11.54 11.96 12.28 12.26 14.21 12.26 11.78 Collection Time 0:00:07 0:00:07 0:00:07 0:00:07 0:00:07' 0:00:08 0:00:07 0:00:07 Time Between Stops 0:00:20 0:00:22 0:00:20 0:00:20 0:00:19 0:00:23 0:00:24 _ 0:0020 Time In Pilot Area 5:02:52 5:25:35 5:07:48 5:12:03 5:00:30 5:09:02 5:17:33 5:01:32 Total Pilot Households 1007 1008 1008 1010 1011 1011 1011 1011 Average lbs./household 7.9 7.6 8.2 8.3 8.5 8.5 8.7 7.9 Week 9` Week 10 1 Week 11 1 Week 12 Week 13 Week 14 Pilot 04/14/16 04/21/16 04/28/16 05/05/16 05/12/16 05/19/16 Pilot Metrics Average Setouts 695 680 704 700 520 815 678 Setout Percentage 68.7% 67.3% 69.6% 69.2% 51.4% 80.6% 67.1% Tons Collected 3.99 3.92 4.37 3.90 4.71 4.81 4.20 Pounds Per Setout 11.48 11.53 12.41 11.14 18.12 11.80. 12.48 Collection Time 0:00:07 0:00:07 0:00:07 0:00:07 0:00:07 0:00:07 0:00:07 Time Between Stops 0:00:21 0:00:21 0:00:21 0:00:23 0:00:25 0:00:20 0:00:21 Time In Pilot Area 5:17:06 5:22:17 5:25:22 5:47:27 4:30:25 6:13:13 5:16:37 Total Pilot Households 1011 1011 1011 1011 1011 1011 1010.2 , Average lbs./household 7.9 7.8 8.6 7.7 9.3 9.5 8.3 Notes: Households in the pilot area increased during the pilot due to new occupancies within the pilot area. Time is recorded as hours, minutes, seconds (i.e., hh:mm:ss) 14620 N. Nebraska Ave., Bldg. D, Tampa, FL 33613 1 Tel: 813,971.8333 1 Fax: 813.971.8582 1 www.kesconsult.com TM6 Single Stream Pilot Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program 1 7/29/2016 1 Attachment C Table C-3 - Curbside Residential Pilot Data for Initial Manual Floor Sort (pounds) 18- 25- 10- 17- 24- 33- 12- 19 Material Feb Feb 3-Mar" Mar: Ma;r Mar Mar 7=Apr 14-Apr, `21-Apr. '28Apr -«5-May _ ' May :May; Total Percent Cardboard 1,927 2,153 2,086 2,103 2,425 2,285 2,142 2,038 2,103 2,115 2,158 1,859 2,014 2,402 29,810 25% Newspaper 1,560 821 1,235 932 1,261 1,194. 1,001 - 765 864 846 1,076 . [ 889 1,259 1,038 14,741 13%,' Mixed Paper 1,293 1,284 1,315 1,672 1,406 1,579 1,758 1,638 1,548 1,270 1,542 1,605 1,908 1,795 21,613 18% #1 PET Bottles 350 412 437 332 445 376 493 349 419 444 491 ! 383 403 551 5,885 5% #2 HDPE Bottles 262 269 283 271 308 263 264 286 299 254 291 287 242 350 3,929 3% Plastics #3- #7 140 101 78 106 79 71 85 112 166 181 231 240 380' 372 2,342 2 j Aluminum Cans 165 148 159 187 174 151 184 162 143 168 169 179 152 207 2,348 2% Steel Cans 240 207 259 222 219 188 292 230 190 217 239 223 200 413 3,339 3%, Scrap Metal 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 0 0 3 20 40 57 0 157 0% Mixed Glass 1,473 1,557 1,608 1,545 1,674 996 889 1,211 1,145 1,234 1,288 939 1,282' 1,214 18,055 15% Total Recovered 7,410 6,952 7,460 7,370 8,028 71103 7,108 1 6,791 1 6,877 6,732, 7,505 ;. 6;644 7,897 8,342, ti. ,102219 . 87%'; Residue 590 688 780 970 512 1,537 1,712 1,149 1,103 1,108 1,235 1 1,156 1,523 1,278 15,421 13% Total Processed 81000 7,640 8,240' 8,340 8,620 8,640 8.820 7,940 7,980 7,840 ;8,740 <, 7,800 9,420 1 9,,62Q 117�,640 , ,; 100% vote: column may not appear to calculate correctly due to rounding. 14620 N. Nebraska Ave., Bldg. D, Tampa, FL 33613 1 Tel: 813.971.8333 1 Fax: 813.971.8582 1 www.kesconsult.com 7gv16 Single Stieam Pilot. Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program 1 7/29/2016 1 Attachment C Table C-4 - Curbside Residential Pilot Data for Combined Initial and Secondary Sort (pounds) All Grit as Residue 90% of Large Grit as Glass Total Percent Total Percent Material 31-Mar 7-Apr 14-Apr 21-Apr Cardboard 2,142 2,038 2,103 2,115 8,398 26% 8,398 26% Newspaper 1,001 765 864, 846 3,476 11% 3,476 11% Mixed Paper 1,798 1,661 1,567 1,346 6,372 20% 6,372 20% #1 PET Bottles 505 354 422 446 1,727 5% 1,727 5% #2 HDPE Bottles 278 289 301 256 1,124 3% 1,124 3% Plastics #347 102 124 174 207 607 2% 607 2% Aluminum Cans 185 164 145 169 663 2% 663 2% Steel Cans 304 242 197 220 963 3% 963 3% Scrap Metal 0 0 0 3 3 0% 3 0% Mixed Glass 1,154 1,409 1,323 1,357 5,243 16% 6,501 20% Total Recovered : 7,469 7,046 7,096 " 6,965 28,576 88% 29,834 92% Unaccepted Materials 336 178 167 192 873 3% 873 3% Small Grit 548 429 427 329 1,733 5% 1,733 5% Large Grit 467 287 290 354 1,398 4% 140 0% Total Processed 8,820 7,940 7,980 7,840 32,580 100% 32,580 100% Note: Column may not appear to calculate correctly due to rounding. kessler consulting inc. innovative waste solutions TN10 Single Stream Nlot. Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program 1 7/29/2016 1 Attachment D ATTACHMENT D - CURBSIDE RESIDENTIAL SURVEY RESULTS 14620 N. Nebraska Ave., Bldg. D, Tampa, FL 33613 1 Tel: 813.971.8333 1 Fax: 813.971,8582 1 www.kesconsult.com T1A6 Single Stream €'iiot City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey Q'I Prior to the pilot program, how often did you typically place your recycling bin curbside for collection? Answered288 Skipped:0 Weekly Every other week Once per month Rarely Never SurveyMonkey 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50 % 60% 70 % 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Weekly 68.75% 198 Every other week 13.54 % 39 Once per month 7.29 % 21 Rarely 5.90 % 17 Never 4.51 % 13 Total 288 1 / 39 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey Q2 Prior to the pilot program, did you know what single stream recycling was? Ansvgr re& 288 Ski,;ped: 0 Yes No Somewhat y 0% 10% 20% 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70% 80% 90% 100% SurveyMonkey Answer Choices Responses Yes 29.17 % 84 No 52.43 % 151 Somewhat 18.40°/ 53 Total _. 288 2/39 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey SurveyMonkey How did you learn that you would be part of the pilot program? (select all that apply) Aris,.e;cd:288 Gkil ped1 3 Utility bill stuffer Postcard Newspaper Internet/City website Educational brochure... 0% 10% 20% 30 % 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Utility bill stuffier 30.21% 87 Postcard - 44.79% 129 4.51 % 13 Newspaper Internet/City website 5.21 % 15 Educational brochure attached to cart 48.96 % 141 Total Respondents: 288 3/39 1 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey Q4 When you received your recycling cart, did the educational brochure provide you with enough information about the program and how to correctly use your new recycling cart? Yes, the brochure was... Somewhat, I was still a... No, the brochure was... I didn't receive the... I didn't read the brochure I 0% 10% Answered 288 Skipped; 0 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 % SurveyMonkey Answer Choices Responses Yes, the brochure was informational 94.79% 273 Somewhat, I was still a little confused 4.17% 12 No, the brochure was not helpful to me 0.00% I didn't receive the brochure 0.35% 1 I didn't read the brochure 0.69% 2 Total 288" # Optional comments Date 1 Leared a lot about what all could be recycled. Awesome!!! 6/3/2016 12:55 PM 2 Love the new program! 5/22/2016 10:29 PM 3 1 think the program is great. It really helps us recycle. 5/19/2016 4:48 PM 4 was not sure if paper had to be placed in a paper bag inside bin or not 5/13/2016 10:40 AM 5 1 was not sure about how to fill with newspaper and junk mail, whether to put in loose or in a bag. 5/10/2016 3:21 PM 6 1 knew what to do and was beyond excited to recycle things I usually cannot. 5/10/2016 2:24 PM 7 not enough clarity on what is and is not recycled 5/10/2016 9:33 AM 8 It could provide more information about plastic bags and what kind can be recycled 5/9/2016 7:19 PM 9 Ample easy to understand information was available in many locations. 5/9/2016 3:08 PM WaK City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey SurveyMonkey 10 We were confused about items with mixed materials, such as paper milk cartons with plastic spouts and lids or coffee 4/22/2016 5:40 PM cans made of both paper and tin. Can we recycle those? Also, what about plastics that don't have the triangle and number? Clarification on how to recycle mixed materials would be appreciated. 11 Hoping the city of Fayetteville continue program. 4/20/2016 4:01 PM 12 1 personally didn't read it so not sure about the information. My husband just told me about it because he read it. 4/20/2016 1:48 PM 13 My house was skipped on the Sat. they brought the blue lids. However, workers for recycling brought me a blue lid 4/17/2016 2:15 PM and explained how it worked. 14 Can I recycle plastics that don't have a number or a plastic like salads come inin fromw grocery stores? 4/16/2016 2:01 PM 15 1 would be unhappy to go back to the old way. 4/16/2016 12:02 PM 16 This makes recycling very easy 4/16/2016 7:56 AM 17 We were also home when they dropped off the bin and they discussed the program with us 4/16/2016 7:38 AM 18 The first couple of times we put trash with the recycle till we got notification not to do it. We thought that because one 4/15/2016 8:06 PM place we lived did it that way. It did not work I think. 19 1 was hoping the information would be more specific with information about styrofoam, bubble wrap, plastic wrap etc. 4/15/2016 3:56 PM ....... ....... ... 20 It's not complicated9 4/15/2016 1:39 PM 21 the brochure was clear and concise. 4/15/2016 12:15 PM 22 The brochure was VERY informative. When does this project end? Also, the brochure needs to highlight the survey 3/12/2016 4:02 PM monkey website for feedback. 5/39 3 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey SurveyMonkey What was your first impression of carted, single stream recycling when you heard you were selected for participation in the pilot study? Answered:288 Skippecd:0 Excitedi � x✓�. � \ �fi 7 ,err 3 ..� s ��� .>x' �4y � Interested Confused 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Excited 71.88 % 207 Interested 26.04% 75 Confused 0.00% 0 Indifferent 1.39 % 4 Annoyed 0.69 % 2 Optional comments 0.00% 0 Total ... _ _ . 288 # Optional comments Date There are no responses. 6/39 4 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey Q6 During the pilot program, how often did you typically place your recycling cart curbside for collection? AnsWerec: 288 Skipp, cd: 0 Weekly Every other week Once per month Rarely SurveyMonkey Never 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50 % 60% 70% 80% 90% . 100% Answer Choices Responses 80.90 % 233 Weekly _ 15.28% 44 Every other week 3.47% 110 Once per month . 0.35% Rarely 0.00 % 1 Never 288 Total 7/39 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey Q7 Regarding the quantity of materials you recycled during the pilot, did your recycling habits change? I recycled more than... recycled the same I recycled less 0% Ansvvered; 288 Skipped: 0 ry (( Y E 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80 % 90% 100% SurveyMonkey Answer Choices Responses I recycled more than previously 92.01 % 265 I recycled the same - 7.64% 22 I recycled less 0.35% Tokal 288 # Optional comments Date 1 A larger container was helpful. I did not need to take it out to the curvb every single week. 6/26/2016 7:20 PM 2 1 RECYCLED A GREAT DEAL MORE! 6/6/2016 5:12 PM 3 So easyp 6/3/2016 6:02 PM 4 A few plastics were added through that time. 6/3/2016 3:25 PM 5 We recycled much more than we had been with the LITTLE bins. Our kids helped more with the program too 6!3l2016 12:55 PM 6 Recycled probably twice as much 6/3/2016 11:02 AM 7 1 loved that I could put plastics 1-7 in the containers 6/3/2016 10:41 AM 8 Recycled more mainly because more plastic was accepted. 5/23/2016 4:24 PM 9 1 really like not having to sort recyclables. 5/22/2016 10:29 PM 10 much more old program was too much trouble 5/15/2016 9:51 AM 11 loved being able to recycle more plastics 5/14/2016 2:03 PM 12 we were told we could recycle more plastics than before 5/13/2016 10:40 AM 13 With this program we recycle more than we throw away 5/12/2016 9:49 PM 14 1 no longer made trips to the recycling center 5/12/2016 1:49 PM 15 It was much easier under the new system. 5/12/2016 1:37 PM 16 I've always recycled everything that I could. 5/12/2016 9:40 AM 8/39 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey SurveyMonkey 17 MUCH MORE 5/11/20164:21 PM 18 This made recycling SO much easier! 5/11/2016 10:31 AM 19 with time, filled cart more and more 5/10/2016 9:37 PM 20 We recycle so much more with a large container that doesn't require sorting types of plastics for recycling 5/10/2016 5:15 PM 21 Never recycled prior to this program. I love it, please please please don't do away with itltt 5/10/2016 2:24 PM 22 Being able to put all the plastics from 1-7 in made me so happy. I was mailing my #5 plastics to a place in New 5/10/2016 2:24 PM Hampshire. 23 1 could recycle so much more! 5/10/2016 2:18 PM 24 Some items were not acceptable before, but were under streaming. 5/9/2016 6:40 PM 25 recycled more due to acceptance of more items 5/9/2016 4:11 PM 26 1 recycled a lot more because the other bins only took numbers 1 and 2 5/9/2016 4:08 PM 27 More only because you began accepting plastics 3-7 5/9/2016 4:06 PM 28 This program was so much easier 5/9/2016 3:08 PM 29 There were more items we could recycle (e.g., yogurt cups) 5/8/2016 3:16 PM 30 1 recycled much more than before 4/28/2016 11:48 AM 31 Did not have to sort like I did before 4/25/2016 9:21 PM 32 bin accepted more plastics; also brought recyleables from work 4/25/2016 8:20 AM 33 Recycled more plastics 4/22/2016 12:29 PM 34 Additional types of plastic accepted } 4/22/2016 9:20 AM 35 We requested 2 bins previously and the big cart is much easier. 4/20/2016 1:48 PM 36 I had more room to recycle more 4/20/2016 1051 AM. 37 Much, much more ... not even close 4/18/2016 7:44 AM 38 1 loved being able to put everything in the same bin, and it has decreased the amount of trash 1 put out. 4/17/2016 2:15 PM 39 1 added the additional acceptable plastic items 4/17/2016 12:27 PM 40 1 got my office to recycle stuff! 4/17/2016 10:08 AM 41 The container is way too big and difficult to store. 4/17/2016 8:03 AM 42 It was nice to be able to recycle butter bowls and additional materials that are not taken at the recycling center 4/17/2016 6:33 AM 43 1 recycled significantly more with single stream due to ease of use as well as more materials that were allowed to be 4/1612016 10:12 PM collected 44 We recycle everthing. It is awesome 4/16/2016 8:35 PM 45 1 could now recycle plastics with 3-7, before I could not 4/16/2016 8:34 PM 46 1 recycled more because the program accepted more items 4/16/2016 3:21 PM 47 We recycled everything we were allowed tot Our trash bin was never as full as the recycling bin. 4/16/2016 12:39 PM 48 Less confusion- no trouble 4116/2016 12.02 PM 49 More plastic options available 4/16/2016 11:15 AM 50 l enjoyed the ability to do all types of plastic 4/16/2016 7:38 AM 51 more different numbered plastic. 4/15/2016 8:06 PM 52 We recycled a lot more types of plastic. 4/15/2016 7:44 PM 53 1 love that we could recycle all plastis especially all of the clamshells 4/15/2016 7:39 PM 54 It seems more items were allowed, such as sour cream tubs and lids (that have the recycle symbol). 4/15/2016 5:38 PM 55 My regular garbage is much less and my recycle bin if more full. 4/15/2016 3:56 PM 9/39 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey SurveyMonkey 56 Mostly mixed paper and some plastics 4l15/2016 3:55 PM 57 1 hardly have any trash with the new program. 4/15/2016 3:51 PM 58 more plastic recycled that could not recycle before 4/15/2016 2:17 PM 59 We recycled at least triple the amount we used to. 4/15/2016 1:49 PM 60 It's way easier, and the wheeled cart is easier to get to the curb than the green box. 4/15/2016 1:38 PM 61 this is great 4/15/2016 12:08 PM 62 Working families where time is severely constrained will benefit since it involves less time and less space to recycle. 1 3/12/2016 4:02 PM observed that our throw -out landfill trash has gone down, since the project was enacted. 10/39 1 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey SurveyMonkey During the pilot program, what types of recyclables did you place in your cart? (select all that apply) Answered: 286 Slsi ppcd; 0 Aluminum cans Glass bottles and jars Tin/steel cans Newspaper Cardboard Mixed paper such as... Paperboard such as cere... #1 Plastic bottles such... #2 Plastic bottles such... #3 - #7 Plastics suc... 0% 10% 20 % 30 % 40% 50% 60 % 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices; Responses 92.01 % 265 Aluminum cans Glass bottles and jars 96.18% 277 86.11 % 248 Tin/steel cans 77.08% 222 Newspaper _ 98.96% 285 Cardboard Mixed paper such as magazines, junk mail, printer paper, and phone books 86.11 % 248 Paperboard such as cereal boxes and shoe boxes 94.44% 272 #1 Plastic bottles such as water bottles and 2-liter soda bottles 95.83% 276 42 Plastic bottles such as 1-gallon milk/water jugs and detergent bottles 95.83 % 276 #3 - #7 Plastics such as pill bottles, yogurt/plastic cups, and tubs/lids 80.90 % 233 11 / 39 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey Total Respondents:288 SurveyMonkey 12/39 } I City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey SurveyMonkey 1 What did you think of the size of the cart you received for recycling service? Ans;,veree:: 2U SkfP;pcdz 0 Good size Too big Too small Indifferent Preferred the recycling bin 0 % 10 % 20 % 30% 40 % 50% 60 % 70% 80 % 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Good size 88.19% 254 Too big 8.33 % 24 Too small 2.43% 7 Indifferent 0.69% 2 Preferred the recycling bin 0.35% Total 288 # Optional comments Date 1 Larger size made it possible to put the cart out every other week, usually. 6/3/2016 3:25 PM 2 Please allow us to use these all the time!!! 6/3/2016 12:55 PM 3 Loved the size. It was much more convenient 6/3/2016 11:02 AM 4 I appreciate the ability whell the cart to the curb and not having to pick up the recycling bin. 5/22/2016 10:29 PM 5 This is a tricky question. For weekly pick-up, the bin was too large. But it was fine if we only placed it on the curb 5/20/2016 9:47 AM every other week. 6 1 like the size because we could put it out every other week instead of once a week and it was nice to be able to roll 5/13/2016 10:40 AM the cart out rather than having to carry it out 7 Need bigger Blue Lid carts. 5/12/2016 9:49 PM 8 Perfect size! 5/12/2016 3:40 PM 9 Great size!! 5/11/2016 3:58 PM 10 My family of 6 filled it to the top every week. 5/11/2016 9:54 AM 11 can't go back to the bin! = 5/10/2016 9:37 PM 13/39 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey SurveyMonkey 12 It is great for cardboard 5/10/2016 3:21 PM 13 1 filled it every week. We were moving into the house when it started, so I had LOTS of paper and cardboard, old 5/10/2016 2:24 PM magazines, etc. 14 About twice as big as needed. Takes up too much room in my garage 5/10/2016 9:33 AM 15 Held about what one old bin held. 5/9/2016 6:40 PM 16 adjusted storage space in garage but never full per wk 5/9/2016 4:06 PM 17 Afraid bottles will break because they fall so far down. Cannot get anything back out. 5/8/2016 3:16 PM 18 It's nice not having to take our recyclables to the road every week. Now we typically only have to do so every 3 weeks. I: 5/3/2016 9:59 AM 19 Too big for single person households 4/28/2016 11:48 AM 20 Perfect Size 4/27/2016 4:27 PM 21 1 love that the cart is on wheels and is large enough for all of the recyclables. 4/24/2016 5:51 PM 22 At times a little too small because we recycle so much more now than before because it is so much easier 4/24/2016 2:26 PM 23 So much easier to get to the curb!! ._... ... ... _......,., 4/2`3/2016 8:32 AM 24 ................ 1 wouldn't go smaller! 4/20/2016 11:42 AM 25 There are only 2 people in our household so we don't make as much waste as a typical family. 4/18/2016 8:55 AM 26 Could be a little larger 4/17/2016 12:27 PM 27 Cart is way too big. Really annoying. 4/17/2016 8:03 AM 28 1 never filled it to capacity, but I appreciated the size because my big cat litter plastics can fit in it 4/16/2016 7:38 AM 29 With a garbage cart and a big recycle cart, it takes up too much space in our garage. 4/15/2016 8:06 PM 30 My wife orders daily, it appears, from Amazon. We have TONS of cardboard boxes to recycle. 4/15/2016 7:44 PM 31 Love it! 4/15/2016 5:40 PM 32 Single person household, need smaller bin 4/15/2016 4:41 PM 33 1 am single 4/15/2016 3:55 PM 34 Bigger than I needed, but using this has taken the amount of trash. I throw away down.... This is a Great program. 4/15/2016 3:08 PM 35 The size allows me to wait an additional week, if I don't have enough that week 4/15/2016 2:15 PM . 36 mine could be smaller, but I don't mind the large size. I just wheel it to the curb every other week. 4/15/2016 12:15 PM 37 Now my trash container is way too big! 3/19/2016 9:32 AM 38 we love the size. there are times when we ran out of room ad had to either save the recycling to the next week, or ,on 3/12/2016 4:02 PM occasion, I'd make special trips to the recycling center. I can see others not doing this and just trowing any overflow recycling in the trash, which is a waste/lost opportunity. 39 Too big for storing in garage. Not enough room on driveway for both carts. 2/18/2016 10:48 AM r 14/39 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey After participating in the pilot program, do you see any benefits of carted, single stream recycling? (select all that apply) Aaswererl; 288 Skipped: fs Larger cart allows me to... Convenience, putting all... Convenience, cart easier ... Collection service was... SurveyMonkey ■ - 0% 10% 20% 30 % 40 % 50% 60% 70% 80% 90 % 100% Answer Choices Responses Larger cart allows me to recycle more 83.33% 240 Convenience, putting all materials into a single cart 96.53% 278 Convenience, cart easier to roll to curb for collection 89.93 % 259 Collection service was quicker/less bothersome 56.25% 162 More recyclables, I like recycling the additional plastics 91.67 % 264 Neighborhood aesthetics, no open bins or recyclables lost in the wind 68.75 % 198 1 found no benefit to single stream. 1.39 % 4 Total Respondents: 288 # Optional comments Date 1 I would like the trial to become permanent. 6/26/2016 7:20 PM 2 what a much better system. Even if one compares the idea that there are more, perhaps, items that are not recyclable 6/6/2016 5:12 PM in the single stream, convenience is king these days. So i made an actual effort to recycle via single stream. So much better and more convenient. 3 Loved it!!!! So much better than the little bins 6/3/2016 12:55 PM 4 Bring the carts back!! :) 6/3/2016 11:11 AM 5 1 would like for styrofoam recycling to be added as well 5/23/2016 4:24 PM 15/39 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey SurveyMonkey 6 Please switch to the bluelid program. 5/22/2016 10:29 PM 7 It also reduced the amount of garbage placed in my garbage bin. 5/20/2016 9:47 AM 8 Too much contamination in single stream 5/16/2016 12:27 PM 9 .... ... _.... do we really have to stop? this was fantastic! 5/14/2016 2:03 PM 10 I found the new system to be very convenient and easy 5/13/2016 10:40 AM 11 do hope this program is implemented 5/12/2016 3:34 PM 12 1 LOVED the single stream recycling and hope we can do this again! 5/11/2016 3:58 PM 13 don't stop this program 5/11/2016 10.01 AM 14 1 would like to see neighbors store their trash carts out of sight or in garage . Not in front of the garage door all week . 5/10/2016 7:33 PM Is there an ordinance against doing this ? 15 We love it!i! Cut our trash down significantly! 5/10/2016 6:09 PM 16 LOVE the program. I hope we get to continue with this service! _ 5/10/2016 4:36 PM 17 This is awesome! 5/10/2016 3:21 PM 18 1 will miss this terribly! 5/10/2016 2:24 PM 19 Loved it. 5/10/2016 12:39 PM 20 no sorting 5/10/2016 9:33 AM 21 Mainly more recyclables. 5/9/2016 6:40 PM 22 Loved it! 5/9/2016 6:33 PM 23 This size bin was VERY convenient, I am elderly and being able to roll the cart was extremely helpful 5/9/2016 5:01 PM 24 1 would be interested in a smaller can. 5/8/2016 3.16 PM 25 Love it! 5/3/2016 9:59 AM 26 1 think this is truly a cool deal and am excited about this moving across fayetteville 4/27/2016 4:27 PM 27 1 love the new program. 4/22/2016 12:29 PM 28 Sometimes I confused my trash and recycling bins, maybe"make it all blue. 4/20/2016 8:53 PM 29 This is the best program to recycle. In previously lived in Lityle a Rock with the same blue lid single stream and more 4/19/2016 10:45 AM neighbors recycled with the single source can. Please please make this program permanent. 30 1 LOVE this program! 4/18/2016 9:02 AM 31 1 hope we keep this program. I especially like the collection service. 4/17/2016 2:15 PM 32 LOVE IT!!! 4/17/2016 12:27 PM 33 Loved it! 4/17/2016 10:08 AM 34 Didn't really change for me. 4/17/2016 8:03 AM 35 It was probably safer for the drivers. This road(Hwy 16) is busy and for people to have to get out of their trucks could 4/17/2016 6:33 AM be dangerous. 36 Love IT saves so much from regular trash 4/16/2016 8:35 PM 37 love this system. I had it in Conway, AR before I moved to Fayetteville. Loved it there. 4/16/2016 8:34 PM 38 The drivers no longer throw items in the yard that they couldn't take and lids don't end up in storm drains 4/16/2016 3:21 PM 39 Great idea for once! 4/16/2016 12:02 PM 40 1 love the ease of using this program. 4/16/2016 9:40 AM 41 1 found it very easy and convenient. 4/16/2016 7:41 AM 42 Please continue this program - I've wondered why we don't have this for a while! 4116/2016 7:38 AM 43 Helps neighbors that were not recycling to recycle. 4/15/2016 8:06 PM 44 coworker said he would be happy if this extended to his neighborhood too. 4/15/2016 6:26 PM 16/39 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey SurveyMonkey 45 Those old bins can be cumbersome and too heavy for me. Please don't make me go back to using them. 4/15/2016 5:40 PM 46 1 believe this greatly reduces the garbage going to the landfill 4/15/2016 3:56 PM 47 1 love this new program. Please do not take it away. 4/15/2016 3:51 PM 48 OUTSTANDING... I really like this program. I hope you will keep it. I recycle more, and I do not have to burn gas to 4/15/2016 3:08 PM take materials you would not previously take. If you make it this convenient to recycle, it will reduce my trash usage. Again, this is a great program that I hope you will keep. 49 1 love my new cart. I have a bad back and it's so much easier to wheel the cart to the curb instead of lifting. It's also so 4/15/2016 12:15 PM much easier to just throw in the recyclables than have to bend over and arrange. Who has time for that anyway ;) 50 1 love the service. Love ith 4/12/2016 10:51 PM 51 1 LOVE single streaming. I am willing to pay a small ammount more on my bill if it will allow for us to continue this 4 3/12/2016 4:02 PM service. I believe in recycling as I have a 4 and 5 year old and if the city can make more money off of the plastics, cans, steel, and paper, then it's a win -win. 17/39 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey SurveyMonkey Do you think that carted, single stream recycling should be available to households citywide? Answered:288 Skipped:0 Yes No Don't know/care Answer Choices Responses Yes 97.57% 281 No 0.35% 1 Don't know/care 2.08% 6 Total 288 ., 18/39 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey SurveyMonkey Q I 2 What is the name of the street you live on? Ans,wa ed: 286 Sk po d: # Responses Date 1 Liberty Dr. 6/26/2016 7:20 PM 2 Huntsville Rd. 6/22/2016 5:21 PM 3 Oakmont Drive 6/9/2016 8:34 AM 4 St. Andrews 6/8/2016 9:01 PM 5 Black Canyon Street 6/8/2016 10:34 AM 6. Pumpkin Ridge Dr 6/6/2016 8:05 PM 7 Oakmont 6/6/2016 5:12 PM 8 S River Meadows Drive 6/5/2016 5:11 PM 9 South Pumpkin Ridge Drive 6/5/2016 2:38 PM 10 E Eastpoint Drive 6/4/2016 10:54 PM 11 Black Canyon St. 6/4/2016 5:44 PM 12 Pumpkin ridge dr. 6/3/2016 7:53 PM 13 River Meadows Dr. 6/3/2016 6:23 PM 14 Pumpkin Ridge 6/3/2016 6:17 PM 15 Pumpkin Ridge 6/3/2016 6:02 PM 16 River Meadows Drive 6/3/2016 5:51 PM 17 S River Meadows 6/3/2016 3:25 PM 18 Eastpoint Drive 6/3/2016 3:22 PM 19 Dora[ drive 6/3/2016 12:55 PM 20 S river meadows dr 6/3/2016 12:54 PM 21 Cherry Hills Drive 6/3/2016 11:51 AM 22 Doral. _ 6/3/2016 11:46 AM 23 Pumpkin Ridge 6/3/2016 11:29 AM 24 E Spanish bay 6/3/2016 11 A 1 AM 25 Pumpkin Ridge 6/3/2016 11:05 AM 26 oakmont 6/3/2016 11:02 AM 27 South Pumpkin Ridge Dr 6/3/2016 10:58 AM 28 Cherry Hills 6/3/2016 10:46 AM 29 Pumpkin Ridge 6/3/2016 10:41 AM 30 E Black Canyon St 6/1/2016 10:52 AM 31 S Apollo Dr 5/30/2016 8:00 PM 32 east troon 5/28/2016 2:39 PM 33 River Meadows Drive 5/26/2016 3:38 PM 34 E Cattail Ct 5/23/2016 4:24 PM 19/39 M City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey SurveyMonkey 35 Baldwin 5/22/2016 10:29 PM 36 Troon 5/21/2016 9:56 AM 37 E Spyglass Hill Drive 5/20/2016 9:47 AM 38 Falcon 5/19/2016 4:48 PM 39 Tallgrass 5/19/2016 11:33 AM 40 S Pumpkin Ridge Dr 5/19/2016 11:12 AM 41 Cherry Hill Dr. ........ 5/19/2016 9:23 AM 42 River Meadows Or 5/17/2016 10:03 AM 43 Falcon Dr. 5/17/2016 8:46 AM 44 Lawndale Drive 5/16/2016 8:44 PM 45 S. Eastview Dr 5/16/2016 8:25 PM 46 - S River Meadows Dr. i .... .. .. .... ........ .... _._. 5/16/2016 12:27 PM 47 ......... Highbush Ave. .... .......... 5/15/2016 6:06 PM 48 Pebble Beach Dr 5/15/2016 10:38 AM 49 Baldwin Avenue 5/15/2016 9 51 AM 50 Pumpkin Ridge Dr. 5/14/2016 2:03 PM 51 Pumpkin Ridge Drive 5/14/2016 11:01 AM 52 E. Oakmont Drive 5/13/2016 12:03 PM 53 Cherry Hills Drive 5/13/2016 10:40 AM 54 Spyglass Hill 5/13/2016 7:58 AM 55 E Country RDG 5/12/2016 9:49 PM 56 Highbush 5/12/2016 4:31 PM 57 Oakmont Dr ` 5/12/2016 3:40 PM 58 Oakmont 5/12/2016 3:34 PM 59 E Huntsville Rd 5/12/2016 1:49 PM 60 River Meadows 5/12/2016 1:43 PM 61 Spanish Bay Pt 5/12/2016 1:37 PM 62 Milo way 5/12/2016 11:20 AM 63 S. Pebble Beach Dr 5/12/2016 10:50 AM 64 S St Andrews Circle 5/12/2016 9:40 AM 65 S. Cherry Hills Drive 5/12/2016 7:54 AM 66 Eastview 5/11/2016 9:43 PM 67 Doral i 5/11/2016 6:57 PM 68 E Country Ridge 5/11/2016 4:28 PM 69 Oakmont 5/11/20164:21 PM 70 Tallgrass 5/11/2016 3:58 PM 71 Pumpkin Ridge Dr 5/11/2016 2:32 PM 72 Cherry Hills Dr. 5/11/2016 2:18 PM 73 Spyglass Hill Or 5/11/2016 1:52 PM 74 E River Bluff Cove 5/11/2016 10:31 AM 75 Tall grass Drive 5/11/2016 10:15 AM 20 / 39 4. City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey SurveyMonkey 76 River Meadows 5/11/201610:01 AM 77 Steeple Chase 5/11/2016 9:55 AM 78 St. Andrews Cir 5/11/2016 9:54 AM 79 Cherry hills drive 5/11/2016 9:07 AM 80 E. Spyglass Hill Dr_ 5/11/2016 8:40 AM 81 Doral Drive 5/11/2016 7:06 AM 82 Oakmont 5/10/2016 9:37 PM 83 Pumpkin Ridge Drive 5/10/2016 9:37 PM 84 Pumpkin Ridge Drive 5/10/2016 8:51 PM 85 River Meadows 5/10/2016 8:46 PM 86 tallgrass 5/10/2016 8:14 PM 87 spyglass hill drive 5/10/2016 7:45 PM i 88 River meadows 5110/2016 7:33 PM 89 E. Black Canyon St. 5/10/2016 6:19 PM 90 S Blue Willow Ave 5/10/2016 6:14 PM 91 Pumpkin Ridge Drive 5/10/2016 6:09 PM 92 Colonial Drive 5/10/2016 5:15 PM 93 Cherry hills drive 5/10/2016 4:36 PM 94 River meadows 5/10/2016 4:12 PM 95 Pebble Beach Dr. 5/10/2016 3:49 PM 96 St Andrews Circle 5/10/2016 3:21 PM 97 Oakmont Drive 5/10/2016 3:19 PM 98 Oakmont Dr 5/10/2016 3:06 PM 99 Spyglass Hill Drive 5/10/2016 2:24 PM 100 River Meadows 5/10/2016 2:24 PM 101 Saint Andrew Circle 5/10/2016 2:20 PM 102 Oakmont Drive 5/10/2016 2:18 PM 103 St. Andrews Circle 5/10/2016 1:57 PM 104 Oakmont Drive 5/10/2016 1:57 PM 105 East Troon Drive 5/10/2016 12:39 PM 106 River Meadows Dr 5/10/2016 9:33 AM 107 Lake Sequoyah Dr 5/10/2016 8:45 AM 108 E SPYGLASS HILL DR 5/9/2016 8:39 PM 109 Deerfield Way 5/9/2016 7:19 PM 110 Huntsville Rd 5/9/2016 6:43 PM 111 Highbush Ave. 5/9/2016 6:40 PM 112 Highbush 5/9/2016 6:33 PM 113 S Tallgrass or 5/9/2016 5:50 PM 114 sonoma falls 5/9/2016 5:40 PM 115 River Meadows Dr. 5/9/2016 5:13 PM 116 Keen lane 5/9/2016 5:01 PM 21 / 39 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey SurveyMonkey 117 lawndale dr 5/9/20164:12 PM 118 river meadows 5/9/2016 4:11 PM 119 E Black Canyon St 5/9/20164:10 PM 120 S. Sag Harbor Ave. 5/9/2016 4:08 PM 121 Saint Andrews 5/9/2016 4:06 PM 122 S. River Meadows Dr. 5/9/2016 3:59 PM 123 ... ........ . River Bluff Cove 5/9/2016 3:15 PM 124 .... ........ Pumpkin Ridge ... 5/9/2016 3:14 PM 125 E Oakmont Dr 5/9/2016 3:08 PM 126 .......,.. Tally Ho Dr. 5/9/2016 2:45 PM 127 River Meadows 5/9/2016 2:15 PM 128 S. River Meadows Dr. 5/9/2016 2:07 PM 129 ....... Lawndale 5/9/2016 11:37 AM 130 South Pinnacle 5/9/2016 11:25 AM 131 Ed Edwards Rd 5/8/2016 3:16 PM 132 Steeple chase dr 5/7/2016 6:31 PM 133 River Meadows Dr. 5/7/2016 5:08 AM 134 Doral Drive 5/5120164:44 PM 135 south liberty 5/5/2016 3:25 AM 136 S. Highbush ave. 5/3/2016 9:59 AM 137 Saint Andrews Circle 4/3012016 2:48 PM: 138 Tallgrass 4/30/2016 12:50 PM - 139 S. Pumpkin Ridge Dr. 4/29/2016 7:09 PM 140 Antlers Ct 4/29/2016 8:02 AM 141 Steeple Chase Dr 4/28/2016 11:48 AM 142 Baldwin Avenue 4/27/2016 4:27 PM 143 River Meadows Dr. 4/27/2016 12:43 PM 144 Spritz 4/25/2016 11:39 PM 145 Talon Trail 4/25/2016 9:21 PM 6 south paradise In 4/25/2016 4:57 PM 147 Deerfield Way 4/25/2016 1:10 PM 148 E Spyglass Hill Dr 4/25/2016 8:20 AM 149 Parkwood Drive 4/24/2016 10:06 PM 150 Laurel Landing 4/24/2016 5:51 PM 151 Highbush 4/24/2016 2:26 PM 152 Tallgrass Drive 4/23/2016 4:35 PM 153 Tallgrass 4/23/2016 8:32 AM 154 Laurel Landing 4/22/2016 5:40 PM 155 Regency Dr. 4/22/2016 12:29 PM 156 Huntsville Rd 4/22/2016 9:20 AM 157 S Pebble Beach Drive 4/22/2016 8:56 AM 22 / 39 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey SurveyMonkey 158 Lake Sequoyah 4/21/2016 4:54 PM 159 Regency 4/21/2016 4:53 PM 160 Lake Sequoyah Dr 4/21/2016 12:41 PM 161 Cattail Court 4/21/2016 10:23 AM 162 Black canyon Street. 4/20/2016 8:53 PM 163 Huntsville Rd 4/20/2016 7:33 PM 164 APOLLO DR. 4/20/20164:01 PM 165 eastpoint dr 4/20/2016 2:48 PM 166 Tallgrass 4/20/2016 2:30 PM 167 East Talon Trail 4/20/2016 1:48 PM 168 Hunt Lane 4/20/20'16 12:56 PM 169 Ed Edwards Road 4/20/2016 12:19 PM 170 huntsville (Hwy 16 east) 4/20/2016 11:42 AM 171 Blue willow 4/20/2016 10:51 AM 172 South Deerrield Way 4/20/2016 8:59 AM 173 S. Sinclair Avenue 4/19/2016 8:14 PM 174 TALLGRASS 4/19/2016 5:01 PM 175 River Meadows 4/19/2016 4:56 PM 176 Ed Edwards Rd 4/19/2016 1:20 PM 177 Doral Dr 4/19/2016 10:45 AM 178 E Black Canyon St. 4/19/2016 10:17 AM 179 norman murphy rd 4/19/2016 10:03 AM 180 Doral 4/19/2016 6:30 AM 181 River meadows Dr 4/18/2016 7:37 PM 182 S. Blue Willow Ave 4/18/2016 3:19 PM 183 Paradise Ln 4/18/2016 2:37 PM 184 Keen Lane 4/18/2016 11:53 AM 185 South Monarch Ave 4/18/2016 9:39 AM 186 E Troon Dr 4/18/2016 9:16 AM 187 S. River Meadows Dr. 4/18/2016 9:02 AM 188 South Doral Drive 4/18/2016 8:55 AM 189 s. river meadows drive 4/18/2016 8:49 AM 190 Pumpkin Ridge Dr 4/18/2016 7:44 AM 191 Troon 4/17/2016 10:15 PM 192 River Meadows 4/17/2016 7:59 PM 193 Huntsville Rd. 4/17/2016 5:09 PM 194 Blue Willow Avenue 4/17/2016 3:09 PM 195 South Sinclair 4/17/2016 2:15 PM 196 E. Milo Way 4/17/2016 12:27 PM 197 Spyglass Hill Dr 4/17/2016 12:19 PM 198 Baldwin Ave. 4/17/2016 12:10 PM 23 / 39 f SurveyMonkey 4/1712016 10:38 AM 4/1712016 10:16 AM 4/17/2016 10:08 AM 4/17/2016 9:49 AM 203 Pumpkin Ridge Dr 4/17/2016 9:47 AM 204 .... . ..... ...... .... . . .... - South regency dr 4/17/2016 9:29 AM 205 Lake Sequoyah Dr. 4/17/2016 8:38 AM 206 . ............ ... 1654 river meadows 4/17/2016 8:03 AM .. . .. .. ...... 207 . .. . ............ Ed Edward 4117/2016 7:41 AM 208 East Huntsville Road .. .... . .... 4/17/2016 6:33 AM 209 S. Tallgrass 4/16/2016 10:46 PM ...... ..... ... . .. 210 ........... ... River meadows 4/16/2016 10:12 PM 211 ...... .... ..... 1-1- ............... ----................... ... .............. ............ ............. Cherry Hills Drive 4/1612016 8:35 PM 212 E. Antlers Court 4/16/2016 8:34 PM 213 East Spanish Bay Place 4/1612016 8:28 PM 214 .... ............ Milo Way 4/16/20167:37 PM 215 S Saint Andrews Circle 4/16/2016 3:21 PM 216 Keen Lane 4116/2016 2:41 PM 217 Huntsville Road 4/16/2016 2:01 PM 218 tallgrass 4/16/2016 2:01 PM 219 Parkwood Dr 4/16/2016 1:04 PM 220 East Lawndale Drive 4/16/2016 12:39 PM 221 blue willow 4116/2016 12:19 PM 222 Danita St. 4/16/2016 12:13 PM 223 Lake Sequoyah Dr. 4/1612016 12:02 PM 224 Pebble Beach Dr. 4/16/2016 11:40 AM 225 Tallgrass 4/16/2016 11:30 AM 226 River Meadows 4/16/2016 11:15 AM 227 Tallgrass Dr 4/16/2016 11:13 AM 228 Cherry Hills Drive 4/16/2016 9:50 AM 229 Lake Sequoyah Drive 4/16/2016 9:42 AM 230 S Sinclair 4/16/2016 9:40 AM 231 River Meadows Drive 4/16/2016 9:35 AM 232 S Pumpkin Ridge Dr 4/16/2016 8:48 AM 233 St. Andrews 4/16/2016 7:56 AM 234 regency drive 4/16/2016 7:46 AM 235 S Harding PI 4/1612016 7:41 AM 236 Eastview Drive 4/16/2016 7:38 AM 237 Cherry Hills Drive 4/16/2016 7:27 AM 238 huntsville road 4/16/2016 7.09 AM 239 Lake Sequoyah Dr 4/15/2016 8:44 PM 24/39 4 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey SurveyMonkey 240 Tallgrass Drive 4/15/2016 8`:34 PM 241 E Eastpoint or 4/15/2016 8:24 PM 242 Fescue Ct. 4/15/2016 8:06 PM 243 highbush 4/15/2016 7:59 PM 244 Tallgrass Drive 4/15/2016 7:45 PM 245 East Oakmont Dr. 4/15/2016 7:44 PM 246 Oakmont Drive 4/15/2016 7:39 PM 247 Regency 4/15/2016 7:28 PM 248 Mally Wagnon 4/15/2016 6:46 PM 249 East Country Ridge Ct. 4/15/2016 6:38 PM 250 Lake Sequoyah Drive 4/15/2016 6:26 PM 251 South Colonial Drive 4/15/2016 6:17 PM 252 East Falcon Drive 4/15/2016 5:40 PM 253 S. Saint Andrews Cir. 4/15/2016 5:38 PM 254 S Doral Drive 4/15/2016 5:26 PM 255 Oakmont 4/15/2016 5:21 PM 256 Country Ridge 4/15/2016 4:41 PM 257 Highbush Ave 4/15/2016 4:25 PM 258 blue Willow ave 4/15/2016 4:24 PM 259 > River Meadows Dr. 4/15/2016 4:15 PM 260 Spyglass Hill Drive 4/15/2016 3:56 PM 261 Parkwood 4/15/2016 3:56 PM 262 Lake Sequoyah Dr. 4/15/2016 3:55 PM 263 Spyglass Hill Drive 4115/2016 3:51 PM 264 Cherry Hills Dr. 4/15/2016 3:08 PM 265 Huntsville Rd 4/15/2016 2:49 PM 266 Milo Way 4/15/2016 2:48 PM 267 Cherry hills drive 4/15/2016 2:44 PM 268 - E Spanish Bay PI 4/15/2016 2:33 PM 269 river neadows 4/15/2016 2:17 PM 270 Spyglass Hill Dr. 4/15/2016 2:15 PM 271 Regency 4/15/2016 1:49 PM 272 -Lake Sequoyah 4/15/2016 1:39 PM 273 Ed Edwards Road 4/15/2016 1:38 PM 274 Broomsage Drive 4/15/2016 1:36 PM 275 Baldwin 4/15/2016 12:55 PM 276 River Meadows 4/15/2016 12:36 PM 277 S Sinclair Ave. 4/15/2016 12:24 PM 278 S PARKWOOD DR 4/15/2016 12:15 PM 279 Sonoma Falls St. 4/15/2016 12:15 PM 280 tallgrass 4/15/2016 12:09 PM 25 / 39 4 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey 281 E. Danita st 282 S. Regency Dr 283 Milo Way 284 River Bluff Cove 285 Pumpkin Ridge Drive 286 East Broomsage SurveyMonkey 4/15/2016 12:08 PM 4/15/2016 12:08 PM 4/12/2016 10:51 PM 3/19/2016 9:32 AM 3/12/2016 11:02 PM 3/12/2016 4:02 PM 26139 U City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey SurveyMonkey If you have any additional comments, please use the space below. Answered: 201 Skipped87 # Responses Date 1 1 loved it. Could fit all of my recycling in one bin. Less trips to the recycling station. 6/22/2016 5:21 PM 2 Loved it! Was very sad when they came and took the carts away. 6/9/2016 8:34 AM 3 Please bring it back 6/8/2016 9:01 PM 4 bring back the recycling bins . 6/6/2016 8:05 PM 5 1 was so sad when we had to give the bin back and return to our regular recycling. I LOVED the single stream 6/5/2016 2:38 PM recycling program with the ability to recycle many other materials and want it to come back. 6 Please go to the larger recycle bins permenently. I recently moved from Springdale where I'm accustomed to having 6/4/2016 10:54 PM bi-weekly large container collection, and we used the entire bin. 7 1 hope to see this brought back. It was very convenient and helped us recycle more. We also noticed that our trash can 6/4/2016 5:44 PM was utilized less. 8 Please implement the single stream recycling, it was Awesome!!!!! We miss this program. 6/3/2016 7:53 PM 9 1 really enjoyed the big blue recycling bin as well as being able to recycle additional items. 6/3/2016 6:23 PM 10 Loved the convenience 6/3/2016 6:02 PM 11 1 loved it! Hope it will be back soon! 6/3/2016 5:51 PM 12 1 believe I understand the disadvantages to the city; I think more education, to the citizens, about how to avoid 6/3/2016 3:25 PM contamination, etc., would be helpful. Also, I would be willing to have a small add -on charge, to offset any additional - cost. 13 Please bring these back!!!! 6/3/2016 12:55 PM 14 We used a system similar to this in Illinois where we are from and feel we definitely helping the Eco system 6/3/2016 11:51 AM 15 Absolutely loved this program! Glad we were able to try it out. PLEASE BRING IT BACK!! 6/3/2016 11:46 AM 16 Please bring them back we LOVED having the larger bin!!!! 6/3/2016 11:29 AM 17 Please bring back the single stream recycling! 6/3/2016 11:05 AM 18 Please, please bring single stream back! 6/3/2016 11:02 AM 19 Please bring the single system back! 6/3/2016 10:58 AM 20 1 think that this program should be available everywhere! It was so great to be able to put all of our recyclables in one 6/312016 10:41 AM container. It was very convenient! 21 I'm so sad to go back to the bin. My trash has reduced significantly while my recycled tripled. Please bring them 5/26/2016 3:38 PM back!!!! 22 Thank you for selecting me to participate in this pilot program. I encourage the city to move forward adopting the 5/22/2016 10:29 PM single stream recycling program as I found it to be easier and more efficient to recycle. 23 We LOVE the single stream recycling. It's very convenient for two working parents with 2 small kids! 5/21/2016 9:56 AM 24 1 loved the additional items that we could recycle. If we want to be effective, we should keep all of these items in our 5/20/2016 9:47 AM recycling efforts. 25 1 think the program is great. The ease of recycling in a single, rollable container is very convenient. 5/19/2016 4:48 PM 26 Too bad it is ending. Only annoying thing about this program was recycling larger cartons. On the older bin style, you 5/19/2016 11.33 AM can just place the bin on top of the carton if it was too big to fit. I really liked how we can recycle more besides 41 and #2 plastic. 27 1 would absolutely LOVE for this to continue!!! 5/19/2016 11.12 AM 27 / 39 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey SurveyMonkey 28 This was the best idea that I have seen for recycling. Before, I really didn't recycle because of the containers. Frankly, 5/19/2016 9:23 AM I found them a real pain in the butt. This changed my whole outlook on recycling, even though 1 try to think of myself as environmentally literate. I'm older, and this made it very easy. 29 Absolutely loved this program. Hope it continues. 5/16/2016 8:25 PM 0 Single stream creates more contamination than it recycles. Bad idea! 5/16/2016 12:27 PM 31 Please keep the blue lid single stream recycling program. 5/15/2016 6:D6 PM 32 Please continue this! It's so convenient and easy! All of my neighbors love it, and they all recycle more than they did 5/15/2016 10:38 AM previously. 33 1 did not recycle using the bins, but i recycled everything using the single stream program. will not continue to use the 5/15/2016 9:51 AM bins. 34 ................. this was great, and I'm sad that the pilot is ending. 5/14/2016 2:03 PM 35 1 especially liked the expanded plastics list with specific numbers. 5/14/2016 11:01 AM 36 I absolutely love the single stream recycling cart. We recycle a lot and often don't have enough room in our two bins 5/13/2016 12:03 PM meaning some recycle has to be placed in the trash. . ....... . ................ ....... 37 Ma ybe single stream is not best for every neighborhood but it seemed to work well for residents of Stonebridge 5/13/2016 10:40 AM Meadows and 1 spoke to several of them about this. 38 We love this system and it encourages us to recycle more, takes up less space in our garage, takes less time out of 5/13/2016 7:58 AM our day (to separate items the night before pick up) so we can spend it with our family. We will miss the cart until it comes back because we know it should! - 39 Single Stream Recycling is a great idea for the city of Fayetteville. I highly encourage this method of recycle collection. '', 5/12/2016 9:49 PM The impacts of this investment in the short and long term will pay dividends to the residents, community, city and the beautiful state of Arkansas.The Blue Lid program needs to be a highly visible and an active program for the Recycling & Trash Collection Division. Also, make the Blue Lid cans bigger. One last thing, if you have any doubts that this program can be value added, just look at Conway Sanitation Dept in Conway, AR. ((Need to also look of the city's yard waste program!)) 40 These bins have encouraged recycling throughout our neighborhood and I hope we can continue to use them in the 5/12/2016 3:40 PM future! 41 please strongly consider implementing this blue lid project 5/12/2016 3:34 PM 42 1 hope to continue this 5/12/2016 1:49 PM 43 1 really hope the city continues and expands this program. The ease got our entire household excited about recycling. 5/12/2016 1:43 PM 44 _ 1 loved the program and hope it continues. My only complaint was being unsure about which plastics to run cycle. The ;. 5/12/2016 11:20 AM program made me more willing to recycle and contribute less trash to the landfill. Excellent idea!! Easy and convenient mine and makes so much such new. Keep up the great work!! 45 1 hope we get to keep this type of recycling. I liked it very much. 5/12/2016 9:40 AM 46 Really enjoyed the new system. It made recycling much easier. 5/12/2016 7:54 AM 47 1 felt like this program was awesome and I hope it is implemented all over Fayetteville. My kids got involved with 5/11/2016 6:57 PM recycling too. 48 Please don't take my cart away!!! I LOVE it!!! 5/11/2016 4:21 PM 49 Please please please bring this back! 1 loved being able to recycle more plastic container and not having to worry 5/11/2016 3:58 PM about sorting things out. We LOVED it! 50 PLEASE KEEP THIS!!!!! 5/11/2016 2:18 PM 51 We want to keep our new blue lid cans. they are so much better than the green bins 5/11/2016 1:52 PM 52 Please continue this! My volume of trash decreased. It made recycling so much easier and I was able to recycle so 5/11/2016 10:31 AM much more. I dont look forward to returning to splitting up my recyclables between three bins and toting them back and forth from garage to curb. 53 Please don't end the program, it was great! 5/11/2016 10:15 AM 54 We do not want to go back to using bins! 5111/2016 10:01 AM 28 / 39 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey SurveyMonkey 55 1 previously used this system in another city for years and was extremely disappointed when I moved to Fayetteville. 5/11/2016 9:54 AM Our household garbage would be the size of a Wal-Mart bag while the recycle bin was full. Before this program we had a large trash bin that was full of 13 gallon bags of trash. I hope Fayetteville continues with this program as it is in line with the 80% reduction goal the city has set. 56 As a resident participant in the pilot recycling program, I want to commend the city's recycling services. I think this is 5/10/2016 9:37 PM an excellent program with a positive impact. We, as citizens, need to be more informed of what to recycle and develop , better habits which will pay off for everyone in the long run. I hope the city can implement the program. I do not want to return to the small bin! As the pilot program progressed, I noticed I filled the large bin up more and more. Surely, this would make a difference and help reach goals of healthier environment and waste reduction. Thanks to all for their efforts. 57 I want single stream recycling to continue. The 18 gallon bins are heavy to carry, the lids end up down the street, and 5/10/2016 8:51 PM are a chore to move back to the garage. The wheeled blue lid cart was easy to roll out and back, plus had the added advantage of being able to recycle more items. 58 please don't take my cart away I love it! 5/1012016 8:14 PM 59 We LOVED the single stream recycling We hope to see this as a permanent thing in Fay. Have never recycled more 5/10/2016 7:45 PM than we did with the pilot program. 5 stars! 60 1 would love to see this single stream implemented right away ! Most helpful and lot less actual trash accumulation . 5/10/2016 7:33 PM 61 My household is disappointed to lose our single stream recycle bin. We have reduced our trash by half just by using " 5/10/2016 6:14 PM the new recycle bin. We hope that you will bring the bin back soon and make the single stream recycle permanent. 62 Please keep this program! it is amazing and helps the environment! 5/10/2016 6:09 PM 63 Please keep this program!!! 5/10/2016 5:15 PM 64 Thanks for letting us participate. Please bring it back to our neighborhood. Thx. 5/10/2016 4:36 PM 65 Would like assurances that all materials are being recycled. 5/10/2016 4:12 PM 66 Please allow us to keep the rolling carts and continue recycling this way! 5/10/2016 3:49 PM 67 So many other cities have been using this method for years, great to be able to use and educate on ways to keep 5/10/2016 3:21 PM landfill down. 68 We love the blue lid carts! Please don't take ours away! 5/10/2016 3:19 PM 69 Loved it!! Please don't take my cart!!! :) 5/10/2016 3:06 PM 70 This program was amazing, and after talking with my neighbors they all feel the same way. I noticed so many more 5/10/2016 2:24 PM people with the recycle bins out than with the other smaller bins. The amount of trash in my regular trash can was significantly decreased because I caught myself recycling so many things I never thought of recycling before. Please keep this program! 71 1 just hope that people did not put trash in and ruin the whole thing. I worry that the pick-up not being seen by humans 5/10/2016 2:24 PM will cause more people to put non-recyclables in. I really want to be able to recycle everything that can be recycled, but I do not want to be producing the wrong kind of waste or having the recyclables be contaminated by trash. 72 We like the new cart. 5/10/2016 2:20 PM 73 Please, please, please continue to provide the single stream recycling or at least allow us to recycle all of the plastics 5/10/2016 2 18 PM we were able to recycle during the test. I HATE throwing all that plastic away!! 74 Very sad to have to return to the old system 5/10/2016 1:57 PM 75 So sad to see the large cart go - we recycled so much more with it! The small bins seem like such a pain to go back 5/1012016 1:57 PM to. 76 Worked very well. Hate to see it stopped. 5/10/2016 12:39 PM 77 Love it, don't want it to end 5/9/2016 7:19 PM 78 If necessary, I would pay more for collection. 5/9/2016 6:40 PM 79 Great idea. Hopefully it will work for the city. 5/9/2016 6:33 PM 80 1 have done more recycling and I am sure others have too. 5/9/2016 5:50 PM 81 Only disadvantage to me, the cart took up so much more space in garage. It was easier to get to curb. The old bin 5/9/2016 5:13 PM gets kinda heavy I liked being part of the single steam program. Thanks 29 / 39 86 Plus. larger bin holds bulky boxes & cardboard. Minus: Have concern about contamination & loss 87 88 89 I liked the program. I believe it would be most beneficial it were to continue. Really liked rolling the container and the convenience of everything going into one container. Great program. Please continue it! 90 No rejected recyclables left in my yard or on the road with this program. It's frustrating to try to recycle conscientiously and then come home to find yard trashed. 91 Please continue this program. I HATE separating the recyclables. I would rather pay a little more each month than have to separate. SurveyMonkey 5/9/2016 5:01 PM 5/9/2016 4:12 PM 5/9/2016 4:10 PM 5/9/2016 4:08 PM 5/9/2016 4:06 PM 5/9/2016 3:59 PM 5/9/2016 3:15 PM 5/9/2016 3:14 PM 5/9/2016 3:08 PM 5/9/2016 2:15 PM 92 Please continue with this. 5/9/2016 2:07 PM 93 1 hope that the city of Fayetteville adopts this program permanently for.everyone. 5/9/2016 11:25 AM 94 Loved it! Wish it wouldn't stop. 5/7/2016 6:31 PM 95 1 understand that people are putting trash items in which defeats the purpose of this method. I hope that does not kill 5/7/2016 5:08 AM the program entirely. I love this opportunity and hope it continues if it truly further reduces the amount of trash going into landfills. 96 1 absolutely LOVE the program! A great program everyone should be apart of. 5/5/2016 4:44 PM 97 1 really like single stream and 1 certainly hope. it becomes a continued program for Fayetteville. 5/3/2016 9:59 AM 98 Let us keep doing single steam!!! 4/29/2016 7:09 PM. 99 1 love this program and hope it continues. 4/29/2016 8:02 AM 100 1 do miss the early morning sounds of a diesel engine idling, idling, idling away as the bottles and cans crash against 4/28/2016 11:48 AM the steel sides of the truck. Well OK maybe not. 101 1 am so excited for fayetteville to join in the big city approach to recycling. I think this will GREATLY reduce landfill and 4/27/2016 4:27 PM = also make it easier for folks to recycle which i think will encourage more recycling.,. and the green arrows will keep turning.!!! Yah Fayetteville 102 Thank you. 4/27/2016 12:43 PM 103 1 have honestly loved the program and will be sad to see it go. 4/25/2016 11:39 PM 104 Like to see more items to recycle 4/25/2016 9:21 PM 105 1 love the streamline recycling. I am able to recycle more and have seen a large decrease in trash waste. I am looking 4/25/2016 1:10 PM forward to this hopefully continuing and improving our city. 106 really hope this program comes back around 4/25/2016 8:20 AM 107 We love, love, love the program! Please don't stop! 4/24/2016 10:06 PM 108 1 love the ease of use with the carted single stream recycling program. I also love that I can just toss everything in 4/24/2016 5:51 PM including more plastic numbers. 109 Single stream recycling definitely needs to be made permanent and city wide. It will entice many people who don't 4/24/2016 2:26 PM normally recycle to start recycling. 110 Please keep this programit! 4/23/2016 4:35 PM 111 LOVE THESE BINS! 4/23/2016 8:32 AM 112 As noted about, we would like to see directions on how to recycle products that have more than one recyclable 4/22/2016 5:40 PM component. Also, we would like direction on how to handle plastics with no recyclable designations. Other than that, we love the program and want to see it continue. 113 1 hope that this program continues. Love recycling the extra plastics. Would love to see the ability to recycle plastic 4/22/2016 12:29 PM bags and Styrofoam in the future. 30 / 39 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey SurveyMonkey 114 More info on #3-7 plastics would be helpful. For example, is styrofoam accepted? 4/22/2016 9:20 AM 115 1 do like being able to place all items together and not worry about sorting. We are not filling the can.. so they could be 4/22/2016 8:56 AM smaller, but then maybe that would not allow the trucks to pick them up. I like that the items are not thrown into truck separately.. we always heard glass breaking and there would be items left in the road and blowing around into peoples yards with the previous green box system. I would really like to continue with the new system. 116 This is awesome. Please don't take it away. 4/21/2016 4:54 PM 117 1 LOVE the single stream recycling. Its so much easier to put everything in one bin instead of having to sort myself 4/21/20164:53 PM then having to have the recycling truck come back and sort even further. It's so much easier to get it to the curb, I can roll it out the morning of and not have to worry about trying to sort stuff before taking it out. I'm already dreading going back to the old way to do it and hope this program sticks around! 118 1 bought a trashcan for the house for recycling only. Now, all I do is dump it into the cart and move on. Made it easier. 4/21/2016 10:23 AM 119 Single stream recycling helps in that you don't have to wait till the small bin gets full before you dump it, therefore, it's 4/20/2016 7:33 PM not as heavy to lift. Also saves a trip to Happy Hollow to recycle newspapers in bulk. I really hope we get to continue this mode of recycling. I'm all for keeping it out of the landfills. 120 This would be a good thing for Fayetteville. 4/20/2016 4:01 PM 121 ]would like a list of items.! can't recycle. What type of plastics for example. 4/20/2016 1:48 PM 122 Cannot stack cardboard boxes under either container due to uneven rocky driveway and windy conditions. Would like 4/20/2016 12:56 PM once a year pick-up of defective and large appliances, and other unrecicalible items in regular carts. 123 PLEASE KEEP THIS PROGRAM!!!! 4/20/2016 12:19 PM 124 We like this program. We're using the trash less. 4/20/2016 11:42 AM 125 Love the program. Hope it stays around 4/20/2016 10:51 AM 126 We hope the program continues. 4/20/2016. 8:59 AM 127 1 think this is a fantastic service and I hope it continues. Thanks for the opportunity to be involved! 4/19/2016 5:01 PM 128 Please make this pilot program into reality in Fayetteville. The time is now to recycle and this makes it easier on 4/19/2016 10:45 AM everyone. Plus we are able to recycle so much more plastic. City of Fayetteville -This is a no brainier!!! 129 it should be optional like a flyer in the water bill asking if u want it or not BEFORE purchasing the bins. they can be 4/19/2016 10:03 AM purchased as more people hopefully see them and want to participate. i love it! hope eveyone does! 130 Loved it, I want to keep the larger bin! 4/19/2016 6:30 AM 131 Would love to see this implemented 4/18/2016 11:53 AM 132 Love it!! 4/18/2016 9:39 AM 133 1 am not a huger fan of the extra large can but the benefits FAR outweigh the storage of the can. I hope you continue 4/18/2016 9:02 AM the use of this program and I hope the rest of the city is able to participate. GREAT JOB!! 134 Single stream is much easier than the bins. However, I would not be in favor of continuing the program if the cost 4/18/2016 8:55 AM outweighed the benefits. 135 1 think with the size of the wheeled cart, the city could save money by picking up the recycling on only even weeks. 4/18/2016 8:49 AM 136 1 think it is a wonderful program and I think the city should make it the permanent means for recycling. 4/18/2016 7:44 AM 137 I still don't really understand how the recycleables are separated. I love the convenience, but it confuses me. 4/17/2016 7:59 PM 138 1 really like having a larger recycling cart, but these are too large. Ideal size would be the size of the smaller trash 4/17/2016 3:09 PM bins. 139 1 think this is a wonderful program with many more benefits than the usual recycle bins. 4/17/2016 2:15 PM 140 1 hope this will be put into effect city wide SOON 4/17/2016 12:27 PM 141 Please continue this process much more convenient and I notice more neighbors participating. 4/17/2016 12:19 PM 142 Absolutely love this idea!! It works so well. I love being able to recycle all the necessary items. With the big trash bin 4/17/2016 12:10 PM having the lid, it keeps all of my paper and plastic and cardboard from flying everywhere! I love this so so so much. 143 We love the new stream line process!!! Hope it stays!!! 4/17/2016 10:38 AM 144 Having identical trash/recycling bins is beneficial. I hope the city chooses to implement this city wide. 4/17/2016 10:16 AM 31 / 39 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey SurveyMonkey 145 It will be difficult to go back to the bins after using the carts. So hand and if i y my husband thinks of stuff to recycle....it's 7 08 � 4/1712016 10:08 AM a success! 146 ............ ....... _ . . . ........ ....... .. .. 1 love this new program 4/17/2016 9:29 AM 147 Should have varying size containers so household could select based on their size. 4/17/2016 8:03 AM 148 We were recycling before by taking our things to the recycling center. We did not mind doing that if it kept the collection 'i 4/17/2016 6:33 AM cleaner. We didn't recycle here before because we did not ever go get the little green bins. They seemed too small for all we recycle. We moved here from Bentonville, so we were familiar with the single stream. I think people should have a choice because some people are really against the single stream because of cross contamination. We are careful what we put in, but I can't promise that others are. It is also difficult to believe the the city can't make money on sorted recycling in when Bella Vista does, but the two cities have different demographics and volunteers to run their recycling center. For us, we will continue recycling no matter what the city decides. _ 149 Love this. 4/16/2016 10:46 PM 150 It is amazing how much our general trash has been reduced. We have the largest bin. We used to almost always fill it. 4/16/2016 8:35 PM Now it is a little as a third. We also recycled before but this is so much better and easier. 151 ! hope that Fayetteville moves to this program. It is easier to use, and provides effective recycling of plastics 3 7. thank 4/16/2016 8:34 PM you for this trial. 152 1 am curious to know if the sorting of the materials is time consuming for the employees once the trucks deliver the 4/16/2016 7:37 PM recycled items.. 153 How can paper and rinsed containers be in same bin with this program when we had to have two separate bins 4/16/2016 3:21 PM before? 154 Love the fact that my regular trash has diminished by about 2/3! 4/16/2016 2:41 PM 155 1 loved this! Please keep doing it. So much easier to roll the cart rather than carry the bins. Felt like I could fit much 4/16/2016 1:04 PM more in the cart than previously with the bins. Bin lids over time would break and crack. The carts are so stable and make it easy to recycle. 156 We love single stream recycling! Its going to be weird going back to the old way of recycling. I don't see how single 4/16/2016 12:39 PM stream recycling could be a bad thing. It's easier for the community as a whole because the collectors don't have sort through it and you don't have to put much thought into what you're recycling! I know before I lived in this house, they didn't recycle because they said it seemed like "too much work." We haven't had to put our trash can out as often because a majority of the "trash" was able to be recycled through the single stream recycling program. Please bring it back for good to Fayetteville!!! 157 1 loved the new recycle bin. It makes it more encouraging to recycle and more can be put in their. Now I recycle all my 4/16/2016 12:19 PM water bottles as before with the green bins I had to choose what I recycled because not everything wouldft, Plus the neighborhood benefits because cardboard can be put in the bins and not blown everywhere. Also I know many peoples lids that got ran over and wouldn't fit anymore with the green bins. The blue lid is the way to go I believe! If we use the big green trash cans why not do the same with the blue lid instead of bins? Recycling is so important to our world and it encourages me to put more 1 their and fill it up not like before because of the limited space with the green bins. 158 It's a great service to the community! Please keep it going. 4/16/2016 12:13 PM 159 The idea of roadside sorting in harsh conditions is absurd. 4/16/2016 12:02 PM 160 Yes. I come from a city that used same system and I'm glad you decided to try it. I hope it becomes permanent. 4/16/2016 11:40 AM 161 1 really like being able to throw all of my recyclables into one bin and not worry about sorting. Makes recycling much 4/16/2016 11:30 AM easier and also my family has started helping more. 162 1 would like to see the numbers on this program and how they may impact my future billing. 4/16/2016 11:13 AM 163 LOVE IT! Please keep it. Saves me time with putting all in one container and not having to look for the number on the 4/16/2016 9:42 AM plastics. 164 1 hope the City makes the decision to provide citizens with single stream recycling. More people will recycle more 4/16/2016 9:40 AM trash because it is acceptable and easy. 165 Program should be permanent and offered city-wide 4/16/2016 8:48 AM 166 really enjoy the fact that we aren't listening to the recyclables being sorted curbside at 5 am. allows the carts to be set 4/16/2016 7:46 AM out the morning of pickup in lieu of the night before so that the overnight weather doesn't blow the bins around and get all the paper wet. so much more convenient. only one question: will it cost us more than the old bin system? thanks. 32 / 39 S City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey SurveyMonkey 167 Please don't take it away. This is a really nice way and I cannot stand those little bins. 4/16/2016 7:41 AM 168 One of the best things about Fayetteville is the commitment to recycling. Making it as easy as possible ensures all 4/16/2016 7:38 AM citizens will participate. I think this works toward that goal both by increasing the number of recyclables included and making the delivery to curbside easier (especially for the elderly). 169 We love it & are recycling more items than before. Keep it going! 4/16/2016 7:27 AM 170 1 love it! I really like not having to separate everything. 4/15/2016 8:34 PM 171 Outstanding program would love to keep it. 4/15/2016 7:45 PM 172 We are familiar with the program from previous participation in a larger metro area (Minneapolis - St. Paul). Keep it 4/15/2016 7:44 PM rolling. 173 Please continue! I love to recycle all of the plastics. My garbage is much smaller now. It is so easy. If we can no 4/15/2016 7:39 PM longer recycle all plastics in our trash, could we at least have somewhere to take them? 174 1 found that the larger bin is easier and more convenient to recycle. The smaller tubs are very limited to how much you 4/15/2016 7:28 PM can put in there. It is also more convenient that it rolls to the curb instead of carrying it. I hope that this program gets adopted and stays. 175 We want to recycle as much as possible. I think the carts will encourage people to recycle more. 4/15/2016 6:46 PM 176 1 have less trash now, and more recyclables now 4/15/2016 6:38 PM 177 My coworker said he'd like to see it in his neighborhood in Fayetteville, and my neighbor actually put it out more often 4/15/2016 6:26 PM than he put the usual recycle containers out. 178 This single stream program actually got my household to work at recycling, where before it was more miss than hit. 4/15/2016 6:17 PM 179 This has been so great! So much easier, especially for the elderly. I really hope we can continue to use the carts. ' 4/15/2016 5:40 PM 180 We were very excited to be a part of this program! We moved up here from the DFW Texas area last year, where we 4/15/2016 5:26 PM ` had been doing the single stream recycling for many years. I feel like it really encourages folks to recycle even more - so than with the green bins, as everything can be placed in one container. 181 This is an incredible program and should be adapted throughout our city. It has increased our consciousness about 4/15/2016 4:25 PM recycling and reduced our trash. 182 Please keep this program 4/15/2016 4:24 PM 183 1 am pleased that the city of Fayetteville is forward thinking and taking the necessary steps to reduce the amount of 4/15/2016 3:56 PM garbage in the landfill. I hope this program is going to expand. 184 This program is easy to follow. It makes me feel good that I am doing something for my city. 4/15/2016 3:51 PM 185 Great program... I like it, and I have heard other positive comments from neighbors. I hope they all take the time to 4/15/2016 3:08 PM respond to this survey. 186 The cart I received lid does not fit properly and wind will blow it open. I have to keep paper ans cardboard inside till it's ` 4/15/2016 2:49 PM time for pick up, 187 Wind still blows the cart over. Trash goes all over street when this happens. We need a tighter lid and weight on 4/15/2016 2:48 PM bottom. 188 1 just think it's a great idea 4/15/2016 2:44 PM 189 Love it .... please continue! 4/15/2016 2:33 PM 190 Single stream is pretty easy 4/15/2016 2:17 PM 191 Fayetteville is the first city I've lived in that didn't already offer this service. I found the bin system absurd. 4/15/2016 1:49 PM 192 Free hat 4/15/2016 1:39 PM 193 1 really like it. l don't want to go back to the green tub! Thanks! 4/15/2016 1:38 PM 194 Awesome program!! 4/15/2016 12:55 PM 195 1 loved the single stream recycling. & so did my wife. We thought it was awesome 4/15/2016 12:36 PM 196 1 like it a lot. I really don't want to give it up. How can I help? 4/15/2016 12:15 PM 197 We hope you continue this program, I think it will encourage more people in the city to participate in recycling. 4/15/2016 12:08 PM 33/39 f City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey SurveyMonkey 198 Please keep this service. My regular trash can volume has decreased considerably and my recycling has increased 4/12/2016 10:51 PM enormously. I love this program!! ......, 199 We have loved the single stream recycling program! We are looking forward to this becoming standard for all of 3H 2/2016 11:02 PM Fayetteville. 200 201 Please keep this service going for our household. I can see the larger size saving labor on the collection process. 3/12/2016 4:02 PM Additionally, the larger bins allow for consumers to recycle more, rather than throw overflow into trash. 1 believe single stream eliminates barriers to not recycling and will result in less being thrown in the landfill. I LOVE this program and am willing pay additional costs (within reason) to keep this project going. Fayetteville stands out as a leader of recycling policies and programs for the state. I appreciate our local leaders pushing for recycling goals and will do my support them in this effort... When does this project end? Thanks again! Please don't end the program. Love it. 2/14/2016 2:06 PM THE REMAINING PAGES OF THE SURVEY HAVE BEEN REDACTED TO ENSURE THE PRIVACY OF THE 163 PARTICIPANTS THAT PROVIDED EMAIL ADDRESSES TO THE CITY FOR FUTURE RECYCLING PROGRAM UPDATES. 34 / 39 Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program 1 7/29/2016 I Attachment E ATTACHMENT E— MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PILOT DATA FOR MANUAL FLOOR SORT 12- 19- 26- 3- 10- 17- 24- 31- ' 14- 21- Material 5-Apr Apr Apr Apr May May May May May 7-Jun Jun Jun Total Percent' Cardboard 488 392 251 346 . 523 313 898 399 468 329 478. 251 5,136 29.5% Newspaper 178 118 0 235 0 0 249 281 0 0 0 0 1,061 6.1% Mixed Paper 319 194 156 221 269 244 776 258 282 283 691 180 3,873 22.2% #1 PET Bottles 46 52 38 47 64 44 88 51 59 25 79 60 653 3.8% #2 HDPE Bottles 36 24 34 17 38 21 42 25 48 27 41 40 393 2.3% Plastics#3-#7 0 6 9 18 63 13 86 30 41 13 43 0 322 1.8% Aluminum Cans 23 12 0 27 17 12 38 16 23 7 28 13 216 1.2% Steel Cans 25 18 10 12 31 6 33 22 13 10 20 15 215 1.2% Scrap Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Mixed Glass 132 150 138 143 242 99 408 188 139 91 369 147 2,246 12.9% Total Recovered 1,247 966 636 1,066 1,247 752 , 2,618 1,270 1,073 785 11749 706 14,115 81.1%,' Residue 133 244 64 54 596 12.8 862 210 247 115 511 134 3,298 18.9% Total Processed 1,380 1,210 700 1,120 1,843 880 3,480 1,480 1,320 900 21260 ' 840 171413 100.0%' Note: Column may not appear to calculate correctly due to rounding. 14620 N. Nebraska Ave., Bldg. D, Tampa, FL 33613 I Tel: 813.971,8333 ( Fax: 813.971.8582 1 www.kesconsult.com 1 M6 Single Stream Pilot. Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program 1 7/29/2016 1 Attachment F ATTACHMENT F - MULTI -FAMILY SURVEY RESULTS 14620 N. Nebraska Ave., Bldg. D, Tampa, FL 33613 1 Tel: 813.971.8333 1 Fax: 813.971,8582 1 www.kesconsult.com TR46 Single Stream Pilot City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey I Apartment SurveyMonkey Complexes Q1 In which complex do you currently live? Ans,.R err d U 1, Skmned0 The Academy at Frisco The Cliffs II 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1/15 LI City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey I Apartment Complexes Prior to the pilot program, how often did you actively recycle? 10 or more iy times per month 5 - 9 times per month 2 - 4 times =y per month �y About once per month I'M MA i Ara:savored: 'I3 Skipped: 0 SurveyMonkey Answer Choices Responses 10 or more times per month 22.22% 4 5 - 9 times per month 16.67 % 3 2 - 4 times per month 33.33% 6 About once per month 16,67% 3 Rarely 0.00 Never 11.11 % 2 Total 18 2/15 i City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey I Apartment SurveyMonkey Complexes Q 3 If you previously recycled, where did you take your recyclables? Ansster<t#: U Skipped: 0 Large roll -off container in... Answer Choices Responses Large roll -off container in the parking lot (Cliffs 11 parking lot) 55.56 % 10 Recycling chute (Frisco) 5.56% 1 City's Marion Orton Recycling Center (735 W. North Street) 0.00% 0 City's Happy Hollow Recycling Center (1420 S. Happy Hollow Road) 16.67% 3 I did not actively recycle 11.11 % 2 Other (please specify) 11.11 % 2 Total 18 # Other (please specify) Date 1 Before this pilot program I recycled in both Fayetteville Recycling Centers depending on where I was in Fayetteville at 6/24/2016 7:10 PM the time. I loved having the the large container in the parking lot though. 2 Grocery store 2/19/2016 10:52 AM 3/15 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey I Apartment SurveyMonkey Complexes 4 Prior to the pilot program, did you know what single stream recycling was? 7 Yes r ; No Somewhat y� 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Yes 33.33% 6 No 33.33% 6 Somewhat ...................... 33.33% 6 Total 18 4/15 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey I Apartment SurveyMonkey Complexes How did you learn that you would be part of the pilot program? (select all that apply) Ansrvot,ed.16 Skipped:0 Apartment Manager Poster in building Newspaper Neighbors New recycling containers i... New signage on recycling ch... City website Internet Social media 0 % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Apartment Manager 44.44% 8 Poster in building 61.11 % 11 Newspaper 5.56 % 1 Neighbors 0.00% 0 New recycling containers in parking -lot (Cliffs Il) 77.78% 14 New signage on recycling chute (Academy at Frisco) 0.00% 0 City website _ 0.00% 0 Internet 0.00% 0 Social media 5.56% 1 Total Respondents: 18 5/15 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey I Apartment SurveyMonkey Complexes What was your first impression of single stream recycling when you heard that your complex was selected for participation in the pilot study? Answered: IS Skipped:0 Excited Interested Confused 1 Indifferent Annoyed 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Excited ! . 72.22 % 13 Interested - 22.22% 4 Confused 5.56% Indifferent 0.00 % ., Annoyed 0.00% 0 Total 18 # Optional comments Date 1 Why not sooner and standard practice. 6/26/2016 10:57 AM 2 1 loved the program! I really hope the program stays. I think it is great for the environment and for Fayetteville. I hope 6/24/2016 7:10 PM that the program expands to include all apartments in Fayetteville. 3 1 actually live at Cliffs 1, the adjacent complex, but I have been taking my recycling to the large roll -off container in 5/18/2016 10:53 AM Cliffs 2. The new, smaller recycling containers are much more convenient for me, as well. I can recycle more often, and also recycle things I was previously unable to recycle. 4 was wondering about why single container, if city had the ability to recycle 1-7 on plastics 5/14/2016 3:32 PM 5 It makes it much easier! It really encouraged me to really think about what I could recycle. 5/9/2016 3:54 PM 6/15 I City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey I Apartment Complexes During the pilot program, how often did you actively recycle? Answered 18 Skipped: 0 4 2 - 4 times per month About once per month Rarely Never 0% 10% 20% SurveyMonkey 30% 40% 50 % 60% 70 % 80 % 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses 10 or more times per month 38.89 38.89 5 - 9 times per month 16.67% 2 - 4 times per month 5.56 % About once per month 0.00 Rarely _. 0.00 Never Total 7/15 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey I Apartment Complexes Regarding the quantity of materials you recycled during the pilot, did your recycling habits change? An ,vered:1$ Skipped:II 1 recycled more than... 80% 90% 100% SurveyMonkey Answer Choices Responses I recycled more than previously 88.89% 16 I recycled the same 11.11% 2 I recycled less 0.00% 0 Total 18 # Optional comments Date 1 With the new recycling containers now taking more plastics and glass, we were able to recycle more than previously, 6/23/2016 7:11 PM out of convenience. 2 The single stream bins allow me to recycle glass, and many types of plastics 5/22/2016 11:54 AM 3 now I can recycle all my plastics & my glass here 5/14/2016 3:32 PM 8/15 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey I Apartment Complexes During the pilot program, what types of materials did you recycle? (select all that apply) Answcred:18 Skipped:0 Aluminum cans Glass bottles and jars Tin/steel cans Newspaper Cardboard Mixed paper such as... Paperboard such as care... #1 Plastic bottles such... SurveyMonkey Answer Choices Responses - Aluminum cans 88.89 / ;6 Glass bottles and jars 88.89% 16 Tin/steel cans 72.22% 13 Newspaper 61,11% 11 Cardboard 100.00% 18 Mixed paper such as magazines, junk mail, printer paper, and phone books 94.44% 17 Paperboard such as cereal boxes and shoe boxes 94.44% 17 #1 Plastic bottles such as water bottles and 2-liter soda bottles 94.44% 17 i #2 Plastic bottles such as 1-gallon milk/water jugs and detergent bottles 83.33% 1,5 #3 - #7 Plastics such as pill bottles, yogurt/plastic cups, and tubs/lids 77.78% 14 9/15 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey ( Apartment SurveyMonkey Complexes Total Respondents: 18 10/15 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey I Apartment SurveyMonkey Complexes After participating in the pilot program, do you see any benefits of the program? (select all that apply) Answered: IS Skipper: 6 More convenient t... Location of recycling... More recyclables,... found no benefit to... 0 % 10% 20 % 30 % 40% 50% 60% 70 % 80% 90 % 100% Answer Choices Responses More convenient to commingle recyclables instead of sorting them by type 100.00 % 18 Location of recycling containers/recycling chute more convenient 88.89% 1.6 More recyclables, I like recycling the additional plastics 88.89 / 6 1 found no benefit to single stream 0.00 % 0 Total Respondents: 18 # Optional comments Date 1 The other plastics are SO important! 6/24/2016 8:03 PM 2 1 really liked the ability to recycle so many more things from my home! The convenience of having the recycling right 6/23/2016 7:11 PM next to our dumpster was great! We used to have to walk to the other side of the apartment complex to recycle. 3 1 really like that I don't have to sort it and I don't have to drive out of the way to recycle. I can take it down when I take 5/17/2016 9:25 AM the trash down. It's so much more conveniant! 11 / 15 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey I Apartment SurveyMonkey Complexes I Do you think that single stream recycling should be available to apartment complexes citywide? 'answered: i8 Skipped: 0 Yes No Don't know/care 90% 100% Answer Choices Responses Yes - 100.00% 18 No 0.00% 0 Don't know/care 0.00% 0 Total 18 12 / 15 City of Fayetteville's Single Stream Recycling Pilot Program Survey I Apartment SurveyMonkey Complexes 2 If you have any additional comments, please use the space below. Aw; vered: 10 Skip„ e d, 8 # Responses Date 1 We loved the single stream recycling and would like to see it become a permanent fixture at the Cliffs II! 7/1/2016 5:14 PM 2 Recycling should be a part of everyday life and Fayetteville should make a larger effort to reduce landfill contributions 6/26/2016 10:57 AM from the city. 3 1 really liked these!!! It was nice to be able to recycle at the same time I was taking out the normal trash and to not 6/26/2016 8:49 AM have to drive to the city facility like I did before. I definitely did more recycling with -this 4 1 am glad this was done. Many containers are of #3-7 plastic and there is no where to take them. Single stream also 6/24/2016 8:03 PM makes recycling easier and therefore more are likely to recycle. 5 All I can say is that the program is great and should continue as well as expand. The program made recycling 6/24/2016 7:10 PM convenient for everyone in the apartment much like how the green recycling containers provided by the city makes it convenient for homeowners. When it comes to recycling, I feel that the best way to get people to start recycling is to make it convenient. 6 This is a GREAT program and I hope it continues! 6/23/2016 8:02 PM 7 1 really like the single stream bins, they are very convenient and being able to recycle more items than the sorted bins '+ 5/22/2016 11:54 AM is great! 8 Please keep the single stream bin at cliffs 2!!! 5/22/2016 11:47 AM 9 Thank you for implementing this program. Cliffs 1 residents hope to see single stream recycling at our apartment 5/18/2016"10:53 AM complex soon! 10 1 really hope you keep this program at the cliffs! I.can tell that it really increased the amount I recycled 5/9/2016 3:54 PM THE REMAINING PAGES OF THE SURVEY HAVE BEEN REDACTED TO ENSURE THE PRIVACY OF THOSE PARTICIPANTS THAT PROVIDED EMAIL ADDRESSES TO THE CITY FOR FUTURE RECYCLING PROGRAM UPDATES. 13 / 15 RESOLUTION NO.260-13 A RESOLUTION TO DEVELOP A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS OR PROPOSALS FOR THE PLANNING OF A 10-YEAR EXPANSION OF SOLID WASTE SERVICES TO ATTAIN A DIVERSION RATE OF 80% AND TO DELAY THE SCHEDULED RATE STUDY OF SOLID WASTE SERVICES UNTIL ITS COMPLETION AND ADOPTION OR REJECTION WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville has adequate reserves in the Solid Waste Fund to plan for an expansion of Solid Waste services and to fund a substantial portion of any expansion without negatively impacting current service levels; and WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville residents have shown support for an expansion of recycling services to multifamily and commercial properties; and WHEREAS, other cities have shown that a compostables program can be operated so that it is at least revenue -neutral, if not revenue -positive; and WHEREAS, an internal report concluded that an increase in recyclables volume would result in an increase in revenue for the city and a reduction in hauling fees; and WHEREAS, the purity of recyclable commodity products is paramount to ensure high value on commodity markets; and WHEREAS, any significant expansion of services. taking. place after the currently scheduled rate study will necessitate a second rate study. NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby sets a goal to achieve an 80% diversion rate of solid waste generated by residents and businesses within the City to be attained by January 1, 2025; and Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby delays the scheduled solid waste rate study until the conclusion of the above plan and its adoption or rejection by the Council and furthermore encumbers the associated funds in order to maintain their availability for a rate study at that time; and Section 3: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby asks the administration to advertise a Request for Qualifications or Proposals to develop a 10-year, phased expansion of solid waste services to meet said goal, to be funded from the Solid Waste Fund reserves and to include, but not be limited to, modifications to the existing solid waste ordinance and with feasibility and cost benefit analyses of: l . a comprehensive waste reduction education program; and Page 2 Resolution No. 260-13 2. a dual -stream, curb -sort model for single-family and multi -family residential recycling; and 3. a container deposit program for glass containers; and 4. a compostables pick up program with emphasis on commercial customers; and 5. the resale and/or donation of reusable items collected through bulky waste dropoffs; and 6. a city- or sole -source -operated facility for construction and demolition waste recycling. PASSED and APPROVED this 17" day of December, 2013. APPROVED: Lo ATTEST: By: SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer R KFA yE v Go � •• G G fON s -14--1 ' --fe - 0 ..) I (- AGENDA REQUEST FOR: COUNCIL MEETING OF December 17, 2013 FROM: ALDERMAN MATTHEW PETTY ALDERMAN MARK KINION ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION TITLE AND SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION TO DEVELOP A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS OR PROPOSALS FOR THE PLANNING OF A 10-YEAR EXPANSION OF SOLID WASTE SERVICES TO ATTAIN A DIVERSION RATE OF 80% AND TO DELAY THE SCHEDULED RATE STUDY OF SOLID WASTE SERVICES UNTIL ITS COMPLETION AND ADOPTION OR REJECTION APPR ED FORA ENDA: 0 Alde man Matte Pe Date derman Mar inion City Attorney Kit Williams (as to form) Date Date RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION TO DEVELOP A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS OR PROPOSALS FOR THE PLANNING OF A 10-YEAR EXPANSION OF SOLID WASTE SERVICES TO ATTAIN A DIVERSION RATE OF 80% AND TO DELAY THE SCHEDULED RATE STUDY OF SOLID WASTE SERVICES UNTIL ITS COMPLETION AND ADOPTION OR REJECTION WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville has adequate reserves in the Solid Waste Fund to plan for an expansion of Solid Waste services and to fund a substantial portion of any expansion without negatively impacting current service levels; and WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville residents have shown support for an expansion of recycling services to multifamily and commercial properties; and WHEREAS, other cities have shown that a compostables program can be operated so that it is at least revenue -neutral, if not revenue -positive; and . WHEREAS, an internal report concluded that an increase in recyclables volume would result in an increase in revenue for the city and a reduction in hauling fees; and WHEREAS, the purity of recyclable commodity products is paramount to ensure high value on commodity markets; and WHEREAS, any. significant expansion of services taking place after the currently scheduled rate study will necessitate a second rate study. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby sets a goal to achieve an 80% diversion rate of solid waste generated by residents and businesses within the City to be attained by January 1, 2025; and Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby delays the scheduled solid waste rate study until the conclusion of the above plan and its adoption or rejection by the Council and furthermore encumbers the associated funds in order to maintain their availability for a rate study at that time; and Section 3: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby asks the administration to advertise a Request for Qualifications or Proposals to develop a 10-year, phased expansion of solid waste services to meet said goal, to be funded from the Solid Waste Fund reserves and to include, but not be limited to, modifications to the existing solid waste ordinance and. feasibility analyses of 1. a comprehensive waste reduction education program; and 2. a dual -stream, curb -sort model for single-family and multi -family residential recycling; and 3. a container deposit program for glass containers; and 4. a compostables pick up program with emphasis on commercial customers; and 5. the resale and/or donation of reusable items collected through bulky waste dropoffs; and 6. a city- or sole -source -operated facility for construction and demolition waste recycling. PASSED and APPROVED this 17" day of December, 2013, APPROVED: ATTEST: By: By: LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer Smith, Sondra From: matt@matthewpetty.org on behalf of Matthew Petty - Fayetteville Ward 2 <citycouncil@matthewpetty.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 2:33 PM To: Smith, Sondra Cc: Mark Kinion; Marr, Don Subject: Solid Waste resolution for next agenda Attachments: Sol idWasteExpansion.docx Hi Sondra, Would you please include this in the next agenda? Would you also leave an extra space on the agenda request form? Alderman Kinion is just seeing this, but he's considering cosponsoring it so I want to make sure he has the opportunity to sign it after he's seen it. Thanks, M A RESOLUTION TO DEVELOP A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS OR PROPOSALS FOR THE PLANNING OF A 10-YEAR EXPANSION OF SOLID WASTE SERVICES TO ATTAIN A DIVERSION RATE OF 80% AND TO DELAY THE SCHEDULED RATE STUDY OF SOLID WASTE SERVICES UNTIL ITS COMPLETION AND ADOPTION OR REJECTION WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville has adequate reserves in the Solid Waste Fund to plan for an expansion of Solid Waste services and to fund a substantial portion of any expansion without negatively impacting current service levels; and WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville residents have shown support for an expansion of recycling services to multifamily and commercial properties; and WHEREAS, other cities have shown that a compostables program can be operated so that it is at least revenue -neutral, if not revenue -positive; and WHEREAS, an internal report concluded that an increase in recyclables volume would result in an increase in revenue for the city and a reduction in hauling fees; and WHEREAS, the purity of recyclable commodity products is paramount to ensure high value on commodity markets; and WHEREAS, any significant expansion of services taking place after the currently scheduled rate study will necessitate a second rate rate study; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS, THAT Section 1: the City Council of the City of Fayetteville hereby sets a goal to achieve an 80% diversion rate of solid waste generated by residents and businesses within the City to be attained by January 1, 2025; and Section 2: the City Council of the City of Fayetteville hereby delays the scheduled solid waste rate study until the conclusion of the above plan and its adoption or rejection by the Council and furthermore encumbers the associated funds in order to maintain their availability for a rate study at that time; and Section 3: the City Council of the City of Fayetteville hereby asks the administration to advertise a Request for Qualifications or Proposals to develop a 10-year, phased expansion of solid waste services to meet said goal, to be funded from the Solid Waste Fund reserves and to include, but not be limited to, modifications to the existing solid waste ordinance and feasibility analyses of 1. a comprehensive waste reduction education program; and 2. a dual -stream, curb -sort model for single-family and multi -family residential recycling; and 3. a container deposit program for glass containers; and 4. a compostables pick up program with emphasis on commercial customers; and 5. the resale and/or donation of reusable items collected through bulky waste dropoffs; and 6. a city- or sole -source -operated facility for construction and demolition waste recycling. RESOLUTION NO. 171-14 A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT WITH KESSLER CONSULTING, INC. OF TAMPA, FLORIDA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TEN YEAR SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAN IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $264,890.00, AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby authorizes Mayor Jordan to sign a contract with Kessler Consulting, Inc. of Tampa, Florida for the development of a ten year solid waste master plan in an amount not to -exceed $264,890.00. Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves a budget adjustment, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A". PASSED and APPROVED this 16`" day of September, 2014. A DDD lI- Mn- . ATTEST: By: &.�i+ � "C , SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer ITRii���� •��G��Y OF sG'� FAYMEVILLE •� _ Q TON •��� o\• S City of Fayetteville, Arkansas - Budget Adjustment Form (Legistar) Budget Year Division: Sustainability & Resilience Adjustment Number 2014 Dept.: Chief of Staff Requestor: Serina Tustin BUDGET ADJUSTMENT DESCRIPTION / JUSTIFICATION: $264,890 for Solid Waste Reduction, diversion and Recycling Master Plan. Funds are adequate in Solid Waste fund balance for this adjustment. COUNCIL DATE: 8/29/2014 LEGISTAR FILE ID#: 2014-0396 Keve w SpV'6nq,ew 9/2/2014 2:3 7 PM Budget Director TYPE: DESCRIPTION: Date RESOLUTION/ORDINANCE GLDATE:. POSTED: / TOTAL Account Number 264,890 264,890 Increase / (Decrease) Expense Revenue Project.Sub# Project Sub AT v.20140716 Account Name 5500.5080.5314.00 264,890 14019 1 EX Professional Services 5500.0950.4999.99 264,890 RE Use of Fund Balance _ C:\Users\pnierengarten\AppData\Roaming\L5\Temp\e7d65663-fcc8-4541-9664-34fbda1837a2 1 of 1 I 1 Leif Olson Submitted By City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2014-0396 Legistar File ID 9/16/2014 City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item 8/29/2014 Submitted Date Action Recommendation: Sustainability & Resilience / Chief of Staff Division / Department Staff recommends approval of a Resolution to contract with Kessler Consulting in the amount of $264,890 to complete a Master Plan to achieve an efficient and cost effective solid waste system that maximizes solid waste reduction, diversion and recycling and puts the City on the path to achieve our goal of 80% waste diversion. Approval of a Budget Adjustment. Budget Impact: 5500.5080.5314.00 5500 - Solid Waste Account Number 14019.1 Project Number Budgeted Item? No Does item have a cost? Yes Budget Adjustment Attached? Yes Previous Ordinance or Resolution # Original Contract Number: Com s: -q/3/Jq Fund Solid Waste Reduction/Recycling Master Plan Current Budget Funds Obligated Current Balance Item Cost Budget Adjustment Remaining Budget 260-13 � ' L('I' u toy ENTfREn Project Title $ 264,890.00 $ 264,890.00 $ Approval Date: CITY OF 17ayV g CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ARKANSAS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 TO: Mayor Jordan and City Council THRU: Peter Nierengarten, Sustainability and Resilience Director /-J CC: Jeff Coles, Recycling and Trash Collection Director FROM: Leif Olson, Associate Planner DATE: August 28, 2014 SUBJECT: Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion and Recycling Master Plan RECOMMENDATION: Approval of a Resolution to contract with Kessler Consulting in the amount of $264,890 to complete a Master Plan to achieve an efficient and cost effective solid waste system that maximizes solid waste reduction, diversion and recycling and puts the City on the path to achieve our goal of 80% waste diversion. BACKGROUND: The City Council passed Resolution Number 260-13 in December 17, 2013 to develop a Request for Qualifications to hire a consultant to develop a 10 year solid waste master plan in order to attain a waste diversion rate of 80%. Staff developed a detailed project scope and received a total of five project proposals from qualified consulting firms. A selection committee made up of City Staff reviewed the proposals and interviewed the top three firms. Kessler Consulting Inc. was selected by the committee to be the most qualified to develop the master plan. Staff worked extensively with Kessler to develop a final scope of work that includes: • A baseline operational assessment of the current system, • A waste audit and litter composition study with an option to partner with the University to assess their solid waste generation and composition, • An analysis of waste reduction and diversion options, • Recovery scenarios modeling and financial evaluation, • Policy recommendations, • Development of the final solid waste master plan, and • Master plan project coordination, community input process and final presentation. The consultant will present the final master plan and recommendations to the City Council at the conclusion of the planning process. Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: Kessler Consulting is proposing completing the master plan within a 12 month timeline at a total cost of $249,930 to the City of Fayetteville. Inclusion of the University of Arkansas' waste composition study raises the total cost of the project to $264,890. The University will reimburse the City $14,960 for the cost of their waste composition study. This project will be paid for with Recycling and Trash Division Enterprise Funds. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT WITH KESSLER CONSULTING, INC. OF TAMPA, FLORIDA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TEN YEAR SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAN IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $264,890.00, AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby authorizes Mayor Jordan to sign a contract with Kessler Consulting, Inc. of Tampa, Florida for the development of a ten year solid waste master plan in an amount not to exceed $264,890.00. Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves a budget adjustment, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A". PASSED and APPROVED this 16th day of September, 2014. APPROVED: By: LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor ATTEST: By: - SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer & ) ) o (00 w = a ƒ \ o CD _ } R to #E {cr 77y § & # ) § /Er 2 0 \ 2 §« £®� ° z E2 \ -� \ }g ■ m oa c n e _ _ 0 2 | u � CD¥ i R E Cp ƒ 7 -n Q DCT 2 k I CD S ° zCD KG CL CL \a ) ƒID CL - _ 0 }\� . ^ ..2ƒ\§ . c coo ID# m $ : m © / 5 O \ ƒ 0 �% ■ °�CD r gR _ 412 _ - \ \ 0 �\ 4 -Q) P 7 CD 0} =.Pq - . 0 0 0 0 0 o s 00 0 o % a \ f O J . \a3� . o°co ca . \ < .§ > �.{ _ . § (co .. w \ Z / b \ . - j 2 S \ » ( .. o g ®/ a 2 c f o= CD [ 7 k' n/ 2 B: \ . _ CD co % } / rr - °� CD ' \ , /» �C i \ Q 3 i 0 . # / x \ \ 0 \ ~ o_ r OD 0 0 ) ! \ ' . A , * ) 2 } � + } CONTRACT FOR SOLID WASTE CONSULTING SERVICES THIS CONTRACT, made this 1 ty day of 914 2014, is by and between the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas ("City"), whose address is 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701, and Kessler Consulting, Inc. ("KCI"), a Florida corporation whose address is 14620 N. Nebraska Avenue, Building D, Tampa, FL 33613. I. SCOPE For and in consideration of timely payment by the City of the compensation set forth below, KCI shall provide the Scope of Services ("Services") specified in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, subject to the other terms and conditions set forth in this contract. The Services to be provided may be changed by the mutual agreement of the parties hereto. The City shall promptly provide KCI with any and all documents and information needed by KCI to provide the Services. It is expressly agreed that KCI is an independent contractor of the City. The City reserves the right to request additional services from KCI. When approved by the .City as an amendment of the contract and authorized in writing prior to work, KCI shall provide such additional requirements as may become necessary. Changes, modifications, or amendments in scope, price, or fees to the contract shall not be allowed without a prior formal contract amendment approved by the Mayor and the City Council in advance of the change in scope, cost, or fees. IL TERM OF AGREEMENT The initial contract period shall- commence on the date this contract is executed by the City and KCI, whichever date is later, and shall terminate two (2) years after the commencement date, unless extended by mutual agreement of the parties hereto. III. COMPENSATION The compensation to be paid by the City to KCI for providing the Services shall be as stated in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City shall pay KCI for completion of Services on a time -and -materials basis for an amount not to exceed that specified in Exhibit B without prior approval by the Mayor and City Council. Labor shall be invoiced based on the hourly rates specified in Exhibit B and expenses shall be invoiced at cost, without mark-up. Labor rates may be adjusted if the contract is extended beyond the initial two (2) years upon approval of a formal contract amendment by the Mayor and the City Council. If requested to provide additional services pursuant to Section I, compensation for these additional services shall be as negotiated between the City and KCI, as approved by the Mayor and City Council. IV. METHOD OF BILLING AND PAYMENT KCI may submit monthly invoices to the City requesting payment for services accomplished during each calendar month. Monthly invoices will include breakdown of employees and hours worked, description of activities performed, and reimbursable costs and expenses incurred. All invoices shall be due and payable by the City to KCI within thirty (30) days of invoice receipt. Failure to pay compensation to KCI, as and when required, shall entitle KCI to immediately cease all services, and to terminate this Page 1 of 5 KCI 'F'avetrrilleCor",riet Final contract as set forth below. Any failure by the City to pay any sums due and owing KCI shall be a material breach of this contract. V. RIGHT TO AUDIT The City reserves the privilege of auditing KCI's records as such records relate to purchases between the City and KCI. VI. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT City contracts and documents prepared while performing city contractual work are subject to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). If a FOIA request is presented to the City, KCI will do everything possible to provide the documents in a prompt and timely manner as prescribed in the Arkansas FOIA (A.C.A §25-19-101 et. seq.). Only legally authorized photocopying costs pursuant to FOIA may be assessed for this compliance. VII. JURISDICTION AND VENUE Legal jurisdiction to resolve any disputes shall be Arkansas with Arkansas law applying to the case. Venue for any legal dispute shall be Washington County, Arkansas. VIII. TERMINATION A. The City reserves the right to cancel this contract without cause by giving sixty (60) days prior notice to KCI in writing of the intention to cancel or with cause if at any time KCI fails to fulfill or aide by any of the terms or conditions specified. B. Failure of KCI to comply with any of the provisions of this contract shall be considered a material breach of contract and shall be cause for immediate termination of the contract at the discretion of the City. C. In addition to all other legal remedies available to the City, the City reserves the right to cancel and obtain from another source, any items and/or services which have not been delivered within the period of time from the date of order as determined by the City. D. In the event sufficient budgeted funds are not available for a new fiscal period, the City shall notify KCI of such occurrence and the contract shall terminate of the last day of the current fiscal period without penalty or expense to the City. E. If this contract is terminated for any reason, the City shall compensate KCI for all services completed through the date of termination, together with all reimbursable costs and expenses. Such payment to KCI shall be considered a payment on account, and shall not constitute payment in full of all sums owed to KCI pursuant to this contract or otherwise. . IX. INSURANCE KCI shall procure and maintain throughout the term of this contract the following insurance limits and coverage and shall, upon executing this contract, provide the City with certificates of insurance evidencing same, showing other party as Additional Insured on all coverage except workers' compensation and professional liability. Such insurance shall include appropriate clauses and/or endorsements pursuant to which the insurance companies shall waive its right of subrogation against the City. Page 2 of 5 KCI Fa•;e.ttnvilleContract Final A. Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance, in accordance with Chapter 440, Florida statutes, and/or any other applicable law requiring workers' compensation, of not less than the following: Workers' Compensation $1,000,000.00 limit each accident Employer's Liability $1,000,000.00 limit disease aggregate $1,000,000.00 limit disease each employee B. Commercial General Liability Insurance, on forms no more restrictive than the latest edition of the Commercial General Liability policy (CG 00 01) of the Insurance Services Office, in the amount of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence to protect against claims for damages for bodily injury, including wrongful death, as well as from claims of property damages, which may arise from any operations under this contract, whether such operation be by KCI or by the City or anyone directly employed by or contracting with KCI or the City. C. Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance in the amount of not less than $100,000.00 combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage liability to protect both parties from claims for damages for bodily injury, including the ownership, use, or maintenance of owned and non -owned automobiles, including rented automobiles whether such operations be by KCI or the City or by anyone directly or indirectly employed by KCI or the City. D. Professional Liability Insurance in the amount of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Any subconsultants shall provide certificates of insurance evidencing coverage and terms in accordance with the insurance requirements outlined above. . X. ASSIGNMENT, SUBCONTRACTING, ACQUISITIONS AND/OR MERGERS A. KCI and any subconsultants identified in KCI's proposal to the City shall perform services pursuant to this contract. No other assignment or subcontracting shall be allowed without prior written consent of the City. B. In the event of a corporate acquisition and/or merger, KCI shall provide written notice to the City within thirty (30) calendar days of KCI's notice of such action or upon the occurrence of said action, whichever occurs first. The right to terminate this contract, which shall not be unreasonably exercised by the City, shall include, but not be limited to, instances in which a corporate acquisition and/or merger represent a conflict of interest or are contrary to any local, state, or federal laws. XI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION If a dispute arises out of or relates to this contract, or the breach thereof, the parties will attempt to settle the matter through amicable discussion. XII. ATTORNEYS FEES In the event of any demand, action or proceeding between the parties arising out of or relating to this contract, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover any and all costs, including attorney's fees and court costs, incurred in any investigations, actions, trials, appeals, mediations, arbitrations, bankruptcy proceedings, collection proceedings, collection efforts, and supplementary proceedings. Page 3 of 5 KC:I 1=aletteriac Ci;rirsbt._F"inat XIII. UNCONTROLLABLE CIRCUMSTANCES KCI will not be liable in any way to the City for any delay or non-performance resulting from or arising out of any act(s) of God, severe weather, strike, civil disorder, earthquake, any law, order, proclamation, regulation, ordinance, demand or requirement of any governmental agency, or any other condition or occurrence whatsoever beyond KCI's sole control. XIV. SEVERENCE In the event a portion of this contract is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the provisions not having been found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable shall continue to be effective. XV. ENTIRETY OF AGREEMENT This contract embodies the entire agreement and understanding between the City and KCI, and there are no other agreements and understandings, oral or written, with reference to the subject matter hereof that are not merged herein and superseded hereby. No alteration, change or modification of the terms of the contract, or any attachments, shall be valid unless made in writing signed by both parties hereto. Page 4 of S I<(�I 1<i:ut��°iileCc„iCra�t Tina€ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the KCI execute this CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE follows: =�=FAYETTEVILLE �pdra E. Smith, City Clerk/Treasurer %�• q ,G .2-014 y�11iiu1jiti�tO �Date KESSLER CONSULTING, INC. ITCH KESSLER, President 0 t Date Page 5 of 5 K0 Faxell viliv("oninnt Final EXHIBIT A City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Scope of Work Outlined herein is Kessler Consulting, Inc.'s (KCI) scope of work to assist the City of Fayetteville (City) in developing a Master Plan aimed at achieving an efficient, cost-effective solid waste system that maximizes waste reduction and recycling and puts the City on a path to attaining its goal of 80 percent waste diversion. Achieving this goal will require new and expanded programs, innovative policies, productive partnerships, and/or implementation of new technologies. It will require a fundamental shift from waste management to resource management. KCI anticipates subcontracting with the University of Arkansas Applied Sustainability Center (ASC) to assist with discreet tasks and activities. In particular, we will seek to engage student participation in the project, primarily in assisting with the waste composition study and stakeholder meeting logistics. In . addition, ASC will provide local knowledge and assist in exploring opportunities for collaboration between the City and the University. Scope of Services Task 1 Baseline and Operational Assessment of Current System Purpose: In this initial task, KCI will examine, inventory, and benchmark for future_comparison the City's existing solid waste programs and operations. We will review studies recently completed for the City to avoid duplication of efforts. KCI will also conduct operational assessments of the City's collection operations and the City -owned and operated transfer station, recycle center, and compost facility. We will review any existing information and performance metrics provided by the City, complemented by field observations as needed. Analyzing existing solid waste and recycling systems will lay the foundation for all future planning activities. Activities: 1. Participate in a kick-off call with City staff to initiate the project and clearly define project objectives. 2. Review and evaluate relevant information and data including, but not limited to, the following: ■ Tonnage of solid waste, recyclables materials, yard waste, construction and demolition debris (CDD), white goods, household hazardous waste, etc. generated by source (i.e., residential, commercial, etc.) and final disposition of these wastes and recycling streams, whether at public or private facilities. ■ Current solid waste contracts. ■ Current facility permits and operating plans. ■ Solid waste system budgets and actual revenues and expenditures. ■ Recordkeeping, data management, revenue assurance systems, and user fee structure. ■ Current bond covenants. ■ Current organizational chart of solid waste department. ■ City Ordinances and other policies pertaining to solid waste and any recent planning documents regarding solid waste. ■ Inter -local agreements with Washington County or other municipalities, if applicable. kessler consulting inc. Scone of Work v2 A-1 (nnova£ti0 iv35ie5duklons Exhibit A City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Scope of Work ■ Existing education and outreach materials. 3. Develop population and waste generation projections for a 10-year period, and identify factors that will affect population growth and waste generation. 4. Conduct an onsite assessment, anticipated to last five days, to observe collection operations and operations at the transfer station, recycle center, and compost facility. The assessment will include the following: • Group meeting with operational employees to gain a clear understanding of operations and engage front-line staff in the evaluation process. ■ Field -level observations, ride-alongs, and route -based data collection in cooperation with front-line staff. ■ Use of proprietary wireless and web -based technology to collect real-time, on -route data and measure route performance and to estimate recycling participation. 5. Analyze labor requirements, production, and current workforce levels in order to develop staffing recommendations. 6. Analyze equipment replacement schedules. 7. Compare findings with industry standards. 8. Identify program components and options that could potentially lower costs, improve efficiency, or otherwise help the City meet its objectives. 9. Identify tools to assist the City in measuring improvement progress over time. 10. Prepare a summary of Task 1 results and findings. Deliverable: Technical memorandum summarizing the current solid waste system, results and findings of the operational assessment, and 10-year population and waste generation projections. Task 2 Waste and Litter'Composition Study Purpose: KCI will conduct a study to determine the composition of waste generated within the City that is delivered to the City's transfer station for disposal. Understanding the types an _quantities of materials contained in the waste stream is critical to developing effective systems to divert these resources for recycling or composting. Waste composition data also serves as a benchmark for comparing future system changes. Concurrently, KCI will conduct a study to determine the composition of litter collected from various locations throughout the City. The budget provided herein is for one sampling and sorting event lasting five days in duration. The City may wish to conduct additional sorting events to account for seasonal variability in waste composition. The University of Arkansas (UA) has expressed interest in participating in the waste composition study while KCI's team is mobilized for the City's study. The option of including UA's waste as part of the study is discussed in Task 2A below. Activities: 1. Request from the City and review four weeks of scale house data regarding inbound vehicles to the transfer station, including source, vehicle number, time of arrival, and tonnage. 2. Request from the City and review the windshield litter survey conducted by City staff. 3. Develop a list of material categories into which waste will be sorted, ensuring that these categories are consistent with the City's existing recycling program and any previous composition studies. kessler consulting inc. Scope of Work v2 A-2 mrcvacvewase 5dWins Exhibit A City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Scope of Work 4. Identify the generator sectors (e.g., residential, commercial, litter) that will be targeted in the waste composition study. 5. Develop a sampling schedule, sampling and sorting protocol, and site safety plan for review by City staff. KCI will work closely with City staff to develop the sampling schedule for litter since the City will be responsible for mobilizing staff or volunteers to collect the litter from specified areas, mark it, and deliver it to the sorting area. 6. Work with City staff to identify an appropriate sampling and sorting area. The City will be asked to provide a covered area (an existing structure or a tent) under which the sorting team will work and a loader and operator to pull samples, as directed by KCI's Sampling Supervisor, and deliver them to the sorting area. 7. Obtain the necessary equipment for conducting the sorting event. The City will be asked to provide four six-foot folding tables and recycling bins and other containers into which materials will be sorted. KCI will provide all other safety and sorting equipment and a calibrated platform 'scale. 8. Mobilize for the sorting event. KCI will provide a Sort Supervisor, Sampling Supervisor, and up to seven sorters. KCI is working with ASC to hire students as the sorters, which will provide a rare hands-on learning opportunity for the students. 9. Execute the sorting event. KCI's Sampling Supervisor will work with the loader operator to pull representative samples from selected incoming loads of waste in accordance with the sampling schedule. Samples will be transferred to the sorting area and stored on tarps until sorted. All samples will be sorted into the defined material categories and weighed. KCI's Sort or Sampling Supervisor will conduct all data recording. To ensure quality and safety, KCI will conduct a training session, prior to starting work each day, to review safety and sorting procedures. 10. Analyze the data from the sorting event to calculate the percentage by weight of each material category for each generator sector, as well as for.the City's overall waste stream. Data analysis will follow the ASTM Standard Test Method for Determination of the Composition of Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste (D5231-92; reapproved 2008). 11. Preparea technical memorandum summarizing the results and findings of the study. Deliverables: • Material categories list, sampling and sorting protocol, sampling schedule, and site safety plan. • Technical memorandum providing the results of the waste composition study. Task 2A UA Waste Composition Study (optional task) Purpose: This optional task will entail sampling and sorting waste generated on the UA campus. KCI anticipates adding three additional days of field work, which will enable the KCI team to sample and sort at least 24 samples of UA waste. To ensure the statistical validity of this data, no more than three separate UA generator sectors will be included. Specific generator sectors will be determined based on discussions with UA staff, but might include classrooms, dormitories, and food service areas. Activities: 1. Request from UA staff and review waste tonnage data, collection schedules, and other relevant, available information needed to develop the sampling schedule. 2. Confirm with UA staff that the material categories list developed for Task 2 is acceptable. 3. Identify the generator sectors that will be targeted in the waste composition study. kessler consulting ins. Scope o`: work v2 A-3 innovaeveynm wlutiarn Exhibit A City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Scope of Work 4. Develop a sampling schedule and provide the schedule and sampling and sorting protocol developed in Task 2 to UA staff for review. 5. Work with UA staff to ensure the necessary loads of waste will be directed to the sorting area for sampling in accordance with the sampling schedule. 6. Execute the sorting event. 7. Analyze the data from the sorting event to calculate the percentage by weight of each material category for each generator sector, as well as for UA's overall waste stream (all generators combined). 8. Incorporate the results of the UA study into the Task 2 technical memorandum. Deliverables: • Material categories list, sampling and sorting protocol, and sampling schedule. •. Section of Task 2 technical memorandum providing the results of the UA waste composition study. Task 3 Reduction and Diversion Options Analysis Purpose: The purpose of this task is to evaluate proven recovery technologies and programmatic approaches, and to identify those that offer the greatest potential material recovery and waste reduction/diversion opportunities to the City. for example, collection options might include wet/dry collection, dual stream recycling, cart -based single stream recycling, compressed natural gas (CNG) collection vehicles, incentive -based contracts, and rewards programs such as Recycling Perks. Processing technologies to capture or utilize material resources include single stream, mixed waste, and wet/dry material processing, organics processing technologies, and other emerging technologies that seek to minimize the disposal of waste. Activities: 1. Identify and conduct an initial evaluation of material recovery technologies and programs to identify those most viable or having the greatest materials recovery and waste reduction/diversion potential. Such evaluation will include reviewing recognized regional and national programs, analyzing the potential applicability to the City, and conducting an initial analysis of the economic feasibility. 2. Evaluate potential public and private strategic partnerships for leveraging expertise and economies of scale. 3. Prepare a summary of this evaluation and identify material recovery technologies and programs that warrant further consideration. Scenarios for future consideration may include modifications to existing contracts and programs, as well as implementation of new technologies and programs. Deliverable: Technical memorandum of this initial evaluation of technology and program options. Task 4 Recovery Scenarios Modeling and Financial Evaluation Purpose: KCI will use a proprietary spreadsheet -based model to conduct a more detailed analysis of high -recovery, integrated materials management system scenarios that the City desires to consider further. This interactive model takes into consideration that changes in one system component will have operational and financial impacts on other system components. Based on a set of City -specific assumptions, the model will estimate the kesslerconsulting inc. Scooa o Work v2 A-4 . snncvacYe a.a>te sclutians Exhibit A City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Scope of Work capital and operating cost of each scenario, potential revenues, potential waste diversion (material recovery), and site requirements. An appropriate fee structure will be linked to the anticipated costs and benefits of new or expanded services to ensure a healthy and sustainable enterprise fund. The scenario modeling and financial evaluation will also consider the intrinsic value of the selected scenarios as it relates to the triple bottom line so that the City has a comprehensive foundation for decision -making. Activities: 1. Based on the results of Tasks 4, conduct a work session with City staff to identify material recovery scenarios for further analysis. 2. Develop and confirm assumptions that will be used in the model. 3. Evaluate the identified scenarios using KCI's comparative model. 4. Conduct a financial analysis of the implications of selected scenarios to the City's existing solid waste business model. 5. Prioritize the model results based on waste reduction/diversion potential and cost-effectiveness to the City. 6. Review the model results with City staff to identify selected scenarios for inclusion in the Master Plan. 7. Develop rate structure modifications for scenarios selected by the City that will ensure the long- term viability of the solid waste system and enterprise fund, as well as incentivize increased recycling or waste diversion. 8. Develop recommendations for inclusion in the draft Master Plan, including a consolidated rate structure and potential modifications to the City's solid waste business model. Deliverable: Technical memorandum that includes the results of the detailed analysis of selected scenarios and associated rate structure as recommendations for inclusion in the draft Master Plan. Task 5 Policy Recommendations Purpose: The purpose of this task is to identify policies to implement and support the various - technology and program options selected in Task 5. Policies are the principles and guidelines by which the City will reach its solid waste and resource management goals. These policies will influence future decisions regarding the solid waste system, thereby translating these policies into compatible actions and programs. Examples of policies for consideration include residential and/or commercial recycling mandates, disposal bans on specific types of recyclable or compostable materials, bans of the use of certain types of products (e.g., plastics bags, polystyrene containers), source separation standards, minimum service standards, private sector participation, and regional cooperation. Activities: 1. Define and evaluate policies that would encourage specific behaviors and/or complement the technologies and programs selected in Task 5. 2. Identify policy recommendations that will best help guide the City toward meeting its goals and objectives, while also ensuring the long-term financial viability of the solid waste system. 3. Review the draft policy recommendations with City staff and revise as needed. Deliverable: Technical memorandum identifying policy recommendations. A-5 Scope of work v2 J kessler consulting inc. nrcvah:e vs>te scfutians Exhibit A City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Scope of Work Task 6 Solid Waste Master Plan Development Purpose: The results of the previous tasks and technical memoranda developed as part of these tasks will be incorporated into a Master Plan. Based on review and discussions with City staff, KCI will develop near -term and long-term recommendations deemed cost-effective and operationally feasible on the scale required by the City. Activities: Develop a draft Master Plan that includes or addresses the following: 1. Baseline Summary: Summary of the City's current solid waste system, including waste and recyclables tonnage, flow, and management. Population and waste generation projections over a 10-year period and summary of factors that affect these projections. Operational assessments of City collection operations and City -owned and operated facilities, along with initial recommendations for improvements. 2. Reduction and Diversion Options Evaluation: ■ Evaluation of proven material recovery technologies and programs. • Results of the more detailed analysis of selected scenarios, prioritizing scenarios based on waste reduction/diversion potential and cost-effectiveness. ■ Potential opportunities for partnership. ■ Discussion of impacts on the City's business model and recommended modifications. . 3. Short-, Medium- and Long -Term Recommendations: ■ Policies: Policy recommendations that provide the framework that derives sustainable materials recovery and guides decision -making, program and facility development, stakeholder engagement, and systems financing. ■ Programs: Program recommendations that are cost-effective and -deemed most viable to substantially increase waste reduction and diversion, taking into account the availability of sustainable markets for the recovered resources. ■ Facilities: Proven technology and facility recommendations that are effective in recovering material from the waste stream, have been demonstrated on a scale commensurate with the City, and are financially viable. ■ Education: Recommended marketing strategy and programs that will complement and help ensure the success of the various policy, program, and facility recommendations. Emphasis will be placed on strategies for affecting changes in behavior. A summary of all community input (Task 8) will be included. 4. Financial Analysis: ■ Proposed business plan and financial implications (ranges from high to low) of the Master Plan recommendations. ■ Proposed rate structure intended to preserve the health and sustainability of the enterprise fund: Deliverable: Draft and final Master Plan integrating the technical memoranda from all other tasks. kessler consulting inc. Scope of Work v2 A-6 rrtovanvev a>te, 50utiom Exhibit A City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Scope of Work Task 7 Project Coordination, Community Input, and Presentations Purpose: Throughout this project, KCI will maintain frequent communication with City staff regarding project status and technical aspects of the work. We also will seek stakeholder input through a variety of mechanisms including, but not limited to, workshops, meetings, and surveys. Whenever possible, we will include a web -based option for providing input, such as on-line access to town hall type meetings and on-line surveys. In addition, KCI will present the final Master Plan to elected officials, the public, or other stakeholders. Activities: 1. Participate in monthly project team calls. 2. Prepare a monthly summary of activities. 3. Coordinate and participate in up to three days of workshops and/or meetings with stakeholder groups, the general public, and/or elected officials. KCI will arrange for stakeholders to have a web -based option to provide input whenever feasible. 4. Develop and execute a stakeholder survey in a variety of formats, including a web -based survey tool such as Survey Monkey. 5. Participate in up to two days of one-on-one and/or public meetings with City management and elected officials, as deemed appropriate, to present, review, and discuss the final Master Plan. Deliverables: • Monthly summary of activities. • Participation in up to three stakeholder workshops, meetings, or focus groups. • Survey instrument. • Technical memorandum summarizing survey results and other stakeholder input. • Presentation of Master Plan. Budged and Timeline Because of the nature of this project and the potential variability in the level of effort required, KCI .proposes to conduct this scope -of work on a time -and -materials basis for an amount not to exceed $249,930, excluding Task 2A. The budget for Task 2A is $14,960. A detailed budget breakdown by task is provided in Attachment B. Services will be invoiced at the rates indicated, which include all overhead and direct and indirect costs. Expenses (travel, etc.) will be billed at cost without markup. KCI will submit monthly invoices with a written explanation of activities completed that month. KCI will initiate work upon notice to proceed. A proposed timeline is provided herein, which may be modified as the project progresses. KCI looks forward to assisting the City in developing a comprehensive Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan that seeks to maximize waste diversion while maintaining the long-term financial viability of the City's solid waste and resource management system. kessler consulting inc. Scope of work v2 A-7 co'idi:easr,a solnim Exhibit A City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Scope of Work Proposed Timeline Month Tasks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 Baseline and Operational Assessment F: 2 Waste and Litter Composition Study 1 r.h Y tiH" �r lY 6�✓.i"'�y 3 Reduction and Diversion Options Analysis Recovery Scenarios Modelingand Financial 4 �Dc Evaluation , q..; t 618 Mf ` �} r 5 Policy Recommendations ��i�� y l 6 Solid Waste Master Plan Development {y'n��'� r ' " has Project Coordination, Community Input, �R; �i^'�1 >� r,, 7 _MM 1 and Presentations kessler consulting inc, Scope of Work v2 A-8 innovauvewwx e.501mions EXHIBIT B City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Proposed Budget CATEGORY (NAME) HOURLY RATE Task 1 Task 2 Task ZA Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Task 6 Task 7 With Task 2A Without Task 2A Baseline & Operational I Assessment IUaste & Litter Composition Study Optional UA Waste Composition Study Reduction & Diversion Options Analysis Recovery Scenario Modeling & Financial Evaluation Policy Recommend's Solid Waste Master Plan Development Project Coordination, Community Input& Presentation TOTAL HOURS TOTAL DOLLARS TOTAL HOURS TOTAL DOLLARS LABOR Project Director $185.00 10.0 4.0 2.0 10.0 10A &a 20.0 50.0 114.0 $21,090 112.0 $20,720 Project Manager $140.00 48.0 16.0 8.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 60.0 60.0 312.0 $43,680 304.0 $42,560 Senior Consultant $125.00 110.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 40.0 10.0 20.0 8.0 228.0 $28,500 228.0 $28,500 Consultant $100.00 80.0 20.0 10.0 170.0 170.0 72.0 110.0 60.0 692.0 $69,200 682.0 $68,200 Consultant $95.00 0.0 150.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 200.0 $13,000 150.0 $14,250 Consultant $85.00 140.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 140.0 $11,900 140.0 $11,900 Research Analyst $80.00 0.0 16.0 12.0 80.0 80.0 40.0 80.0 20.0 328.0 $26,240 316.0 $25,280 Office ManagerlTechnical Support $60.00 14.0 68.0 24.0 10.0 10.0 10.9 10.0 10.0 156.0 $9,360 132.0 $7,920 SUBTOTAL LABOR HOURS 4020 274.0 106.0 350.0 350.0 188 0 3D0.o 21M.0 2%0 $22%970 2W4.0 $219,330 SUBTOTAL LABOR DOLLARS W060 $24,590 $9,6 0 $36,450 $36,450 $19,330 $3Z600 WSW $22t970 $219,330 DIRECT COSTS TRAVEL $3,700 $3,700 $2,300 $2,000 $6,000 $17,700 $15,400 SUPPLIES 1$1,000 $300 $1,500 $1,000 CONTRACTED LABOR $4,200 Q,520 $6,720 $4,200 SUBCONTRACTOR $1,000 $2,090 900 $500 $1,000 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 SUBTOTAL DIRECT COST $4,700 $1o,900 $5,320 $500 $2,000 $500 $1,000 $11,000 $35920 $A600 TOTAL PROJECTBUOGET LABOR + DIRECT COST 1 $47,760 $35 M I $14,960 I $36 M I $32,4W $19,230 1 $3%MO 1 $37,M I $261,890 I$249,930 Scope of Work v2 B-1 Kessler consulting inn. It?(i0Vi1lYY2 K'3SEe 541tiEl0i iS City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2014-0408 Legistar File ID N/A City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item Sustainability & Resilience / Leif Olson 9/10/2014 Chief of Staff Submitted By Submitted Date Division / Department Action Recommendation: Administrative approval of a Memorandum of Understanding with the University of Arkansas Facilities Management Department to contract with Kessler Consulting to complete a Waste Composition Study of 24 selected waste samples from no more than three separate UofA generator sectors. Budget Impact: Account Number Fund Project Number Project Title Budgeted Item? NA Current Budget $ Funds Obligated $ Current Balance Does item have a cost? No Item Cost Budget Adjustment Attached? No Budget Adjustment Remaining Budget r$ V20140710 Previous Ordinance or Resolution # 171-14 UIX Original Contract Number: Approval Date: Comments: CITY OF a1e ARKANSAS TO: Mayor Jordan Don Marr, Chief of Staff Paul Becker, Finance Director THRU: Peter Nierengarten, Sustainability and Resilience Director CC: Jeff Coles, Recycling and Trash Collection Division Director FROM: Leif Olson, Associate Planner DATE: September 19, 2014 SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding — Recycling Master Plan with University of Arkansas RECOMMENDATION: Administrative approval of a Memorandum of Understanding with the University of Arkansas Facilities Management Department to contract with Kessler Consulting to complete a Waste Composition Study of 24 selected waste samples from no more than three separate UofA generator sectors. Generator sectors may include classrooms, dormitories and food service areas. BACKGROUND: The City Council passed Resolution Number 171-14 on September 16, 2014 to hire Kessler Consulting to develop a 10 year solid waste master plan in order to attain a waste diversion rate of 80%. One critical component of a solid waste and recycling plan is to conduct'a waste composition study in order to determine the precise makeup of the waste materials that are being discarded in the landfill. This is accomplished by pulling sample waste containers from different waste generating sectors and measuring the type and volume of the waste -that is currently being landfilled. Kessler Consulting will perform waste composition studies for both the University and the City in order to provide quantifiable data on the type and volume of waste generated by all sectors within the City. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: This Memorandum of Understanding prescribes that the University of Arkansas will reimburse The City of Fayetteville $14,960 for the cost of their waste composition study. Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING between THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT and THE City of Fayetteville, AR FY 2015 This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into and executed on the date indicated beside the signature blocks, by and between the University of Arkansas Facilities Management Department and the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. I.PURPOSE The City of Fayetteville (City) is contracting with Kessler Consulting, Inc. (KCI) of Tampa, FL to provide a Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion and Recycling Master Plan for the City. The Master Plan is aimed at achieving an efficient, cost-effective solid waste system that maximizes waste reduction and recycling and puts the City on a path to attaining its goal of 80 percent waste diversion. The City's Contract with KCI includes a task for a University of Arkansas (UA) Waste Composition Study which entails sampling and sorting waste generated on the UA campus. The purpose of this MOU is to establish the contractual relationship (scope, deliverables schedule and price) between the City and UA to enable KCI to perform this work on behalf of the UA. Regarding this agreement contact people for the City of Fayetteville will be: Peter Nierengarten 479.575.8272/pnierengarten@fayetteville-ar.gov ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Primary contact .. name ph#/email Jeff Coles 479.444.3499/jcoles@fayetteville-ar.gov ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alternate contact -- name ph#/email Contact people at FMD are: Carlos Ochoa 5-2405 / cochoajr@uark.edu _Primary contact ------------------------------------------------------------------------ name ph#/email Peggy Cromer 5-6593 / pbcomer@uark.edu _-Alternate contact --------------------------- name ph#/email li. SCOPE KCI anticipates the UA Waste Composition Study requiring three days of fieldwork, which will enable the KCI team to sample and sort at least 24 samples of UA waste. To ensure the statistical validity of this data, no more than three separate UA generator sectors will be included. Specific generator sectors will 9/12/14 1 be determined based on discussions with UA staff, but might include classrooms, dormitories, and food service areas. Activities 1. Request from UA staff and review waste tonnage data, collection schedules, and other relevant, available information needed to develop the sampling schedule. 2. Confirm with UA staff that the material categories list developed for Task 2 is acceptable. 3. Identify the generator sectors that will be targeted in the waste composition study. 4. Develop a sampling schedule and provide the schedule and sampling and sorting protocol developed in Task 2 to UA staff for review. 5. Work with UA staff to ensure the necessary loads of waste will be directed to the sorting area for sampling in accordance with the sampling schedule. 6. Execute the sorting event. 7. Analyze the data from 1he sorting event to calculate the percentage by weight of each material category for each generator sector, as well as for UA's overall waste stream (all generators combined). 8. Incorporate the results of the UA study into the Task 2 technical memorandum. III. DELIVERABLES • Material categories list, sampling and sorting protocol, and sampling schedule. • Technical memorandum providing the results of the City and UA waste composition studies. V1. SCHEDULE The UA waste composition study will be completed as part of task 2 of the City's Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion and Recycling Master Plan. That plan is scheduled to begin in October 2014 and to follow the propose time line below. Tasks Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 1 Baseline and Operational Assessment 2 Waste and Litter Composition Study 3 Reduction and Diversion Options Analysis 4 Recovery Scenarios Modeling and Financial Evaluation 5 Policy Recommendations 6 Solid Waste Master Plan Development Project. Coordination, f..ommunity Input, and Presentations 9/12/14 2 V. PRICE The total task budget for the UA Waste Composition Study is $ 14,960. IV. TERMINATION OF SERVICES Should either Party decide to terminate this MOU, a Notice of Discontinuation of Services must be sent to the other party in writing at least 60 days prior to the date of termination. Included in the notice should be the reason for the termination with a list of any discrepancies noted. Any equipment/materials purchased with University of Arkansas monies or transferred from the City of Fayetteville to Facilities Management to use during the waste assessment, will be returned to the City of Fayetteville in their current condition/status. This Memorandum of Understanding supersedes any previous agreement(s). This MOU is effective upon signature and shall remain in effect until December 31, 2015, or such time as a Notice of Discontinuation of Services is executed by either party hereunto. By:-- tXl-Fiate----------- Date_ t _tjjq_ M. R..Johnson, AsChancellor for Facilities University of Arkansas Facilities Management Department CITY OF FA Attest: L� q By::--�'z - ------------ Date_ 9 3JI �- Sondra E. Smith, City Clerk/Treasurer :'; FAYETTEVILLE;�_ ,,,,;/ �O 10% 9/12/14 RESOLUTION NO. 136-15 A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONTRACT WITH KESSLER CONSULTING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,980.00 FOR ASSISTANCE WITH THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMMERCIAL FOOD WASTE PILOT PROGRAM AND A SINGLE STREAM RECYCLING PILOT PROGRAM, AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves Amendment No. I to the contract with Kessler Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $39,980.00 for assistance with the design and implementation of a commercial food waste pilot program and a single stream recycling pilot program. Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves a budget adjustment, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution. PASSED and APPROVED this 4t' day of August, 2015. APnn ni7Un- ATTEST: By: ,Jcy� � SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk Treasurer ``�� �FtK•/ TRF i�ri :��G • G\� Y :FAY ETfEVILLE;��' 4 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 —" (479)575-8323 ter;: Text File File Number: 2015-0308 Agenda Date: 8/4/2015 Version: 1 Status: Agenda Ready In Control: City Council Meeting File Type: Resolution Agenda Number: C. 1 KESSLER CONSULTING AMENDMENT NO. 1 A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AMENDMENT NO, I TO THE CONTRACT WITH KESSLER CONSULTING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,980.00 FOR ASSISTANCE WITH THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMMERCIAL FOOD WASTE PILOT PROGRAM AND A SINGLE STREAM RECYCLING PILOT PROGRAM, AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE C4TY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves Amendment No. I to the, contract with Kessler Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $39,980.00 for assistance with the design and implementation of a commercial food waste pilot program and a single stream recycling pilot program. Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves a budget adjustment, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 713012015 Brian Pugh Submitted By City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2015-0308 legistar File ID 8J4j2015 City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item 7/14/2015 Recycling & Trash Collection / Transportation Services Department Submitted Date . . Division / Department Action Recommendation: Approval of a Resolution to amend the scope of services with Kessler Consulting, Inc. to assist the City in conducting a commercial food waste pilot and a single stream recycling pilot and to approve a budget adjustment of $39,980. Budget Impact: 5500.5080.5314.00 Recycling and Trash Account Number Fund 14019 / 1 Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan Project Number Project Title Budgeted Item? No -Current Budget $ 258,653.00 Funds Obligated $ 258,652.50 Current Balance 0.50 Does item -have a cost? Yes Item Cost $ 39,980.00 Budget Adjustment Attached? Yes Budget Adjustment $ 39,980.00 Remaining Budget 1 ' i3,50 Previous Ordinance or Resolution # V20140710 Original Contract Number: Approval Date: Comments: CITY OF T• a �l CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ARKANSAS MEETING OF AUGUST 4TH, 2015 TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Peter Nierengarten, Sustainability and Resilience Director Jeff Coles, Recycling and Trash Division Director FROM: Leif Olson, Associate Planner DATE: July 1, 2015 SUBJECT: Food Waste Composting and Single Stream Recycling Pilot Programs RECOMMENDATION: Approval of a Resolution to amend the scope of services with Kessler Consulting, Inc. to assist the City in conducting a commercial food waste pilot and a single stream recycling pilot and to approve a budget adjustment of $39,980. BACKGROUND: The City Council passed Resolution Number 171-14 on September 16, 2014 to contract with Kessler Consulting, Inc. (KCI) to develop a 10 year solid waste master plan in order to attain a waste diversion rate of 80%. Staff worked extensively with KCI to develop a final scope of work that included: A baseline operational assessment of the current system, A waste audit and, litter composition study with an option to partner with the University to assess their solid waste generation and composition, An analysis of waste reduction and diversion options, • Recovery scenarios modeling and financial evaluation, • Policy recommendations, • Development of the'final solid waste master plan, and Master plan project coordination, community input process and final presentation. DISCUSSION: KCI, working with Recycling and Trash Division Staff, have completed the baseline operational assessment and the waste composition study. Currently, KCI is working through waste reduction and diversion options. At this time, Kessler Consulting is recommending that the City develop two pilot programs to demonstrate the viability of commercial food waste composting and single stream recycling as waste diversion options. Food waste and recyclables combine to make up 45% of Fayetteville's waste stream. Conducting the pilot programs now will provide the City with specific data on which to model the potential impacts of full-scale programs and also enable the City to start seeing tangible results. Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-argov Fayetteville, AR 72701 BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: Kessler Consulting is proposing completing the two pilot projects for an amount not to exceed $39,980. This project will be paid for with Recycling and Trash Division Enterprise Funds. Attachments: • Amendment 1 Kessler Contract • Food Waste Composting and Single Stream Recycling Pilots Scope of Work • Resolution 171-14 — Resolution Authorizing a Contract with Kessler Consluting for a 10 Year Solid Waste Plan • PO Kessler Pilot Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan V, AMENDMENT #1 TO CONTRACT FOR SOLID WASTE CONSULTING SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE AND KESSLER CONSULTING, INC. BE IT KNOWN TO ALL: Tha � City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (the "City'-) and Kessler Consulting, Inc. ('-KCI" ); on this day to , 2015, hereby agree that the Contract for Solid Waste Consulting Services dated 'Sept fiber 24, 2014, shall be amended to adopt and incorporate the "City of Fayetteville, AR Food Waste Compostinc and Single Stream Recycling Pilots Scope of Work". a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof, in order for KCI to assist the City in conducting a commercial food waste pilot program and a single stream recycling pilot program with the cost of the services not to exceed $39,980.00. -The parties agree and understand that this Amendment is supplemental to their Contract dated September 24, 2014, and that it does not alter, amend or abridge any of the rights, obligations, or duties of the parties not expressly addressed herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused their signatures to be set by their authorized representative effective the date set forth herein above. -KESSLER CONSULTING, INC. itch Kessler, President CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ATTEST: 4p, Sondra E. Smith, City Clerk -Treasurer ,%111n n►►ql/� ``���c�K'�•;RF9S���i V� •G\1 Y 0 FAYETTEVILLE; = prig ••�RfCANs J z p 'e.#zrj;1111l Exhibit A City of Fayetteville, AR Food Taste Composting and Single Stream Recycling Pilots Scope of Work Following an initial evaluation of the City's existing solid waste management system and completion of a. waste composition study, Kessler Consulting, Inc. (KCI) identified waste diversion opportunities that we believe merit further evaluation through pilot programs. Conducting the pilot programs now, rather than waiting for completion of the Master Plan, will provide city -specific data on which to model the potential impacts of full-scale programs and also enable the City to start seeing tangible results. This scope of work is to assist the City in conducting two pilots programs, one for commercial food waste and the other for single stream recycling. Scope of Services Task 1 Food Waste Pilot Purpose: Food -waste makes up approximately 17%of commercial waste disposed, which is the single largest component of the waste stream. The purpose of this pilot is to evaluate the feasibility of using -a Modified Static Aerated Pile (MSAP) composting system to incorporate food waste into the City's existing yard waste composting operation, as well as to evaluate a commercial food waste collection system. Activities: 1. Review State requirements applicable to food waste composting pilot program.. . 2. Develop operations plan, implementation timeline, and other necessary documentation to obtain ADEQ approval. 3. Provide technical assistance to City staff with collection logistics, as needed, including the following: ■ Selection of pilot participants. ■ Estimating anticipated tonnage. ■ Selection of appropriate collection containers. ■ Development of education and outreach materials. ■ Educating pilot participants. 4. Provide technical assistance to City staff with MSAP composting logistics, as needed, including the following: ■ Identifying site requirements, equipment, and labor needs. ■ Identifying any site preparation needs. Training and technical assistance for composting operations personnel. 5. Provide inoculant for the MSAP composting. 6. Provide technical assistance to City staff with monitoring requirements, as needed, including the following: ■ Identification of data to be collected during the pilot. ■ Training composting operations personnel regarding data collection. 1 iiots s�ouF 1 kessler consulting inc, ,rnCr ae-Waite soimtro:n City of Fayetteville, AR Food Waste Composting and Single Stream Recycling Pilots Scope of Work ■ Guidance on compost analysis. ■ Surveying/obtaining feedback from pilot participants. Analyze pilot results and evaluate estimated cost and potential implications of full-scale facility and operations. Deliverable: Technical memorandum summarizing results of the food waste pilot and evaluating the potential implications of full-scale implementation. Task 2 Single Stream Recycling Pilot Purpose: More than 26% of residential waste and 29% of commercial waste disposed consists of recyclable paper and containers. In addition, the City's current system of curb -sorting recyclables is highly inefficient from a collection perspective. The need to sort recyclables by type prior to collection has also been an impediment to expanding multi -family and commercial recycling. The purpose of this pilot is to evaluate the potential impacts of converting to carted single stream recycling on recycling participation, tons of materials collected, and collection efficiency. Activities: 1. Work with City staff to develop the overall framework -and timeline for the pilot. 2. Provide technical assistance to City staff with collection logistics, as needed, including the following: ■ Selection of pilot participants, including curbside routes, multi -family complexes, and commercial customers. ■ Estimating anticipated tonnage. ■ Routing and collection logistics. Identifying options for obtaining collection carts with RFID. ■ Identifying options for obtaining RFID readers or other monitoring devises. ■ Development of education and outreach materials. ■ Educating pilot participants. 3. Assist City staff with processing logistics, as needed, including the following: ■ Identifying processor. ■ Negotiating terms of agreement with private sector processor for term of the pilot. ■ Developing the agreed upon scope of work for inclusion in the agreement. 4. Provide technical assistance to City staff with monitoring requirements, as needed, including the following: ■ identifying data to be collected during the pilot. ■ Training City personnel regarding data collection. ■ Surveying/obtaining feedback from pilot participants. 5. Analyze pilot results, as well as evaluate estimated cost and potential implications of full-scale implementation of single stream recycling. Deliverables: • Technical memorandum summarizing the results of the single stream recycling program and evaluating the potential implications of full-scale implementation. ke.sslet consulting inc. Pilots scope 2 {r.ncvan .IeN\a (c scJatio.'.s City of Fayetteville, AR Food Waste Composting and Single Stream Recycling Pilots Scope of Work Budget and 1'hueli ne Because of the nature of this project and the potential variability in the level of effort required, KCI proposes to conduct this scope of work on a time -and -materials basis for an amount not to exceed $39,980. A budget breakdown by task is provided below. Services will be invoiced at the rates indicated, which include all overhead and direct and indirect costs. Expenses (travel, etc.) will be billed at cost without markup. KCI will submit monthly invoices with a written explanation of activities completed that month. KCI will initiate work upon notice to proceed. A proposed timeline will be developed, in conjunction with City staff, for each pilot project. Task 1 Task 2 HOURLY Food Waste Single TOTAL TOTAL CATEGOR=(NAMEQ) RATE Pilot Stream Pilot HOURS DOLLARS LABOR Project Director $185.00 8.0 120 200 $3 700 Project Manager $140.00 30.0 42.0 72.0 $10,080 Senior Consultant $125.00 10.0 22.0 32.0 $4,000 Consultant/Associate $95.00 56.0 76.0 132.0 $12,540 -Research Analyst $80.00 56.0 0.0 56.0 $4,480 Office Mana erfrechnical Support $60.00 4.0 4.0 7.0 $480 SUBTOTAL LABOR HOURS 164.0 156.0 320.0 SUBTOTAL LABOR DOLLARS $16,970 $18,310 $35,280 DIRECT COSTS TRAVEL Q9 Ann xi rnn xo nnn CONTRACTED LABOR $0 SUBCONTRACTOR $o SUBTOTAL DIRECT COST $3,200 $1,500 $4,700 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET LABOR+DIRECT COST $20,170 $19,810 $39,980 KCI looks forward to assisting the City in conducting the pilot projects, which will provide valuable, city - specific information on which to base future program recommendations. PHots Scope 3 ke.ssler consulting inc.. sr:�,r.�i'dt+;@ �V:iite SGIATi?`-i> RESOLUTION NO. 171-14 A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT WITH KESSLER CONSULTING, INC. OF TAMPA, FLORIDA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TEN YEAR SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAN IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $264,890.00, AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby authorizes Mayor Jordan to sign a contract with Kessler Consulting, Inc. of Tampa, Florida for the development of a ten year solid waste master plan in an amount not to exceed $264,890.00. Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves a budget adjustment, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A". PASSED and APPROVED this 161' day of September, 2014. ATTEST: By: �- C- on,-; L SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer GAT Y 0". 's�'�� • FAYETTEVILLE;�^ J'JI��GOItlflltl� O````` City of Fayetteville, Arkansas - Budget Adjustment Form (Legistar) Budget Year Division: Sustainability & Resilience Adjustment Number 2014 Dept.: Chief of Staff Requestor: Serina Tustin BUDGET ADJUSTMENT DESCRIPTION / JUSTIFICATION: $264,890 for Solid Waste Reduction, diversion and Recycling Master Plan. Funds are adequate in Solid Waste fund balance for this adjustment. COUNCIL DATE: 8/29/2014 LEGISTAR FILE ID#: 2014-0396 K�v%wSprrivl�P.v' 9/2/2014 2:37 PM Budget Director TYPE: DESCRIPTION: Date GLDATE: RESOLUTION/ORDINANCE POSTED: / TOTAL 264,890 264,890 v.20140716 Increase / (Decrease) Proiect.Sub# Account Number Expense Revenue Project Sub AT Account Name 5500.5080.5314.00 264,890 14019 1 U Professional Services 5500.0950.4999.99 RE Use of Fund Balance C:\Users\pnierengarten\AppDafa\Roaming\L5\Temp\e7d65663-fcc8-4541-9664-34fbda1837a2 1 of 1 I City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2014-0396 Legistar File ID 9/16/2014 City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda item Sustainability & Resilience / Leif Olson 8/29J2014 Chief of Staff Submitted By Submitted Date Division / Department Action Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a Resolution to contract with Kessler Consulting in the amount of $264,890 to complete a Master Plan to achieve an efficient and cost effective solid waste system that maximizes solid waste reduction, diversion and recycling and puts the City on the path to achieve our goal of 80%waste diversion. Approval of a Budget Adjustment. 5500.5080.5314.00 Account Number 14019.1 Project Number Budget Impact: 5500 - Solid Waste Fund Solid Waste Reduction/Recycling Master Plan Project Title Budgeted Item? No Current Budget Funds Obligated Current Balance Does item have a cost? Yes Item Cost Budget Adjustment Attached? Yes Budget Adjustment Remaining Budget Previous Ordinance or Resolution # Original Contract Number: Com s: ,q/31,q 260-13 VIRED Zos`t 9--10-11 $ 264,890.00 $ 264,890.00 I" Approval Date: CITY OF 17 ayrle CITY COUNCIi AGENDA MEMOAS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 TO: Mayor Jordan and City Council f THRU: Peter Nierengarten, Sustainability and Resilience Director �A CC: Jeff Coles, Recycling and Trash Collection Director FROM: Leif Olson, Associate Planner DATE: August 28, 2014 SUBJECT: Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion and Recycling Master Plan RECOMMENDATION: Approval of a Resolution to contract with Kessler Consulting in the amount of $264,890 to complete a Master Plan to achieve an efficient and cost effective solid waste system that maximizes solid waste reduction, diversion and recycling and puts the City on the path to achieve our goal of 80% waste diversion. BACKGROUND: The City Council passed Resolution Number 260-13 in December,17, 2013 to develop'a Request for Qualifications to hire a consultant to develop a 10 year solid waste master plan in order to attain a waste diversion rate of 80%. Staff developed a detailed project scope and received a total of five project proposals from qualified consulting firms. A selection committee made up of City Staff reviewed the proposals and interviewed the top three firms. Kessler Consulting Inc. was selected by the committee to be the most qualified to develop the master plan. Staff worked extensively with Kessler to develop a final scope of work that includes: • A baseline operational assessment of the current system, • A waste audit and litter composition study with an option to partner with the University to assess their solid waste generation and composition, • An analysis of waste reduction and diversion options, • Recovery scenarios modeling and financial evaluation, • Policy recommendations, • Development of the final solid waste master plan, and • Master plan project coordination, community input process and final presentation. The consultant will present the final master plan and recommendations to the City Council at the conclusion of the planning process. Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: Kessler Consulting is proposing completing the master plan within a 12 month timeline at a total cost of $249,930 to the City of Fayetteville. Inclusion of the University of Arkansas' waste composition study raises the total cost of the project to $264,890. The University will reimburse the City $14,960 for the cost of their waste composition study. This project will be paid for with Recycling and Trash Division Enterprise Funds. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT WITH KESSLER CONSULTING, INC. OF TAMPA, FLORIDA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TEN YEAR SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAN IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $264,890.00, AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby authorizes Mayor Jordan to sign a contract with Kessler Consulting, Inc. of Tampa, Florida for the development of a ten year solid waste master plan in an amount not to exceed $264,890.00. Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves a budget adjustment, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit ".A". PASSED and APPROVED this 16t' day of September, 2014: APPROVED: By: LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor ATTEST: By: SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasur6r Requisition o.: Date: City of Fayetteville - Purchase Order Request (PO) 8129/2014 (Not a Purchase Order) P.O Number: All PO Requests shall be scanned to the Purchasing. a -mail: Purchasing@fayetteville-ar.gov. Purchase shall not be made until an actual PO has been issued. Vendor Vendor Kessler Consulting, Inc. 24798 Mail 1— Yes r No Legistar#: #; Name: 2014-0396 FOB Point: Taxable Address: 14620 N. Nebraska, Ave., Bldg. D nla I— Yes r No Expected Delivery Date: Zip Code: Ship to code: Quotes Attached n/a City: Tampa State: FL 33613 W Yes r No Requester's Employee #: Extension: Requester: Leif Olson 2364 8269 Item Description Quantity Unit of Issue Unit Cost Extended Cost Account Number Project.Sub# Inventory # Fixed Asset # Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion and 1 each 264,890.00 $264,890.00 6500.5080.5314.00 14019.1 1 Recycling Master Plan 2 $0.00 $0.00 3 $0.00 4 $0.00 5 $0.00 6 $0.00 7 $0.00 8 $0.00 9 $0.00 10 Shipping/Handling Lot $0.00 pecial Instructions:.9Subtotal: $264,890.00 Tax: $0.00 Total: $264,890.00 Approvals: Department Director: Purchasing Manager: Mayor. Budget Director: IT Director: Chief Financial Officer: Utilities Manager: Other: Dispatch Manager: Revised 6118/2014 CONTRACTFOR SOLID WASTE CONSULTING SERVICES THIS CONTRACT, made this ML day of . 2014, is by and between the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas ("City"), whose address is i 3 est Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701, and Kessler Consulting, Inc. ("KCI"), a Florida corporation whose address is 14620 N. Nebraska Avenue, Building D, Tampa, FL 33613. I. SCOPE For and in consideration of timely payment by the City of the compensation set forth below, KCI shall provide the Scope of Services ("Services") specified in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, subject to the other terms and conditions set forth in this contract. The Services to be provided may be changed by the mutual agreement of the parties hereto. The City shall promptly provide KCI with any and all documents and information needed by KCI to provide the Services. It is expressly agreed that KCI is an independent contractor of the City. The City reserves the right to request additional services from KCI. When approved by the City as an amendment of the contract and authorized in writing prior to work, KCI shall provide such additional requirements as may become necessary. Changes, modifications, or amendments in scope, price, or fees to the contract shall not be allowed without a prior formal contract amendment approved by the Mayor and the City Council in advance of the change in scope, cost, or fees. IL TERM OF AGREEMENT The initial contract period shall commence on the date this contract is executed by the City and KCI, whichever date is later, and shall terminate two (2) years after the commencement date, unless extended by mutual agreement of the parties hereto. III. COMPENSATION The compensation to be paid by the City to KCI for providing the Services shall be as stated in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The City shall pay KCI for completion of Services on a time -and -materials basis for an amount not to exceed that specified in Exhibit B without prior approval by the Mayor and City Council. Labor shall be invoiced based on the hourly rates specified in Exhibit B and expenses shall be invoiced at cost, without mark-up. Labor rates may be adjusted if the contract is extended beyond the initial two (2) years upon approval of a formal contract amendment by the Mayor and the City Council. If requested to provide additional services pursuant to Section I, compensation for these additional services shall be as negotiated between the City and KCI, as approved by the Mayor and City Council, IV. METHOD OF BILLING AND PAYMENT KCI may submit monthly invoices to the City requesting payment for services accomplished during each calendar month. Monthly invoices will include breakdown of employees and hours worked, description of activities performed, and reimbursable costs and expenses incurred. All invoices shall be due and payable by the City to KCI within thirty (30) days of invoice receipt. Failure to pay compensation to KCI, as and when required, shall entitle KCI to immediately cease all services, and to terminate this Page] of 5 KCt t'a�et[eril!c C�ir!ract 'inai contract as set forth below. Any failure by the City to pay any sums due and owing KCI shall be a material breach of this contract. V- RIGHT TO AUDIT The City reserves the privilege of auditing KCI's records as such records relate to purchases between the City and KCI. VI. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT City contracts and documents prepared while performing city contractual work are subject to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). If a FOIA request is presented to the City, KCI will do everything possible to provide the documents in a prompt and timely manner as prescribed in the Arkansas FOIA (A.C.A §25-19-101 et. seq.). Only legally authorized photocopying costs pursuant to FOIA may be assessed for this compliance. VII. JURISDICTION AND VENUE Legal jurisdiction to resolve any disputes shall be Arkansas with Arkansas law applying to the case. Venue for any legal dispute shall be Washington County, Arkansas. VIII. TERMINATION A. The City reserves the right to cancel this contract without cause by giving sixty (60) days prior notice to KCI in writing of the intention to cancel or with cause if at any time KCI fails to fulfill or aide by any of the terms or conditions specified. B. Failure of KCI to comply with any of the provisions of this contract shall be considered a material breach of contract and shall be cause for immediate termination of the contract at the discretion of the City. C. In addition to all other legal remedies available to the City, the City reserves the right to cancel and obtain from another source, any items and/or services which have not been delivered within the period of time from the date of order as determined by the City. D. In the event sufficient budgeted funds are not available for a new fiscal period, the City shall notify KCI of such occurrence and the contract shall terminate of the last day of the current fiscal period without penalty or expense to the City. E. If this contract is terminated for any reason, the City shall compensate KCI for all services completed through the date of termination, together with all reimbursable costs and expenses. Such payment to KCI shall be considered a payment on account, and shall not constitute payment in full of all sums owed to KCI pursuant to this contract or otherwise. IX. INSURANCE KCI shall procure and maintain throughout the term of this contract the following insurance limits and coverage and shall, upon executing this contract, provide the City with certificates of insurance evidencing same, showing other party as Additional Insured on all coverage except workers' compensation and professional liability. Such insurance shall include appropriate clauses and/or endorsements pursuant to which the insurance companies shall waive its right of subrogation against the City. Page 2 of 5 Coriract_.Fi nal A. Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance, in accordance with Chapter 440, Florida statutes, and/or any other applicable law requiring workers' compensation, of not less than the following: Workers' Compensation $1,000,000.00 limit each accident Employer's Liability $1,000,000.00 limit disease aggregate $1,000,000.00 limit disease each employee B. Commercial General Liability Insurance, on forms no more restrictive than the latest edition of the Commercial General Liability policy (CG 00 01) of the Insurance Services Office, in the amount of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence to protect against claims for damages for bodily injury, including wrongful death, as well as from claims of property damages, which may arise from any operations under this contract, whether such operation be by KCI or by the City or anyone directly employed by or contracting with KCI or the City. ' C. Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance in the amount of not less than $100,000.00 combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage liability to protect both parties from claims.for damages for bodily injury, including the ownership, use, or maintenance of owned and non -owned automobiles, including rented automobiles whether such operations be by KCI or the City or by anyone directly or indirectly employed by KCI or the City. . D. Professional Liability Insurance in the amount of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. Any subconsultants shall provide certificates of insurance evidencing coverage and terms in accordance with the insurance requirements outlined above. X: ASSIGNMENT, SUBCONTRACTING, ACQUISITIONS AND/OR MERGERS A. KCI and any subconsultants identified in KCI's proposal to the City shall perform services pursuant to this contract. No other assignment or subcontracting shall be allowed without prior written consent of the City. B. In the event of a corporate acquisition and/or merger, KCI shall provide written notice to the City within thirty (30) calendar days of KCI's notice of such action or upon the occurrence of said action, whichever occurs first. The right to terminate this contract, which shall not be unreasonably exercised by the City, shall include, but not be limited to, instances in which a corporate acquisition and/or merger represent a conflict of interest or are contrary to any local, state, or federal laws. XI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION If a dispute arises out of or relates to this contract, or the breach thereof, the parties will attempt to settle the matter through amicable discussion. XII. ATTORNEY'S FEES In the event of any demand, action or proceeding between the parties arising out of or relating to this contract, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover any and all costs, including- attorney's fees and court costs, incurred in any investigations, actions, trials, appeals, mediations, arbitrations, bankruptcy proceedings, collection proceedings, collection efforts, and supplementary proceedings. Page 3 of 5 KCI Fawueeik Contract Final XIII. UNCONTROLLABLE CIRCUMSTANCES KCI will not be liable in any way to the City for any delay or non-performance resulting from or arising out of any act(s) of God, severe weather, strike, civil disorder, earthquake, any law, order, proclamation, regulation, ordinance, demand or requirement of any governmental agency, or any other condition or occurrence whatsoever beyond KCI's sole control. XIV. SEVERENCE In the event a portion of this contract is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the provisions not having been found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable shall continue to be effective. XV. ENTIRETY OF AGREEMENT This contract embodies the entire agreement and understanding between the City and KCI, and there are no other agreements and understandings, oral or written, with reference to the subject matter hereof that are not merged herein and superseded hereby. No alteration, change or modification of the terms of the contract, or any attachments, shall be valid unless made in writing signed by both parties hereto. Page 4 of 5 lC(:1_Fa e;ic e ji l8 C:oraract_I= ina': IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the KCI execute this contract�as follows: CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE LIONELD RD ; Mayor FAYETTEVILLE;SVIdra E. Smith, City CleWTreasurer 'p9s,�,•'QkANSP J�,'� ev a(Ya?_O!' ��G TOCi►► Date 7 KESSLER CONSULTING., INC. TCH KESSLER, President Date Page S of S KC1 ray0to- c Controet Final EXHIBIT A City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Scope of Work Outlined herein is Kessler Consulting, Inc.'s (KCI) scope of work to assist the City of Fayetteville (City) in developing a Master Plan aimed at achieving an efficient, cost-effective solid waste system that maximizes waste reduction and recycling and puts the City on a path to attaining its goal of 80 percent waste diversion. Achieving this goal will require new and expanded programs, innovative policies, productive partnerships, and/or implementation of new technologies. It will require a fundamental shift from waste management to resource management. KCI anticipates subcontracting with the University of Arkansas Applied Sustainability Center (ASC) to assist with discreet tasks and activities. In particular, we will seek to engage student participation in the project, primarily in assisting with the waste composition study and stakeholder meeting logistics. In addition, ASC will provide local knowledge and assist in exploring opportunities for collaboration between the City and the University. Scope of Services Task I Baseline and Operational Assessment of Current System Purpose: In this initial task, KCI will examine, inventory, and benchmark for future comparison the City's existing solid waste programs and operations. We will review studies recently completed for the City to avoid duplication of efforts. KCI will also conduct operational assessments of the City's collection operations and the City -owned and operated transfer station, recycle center, and compost facility. We will review any existing information and performance metrics provided by the City; complemented by field observations as needed. Analyzing existing solid waste and recycling systems will lay the foundation for all future planning. activities. Activities: I. Participate in a kick-off call with City staff to initiate the project and clearly define project objectives. 2. Review and evaluate relevant information and data including, but not limited to, the following: • Tonnage of solid waste, recyclables materials, yard waste, construction and demolition debris (CDD), white goods, household hazardous waste, etc. generated by source (i.e., residential, commercial, etc.) and final disposition of these wastes and recycling streams, whether at public or private facilities. • Current solid waste contracts. • Current facility permits and operating plans. • Solid waste system budgets and actual revenues and expenditures. • Recordkeeping, data management, revenue assurance systems, and user fee structure. ■ Current bond covenants. ■ Current organizational chart of solid waste department. ■ City Ordinances and other policies pertaining to solid waste and any recent planning documents regarding solid waste. • Inter -local agreements with Washington County or other municipalities, if applicable. kessler consulting inc. Scope of 1,1jork v2 A-1 a,rOva t.Vewa>tasolanoac Exhibit A City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Scope of Work ■ Existing education and outreach materials. 3. Develop population and waste generation projections for a 10-year period, and identify factors that will affect population growth and waste generation. 4. Conduct an onsite assessment, anticipated to last five days, to observe collection operations and operations at the transfer station, recycle center, and compost facility. The assessment will include the following: ■ Group meeting with operational employees to gain a clear understanding of operations and engage front-line staff in the evaluation process. • Field -level observations, ride-alongs, and route -based data collection in cooperation with front-line staff. • Use of proprietary wireless and web -based technology to collect real-time, on -route data and measure route performance and to estimate recycling participation. 5. Analyze labor requirements, production, and current workforce levels in order to develop staffing recommendations. 6. Analyze equipment replacement schedules. 7.. Compare findings with industry standards. 8. Identify program components and options that could potentially lower costs, improve efficiency, or otherwise help the City meet its objectives. 9. Identify tools to assist the City in measuring improvement progress over time. 10. Prepare a summary of Task 1 results and findings. Deliverable: Technical memorandum summarizing the current solid waste system, results and findings. of the operational assessment, and 10-year population and waste generation projections. Task 2 Waste and Litter Composition Study Purpose: KCI will conduct a study to determine the composition of waste generated within the City that is delivered to the City's transfer station for disposal. Understanding the types and quantities of materials contained in the waste stream is critical to developing effective systems to divert these resources for recycling or composting. Waste composition data also serves as a benchmark for comparing future system changes. Concurrently, KCI will conduct a study to determine the composition of litter collected from various locations throughout the City. The budget provided herein is for one sampling and sorting event lasting five days in duration. The City may wish to conduct additional sorting events to account for seasonal variability in waste composition. The University of Arkansas (UA) has expressed interest in participating in the waste composition study while KCI's team is mobilized for the City's study. The option of including UA's waste as part of the study is discussed in Task 2A below. Activities: 1. Request from the City and review four weeks of scale house data regarding inbound vehicles to the transfer station, including source, vehicle number, timeof arrival, and tonnage. 2. Request from the City and review the windshield litter survey conducted by City staff. 3. Develop a list of material categories into which waste will be sorted, ensuring that these categories are consistent with the City's existing recycling program and any previous composition studies. Kessler consulting inc. Scone of Work v2 A_2 ,rncrac:va;as:eselirtians Exhibit A City of Fayetteville, AR solid waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Scope of Work 4. Identify the generator sectors (e.g., residential, commercial, litter) that will be targeted in the waste composition study_ 5. Develop a sampling schedule, sampling and sorting protocol, and site safety plan for review by City staff. KCI will work closely with City staff to develop the sampling schedule for litter since the City will be responsible for mobilizing staff or volunteers to collect the litter from specified areas, mark it, and deliver it to the sorting area. 6. Work with City staff to identify an appropriate sampling and sorting area. The City will be asked to provide a covered area (an existing structure or a tent) under which the sorting team will work and a loader and operator to pull samples, as directed by KCI's Sampling Supervisor, and deliver them to the sorting area. 7. Obtain the necessary equipment for conducting the sorting event. The City will be asked to provide four six-foot folding tables and recycling bins and other containers into which materials will be sorted. KCI will provide all other safety and sorting equipment and a calibrated platform scale. 8. Mobilize for the sorting event. KCI will provide a Sort Supervisor, Sampling Supervisor, and up to seven sorters. KCI is working with ASCto hire students as the sorters, which will provide a rare hands-on learning opportunity for the students. 9. Execute the sorting event. KCI's Sampling Supervisor will work with the loader operator to pull representative samples from selected incoming loads of waste in accordance with the sampling schedule. Samples will be transferred to the sorting area and stored on tarps until sorted. All samples will be sorted into the defined material categories and weighed. KCI's Sort or Sampling Supervisor will conduct all data recording_ To ensure quality and safety, KCI will conduct a training session, prior to starting work each day, to review safety and sorting procedures. 10, Analyze the data from the sorting event to calculate the percentage by weight of each material category for -each generator sector, as well as for the City's overall waste stream. Data analysis will follow the ASTM Standard Test Method for Determination of the Composition of Unprocessed Municipal Solid Waste (D5231-92; reapproved 2008). 11. Preparea technical memorandum summarizing the results and findings of the study. Deliverables: • Material categories list, sampling and sorting protocol, samplings . chedule, and site safety plan. • Technical memorandum providing the results of the waste composition study. Task 2A UA Waste Composition Study (optional task) Purpose: This optional task will entail sampling and sorting waste generated on the UA campus. KCI anticipates adding three additional days of field work, which will enable the KCI team to sample and sort at least 24 samples of UA waste. To ensure the statistical validity of this data, no more than three separate UA generator sectors will be included. Specific generator sectors will be determined based on discussions with UA staff, but might include classrooms, dormitories, and food service areas. Activities: 1. Request from UA staff and review waste tonnage data, collection schedules, and other relevant, available information needed to develop the sampling schedule. 2. Confirm with UA staff that the material categories list developed for Task 2 is acceptable. 3. Identify the generator sectors that will be targeted in the waste composition study. kesslercon-sulting inc. S-(, e o4 work v_ A-3 inrovaulew,u<.e solutions Exhibit A City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Scope of Work 4. Develop a sampling schedule and provide the schedule and sampling and sorting protocol developed in Task 2 to UA staff for review. 5. Work with UA staff to ensure the necessary loads of waste will be directed to the sorting area for sampling in accordance with the sampling schedule. 6. Execute the sorting event. 7. Analyze the data from the sorting event to calculate the percentage by weight of each material category for each generator sector, as well as for UA's overall waste stream (all generators combined). 8. Incorporate the results of the UA study into the Task 2 technical memorandum. Deliverables: • Material categories list, sampling and sorting protocol, and sampling schedule. • Section of Task 2 technical memorandum providing the results of the UA waste composition study. Task 3 Reduction and Diversion Options Analysis Purpose: The purpose of this task is to evaluate proven recovery technologies and programmatic approaches, and to identify those that offer the greatest potential material recovery and waste reduction/diversion opportunities to the City. for example, collection options might include wet/dry collection, dual stream recycling, cart -based single stream recycling, compressed natural gas (CNG) collection vehicles, incentive -based contracts, and rewards programs such as Recycling Perks. Processing technologies to capture or utilize material resources include single stream, mixed waste, and wet/dry material processing, organics processing technologies, and other emerging technologies that seek to minimize the disposal of waste. Activities: 1. - Identify and conduct an initial evaluation of material recovery technologies and programs to identify those most viable or having the greatest materials recovery and waste reduction/diversion potential. Such evaluation will include reviewing recognized regional and national programs, analyzing the potential applicability to the City, and conducting an initial analysis of the economic feasibility. 2. Evaluate potential public and private strategic partnerships for leveraging expertise and economies 6f scale. 3. Prepare a summary of this evaluation and identify material recovery technologies and programs that warrant further consideration. Scenarios for future consideration may include modifications to existing contracts and programs, as well as implementation of new technologies and programs. Deliverable: Technical memorandum of this initial evaluation of technology and program options. Task 4 Recovery Scenarios Modeling and Financial Evaluation Purpose: KCI will use a proprietary spreadsheet -based model to conduct a more detailed analysis of high -recovery, integrated materials management system scenarios that the City desires to consider further. This interactive model takes into consideration that changes in one system component will have operational and financial impacts on other system components. Based on a set of City -specific assumptions, the model will estimate the AA kesslerconsulting inc. $once of %PJOrRVL A-`F 9'pFYZFS2Vidi:clCiilpp�S Exhibit A City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Scope of Work capital and operating cost of each scenario, potential revenues, potential waste diversion (material recovery), and site requirements. An appropriate fee structure will be linked to the anticipated costs and benefits of new or expanded services to ensure a healthy and sustainable enterprise fund. The scenario modeling and financial evaluation will also consider the intrinsic value of the selected scenarios as it relates to the triple bottom line so that the City has a comprehensive foundation for decision -making. Activities: 1. Based on the results of Tasks 4, conduct a work session with City staff to identify material recovery scenarios for further analysis. 2. Develop and confirm assumptions that will be used in the model. 3. Evaluate the identified scenarios using KCI's comparative model. 4. Conduct a financial analysis of the implications of selected scenarios to the City's existing solid waste business model. 5. Prioritize the model results based on waste reduction/diversion potential and cost-effectiveness to the City. 6. Review the model results with City staff to identify • selected scenarios for inclusion in the Master Plan. 7. Develop rate structure modifications for scenarios selected by the City that will ensure the long- term viability of the solid waste system and enterprise fund, as well as incentivize increased recycling or waste diversion. 8. Develop recommendations for inclusion in the draft Master Plan, including a consolidated rate structure and potential modifications to the City's solid waste business model. Deliverable: Technical memorandum that includes the results of the detailed analysis of selected scenarios and associated rate structure as recommendations for inclusion in the draft Master Plan. Task 5 Policy Recommendations Purpose: The purpose of this task is to identify policies to implement and support the various technology and program options selected in Task 5. Policies are the principles and guidelines by which the City will reach its solid waste and resource management goals. These policies will influence future decisions regarding the solid waste system, thereby translating these policies into compatible actions and programs. Examples of policies for consideration include residential and/or commercial recycling mandates, disposal bans on specific types of recyclable or compostable materials, bans of the use of certain types of products (e.g., plastics bags, polystyrene containers), source separation standards, minimum service standards, private sector participation, and regional cooperation. Activities: 1. Define and evaluate policies that would encourage specific behaviors and/or complement the technologies and programs selected in Task 5. 2. Identify policy recommendations that will best help guide the City toward meeting its goals and objectives, while also ensuring the long-term financial viability of the solid waste system. 3. Review the draft policy recommendations with City staff and revise as needed. Deliverable: Technical memorandum identifying policy recommendations. kessler consulting inc. Scope of work v2 A-S ' :rrcaar::ev; >,escluti�ns Exhibit A City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Scope of Work Task 6 Solid Waste Master Plan Development Purpose: The results of the previous tasks and technical memoranda developed as part of these tasks will be incorporated into a Master Plan. Based on review and discussions with City staff, KCI will develop near -term and long-term recommendations deemed cost-effective and operationally feasible on the scale required by the City. Activities: Develop a draft Master Plan that includes or addresses the following: 1. Baseline Summary: ■ Summary of the City's current solid waste system, including waste and recyclables tonnage, flow, and management. ■ Population and waste generation projections over a 10-year period and summary of factors that affect these projections. ■ Operational assessments of City collection operations and City -owned and operated facilities, along with initial recommendations for improvements. 2. Reductiori and Diversion Options Evaluation: • Evaluation of proven material recovery technologies and programs. • Results of the more detailed analysis of selected scenarios, prioritizing scenarios based on waste reduction/diversion potential and cost-effectiveness. • Potential opportunities for partnership. Discussion of impacts on the City's business model and recommended modifications. 3. Short-, Medium- and Long -Term Recommendations: Policies: Policy recommendations that provide the framework that derives sustainable materials recovery and guides decision -making, program and facility development, stakeholder engagement, and systems financing: ■ Programs: Program recommendations that are cost-effective and deemed most viable to substantially increase waste reduction and diversion, taking into account the availability of sustainable markets for the recovered resources. ■ Facilities: Proven technology and facility recommendations that are effective in recovering material from the waste stream, have been demonstrated on a scale commensurate with the City, and are financially viable. ■ Education: Recommended marketing strategy and programs that will complement and help ensure the success of the various policy, program, and facility recommendations. Emphasis will be placed on strategies for affecting changes in behavior. A summary of all community input (Task 8) will be included. 4. Financial Analysis: ■ Proposed business plan and financial implications (ranges from high to low) of the Master Plan recommendations. • Proposed rate structure intended to preserve the health and sustainability ofthe enterprise fund. Deliverable: Draft and final Master Plan integrating the technical memoranda from all other tasks. kessler+consultin inc. Scree of wor v2 A-6 :ecors :.ewa;;ascluci ni Exhibit A City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Scope of Work Task 7 Project Coordination, Community Input, and Presentations Purpose: Throughout this project, KCI will maintain frequent communication with City staff regarding project status and technical aspects of the work. We also will seek stakeholder input through a variety of mechanisms including, but not limited to, workshops, meetings, and surveys. Whenever possible, we will include a web -based option for providing input, such as on-line access to town hall type meetings and on-line surveys. In addition, KCI will present the final Master Plan to elected officials, the public, or other stakeholders. Activities: 1. Participate in monthly project team calls. 2. Prepare a monthly summary of activities. 3. Coordinate and participate in up to three days of workshops and/or meetings with stakeholder groups, the general public, and/or elected officials. KCI will arrange for stakeholders to have a web -based option to provide input whenever feasible. 4. Develop and execute a stakeholder survey in a variety of formats, including a web -based survey tool such as Survey Monkey. 5. Participate in up to two days of one-on-one and/or public meetings with City management and elected officials, as deemed appropriate, to present, review, and discuss the final Master Plan. Deliverables: • Monthly summary of activities. • Participation in up to three stakeholder workshops, meetings, or focus groups. Survey instrument. . - Technical memorandum summarizing survey results and other stakeholder input. • Presentation of Master Plan. Budget and 'I'iii¢><eline Because of the nature of this project and the potential variability in the level of effort required, KCI proposes to conduct this scope of work on a time -and -materials basis for an amount not to exceed $249,930, excluding Task 2A. The budget for Task 2A is $14,960. A detailed budget breakdown by task is provided in Attachment B. Services will be invoiced at the rates indicated, which include all overhead and direct and indirect costs. Expenses (travel, etc.) will be billed at cost without markup. KCI will submit monthly invoices with a written explanation of activities completed that month. KCI will initiate work upon notice to proceed. A proposed timeline is provided herein, which may be modified as the project progresses. KCI looks forward to assisting the City in developing a comprehensive Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan that seeks to maximize waste diversion while maintaining the long-term financial viability of the City's solid waste and resource management system. kessler consulting inc. Scope of work Q A-7 rrc',a: re rrs;.a salationa Exhibit A City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Scope of Work Proposed Timeline Tasks Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 Baseline and Operational Assessment ,�`�-- ' 2MZ ::'� I -- i " 2 Waste and Litter Composition Study -RMZ i. 3 Reduction and Diversion O Options Analysis P Y O 4 Recovery Scenarios Modeling and financial Evaluation 5 Polity Recommendations�.� sr 6 Solid Waste Master Plan Development M. Project Coordination, Community Input, 7 �� Kx F '-�F and Presentations c� ;.. 0v1111xk-3'n`<>� s- (cessler consulting Scope of Wnrk v1 q_g 9 inc. �nn��ava..as� sahrtioa� EXHIBIT B City of Fayetteville, AR Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion, and Recycling Master Plan Proposed Budget Taakt Taak2 Task2A Ta3k3 Task4 Tmk5 Tmk6 Task? With ,k2A I P)ithout7as42A Recovery Project Optional UA Reduction & Scenario Coordination, Baseline& Waste&Litter haste Diversion modeling& Solid Waste master Plan Commnndy Input & ],,. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL ROURLY Operational Composition Composition OP6.w Financial Policy 'a Development" Prc MINGon DOLIARS DOLLARS CATEGORY (NAME) RATE Aaaessment Study Study Analysis Evaluation Recommend .HOURS. LABOR 40 20 100 101 80 20.0 590 114.0 1,090 112.0 $20,720 Project Director $165.00 100 40.0 40.0 40.0 60.0 60.0 312.0 $43,680 304.0 $A2,560 Pmjcct manager $140.00 48.0 16.0 8.9 0.0 40.0 40.0 10.0 20.0 80 226.0 8,500 228A D,SDD SeniorCons.Ftant $125.00 110.0 0.0 10.0 170.0 170.0 72.0 110.0 60.0 692.0 $69,200 682.0 $b8?00 Conwlcant $100,00 80.0 20.0 " 0.0 0.0 O.p OA 0.0 200.0 SI9,000 150.0 $14,250 Consultant $95.00 0.0 160.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 D.0 OA 140.0 $11,900 149.0 $11,90D Consultant ON 140.0 0.0 8A 12.0 0.0 80A 60.0 40.0 80.0 20.0 328.0 $G6,240 316.0 5,280 Research Analyst $60.00 0.0 16.0 24.01 10.0 10.0 1D.0 10.0 10.0 156.0 $0,36D 132.0 Office kianagerIT I, icai Support %0.00 14.0 68.0 1 3%0 3550 1 D 300.0 21k'0 2170.0 $220,970 2D61.0 $219,33D 9,330 SUBTOTAL LABOR NOURS 402o 271.0 1D6.0 i36,150 $i6,diD 5f9,330 . �2,6t10 $26,SSD $?Zw',9I0 $219,330 SU8T07AL LABORDOLLARS $1$O6D $21,590 $9.6fo DlREC7 COSTS $iJ00 $3,700 9 300 �•� g$,00p $17,700 $15,400 TRAVEL SUPPLIES $1,00ul $1,500 $6,720 Six $4,200 CONTRACTED LABOR $4,200 �,520 $500 $500 $1,000 5,000 $10,000 $10,000 SUBCONTRACTOR SUBTOTAL DLREIT COST $1,000 �,000 $l,700 $f0.9oD $5,32D$2,000 $5D0 $1,000 $11,000 $'i5s920 $711,600 TOM PROJEC)"BUDGET " $A,760".. $i5,190 $11,960 5i6,96D $3^,4:rD $19,230 $33,600 �t7,t`SD �6t,S90 A'b19,930 LABOR r DNiECf COST kessler consulting inc. B_g o:nnvame„vi, smmioro Scope of work v2 City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2014-0408 Legistar File ID N/A City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item Sustainability & Resilience / Leif Olson 9/10/2014 Chief of Staff Submitted By Submitted Date Division / Department Action Recommendation: Administrative approval of a Memorandum of Understanding with the University of Arkansas Facilities Management Department to contract with Kessler- Consulting to complete a Waste Composition Study of 24 selected waste samples from no more than three separate UofA generator sectors. Budget Impact: Account Number Fund Project Number Budgeted Item? NA Current Budget Funds Obligated Current Balance Project Title I$ Does item have a cost? No Item Cost Budget Adjustment Attached? No Budget Adjustment Remaining Budget $ - V20140710 Previous Ordinance or Resolution ## 171-14 Original Contract Number: Approval Date: Comments: CITY OF w ARKANSAS TO: Mayor Jordan Don Marr, Chief of Staff Paul Becker, Finance Director THRU: Peter Nierengarten, Sustainability and Resilience Director CC: Jeff Coles, Recycling and Trash Collection Division Director FROM: Leif Olson, Associate Planner DATE: September 19, 2014 SUBJECT: Memorandum of Understanding — Recycling Master Plan with University of Arkansas RECOMMENDATION: Administrative approval of a Memorandum of Understanding with the University of Arkansas Facilities Management Department to contract with Kessler Consulting to complete a Waste Composition Study of 24 selected waste samples from no more than three separate UofA generator sectors. Generator sectors may include classrooms, dormitories and food service areas. BACKGROUND: The City Council passed Resolution Number 171-14 on September 16, 2014 to hire Kessler Consulting to develop a 10 year solid waste master plan in order to attain a waste diversion rate of 80%. One critical component of a solid waste and recycling plan is to conduct a waste composition study in order to determine the precise makeup of the waste materials that are being discarded in the landfill. This is accomplished by pulling sample waste containers from different waste generating sectors and measuring the type and volume of the waste that is currently being landfilled. Kessler Consulting will perform waste composition studies for both the University and the City in order to provide quantifiable data on the type and volume of waste generated by all sectors within the City. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: This Memorandum of Understanding prescribes that the University of Arkansas will reimburse The City of Fayetteville $14,960 for the cost of their waste composition study. Mailing Address: www.fayetteville-argov 113 W. Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING between THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT and THE City of Fayetteville, AR FY 2015 This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into and executed on the date indicated beside the signature blocks, by and between the University of Arkansas Facilities Management Department and the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, 1. PURPOSE The City of Fayetteville (City) is contracting with Kessler Consulting, Inc. (KCI) of Tampa, FL to provide a Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion and Recycling Master Plan for the City. The Master Plan is aimed at achieving an efficient, cost-effective solid waste system that maximizes waste reduction and recyclirrg and puts the City on a path to attaining its goal of 80 percent waste diversion. The City's Contract with KCI includes a task for a University of Arkansas (UA) Waste Composition Study which entails sampling and sorting waste generated on the UA campus. The purpose of this MOU is to establish the contractual relationship (scope, deliverables schedule and price) between the City and UA to enable KCI to perform this work on behalf of the UA. Regarding this agreement contact people for the City of Fayetteville will be:. Peter Nierengarten 479.575.8272/pnierengarten@fayetteville-ar.gov name - ph'/email Jeff Coles 479.444.3499/jcoles@fayetteville-ar.gov name Contact people at FMD are: ph#/email Carlos Ochoa 5-2405 / cochoajr@uark.edu Primary contact ate contact Primary contact name ph-0/email Peggy Cromer 5-6593 / pbcomer@uark.edu --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Alternate contact name ph4/email 11. SCOPE KCI anticipates the UA Waste Composition Study requiring three days of fieldwork, which will enable the KCI team to sample and sort at least 24 samples of UA waste. To ensure the statistical validity of this data, no more than three separate UA generator sectors will be included. Specific generator sectors will 9/12/14 1 be determined based on discussions with UA staff, but might include classrooms, dormitories, and food service areas. Activities 1. Request from UA staffand review waste tonnage data, collection schedules, and other relevant available information needed to develop the sampling schedule. 2. Confirm with UA staff that the material categories list developed for Task 2 is acceptable. 3. Identify the generator sectors that will be targeted in the waste composition study. 4. Develop a sampling schedule and provide the schedule and sampling and sorting protocol developed in Task 2 to UA staff for review. S_ Work with UA staff to ensure the necessary loads of waste will be directed to the sorting area for sampling in accordance with the sampling schedule. 6. Execute the sorting event. 7. Analyze the data from -the sorting event to calculate the percentage by weight of each material category for each generator sector, as well as for UA's overall waste stream (all generators combined). 8. Incorporate the results of the UA study into the Task 2 technical memorandum. III. DELIVERABLES • Material categories list, sampling and sorting protocol, and sampling schedule. • Technical memorandum providing the results of the City and UA waste composition studies. V1. SCHEDULE The UA waste composition study will be completed as part of task 2 of the City's Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion and Recycling Master Plan. That plan is scheduled to begin in October 2014 and to follow the propose time line below. Month Tasks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 1 Baseline and Operational Assessment 2 Waste and Litter Composition Study 3 Reduction and Diversion Options Analysis 4 Recover/ Scenarios Modeling and Financial Evaluation 5 Policy Recommendations 6 Solid Waste Master Plan Development Project Coordination, Community Input, and Presentations 9/12/14 2 V. PRICE The total task budget for the UA Waste Composition Study is S i 4,960. IV. TERMINATION OF SERVICES Should either Party decide to terminate this MOU, a Notice of Discontinuation of Services must be sent to the other party in writing at least 60 days prior to the date of termination. Included in the notice should be the reason for the termination with a list of any discrepancies noted. Any equipment/materials purchased with University of Arkansas monies or transferred from the City of Fayetteville to Facilities Management to use during the waste assessment, will be returned to the City of Fayetteville in their current condition/status. This Memorandum of Understanding supersedes any previous agreement(s). This MOU is effective upon signature and shall remain in effect until December 31, 201 5, or such time as a Notice of Discontinuation of Services is executed by either party hereunto. By --------' !�z- - -�Vice ----------- Date_ -R. Johnson, Aso lChancellor for Facilities University of Arkansas Facilities Management Department CITY OF FA TTEVI E y=- -- ---- - — -- ------ Date _ 1� nel Jordan y r Attest: By::__✓%Y? _ - ------ --- Date_ Sondra E. Smith, City Clerk/Treasurer JT RFq : FAYETTEVILLE. 9/12/14 3 0 Tya e 6Mile PURC HASE ORDD AM A' VENDOR NO. 24798 Kessler Consulting Inc 14620 N Nebraska Avenue Building D Tampa FL 33613 Each Package Must Be Marked Exactly As Shown Here City of Fayetteville, Arkansas DATE 10/13/14 FOB Fyv PURCHASE ORDER # 14-0000415=001 TERMS NET 30 DAY Unit oty. Description and city. of Received Account Number Unit Price TOTALS Issue 1.00 EA a) Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion 264890.00 26.489.0-00-- and Recycling Master Plan Contract #2337 Per Res #171-14 RFP #14-08 5500,5080.5314.00 14019 1 SHIP TO: PLANNING DEPT CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE 125 W MOUNTAIN FAYE7TEVILLE AR 72701 Olson, Lei DEPARTMENT VERIFICATION BY DATE . RECEIVED' � () 7 1 DEPT HEAD APPROVAL � 11d AMOUNT TO PAY J A/P VERIFICATION PURCHASING VERIFICATION PRICE CHANGE VERIFICATION RETURN CHECK TO SEND COPY TO — /q619 I - Sales Tax Total: Purchase Order Total: --2f489"0 ADDITIONAL APPROVAL CHECK # DOES NOT MEET PURCHASING POLICY CONTRACT PAYMENT OTHER APPROVED BY PROJECT # THIS PAYMENT $ PREVIOUS PAYMENT(S) $ TOTAL PYMT(S) $ BALANCE$ DEPT. WHEN COMPLETE DELIVER TO ACCTS. PAYABLE City of Fayetteville, Arkansas - Budget Adjustment Form (Legistar) Budget Year Division: Recycling & Trash Collection Adjustment Number 2015 Dept.: Transportation Services Requestor: Brian Pugh BUDGET ADJUSTMENT DESCRIPTION / JUSTIFICATION: Recycling and Trash Collection requests reallocation of funds to amend the Kessler contract for the addition of two pilot programs not included in the original contract. Total request in the amount of $39,980.00 COUNCIL DATE: 8/4/2015 LEGISTAR FILE ID#: 2015-0308 Kevi yvSprr►* e 7/14/2015 4:46 PM Budget Director Date TYPE: DESCRIPTION: RESOLUTION/ORDINANCE I GLDATE: POSTED: / TOTAL Account Number - - Increase / (Decrease) Expense Revenue Project.Sub# Project Sub AT v.20150402 Account Name 5500.5000.5304.00 (12,500) - EX Travel & Training 5500.5010.5213.04 5500.5010.5226.00 (14,980) - (12,500) - EX EX Fuel Container Maint Supplies 5500.5080.5314.00 39,980 - _ 14019 1 EX Professional Services C:\Users\dmccoy\AppData\Roaming\L5\Temp\720956d3-b6de-413b-9598-798c5305ae63 1 of 1 *`,&ANA v ka About Single Stream Collection http://wapo.st/116019X Washington Post Wall Street Journal article April 2015, "Big Cracks in Glass Recycling" National Public Radio did a story on single stream earlier this year. Susan Collins from the Container Recycling Institute was interviewed. Once an advocate for single stream, she now has evidence against it. National Recycling Coalition, February webinar, "Paper and Plastic Update" Webinars here . Resource Recycling magazine, June,6th, Waste Management CEO says about single stream, "We screwed up." Proponents say single stream increases volume and participation. Participation in what? Isn't the goal to reduce consumption and save natural resources. Single stream proponents also talk about worker safety. Wouldn't you rather be standing 4 feet above one of Fvlle's recycling bins so you could see that dirty diaper, instead of being a worker on sort line with that dirty diaper TWO feet in front of your face, as if passes by on the assembly line. Single stream proponents will tell you technology/the machines are improved and can take out the contaminants. Listen to NRC Feb webinar. Envision Plastic rep tells of rejecting seven large loads from a large single stream MRF because the machines do not catch things as well as the human eye. Try to visit a facility unannounced... Couple years back group of us (from Fayatteville), were at a national conference in Dallas. We went to see a single stream MRF. Bus driver got lost for TWO hours. Hmm. About ten minutes after we finally entered the MRF, a garbage colleague nudged me and pointed to an 18 wheeler pulling away from the facility. He asked if I knew what was in it. I said no. He said garbage. He said as we pulled up he saw them finish loading it and close it up. Go visit unannounced. .--� G� 7 � I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 State of Arkansas 89th General Assembly Regular Session, 2013 HR 1043 By: Representative Leding HOUSE RESOLUTION SUPPORTING TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY REGARDING MATERIALS COLLECTED FOR RECYCLING. Subtitle SUPPORTING TRANSPARENCY AND' ACCOUNTABILITY REGARDING MATERIALS COLLECTED FOR RECYCLING. WHEREAS, municipal recycling programs designate various types of materials to be separated from the waste stream with the intent that these materials will be recycled by being reprocessed and returned to the marketplace; and WHEREAS, a public trust exists when Arkansas citizens participate in municipal recycling programs and these citizens 'rightfully expect that the materials collected will in fact be recycled; and WHEREAS, a portion of the materials collected for recycling by municipal recycling programs are not being recycled, either because collected materials are contaminated or there is no economically viable market for the materials; and WHEREAS, citizens of the Natural State deserve transparency and accountability regarding the total volume of materials collected for recycling by a municipal recycling program and the percentage of that volume which is actually recycled and the percentage that is not recycled, 03-09-2013 21:12:48 MGF373 HR1043 1 N0W THEREFORE, 2 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE EIGHTY-NINTH GENERAL 3 ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: 4 5 That the General Assembly commends municipal recycling programs that 6 honor the public trust by providing documentation of the volume and ly recycled from the municipal program 7 percentage of material that is actual 8 of material which is not recycled; and as well as the volume and percentage 9 LO BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the General Assembly encourages all municipal 11 recycling programs to include transparency and accountability clauses in any order to assure citizens that materials 12 solid waste collection agreements in 13 collected for recycling are, in fact, being re -processed and returned to the 14 marketplace. 15 16 17 18 -19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 2 03-09-2013 21:12:48 MGF373 Fayettevi I I e I s Current Curbsort System 2o15 F,aYetteville's B1ue Bag (single stream) system 19go's Included glass Current single stream being used In NLVAR Includes glass ANN? Dual stream Minus the glass 1 Plastic products are typically labeled with a number surrounded by the recycling symbol. These numbers and labels identify both the type of fesin used to make the plastic and the products' recyclability. Associated with the different types of resin are potential health risks. The following table summarizes seven different types -of commonly used plastics, product examples, recyclability, and potential health risks. USED FOR POLYETHYLENE RECYCLABILITY HEALTH NOTES soft drink, water, and other PET is recycled into: new No known health issues. PET is one of beverage bottles bottles, polyester for fabrics the most easily • detergent and cleaning and carpet, fill for bumper recycled plastic. Ncontainers cars and fiberfill for sleeping a1 • peanut butter and other bags and jackets. PET food containers and bottles PLASTIC #2 - HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (HDPE) • milk and water jugs Clear HDPE containers are No known health issues. HDPE. is easily • laundry detergents, easily recycled.back into new recycled. shampoo, and motor oil containers. containers Colored HDPE are converted • shampoo bottles into plastic lumber, lawn and HDPE • some plastic bags garden edging, pipes, rope, and toys. POLYWNYL CHLORID •- • clear food packagin-g, cling PVC is one of the least Many harmful chemicals are produced in Harmful wrap recyclable plastic due to the manufacturing, disposal, or destruction chemicals �� • cleaner bottles substances detergents and window additives. Potentially harmful of PVC including: created as a byproduct of • some plastic squeeze 6y its disposal. • DEHA (di(2ethylhexyl)adipate) PVC can also PVC bottles, cooking oil and • Dioxins settle on peanut butter jars •Vinyl chloride es • Ethylene dichloride grassland, • vinyl i where they can y pipes Effects of exposure to these chemicals be consumed • shower curtains may include: decreased birth weight, by livestock, • flooring, home siding, and learning and behavioral problems in and accumulate window and door frames children, suppressed immune function and in meat and disruption of hormones in the body, cancer dairy products and birth defects, genetic changes. that are directly ingested by us. PLASTIC #4 -LOW DENSITY •• i- • bread, frozen food, and grocery bags L4�• most plastic wraps LDPE is not usually recycled. No known health issues. While no known health effects associated with • some bottles the use of this LDPE plastic are known, organic pollutants are ` formed during manufacturing. } POLYPROPYLENE • deli soups, syrup, yogurt and PP is not easily recycled. No known health issues. margarine containers /J\., Differences in the varieties of disposable diapers type and grade, mean 5• • outdoor carpet L achieving consistent quality during recycling is difficult. . • house wrap PP • clouded plastic containers, e.g. baby bottles, straws POLYSTYRENE Rigid Polystyrene Recycling PS is possible, but Styrene can leach from polystyrene. Over Try reusing �t • CD cases not normally economically the long term, this can act as a neurotoxin. styrofoam viable. Studies on animals report harmful effects packing • disposeable cutlery L64Nof styrene on red -blood cells, the liver, peanuts, and Formed Polystyrene kidney, and stomach organs'. polystyrene P (Styrofoam) US Environmental Protection Agency (1992) "Styrene". Air Toxics Website. Retrieved on 31/1/2008 from cutlery where • food containers -http:fiwww.epa.goyAin/atw/hltheffstvrene.html practical. • packaging Styrene can be absorbed by food, and • insulation once ingested can be stored in body fat. It • egg cartons is thought that repeated .exposure could • building insulation lead to bioaccumulation2. 2 WHO International Programme On Chemical Safety. - "Styrene". Environmental Health Criteria 26. Retrieved on 31/1/2008 http•f/www inchem.org/dw.umehts/ehc/ehc/ehc26.htm MIXED • lids Mixed resin plastics like #7 Health effects vary depending on the resin The number of • medical storage containers are difficult, if not impossible,' to recycle. and plasticizers in this plastic that often includes polycarbonates. Polycarbonate studies documenting • electronics 7 plastic leaches bisphenol A (BPA) a known the detrimental • most plastic baby bottles endocrine disruptor. By mimicking the effects between • 5-gallon water bottles action of the hormone, estrogen, bisphenol BPA and health OTHER • "sport" water bottles A has been found to: effect the are increasing. • metal food can liners development of young animals; play a role in certain types of cancer; create genetic • clear plastic "sippy cups damage and behavioral changes in a • some clear plastic cutlery variety of species. bisphenol A is widespread --one study found BPA in 95% of American adults sampled3. 3Calafat, A.M., Kuklenyik, Z., Reidy, JA., Caudill, S.P., Ekong, J. & Needham, L.L. (2005) "Urinary Concentrations of Bisphenol A and 4-Nonylphenol in a Human Reference Population" Environmental Health Perspectives 113: 391- • 395. Retrieved 31/1/2008 from http:f/www ehponline orq/memberaf2004T753477534 html • Avoid heating food in plastic containers. Heat can release chemicals so avoid heating food in plastic containers. For the same reason, only drink cold liquids from plastic containers. • Wash plastic containers in mild detergents. Harsh detergents help liberate chemical from plastics making the container much more likely to leach chemicals into food. • Avoid using plastic packaging where you can. For example, bring reusable bags when grocery shopping, and your own "to -go" containers when dining out. • Select safe plastics for food storage. Only use plastic containers with the recycling #1, #2, #4 and #5 for food storage. Consider switching to glass storage containers since plastic containers can leach chemicals into the environment and your food as they age and become used. Compiled by Sea Studios Foundation www.seastudios.org Sources: Earlh9l 1. org. Fnslitule of Agriculture and Trade Pour). WHO Intemaliona! Prngrarvne on Chemical .Safely. US FPA a Hauler CEOs discuss 'broken' curbside recycling model Page 1 of 3 Resource Recycling Published on Resource Recycling (http://resource-recycling.com) Home > Printer -friendly Hauler CEOs discuss 'broken' curbside recycling model By scott Created 0610912015 - 11:42 Hauler CEOs discuss 'broken' curbside recycling model ' Tue, 06/09/2015 - 11:42 1 scott Hauler CEOs discuss 'broken' curbside recycling model By Bobby Elliott, Resource Recycling June 9, 2015 Leaders at four of the country's largest waste management companies told attendees of last week's Waste Expo conference America's curbside recycling system is in need of a dramatic overhaul. While lending tentative optimism toward the waste industry as a whole, participants of the "Heavy Hitters" panel stressed curbside recycling is no longer the cash cow it used to be. "It's the single -stream, high -volume residential stream that's completely broken," David Steiner, CEO of Waste Management, commented. "We all screwed it up." The issue was a major focus of the hour-long session held at the Las Vegas Convention Center. The executives said low recycling fees and prevalent revenue -sharing with communities fails to account for today's increasing processing costs associated with single -stream programs and falling recycled commodity pricing. "This is a crisis," Steiner said. "Never have we had prices as down as they are today." Processing costs, meanwhile, are going up. According to Ron Mittelstaedt, the CEO of Waste Connections, processing costs today average $80 to $100 per ton for his company despite the fact that households typically file:///C:/Users/PCFRON-1 /AppData/Local/Temp/Low/QASU1 G5N.htm 8/3/2015 Hauler CEOs discuss 'broken' curbside recycling model Page 2 of 3 only see a $2 recycling fee per month. Disposal, meanwhile, costs Waste Connections between $30 and $40 per ton and residents pay about $25 a month for the service. All four leaders agreed collection and processing costs should be covered before sharing surplus revenues with communities. "If you're collecting, you've got to charge for collection," Joseph Quarin, CEO of Progressive Waste Solutions noted. "If you're processing, you've got to charge for processing." "We're bearing too much risk in our balance sheet," Richard Burke, Advanced Disposal's CEO, added. Annual financial filings for all four of the publicly traded companies show recycling revenues account for between 2 and 10 percent of overall revenues. Together, the companies represented at the Waste Expo panel generate nearly half of the $65 billion annual revenues of the waste management industry, panel moderator Michael Hoffman, managing director of Stifel Financial,_ noted. Despite the widespread support for the re -working of municipal contracts to make them - more hauler -friendly, Waste Connections leader Mittelstaedt cautioned such changes might be difficult to implement. "It's a little naive for us to think we can completely change the system," Mittelstaedt said. 2013 EPA O14ARACTERIZAIION REPORT Mvancing Sustainada Materials Vanagemgnt: Fads and Figures 201 S Assessing Mends in Materials Genwdon, Reayding, and Disposal in the united States THURSDAY JUNE 18"' 1 1:00PM EST I FREE WEBINAR izi To return to the Resource Recycling newsletter, click here r3] To sign up for the Resource Recycling newsletter, click here [41 Tags: June i51, 2015 tsi, Resource Recycling [71 June 2015 Resource Recycling file:///C:/TJsers/PCFRON-1/AppData/Local/Temp[Low/QASUIG5N.htm 8/3/2015 American recycling is stalling, and the big blue bin is one reason why - The Washington Post 0£ 'Ain toll P-0t X D.D. Politics Get the Local Headlines Newsletter Free daily updates delivered just for you. 8/4/15 820 AM American recycling is stalling, and the big blue bin is one reason why By Aaron G. Davis June 20) °P 01�r Tucked in the woods 30 miles north of Washington is a plant packed with energy -guzzling machines that can make even an environmentalist's heart sing — giant conveyor belts, sorters and crushers saving a thousand tons of paper, plastic and other recyclables from reaching landfills each day. The 24-hour operation is a sign that after three decades of trying, a culture of curbside recycling has become ingrained in cities and counties across the country. Happy Valley, however, it is not. Once a profitable business for cities and private employers alike, recycling in recent years has become a money - sucking enterprise. The District, Baltimore and many counties in between -are contributing millions annually to prop up one of the nation's busiest facilities here in Elkridge, Md. — but it is still losing money. In fact, almost every facility like it in the country is running in the red. And Waste Management and other recyclers say that more than 2,000 municipalities are paying to dispose of their recyclables instead of the other way around. In short, the business of American recycling has stalled. And industry leaders warn that the situation is worse than it appears. "If people feel that recycling is important — and I think they do, increasingly — then we are talking about a nationwide crisis," said David Steiner, chief executive of Waste Management, the nation's largest recycler that owns the Elkridge plant and So others. [Five waysAmericans should — and shouldn't— recycle] http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/amedcan-recycling... on-why/2015/06/20/914735e4-1610-11e5-9ddc-e3353542100c-story.html Page 1 of 7 American recycling is stalling, and the big blue bin is one reason why -The Washington Post 8/4/'•S 8:20 AM The Houston -based company's recycling division posted a loss of nearly $16 million in the first quarter of the year. In recent months, it has shut nearly one in io of its biggest recycling facilities. An even larger percentage of its plants may go dark in the next 12 months, Steiner said. The problems of recycling in America are both global and local. A storm of falling oil prices, a strong dollar and a weakened economy in China have sent prices for American recyclables plummeting worldwide. Environmentalists and other die-hard conservation advocates question if the industry is overstating a cyclical slump. "If you look at the long-term trends, there is no doubt that the markets for most recyclables have matured and that the economics of recycling, although it varies, has generally been moving in the right direction," said Eric A. Goldstein, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council who tracks solid waste and recycling in New York. "And that's without factoring in the external impact of landfilling or anything else," he added. "There aren't a lot of people saying, `Send more material to landfills."' Still, the numbers speak for themselves: a three-year trend of shrinking profits and rising costs for U.S. municipalities — and little evidence that they are a blip. Trying to encourage conservation, progressive lawmakers and environmentalists have made matters worse. By pushing to increase recycling rates with bigger and bigger bins — while demanding almost no sorting by consumers — the recycling stream has become increasingly polluted and less valuable, imperiling the economics of the whole system. "We kind of got everyone thinking that recycling was free," said Bill Moore, a leading industry consultant on paper.recycling who is based in Atlanta. "It's never really been free, and in fact, it's getting more expensive." The problem with blue bins Many of the problems facing the industry can be traced to the curbside blue bin — and the old saying that if it sounds too good to be true, it just might be. Anyone who has ever tossed a can into a bin knows what's supposed to happen: Anything recyclable can go in, and then somehow, magically, it's all separated and reused. http:/Iwww.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/amedcan-recycling... on-why/2015/06/20/914735e4-1610-11eS-9ddc-e3353542100c_story.html Page 2 of 7 American, recycling is stalling, and the big blue bin is one reason why - The Washington Post 8/4/15 8:20 AM The idea originated in California in the lggos. Environmental advocates believed that the only way to increase participation in recycling programs was to make it easier. Sorting took time and was messy. No one liked it. So- called Material Recovery Facilities, or MRFs, were created to do what consumers wouldn't. With conveyers, spinning flywheels, magnets and contraptions that look like giant Erector Sets, companies found that they could recycle almost everything at once. Lightweight newspaper and cardboard were sent tumbling upward, as if in a clothes dryer. Glass, plastic and metal fell into a series of belts and screens. Automation was adopted to sort, bale and send to manufacturers all those tons of paper, bottles and cans. From the start, it was hard to argue that glass should have been allowed in the curbside mix. It's the heaviest of recyclables but has always been of marginal value as a commodity. In the rough-and-tumble sorting facilities, a large share of it breaks and contaminates valuable bales of paper, plastic and other materials. Today, more than a third of all glass sent to recycling facilities ends up crushed. It is trucked to landfills as daily cover to bury the smell- and trap gases. The rest has almost no value to recyclers and can often cost them to haul away. In recent years, the problem of contamination has spread beyond glass. The problem was exacerbated when municipalities began increasing the size of bins, believing that bigger was better to keep more material from landfills. Consumers have indeed been filling the bigger bins, but often with as much garbage as recyclable material. With the extra room, residents stopped breaking down cardboard boxes. Because a full shipping box sometimes fits inside, even with foam and plastic wrap attached, all of it more frequently shows up at sorting facilities. Residents have also begun experimenting, perhaps with good intentions, tossing into recycling bins almost anything rubber, metal or plastic: garden hoses, clothes hangers, shopping bags, shoes, Christmas lights. That was exactly the case last year, when the District replaced residents' 32-gallon bins with ones that are 50 percent larger. [D.C. said it was recycling — it wasn't.] http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/amedcan-recycling... on-why/2015/06/20/914735e4-1610-1le5-9ddc-e3353542100c-story.html Page 3 of 7 American recycling is stalling, and the big blue bin is one reason why - The Washington Post 8/4/16 8:20 AM "Residue jumped a ton," said Hallie Clemm, deputy administrator for the city's solid waste management division. In fact, so much nonrecyclable material was being stuffed into the bins that after an audit by Waste Management last fall, the share of the city's profit for selling recyclables plummeted by more than 50 percent. That has driven up the city's processing price for recyclables to almost $63 a ton — 24 percent higher than if it trucked all of its recycling material, along with its trash, to a Virginia incinerator. The D.C. Council recently approved a payment of $1.2 million to Waste Management for the contract year that ended in May. In 2011, the city made a profit of $389,000. Little demand for newsprint A large part of the problem for recyclers is falling global commodity prices — a phenomenon largely out of recyclers' hands. But the negative impact of that trend is amplified by the contents of most recycling bins, because the composite of what Americans try to reuse has changed dramatically over the past decade. Dwindling have been the once -profitable old newspapers, thick plastic bottles and aluminum cans that could be easily baled and reused. With oil prices driving up transportation costs, manufacturers have engaged in a race to make packaging more lightweight. Coffee cans disappeared in favor of vacuum-packed aluminum bags; some tuna cans went the same way. Tin cans and plastic water bottles became thinner, too: The amount of plastic that once came from 22. bottles now requires 36. There was an even more pronounced drop in newsprint. Long a lucrative recycling commodity, it's not a key commodity market. In its place is something known as mixed residential paper: the junk mail, flattened cereal boxes and other paper items that these days can outweigh newspaper in a one -ton bale. One bright spot has been an increase in cardboard. Analysts say that with more people buying items through online merchants, cardboard can account for up to 15 percent of cities' recyclable loads — more than double that of a decade ago. The demand for that paper and cardboard, however, remains at a near -decade low. In China, containerboard, a common packaging product from recycled American paper, is trading at just over $40o a metric ton, down from http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/amercan-recycling...on-why/2015/06/20/914735e4-1610-11e5-9ddc-e3353542100c_story.htmi Page 4 of 7 Americaa. recycling is stalling, and the big blue bin is one reason why - The Washington Post 814/15 8:20 AM nearly $l,000 in 2010. China also needs less recycled newsprint; the last paper mill in Shanghai closed this year. [China doesn't even tvant to buy our garbage anymore] With less demand, Chinese companies have become pickier about the quality. Last week in Elkridge, an inspector from a Chinese company studied bales of paper being loaded into shipping containers bound for the port of Baltimore and, eventually, Asia. If the inspector found more than five nonpaper items protruding from any one side of the bale, it was rejected, forcing workers to break down the material and send it all back through the processing facility. The lightweight vacuum packs for food and paper -thin plastic bottles are increasingly part of the problem. They are so light that they get blown upward with the paper. "We've seen economic downturns in the value of material in the past, but what's different now is that the material mix has changed," said Patty Moore, head of California -based Moore Recycling Associates, which specializes in plastic recycling. "The problem is, to get the same value out of your scrap, you have to shove a whole lot more material through the facility. That was fine when scrap values were high, but when they dropped, we realized it's expensive to push all of this lightweight stuff through, and we're in trouble." Brent Bell, Waste Management's vice president for recycling, said the company has yet to see municipalities Abandon recycling, and the company is maintaining its ability to recycle whatever cities send their way. But it is downsizing its operation and expecting little increase in recycling rates nationwide. Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency announced a nationwide tally for recycling in 2013 that showed overall recycling had contracted for a second straight year, to 34.3 percent of the waste stream. With those trends, Bell said the company is beginning tough discussions with cities about what it sees as a long- term economic reality: Cities must bear more of the financial impact of falling commodity prices. That's the only way, Bell said, for recyclers like his company to invest in the business. Steiner, Waste Management's chief executive, went further. "We want to help our customers, but we are a for - profit business. We won't stay in the industry if we can't make a profit," he said. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/american-recyclIng...on-why/2015/06/20/914735e4-1610-11e5-9ddc-e3353542100c_story.html Page S of 7 American recycling is stalling, and the big blue bin is one reason why - The Washington Post 8/4/2-5 8:20 AM . 7, 1 Clemm, the District's recycling chief, said small efforts can begin to turn the tide. The District must begin by getting more garbage out of its recycling stream. "Residents have a way to influence this by making sure they are recycling right," she said. Another possibility is to follow the urgings of the environmental community by expanding recycling programs to include composting — the banana peels and grass clippings degrading in landfills that by some estimates have become the nation's third -biggest source of methane gas contributing to global warming. Composting is partly credited with the success of such cities as San Francisco, Portland and Seattle in increasing the share of the waste stream that is recycled each year. There are also a few encouraging signs downstream in the recycling market. A recycled -plastics company in Troy, Ala., processes more than 500 million pounds of recycled material annually from plastic bottles — and with 450 employees, the company is growing. In the Midwest, another company opened two additional facilities this month to feed an Indiana paper mill that churns out 100 percent recycled cardboard. Turning a profit on the initial, dirty task of sorting and processing the nation's recyclables, however, may take a larger overhaul, said Patty Moore. Governments may need to set standards or even consider taking over part of nt and ensure that profits remain a public benefit. 11 WC 1 G r V111,V, LU UG JGI I0U0 QUUUL JU Ulldary-materials management, we're really going to have to address it as a state or preferably national level," she said. "We need to harmonize what we're doing and make it work in a way that we're not spending all this money and spinning our wheels." Aaron Davis covers D.C. government and politics for The Post and wants to hear your story about how D.C. works — or how it doesn't. PROMOTED STORIES Recommended by http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/american-recycling... on-why/2015/06/20/914735e4-1610-11e5-9ddc-e3353542100c_story.html Page 6 of 7 IS SIDGLE-STRERM RECYCLiDG SERVICE THE SALVRTiOit OF ALL RECYCLIDG PROGRAMS OR IS THERE A BETTER WAY -FORWARD? OUR AUTHOR DIGS IDTO THE UDTOLD STORY OF REAL RESIDUE RATES ADD A PREFERABLE METHOD TO TRULY RECYCLE MORE MATERIALS AT MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITIES. he importance of preserving material quality and avoid- ing cross -contamination has become a common theme in many recent technical reports on recycling. Indeed, the Container Recycling Institute's (CRI) website features over a dozen reports and articles about the issue of quality problems with single -stream recycling collection and processing. Un- fortunately, there is widespread confusion about what losses in materials mean. Most studies rely on the materials recovery fa- cility (MRF) residue rate, without quantitative consideration of additional losses that occur post-MRF. As the data in this article In the average single - show, the additional stream collection losses after materials leave the MRF can be program, if you collect up to twice as large 100 tons of recyclables as the MRF residue at the curb, 73 to 78 tons rate. With an overall will actually be recycled loss rate of 22 to 27 percent by weight, into new products, and single -stream recyc- most of the rest will be ling is a system that landfilled, is far from optimal. : � susRn c©��ins There are existing systems in different parts of the world that use multiple streams of collection in order to maximize tonnage recovered, while delivering high -quality recyclables. As we seek new policies to increase recycling rates, we need to start reporting what is actually recycled, not just what is collected for recycling. Collection and processing methods have changed dra- matically in the last two decades, but reporting mechanisms haven't evolved to capture new recycling rate information correctly. Process losses occur at the MRF when contaminants are removed, and even greater levels of contamination are removed when materials arrive at paper mills, plastics reclaimers and other materials processing facilities. In the average single -stream collection program, if you collect 100 tons of recyclables at the curb, just 73 to 78 tons will actually be recycled into new products, with most of the rest landfilled. Continuation of CRT's single -stream research In the 2009 report, Understanding the economic and environmental impacts ofsingle-stream recycling, CRI detailed the contamination rates and yield losses for specific recyclables, but at that time, there was not enough data to create an overall yield loss number for all recyclables 14 RR I February 2012 collected through single -stream curbside recycling. A key element that was missing was the average composition of single - stream residential recyclables. Resource Recycling released the results of their first annual survey of materials recovery facility (MRF) operators in the Jan. 2011 issue, and the results included the composition of recyclables at MRFs. Moving materials at MRFs Resource Recycling received survey respons- es from 200 MRF managers oflarge and small facilities in 44 states. Some facilities were dual -stream, some single -stream. A few used mixed waste processing. The source of materials varied, from residential to commercial, to a mix of both. Incoming material types varied as well, with some facilities excluding such materials as glass, Nos. 3-7 plastics or other categories. For this project, we selected all of the facilities that both processed all residential recyclables from single -stream collection, and were from states without a container deposit program. There were eight facili- ties that met these criteria located in eight different states. The average composition of the materials sorted by these MRFs is indicated in Table 1, with the majority of the material stream being paper. Note that the residual rate for these selected facili- ties, eight percent, is lower than the average residual rate of.10 percent for the entire list of facilities surveyed. Also, due to a lack of data about the contamination rate. for "other" recyclables, we assumed, for the sake of these calculations, that there was no contamination. This is an unlikely sce- nario — therefore, the overall contamination calculation would likely be higher than that shown in Table 1. . Table 1 Losses. through single stream recycling in states without 'container deposit programs Composition Percent.loss`. Remaining per 100 tons, at secondary amourit that. as sorted at processing facility is actually the MRF (/o) recycled (/o) Glass 17 21 to 40 10.2 to 13.43 Paper 55 15 to 18 45.1 to 46.75 Plastic 10 32.2 6.78 Steel 4 . 0 4 Aluminum 3 2 to 11 2.67 to 2.94 Other (recyclables) 4 unknown 4 Residual 8 100 0 TOTAL 101 22.10 to 27.255 72.75 to 77.90 Note: total adds to 101, due to rounding. Source: Container Recycling Institute, 2012 Averages and ranges The data are presented here as averages and ranges. There isn't a single, specific num- ber that represents the total yield loss from single -stream collection. Brokers, mills and processors will nearly always say "it depends on the MRF" when asked about quality and percent contamination. Brokers often go on to say that they have some single -stream MRF clients that produce lower levels of contami- nation than source -separated programs. The variation is due to different program param- eters, such as types of materials accepted, type and frequency of public education, pay -as -you -throw or incentive -based pro- grams, versus unlimited service, as well as the demographics of each community. All of these factors affect the percent residuals that will be received by the MRF due to improper. sorting by residents. Therefore, if you want to know the quality and contamination levels achieved by a certain program, consult the documentation specific to that program. It is important to understand that some of these losses are due to the collection and sorting method, while other losses are con- sistent across all collection methods. There will be unavoidable losses from processing even the cleanest materials. Some "con- taminants" are attached to the recyclable, such as polypropylene caps on most PET bottles, or metal caps on glass bottles. We have explained the nature of the losses in the description for each material type. PET yield loss Like paper mills, PET reclaimers carefully measure yield loss for different sources of materials. Yield loss measurement is critical to their financial health — they must know how much material they will be able to sell after cleaning and processing incoming bales. These reclaimers must also know how much the cleaning process will cost and the amount of material they will need to landfill. Some of the yield loss in PET bottles is naturally attached to the bottle, such as caps, labels and adhesives, which, collec- tively, make up approximately 13 percent of the weight of PET bottles (note that this number varies from bottle to bottle, because bottle designs are so different). Many of the caps are polypropylene, and they are often removed and recycled, but the labels and adhesives are generally disposed of. Other contaminants may be "look -alike" bottles that were mistakenly added to the PET -bate, but are a different resin type, and so they must be separated before the -bottles are recycled. The yield loss for PET is used as a proxy for all plastics in Table 1, but this may overstate yield losses for all plastics. The bale yield loss rate for "all bottles" was significantly lower (22.1 percent in 2009) than the yield Ioss rate for PET bottles (32.2 percent for 2010), but 2010 "all -bottle" data are not available. PET bottles make up more than half of all bottles recovered in the U.S., by weight, according to 2009 data from the American Chemistry Council (ACC). If recycling rates are reported without removing yield loss from the contamination, it can lead to inflated recycling rates and double -counting. For example, when the polypropylene caps are recycled, the weight of those caps is counted in the polypropyl- ene recycling rate. The labels, adhesives and other contaminants are disposed of, but their weight has already been counted as "recycling" in the annual National Associa- tion for PET Container Resources (NAP- COR) and Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers (APR) report. For these reasons, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has recently adjusted its calculation RR I February 2012 • 15 of the PET recycling rate to include only the amount of PET that is actually recycled, and to exclude contaminants, other materials and yield losses. Plastics In 2009, Plastics News conducted a survey of HDPE and PET reclaimers, and the results indicated that yields in 2009 were 10 points lower than in 2007. The NAPCOR/APR 2010 Report on Post -Consumer PET Con- tainer Recyclingllctivity has detailed infor- mation about yield losses, notingin 2010, "U.S. reclaimers reported yield losses ranging from 24.4 percent for deposit bottles to 32.2 percent for curbside material, which is an increase of about seven percentage points from 2009. For non -bottle rigid plastic recycling, similar contamination issues exist, and they are also a threat to the plastics recycling industry and the jobs they create. As the ACC reported in its 2009 United States Na- tional Post -Consumer Plastics Bottle Recycling Report, "This lack of adherence to quality standards is a significant barrier to de4elop- ing more domestic reclamation capacity." Paper In CRI's 2009 report, Understandingeco- nomic and environmental impacts ofsingle- stream collection systems, we found that paper mills that receive materials from single -stream MRFs have contamination rates that are as high as 18 percent. Individual interviews with several paper mills indicate an average contamination rate of 15 percent, but these mills are all in regions that have container deposit programs, which remove most of the glass and much of the plastic from the curbside stream. Aluminum An interview with the largest aluminum re - cycler, cited in the 2009 CRI single -stream report, give us the average contamination rate range of 2 to I I percent. Like other materials, aluminum recycleds report that contamination rates are increasing, and that they have made additional investments in pre-treatment facilities to improve mate- rial quality. Contamination in aluminum is not merely inconvenient — there can be serious consequences. For decades, the aluminum industry has fervently warned against the inclusion of plastics in the alu- minuin stream because of safety concerns in processing and melting. Glass It is important to know the breakdown of the amount of glass that is recycled for use as cul- let to make glass bottles or fiberglass, versus the amount of glass that is used for aggregate or landfill daily cover. Recycling tonnages are often used in calculations of energy savings, greenhouse gas and other emission savings, and job creation, and there is a potential to overstate these environmental and economic benefits if the use of the glass is misunder- stood. Data from a dozen glass processing (beneficiation) facilities indicate that 60 per- cent of glass coming from single -stream pro- grams is useable for making glass bottles or fiberglass. Another 19 percent is undersize material, some of which can be used as road base or landfill daily cover, and 21 percent is a combination of non -glass residue and undersize material, which is not useable and is sent directly to landfill. In contrast, 90 percent of glass from dual -stream programs can be recycled into containers and fiberglass, with the remain- ing 10 percent being glass fines used for low -end applications. Glass from con- tainer deposit programs is color -sorted, resulting in 98 percent being recycled and only 2 percent marketed as glass fines. Alternatives to single stream collection Multi -stream collection is the norm in European countries such as Germany and Belgium, where municipalities collect all glass separately in neighborhood drop-off igloos, while paper and paperboard are collected separately from containers and packaging. European glass recycling rates reached 67 percent in 2009, around twice the US. glass recycling rate. In addition to accepting glass in its curbside recycling program, the City of Fort Collins, Colorado encourages residents to use glass -only drop-off bins to ensure that 100-percent of the glass can be used to make new glass bottles. Mark Bowers, of Sunnyvale, California, reports that his community has provided dual -stream collection, using split carts, for over a decade. Mr. Bowers concludes that, "Based on our data compared to data from single -stream conversions, it is clearly the cart, not the ability to put all of one's recyclables in one container, that spurs the increase in recycling when people switch to carts and (coincidentally) single -stream. That is, you get the same participation boost by going to carts and dual stream. At the same time, processing capital and operating costs are lower and you maintain the value of the fibers by keeping them separate from the other materials." The City of Auburn, Maine had imple- mented a single -stream recycling program, but decided to convert the program to a dual -stream collection program, in order to preserve material quality. A 2011 report by the Waste & Resources Action Programme in the U.K. goes a step farther, and recom- mends curbside sorting of materials, to preserve maximum quality. Daniel Lantz, of Cascades Recov- ery Inc., reports that the City of Ottawa conducted a survey of the public and, in response, they chose to retain their dual - stream collection system, relying on alter- . nating week collection to provide the same cost savings as single -stream. Conclusion While there have been many debates about the merits of single -stream versus dual -stream -recycling, they have occurred in the absence of complete data on the total losses that occur as a result of single -stream collection systems. This article attempts to quantify the amount that is actually recycled as a result of single -stream collection, which provides a correction -to the previous error in the calculations of recycling rates and recycling tonnages. However, there is much more work to be done to correct cost -per -ton calcula- tions and convert to cost -per -ton -recycled, as well as to research best practices for dual- or multi -stream collection that achieve the best possible cost efficiencies. With better data, we can make better decisions. ?R Susan Collins is the executive director of the Container Recycling Institute. She can be reached at scollins@container-recycling.org. CRI has more information about single - stream recycling on its website at http:// www.container-recycling.org/issues/ singlestream.htm. Reprinted with permission from Resource Recycling, P.O. Box 42270, Portland OR 97242-0270; (503) 233-1305, (503) 233- 1356(fax); www.resource-recycling.com. 16 RR I February 2012 I City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2015-0508 Legistar File ID N/A City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item Brian Pugh 10/26/2015 Recycling & Trash Collection / Transportation Services Department Submitted By Submitted Date Division / Department Action Recommendation: Approve and sign a no fee Contract Agreement with Georgia Pacific Harmon Recycling for recycling services related to the single stream pilot program Budget Impact: Account Number Fund Project Number Project Title Budgeted Item? NA Current Budget $ - Funds Obligated $ - Current Balance $ - Does item have a cost? NA Item Cost Budget Adjustment Attached? NA Budget Adjustment Remaining Budget $ V20140710 Previous Ordinance or Resolution # 171-14,136-15 Original Contract Number: Approval Date: �b�f Comments: Item pertains to previous resolutions 171-14 & 136-15 CITY OF TayoVjq TO: Mayor Lioneld Jordan THRU: Terry Gulley, Transportation Services Director FROM: Jeff Coles, Recycling and Trash Collection Division Director DATE: October 26th, 2015 STAFF MEMO SUBJECT: Approve and sign a no fee Contract Agreement with Georgia Pacific Harmon Recycling for recycling services related to the single stream pilot program RECOMMENDATION: Approve and sign a no fee Contract Agreement with Georgia Pacific Harmon Recycling for recycling services related to the single stream pilot program- BACKGROUND: The City Council passed Resolution Number 136-15 on August 4th 2015, to amend the existing contract with Kessler Consulting, Inc. to include the implementation of two recycling pilot programs, one for commercial food waste composting, and the other for single stream recyclables. DISCUSSION: By executing this agreement with Harmon Recycling for the processing of single stream recyclables collected from approximately 1030 homes in Fayetteville, the City will gain specific data on which to model the potential impacts of full-scale programs and also see tangible results related to volumes and potential contamination levels. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: None Attachments: Contract Agreement Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-argon Fayetteville, AR 72701 H a r on �WIN R E C Y C L. ;{�I N.G J a'rrB,art�laGI$cs�mµ3rty .-- RECYCLABLE MATERIAL PURCHASE & SERVICES AGREEMENT THN RECYCLABLE MATERIAL PURCHASE & SERVICES AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is dated October 15, 2015 (the "Effective Date") and is between GP Harmon Recycling LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, at Two Jericho Plaza, Suite 200, Jericho, New York 11753-1681 ("GP Harmon"), and City of Fayetteville an Arkansas municipal corporation, at 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 City and GP Harmon may be individually referred to herein as ` art ' or collectively as "Parties" and hereby agree to the -following terms and conditions: I. TERM -- The teen of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall remain in effect for a period Of six (6) months from the date on which GP Harmon receives its fast delivery of Recyclable Material from the City (the "Pilot Period'). At least thirty (30)'days prior to the expiration of the Term, the Parties shall endeavor to discuss their interest in an extension of the Pilot Period and/or the negotiation of a long-term contract based on the outcome of each party's performance under this Agreement. 2. PURCHASE — During the Pilot Period, City shall deliver to GP Harmon's facility located at 1421 E 15th St, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 (the "Faciti ') single -stream recyclables collected by City in the municipality of Fayetteville, Arkansas, which recyclables may. include, but not be limited to, paper fibers (e.g., newspaper, corrugated cardboard, mixed paper, paperboard/chipboard), plastic containers 4147, aluminum and steel cans, and glass bottles and jars (collectively "Recyclable_ Material"). GP Harmon shall be entitled to market and re -sell all Recyclable Materials recovered in each load delivered by City for GP Harmon's sole benefit, with the exception of glass recyclables, which are to be made available for pick-up by City once sorted for marketing by City pursuant to the terms of an existing contract. GP Harmon will work to maximize recovery of all glass and other recyclables, and shall ensure that glass recyclables made available to City contain less than ten percent (10%) non -recyclable glass ("Contaminants"). In consideration of the Recyclable Material delivered to GP Harmon, GP Harmon shall provide City the Services set forth below. 3. DELIVERY; WA.RItANTM -- City shall deliver the Recyclable Material to the Facility. Title and risk of loss to.the Recyclable Material shall transfer to GP Harmon upon City's completion of unloading the Recyclable Material at the Facility; provided, however, that City -shall at all times retain title to all glass recyclables and any Hazardous Materials (defined below) included in such delivered Recyclable Material. City warrants that GP Hannon shall have marketable title to the Recyclable Material free of all lawful liens and encumbrances and that the Recyclable Material shall be free of all Hazardous Materials. For purposes of. this Section 2, "Hazardous Materials" is defined as any toxic, hazardous, dangerous, or restricted substance or waste, including medical waste, petroleum, any byproducts or fractions thereof, polychlorinated biphenyls- (PCBs), urea formaldehyde foam insulation, asbestos, radon, other radioactive substances, poly -aromatic hydrocarbons, pesticides, and any other substances regulated by, and identified as "hazardous" by, federal, state, local or municipal laws, regulations, rules, and codes, and any judicial or administrative interpretation thereof, on the basis of their actual or potential adverse effect on human health and/or the environment. 4. SERVICES — In exchange for the receipt of the Recyclable Material, GP Harmon shall perform.the services and activities as described herein and in Exhibit A attached hereto (collectively, the "Services") at no charge to City unless otherwise mutually agreed by the parties in writing. GP Harmon warrants that it will perform all Services in a workmanlike manner and in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations and rules. GP Harmon will permit City, its employees and/or. agents to observe GP Harmon's processing operations in order to review compliance with the Agreement and all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules, and regulations. Such access shall be granted during normal business hours, subject to City providing advance verbal or written notice. While at the Facility, City and/or its representatives shall be accompanied by a GP Harmon employee at all times during their visit unless otherwise authorized by authorized GP Harmon personnel. City and/or its representatives shall wear such protective equipment or clothing as may be required by GP Harmon during their visit and shall abide by all GP Harmon safety rules and regulations. City shall not, and shall ensure that its representatives do not, bring any illegal drugs, alcohol or weapons on the site or take any photographs or make any recordings during their visit without written authorization by authorized GP Harmon personnel. City acknowledges and understands the potential dangers and -risks associated with facilities of this nature. City voluntarily assumes all risks, responsibility and liability of (i) the negligent acts or omissions of City and/or its representatives and (ii) personal injury or property damage to City and/or its representatives that may occur while at the Facility. 5. Excusn NONPERFORMANCE — Acts of God, war (declared or undeclared), acts of a public enemy, acts of a government of any country, state or political subdivision or regulatory agency thereof or entity created thereby, embargoes, terrorism or sabotage, fires, floods, weather, explosions, or other catastrophes, epidemics or quarantine restrictions, strikes or other labor stoppages, facility slowdowns, curtailments or closures, logistics disruptions or causes beyond the reasonable control of a Party which (i) prevent such Party from performing any obligation hereunder or (ii) prevent GP Harmon from receiving or reselling Recyclable Material (each, a "Force Majeure Event") shall suspend the obligation of the Party affected by such Fonce.Majeure Event (the "Affected Par tv') to perform hereunder during the period required to remove such Force Majeure Event. The Affected Party shall promptly notify the other Party of the Force Majeure Event and the cause of such Force Majeure Event and use commercially reasonable efforts to work around the effects thereof. If the Affected Party is City and the period of such Force Majeure Event lasts longer than sixty (60) calendar days then GP Harmon may at any time thereafter, while such Force Majeure Event continues, terminate this Agreement without penalty, liability or further obligation therefore, immediately upon providing notice of such termination to City. If the Affected Party is GP Harmon then City shall be excused from any restrictions (as applicable) on selling Recyclable Material to third parties until the Force Majeure Event ceases to continue or City may terminate this Agreement without penalty, liability or further obligation therefore, immediately upon providing notice of such termination to GP Harmon. 6. ASSIGNMENT -- Neither Party shall assign this Agreement or its rights or obligations or any part thereof under this Agreement, by operation of law nor otherwise, without the other Party's prior written consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. This Agreement shall automatically be binding upon and inure to the benefit of each Party's permitted successors and assigns. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of this Section 6, either Party may, transfer or assign this Agreement and all of its rights and obligations hereunder, to any of its Affiliates having equal or better financial standing than the assigning Party, upon written notice to the non - assigning Party, provided that the assigning Party shall remain jointly liable with its Affiliate assignee for the obligations and liabilities hereunder. Wherever used in this Agreement, "Affiliate" means, with respect to any Person (defined below) any other Person that, directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with, that Person. "Person" means any individual, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, firm, joint venture, association, joint-stock company, trust; unincorporated organization, governmental body or other entity. 7. NON -WAIVER -- No failure to enforce any provision or obligation of this Agreement shall be deemed to, or shall constitute a waiver of, such provision and no waiver of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to, or shall constitute a waiver of, any other provision or obligation of this Agreement, nor shall such waiver constitute a continuing waiver. S. DEFAULT — The following events of default shall constitute a material breach for which the non -breaching Party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon written notice and without liability or further obligation hereunder: (i) either Party breaches any representation, warranty, covenant or other obligation set forth in this Agreement, or (ii) a Party becomes unable to pay its bills as they become due in the ordinary course, a trustee or receiver of a Parry's property is appointed, a Party makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors, a petition in bankruptcy is filed by or against a Party or a Party terminates or liquidates its business. Prior to terminating the Agreement pursuant to sub -paragraph (i) above, the non -breaching Party shall provide the breaching Party thirty (30) calendar days to cure any default capable of cure. The thirty (30) day cure period is voidable if habitually' abused by the breaching Party. 9. CUMuLATwE RiGHTs -- The duties and obligations imposed by this Agreement, and the rights and remedies available hereunder to the Parties hereto are in addition to, and are not to be construed in any way as a limitation of, any rights and remedies available to any or all of them which are otherwise imposed or available under this Agreement, at law or in equity. 10. CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGE DISCLAIMER — NEITHER PARTY SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER FOR CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED To, ECONOMIC CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES SUCH AS LOST PROFITS, LOST PRODUCTION, COST OF CAPITAL OR LOST BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY. 11. TAXES — City shall be responsible for the payment of all taxes, fees, charges or assessments (municipal, state or federal) which arise from this Agreement (excluding any tax based upon GP Hannon's net income). 12. APPLICABLE LAW -- This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Arkansas applicable to contracts made and to be performed wholly within such state, without reference to principles of conflicts of laws. The state and federal courts sitting in Washington County, Arkansas, shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all disputes hereunder. 13, DISPUTE RESOLUTION ..- In the event of. any disputes, claims and other matters in question between the parties arising out of the terms and conditions of this Agreement or the performance of either party hereunder, the parties agree to resolve such matter in the following manner: (a) The parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve such matter promptly by negotiation between individuals from each party who have authority to settle the controversy and who do not have direct responsibility for day-to- day administration of this Agreement. (b) The disputing party shall give the other parties written notice of any dispute not resolved in the normal course of business. Within fifteen (15) business days after receipt of the notice, the receiving parties shall each. submit to the other parties a written response. The notice and response shall include (i) a statement of the party's position and (ii) the name and title of the individual who will represent that party. The parties shall meet for negotiations at a mutually agreed time and place within thirty (30) business days of the date of the disputing parry's notice and thereafter as often as they reasonably deem necessary to exchange relevant information and to attempt to resolve the dispute. All reasonable requests for information made by one parry to the other parties will be honored. All negotiations pursuant to this clause are confidential and shall be treated as compromise and settlement negotiations for purposes of applicable rates of evidence. (c) If the matter has not been resolved pursuant to the aforesaid procedure within thirty (30) days of the commencement of such procedure, or if any party will not participate in the negotiations, any party may initiate litigation or otherwise. pursue whatever remedies may be available to such party. (d) All deadlines specified in this section may be extended by mutual agreement. (e) The procedures specified in this section shall be the sole and exclusive procedures for the resolution of disputes between the parties arising out of or relating to this Agreement; however, a party may seek a preliminary injunction or other preliminary judicial relief if in its judgment such action is necessary to avoid irreparable damage. Despite such action, the parties will continue to participate in good faith in the procedures specified in this section. All applicable statutes of limitation shall be tolled while the procedures specified in this section are pending. The parties will take such action, if any, required to effectuate such tolling. 14. NOTICES -- All notices; consents, communications or transmittals under the Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed given on the day of delivery if delivered by hand, by nationally recognized overnight courier or delivery service, or by facsimile (with written confirmation of the completed transmittal); or within three (3) business days if mailed by United States mail as certified or registered mail with return receipt, postage prepaid, addressed to the Party to whom such notice is given at the address of such Party as set forth herein. 15. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT — GP Marmon agrees and understands that this Agreement and documents submitted to the City are subject to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), A.C.A. §25-19-101 et seq. If a FOIA request is presented to the City requesting such documents, GP Harmon will do everything possible to provide the documents in a prompt and timely manner as prescribed by the Arkansas FOIA. Only legally authorized photocopying costs pursuant to the FOIA may be assessed for this compliance. 16. COMPLETE AGREEMENT — This Agreement, which includes all attachments, schedules, exhibits and/or annexes attached or subsequently incorporated in this Agreement, constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the Parties regarding the subject matter of this Agreement, and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous agreements, oral or written, made between the Parties relating to such subject matter and the standard sales and/or purchase terms and conditions that may be exchanged by the Parties in connection with orders for Recyclable Materials. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on the day and year first above written. Title: Date: 4 GP HARMON REC7 LC By: Name: X ( �/% /L �d le7-7 zr Title: C� Si Date :/ �� �Z C / 1' EXXMBIT A SERVICES • GP Harmon will accept all deliveries of Recyclable Material made by City to the Facility Monday through Friday during the hours of 7:00 am. to 3:30 p.m. GP Harmon shall make any glass recyclables included in prior deliveries to the Facility and with less than ten percent (10%) Contaminants available during the same time period following processing. • Upon delivery at the Facility, GP Harmon will unload and weigh each load of incoming Recyclable Material. GP Harmon shall also separately weigh each type of Recyclable Material recovered through processing, as well as any rejects/residue. • Any non -hazardous waste will be disposed of by GP Harmon in accordance with industry standards and any applicable laws and/or regulations. City shall be responsible for, and shall at all times retain title to, any Hazardous Material delivered to the Facility. Upon GP Harmon's request, City shall arrange for transportation and disposal of such Hazardous Material at City's sole expense. • During the Pilot Period, GP Harmon shall provide weekly tonnage reports for the Recyclable Material delivered, which shall include the following data at a minimum: • Delivery date, truck number, and tonnage of all inbound materials. ■ Type and weight of each recovered material, as well as rejects/residue. Market and market value for each type of recovered material marketed. Such reports shall be referred to hereinafter as the "Data Reports." • Upon request, GP Harmon shall conduct a composition study of rejects/residue to determine the percentage of contaminants versus Recyclable Material not being recovered (the "Composition Report"}. The City and GP Harmon will work jointly to develop an appropriate methodology for the Composition Report, which methodology shall be subject to final approval by the City. City shall be provided the opportunity to observe the Composition Report. • City hereby grants to GP Harmon a nonexclusive, worldwide royalty -free, irrevocable, perpetual license to use, execute, reproduce, display, perform, distribute copies of, and prepare derivative works of the Composition Report and Data Reports in the pursuit of similar relationships with other municipalities for the provision of single -stream recycling services. In utilizing such reports, GP' Harmon shall de identify and/or aggregate data as needed to ensure protection of the. confidentiality of City's identity. RESOLUTION NO.171-14 A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT WITH KESSLER CONSULTING, INC. OF TAMPA, FLORIDA FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TEN YEAR SOLID WASTE MASTER PLAN IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $264,890.00, AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby authorizes Mayor Jordan to sign a contract with Kessler Consulting; Inc. of Tampa, Florida for the development of a ten year solid waste master plan in an amount not to exceed $264,890.00. Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves a budget adjustment, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A". PASSED and APPROVED this 1011 day of September, 2014. ATTEST: By: 15 ina;L SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer nirr�� U FAYETTEVILLE •�= 4. q �, i,����G ON O�� RESOLUTION NO.136-15 A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONTRACT WITH KESSLER CONSULTING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,980.00 FOR ASSISTANCE WITH THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMMERCIAL FOOD WASTE PILOT PROGRAM AND A SINGLE STREAM RECYCLING PILOT PROGRAM, AND TO APPROVE A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves Amendment No. I to the contract with Kessler Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $39,980.00 for assistance with the design and implementation of a commercial food waste pilot program and a single stream recycling pilot program. Section 2: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby approves a budget adjustment, a copy of which is attached to this Resolution. PASSED and APPROVED this 4a' day of August, 2015. APPROVED: By: L ` ION LD J RDAN ayor ATTEST: By: .__ 00L.J SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk Treasurer OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY TO: Mayor Jordan City Council CC: Don Marr, Chief of Staff Paul Becker, Finance Director Kit Williams City Attorney Blake Pennington Assistant City Attorney Patti Mulford Paralegal Terry Gulley, Transportation Director FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney' DATE: December 6, 2016 -- RE: -Recycling and Trash Master Plan Legal Analysis _ The more than 100 page proposed Recycling and Trash Master Plan with appendices of more than 100 additional pages was a long read. However, I -urge you to read this whole Master Plan which includes policies and methods to force more recycling and composting upon citizens. Although many of these goals, policies and methods would_ require- further authorization before actual implementation, do not believe including the language of bans and mandates in your adopted Master Plan is insignificant. Only if you believe that citizens should be fined or otherwise punished if potentially recyclable or compostable items are within their trash cart should you adopt this Master Plan without amendment. LEGAL ISSUES Most issues presented by this Recycling and Trash Master Plan are policy related rather than legal issues. Trash collections reduced to every other week/ Prices increased The City Council may legally reduce the frequency of trash collections (which until about a decade ago were twice weekly as in many other southern cities). The proposal in this Master Plan would reduce our current weekly collection to "Every other week trash collection." (page 103). The Master Plan also recommends increasing the fees for medium and large trash carts to further increase their subsidies for the smaller 32 gallon trash carts and recycling programs. (page 44) Although there may be some limit on how much subsidy we can place on trash customers, I believe these subsidies are within the legal authority of the City Council for the figures used in the Master Plan. Bans and Mandates "To progress from 18%... even to 50% diversion in the next 10 years will require a fundamental change in how materials are managed. It will require putting the necessary policies, .programs and facilities in place to bring about this change." (page 30). "Table 3-1 Potential Waste Diversion Options Residential Commercial/Multi-Family Bulky Waste/C&D Debris Bans or mandates Ban or mandates Ban or mandates." (page 30) Bans or mandates are more problematic from a legal perspective than increasing rates for trash collection or providing increased options for recycling or composting on a voluntary basis. "This plan proposes the City consider disposal bans on recyclable materials included in the City program, yard waste, and food waste should diversion goals not be achieved." (page 103). Apart from the administrative problem of enforcement (will our trash truck drivers inspect the trash carts for offending paper or food waste before dumping?), does the City have the right to make items which are clearly legal for state approved landfills, illegal for trash cans? Can we prevent a private trash hauling company from hauling trash legally authorized to be accepted by a landfill out of Fayetteville? Would we not face Interstate Commerce Clause objections and maybe litigation if we tried to ban the sale of legal products or packaging for products that we could not recycle or compost? (page 103). 2 I realize that a few cities in other states have instituted some types of mandates and bans to force more recycling. I believe some of these bans or mandates may have been challenged in the Courts. We should not present such an easy target for those in the Legislature that may be hostile to recycling and composting and possibly even hostile to municipally owned and operated trash and recycling departments by adopting a plan that recommends bans and mandates to achieve your diversion goals. The City of Fayetteville can work toward diverting more from the landfill without any distant threats of mandates and bans which have some inherent legal problems now and could inspire substantial reduction of municipal authority if adopted as presented in this Master Plan. 3 Branson, Lisa From: CityClerk Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 7:42 AM To: Alan Long (Longward4@gmail.com); Pennington, Blake; citycouncil@matthewpetty.org; Marr, Don; Eads, Gail; Roberts, Gina; Johnson, Kimberly; Williams, Kit; Branson, Lisa; Broyles, Lana; Jordan, Lioneld; Mulford, Patti; Norton, Susan; Pate, Jeremy; Smith, Lorinda; Smith, Sondra; Gray, Adella; Marsh, Sarah; Kinion, Mark; Tennant, Justin; Schoppmeyer, Martin; La Tour, John; Long, Alan Cc: john@viridianusa.com Subject: FW: Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion and Recycling Master Plan From: John Coleman [mailto:john@viridianusa.com] Sent: Monday, December 05, 2016 8:43 PM To: CityClerk <cityclerk@fayetteville-ar.gov> Cc: Jordan, Lioneld <Ijordan@fayetteville-ar.gov>; Nierengarten, Peter <pnierengarten@fayetteville-ar.gov> Subject: Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion and Recycling Master Plan In short, I support it and the aggressive goals set forth by the City Council. Below is a letter to the editor I submitted last week. I don't know if it's going to be published or not, but it explains my reasoning for supporting implementation of the Solid Waste Reduction, Diversion and Recycling Master Plan. Letter to the Editor of NWA Dem-Gaz: Fayetteville is consistently recognized as a leader in sustainability efforts and has a long history of residential recycling success. Despite these efforts, thousands of tons of recyclable materials continue to go to the landfill each year. The City Council has set bold goals for increasing'our diversion rate as a community and took an initial step by approving funding for the development of a master plan to guide investment decisions for the Recycling & Trash Division. These efforts are important because our growing region relies on one landfill in Tontitown that has limited capacity. We also live in an increasingly resource -constrained world which requires long-term thinking and leadership. The recent pilot programs for single -stream recycling and food composting were implemented to test two of the biggest opportunities for diversion and, based on the statistical analysis found on the City's website, were successful. Tons collected for the residential pilot were up 96% while actually reducing the amount of time spent for collection and tons collected for multi family residential increased dramatically as well. Food compost was collected from a variety of sources (restaurants, U of A, elementary school, etc) and new measures were implemented to control odor and improve processing. This is the type of efficiency and volume increase Fayetteville needs to be successful. Single -stream is not perfect, but the reality is that it increases the City's capacity to handle large volume recycling while improving operational efficiency. Efforts to reduce food waste while making composting an option is a prudent approach. With this in mind, I encourage our City Council to support adoption and implementation of the proposed master plan on Tuesday night. John Coleman, P.E. , LEED AP BD+C NWA Regional Office I Director '`V I R I D I A N I Optimizing Building Performance 121 W South Street, Fayetteville, AR 72701 o: 479.301.2517, c: 479.595.5759, f: 501.227.8648 john@ViridianUSA.com I www.ViridianUSA.com 3 " CityClerk From: Eric Boles <eric@paradigmsustain.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 201711:02 AM To: Johnson, Kimberly; Eads, Gail; Jordan, Lioneld; Mulford, Patti; Norton, Susan; Smith, Lorinda; Smith, Sondra; Long, Alan; Gray, Adella; Pate, Jeremy; Roberts, Gina; Marsh, Sarah; Lynch, Rhonda; Bunch, Sarah; Williams, Kit; Tennant, Justin; Kinion, Mark; Branson, Lisa; Alan Long (Longward4@gmail.com); Pennington, Blake; CityClerk; Marr, Don; citycouncil@matthewpetty.org; La Tour, John Subject: Re: FW: document for Council Agenda Packet All, To be clear, the University of Arkansas nor Office for Sustainability has not taken a formal stance on this issue, and I was not using my title at the UA to endorse the Master Plan. I should not have sent that email from my uark account. As a citizen of Fayetteville, the Plan is not a silver bullet, but is an improvement over the current system which would allow for an increase in diversion from the landfill, a solution for food waste composting, and provides a scalable strategy to service businesses and even the University. All the best, Eric Boles On February 7, 2017 at 3:37:13-PM, CityClerk (cityclerkAfayetteville-ar.gov) Wrote: From: Eric Charles Boles [mailto:eboles@uark.edu] Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 2:44 PM To: Roberts, Gina <Rroberts@favetteville-ar.gov>; Smith, Lorinda <losmith@favetteville-ar.gov> Subject: document for Council Agenda Packet Regarding the City Council meeting on the 21 st, please include this article in their agenda packet. It highlights how UA Athletics effectively used single stream recycling to achieve an outstanding 76% diversion rate. http://news.uark.edu/articles/37687/razorbacks-lead-sec-in-diversion- - rate?utm source=Newswire&utm medium=emai12017-02-03&utm campaign=razorbacks-lead-sec-in- diversion-rate Thank you, Eric C. Boles, MSE Director Office for Sustainability University of Arkansas, Fayetteville eboles(a)uark.edu 1479.575.2405 Razorbacks Lead SEC in Diversion Rate ( University of Arkansas Pagel of 3 University of Arkansas NEWS Tuesday, February 07, 2017 Razorbacks Lead SEC in Diversion Rate Feb. 03, 2017 FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — When it comes to keeping waste generated during a football game out of the landfill and back into a recycling program, no one in tne Southeastern Conference can compete with the University of Arkansas. Based on results recently released as part of the 2016 Environmental Protection Agency's Game Day Challenge, the University of Arkansas is tops in the SEC and ranks seventh in the nation in diversion rate, the process.of diverting waste from landfills. Arkansas participated in the challenge for two home games during the 2016 football season including the Alabama (Oct. 8) and LSU (Nov. 12) games. Razorback Athletics teamed up with Boston Mountain Solid Waste District and the University of Arkansas Office of Sustainability to divert 76.855 percent of all waste generated from the LSU game to earn the best rate among SEC schools and a top-10 rate nationally. Arkansas also finished second in the SEC and third in the nation in total recycling for the 2016 season with 53,950 pounds of recycled materials. In addition, Arkansas ranked second in the SEC in recycling per capita (.715) and greenhouse gas reduction per capita (.001057) and third in organics reduction per capita (.017) for the Alabama game. http://news.uark.edu/articles/3 7687/razorbacks-lead-sec-in-diversion-rate?utm_source=New... 2/7/2017 Razorbacks Lead SEC in Diversion Rate I University of Arkansas Page 2 of 3 "I want to thank Razorback fans for helping us turn game day trash into renewable resources," said Jeff Long, vice chancellor and director of athletics. "Led by our Athletics Facilities staff, and coordinated in conjunction with our sustainability partners on campus and in the community, we have been able to help establish a standard for diversion in the SEC and throughout the nation. While we are pleased with our progress, we remain committed to our collaborative work to minimize our footprint while maximizing the endorsement and promotion of sustainable practices." The GameDay Recycling Challenge is a nationwide competition among universities to reduce and recycle the waste generated at home football games. During each competition cycle, participating schools report recycling, compost and attendance data for at least one home football game. The GameDay Recycling Challenge is administered by the College and University Recycling Coalition, RecycleMania, Keep America Beautiful and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's WasteWise. As part of the competition, blue recycling bags were distributed to tailgaters and Razorback fans were encouraged to throw their recyclable waste in recycle bins located in Donald W. Reynolds Razorback Stadium, as well as parking lots and tailgating areas on campus. A 10-foot trailer was located at The Gardens while an addition trailer was located at Victory Village North, just north of the stadium arid near the Tyson Poultry Science Center. Arkansas ranked 1Oth nationally in total recycling in the same competition in 2015. This was the sixth year that the University of Arkansas has competed in the challenge that encourages students and fans to go "green" and recycle waste during selected football games: Razorback Athletics continues to be a leader in sustainability efforts on campus and throughout Northwest Arkansas. The Department of Intercollegiate Athletics manages 23 percent of all recycling on the University of Arkansas campus. CONTACTS http://news.uark.edu/articles/37687/razorbacks-lead-sec-in-diversion-rate?utm source=New... 2/7/2017 Razorbacks Lead SEC in Diversion Rate I University of Arkansas Page 3 of 3 Kevin Trainor, associate athletic director, public relations Razorback Athletics 479-575-6959, ktrainor(c)-uark.edu http://news.uark.edu/articles/3 7687/razorbacks-lead 'sec-in-diversion-rate?utm_source=New... 2/7/2017