Title
Communication fromTom Flaherty, City Controller submitting a Performance Audit of Environmental Services Refuse Division, conducted pursuant to the Controller's powers under Section 404(c) of the Pittsburgh Home Rule Charter.
Body
INTRODUCTION
This performance audit of the Bureau of Environmental Services Refuse Division was conducted pursuant to Section 404(c) of the Pittsburgh Home Rule Charter. Generally accepted governmental auditing standards as established by the United States General Accounting Office were followed. This is the third performance audit of Environmental Services. The Controller's Office released audits of Environmental Services Recycling and Animal Control Divisions in 1995.
OVERVIEW
In 1994 the Department of Environmental Services (ES) became a Bureau of the City's Department of Public Works. The primary responsibility of the Bureau is refuse collection. Other services performed by the Bureau are animal control and, until recently, rodent control. The Bureau's rodent control and companion animal spay and neuter assistance programs have been cancelled because of funding constraints.
Refuse Division
The Refuse Division is administered by the Director of Public Works, the Bureau's Operations Manager, two supervisors and eleven foremen who oversee 172 refuse workers.
Refuse collection is organized into four geographic zones: Northern, Central, Eastern and Southern, representing 115,000 pick up stops. Each truck collects 10-12 tons of trash per day. Solid waste is picked up weekly, recyclables biweekly and bulk waste monthly. According to the Operation's Manager, the City picks up trash at apartment buildings of 5 units or less. An exception to this unit limit currently is made for the Pittsburgh Housing Authority. The City has a garbage collection and truck lease agreement with the Authority. The City agreed to pick up trash from Housing Project dumpsters if the Authority provided the front loader vehicles needed to do this. The Authority purchased/leased the two front loader trucks currently in use. According to the Law Department, when this agreement expires on December 31, 2006, the city will no longer pick up trash for the Authority.
Prior to 2003, the City had 52 solid waste routes. Using Route Smart software, surveys and other research, the number of solid waste routes was reduced from 52 to 44. Now each route consists of roughly the same number of houses and the same amount of trash tonnage. Trucks are no longer solely used for bulk pickup. Regularly routed trucks pick up bulk items on specified bulk pickup days. These changes are representative of the Bureau's efforts to make Refuse Collection more efficient and economical.
Currently the Bureau has a fleet of 64 trucks for 44 solid waste routes and 14 recycling trucks for 9 recycling routes. The model date of the garbage trucks ranges from 1986 to 2004. Each truck costs approximately $2500 to $3000 per month to run. The average collection is 550 houses per day per truck, or 115,000 stops in the City.
In addition to trash pickup, the Division enforces the City's Ordinances for refuse violations such as early set out of trash and accumulation of waste or bulk items on the sidewalk. Division foremen issue warnings or citations. The foremen respond to Mayor's Service Center complaints or violations observed in the field by Bureau employees. One employee works a 3:00 to 11:00 P.M. shift and canvasses the streets prior to the next day pickup. Although ES does not pick up garbage in large residences or commercial establishments, they do enforce the City Code against these entities.
OBJECTIVES
1. To evaluate the Bureau's efforts to improve the efficiency and economy of its refuse and recycling operations.
2. To evaluate the Bureau's compliance with previous audit recommendations regarding recycling.
3. To evaluate the Bureau's efforts to increase recycling participation.
4. To evaluate the feasibility of Act 47 mandates and impact on the Bureau's operations.
METHODOLOGY
The auditors met with the Environmental Services Operations Manager and Recycling Coordinator and obtained a copy of the Refuse Divison's Citation database from City Information Services. This Access file database was then converted into an Excel spread sheet and sorted. Other documents obtained from the Bureau and reviewed include: Bureau of Refuse 2003 annual report, Recycling Performance Grant applications for 1999 to 2003 and PA Resources Council recycling education reports for 2003. Recycling coordinators from Carnegie Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh were surveyed. The Act 47 mandates for Environmental Services were reviewed for feasibility.
The Internet was used to research Automatic/Semi-Automatic Trash Collection, Transfer Station usage and other solid waste and recycling topics. All City Department Directors were emailed a survey about their department's recycling practices. Tests conducted are described in the audit text.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Economy/Cost Saving Measures
Operational changes and workforce reductions through attrition have resulted in cash savings to the Bureau. Using the Controller's certified year to date expenditures as of October 31, 2004, the Bureau has spent 10.5% less on salaries and 38.2% less on over time (premium pay) than it did in 2003. These salary expenditures are for the entire Bureau of Environmental Services, including its Animal Control Division.
Expenditures as of October 31, 2004 Prior Year Expenditures Difference 2003-2004 Percent Increase/Decrease
Salaries $5,208,588 $5,802,809.10 ($612,221.44) -10.5%
Premium Pay $416,544 $674,167.78 ($257,623.98) -38.2%
Based on actual 10 month savings, the auditors project a 10% decrease in salaries and a 26% decrease in premium pay from 2004 budgeted amounts.
Expenditures as of October 31, 2004 Budgeted Amount 2004 Projected 2004 Expenditures Projected Percent Under Budget
Salaries $5,208,588 $6,934,474 $6,250,305.6 10%
Premium Pay $416,544 $ 600,000 $445,252.8 26%
These projected reductions indicate that the Bureau's 2004 salary and premium pay costs will be 12% below budgeted amounts. This is close to the original ACT 47 mandated 15% reductions in the Mayor, Council and Controller offices and indicates that cost reduction is an ongoing goal and can be accomplished without mandate from outside groups.
B. Recycling
Act 101, Pennsylvania's Municipal Waste Planning, Recycling and Waste Reduction Act became law in July 1988. The Act mandates recycling in Pennsylvania's larger municipalities and provides for grants to offset expenses.
The goals of the Act are to reduce the Commonwealth's waste generation by 25%; and educate the public on the benefits of recycling. The benefits of recycling include waste reduction and conservation of natural resources, landfill space and reduced disposal costs.
Curbside recycling in municipalities of at least 10,000 residents began in September 1990. Smaller communities implemented curbside recycling one year later. Mandated Municipalities collect a minimum of 3 of the following materials: clear glass, colored glass, plastics, aluminum, steel and bimetallic cans, high grade office paper and corrugated paper in addition to other materials chosen by the municipality.
The ultimate goal in reducing the City of Pittsburgh's waste generation is to increase citizens' recycling participation from 60% to 75% and the tonnage of recyclables by 25% by the year 2006. That means a lot of citizens must be educated in the benefits of recycling. The more people see recycling as effective, the more likely they will be participants in recycling. The benefits of recycling include litter reduction, preservation of landfill space, energy conservation, income for the City and resolution of a national problem- too much waste. Vendors pay the City approximately $30 per ton for newspapers and roughly $11 per ton for plastics, glass containers and aluminum cans. Last year, the City received $ 132,412.18 from selling residential recyclables to local processors. Adding the $336,449.96 from the State, the City's recycling program generated $468, 862.14 for City coffers.
Business establishments located within the City must also recycle. On the recycling list are office paper, corrugated cardboard, aluminum cans and leaf waste as required by the Waste Planning, Recycling and Waste Reduction Act of 1988, State Act 101 and City of Pittsburgh Ordinance No. 37 of 1990. Because business recyclables are not picked up by the City's recycling trucks, licensed haulers deliver the materials to a processor. Commercial establishments may also deliver their own recyclables to a processor. Whether businesses deliver their own recyclables or lease a private hauler to do the work, a quarterly report describing amounts and types of items being recycled must be filed with the City. However, the City has no enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance with this reporting requirement.
Act 101 also requires schools, institutions of higher learning and any other educational institutions where buildings are located in mandated municipalities to recycle. In particular, all state-owned institutions of learning must implement waste reduction and recycling programs in compliance with Commonwealth Management Directive #205.22 of September 7, 1989. High-grade office paper, corrugated paper and aluminum must be recycled. In addition, each municipality may require that additional materials such as glass, newsprint, plastics, steel and bimetallic cans be recycled. Private haulers that service schools also report the recyclable tonnage collected from these institutions.
Educating schools and institutions of higher learning about recycling is also a requirement of Act 101. Each educational facility should have a recycling coordinator who is familiar with the requirements of municipal recycling ordinances. Successful planning is key to good recycling collection.
Performance Reports
Private haulers submit quarterly reports to the City on the weight of recyclables collected and taken to recycling contractors. The City totals these quarterly reports for use on its annual Recycling Performance Grant applications. The applications include annual tonnage collected by the City (residential) and private haulers (commercial).
RESIDENTIAL RECYCLABLES 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
TONNAGE 10,529.24 10,274.93 9,747.99 9,495.96 8,865.55
-2.42% -5.13% -2.59% -6.64%
5 YEAR DIFFERENCE -15.80%
COMMERCIAL RECYCLABLES 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
TONNAGE 18,163.00 19,960.40 18,363.20 16,053.73 18,072.36
9.90% -8.00% -12.58% 12.57%
5 YEAR DIFFERENCE -0.50%
RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
TONNAGE NA 141,679.00 140,340.00 135,329.00 131,659.00
-0.95% -3.57% -2.71%
4 YEAR DIFFERENCE -7.07%
As can be seen from the above table, residential recycling and residential solid waste has been steadily declining over the last four years. The rate of recycling decline is double that of solid waste. Changing City demographics could be a factor. Senior citizens generate less waste than households with families. According to Bureau experience, households in low income areas recycle less than households in more affluent areas. For example, one large low income group that does not recycle is the residents of
City Housing projects. All household trash is placed in dumpsters and taken to the land fill. An increase in senior and low income family groups could partially explain the decline in recycling participation.
Environmental Services has a two prong approach to increasing residential and commercial recycling: education and enforcement. In January, each household is mailed a Refuse/Recycle/Bulk Pick-Up schedule for that year. The weeks when the City picks up recyclables are clearly marked in blue. The items for recyclable pickup (newspapers, grade 1 and 2 plastic, glass, metal and aluminum containers) are clearly listed. The City also contracts with the Pennsylvania Resources Council, a local environmental advocacy group, to provide recycling education programs. Programs are presented to local schools and community forums. A mascot is included in the education. The City receives funding for these programs.
Schools are recognized for their efforts on "Stash the Trash" day. Students from participating public and parochial schools are brought to the lobby of the City-County Building and honored for their work. This year 41 schools participated in the effort to clean their neighborhood. The children not only beautified the City, but learned a valuable lesson about the importance of properly disposing of their own trash and identifying and properly collecting recyclables.
Because recycling is mandatory, Bureau personnel have stepped up enforcement methods as of April 2003. Households and businesses that don't recycle are issued warnings. The warnings are bright fuchsia in color and hung on the front doorknob. If the household or business fails to recycle, the property owner is cited for non compliance. First time offenders are fined $62.50. The City's enforcement efforts were noted in the September 1, 2004 issue of Waste Age, a national waste management magazine. According to Bureau management, enforcement is getting results: residential recycling has increased by 20% compared to 2003.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 1
The Bureau should increase its education and enforcement programs. Low income communities should be targeted for education. Separating trash is an environmentally conscious activity that can be done by everyone, regardless of income.
Non Residential Recycling: Two Universities and Pittsburgh Public Schools
The auditors surveyed two of the City's largest institutions of higher learning, the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) and Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), about their recycling efforts. Both Pitt and CMU have been recycling since 1990.
The University of Pittsburgh employs hallway collection containers for mixed office paper, beverage bottles and non-recyclable waste. The containers are color coded for content. The content of the paper collection bins are picked up and recycled by BFI Recycling Systems; plastic bottles and aluminum cans are taken by another hauler to Pittsburgh Recycling. A green waste recycling container (dumpster) is used for composting branches, shrubs, grass clippings and leaves that are gathered by the grounds crew. University Recycling Guidelines, provided for all students, answer many questions about recycling at Pitt and recycling in general.
Carnegie Mellon University has an Environmental Coordinator who directs the recycling program and coordinates waste reduction efforts on campus. Each department submits a designated recycling liaison who coordinates departmental recycling efforts with the Carnegie Mellon Environmental Coordinator. The entire campus community is expected to actively participate in the recycling and waste reduction effort. This involves the following activities:
1. Recycling of paper, cardboard and beverage cans;
2. Making double-sided copies, increase use of electronic mail;
Reuse or resale surplus furniture;
3. Purchasing products made from recycled materials.
Within campus housing, students can recycle cans, plastic, glass, paper and cardboard by using marked container stations at the end of the hall. Other things like CD cases, batteries and transparencies are taken to the Recycling Center in the University Center. Computers, monitors and related system elements like mice, cables, keyboards, etc. must be recycled. Computer pickup dates for these items are once monthly for the entire year.
Carnegie Mellon University employs Waste Management to haul waste to the landfill. The same company also takes cardboard and beverage containers (bottles, cans and glass) to Pittsburgh Recycling Services. Paper Exchange, Inc. hauls office paper mix to Pittsburgh Recycling Services.
The Pittsburgh Public Schools have a private contractor that picks up its recyclables and solid waste.
Yard Debris
According to Act 101, leaf waste must be separated from other municipal waste. Since September 26, 1990, no waste disposal facility in Pennsylvania will accept material comprised of leaf wastes unless a separate composting facility has been provided. The City has not provided a separate composting facility to any disposal facility.
Budget constraints have been such that the City has been unable to pick up yard debris twice a year as in past years. Yard waste is now picked up with the regular trash collection and taken to the land fill. A maximum of 5 bags, not exceeding 40 pounds each, will be picked up for collection on regular trash days.
However, the City encourages home owners to recycle yard waste by placing leaves in paper bags and dropping them off at three drop-off sites: Public Works 2nd Division, 3rd Division and 5th Division. Residents are also encouraged to compost leaves in their backyard in proper composting containers.
Recycling by City Departments
Act 101 mandates recycling in all of Pennsylvania's larger municipalities. This includes at least 3 of the following materials: clear glass; colored glass; plastics; aluminum; steel and bimetallic cans; high-grade office paper, corrugated paper and newsprint. Most City residents recycle on a regular basis as do City schools and institutions of higher education. Commercial, municipal and institutional establishments also recycle.
The auditors emailed a survey to all City departments and bureau heads to determine City government's compliance with Act 101. The survey asked if the department recycled, what items are recycled and the number and types of recycling containers available in each department, bureau or division, facility, station, center or other departmental unit. The following table, based on responses received, shows the recycling efforts of City departments.
For purposes of this report, all bins and blue containers whether large, medium or small, are all reported as a container.
RECYCLING EFFORTS OF CITY DEPARTMENTS (BY NUMBER OF CONTAINERS)
Department and/or Office Computer and White Paper Newspaper Cans, Glass, Plastics, etc. Cardboard Toner
Mayor's and Office of Management and Budget 4 1 1 0 0
Engineering and Construction 5 1 1 0 1
Finance Department* 0 0 0 0 0
City Planning 1 1 1 0 0
General Services** 11 1 3 0 0
Law Department 6 0 1 0 0
Bureau of Building Inspection 3 0 0 0 0
City Council and City Clerk 3 0 1 0 0
Public Works Admin. and Environmental Services 2 1 1 1 0
*Department of Finance must destroy all documents with Social Security numbers but stated that its Real Estate Division could recycle.
**General Services Department includes Administrative, Purchasing, Telecommunications, Printing, Fleet Maintenance, Facility Maintenance and Warehouse Divisions.
RECYCLING EFFORTS OF CITY DEPARTMENTS (BY NUMBER OF CONTAINERS) continued
Department and/or Office Computer and White Paper Newspaper Cans, Glass, Plastics, etc. Cardboard Toner
Bureau of Fire and Fire Stations 0 0 1 Per Station 0 0
Personnel and Civil Service 1 0 1 0 0
Mayor's Service Center 1 0 1 0 1
Emergency Medical Service Admin. 3 0 0 0 0
City Controller 5 0 0 0 0
Police Zone One 1 0 0 0 0
Police Zone Two 5 0 0 0 0
Police Zone Three 1 0 0 0 0
Police Zone Four 2 0 0 0 0
Police Zone Five 4 0 0 0 ****
Police Research and Planning 2 0 0 0 ****
Police Training Academy² 3 0 0 0 0
Police Chief's Office*** 2 0 0 0 ****
Parks & Recreation***** Administrative Offices & 14 Senior Centers Only 14 Senior Centers; 2 Admin. Offices Administrative Offices; 14 Senior Centers; Warehouse Warehouse
***It is reported by the Chief's Office that the recycling bins for paper are removed and discarded with the regular trash by the cleaning staff.
****This zone reported that they recycle fax, copier and computer ink cartridges but did not specify the number of containers for this purpose.
² The Training Academy reports that it recycles brass from spent ammunition.
*****Parks Warehouse personnel take recyclables from the Senior Centers to the Warehouse where they are picked up by Environmental Services.
The following areas of the Bureau of Police do not participate:
Major Crimes
Personnel and Finance,
Support Services
Narcotics and Vice—they must utilize secure paper
disposal containers for police reports.
Recycling by City Departments, bureaus and facilities is inconsistent and needs improvement. This poor response is especially troubling given the City's increased enforcement efforts against residents. As the above charts indicate, all respondents, with the exception of the Fire Bureau recycle white paper. Only six respondents (Mayor's Office/OMB, Engineering, Planning, General Services, Public Works/Environmental Services, 14 senior citizens centers/2 administrative offices) collect newspapers for recycling. The Finance Department must destroy documents containing Social Security numbers but notes that its Real Estate Division could recycle white paper.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 2:
A top priority for the Recycling Division should be to increase recycling by City government. New recycling bins for paper purchased with State monies were distributed in November. Placement of appropriate containers for different types of recyclables (white paper, newspapers, can/bottles, etc.) would facilitate collection. A more comprehensive survey should be completed to determine each facility's exact need. The importance of recycling as a way to reduce the City's landfill costs cannot be over stressed. Departmental coordinators should be selected to oversee compliance.
C. Code Enforcement
Citation Process
The refuse division enforces the city's ordinances for refuse violations. Residents and businesses can be cited by ES for violations of City Code sections dealing with refuse and trash. A citation can be ignored, paid on its face or appealed. Appeals are heard by a magistrate in City Housing Court. There the citation can be upheld, reduced or withdrawn/dismissed. If the appellant disagrees with Housing Court's disposition, he/she can further to appeal to Common Pleas Court Summary Appeals Division. Fines collected by Housing Court are deposited into the City General Fund.
The Refuse Division keeps a record of the issued warnings and citations in an Access file format. This database includes the following information for each citation:
First Name, Last Name, Address Of The Property Owner, (City, State, Zip Code), Citation Number, Offense, Out Come of Court, Section and Subsection, Total Fine, Issuance Date, Issuance Time, Issuance Day, Location and Address Of where the Citation Occurred, Citation Issuance Date, Zone, Case Number, Return, Block and Lot Number, File Date, Court Date, Judgment Amount, Warning Letter, and Withdrawn/Dismissed.
Upon request, the auditors were provided with a copy of the access data base file. For auditing purposes only, this access dbf was converted to an Excel spread sheet. Information generated by this refuse division database was used to evaluate the citation process.
TABLE ONE
Division No. Warnings/ Citations Issued Amount Citation Fines Issued Citation Fines Collected % Fines Collected
Central 3,311 518,521.00 186,834.25 36.0%
Eastern 241 43,468.50 19,820.50 45.5%
Northern 2,915 351,603.50 167,145.50 47.5%
Southern 618 58,267.5 28,323.00 48.6%
TOTAL 7,085 971,860.50 402,123.25 41.3%
Break1
Table two compares dollar amount of the citations issued by refuse division to the dollar amount collected. Fines are collected after court disposition if the fine is contested or simply by residents paying the face value of the citation.
TABLE TWO
Citation Outcome No. Citations Amount Citation Fines Issued Citation Fines Collected
Not contested* 1,281 165,025.50 165,025.50
Paid court cost 5 5,295.50 235.50
Fined 718 179,454.00 99,010.50
Paid by check 18 2,677.50 4,221.75^
Postponed 23 10,071.00 0.00
Reduced 8 3,124.00 2,545.50
Re-mailed 12 4,060.00 0.00
Rule 455** 539 122,508.00 121,293.00
See citation # 73 9,791.50 9,791.50
Voided, Reissued 15 3,176.00 0.00
Withdrawn*** 1,590 466,677.50 0.00
TOTAL 4,282 971,860.50 402,123.25
*Not contested in court but paid as cited.
**Appellant fails to appear and is found guilty by the Court in absentia.
***Includes dismissals by Housing Court.
^Per Environmental Services database.
The above table shows the disposition of citations issued March 25, 2003 to August 25, 2004. Thirty seven percent (37%) of appealed citations were either withdrawn or dismissed. It appears that an appellant has a good chance of having the citation dismissed in Housing Court.
Table three is a comparison of warnings and citations issued.
TABLE THREE
Year No. Warnings/ Citations Issued Amount Citation Fines Issued Citation Fines Collected
2003* 950 203,361.50 77,918.00
2004** 6,135 768,499.00 324,205.25
TOTAL 7,085 971,860.50 402,123.25
*March 25-December 31, 2003
**January 1-August 25, 2004
TABLE FOUR
Section/ Subsection No. Warnings/ Citations Issued Amount Citation Fines Issued Citation Fines Collected
Warning only* 2,803 0.00 0.00
Missing 11 1,155.00 1,036.00
619.03a 1 62.50 37.50
619.03b 2 610.00 62.50
416.02 16 5,857.00 1,955.00
601.11a 291 53,286.00 25,630.50
601.11b 44 207,553.50 46,364.50
609.01 173 17,207.00 10,182.75
619.02b 15 931.00 883.50
619.03a 617 87,141.00 43,408.50
619.03b 1,174 159,591.00 78,552.00
619.04 4 250.00 284.50
619.04a 1,450 252,690.50 134,211.50
619.04b 5 6,215.00 2,985.50
619.05 386 40,700.00 22,795.00
619.13 4 420.00 210.00
765.05c 1 5,047.50 0.00
765.09 88 133,143.50 33,524.00
TOTAL 7,085 971,860.50 402,123.25
* For various offenses; if the condition is not corrected, a citation is issued.
As the above table indicates, 40% of the database entries were warnings. The failure to comply rate is unknown, i.e., how many of these warnings resulted in citations. Also unknown is the number of citations issued to chronic offenders without warning. (ES sometimes cites chronic offenders without a warning.)
The most citations were issued for Early Set Out (1,174) and Accumulation of Waste (1,450). Only 386 citations were written for failing to recycle. Given the relatively few failure to separate trash citations it appears that failure to recycle is not that big of a problem. The reduction in recyclable tonnage over the last four years, however, indicates the opposite.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 3:
As stated in Recommendation No. 2 above, education and enforcement efforts must be increased, especially in neighborhoods with a history of low recycling. Education followed by a warning and, if necessary, a citation, will reinforce the importance of recycling.
In reviewing the dbf file the auditors observed inaccuracies (date, address, zip code, zone) and inconsistencies in data entry (e.g., court outcome entries, spelling, numeric and alpha dollar amounts, court outcome terminology such as 'resent' and
're-mailed' ). These inconsistencies create more fields than necessary for analysis. Where possible, the auditors synchronized entries.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 4:
The data input person(s) should increase the accuracy and consistency of entries in the Bureau's citation database. Accuracy and consistency are needed for better analysis of data.
D. Act 47 Mandates
The Municipalities Financial Recovery Act Recovery Plan (Act 47) notes that "The City's Environmental Services Division has seen substantial improvement in operational efficiency over the past two years". Substantial improvement in operational efficiency is not enough to spare the Bureau the specter of outsourcing. The report further states "However, the City's fiscal crisis demands that every operation be examined with an eye for greater efficiency". The Act 47 team then mandates initiatives "to contain and reduce current solid waste costs". Better language would be "contain and further reduce current solid waste costs".
These mandated initiatives appear not to be well thought out or are steps that the Bureau has already undertaken. Additionally, implementation of some mandates will place an undue burden on the Bureau and negatively impact operations.
Contain Landfill Costs
Regarding landfill disposal costs, the Plan notes that "the City has been able to negotiate a more favorable fee of $20 per ton, and therefore will achieve savings in FY 2004". This contract for solid waste disposal expires February 28, 2007, so the City will achieve these savings for three years.
However, "these savings may be negated by a potential liability of approximately $1.0 million related to the payment of state tipping taxes in FY 2003". At issue is whether the City or landfill operator should pay for the additional taxes which were not anticipated at the time of the prior contract. The contract language appears to bolster arguments on both sides.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 5:
The City should try to settle this issue with the landfill operator. A settlement would reduce litigation costs for both sides.
The Plan mandates that the City continue to pursue internal and external management strategies to lower landfill disposal fees. The only other way to lower disposal fees is to reduce the amount of solid waste taken to the landfill. As noted in the Plan, the City is already working to reduce solid waste tonnage by encouraging more recycling and limited bulk pickups.
Explore Trash Transfer Station Options
The Plan advocates a trash transfer option to reduce the personnel, fuel and equipment costs of transporting trash to the dump in Imperial PA. It mandates the City to "continue to explore the acquisition of an appropriately located site for a transfer station". Inside a transfer station, trash is dumped onto a concrete floor, and then loaded into specially designed semi-trailers. The idea of a transfer station is to have the waste hauled by 10 refuse trucks transferred into one semi-trailer. The one semi-trailer, in turn, transports the load to the dump. Thus one or two drivers and one vehicle can transport what was previously transported by twenty drivers and ten trucks. Residents could be encouraged to self-haul large bulky items to the station, thus reducing the City's waste hauling costs. Transfer stations allowing self hauling appear to have worked reasonably well in places such as Sedgwick County, Kansas. However, the creation of a transfer station for the City does not appear feasible for the following reasons:
A transfer station's cost effectiveness depends on its location and the volume of solid waste deposited there. Industry standards for transfer station cost effectiveness require the dump to be located 30 or more miles from the City. The BFI dump in Imperial is located approximately 22 miles west of the City. Any station must be located in the City or close enough to the City to actualize real savings in transportation costs. It is not feasible to place a garbage transfer station in the City's center, where it would be equally accessible to all divisions. The area is too densely populated for such a smelly venture. The other alternative would be to locate it no more than midway between the western boundary of the City and Imperial. The area near west of the City contains the boroughs of Greentree, Crafton, etc. To place the station in the less densely populated areas further west would not offer much in transport savings. Also, it is highly unlikely that City residents would drive ten miles to self haul bulk waste.
In addition, the costs of the station itself must be factored into any cost savings scenario. If the transfer station is managed by a third party, the City's tipping fee costs will increase because State law imposes a tax on any transfer of solid waste. Other operational costs would ensue if the station is managed by an outside contractor. Having a private entity run a transfer station appears unlikely. According to the Operations Manager, the City has received no responses to its request for transfer station bids.
Semi-Automation/Automation Refuse Trucks
The Act 47 team mandates that the City gradually transition its fleet to Automated Trash Collection (ATC) or Semi-Automated Trash Collection (SATC) refuse vehicles. These trucks have mechanical aids which lift refuse receptacles off the street and into a truck. The City's current two thusly equipped trucks were purchased by the Housing Authority to facilitate the emptying of dumpster bins in City Housing projects.
Automated collection can be a cost effective option to manual residential waste collection. Each residence is provided with a special cart which is rolled to curbside on the designated collection day. Residents place bagged household trash in the cart. The cart is then mechanically lifted, emptied and returned to the same spot. Using hydraulic controls, the truck operator controls the entire loading operation from his seat. Carts are typically 96 gallon, holding up to 200 pounds of trash, equivalent to three garbage cans. The carts would be the property of the City and be assigned by street address. Most cities using ATC have recyclables and solid waste collected on the same day. A different vehicle collects each item. Residents setting out bins of recyclables next to their carts must leave enough access for both vehicles.
Providing these uniform, purpose built carts would require a significant capital investment for the City. Cart prices range between $45 and $55 per cart. Using an average of $50 per cart and assuming a cart is required for each of the current 115,000 pickup stops, the capital investment would be $5,750,000.
Semi-automated collection is similar to automated collection. Conventional rear loading trucks are fitted with cart loading devices. Unless the trucks can back up to the carts, the cart would need rolled to the rear of the truck. The latter method would require another employee to position the carts for dumping and not be as cost effective as automated collection. Having an employee wheel the cart in back of the truck for semi-automated collection is not much different from the manual rear load system currently in use. Time savings with SATC is questionable because the employee would have to return the cart to the curb instead of simply moving along to the next trash stop.
Given the City's housing density and lack of alternative parking facilities, the widespread use of ATC or SATC vehicles is questionable.
Most cities using ATC are not older cities with narrow, hilly streets, dense housing and scarce parking. The majority of City households have no off-street parking. Parking is in such demand that many neighborhoods have a Residential Permit Parking Program, which limits the time non-residents can park on the street.
Streets designated for ATC pick up must be cleared of cars. The City's current refuse collection is organized into four zones. It would be impossible for every street in an entire zone to be cleared of cars on designated collection day. There simply is no nearby, alternative place to park all those cars. For example, daily parking is so dense in Central Oakland and there is no other place to temporarily move cars.
The housing density in areas such as Lawrenceville and South Side would make it difficult to provide enough access for automated solid waste and recyclables pickup. Also, more fuel would be used as the ATC vehicle moves and stops every 25 feet (the average width of a City house) to empty the household cart.
ATC might work on Squirrel Hill streets (North of Forbes Avenue) such as Aylesboro and Northumberland where the houses are far enough apart to provide ample truck access and have off street parking availability in driveways or garages. It is troubling that the Plan mandates the City to pursue a type of collection which cannot be implemented City wide.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 6:
A feasibility study of city wide automatic trash collection and an analysis of the cost effectiveness of a limited ATC/SATC program should be completed prior to any wholesale fleet transition.
Managed Competition of Municipal Solid Waste Services (MSW)
Another mandate requires the outsourcing of MSW services for approximately 10 percent of Pittsburgh households no later than May 1 2005. In fiscal year 2005, City workers then must bid against private haulers for collection in one third of the City. Throughout the pilot program (10% of City households) the contracted MSW services providers are required to operate vehicles with ACT/SACT systems.
To fairly evaluate pilot program contracted services, the private hauler must service routes that are representative of the diverse collection conditions in the City such as slopes, dense housing, etc. Requiring the contracted hauler to use ACT/SACT trucks limits them to relatively easy collection on less densely populated, wider streets. Given the speed of automated versus manual collection, the contracted hauler will appear more efficient than City collection in places such as the South Side slopes. The mandate is unclear as to whether City workers will still service these routes to pick up recyclables. For more equitable comparison, the contracted hauler should perform all route collection, including recyclable pickup.
The mandate also is unclear as to who is responsible for purchasing the SATC/ACT vehicles needed for the pilot program. Again, to more fairly evaluate the cost of outsourced collection, the contractor should be responsible for the purchase and maintenance of these vehicles.
As noted previously, the Bureau of Environmental Services reduced its routes by 15%, from 52 to 44. This revision was the product of much route analysis. Staffing the revised routes required seniority bidding as per union contract requirements. To reduce these routes by another 10% will burden Bureau administrators to essentially revisit the same route revision process.
Note: Revisions to the Act 47 Plan now allow the City to bid against private haulers for the 10% of residential waste collection. A successful bid by the City would reduce the likelihood of outsourcing this important service.
Pursue Maximum Reimbursement/Funding from Act 101 programs
The final mandate notes that, as a financially distressed city under Act 47, the City is eligible for reimbursement for 100% of its recycling costs. The Plan states that "the City shall apply for this additional funding and evaluate additional opportunities to maximize reimbursements from the Commonwealth".
Prior to its distressed municipality designation, the City had to match 10% of any grant monies allocated to its recycling program. As a distressed City, Pittsburgh no longer has to match or put up this ten percent. Since the distressed designation, the City has been receiving 100% of its State recycling grants.