Council Considering Automated Recycling

The Kimble Proposal

 

Faced with a failing recycling program, and, a City Council reluctant to buy another recycling truck, the Administration reached out to Kimble for a possible solution.

 

Kimble came back with a proposal to extend their current contract, and, add the collection of recyclables.  Here are some of the basics

 

*Current contract set to expire in Feb, 2015 would be extended thru Dec 31, 2019.

*Recycling pick up added to the contract

*Automated pick up of both trash and recycling. 

* Each "stop" would be provided at no cost with a single 96 gallon trash cart, and, a 67 gallon

  recycling cart

*Unlimited trash pick up would remain.

* The City would no longer receive any money from recyclable material collected as we currently do.

 

The Administration estimates cost savings of about 100K per year over the life of the contract. 

 

The trade off is that the City would waive its ability to potentially secure a better deal through competitive biding until the end of the decade.

 

Is the Trade Off Worth It?

 

Lets take a look at some of the assumptions of the Administration:

 

500K Savings over the life of the Contract:   There are two parts here:  First, the City must increase its recycling from the current 1650-1700 ton level to beat the cost of the current contract.  If we do not there is virtually no savings the first year, and, a 31K savings the next year.   Second, any savings after the second year is pure speculation based on future market conditions that are hard to project.

 

Extending vs. Bidding:  At our Sept. 11 2013 Executive Committee Meeting, Mr. Johnson of Kimble indicated that the City would secure a better price over our current contract, if going out to bid today, and, that could hold true if we went out to bid a year from now.  With or without the extension, Kimble wants the City's business.  And, we should note that the City awarded the current contract to Kimble via competitive bidding.

 

Increasing Recycling Tonnage:   Our current program failed to do this.  The entire  contract extension savings depends on it.  Through the larger containers and, some education, the Administration believes that our recycling tonnage can rise from 1650 tons, to almost 3800 tons.  There is some evidence that switching container size can increase tonnage collected.  South Euclid and Independence have show increases in switching from bins or bags to large containers.  Solon is also showing an increase in their pilot program as reported in the Plain Dealer. 

 

The Current Program:  The Administration claims that the current program can not continue without another truck.  Yet, for the first three months of the program (Dec, 2010 - Feb, 2011) we did just that.  Trough roll off bins and, our own dump trucks it is possible to carry on for the short term.

 

 

The Real Issue - Preventing Waste from Entering the Landfill

 

 

Extend the contract?  Bid out?  City pick up?  Private hauler pick up?  All important questions, but, none of them answers the question of what is the City's plan to keep waste out of the landfill.  The landfill is where real savings can be had.  Yet, we have no plans, only an idea about better educating our residents.

 

Here are some select recycling rates for Cuyahoga County communities provided by the Cuyahoga County Solid Waste Management District:

 

Euclid: 24.58%   Cleveland Hts:  66.98%  South Euclid: 45.78%    Lakewood: 50.15%

Richmond Hts: 37.62%  Independence: 58.17%

 

Raising our percentage will save the City money.  And, the only way to do this is to actually develop a  City of Euclid plan that at its core develops a culture of recycling.

 

Who collects the recyclables will only change the financial results modestly, if at all. 

 

Now, who has done such planning?  Cleveland is currently in the development of a "Resource Recovery Plan."  Austin, TX and Philadelphia already have comprehensive recycling plans.  They have developed the culture that makes their programs work.  In fact, Austin have moved from just recycling to  a total "materials management" program where trash is what remains once the community reduced, reuse, recycle and compost.   Well, maybe for Euclid, a small step first! 

 

Euclid should, however, embark on landfill reduction planning exercise.  There are many resources and organizations that can help with such a task.  While this might cost  some money, the results would be a real plan for reducing landfill tonnage that will save the City money.

 

Once completed, and, adopted, then, the City will have a clear direction just how our trash and recyclables can best be collected.

 

But it all starts with building a  Culture of Recycling

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 



 

 

 

 



Euclid Recycling - About to Change?

Euclid's Current Recycling Program

 

Euclid's current recycling program is a money loser.  Started in December of 2010, Mayor Cervenik's highly touted "no cost" program could very well be dumped at the next Council meeting.

 

As I noted in my earlier blog on the subject (see October 8th, 2010 post)  the current program rested on assumptions that were far too optimistic.

 

Under our current contract, Euclid saves money by recycling in two ways:  1)Euclid receives payment for the actual amount of materials recycled.  2) Every ton recycled is a ton that the City does not pay for in landfill tipping fees (a tipping fee is the amount charged per ton at the landfill)

 

The initial costs to launch the current program were as follows:

 

1) Personnel :  3 hires costing about $112,000 per year

2) Yellow bins:  $80,000

3) New Recycling Truck  $ 92.000. 

4) Used truck - for back up  $32,000

 

The used truck was purchased two months after the launch of the program in December, 2010.

 

Problems with this program were apparent from the first presentation in the fall of 2010.

 

Long time residents recall that Euclid has engaged in several different types of recycling: curbside bins, bi-weekly, curb side blue bags, to central dumpster collections.  Each was terminated due to costs and City budget pressures.

 

The Administration convinced a majority of Council that the cost problems could solved.  If the residents recycled more materials than they had in the past, the City would save enough money. 

 

This is the real key to saving the City money:  keeping stuff out of the landfill

 

Mayor Cervenik explained that he was fully confident that recycling tonnage would rise from the historic average of 2600 per year, to close to 4000 tons per year.   To reach these goals, the Administration promised a City wide educational campaign.

 

From the Mayor's first proposal in mid-September 2010 until final Council passage on October 4th, 2010 was about three weeks.  In short, this was rammed through with plenty of questions on the rosy Administration assumptions on the amount expected to be recycled, the educational aspect, and, the use of a Federal Grant to cover first year costs.

 

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the City of Euclid used a one time, federal Energy Efficient Community Block Grant to cover about $112,000 in 2011 salary expenses.  The City obtained this grant in the amount of $296,000 in 2009.  The grant is described in Federal literature as "empowering local communities to make strategic investments to meet the nation's long term goals of energy independence and leadership on climate change"  Salaries are a one time, short term use of the money.

 

From the very first month of the program, the actual tonnage of recycling materials collected has fallen far short of the rosy scenarios bought by Council.  In fact, according Administration figures, the City is only collecting about 1700 tons of recycling per year.  Because of this shortfall in collections, the per annual losses of the program are rising, from a loss of about 60K per year to a projected 100K per year in 2013 to 125k next year.

 

One of the reasons for this is the lack of any credible education program.  Council was promised that it would have input, and, could see the program before it was unveiled.  We are still waiting.

 

The final straw that has pushed the Administration for an overhaul of the program is the continual break down of the used recycling truck.  Deemed a money saving purchase a few years ago, it has been a money pit.  Instead of putting additional money into endless repairs, the City Administration wanted the Council to purchase a new truck for $122,000.

 

Council balked at this expense leading to the current Administration proposal: extending our trash hauling contract with Kimble and, including the pick up of recycling materials.

In short, a program touted as a way to earn money trough recycling less than three years is now destine for the dump.

 

So, what comes next?  Stay tuned.