Thursday, October 17, 2013

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.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 


No comments:

Post a Comment