HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1555) AGENDA
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
SPECIAL SESSION
SEPTEMBER 29, 1999
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. PRESENTATION SUMMARIZING THE FINDINGS OF THE SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE
2. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FOR
THE TOWN
ADJOURNMENT
The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify
the Oro Valley Town Clerk at 297-2591.
POSTED: 9/24/99
4:30 p.m.
rg
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: September 29, 1999
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR& COUNCIL
FROM: David L. Andrews, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Presentation Summarizing the Finding of the Solid Waste Management Task Force— Second
Public Hearing
SUMMARY:
In December of 1998 the Town Council formed the Solid Waste Management Task Force. On May 10, 1999
the Task Force presented it's recommendations to the Town Council in a study session.
Since that time, the Town Council has elected to hold two public hearings in order to obtain broad public input
regarding this important issue. Tonight is the second of two scheduled public hearings.
The first public hearing was held on August 25, 1999 in the Council Chambers. At that meeting, various
questions were raised regarding landfills, tipping fees, recycling and customer data. Staff has researched those
questions and included that information in this communication.
Landfills/Tipping Fees
Staff contacted Suzanne Shields, Solid Waste Manager for Pima County, with several questions regarding
landfills and tipping fees. Those specifics are as follows:
• Tipping fees at the Tangerine Road Landfill are $21.00 per ton.
• The Tangerine Road Landfill is a lined landfill that meets all state and federal requirements for
landfill operators. The landfill does not accept hazardous waste materials.
• Tipping fees at the Catalina Transfer Station are $22.00 per ton.
• Waste collections at the Catalina Transfer Station are disposed of at the Tangerine Road Landfill.
• The remaining life of the Tangerine Road Landfill is estimated to be to the year 2016.
• Pima County would possibly consider long-term intergovernmental agreements for solid waste
disposal and rates, subject to approval by the Pima County Board of Supervisors.
As additional information, the City of Tucson operates the Los Reales Landfill and charges $22.00 per ton for
tipping fees.
Also, Waste Management operates a transfer station located at Ina Road and I-10. Tipping fees vary, depending
upon the arrangements made with the company.
Recycling Programs
Pima County has authority over recycling programs within the unincorporated areas of Pima County.
According to Ms. Shields, recycling in those geographical areas is not mandatory, but Pima County does require
haulers to offer recycling options to customers.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION PAGE 2 OF 2
Number of Customers Using Septic Tanks
The Oro Valley Water Utility's best guess is that less than 5% of Oro Valley residents use septic tanks.
Assuming 12,000 households in Oro Valley, less than 600 households would use septic tanks.
Number of Residents Not Using the Oro Valley Water Utility
The Oro Valley Water Utility estimates that approximately 924 Oro Valley residents are not connected to the
Oro Valley Water Utility.
Information obtained from the Oro Valley Water Utility is included as an attachment to this communication.
Mr. Dick Izen, Chairman of the Solid Waste Management Task Force would like to make a brief Powerpoint
presentation this evening summarizing the findings of the Solid Waste Management Task Force's report. Mr.
Izen's presentation is also included as an attachment to this communication. Bound copies of the complete
Solid Waste Management Task Force Report were distributed to Council in April of 1999.
RECOMMENDATION:
N/A
SUGGESTED MOTION:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Memorandum from the Oro Valley Water Utility
2. Powerpoint Presentation
3. Executive Summary of the Solid Waste Management Task Force Report
David L. Andrews
Finance Director
Chuck Sweet
Town Manager
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
WATER UTILITY
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: David Andrews,Finance Director
FROM: Shirley Seng,Utility Administrator
DATE: September 13, 1999
SUBJECT: Information for Solid Waste Public Hearing
CC: David Hook,Water Utility Director
As per our telephone conversation on Friday, 9-10-99, the following is the information you
requested for the upcoming Solid Waste Public Hearing to be held 9-29-99:
Customers on septic tanks:
The OVWU&the Community Development Department's G.I.S. have no information available on
sewer lines or septic tanks. It is staff's opinion that verification with Pima County Wastewater
would involve considerable work and time. For the purposes of the public hearing, it is staff's best
guess that less than 5% of the Oro Valley residents utilize septic tanks vs. connections to the county
sewer system. This guess is based on the fact that most of the residential areas have been developed
within the last 15 years, are high-density neighborhoods, and the water improvement plans indicate
connections to county sewer lines. There are older neighborhoods in low-density areas that may
utilize septic tanks.
Number of OV residents not on OVWU as of 8-31-99:
OVWLJ single family residential customers in TOV 9,410
Tucson Water single family residential customers in TOV 586 (1)
MDWID single family residential customers in TOV 318 (2) a
TOV single family residents with private wells 20 (3)
(1) Information taken from appraisal dated 6-10-98
(2) Information provided by MDWID 9-13-99
(3) Staff estimate
1‘1,
.4.....
Qi)
14)
ea
ci al
cs w
Cu
.....,, _....,,__ '4-
Aiii,AlwaitA
0 C5 Ls
, ‘
„,,,, - - - -e• -,
fl •-*;--..4-:- .--...- ,:-,-!_-:-4:4-';:.,,,,-„:,--:',. ,'-.. _ ,
Ls 0 -. ..//./. .-_,':':::.:... ,-:-'.--.-....'Z ,•''-.C.:;',',.-'1,i...; .i \
f'.... „,
-1/44 .1,7,
;, ..-
:',-
:::•--. . ..,..1-...'•'•- .' •
4..,
. ,
,.-, , ,•• ....,, , .
., --.. . ..,;.s..7:.. . '.•-•-•. i ., - ‘ (5-}
0 /AL
t,-•
IT-'---. ,• ' '
4MMI. Si14)
l.
aNVXI) ,•I*'(.,.;-..,-1,::i:-•-,\::
ti.- •,.li..
:.s.
,
0 V)
CI 0‘.'-', '7'1 '',.,-•:-.'7,,,,-.-4tfrZii.,..,‘,4
C17 '1'IN't
0 ati
11"... • ems
IIIIIIMIND
0
l'.,,
� r
4-
C
(1) •....
0 C
0 Cl.
C
N ci. +- •..._
.4.-- • . E o 0 s- "V
I— ...c o C
C 4— o
U 4- 14) 0
Q j • awn 4;r V) E
Q c
a) vi ON 0i) 0 _O
= N C ON --C2 v) V)
W 73 .:17-
6 $1)
N ON --1 w
.--i u ...c C
0
.:17- _ c
01 W 4-- 5 E.: o +.. 0
0C o a. u 0 --ci
C S-- 4-
4- -cs QvC
4)0Nv) . c .. . (9 EC oa)0 1- 0 _ 4... 10.
N.,
E._
fw v) .--
c° ..6 cu o
v) 0 —
• 3J
I_
°) -15E E
O U — o > N �-
.� V oo � CO � 0
ON � 0 3 � C
� 4..m ON
. o V 1--
� o�
oC5
L. -.0 C$
...
4) 4) .,,,, 0 p) 4)
>1 el) _CI +- %.) 4- 0 0
V) C
L.
L E .anue
V1 $C3 1... L3 0
ati L
izi) :---,-, c v, 0 v)
� 1._ EL 73 a) 4--
0C V N N C V � VI
a p � L $L) -0 Y�OLL CJ L � N p �
. E U
IP:
(1) v C t
V
i 1-1- C 0 CL.. to L.,
V) EC) ...x4-- N 4) E0 clE
CIE._ I— v0--- V) a . V ja. 0
I Ci �r•-• i } ' 4-
.
L.
+- Fvi a a
V)
C
(1)
N _c c
c R. — ..x 0 c
+-
C4—
• o
q) V IP orU
i w � I."=. '2
a_
>. t
E 0 --6 a-6 -0 14) 0
W 73 -0 > 0 5 -6 4--
01 q) +- Co Qj > Ow
0
0 C C
1... --6004) =
(1) L.C S- E 4) O >, ti) tn v)
0 > 4.- t‘i Ci- V = •
4—
C
o 0 eN Li- V)
0 q) W 0 L ,v) Qj 4- 0 v) ""0 ...c u cn
CI
...0
C c q) 4- 4) 4-
0 tn L.N NV) CO3O
} 1
OW t � 4 ;7 C3 C3 +- -I- .0 1'
CI+
o
V) 4.- .....
C3 in..... soy -e:r- >.. ti) = "i5
In Qj 6 10 1._ c 4-- L
� .- 0)
� vcs
(9 +- ...c 0 .- 4--„ c... w
w -1- v) -,„ 0 E.
w 73 4.-
1.. 0 0 73 c
ti o 4- 4-
ow .n
Z3L. a_ t) +- c°i E
• anon 0
X0 LL 0 . v) la) u L.)
Qacia. „ 00
L
c vc3
E w
} L U
C a
_C (.... s_
4) c
0
04) V) Q •= c "iii c
01) fa) tn 4-- ati ii:L. Ci 9.- ) s a � � �-
�
#1) cin .S) "iiEcL
• 0 3 tr) 4) _Y a tr) p) ti) ori
V •_
...(w . E L c � 1_,.,
10 -5 E.. a)-01/4) -- 0 0 oi) ci 1-
O
� VDVI- C +-
C
} Q
,,
CL.CS 1... -0 0
o 5 #.‘1- c
L./
CL. ci
c"Zi o
N (I) v) 1--.
OtA) U L. 4- -a •
," v)
imi- S.- 04) 4- L 0 ......
01
cit)to O E trcn a- tr)
70:) L.L.
C
6
3
v) 0
v7 0 (9 c
....V • Tin 7 c o= �"'
6-10 0 o ,o e...
....Y OW
k) t'. . =
• MEM 1..... a .... •aims
—ma N N 4: 1-7
0 e
0 L. 4.
tn v)S) I-1 R � v
_.Y
Y
0 ci = 0 (9 4_,. = tr)
QU... Y L 0 0
o �i ac > � 0 I v
"0
Oa ,
=0 }
+1. ' a o (9
0 01 q) > C
LIP@ 0 c
c „,
0
tn lc:
ow I-4 x
t) u a.
01 L. -c
+m• v)
Q 4-
Q Q
a C +-
C E..
C 11) 11)
E ...._. 4.,_. (,) 0)
ei) C - c
Ci E .
cL :2
zoe) Y � � � v
C >
o v)
L. s_ 0 4- 04) =
o Ci @
> >-
ea L. 01
c w
-a CS = .. ...0
= cn 11)
4- cr @ ..c 70
+.1 (1) 5 0 a) s_ .1._ (%)
C C C 01
V) > I 0
t-""' 0
1._ tn = = 4- cl
0 E..
0 (IR s... cL o) ei) • -io
-ti , =
o ej c ci. 3
;.# Qe) u
0 - - - in -a
4-- o u .> ej 46 -n -70 v)
,_ .-
CI c L E.-01 Q 4)
Ej � � L �
'� L 3 d v� L � � c � 12
V1 �/1 i c
Z� N a
/--esd +��- ei) � � �° oz,) �
' � kib y N � C C In � Lo � v
p)
0 ` ci .E .Y N dC w ee) cs) 0) c @ �
1 at at � a D tn" a
zi42 1 1 1 V 1 1 1
in
.4-- • a E-
0 L o We.
oi) 40.4). IP .7_
o Q V O
...0 u 0
..c 4) :7- w -0
OMIC ii"i = C3
V) -a- L' 4-- V) V) E._
CS -C V)
V) ....E >i
-13 0 ow 'a)
ENN. 4-- -70 Ci •V)
sio 2
OW I-- •c
o 0.)
4- c E --
--0 4._ -a
w cs
C cs ....... E
v) cc -a
0 "a/c?, 44) -0
...c •- Cr)
Q @
4.- >
0
L. .70 1-:
� ten- � s0t.. V) 0 >'-a c C -0 v) ..c) �
IN) C 4) aCi-
4,_ C 0
moO .� � � a o0 cs • ems 0 06) A..c 0 ._-- ...c
v) (9 4) +I
1-- �xi u � X N v• ii IP
..c >.
+' L.
C3 ...C.f..
ri... 06) V) 9- 0 a in
>b. , 0 . 1.. 0 c @ 4- ,_ p)
W 0 V) -
+- 1--_, ...a L
4-- , az o
..., ft,
E — 2
....... ,„,ID 0 o w :I- o
0,) ra. R .-- c
%2 _a
C\I � z9 � :1-:. o 4.:
>.
I s.... = u L ea) cs
>. ..r 3w4-„, E
0
CO L V) 0 "— V v)
c 0 4... E..
..r ..r a
LII) (9 4)
a� o p) s c o v' a � o)
0 0 %t -C 4...
+11. •o Cc0os � 0C-1-- .4.- 4.- 0 -+: 0 0 � cs
L.. •
ori o)14( _c3 � o� o� } o)..c � L_, = k,ka) w cnv) s
-6 1-- 04) 12
V v)� V o if
V Q c o)
C3
.
V
!"�' N M N � a1 to
N L _sNoN 'a) �
C.- 4-
0
O‘ c3 V) (3\ V Ck 4-- L (9
IN)
+.-c V
1...
tt) O
E L.L
N
ol v) r..ci ,--, -0
%I
C 1..... C 01
C
Ci 14) •.....V
w E ,v
, ..c N
w +- E a
4-
0
Ci
in � V 04) �c 0
1 � ori 0 01
L. 0 LU r.-
icC a (,) v) --. ,,,
c. . C Q =
14.. dftm 4. Ci
v) 0,, . -i. ... .._
� N �
Cn• ..... 0 >, c oo CL-
Z7 -H
C
IIINSIlim .0 fl) L. ..... •47. = C
0 wr ii) .U. 14) 0 C) C 0) ej
.5 > .> >. u 1i= C N
(r) 0 E.- - 0 = C =
-H
a. tr) D [Y Lu V ai V
--0
0 =
+"' 4- 0C -.0V) OA)0 s
V)
qi) 0
L. •....
> CI
L- E c
0 E
0
E 4-
C (9 ii:
V) IR-
•- L.
01
0
Qi) 4_,_
sV► L0 :1- Q a_
Ci) V) ,L tn 3 y- o
N
Ci W iii
C UV)
a } +_
C = 4- ,w, C3 ei) 4- u 0
I N I_ Qj V) ci o
Ci tn = E.. 4- 4- c L., =
" c:3
tn ...c
cn o c -
v) u
0 - t-- -(3
- 01 0 -6 LU
PA c 0 .4- C 1"-- U Cil ei)
(9
C •:- -C
Tii 0 E •Es.
•:•.• 1... di.% ..0 '13 •--•
C -5
4L:: (9 -.--1- 0 C 73 -0
'I' 4) 0) tn -i- :I- :-E- 0 >. wc..
tn t) E cl. 16 cn" al o -..-.
ci CL. ow 0 c (‘) c ei) gf‘u
4-- 0 .N 4- .7„1*-- a w i
xn (9
0 ra,..
s L 0 . . 0 %.,,
C 4- .3 C ?3_-- s 0
4- 0 o 0 i_ci o _o +- :c-
c -T--- •-
E ki- = 1E- 0 v) 4- (9 4-- 42
-0 0 c 4z ed ... 0 2 _a o
f... 0 • 4-- 4- • 4-- c 0)
• ammo
6111111111.1. 4- -4= 72 E. s' ,_ E ow 0 E
0 � ti, L +- .�- L cy) :FL (9
= o) — ea 0,, c fl) 0 a -z:
(in ja. U m 4- %II = 4- C m LA-
X hf N N0 q) C3 i:
H Ilis
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
1
111 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
TASK FORCE
111
o(z- 4:41
-. 0
. . .
1:1,
To.
A AtAt1\-jr‘kvW-g.rikN
lt5,4-4 ,,r„. /6"
UNDED \g
1111
.11k
April,
A Community of Excellence
Section I.
Executive Summary
The Solid Waste Management Task Force was formed by the Oro Valley Town Council
in December 1998 to explore the options available to the citizens of Oro Valley with
respect to solid waste collection services. The task force has met on several occasions
during the past few months to develop service delivery options available to the Town.
During these meetings, the task force has also examined industry regulations, legal
considerations, and service delivery standards.
Based on its research, the Solid Waste Management Task Force is pleased to offer the
following recommendations to the Town Council:
1. Provision of Services
The Town should provide solid waste collection services to its single family residential
households by sub contracting the services to private sector haulers via a request for
proposal.
2. Service Zones
The above sub contracts should be bid and let by at least two zones or districts
to ensure competitive bids and provide objective basis for evaluation of level of service.
3. Delivery Standards
The service delivery standards identified in exhibit A, (the draft "Town of Oro Valley
Request for Proposals (RFPs) for Residential Solid Waste Collection Services ") should
be incorporated by ordinance into the Town Code. These standards include twice per
week solid waste pickup. (See discussion of once per week solid waste pickup in
section V, B.)
4. Recycling
Once a week Recycling Service should be included in the basic charge for monthly
Solid Waste Collection Services. (This recommendation is based on the assumption
that the Town will be able to deliver the combined service without substantial cost
increase over current rates. See discussion in section V, C).
5. Education and Ease of Recycling
The Town should also encourage recycling and use of the recycling services through
ease of use (no label removal, single pickup for mixed recyclable materials), adoption of
a recycling policy statement and by embarking on a positive educational campaign to
encourage resident participation.
6. Continuous Charges
Charges for this service should be billed consistently throughout the year to all single
family residences without regard to actual occupancy or volume of usage.
1
7. Billing
The Town should consider absorbing the billing of these charge through its water utility,
both to provide a significant cost savings and to create a mailing data base for other
town purposes.
8. Citizen Input
This report should be presented to the Town at a Town Council Study Session open to
the public to solicit citizen input. In addition the changes to the Town Code (see 3
above) should be reviewed at a public hearing (probably at a regularly scheduled Town
Council meeting). Both of these meetings should be completed prior to issuing the
RFPs.
Detailed research and analysis with regard to these recommendations may be found in
the body of the task force's report and are an integral part of our recommendation.
The Solid Waste Management Task Force is honored to have served in this capacity for
the Town and would like to extend a sincere thank you to the Mayor and Council for its
consideration with respect to the solid waste management issue.
Section II.
Overview
In response to concerns expressed by many citizens of the community, the Oro Valley
Town Council formed the Solid Waste Management Task Force in December 1998.
The considerations articulated by the citizens centered around both safety and
environmental issues. In the current solid waste management operating environment,
multiple haulers within the same neighborhoods pose a safety concern to residents and
school children. Different companies often run similar routes within the same service
areas causing undue vehicle trips and excessive noise. These duplicate routes
enhance the potential for injuries and accidents to the residents and businesses. Due
to their size and weight, solid waste collection trucks also cause additional wear and
tear on Town streets and create additional air pollution through their operation.
The Solid Waste Management Task Force was charged by the Council to advance a
solid waste management strategy with respect to those concerns and make
recommendations to the Oro Valley Town Council for a future course of action. Within
the scope of that charge, the task force developed the following mission statement:
2
Solid Waste Management Task Force
Mission Statement
To explore the alternatives and options available to the
citizens of Oro Valley with respect to solid waste/recycle
collection service delivery and disposal and make
recommendations to the Oro Valley Town Council for a
future course of action regarding this issue.
A comprehensive solid waste management strategy encompasses two significant
components, solid waste collection and solid waste disposal. As self evident by
definition, solid waste collection (also called garbage or trash) refers to the action of
trash pickup at the point of its generation, including residential, commercial and
industrial. Solid waste disposal addresses the issue of getting rid of solid waste after its
collection through practices such as burial of trash at landfill sites, reuse, as well as
waste reduction and recycling programs.
As reflected in its mission statement, the Solid Waste Management Task Force has
focused its efforts on solid waste collection and limited its waste disposal concerns to
recycling programs. Landfill sites in the surrounding area are operated by Pima County
and are regulated by federal, state and county laws, regulations and ordinances. The
issue of solid waste disposal can be integrated into a comprehensive solid waste
management strategy by way of service delivery alternatives and standards.
In developing its recommendations to the Town Council, the task force took a
systematic approach by inventorying existing service providers, researching existing
industry regulations and legal considerations, exploring service delivery alternatives and
examining service delivery standards that are in place in various municipalities
throughout the States of Arizona, California and Wisconsin. These issues will be
discussed in detail throughout the remainder of this report. Recommendations for a
future course of action for the Town are also provided based on the task force's
findings.
Section III A
Existing Service Providers Within Oro Valley and Pima County
Solid waste collection services currently are provided to Oro Valley residents and
industrial and commercial enterprises by private firms. Single-family and multi-family
residential housing units negotiate rates for trash pickup and frequency of services
including recycling, either individually or collectively through their respective
homeowners associations. In the case of homeowners associations, trash collection
bills may be paid directly to private firms by the homeowner or directly paid by the
homeowners associations through their homeowners association fee structure.
Commercial and industrial solid waste collection is negotiated directly between the
enterprise and private service provider.
3
In an attempt to specify and quantify the range of existing arrangements for the
approximately 10,300 residential households in Oro Valley, staff contacted the
representatives from the Sun City Community Association and two property
management companies representing local neighborhoods. The results of that
information are summarized in Table A.
Table A
Approximate
Association Service Households Service
Contact Provider Serviced Standards
Sun City Community Waste 2,114 $9 per month/2 x per
Association Management week/
optional recycling @ $4
per month
i Sun City Community Various (2) 374 Information not obtained
Association
Copper Creek TNT Sanitation 736 $8 per month/2 x per
week/
optional recycling @ $2
per month
Copper Creek Primarily Waste 184 $9 per month/1 x per
Management week/optional recycling @
$4 per month
Rancho Vistoso TNT Sanitation ' 800 $8 per month /2 x per
week/
optional recycling @ $2
per month
Rancho Vistoso Primarily Waste , 200 $9 per month/1 x per
Management week/optional recycling @
$4 per month
Cadden Parfrey � Waste 675 � $9.75 per month/2 x
Management week/1 x recycling per
week
Cadden Parfrey . TNT 75 � Information not obtained
Sanitation/Pima
Environmental
The Links PMI 106 $7.78 per month/1X per
week/ 1X recycling per
week
Total Households 5,264
In summary, the informal survey of approximately half the residential households in Oro
Valley indicated that about 60% of solid waste collection service is provided by Waste
Management, 30% by TNT Sanitation and the remaining 10% by various firms. The
4
frequency of trash collections is one to two times per week at costs ranging from $7.78
to $9.75 per month. Most often, recycling is optional for an additional charge.
It is important to note that of the 5,264 households represented, it is known that 4,325
(82%) receive trash collection two times per week. This consideration significantly
influenced the task force's recommendation with respect to frequency of trash
collection.
Members of the task force also contacted all of the approved (permitted) service
providers in Pima County. The purpose of the contact was to determine the private
haulers' level of interest should the Town issue a request for proposals and administer a
sole source contract for solid waste collection and recycling services within Oro Valley.
Of the 13 firms contacted, seven indicated that they would be interested in preparing a
response. Waste Management and TNT Sanitation are included in the seven positive
respondents. Please refer to Appendix B for a comprehensive list of these firms.
Appendix C is a list of the 13 solid waste haulers located in Pima County as of
November 1998.
Section III B
Recycling
As can be seen from the above Table A (in Section III A) most of the current waste
haulers will provide recycling, often as an optional charge. Since Pima County
eliminated its recycling subsidy the current haulers have tended to move towards
making recycling an optional charge which discourages participation. Lewis
Management Resources (Vistoso and Copper Creek HOAs), for example reports that
recycling participation had been about 28% when the charge was `buried' but has fallen
to about 23% since it became an `option'.
In order to obtain impartial evaluation of the current status of recycling in Pima County
the Task Force met with both Mr. Guy McMahon, Commercial Administrator, and Mr.
Don Gibson, Recycling Coordinator, both from Tucson's Solid Waste Management
Department.
They indicated that the recycling market is at a very low point with little or no market for
even basic items such as corrugated board. Tucson currently uses 18 gallon containers
and picks up recyclable materials every two weeks. While they enjoy good participation
(63% of the 108,000 eligible single family homes) they strongly encouraged Oro Valley
to start with once a week collection as the 'same time each week' facilitated customers
remembering when to place the recyclable materials out. Further they urged
educational efforts and distributed materials that they have used. They indicated that
Tucson's program costs about $1.5 million per year and results in a 9% diversion from
landfill.
They currently collect the following items, all of which can be processed in Pima County.
Fiber (brown bags, newspapers, cardboard and magazines)
#1 Plastic (soda, salad dressing and beer bottles)
5
#2 Plastic (milk jugs, detergent and shampoo bottles)
#6 Plastic (polystyrene food containers, but given the costs involved in
separating and the relatively low volumes, they would recommend against this, at least
early in the program)
glass all colors (no label removal required)
aluminum cans (no label removal but they do request that they be crushed to
reduce volume)
steel cans, including aerosol containers (no label removal)
Section III C
Hazardous Materials
The Task Force met with Mr. David Esposito, Director of the Pima County Department
of Environmental Quality and Mr. Frank Bonillas, Program Coordinator for the Pima
County Hazardous Waste Program.
They told us that they run a hazardous material pickup at Ina and Oracle (behind Reays
Market) on the first Saturday of each month. This is a service that is provided at no
charge to consumers. Further they will provide instructional material and school talks at
our request. They would also be willing, based on schedule availability, to provide
additional hazardous waste material pickup if the Town requests. They also pointed out
that the collection station along Oracle Road in Catalina is open seven days a week and
will accept Antifreeze, Batteries (Auto), Oil and Paint (ABOP) at no cost to the
consumer.
They also pointed out that part of the success of their hazardous waste material
program was due to their efforts to recycle the materials. They currently recycle 94-
98% of the material they receive. For example paints are blended into several light and
dark shades and then used for municipal painting.
Section IV
The Regulatory and Legal Environments
Before delving into service delivery standards and options, the task force examined the
regulatory and legal environments to determine the extent of flexibility available in
developing recommendations to the Town Council. Presentations and information were
received from the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality, the City of
Tucson's Solid Waste Management Division including the City's recycling program, and
the City/County Household Hazardous Waste Program. The Oro Valley Town Attorney
also researched several issues for the task force with respect to environmental
regulations, Arizona statutes, and contractual provisions.
With respect to the regulatory environment, statewide regulations have been developed
by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). At a minimum, these
regulations must be followed by all municipal and private service providers throughout
Arizona. The Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PCDEQ) regulates all
6
private service providers within unincorporated areas of Pima County in conformity with
ADEQ standards. Private service providers currently operating within the Town of Oro
Valley have been regulated by PCDEQ. Should the Town desire to become more
involved in solid waste management services within the Town's boundaries, the Town
could do so via its Town Code. The Town of Oro Valley may require service delivery
standards that are more stringent that ADEQ regulations, but must at a minimum meet
those ADEQ regulatory standards.
An important consideration for the task force was that should it consider recommending
that the Town issue a request for proposals (RFP) to contract out services to the private
sector, what would be the legal status of contracts that currently exist between
homeowner's associations and private haulers? It was discovered during the inventory
of existing service providers that such contracts are in existence. The legal status of
those contracts would have an effect on whether to issue a townwide RFP or a phased-
in approach with respect to service areas.
The task force researched this issue and received the legal opinion that the Town would
have a superior legal position to those contracts. Chapter 9, Article 2-1 of the existing
Town Code states that no entity shall collect refuse within the Town unless authorized
by the Town. Because existing service providers are technically in violation of the Town
Code, it is the legal opinion that the Town would prevail in any possible contractual
disputes regarding this issue.
A final legal issue was researched by the task force regarding frequency of trash
collection. The possibility of recommending once a week trash collection versus twice a
week trash collection was discussed. Legal research indicated that under current
ADEQ regulations, municipal service providers must provide twice a week trash
collection. ADEQ provisions allow for once a week trash collection but only after a
variance has been obtained from ADEQ.
Section V
Task Force Recommendations
A. Provision of Services and Service Zones
Service Delivery Alternatives
After examining the regulatory environment and legal issues, the Solid Waste
Management Task Force developed several viable alternatives for action as well as
their associated pros and cons. The three alternatives include status quo, direct service
provision by Town of Oro Valley employees, and Town administration of waste
management services to be provided by a third party contractor.
7
The following outlines the factors as expressed by the task force.
I. Contract Administration by the Town
Pros Cons
The ability to negotiate a lower price Administrative Costs
The ability to establish and administer Billings, complaints, bad debts,
standards and guidelines for contractors supervision of contractor (Town
should consider third party billing if
this would result in savings)
1
Less damage to streets and roads No choice for users (residential,
commercial, government)
Less air pollution Every resident pays even if they dol
not use the service
Greater safety for residents because of _, Contrary to the current philosophy
less truck traffic of less government involvement in
private industry
Better management of recyclables
Possible revenue source for the Town
(provided there is no additional cost to
users)
Potential benefit to Town's sphere of
influence in future growth
Perceived real estate advantage (billed
as a utility and not part of the
assessment)
II. Direct Service Provision by the Town
Pros Cons
Optimum control over service Significant increase in other costs
_ A. Administrative costs
1. Billings, complaints, bad
debts, including insurance
and workers' compensation
B. No choice for users (residential,
commercial, government)
C. Every household pays even if
they do not use the service
D. Large capital outlay and
servicing of debt
E. Land fill and recycle costs
_
F. Federal/State/County
requirements
G. Contrary to the current
philosophy of less government
8
involvement in private industry
H. Users have less leverage in
non-performance issues if Town
provides the service (Town cannot
fire itself)
I. Increased labor, supervision,
maintenance, higher human
resource issues and other
redundant costs, liability, etc.
III. The Status Quo Approach by the Town
Pros Cons
No administrative Costs No ability to negotiate a lower price
No billings, complaints, bad debts, No ability to establish and
supervision of contractor (Town should administer standards and
consider third party billing if this would guidelines for contractors
result in savings)
Choice for users (residential, commercial, More damage to streets and roads
government)
Every resident pays for use More air pollution
Agrees with the current philosophy of less Less safety for residents because
government involvement in private of more truck traffic
industry
Worse management of recyclables
No possible revenue source for the
Town
No potential benefit to Town's
sphere of influence in future growth
No perceived real estate advantage
(billed as a utility and not part of the
assessment)
Additionally, options may exist that are hybrids to the outlined alternatives. The task
force also briefly considered the possibility of retaining a highly competitive supply
Y p
market for service delivery. Under this scenario, the service standards for competing
contractors could be regulated by Town code. However, this option would ignore the
safety and environmental issues expressed by the local citizenry.
The Task Force also briefly considered splitting the contract between trash collection
and a longer term disposal contract. While this offered long term cost control benefits, it
was felt to be too complex for implementation at this time. The Town might well
consider this option after several years of single contract experience.
9
Recommendation 1. Provision of Services
After consideration of the above the Task Force recommends that the Town provide
Solid Waste Collection Services to all Single Family Residential Homes. This should be
done by using alternative I, Contract Administration by the Town.
Recommendation 2. Zones of Services
The Task Force recommends that the sub contracts be let in at least two zones so that
the Town may evaluate not only the bids received but also requests for price changes
and levels of service (e.g. complaints received per thousand homes serviced).
The number of zones should be optimized by the Town Staff to ensure that zones are
small enough to attract bidding from multiple vendors while maintaining enough volume
to ensure the advantage of leverage. We had considered specifying the number of
zones but recognize that the rapid growth in the number of residences may require the
town to revise this each time new bids are requested. Our general feeling is that
measurement of more than one company is required to assist in evaluating
performance. Further, the historical volatility of the trash hauling companies in this
general area argues for reducing the bid size sufficiently that we ensure competition
with multiple companies encouraged to bid.
B. Service Delivery Standards
The task force reviewed existing contracts of several municipalities in order to
understand the standards that should be considered and the choices made by various
municipalities. These contracts are summarized as Appendix D to this report. The
considerations included such things as length of the contract, hours of service, size of
containers, complaint administration and pricing reviews. Our conclusions are reflected
in the proposed RFP attached to this report as Appendix A.
The most contentious area of discussion was frequency of solid waste collection with
most of the members preferring twice per week collection but several members strongly
preferring once a week collection.
Among the reasons given by the minority for less frequent service were less air
pollution, less damage to town streets, energy savings, encouraging recycling by
reducing available space in waste cans, reduced traffic and safer streets, by
encouraging recycling improves the environment, lower costs and less days of trash
containers visible on streets.
The majority felt that some of the positives were not certain. For example costs might
not be lower as the same tonnage of trash would be hauled regardless of the number or
times the trucks were on a given street. In addition the `encouraging' of recycling by
reducing available space appeared to be a very negative way of getting recycling
participation. While most Task Force members are strong supporters of recycling
positive reinforcement was viewed as a preferable approach. The majority also raised
10
issues of overflowing garbage cans and possible odors and health risks, especially in
the hot summer. Perhaps most importantly, the Task Force felt that, with the majority of
the town currently receiving twice a week service, it would be difficult to convince the
citizens to accept the Town as a service provider if it resulted in less collection
frequency.
Recommendation 3 Twice a Week Trash Collection
The majority view was to provide twice a week service at this time, work diligently to
encourage recycling participation (see section C below), and consider reducing
collections to once a week at some future date. In addition we have asked for bids in
the RFPs on both bases so that the cost savings can be evaluated.
C. Recycling
Service
The Task Force strongly supports Oro Valley setting an objective of environmental
friendly administration. In line with this we believe that the Town should strongly
support recycling efforts and adopt the draft recycling policy statement attached as
Appendix E. As set forth in the specific recommendations below this support should
take three aspects.
First the recycling cost should not be shown as a separate fee on bills to the citizens as
this will tend to make it appear that it is an optional fee that the citizen can avoid.
Although the market for recycled materials is low, the Task Force believes that the
Town should be able to provide recycling services without substantial cost increase over
current rates. This is because we will be offering bidders attractive volumes, we plan to
bill consumers year around (see recommendation 6) and we plan to absorb the billing
function (see recommendation 7). Taken together we believe that the Town should be
able to negotiate rates for the combined service at or below current trash only service.
II Materials
We believe that the recycled materials should include the following:
Fiber (brown bags, newspapers, cardboard and magazines)
#1 Plastic (soda, salad dressing and beer bottles)
#2 Plastic (milk jugs, detergent and shampoo bottles)
glass containers of all colors (no label removal required)
aluminum cans (no label removal but crushed to reduce volume)
steel cans, including aerosol containers (no label removal required)
These are the materials that can currently be received in Pima County recycling
locations (plus polystyrene food containers which are both messy and low volume and
are not recommended for inclusion in the program at this time)
III Facilitation & Education
Secondly we should facilitate recycling by making it easy. Among the measures we
support are not requiring the consumer to segregate the various recyclable materials,
11
not requiring removal of labels (particularly from glass containers), including as many
materials as can be handled in Pima County currently, and having weekly pickups (so
that citizens do not have to keep a recycling calendar).
Perhaps most importantly the Town should embark on an ongoing educational
campaign to encourage recycling. This education can utilize readily available materials
from Pima County, most trash haulers and specific materials adopted from other
jurisdictions.
Recommendation 4 Recycling
The Task Force recommends that once a week Recycling Service should be included in
the basic charge for monthly Solid Waste Collection Services.
Recommendation 5. Education and Ease of Recycling
The Town should also encourage recycling and use of the recycling services through
ease of use and by embarking on a positive educational campaign to encourage
resident participation.
D. Billing
Recommendation 6. Continuous Charges
The Task Force recommends that charges for the combined trash and recycling service
should be billed consistently throughout the year to all single family residences without
regard to actual occupancy or volume of usage.
The Task Force recognizes that there are a number of partial year residents in Oro
Valley and that these people often cancel trash service during the summer months
when they reside elsewhere. We note however that this is an expensive practice that
requires deleting them from the billing records and then restarting them upon their
return in the fall.
Further while the part time residents obviously don't produce trash in Oro Valley while
they are residing elsewhere, the costs of capacity to service their accounts don't
diminish when they are not in residence. The trash haulers must continue to amortize
their trucks and the recycling facilities can not shrink in size. We looked at the practices
of other utilities including water, telephone and electric companies and found that they
charge healthy connection fees to discourage termination of service and restarting by
part year residents. We believe that, given the relatively low monthly cost of trash
service it would be appropriate to continue to charge these partial year residents
throughout the year.
In fact, it is our view, that stopping their charges forces trash haulers to cover their
systems and capacity costs through higher rates. Effectively the full time residents are
subsidizing the partial year residents. By billing on a full year basis, overall rates should
be lowered contributing to absorbing the recycling costs.
12
Recommendation 7. Billing
The task force recommends that the Town should consider combining the billing of
these charges through its water utility, both to provide a significant cost savings and to
create a mailing data base for other town purposes.
The Oro Valley Water Utility billing system is capable of adding a monthly charge for
trash collection at little or no cost. The Water Utility has estimated that start up
programming for a one line fixed rate monthly charge would be as little as $500 and no
more than $1,000.
The utility currently bills 11,734 customers of which 9,675 are residential accounts ( the
remainder being commercial and golf course accounts). Of these 1,838 live outside Oro
Valley (in the Country Side area of Marana) and would not be impacted by our trash
collection decision. The utility plans to add another 984 residential accounts when
Metro Water District#1 is merged later this year which will bring the total number of Oro
Valley residential accounts to 8,821. Using the Planning and Zoning estimate of 10,000
residences that would mean that the file would have to be expanded by 1,179 non water
customers (generally those still served by Tucson Water) Say 1,200 in round numbers.
With bulk mail costs currently running $0.243 to $0.27 per bill and costs of inserting bills
and return envelopes running $0.07-.08 the additional running cost would be $0.31-0.35
per non water account. Taking the worst case and the rounded up 1,200 customers,
the incremental cost to bill these customers the trash fee would be no more than $420
per month.
Adding these customers would also be beneficial from a Town communication point of
view. Once added the town would have a constantly verified and updated mailing list of
all residences. This could be used for communication of various town messages, a
capability the town does not currently have.
Recommendation 8. Public Comment
The Task Force recognizes that this is a significant change in the scope of services in
the Town. Accordingly, while we are confident, after studying the various aspects, that
our recommendations are appropriate, we recommend that the Town invite public
comment. We think that this would best be done through two meetings. The first could
be a study session in which the members of the Task Force would present their findings
and respond to questions. The second would be a public hearing, presumably at a
regularly scheduled Town Council meeting, to review and approve the changes required
in the Town Code. We suggest that both of these meetings be held prior to the
issuance of formal RFPs so that any revisions resulting from either Town Council or
public comments can be incorporated into the RFPs.
The Solid Waste Management Task Force has been honored to serve its Town and
would like to thank the Mayor and Council for its consideration with respect to this
important issue.
13