The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSWAG agenda 052015I Agenda Solid Waste Advisory Group May 20, 2015 - 6:00 p.m. Solid Waste Operations Center 1. Call to Order— Chair 2. Approve Meeting Summary from April 22 2015 — Chair, Attachment 3. Update on House Bill 430 — County Omnibus Legislation (Recycling Fee Issue) — County Attorney Staff 4. Next Steps for Surveying Service /Facility Users — Staff, Attachment 5. Towns and County Staff Revised Priority Solid Waste Issues Report — Staff, Attachment 6. Program Performance & Measurement Reporting —Staff, Attachment 7. Other a. Update on Interlocal Agreement Manager Discussions 8. Public Comments — Chair 9. Next Meeting 10. Adjourn (8:00) - Chair Dinner will be provided DRAFT 2 Solid Waste Advisory Group Meeting Summary DATE: April 22, 2015 LOCATION: Solid Waste Administration Training Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Hillsborough Commissioner Kathleen Ferguson, Carrboro Alderman Randee Haven - O'Donnell, UNC- Healthcare Representative Mel Hurston, Orange County Commissioner Barry Jacobs, Chapel Hill Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt, Carrboro Mayor Lydia Lavelle, Orange County Commissioner Penny Rich, UNC - Chapel Hill Representative Bruce Runberg, Chapel Hill Councilmember Jim Ward MEMBERS ABSENT: UNC - Chapel Hill Representative Matt Fajack, Hillsborough Commissioner Brian Lowen STAFF PRESENT: OC Solid Waste Eric Gerringer, County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Hillsborough Public Works Director Ken Hines, OC Solid Waste Jennie Knowlton, Chapel Hill Public Works Director Lance Norris, OC Solid Waste Blair Pollock, Carrboro Public Works Director George Seiz, Chapel Hill Solid Waste Wendy Simmons, UNC - CH Solid Waste Program Manager BJ Tipton, OC Solid Waste Management Director Gayle Wilson, OC Solid Waste Kristina Witosky, Assistant County Manager Cheryl Young Towns and County Staff Revised Priority Solid Waste Issue Report • #13. Develop strategy for measuring and tracking solid waste services • Surveys and data collection should be consistent and on -going • Jacobs suggests renumbering item as #7 • Staffs to make data collection and reporting recommendation and to establish new surveys. Outline and framework could be included in Interlocal Agreement. Program updates can be made to SWAG periodically • Finalized Priority Report will be shared with boards • Add to "Guiding Principles" that this list is fluid, not fixed. Some items can be ongoing simultaneously Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste /Recycling • November 12, 2014 version, with two exceptions: o III -B: Need to confirm elimination o Reincorporation of Appendixes into original document • Staff suggests "VII. Financial" and "I. Term and Termination" sections be priorities o Suggestions on how to include UNC -CH and UNC - Healthcare requested • Definition of "Debt ", "Debt Allocations ", and "Majority" need to be considered and made clear • Interlocal Agreement to be reviewed by Town, County and University Staffs, Managers and Attorneys; County Manager to coordinate; update to be provided for next meeting DRAFT 3 Other • School of Government Study (value for dollar: Towns vs. County) has been petitioned to OCBOCC Public Comments • None Next Meetings Mz Jur Meeting ac Name of IV Memorandum To: Solid Waste Advisory Group From: George Siez, Carrboro Public Works Director Ken Hines, Hillsborough Public Works Director Gayle Wilson, Orange County Solid Waste Director Subject: Program Usage Surveys Date: May 20, 2015 The Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) has expressed interest in acquiring information related to the jurisdictional source (incorporated vs unincorporated) of the users of various recycling programs. It is our understanding that the SWAG desires reliable usage data with which to make informed decisions. The primary method of obtaining this information is through surveying users to determine where they live. Staff recently provided information on Solid Waste Convenience Center users based on a survey designed, validated and presented by the UNC Odum Institute for Research in Social Science. Survey Options As staff evaluated survey opportunities for upcoming FY 2015 -16 there were four possible areas to consider for ascertaining the place of residence of program users: 0 Solid Waste Convenience Centers (SWCC) Convenience centers are of special interest to the SWAG with regard to user residence. The first user survey conducted was for SWCC's with the results being reported to the SWAG at their March 6, 2015 meeting. It was expressed by the SWAG that additional SWCC surveys were expected to be conducted. The Eubanks Road SWCC is the center most heavily utilized by municipal residents and is scheduled to undergo a major reconstruction beginning in the summer of 2015 with completion not expected until approximately late spring of 2016. Given that this site will be closed for construction for several months it was anticipated that no surveys would be conducted at SWCC's until this construction was complete and the newly modernized and expanded center reopened for business. With this site closed it was further anticipated that users would temporarily initiate new waste and recycling use patterns such as visiting other SWCC's, taking recyclables to 24 -hour drop -off sites, increasing use of curbside collection services or other waste disposal and recycling behavioral changes. Therefore the efficacy of conducting a survey during this period would seem to be of little value. SWAG staffs were in general agreement with this conclusion, although committed to proceeding with a survey at the SWAG's direction. However, there is a small window prior to the expected beginning of construction (July 13 -26) when a SWCC survey could be conducted should the SWAG wish to proceed. Staff assumes that such a survey would be used to gain additional information to supplement the previous survey. Staff has consulted the Odum Institute regarding both the issue of SWCC surveying during Eubanks Road SWCC construction (surveying the other four centers and a temporary Eubanks Road center) and of conducting a quick survey prior to the beginning of construction. 5 The Odum Institute responded to the suggestion of conducting another convenience center survey at this time as follows: 1. The January 2015 SWCC survey provided an accurate and reliable snapshot of SWCC usage by residents who live within and outside town limits. It is not clear to us the purpose of collecting additional data on this some matter. While overall SWCC usage rates do fluctuate with weather and other seasonal changes, such fluctuations would change the survey conclusions only if they affect the behavior of residents within town limits differently than those outside town limits. Weather affects everybody. Vacations and holidays affect everybody. Before spending resources on another SWCC user survey, we urge the SWAG to consider what parameters, if any, can reasonably be expected to affect in -town and out -of -town residents differentially. 2. Some may feel that "more data is always better data." If data were free and obtainable without involvement of the humans under study, this might be true. But neither is true here. The sampling ratio needed to get good survey estimates of the SWCC in a reasonable length data collection period is one in five; one of every five users entering the SWCC is surveyed. ;, a sampling ratio of 1 in 5 means that a large number of users will be sampled for survey more than once, and some more than twice. The "annoyance" factor of this situation is significant and the result is refusals (known as "nonresponse. ") Nonresponse introduces "noise" in the data and reduces the trustworthiness of survey estimates. In the January 2015 survey, field staff encountered a total of 16 refusals (about 1 %). This reflects a good cooperation rate and the "noise" from the substitutions is likely having no effect on the survey estimates. But the more surveys that are conducted, and the more frequently, the less tolerant the public will be, and the higher the refusal rate. Data from additional surveys are not necessarily better data if they contain more noise. 3. If an additional survey were conducted, it would not be appropriate to combine the two surveys into a single estimate. They would be two individual snapshots in time, and if they differ, the SWAG would need to decide how they would be used as such for policy and decision making purposes. 4. With an unlimited budget, one could consider a continuous data collection design in which SWCC users are sampled and surveyed across all operating hours of all SWCCs across the entire calendar year, with a sampling ratio much lower than 1 in 5. This would account for all seasonal variations and minimize nonresponse, but it would be extremely costly and would require a complete calendar year of data collection to generate results. 5. We understand that Orange County plans to close the Eubanks Convenience Center for upgrades beginning in August 2015 and will not re -open it until May of 2016, and that a temporary replacement site will provided only for collection of bagged household waste Since this interruption of normal operations could result in temporary changes in user behavior (e.g. users may go to other SWCCs or even to out -of- county locations), we caution the SWAG about making conclusions about long -term behavior from any data collected during this period —if any are collected. X Odum Conclusion: Barring a continuous year -long design, it is our opinion that the snapshot provides the best information about proportionate usage by in -town and out -of -town residents, and at present we see no compelling evidence that a second snapshot is likely to be different than the one from January 2015. Should the SWAG wish to proceed with the July survey prior to construction, notwithstanding the recommendation from the Odum Institute, staff is prepared to begin planning for the execution of the survey immediately. It is estimated that the cost for such a survey would be about $22,500. No funds were budgeted for this survey in the proposed FY 2015 -16 Solid Waste budget due to Odum Institute advice. Staff Recommendation: Delay SWCC surveys until Eubanks Road SWCC construction is complete and new usage patterns stabilized and consider surveying other programs below. • 24 -hour Recycling Drop -off Sites Staff also anticipates conducting user surveys at the five 24 -hour recycling drop -off sites. However, based on the discussion surrounding the upcoming construction of Eubanks Road there is a strong likelihood that established user patterns at these drop -off sites will be altered because recycling will not be available at the temporary site during construction, making the results of questionable usefulness. Staff has not yet obtained a cost estimate for a drop -off site survey and would propose to use the Odum Institute. A survey at drop -off sites is likely further complicated by the question of when are the best times to survey as sites are open continuously and as they accessible from more than one direction making how to control sampling is a challenge. Thus if there is an attempt to gain a useful sample at these sites, it could be more complex than those surveys conducted at the SWCCs. Staff will require Odum Institute assistance for these surveys. Staff Recommendation: Delay 24 -hour recycling drop -off site surveys until Eubanks Road SWCC construction is complete and usage patterns stabilized. • Household Hazardous Waste (HHW In order to continue making progress toward providing valuable user information over the period where further surveying of convenience centers and drop -off sites is delayed it would be possible to conduct a user survey of the two HHW facilities. This survey could be developed and a survey began in the summer of 2015. Staff has not engaged the Odum Institute with regard to HHW surveys but could do so if the SWAG was amenable. Alternatively, it is anticipated that existing staff could perform the survey without the Odum Institute involvement given the rather controlled and uncomplicated nature of this program. The purpose of the survey would be to determine the number of users from incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county. While no funds were specifically budgeted for this survey the cost would be less than a convenience center or drop -off site survey and funds could be identified to perform the work. Staff estimates a cost less than $5,000 for in -house managed survey. If the Odum Institute is utilized a budget of about $15,000 would be necessary. Staff Recommendation: Direct county staff to begin planning for a survey of HHW program users and to keep the SWAG briefed on progress, with a final report to be presented during FY 2015 -16. A full 30 day survey could be managed by County staff with a report to the SWAG for a November 2015 meeting. 7 • Shred -a -thons Although shred -a -thons are a relatively minor and inexpensive program, they are very popular with county residents and hundreds of users line up for the service, making conduction of a survey fairly straightforward and simple with this relatively 'captive' audience. There would be little cost (in the hundreds of dollars) to this survey if County staff managed the task. Again, this is a rather controlled and uncomplicated activity that staff believes would not necessitate Odum Institute involvement and expense. Staff Recommendation: Direct staff to prepare and manage a survey of both October 2015 shred -a -thon events (Chapel Hill and Hillsborough). A report could be prepared and presented by the end of 2015. Staff requests guidance on how the SWAG wishes to proceed with regard to program user surveys. Memorandum To: Solid Waste Advisory Group From: George Seiz, Carrboro Public Works Director Lance Norris, Chapel Hill Public Works Director Ken Hines, Hillsborough Public Works Director Gayle Wilson, Orange County Solid Waste Director Subject: Staff Suggested Priority Solid Waste Issues (revised -2) Date: May 20, 2015 Towns and County staff were requested by the Solid Waste Advisory Board to prepare a list of solid waste issues and their relative priorities for consideration and discussion at the April 1, 2015 meeting. At the April 1 meeting the SWAG proposed several revisions /suggestions that are reflected in the memorandum below. Additional revisions were made at the April 22 meeting, including a request to provide a chart or other graphic representation of the listed short to mid -term priorities. A Gantt Chart is provided (attached) for SWAG review. The 13 short to mid -term priorities are listed and tracked over a five year period. Following SWAG review and approval of the Gantt Chart format staff will finalize. Once endorsed by the SWAG the chart will be refined and maintained as an ongoing practice, with additional task details added or modified as necessary. Guiding Principles Your staffs have discussed and evaluated various topics and opportunities to provide a technical or industry and local government managerial professional viewpoint. Staffs have utilized varying degrees and in a general sense the following standards /criteria in our issue discussions and have amended the list of priorities based on April 1 and April 22 SWAG comments. • Potential to reduce waste and /or increase recycling • Other environmental impacts such as fuel usage, toxicity reduction, pollution prevention, etc. • Cost and Cost Effectiveness • Efficiency • Citizen understanding /user friendliness /complexity /equity • Industry best management practices • Innovation /Creativity • Public Involvement, and • Environmental Education and Outreach 9 Staff Suggestions /Priorities Based in part on the above criteria and discussions from the April 1 and April 22 SWAG meetings, staff has adjusted the following priorities and issues for SWAG consideration as short or mid -term actions, as amended by the SWAG. Staff is recommending the first 7 issues as short term priority issues that are recommended to be pursued now and concurrently as time allows. Suggested timeframes are provided. Schedules and priorities will remain fluid to the extent possible. Staff has listed items that are likely to be addressed first, but some flexibility is necessary and staff must remain responsive to governing body requests for adjustments. 1. Adopt funding mechanism (as necessary to allow the County to assess fees for FY 2015/16) ■ Open -ended or longer term timeframe (closure on funding issue) is preferred by staff rather than an interim or short approval or recurring annual multi - jurisdictional approvals Suggested Timeframe: Governing boards to agree on Option 2 — Solid Waste Programs Fee (single county -wide fee) before May 1. Fee approved in municipal budget ordinances to be effective July 1, 2015. Funding mechanism can be reconsidered at any time as requested by SWAG or a participating board. ✓ DONE — April 2015 2. Adopt Formal Interlocal Agreement — By January 1, 2016 • Incorporate funding mechanism • Waste collection would continue to be responsibility of individual jurisdictions • Include UNC -CH and UNC - Healthcare to the extent possible • Assume long term relationship • Include withdrawal provision • Include amendment provision • Establish citizen advisory function • Establish fee increase limitations or municipal fee approval triggers • Set new county -wide waste reduction goal • Address future of SWAG • Staffs to have substantive technical role Suggested Timeframe: SWAG could prioritize discussion of Interlocal Agreement for upcoming meetings, beginning with the April 22 meeting. Target January 1, 2016 to have consensus draft approved by governing boards'. This is a possible topic for November 2015 AOG meeting. Address county /municipal issues first and then incorporate UNC -CH and UNC - Healthcare. 10 3. Rural Curbside Recycling Expansion (implementation active upon adoption of Funding Option) ■ 3 year phased implementation to begin in spring FY 2015/16 Suggested Timeframe: Consistent with fee option proposal rural expansion element county staff is currently planning and has incorporated into the FY 2015116 proposed budget phase 1 rural expansion (of three year phasing) of curbside recycling with roll cart option. We anticipate that phase 1 implementation (cart distribution and collection to about 3,500 or half of the parcels not currently being serviced curbside) will be complete by March -April 2016. Completed implementation for curbside recycling to all improved residential properties in the County is estimated to be March -April 2018. County staff is initiating a routing study and data collection. 4. Development of Local Waste Disposal Facility • Landfill or transfer station • Minimize environmental and neighborhood impacts of siting • Maximize waste reduction • Generate revenue to fund facility operations and debt • Reduced operating costs • Consider proven alternative technologies as appropriate Suggested Timeframe: Given the extraordinary cost and effort for hauling waste to Durham County disposal facilities (less so for Hillsborough), coupled with the time required to successfully site, design, permit and construct a local facility, staff believes it is necessary to begin the process as soon as possible. Staff suggests that preliminary discussions begin asap (summer 2015). Under reasonably deliberate and meaningful jurisdictional collaboration, it could take 3 -4 years to plan and construct a transfer station. Deduct 1 year if a site search is not required. A landfill proposal could likely take a minimum of 6 -7 years and a site search would be required. Staff at this time has received no guidance from the SWAG on this issue, including process and /or timeline. Note: Staffs can prepare updated cost estimates for hauling waste to Durham disposal facilities compared to using a local facility within the next 2 -3 SWAG meetings if desired. 5. Exploration and Implementation of cooperative operations with UNC -CH and UNC - Healthcare (initial explorations underway) Suggested Timeframe: Staff is already engaged in this endeavor with UNC -CH and once the "low hanging fruit" has been evaluated and addressed additional opportunities will be explored. The evaluation of collaborative opportunities with UNC- Healthcare can be initiated over the remainder of 2015. Staff will provide periodic progress updates to the 11 SWAG. A comprehensive technical assessment of opportunities may require the assistance of a consultant. A waste composition study should be considered. 6. Secure Permanent Emergency Storm Debris Management Sites • Larger site for extreme weather event in Northern Orange • Replacement site for Millhouse Road site when park development begins Suggested Timeframe: Staff will initiate evaluation of alternative sites. Suggested options to be presented to and discussed with SWAG in fall of 2015. The issue of a larger northern site will be the first staff priority as the current southern site is adequate until the future Millhouse Road Park property is ready for development. 7. Develop strategy for measuring and tracking solid waste services Suggested Timeframe: The staffs would discuss the various indicators, yardsticks and benchmarks available or necessary as those relate to various programs and services. Staff would then consider the data collection methodology and reporting frequency that would be suitable. Establishing data collection and reporting protocols could be phased in, beginning with services /programs with the most interest. Initial discussions and data collection and reporting recommendations could take place over the summer of 2015. Full broad -based program data reporting and monitoring (including program cost data and efficiency and effectiveness measures) could take up to 1 -2 years depending on other workload and data objectives. Also, to have a meaningful evaluation of program performance and objectives it is necessary to have data collection over a multi -year period. It is likely that this data collection and reporting effort will be an ongoing and evolving activity. A first step recommendation is being recommended at the May 20, 2015 meeting. Note: It is unlikely that staff can proficiently manage any more than the above priorities over the next 2 -3 years. The SWAG can reorder the priorities from among the above and below issues; however there is a practical limit to the number and complexity of projects staff can manage at one time. Not on this priority list but a previously identified BOCC priority is the modernization of Solid Waste Convenience Centers that is also to be managed within the 2 -3 year timeframe. Some of these priorities can be addressed simultaneously. 8. Evaluation of Non - residential Programs (initial data gathering underway) • Improve /expand non - residential collection programs • Consider both wet (food waste) and dry (co- mingled recycling) materials • Facilitate maximization of recovery from non - residential programs 12 • Consider alternative methods of service delivery • Evaluate costs /benefits of programs • Could be informed by waste characterization study Suggested Timeframe: Comprehensive evaluation of non - residential recycling services will likely take up to 1 year and potentially involve the assistance of a consultant. A waste composition study is proposed and could take approximately 6 additional months. Following evaluation, staffs would develop recommendations for SWAG consideration. Further timeline would depend on subsequent SWAG recommendations and elected board decisions. Total timeline could be approximately 2 -3 years. 9. Assess the Effectiveness of and Compliance with the Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordinance (RRMO) ■ Make ordinance or enforcement adjustments as necessary Suggested Timeframe: This item would require staff to develop a method of assessment and conduct the assessment over a period of time, possibly 1 -2 years. Further timeline would depend on results of assessment, such as requirements for ordinance revisions, changes in enforcement strategies, etc. Total timeline could be approximately 2 -2.5 years. 10. Consider Options for Providing Non - municipal Operated Waste Collection Services — i.e. franchising • Reduce fuel usage • Minimize costs • Maximize access to services Suggested Timeframe: Assessment of current non - governmental waste collection services and development of a recommendation for SWAG consideration could take up to 1 year. Further consideration by the SWAG leading to a recommendation to elected boards could require another year or more. Depending on the final decision an additional 18 months for implementation would likely be required. Total time could be approximately 3 -3.5 years. 11. Evaluation of Urban Curbside Program • Collection frequency upon request by Towns • Capacity for adding additional materials to recycling stream (ongoing) Suggested Timeframe: An assessment of moving from weekly to bi- weekly (every other week) municipal curbside recycling services, including costs and other implications could be performed in approximately 6 months. Actual implementation of bi- weekly services could depend on budget cycle timing, timeliness to inform residents of a change, willingness of contractor to negotiate mid - contract and /or modify the remaining term on an existing 13 collection agreement. It is desired and recommended to implement a change in frequency of collection to the contract upon contract renewal discussions. Currently, we are in the second year of a five -year term agreement for weekly curbside collection. Total time to implement could range from 1 year to 2+ years. 12. Residential Organics ■ Assess feasibility and costs /benefits ■ Could be informed by waste characterization study Suggested Timeframe: An assessment of expanding residential organics collection, which would include a waste composition study, would take about 1 year and likely involve a consultant. Depending on the resulting staff recommendation to the SWAG and the subsequent recommendation to elected boards including time for public comment and input, another 1 year would be likely. Depending on the specific implementation (if recommended and endorsed by the boards) an implementation could take an additional 1 -2 years. Total timeline to implement could range from 3 -4 years. 13. Pay -As- You -Throw (PAYT) Waste Collection ■ Assess feasibility and costs /benefits ■ Could be informed by waste characterization study Suggested Timeframe: Numerous evaluations, analysis and reports have been conducted by the various staffs over the past several years and another report could be completed in less than one year. A waste characterization study prior to considering PAYT would be recommended and can take about 6 months. It is estimated that another year could be spent discussing and debating among the SWAG as to what, if any, recommendation should be provided to the governing boards. If the boards agreed upon a particular PAYT methodology it is estimated that it could take 1 -2 years to plan and implement the program simultaneously in all jurisdictions. Considerable attention to public education and outreach would be required limiting other staff workload for that period. UNC -CH and UNC- Healthcare may also have an interest in any decision. Total time to implement could range from 3 to 4 years. Long Term Issues Staffs believe that some sort of technical advisory committee would be appropriate and necessary to explore and evaluate more intricate or longer term type issues or issues that are likely to be publically contentious. Alternatively, local government staff could provide this function once satisfactory progress is made on more short /mid -term priorities. • Uses for closed landfills • Alternative technologies 14 o develop criteria /principals for evaluation ➢ consider only proven ➢ determine impact on recycling ➢ evaluate risk ➢ define local interests • Evaluate and update solid waste ordinances • Development of regional /multi- county cooperative relationships • Biosolids General Timeframe - Most new program implementation, major current program expansions and all facility construction require multiple years to plan and implement. So wording such as "short - term", "mid- term" and "long- term" may not be viewed by everyone through the same timeframe lens. For example, it may be suggested that expansion of rural curbside recycling is a short -term action, but that action has been proposed as a three year phased implementation that will not be fully implemented until the fourth year. Workload — Your staffs' capacity to plan and implement multiple programs and facilities is frequently limited given ongoing routine service provision and administrative obligations, in addition to other programatic and facility improvements and modifications that are continually in progress. Even the use of consultants requires close oversight and guidance. There are genuine limits to the overall staff capability at any one time if quality program performance, cost effectiveness and effective citizen education and outreach activities are desirable objectives. Nevertheless, your staffs are prepared to undertake the issues deemed priority by our respective governing boards. Funding FY IZile Carrboro Approval j7� Chapel Hill proval Hillsborough 1_ �t County Manager — ILI, Recommendation Attorney Review Interlocal '• CarrWro Approval Agreement Chapel Hill (including I Approval UNC Approval Present to AGG UNC Healthcare Rural Curbside Expansion Development of Local Waste Disposal Facility Explore/Imple ment Cooperative operations with UNC and UNC- Healthcar e Solid Waste Secure Priorities Permanent Emergency Storm Debris Developllmple men measuring and tracking methods Evaluate Non- PAsidentin Assess effectiveness and compliance with RRMQ Consider options for Non - Municipal operated Waste Collection Services Evaluate Urban' Curbside Residerntial organics Evaluate Pay as You Throw i _Phase One � f County Approval Phase Twos ' Hillsborough Hauling Cost Analyses a Update to �. SWAG Consider Waste Composition NFL Study Evaluate J Recommend — Northern Site r site to 9oCC Options Format 14115 Annual Report Quarterly Data Reports — quarterly _ - Addition of Reports- Data, Cost Data Cost & Efficiency Waste Composition AWL Study 16 SWAG review 17 Memorandum To: Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) From: George Seiz, Carrboro Public Works Director Ken Hines, Hillsborough Public Works Director Gayle Wilson, Orange County Solid Waste Director Subject: Measuring and Tracking Solid Waste Services Date: May 14, 2015 Staff was tasked by the Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) at their April 22, 2015 meeting, in conjunction with priority #7 of the suggested priority solid waste issues, to develop measures for tracking recycling and solid waste program performance over short and long -term time periods. Attached please find a draft of proposed program data tables separated by program area and, where appropriate, by jurisdiction to track recycling and solid waste program performance. The tables do not include any data as we wanted to ensure the format and information to be provided is acceptable by SWAG members. Below is a brief description of each data table. It is also important to note when reviewing the data tables that due to the integrated nature of recycling collection operations throughout the county which helps to ensure efficient and optimal collection services, there is some overlap of collection services by program areas, e.g. The commercial recycling route collects some multi - family locations. To the extent possible, these variations in service collection are apportioned to each specific program accordingly. 1) Annual Recycling Program Summary (page 1) This page illustrates the annual tons collected /received by Orange County by recycling material /item for the entire fiscal year. For the Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) program, the number of total annual users of the Eubanks Road and Walnut Grove sites combined is also included. In addition, the total tons of single- stream recycling collected by each major program are included separately on a chart for further comparison. Please note for all data tables provided, the percentage change column compares the current to previous fiscal year or quarter listed. 2) Solid Waste Collection by Jurisdiction (page 2 & 3) These pages illustrate on a quarterly and annual /fiscal year basis the amount of municipal solid waste, yard waste and non - residential municipal waste collected by each Town and by all five solid waste convenience centers combined. The waste measured from convenience centers is residential waste only. Non - residential waste includes any waste not collected as municipal solid waste, such as waste from commercial establishments. W 3) Urban Recycling Program by Jurisdiction and Other Collection Programs (page 3 & 4) These pages include on a quarterly and annual /fiscal year basis the total tons of single - stream recycling material collected in each Town by the urban curbside collection program, multi - family (MF) dwelling collection and commercial /non - residential collection. Also included is the total single- stream tons collected for other collection programs such as the rural curbside collection program, collection from each 24 -hour drop -off site and by each convenience center site. The average setout rate comparison is also included for the rural curbside collection program. Due to collection data constraints, participation rate data for the rural curbside program is not feasible. Please also note that the single- stream recycling data does not include corrugated cardboard, except for cardboard which is placed in curbside recycling carts /bins. This is due to cardboard being collected separately and in an integrated manner across program and jurisdictional boundaries. A brief description of how the tons are derived may be helpful to better explain the origin of the numbers for the urban recycling program summary by jurisdiction. The total tons of single- stream recycling collected in the Urban Curbside Collection program is apportioned according to the participation rate and number of homes by jurisdiction, assuming that each cart collected from each residence has the same average weight when collected. The participation rate is the proportion of households served that take part in the curbside collection program each month, averaged over a three month basis. The setout rate is the proportion of households that set out their recycling cart in any given week, averaged over a three month basis. Participation and setout rates only for the urban curbside program are derived from the Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) collection data uploaded as each cart is collected. See EXAMPLE "A" below which provides an example data set for deriving the aforementioned data. Similarly, the total tons of single- stream recycling material collected in the multi - family and commercial programs are apportioned based on the total number of carts collected in each jurisdiction at each MF /Commercial site in that jurisdiction. This data also assumes that each cart collected has the same average weight when collected. Should the SWAG agree to the format of the data tables presented, staff will begin compiling and inputting the data in the spreadsheets, with a plan to provide the SWAG an annual report program summary starting with FY 14/15 data by August 2015 and begin quarterly data input starting the 1st Quarter of FY 15/16. The SWAG may find quarterly reporting excessive and prefer a semi - annual and annual schedule instead. This data collection and comparison is a first step, and it is proposed to include summary program cost allocation data as well as other efficiency/ effectiveness measures in the future. Once the data collection and data input is complete, staff will begin the process of working on cost allocation by program. Once cost allocations by program area are developed, a presentation of the data will be submitted to the SWAG for consideration. Also, for future consideration will be the potential inclusion of data from UNC Hospital and University recycling and solid waste programs. 19 EXAMPLE "A" (For illustrative purposes only) EXAMPLE: CARRBORO Total # of Households Participating = A x B 2,000 x 90% =1,800 Total Porpotion By Jurisdiction of Households Participaing = C/Total 1,800/6,425 = 28% Total Tons by Jurisdiction = D x E 28% x 1,000 = 280 Tns E TOTAL TONS COLLECTED IN URBAN PROGRAM 1, 000 A B C D 661 HI LSBOROUGHI 58 TOTAL PROPORTION BY 1ST QUARTER TOTAL TOTAL #OF JURISDICTION OF NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLDS HOUSEHOLDS PARTICIPATION RATE PARTICPATING PARTICIPATING CARRBORO 2,000 90% 1,800 28% CHAPEL HILL 5,000 85% 4,250 66% HILLSBOROUGH 500 75% 375 6% TOTALI 7.500 6.425 EXAMPLE: CARRBORO Total # of Households Participating = A x B 2,000 x 90% =1,800 Total Porpotion By Jurisdiction of Households Participaing = C/Total 1,800/6,425 = 28% Total Tons by Jurisdiction = D x E 28% x 1,000 = 280 Tns E TOTAL TONS COLLECTED IN URBAN PROGRAM 1, 000 TOTAL TONS BY JURISDICTION CARRBORO 280 CHAPEL HILL 661 HI LSBOROUGHI 58 EXAMPLE: CARRBORO Total # of Households Participating = A x B 2,000 x 90% =1,800 Total Porpotion By Jurisdiction of Households Participaing = C/Total 1,800/6,425 = 28% Total Tons by Jurisdiction = D x E 28% x 1,000 = 280 Tns E TOTAL TONS COLLECTED IN URBAN PROGRAM 1, 000 5/14/3015 URBAN RECYCLING PROGRAM SUMMARY BY JURISDICTION* PAGE 4 and 23 - URBAN CURBSIDE COLLECTION PROGRAM" MUTLI - FAMILY COLLECTION... COMMERCIAL COLLECTION *" - fARRB0R0:- - "- TONS - TONS - - -- TONS % CHANGE - FROM PRMOU5- :__YEAR -. SETOUT RATE- SETOUT RATE SCOUT -RATE %CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS - YEAR - PARTICIPATION- RATE PARTICIPATION RATE' PAROCPATION RATE %CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR -TONS TONS -- - - TONS- %CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS -- YEAR TONS _ TONS TONS %CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR -- - FY13 /14 - H14 /15 FY 35 /16 - FY13 /14 - - FY14 /33 FYd /16 _ - _ FY 33/14 = TY 14/15 -_ _ - _ _ PY 15116 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 H15/16 _ -fY 13114 - FY34 /15 __ FY 35/16 1st Quarter TONS - TONS TONS _ FROM TONS -- -TONS TONS FROM COLLECTION PREVIOUS PREVIOUS - PREVIOUS PREVIOUS ig - 2nd Quarter - - - - ANALYSIS _ H13114 FY 14/15. FY 35/16 -. _YEAR H23/14 FY 19/35 H15/16 _ YEAR . _ _ _ FY 13114_ . _.- H U /15. _ 3Y 15/16 -. 3rd Quarter FY 13/14 H 14 /15 - ` - FY 2116. - -. YEAR FY 33/14 - FY14/15 H15/16 YEAR_: 1st Coaster O[h Quarter 2nd Quarter Annual 3rd Quarter - URBAN CURBSIDE COLLECTION PROGRAM ** MUTLI - FAMILY COLLECTION••' COMMERCIAL COLLECTION... CHAPELHILL _ _ _ TONS - -TONS- TONS %CHANGE FROM - PREVIOUS YEAR SETOUT RATE SEFOUT - RATE SETOIQ -RATE %CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS - YEAR PARTICIPATION " -RATE PARTICPATION -' RATE PARTIOPATION RATE - %CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS - YEAR -_ - _ TONS TONS - TONS %CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS _ YEAR _ - TONS - TONS- TONS %CHANGE FROM -- PREVIOUS YEAR -- FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY15116 - - _ FY 13/14 C 14/15 FY 15/16- FY 13114 - FY 14/15 - FY 15/16 - FY131M H14/15 - HIS/16 1st Quarter TONS - TONS TONS _ FROM TONS -- -TONS TONS FROM COLLECTION PREVIOUS PREVIOUS - PREVIOUS PREVIOUS ig - 2nd Quarter - - - - ANALYSIS _ H13114 FY 14/15. FY 35/16 -. _YEAR H23/14 FY 19/35 H15/16 _ YEAR . _ _ _ FY 13114_ . _.- H U /15. _ 3Y 15/16 -. 3rd Quarter FY 13/14 H 14 /15 - ` - FY 2116. - -. YEAR FY 33/14 - FY14/15 H15/16 YEAR_: 1st Coaster 4th Quarter 2nd Quarter Annual 3rd Quarter - URBAN CURBSIDE COLLECTION PROGRAM ** MUTLI - FAMILY COLLECTION * ** COMMERCIAL COLLECTION * *' HILLSBOROUGH - - _ -- TONS TONS - -TONS CHANGE f0.0M _PREVIOUS .:YEAR SETOUT RATE SETOUT RATE- SETOUT RATE- %CHANGE FROM - PREVIOUS YEAR PARTICIPATION "OE PARTICPATION RATE PARTICPATION RATE - %CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS .YEAR- - - _ TONS PARTICPATION. %CHANGE- %CHANGE - .FROM PREVIOUS YEAR - TONS _ _ TONS TONS - %CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR -- - - FY 33/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 _ FY 13/14 FY 39/15 - FY 15 /i6 — - FY 13/14. - FY 14/15 __ FY 15 /16 FY 13/19 - RATE. FROM - FY,13/14 - FY14 /15 - FY -15 /16 15l Quarter TONS - TONS TONS _ FROM TONS -- -TONS TONS FROM COLLECTION PREVIOUS PREVIOUS - PREVIOUS PREVIOUS ig - 2nd Quarter - - - - ANALYSIS _ H13114 FY 14/15. FY 35/16 -. _YEAR H23/14 FY 19/35 H15/16 _ YEAR . _ _ _ FY 13114_ . _.- H U /15. _ 3Y 15/16 -. 3rd Quarter FY 13/14 H 14 /15 - ` - FY 2116. - -. YEAR FY 33/14 - FY14/15 H15/16 YEAR_: 1st Coaster 4th Quarter 2nd Quarter Annual 3rd Quarter TOTALSINGLE- URBAN CURBSIDE COLLECTION PROGRAM'* MUTLI - FAMILY COLLECTION*^ COMMERCIAL COLLECTION*'• 'STREAM - %CHANGE SETOUT SETEI SEDEM %CHANGE PARTICIPATION PARTCPATION PARTICPATION. %CHANGE- - - - -. %CHANGE - - - % CHANGE TONS TONS TONS- .FROM. °RATE - RATE' - RATE. FROM -RATE RATE RATE. FROM - TONS - TONS TONS _ FROM TONS -- -TONS TONS FROM COLLECTION PREVIOUS PREVIOUS - PREVIOUS PREVIOUS PREVIOUS - - - - -- - - - - ANALYSIS _ H13114 FY 14/15. FY 35/16 -. _YEAR H23/14 FY 19/35 H15/16 _ YEAR . _ _ _ FY 13114_ . _.- H U /15. _ 3Y 15/16 -. _ YEAR FY 13/14 H 14 /15 - ` - FY 2116. - -. YEAR FY 33/14 - FY14/15 H15/16 YEAR_: 1st Coaster 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Annual • Due tothe integrated nature of recycling collection operations throughout the county which helps to ensure efficient and optimal collection service, there is some minor overlap ofcallection services by program areas, e.g. The commercial recycling mute collects some multi - family locations. To the extent Possible, these variations In service collection are apportioned to each specific program accordingly. •• The total tons by jurisdiction in the Urban Curbside Collection program Is apportioned assuming to the participation rate and number of homes by lurlsdinion. This assumes that each cart collected at the curb has the same average weight when collected. • ** Tons are apportioned in the Multi Family and Commercial programs based on the average number of carts collected in each jurisdiction at each MF /Commercial site for that quarter. This assumes that each cart collected At each site has the same average weight when collected. NOTES: Participation Rate -the proportion of households served that take part In the curbslde collection program at least once per month. Setout Rate - the proportion of households that set out their recycling cart in any given week. 5/14/2015 OTHER COLLECTION PROGRAMS RURAL CURBSIDE COLLECTION PROGRAM RURALCURBSIOE COMMON - TONS _ TONS TONS % CHANGE - FROM _ PREVIOUS YEAR - SETOUT _ RATE SCTOUT. RATE.- SEFOUT RATE %CHANGE FROM - PREVIOUS YEAR FY13 /14. FY14/15 FY15 /16 FY13/14 FY14 /15 FY15 116. 1st Quarter FY35 /36 H13114 -__ -. FY14115 3rd Quarter Fl15 /16 H13/14 FY14 /15 HIS/16 2nd Quarter FY14 /15 FY35 /i6- tat Quarter Annual 3rd Quarter - - 4th Quarter 2nd Quarter 2quarter Annual NOTE: It Is not possible given Current data collection constraints to gather particpation rate in the rural program. 24 -HOUR DROP -OFF SITES - SINGLE STREAM* PAGE 4 and 5. 2q Corrugated cardboard is not included in the single - streamtonnage. Cardboard is collected separately from single stream in an Integrated manner across program and jurisdictional boundaries and is included fn the annual report ......-...... ..-- .....- _ - CAXR00RO PLAZA- - %CHANGE" FROM PREVIOUS - YEAR CEDAR FALLS %CHANGE FROM - PREVIOUS YEAR_- _ _. - - HAMPTON POINT (HOME DEPOT) - %CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR MEADOWMONT %CHANGE FROM - PREVIOUS YEAR - - - UNIVERSITY MALL %CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR fY13/34 FY34 /15 FV15 /i6 FY13/14 FY34 /15 FY35 /36 H13114 -__ -. FY14115 3rd Quarter Fl15 /16 H13/14 FY14 /15 HIS/16 FY13 /M FY14 /15 FY35 /i6- tat Quarter Annual - - 2nd Quarter 2quarter Sid Quarter 3rd quarter =ILL - 4th Quarter 4th Quarter - Annual Annual -- - - Corrugated cardboard is not included in the single - streamtonnage. Cardboard is collected separately from single stream in an Integrated manner across program and jurisdictional boundaries and is included fn the annual report ......-...... ..-- .....- ............-- ..... -. -.... -. -.. %CHANGE FROM - PREVIOUS - YEAR TOTAL FOR FY 2013/14 TOTAL FOR FY 2014/15 TOTAL FOR FY 2015/16 %CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR Ist Quarter %:CHANGE FROM - PREVIOUS YEAR FY13/16 FY14125 PYIS /16 2nd Quarter FY14/15 - - FY15 /36 - -- H13114 FY14 /15 3rd Quarter H13/14 FY14 /$ - - FY 15116 FY13 /14. 4th Quarter - FYIS /16 1st Quarter Annual CONVENIENCE CENTER RECYCLING - SINGLE - STREAM* Corrugated cardboard is not included in the single-stream tonnage. Cardboard is collected In an integrated manner across program and jurisdictional boundaries and is included in the annual report. I uu mnmc -. BRADSHAWQUARRY- - %CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR EUBANKS RD %CHANGE FROM - PREVIOUS - YEAR FERGUSON RD- %CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR HIGH ROCK %_CHANGE - FROM PREVIOUS YEAR WAINUTGROVE %:CHANGE FROM - PREVIOUS YEAR FY13/16 FY14125 PYIS /16 FY13/14 FY14/15 - - FY15 /36 - -- H13114 FY14 /15 HM/16 H13/14 FY14 /$ - - FY 15116 FY13 /14. FY14 /15 - FYIS /16 1st Quarter Annual 2nd Quarter Sid Quarter =ILL - 4th Quarter Annual -- - - Corrugated cardboard is not included in the single-stream tonnage. Cardboard is collected In an integrated manner across program and jurisdictional boundaries and is included in the annual report. I uu mnmc `CIMIc p TOTAL FOR FY 2013/14 TOTAL FOR FY 2014 15 TOTAL FOR FY 2015116 - FROM PREVIOUS YEAR 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter Annual