HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-22-1989
i
AGENDA `
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL
August 22, 1989
Special Call Session of the City of Denton City Council on
Tuegd~y, August 22, 1989, at 5:30 p.m. In the Civil Defense
Room of City Hall, 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas at which the
following items will be considered:
5:30 p.m.
1. Consider approval of a resolution authorizing
participation in the "Urban Main Street" Program.
2, Submission of the effective tax rate and rollback tax
rate.
3. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of
Denton, Texas, approving the 1989 tax rolls.
4. Submission of the certified collection rate.
! S. Consider taking a record vote to place a proposal to
adopt a tax increase on tts agenda of a future meeting
as an action item, and setting a date, time and place
for a public hearing.
6, 1989-90 Budget Workshop and Presentation
A. Overview
B. SWAC Committee/Sanitation
C. Community services/streets
D. Public Works
. Planning anti mmunity Agenciesent
V. co
F. Municipal Judge
O, Legal
H. Polire
1. Fite
J. Finance
7, Executive Session:
1
A. Legal Matters Under Sec. 2(e), Art. 6252-17
V.A.T.S.
B. Real Es~ate Under Sec. 2(f), Art. 6252-17
V.A.T.S.
C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under Sec. 2(g)•
Art 6252-17 V.A.T.S.
k i C E R T I F I C A T E
1 certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the
bulletin board at the City Hall of 19hB9 City of Denton,o Clock
on the _ day of
(a.m.) (p.. }
3145C CITY SECRETARY
1
i
1
r 1
z
I
a
i
-TI
i
I
I
f
T-T
Ul~
I
I~
444444 LJJ
II S
a
r
'y 4
t
DATE t, 18/22/87
CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT I
10: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager
SUBJECTt ADUPTION OF A RESOLPTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE
"URBAN MAIN STREET" PRW AM
RECOMWDATIONt
Main Street Task Fo_ce recomends approval.
SUMMARYs
This resolution will permit the City of Denton to apply
for the 1990 Urban Main Street Program.
I
BACKGROUNDS
Denton's Main Street Program began in January, 1989. At
that time, no state program was available for cities with
a pupulatiun over 50,000. Since then the state has
established and received funding for an urban cities
program.
PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED:
I` Planing and Development Department
Central Business District Association
P 1SCAI. IMPACT:
The intent of the state program is for the city to co-fund
a full-time Main Street Staff for three yearn. An initial
fee of $50000 will be required if the City is accepted
into the program.
Respect ly submittedt
' Prepared byt loy . Harrell
City Manager
E t9 a Evans
Plan r~# g Administrator
Approved:
1
Frank H. Robbins, AICP
Executive Director
Planning and Development
1907x
J
T-W
F
V
NOTICE OF EFFECTIVE TAX RATE
4989 Property Tax Rates in City of Denton
This notice concerns 1989 property tax rates for City of Denton. It presents Snformatlon about three tax rates.
Thr's
Last ye+r'sut1axr`ate is thelmposel the rate s+me Cotalgtaxes lasdlastdyeariSf youpcompare%epropertlesrtaxedislneDoth
years. This year's rollback tax rate 1s the highest tax rate the taxing unit can set before taxpayers ca
start tax rollback prucedures. In each cue these rates are found by dividing the total amount of WAS by the
tax base (the total value of taxable property) with adjustments as required by state few. The rates are given
per 1100 of property value.
Last years tax rate' } 8,233,633
Lest year's operating taxes } 442,571
Last year's debt taxes 4,442,671
Last year's total taxes }2,132,310,945
{ Lest years tax base } ,59221}100
Last year's total tax rate
This year's effective tax rate: 625,911
Lest year's adjusted taxes (after subtracting taxes on lost property 12,
}2,012,424,11
and taxes to correct appraisal roll errors)
a This year's +dsusted !ax base I+i ter subtracting taxes on new property) } ,6060111665
100
I
j This year's effective tax rate } ,62419!;100
x 1.03
nit publishes notices and holds hearings
µaxinus rate unless u
i
This year's rollback tax rate.
Last year's adjusted operating taxes (after subtracting taxes on lost property
and taxes to correct appraisal roil errors and adding taxes lost in court suits] $ 6 ,.0144,,721
21
{ This year's adjusted tax base (after subtracting texts on new property) $2,0834566S
This year's effective operating rate
• .415461}100
x 1.08
This year's maximum operating rate } } ,208121}100
I
♦ This year's debt rate ; ,1tg08/}100
~i . This year's rollback. rate
I
I
i
4753F
I
IF low
1
I
J
SCHEDULE A: Unencumbered Fund Balances
The following balances will probably be left in the unit's property tax
accounts nt the end of the fiscal year, Theso balances are not encumbered by
a corresponding debt obligation,
Projected
Type of Property Tax Fund Balance
General Fund $3,473,955
General Debt Service Fund $1,161,868
E HEDi:LE 8: 1989 Debts Service
The unit plans to pay the following amounts for long-term debts that are
secured by property taxes, These amounts will be paid from property tax
revenues (or additional sales tax revenues, if applicable).
Principal i, Intpreat Requirements for
1989-90 _
Description of Debt Principal Interest Total
1985 General Obligation Refunding $1,760,000 $1,2570550 $3,0171550
1987 General Obligation 175,000 2591000 434,000
1987 Certificates of Obligation 250D00 32,100 57,100
1987A Certificates of obligation 120,000 64,210 184,210
j 1988 General obligation 175,000 267,888 442,888
1968 Certificates of Obligation 260,000 31,905 291,905 r
1989 General Obligation 0 425,137 425,137
1989 Certificates of Obligation 245,000 126,945 371,945 i
$2,760,000 $2,464,735 $5,224,735
Paying Agent Fees 12,000
$5.236.735.
Total required for 1989 debt service $50236,735
- Amount (if any) paid from funds listed
in Schedule A n22,477
- Excess collections last year 0
■ Total to be paid from taxes in 1989 84,4140258
+ Amou0 added in anticipation that the
unIL ill collect 1001 c: Its %axes
In 1988 $ 0
+ Total Debt Service Levy $4,4141258
III I
This notice contains a summary of actual effective and rollbsck tax rate
calculations, You can inspect a copy of the full calculations at the Office
of the City Secretary, 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texass
Name of person preparing this notice: Monte Mercer
Title: Controller
Date Prepared: August 14, 1989
4754?
r
a
r
i
r
i
- IF=
I
I
I I `
i
i
f
I V"
I
j
3
1
2759L
Na.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING THE 1989 TAX
ROLLS AND PROVIDING FOB AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HE!%EBY ORDAINS:
SECTION I. That the City Council hereby approves the 1989
Tax 9olls~of the City of Denton, Texas in the amount of
$2,053,711,019 assessed valuation, based on the Certified
Appraisal Roll as approved by the Appraisal Review Board of the
cr~ Denton Central Appraisal District.
SECTION II. That this ordinance shall become effective
imme ate y upon its passage and cpproval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1989.
I
FLTEPHENS,
i
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM; I
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
d p~~t~d.d~1
BY:
1~L
P
I
I
1
J
E
F
N
it
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I~
~ I
I a
I
I
i
I
rr8~ R 4
CITY 0 PENTOM / 21i E. McKinney / Denton, Texas 76201
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 17, 1989
TO: John F. MCGrane, Executive Director of Finance
PROM: Mark McDaniel, Budget Analyst
SUBJECT: Collection Rates for 1988-89 and 1989-90
I
This is to certify that the anticipated collection rate used for
tax rate calculations is 1001 for the 1989-90 budget year.
The actual collection rate for budget year 1987.88 was 961. The
actual collection rate for the 1988-89 budget year through July
31st is 961.
i
Mark Mc a el
MMcU:af
4765F
1
l
,
0
e
J
's
'r
S r
J
I ]ITT
j 3=7-3
I
i !
I
i
i
j
fill
I
-rT
CITY of OfsNTON, 215 E. McKinney I Denton, Texas 76201
MEMORANDUM
DA'Z'E: August 18, 1989
'10: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager
FROM: John F. McGrane, Executive Director of Finance
£'JDJECT: PROPUSAL TO CONSIDER RECORU TP.X VOTE
This agenda item calls for the Council to consider taking a
record vote to place a proposal to adopt a tax increase on the
agenda of a future meeting as an action item. Council is also
requested to consider scheduling a date, time and place for a
public hearing, Accordingly, staff recommends September 5, 1989
at 7:UU p.m. I, the Council Chambers at 215 E, McKinney, Denton,
'fexas.
i
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please
f advise.
MA -
a- oP
r4~ane
I
i
JFMcG:af
4168E
I
i
i
1
i
p~.
S
k
A
■
r~~ ,
LA-U
I ~
III A f
1 ~ {
:OLID WASTE ALTE MTIVES CCMQI=
RocaMM NDATIONS
j
4
1 i 1
I
l 1
Too,
-"''aT/1116956
I
J
r
f
i
` i
1
TABLE OF CC CUM
PACE
REOM-OMATIQNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
I
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS
R,eccmyer,dations Regarding Residential {Paste Service . . . . . 9
Survey results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
City Rate Without Certain Services . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Rate CoVarison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Recamemations Regarding Ccmnercial Waste Service. . . . . . 19
Data on Waste Rates wid Service Agreement. . . . . . . . 21
3
.
Survey Results 26
33
j Tipping Fees .
31
` Lewisville Contract with Texas Waste Management. .
Sanitation Rate and Collection Practices Survey
by the City of Richardson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Ibommun dation 4op ding Solid Haste Disposal Facility. . . . 59
61
~ Denton Feasibility Study . .
Recam ehdation Regarding Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Dallas Recycling Issue Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
m0I1tmmations Regarding Landfill Closure. . . . 64
I
I
.
NAM %
i
a
t
II
k
The Solid Waste Alternatives Casmittee first met on August 17, 1988.
City Manager Lloyd Harrell gave 'h:e coamittee two basic charges as
prescribed by the city council.
o ESc wdm the role, if any, the City should play in the Solid
waste business.
i
o What are we going to do when the present landfill is f'A l?
pecwmndations regarding the role of the City in providing waste
I.
service.
A. The conmittee finds that the residential solid wa•Ae unit
provides reliable arx3 consistent residential solid waste
collection services at competitive rates and sees no reason
to make any changes in the service.
8. It is reocsreer%W that the City of Denton•beocma the ewlu-
h
give omarcial and industrial solid waste collection sexvioe
i
provider.
I
C. It is reoamox5d.that the City contUM to,operats a solid
as vaowky'
D. The c nittee feels that primary recycling programs should be
encouraged and sustained, not only for the reduction in
landfill volume, but as the genesis of recycling pragrams
that will boom cmnxVlaoe as tipping fees increase.
II. Peoommendations for a course of action to replace the existing
landfill when it reaches its capacity.
The committee re the city immediately purges aoquisition
oan~ds
of property for a new landfill.
-1-
~ w'.'www~ u
I
J
Over the last six months the cornuttee read numerous articles and
reports, liste,)ed to a fair number of knowledgeable people describe
various aspects -if solid waste disposal and why it should be done one
tray or another, and most importantly of all, asked the City staff
assisting the committee to research a lot of factual questions, the
results of which were discussed at great length in the Wednesday evening
meetings. Lt became clear very quickly that the issues did not separate
into individual questions to ee answered one way or another. The issues
are interwoven, and while some leeway exists, the recommendations are
the result of broad consideration of the entire fabric of questions in
the light of what is beat for the people of Denton now and same reasor.-
able expectation of what the future is likely to bring.
The committee studied the current situations at other cities, trying to
draw from the experience and efforts of others. But in soma ways Denton
is unique. Not only is Denton currently in the solid waste collection
business, Denton has its own lardfill. Denton also has its own power
generating plant, power distribution grid, and utility billing system.
! 1,11 of these play a part in the reconowdations.
i
1. Role of the City in providing waste service.
A. tieoomnends no change in residential.
F, total of 19 cities were surveyed by the City staff in an
effort to determine how our solid waste system compared to
the system in other communities.
Denton is one of only four of the a+olid waste system surveyed
that operates exclusively on rates charged and makes a
transfer to the General Fund, Denton's residential rate
falls in the middle of rates charged by the other cities when
-2
r
,
rates and services are compared. The service provided by the
City is extremely dependable and the financial performance of
this operation has experienced significant improvements over
the last few years. The committee can find no reason to
recxx,r*x4 any changes which could adversely affect the
service provided to the residential nmstamer.
8. Reo=mnds City of Denton beocm exclusive commercial and
industrial solid waste collection service provider.
During its analysis, time committee has considered the poten-
tial immpsat of continuing to allow 'opsn' omaser-
cial/industrial collections has carefully considered selling
the City comercial system and privatizing commer-
cial/industrial solid waster and has analyzed the potential
of assigning territories within the City to solid waste
it service providers.
In recent years there has been considerable cultivation of
the cat, rcial solid waste disposal business in Denton by
private haulers. 'The service agreement used by the City's
principal competitor is fat a to= of tlt (3) ;years, and'is
antiomsAtiftUy sees Ad 4w like •tefts hweWink Amlow tither
party gives written notice at least sixty (60) days rwior to
the termination of the initial term or any rerr.anl term. If
'the customer terminates the agreement other than as provided,
the c miner agrees to pay liquidated damages.
The service agreeent allows the contractor to increase
charges in an amommt equal to any increase in disposal or
1 } fuel oosts and allows adjuatments to reflect increases in the
!1 oonsurer price index. Tlmeir schedule of charges may also be
adjusted for reasons other than increases in disposal or fuel
i
-3-
-)...A I11AA9t 01
Y
costs or the Consumer Price index, subject to approval by the
customer.
The rate schedule currently used by Texas waste Management is
a duplicate of the 1986-87 rates charged by the City of
Denton. Information from a number of customers regarding the
rate they are or were charged by Texas Waste Management does
not conform to their rate schedule, and in son instances,
there are substantial disparities in the charges for
ccuparable levels of service.
If the City of Denton was to go out of the solid waste
business, so that the customer would have no viable alterna-
tive, we believe the cost to the customer would be increased
I considerably above the rates currently charged by the City of
Denton. This belief is reinforced by looking at the oamer-
cial rates the private haulers are charging coanercial
customers in nearby cities, and eauparing those rates to the
rates those saws private haulers are charging customers in
Denton. The omuttee heard presentations from both Browming
Ferris Industries and Texas Waste Management, the two largest
private haulers in the Denton area. Both oompanies spoke of
the Aisolute need of lang-tezm oantmwtse five Vp C/ or xwoo
and the absolute requirement to be able to pass through cost
increases to the custamr. Data from other cities nerved by
these companies indicates that this type of contract results
in fees higher than those charged by either of those Boar
panies within the City of Denton or by Denton itself.
The presence of numerous collection service providers in the
f t same area contributes to the dilution of the service area to
a point in which revenues generated are insufficient to cover
costs or provide a reasonable return on investment. The
-4-
3cw04118936/4
I
t
r
i
pricing tactics of the private ccn:ianies could lead to
erosion of the City's customer base, thus depriving the City
of 'ts most valuable marketable asset.
iie a-r mittee looker] at several ways to implement the transi-
tion to being the exclusive solid waste service provider.
Three of the methods discussed are.
1. Assume all ccmrarcial services on a certain date, such
as October 1.
2. Divide Denton into sectors and assume c=wrcial ser-
vices in each sector on a different date, making the
transition in phases.
{ 3. Phase in service based upon container/Muck type, such
as roll-off, side loaders second, and front loaders
last.
The committee leans slightly toward the third option. ,The
committee feels that the long-term interests of the citizens
and the ocsssrcial will ba•srtvsd,hslpt,by preserv-
?~'r: ri >;tg-*M40k 4%MM WUl "t1ba1 as the
exclusive service provider.
t
C. Continue to
operate a Solid Waste Disposal facility.
It is important to remember that Denton already owns a power
generating plant, a solid waste collection systeo, and a
P landfill. As tipping fees go up as a result of federal and
state regulations and land eoonanics, the committee feels
strongly that cogeneration will become economioally feasible
1 for Denton, and the ownership of the solid waste system and
5-
L,aA1t 1 Ro~K /S
J
a
h.
s
power generating system will be crucial at that time to the
efficient development of the cogeneration operation.
If, or when, Denton constructs a cogeneration facility,
another form of recycling becomes economically feasible. As
the solid waste is prepared for incineration, it is most
advantageous to pick out glass, non-combustible solids such
as concrete, and metals. These materials interfere with
proper combustion and are hard on the incineration feed and
ash handling equipment. It is the combination of protecting
the cogeneration equipment, reducing the volume to be placed
in the landfill, and the monetary value of the retrieved
material that makes this a viable activity. OG-A again, the
ownership of the solid waste collection, disposal and power
generating equipment places Denton in a good position to take j
advantage of the situation as the economics shift to make it
possible.
i
A considerable amount of the effort was spent looking at the M
feasibility of cogeneration. In our application it would be
the bumming of trash to generate stem which would be used to
generata electricity. There are a umber of. plants of this
nat=* ~curr+sntly in operation in ,the Mdbsn ''&Rtss. 13"
ovmdttee hold a point meeting with the Public Utilities
Board at which Black and Veatch, the engineering firm that
&signed the Denton power plant, reviewed the feasibility
study for cogeneration. For a watts to energy plant to be
economically practical, the burying cost, known as the
tipping fee, of solid waste at the Denton landfill would have
to be three to four times what it is currently or the selling
price of electricity would have to be higher. THE CMCT'14E
FEELS MT OLXEAATION IS NOT EDCt [ICALLY FFASIBIE AT THIS
TIM. The places that have cogeneration have tipping fees
-6-
~.~.I1A1~OMt1I
_J
that are considerably greater that the Lmrvent tipping fee in
Denton.
x
ti
D. Recycling.
AecycIizvg is another issue that the cantittee studied. Like
cogeneration, the economic advantage, of recycling is tied to
d the tipping fee, and Denton's low tipping fees, caTered to
cities on the east coast, makes recycling less financially
advantageous than many newspaper and magazine articles would
lead or* to bolieve. In addition, recycling, if done at the
j collection stage, requi " the voluntary cooperation of the
general public. This takes a certain amount of ocrditioning
time, and evolves gradually. The City has operated a
i drop-off newspaper recycling program for about a year with
I good resulta. There are also various privately operated
aluminum can repurchaee centers in Denton. These activities
demonstrate that, at least on an
inhmducEory basis, re- ~
cycling is currently feasible in Denton.
i
In many cases it is nat practical to initiate large scale
r 'Ynling 1rn .3boc&U" the ~sd, I" CAtha recycled
a large volume of the material. The aosmittee became aware
of a number of cases where large scale efforts of recyling so
croerpaw+erad a smell market that thn market went away and the
potentially recyclable material rent to a landfill, even
though it W been separated from the mainstream of solid
waste. It is essential to ease into these activities if the
1 j projected economics of the situation are to remain viable.
I
7-
r
i
a
II. what to do when the Mill closes.
i
CUrrert projections indicate the Denton landfill will be full in
about six veers, Assuming Denton stays
the solid waste dis-
posal business, Denton will need additional landfill capacity or
will need to utilize one of the existing landfills near Denton.
Between the time the old landfill was closed and the current one
4 was opened, for instance, Denton trucks utilized the landfill in
Lewisville. The problem with that kind of operation is the time ,
required to make a round-trip to a remote landfill and the excess
E
wear " tear on the trucks. The result is higher cost. ourrent
estimates 1ndlCate about two years are req=vd to aoq=e the
necessary permits after the preliminary soil bacts, negotiations,
j purchase, and engineering design have been dorm. ?n essence, a
j comfortable time frame requires us to start now if we are to have
everything ready when the current landfill is full.
'T'here is a
good possibility that in the next few y,sars the Wderal
garorr:~t will instigate more severe requirements on landfill
construction, operation, and the types of things that can be put
in each class of landfill. Because of stricter regulations and
incseasad coats, waste disposal is rapidly shl~+;«q from
b=y it in fte %VWd' to a waxy h* t$&Mql*V ;hwastry. the
issues Wore us now cannot be merely studied, decided, and
iaplemented. The myriad factors affecting what we can or should
do arch what it will cost us need to be corutantly monitored so
that proper and timely responses can be MPA .
-8-
T-W
6
3
k
A
t
SUPPLEMENTAL
f rho} 'MATERIALS n>
i
a Fp.. F u
r. ~
t
e l.+~.~,j.t♦ r 5 1 0 ~i q ~r. J~ y.
x r si A.iY{LA♦ tRJf ~'k'7'~" 21gi'~.~.X .'~.p~i" ~L.U! q~~' ~'Yr'03 yPpM1y! •.W.lL',Ily¢hE;~
MIA
I
I
rrs
.y•r
J
D b.' .w,
. ,t ..n~.• .r~,~. ..y, 11. ov.,.,p,... I. er^• !..n Iµrsr.., vme `SN►f0A wr....y •c Ylv e: ,vf1.
rw101989200
1
1
I
i
3
T
y
I A
I
I . Recc nnendations regarding the role of the City in providing waste
service.
A. The Ccamittee finds that the Residential Solid Waste Unit
provides reliable and consistent residential solid waste
collection services at casipetitive rates and sees no reason to
matte any changes in the service.
A survey of 19 Texrs cities was conducted by the staff to
gather sufficient information to form a basis for corWison of .11
f our solid waste system with that of other camunities. Not all
factors w"e considered due to time constraints. The City of
1 Lenten ampares favorably with the other cities in the area of
residential rates and services.
I
ti
Atte:tmentat Survey Results
Rats Comparison
City Rate without Certain Services
survey
I
4
-9-
ST/1W6955/1
RESIDENTIAL SURVEY RESULTS
1. Municipal Service - 15, Denton
Private Service - 3
Municipal and Private - 1
2. Two times per week service frequency - 19, Denton
3. Sags or throw-away container - 10, Denton ,
Sags or cans _ 8
Automated I
4. Free bags two times per year - 31 Denton
free bags three times per year - 1
No free bags - 14
Automated - 1
5. Special collection frequencyi
Call in _ 5, Denton a
One time per week - 8, Denton
Tvo times per weak 3 1
Throe times per week I
One time per month - 2
6. Charges for special collections
No charges - 160 Denton
125 per one-half hour - 1
$6 per cubic yrrd, 110 minima - 1
110 - 185, two times per year free - 1
7. Provide services other than solid waste collections
No other services provided - 13
Citiseas transfer site - 1
Illegal dump site - 1
Right of way I
Clean coaasunity program - I
j Street sweeping and litter crews 1
Weeding and street sweeping i
Dintons Litter craw, once per week litter collection, mosquito
control, sidewalk receptacle collection, newspaper ra-
cycling.
10 -
4 ~ {
r
L
I
i
I
I
n
f
8. Solid Waste is part of General Fund - 4
Receive a subsidy from the General Fund - 6
No General Fund subsidy and no transfer to
General Fund _ 1
No General Fund subsidy and make a transfer
to General Fund - 40 Denton
No response _ 1
No Municipal Solid Waste 3
I
I
f
r I
I ,
- 11
G
Y a
I
I
1
RESIDENTIAL RATE
The current residential rate Is 59.00 per 30 days. The following Informa-
tion is provided to give an idea of what our rate would be If certain
programs/services were discontinued.
COST SAVINGS RATEH
r
Litter Crew S 49,225 S .29 $8.71
Mosquito Control 20000 .011 8.70
Street of the Week 80500 .049 8.65
Sidewalk Receptacle Collection 1,250 .007 8,64
V
I Refuse Baps 1760815 1.03 7.61
I'
Adminlstrative Transfer 1150556 .68 6.93
jj
1
1011ate figures are cumulative.
f
l Based upon 1988-89 Budget (14,250 customrs)
3av101988198 12
ir --W
s
rr
HOW DE RMN' S RATE CMPARE S
WITH O'Ilif.'R CITIES NUEN C"ARABLE LEVEIS
OF SERVICE ARE PRDV7DEa
DENMN
CC 4PARABLE
CITY RATE RATE
Carrollton $ 7.51
$8.54
Farmers Branch 0 6.37
Fort Worth 6.35
6.93
Garland 7.50 6.93
Irving 9.25 r
5.33
Lewisville 7.07 7.61
i
McKinney 4.40 6.93
Plano 8.65 8.64
Richardson 7.00 7.22
Arlington 4.75
6.93
Baytown 9.00
6.67
Beaumont 10.89 8.98
{ Bellaire .2.00
1 Galveston 11.75 8.46
Mesquite 6.75 7.61
Orange 8.00 6.93
Shernan 6.00 3.47
Temmple 5.75 7.61
Tyler 7.25
6.93
Farmers French -
Transfers funds from Landfill d Ccmmercial Profits to
j General Fund.
Arlington - Residential 6 Commercial is collected by private company
with exclusive franchise. Private company subsidizes
Residential with "hefty" ana mt from Commercial.
~ I
Mesquite Their Commercial helps subsidize Residentialt Mesquite is
exclusive Covercial service provider and is "eery profit-
able."
3cw101988200 - 13 -
I
z
f
I
I
}
i OCTOBER 1966 • SOLID WASTE SURVEY CF C"ERCIAL k RESIDENTIAL SERVICE
FAWERS
CARRDLLION BfUa'1CK FORT WORTH GARLAND MING LM SVILLS MCKINNEY PLA40 :1cmROSCN
~ 4esidentiti 5erulct A a D a 3 9 ~ A
Monthly Charge 7.51 None 6.35 7.50 9,25 7.07 4.40 8.25 730
No. of Households 23,000 7,700 126,000 521264 27,992 9,684 41800 33,691 22,0D0
Service Frequency 2X/week 2X/week 7AM0 2X/wetk 2)Vweek 2X/week 2X/week 2X/wetk 2)Vwtek
service Method Begs Paper Bags Bags or throw Sags Bigs••ptptr Bags Begs Bags Bags
way containers or plastic or tins
Free Bags 2X/ytar 2Xhear No No No No No 2X/year No
i
Bvdgt! 846,000 146,995 12,115,599 2,015,846 3,636,739 30885,484 1 900,000
Waril Fund Subsidy set below 146.995 No Yes 538,735 No No
General Fund Transfer No No No so so TG of Revenue Set below
War Stevites No Yes ties No No No No No R.D.W.
Sotcitl Collection see below LX/week IXAwth IX/noneh See below 2X/wttk CAll-in See below IX/wtet
Special Charge No No No No No No $25 per U2 he $11 14/co
ewa No
41111
III I
Dillosal Facility Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private grivatt
k
Not o4 Facility Carrollton Cntlot Southetsl Boland Hunter Ferrell TX Waste Mckloney NT Municipal NT Municipal
Ltsdfill landfill landfill Mtnageeseni L1Ad4ill Water Dist, Witte Dist.
Co merclal Service E E E E E B B 1 A
r. of Revenue See below None
Franchise Fee None None Nont None None U of cow
clal rtctlpts
Disposal Facility M010111al Municipal NunlClp N MusicRpal Municipal Private Municipal Private Private
Nine o4 Facility Ceroilloo Cantlot Sovthr+et Garland Hunter Ferrell TX Waste Mckinney NT Muhlclpal NT Municipal
UAdflll Landfill Landfill Malip"nt Landfill Water BiSt. Witte Dist,
II
~ aRE51Dt3f1IAl SERVI{E a{',a94ERCIAI SERICE
Menieilalcollection A, Muhieteal Collection
A. • • •
B, Private contractor B. Private coniratty with exclusive franchise
C, hlvatt contracture with assigned territorlet C. Private contractors with assigned teeeitories
0. Munleifil R pelvale with ossiii ierrillorlet D. Municipal 1 pehste with aisigatd twitoriu
E. Municipal A private, Do asilgaod ttpplioplos$
no exclusive franchlie
- 14 -
K
r
5
1
4
l
r
l
i
~k
I `
' Carrollton --SPECIAL COLLECTIONS-- Brush is piCked Vp on I till-in basis. Thty have one Tian and one truck designated
for gush pI tkup. Currently it IVIrages I round 2 days I week. Other tines during the rear it is more ofttn.
Aaoliances and furniture are Iicked u9 on '.he rtqulor routes by the regular crews.
•-SEHERAL FWD SUBSIDY-- Thtr art not an enteror ut Num rNY Ire part of the gmral funo. 'his year (6)-88)
Solid wash ootrations tame in below budget.
Farmers Branch --OTHER SERVICES-- Vallty View Citizens Transfer Site. Citizens can use 2 40YO open lops at this site.
Fort Worth --OTHER SERVICES-- illtgal dump sites.
--CMRC1AL SERVICE--The city collects some convi ial, but nostly their cdnercial collection consists
of otter city Operations' waste.
Irving --SPECIAL. COLUMN— One collection each 10.11 calendar days,
Call-in is not ntcHSary or rteuired.
4 Plroo --SPECIAL COLLECTIONS-- The Ifediam and Right-ai-W Division handles special collections,
--FROPOISE HE— 41X pf gross receipts 4rro accounts Otrt costontr is using an B cu. Yd. container of 1eks,
1 34'/. 44 gross receipts from accounts white tustomer is using 20. 30 or 42 cu. yd. container.
Richardson --GENERAL FIND TPMSFER-- Resldeotial Sol id Waste is not an enterprise fund. 11 is a part of the gteoral fund.
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
l
111 ~
I
J
- 15 ,
t
F
a L.. V
I
I
4
I OCTOBER MR - SOLID 11451E SURVEY OF COMMERCIAL 6 RESIDEMIAI SERVICE
ARLINGTON BAYTM BE"ONT BELLAIRE GALVESTON MESQUITE ORANGE SHER" 'WLE TYLER
Rosidential Service B A A ; A A A A A A
Monthly Charge 4.50 9.50 10,69 11,00 11.75 6,75 0.00 6.00 5.75 ?.25
No. of Households 63,000 16,000 33,000 11,000 20,000 304000 51000 10,000 14,000 21,203
1
Service Frequency 2X/wetk 2X/week DVweek 2X/week 2X/week 2X/week ZX/wttk 2X/week 2X/wtek IX/wetk
Service Mtthod Begs Btgs Autmaltd Bags Bags Begs Begs Begs Begs Begs
or cans or cans or cans or tarts or tens or cans or cans
Free Bags No No See below 3XJyear No No No No No No
Budget 19114,000 3,9971810 000,000 2,763,476 1.700,000 370,000 Sep below 1,504,041 See below
Oese►al Fund Subsidy 52,000 No 739,721 Na Yet No Sol below No No
Eeneral Fund Transfer No 200,000 No 475,000 No sit below None 139,201 See below
Other Services No Sep below No Set below No No No Sae below No
59tclal Collection 2X/wek Wool( SX/week Metal Sea below li is IX/week Sea below IX/welh IX/week
Special Charge No No No No No No No See below No No
I~
I '
h Disposal facility Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Public Public Private
alma of Facility Arlington Nalelwood 111e1towl Bellalre Gulf Coul ttatlvlte Orange Cc, 47114 ImpTe laldtaw
landfill Landfill Landfill Transfer landfill landfill See below landfill
S i l#
Commercial Service 1 Sep below Sea below 609 below See below A Set below Sow bola Sea below E
franchise Fee Set below Not S( of Oros None Nona None T6 of gross S6 of gross V. of gross None
receipts receipts rtcelpts receipts
$ee below,
Miami Facility Municipal Private Municipal Prlvsft Private Municipal Municipal Private Muaicipa) Private
Nate of facilit► Arlington Hazelwood Betumcnt BFI Bf1 Mosquitia Ortega Co, ice 1 Sons Tomolt laldlaw
1.011111 landfill 1 2 others Alvin landfill landfill Landfill
MSiDEMTIAL SERVICE #CMICIAL SERVICE
10joicioal collection A. Municipal Collection
go Private contractor B. Privatf contractor with tnclusiut frown
Privet@ 901301000`e with 111!04,10 tittil0ritt C. Prlvato contrarlort with atsigntd ttrr
D, Municipal 1 ptlrsfe with assigned ltrrliorill D. Manltipat i prfvile with attired terr
E, Mv11C1p11 1 privalt, 00 111191#4 tow
no taclvtivt fruchiu
16 -
s
r
i
8
I Arlington -4R1YfCHISE FEE-- The city receives 10.24 cents per residenlel tutu -vr billed by the city as in adsinistrative charge.
' The contractor pays the city $5.75 per ton for every ton disposed of in the city "Do#" "
IavIown --yESIDENT IAL FAZE-- $9.50 Is IMP mpntnly rate. there Is s senior citizens rate of $6.75.
` --CGNsERCIAL SERVICE-- Private tontrictors, np assigned territor!es.
M Beaumont --AESIONTIAL SERVICE-- They are converting to an automated system. Twp thirds of the city is converted. The re>waininq
1/1 will be converted by Dtc mbar. City provides resiltnls with the containers. for this system.
--OTHER SERVICES-- Clean canunity program, landfill
--SPECIALS-- Call in basis. Department will DIEM it up within 10 days. Beaumont employees 16 people 'and wort exclusively i
pitting up specials 5 days a well.
--CONIERCIAL SERVICE-- 4 orivata contractors, non-exclusive franchise, agreements, The city services a low small businesses
- residentially.
Belloir$ --GHPAL FUND SUBSIDY-- Out of the Utility Fund.
Bellaire --CMICIAL SERVICE-- BFI, Waste Hanagm itt and several other individual private haute No assigned tsrrrtories and
no franchises.
I ~
Galveston --OTHER SERVICES-- Strut sweeping and filter craw.
--SPECIAi Brush is pitted up 11Vwut, The Misr crew plcts up appliance and other large items on a Coll In basis
S days a wet.
--CIMIAI SERVICE-- They currently have private contractors without assigned territories or franchises. However, they
are working on going to a franchise uraogemot.
i
1
Orange --BUDGET-- Technically, Solid Will is not a separate fund from the gtnaral fund.
UCff KIAL SEli NYniclpal sod private, no Issigntd territoritto non-taclusiva franchise a g, tmenlt,
Sh$nun --I1M-- Solid Waste Is a put of the Deli fad, UX of operations paid by general fond, 9% paid by lets charged to
rlsideA11a1 e$1to"Ps.
--SPECIALS-- Myesr the city provides a cilyride free collection of brush, large r1mt, and unusual accusvlations. The
Plot 04 the Yale it is dons on a call in basis. Prices range from 110 to 185.
--BTIIA-- Setater Teapma Municipal Utility District landfill
--CIJMERCIAL SERVICE-- City provides canercial collection of bags Ind cardboard bases. Net Are 0 private haulers who
provide dunpster service, no assigntd tirrltorits, non-tsclusivt franchises.
Tmple --OTHER SERVICES-- landfill, welding shop, street sweeping.
--CDKRCIAL SERVICEC-- City ceovides up to 4 cu. yd, emsters. Private hauler Provides 1 6 I cu. yd, duoi and roll 04
all contalAers. Non-escluse franchise. When the contract Is up, the franchise fee sill be raised from 3% to 5( 04 gross
receipts.
Tyler --IUNE1-- Residutill too tamtrcul is one budget. Total budget it 12.2 Milian, Ccnistrcial royontle 1hI1'star, 5670,000. .
k Commeorcfal floonts this you, 15000000. Tilly transfer 4250,11011 to the geteral fund for vehicle IlainteesnCo; This year onto'
{ they traAtfered 1276,000 to the general fond to start an eluiWiNt roellulion fund,
- 17 -
J
f
:ITY OF DFNTC1
ittsidrotial Servul.. Municipal Calllction
Monthly Charge- $9,00
No- of Ikwsthelds-- 11,200
S!rlICI Frtlutacr-- WWII
Strvice Mtthod-• Plastic Btgs
Free Bags-- DVrear
8udttt-- 1987-88 Actual 1999,929
WOW Fared Svbsidr-• None
Oentral Fund Transfer-- 12399518
Other Services-- Litter Crew
1 Special Collections-- 1X/week
Special Charge-• Up to d cubic yards free/up to 1 last it"s, .jch as appliances, per pickup free
Disoosal Facility-- Public
Na" of Facility-- Citr of Denton landfill
Comerc'al strivice• Municipal It private, no assigntd tereitorlts, no iranchists
Franchise Fee• Nuns
Disposal Facility-- Municipal
Nw of Facility-- City of Dillon landfill
1
i
1
{
I
I
- 18 -
1
I
Y
Y
t
Y
i
B. It is recommended that the City of Denton become the exclusive
commercial and industrial solid waste service provider.
The survey of ccrmercial rates for dumpster services shows the
City of Denton to be below the rates charged in other cities.
Many of these cities are served by the same major ccng>anies who
currently serve Denton. In the area of roll--off services,
Denton is typically below or ccapetitive with other cities in
the area.
For dumpster services, Texas Waste Management's rates are below '
the current City of L»nton rate. The rate schedule used by
Texas Waste Management prior to April 15, 1989, is a duplicate
of the City of Denton 1986-87 rate schedule. Information
S obtainod by the staff demonstrates that the actual charges by
1 Texas Waste Management to some of their customers do not conform
to their rate schedule, and in some instances there are substan-
tial disparities in the charges for ccaj=able levels of ser-
f vice.
The use of the service agreement, general underpricing of the
City, along with inequitable charges, leads to concerns regard-
ing the potential for the erosion of the City's customer base
and to concerns regarding the effect of selling the City Camer-
cial system and granting an exclusive franchise to a private
company, particularly when reviewing the, rates charged by Texas
Waste Management in the City of Lewisville where they have an
exclusive franchise. It is also interesting to note that the
DFW Landfill !which is owned by Waste Management) is located in
Lewisville and their tipping fee was $1.95 per cubic yard when
they were last surveyed. The tipping fee at the City of Denton
4 Landfill is $2.72 per cubic yard.
~ I
I
- 19 -
ST/lW6955/2
I
!.'7
The Cemnittee feels that if the City Commercial system was sold
and an exclusive franchise was granted that rates would escalate
to a point az:parable with charges elsewhere in the area.
With regard to privatization, Texas Waste Management and
Browning Ferris Industries made presentations to the Connittee.
The typical contract length is a five-year minimum with several
five-year options. Rates are tied to the consumer price index
and are not at a fixed rate for the length of the contract.
i
{
i
i
Attachrents: Data on Waste Fates and Service Agreement
rpp~yyg Resuts
Feeille Contract with Texas Waste Management
Sanitation Rate and
Collection Practices Survey by the City of Richardson
1 ~
i
i
i
i
` -20-
M956/3
I
[1
A Waste Management COmpanY s
DENTON RATE SCHEDULE
COAIMERCIAL
Frequency 3yd _3 yd 6yd _ d
1 S 22.80 S 23.36 $ 33.60 $ 44.80
2 33.60 44.80 65.76 87.68
9,v !v-~ 3 50.40 65.76 98.64 131.52
r.~ /l)lf / 4 65.76 87.68 131.52 174.08
5 82.20 109.60 163.20 217.60
6 98.64 131.25 195.84 261.12
FOR MUTILPLE DUMPSTERS
~
Cubic Yds Collecter Per Month Rate Per Yard
1- 12 $ 1.90
13- 20 1.45
rwµt~> 21- 40 1.28
41-200 1.21
I e
V wy4ure[ t~ ~j~~q 201-400 1.15 j
1.12
` 401-500
501-600 1.09
601-700 1.00
701-800 1.05
801- Up 1.01
Ii
i
I
1
- 21 -
d .
,
! f
Y
i
7e1as waste Manaoment Rates Prior to 4.15-99
City of Denton Rates 4-1-88 to 2-28-89
3r: 4r ord 8rd
freouer,c• Tid C:"' TET C:7 ^dt CITY 1141
C:Tv
22,89 22,80 23,34 23.36 33,60 35.04 44.$0 44,80
2 33.60 :5.04. 44,$D 44.80: 65,76 65.76 $7,68 37.68
"AC =C.4C 65.1E 45.76 9$.64 98,65 :31,52 131.52
s5.76 6S.76 87,62 87.68 :3:.52 134.52 :74,08 174,08
iC?.6C :3.20 163.20 217.6 217,&
98.6+ ?8.64 3..:5 :31.52 :55.84 195.84. 261.1 2
2 .61,:
7ms +aste 4m omenc Rates Effective 4-15-89
i
City of Donlon rates Effective 3-1-89
3rd 4rd byd 8rd
freouency TA Cm TW CITY TUM Cm u CITY
i j
24.95 24.A9 t 25.44 25,36 1 36.42 38,04 ; 49.83 40,72
36.62 38,04. 48.83 0,72 ; .68 71,52 1 95.57 95.36
3 5434 54,81 1 71,68 71.52 1 :07.52 107,28 1 143.36 143.04
4 71,68 71.52 1 95.57 95,36 1 143.34 143.94 1 189,15 199.12
5 $9.60 89.40 1 119.46 119.20 1 177.89 177.30 ; 237.18 236.40
6 107.52 197.28 1 143.96 143.04 1 213.47 212,76 1 284,62 293.68
i
i
I '
€ -22-
i
r.
s
` SURVEY OF CHARGES
March 30, 1989
I CITY
RATE
CURRENT 3X PRIOR
SERVICE WST TO CURRENT
PROVIDER SERVICE LEVEL Wr 3/1/89 CITY
TX WST MGr Greenway Plaza -
Tony Raposa 2/3 yd 2x $ 31.68 ; 65.76 $ 71.52
City Cust. Varsity Bowl 1/8 yd 2x 115.50 87.68 95.36
City Cust. Singing Oaks Apts. 8/3 yd 3x 397.18 380.16 413.28
City Cust. Lana Del Rey 6/6 yd 3x 498.00 544.32 592.92 ,
TX WST wr Town 6 Country 1/6 yd 2x 67.41 65,76 71.52
TX WST MGr Gene Gohlke 1/4 yd lx 24.21 23.36 25.36
TX WST MGT So. Denton Animal
Hospital 1/3 yd 3x 48.00 50.40 54.81 )
i j
Cm
RATE
TX PRIOR r
F WST TO CURRENT'
E SERVICE LEVEL NY,'P 3/1/89 CITY
Prices quoted to local business 1/3 yd lx $ 22.80 $ 22.80 $ 24.69
over the phone.
(They do not have 2 yards.) 1/3 yd 2x 33.60 35.04 38.04
1/4 yd lx 23.36 23.36 25.36
1/4 yd 2x 44.80 44.80 48.72
This business was told that TX WST MGT asked for a one-year commitment.
Prices quoted on a 30 yd open top in Lewisville:
Delivery and setup $ 39.03
Rent 3.50/day 130 days - 5105)
Per empty 168.84
- 23 -
5M4128918/1
r
f
,
I
as ;su 'danag?man[ "
SERVICE AGREEMENT
iON HAZARDOUS WASTES
111112 Fc-w_vnwm;pvuv7:~-
I NLII~IS r~~rfM M..y
•001772.1+.657 (Taus ONYI
'USTOIVER'S BILLING NAME NEW+I000~EE 1
HOW OETARIEa:..
_STJMER591LL ING ADDRESS
I CHANGE"~, f
-.TY STATE. ZIP CODE
TYPE OF CHAN-00
Tf LEPHONE NO. `
CJSTOMfR CONTACTS
GNCELsS.t E
.:P.f. '.htr '
SERVICE LOCATION REAiQII. ,y
SERVICE ADDRESS TELEPHONE NO. F SHORT TEAM 6
CUSTOMER ►.O,
7'.TY, STATE, ZIP CODE
CONTACT TELEPHONE NO.
3ANK REFERENCE
~ ld7R•
'4IS I$A L[CAl ~NIOINQ 11l~IIR!l tlDi.
I ENT AT TIP! pIA110t1 Ally .
CONTAINER SPECIFICATIONS FREOUENCYOF SERVICE SCHEDULE OFCHAROES
❑ ON CALL SERVICE CHARGE PER MONTH S
]UANTiTr CAPACITY ~'►`blli A O1141ER WiT1f ADDITIONAL CHARGE PER
PER ICK WEEKI V APO OVE R CONT. SPEC. E
11 [CU. YD" P
I ODNTAINER USE 04ARGO /
2 IFFICTIv1 tEPVIc1 oAT1 OONOACTOP USE 0/ARGE S
SERVICE CHARGE PER
~ IFFICTIYI DIFC.D~it
-.YARD E
❑ CL OMER OWNED ❑ LOAD' SIZE f
_JViMIOWNE0 'R ?iZE y
'i~ EOIA►. FROM" DATE LIFT SIZE E I
►Pu. DEL.
OATS DELIVERED 1121 ~L
"NOICAT! COMPACTOR LOAD WITH A
I NTPACT PEVI W OAT PREVXXm SVC i
~ t I
PRlSENT 9VC
I07FICE USE ONLY?
MON TUl WED THUR FRI PAT !UN TOT 640p _ TICKETPLATE L✓
NIW i ❑ ii11~Ei 1dTIN0❑ Cum PILE ❑
OLO SALESUMMARY L❑ COO&ACTORFILE❑
ROUTZ ❑ TICKET TAS ❑ POUTE CARD
ECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
P
E
;I
MISIC1 91m SAVA roan ~ ~ I 1 I I
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ON REVERSE SIDE ARE PART OF THE AGREEMENT.
CUSTOMER CONTRACTOR
Rf PRElINTATIV EY lIONAiVRf
AUTHORIZED UONATUM
OAT ! TERRITORY NO DATE
TITLE WrIF wrest .uw
U~UM
. y... rri... ~,.w.r• e,.r rte.....,.. ori... ea..
p
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE AGREEMENT r
t` hrI tP
TERM. Tne term o}1fUNgrlsemen', alce. ,..,,,,Dili a carlwati»ats=ls,K7l di'K pridr t:
termstnereaherunlhe.lhttlo"nr-na"a."N ilPr r.;ceor na^c~
~ ..r ier miNlrOn Ol {he in6pMlerm Or ins roruaa• tPlm Inaw.wni mw l.uetO rr Hr term nal0s lnit ao reemeni]Olner tnan'iSDS BaZoil TBOf ee
~r shall pay a d. s,,~c. s < n,^n, --~rtr. qr mart
- a sa ee
to CQrslaac• 's 7 amo- „v a u
m„et ace l mr.^ir +C n;n r^u'iC ea cvs, [
..p.m,remOnml, CiuatOrner maroin0 •n I^e term.
n- ,•s months. OfAlbrdet;sna' I nar 'S St •e e
O wa:raamirwtneeiasteormalaria's oauveredtoGunuac;ornereunaerwwnuc~rlananvnazaroous.
dg~ap
NASTEMAT£RIA{i mer
: pr .i6i0adlYa~ ~ to 0ftan Ces as celi"o ca aoizoCaole IeCeral stall. Ict a1 Cr C'AaS,e ,Foam^+J .'NNA4303BAD oatea
Waste
r:c
nowiediOll 0 me page document entillea Conlratlors Oelin+on Ol Seeaat yefi
ice `
noand estp temetefiaisacrwsrsdloCOptrsalorhereunder wilrhotContain anySpecial waste as sona4unlsu
eaclUdsClrom. 0t
snOe. begin"GeneratorsWaslov6eC to is Profile Sh4 leat°andliadilitylott!}ar~aste contractor msnad afehaiS acquire
ached hereto IniDCow2rIAi'AYetLCtelpr
in wan Customer, and Customer agrees to indemnity, depend oche hold narmiess ConHine ol egalnst art'
naste rnetart
I rn rs agreemartt fines and litbilsties top injury or death to persons or loss or damage to cropenv or the enwronomemnl' - tit
;dims. OaRfag . mdempirM contamedherem malt survive the tlllnlrydlgrl
--any ettuatecaa' ~4•T?I19+>v91t1 _ -
agreemartl..eR/ I - -
NITION OF E Jj,"faarm"egtupmefit" »useo heroin shsltmeaneliequipmentlurnisnedbyCantraere?#•frTowie
services» fpaci 09 "It"a+gfaement All equipment furnished by ~Conlrsclor w iMSstomer has net p0, M-lad_ai Onta9
the face 0 DffI -tl
rental I G fgrope n0 Ct,St°m!'7fi YST 9M filler V" I
GUSTOflER1RE _ BEQUIPIMENT.Customershallberea nab }orwilo»ordsma alotheequipmen
Other than j~•.llr oore~ll4~~Q
Mlury ofdeeTrf+naM[MM.~t ti is P,
~.y~lnla°s s er `0
c ust o c
C ust omen t use, operation or possession of the equipmen p
On, CAIe1T • UTIOsf~
%WVd _ notified and any adddWis; Collopi ervlce Or ettempta
.p` _~rt tJO JAaL TSOdA zlau ~.)M
CstAROESAHBf~ne Shot lpaSrAeavtitltrto /errices'Iprond°ObyCdrencwr in accordance wnntha uteol
low
- - Chill 511,11 r rJornent
.a tnr R1 W olW, W~ upon 4M 6bp0eal of OuHOmeYS waste materials by tedent stets.
---Customer
localoro(rnil4...._ - is not
wphi n ten (t D~$eyf jRlr re~elpl of on invoice Iwm Coninetor. I n the went that any payoCowr any
PsymentshNt Items" byCu+ta1~ oR ma Hen 11 N ttrntinate this aglaamant on notice to Customer and reeo rite _
...._~modatirrien due. Cant 1110ta ll, -7op~tionr us omoragraesfaD li(~aenottbe:ces3i If-inlsaritTn'
equipment On WeW q~ua Om ~
(mowed try eooaeablil . post su e b r' e
- AICREAjiliA61M andfwlCosts 'Arta significant gOMOnOf theCost e01 OOkOrlUn't
DISP91ALAND ContrlectQ9=&Y- liCAUa0+unlit oflheSoheduteofCherges n an emount eaualtoenyqui»Vntun,
semicesofovided I „aHSVUa0 eT• t,•--"-r'
- tiYtA1r - b..LAdmi& File 1 ~-lir Wa~~~hamuA,~y~awled from time to. umtu mAnt1 _
isi fo .
dlrstm!nU
G7dt;K I Ante the I eat all uatment for airice the date of axecu80 n of to is 891r ur tort c 0 1
rSQMks4blect
ineross IntheCOnsurOMis'rbs• ythynTheres~'IAdidpOSer•br fuelcostsOrtheCosmer Pr
ThibchaduSf7jfC~~o~_Ilid for rig
_Z._~ i
toapproval6y , ~b IPY
•furnshm of aervicea~n_ I__mentlor"special waste, I thenlhef0ilOwing
a tl},IT ar
SPECIALWASTIL 11".apreerFent"flia"10
condlions shelf SPQIY', .
adddlOMl terms tied
.:..30 wAMA r a.
Cu+totnar-wstf G that A" apKral.w om components and clU raclerilLtf Meeting }ha 6escnpLOn
hereto
contained in the "Oinerato/s waste Mat Sheet" attaeneo andmades Pan herf ol,
jr$jhSjwent"hBP4KIGIw801
tyhpMrhiltadtoreceMauanatxe w/stsuasNoperations orisNSerponbited10recte~vesuch
w»U. then this egre4ifti &hall be subject td immediate termination by either party upon written notice to the
other.
aceompany Ma apaoial waste to the storage or OISData
if mer it»la Or 1nIP94nq papas are required by taw to d
1 facility, Customers raponsible fur preparing atl mani}efts or papers in form an numoar required ired by law. n 1r9m.
q} ■ 1
PAYEYENTDAIEAOE,GocUtaelntanallMlCtt[2spoluiDldlAOL4UtGn•14Customer'sp:vemantorother drivmgsurfs
the weight 0f COntfaeto l v"tctes "n"Cinq the agVpOmenl IoastlOn dNign+le0 by Customer. of +.:I,
d Ooheeton iarvice, number, upac ty and bps of plr plrrnl may be
y OHAU6, Ci anges pas the Schedule of CheigM.lssquanh
in wntihs by e l s 1 is*. Consent to oral changes shell tem evidenced by the actions and Practical Of the QaMl 6
agreed to orally or
11
ATTORNEY'S FEt011~ ~ 6(t breach of t his 89110 to enybielion DroWfl to enforce broaching party Shag pe}a 1164 joinable attorney s
fees. collaclMNt tees and ooaN 01114 other party incident is - f a T. C T v.
on the WOW WW !lion eueeewaa am wrgnlc
ASSIOWMff AM M%CECLA1NM& ItmMjJ0nfliSLqdofforeaea1,4AM1athdagreement tNAMeti 111iwhiareprimWand16094 wntelTerstypo"
- .Aa
i I
I
1
I
1
r
COMMERCIAL SURVEY RESULTS
I
L, Municipal collection - 2
Private hauler with
exclusive franchise - 4
Municipal and private,
no assigned territories,
no franchise - 6
Private haulers, no
assigned territories,
no franchise - 5
Municipal and private,
no assigned territories,
1 non-exclusive franchise - 1
Municipal up to 4 yards;
private serves others,
noa-exclusive franchise - 1
2. Franchise fee:
None - 10
Lewisville - 2% of commercial receipts
McKinney - 4% of commercial receipts
Plano - 41.3% of gross for 8 cubic yard
containers or smaller
34% of gross for containers over
8 cubic yards
k Arlington - 24 cents per residential customer
billed as administration charge;
! $5.75 per ton at Landfill
I Beaumont - 52 of gross
Orange - 5% of gross
Sherman - 5% of gross
Temple - 31 of gross; plan to raise to 51
i
3. Commercial Rate Comparison
1
I
- 26-
I
---Ir wow
COMMERCIAL RATE COMPARISON (DUMFSTERS)
I-X WEEP =-X WFEK 3-X WEEK 4-X WEE1:, 5-X W£EV 5-X WEEK
CUBIC YARD
Denton--------- 16.46 25.36 38.04 48.72 60.90 71.51.
Carrollton -
Farmers Branch
Fort Worth
Garland 34.00 61.00 87.00 114.00 141.0? 168.00
Irving
Lewisville
McKinnev
Plano 22.28 34.87
Richardson
Arlington 34.00 55 .00 78.00 98.00 121.0 U 159.00
Baytown BFI would not release rate information.
Beaumont 40.00 70.00 100.'x0 130.00 163.00 196.00
Bellaire Information not available from the city.
Galveston $1.51 to $1.91 per cubic yard.
Mesquite
Orange 13.60 X7.20 40.80 54.40 68.00 81.60
Sherman Information not available from the city.
Temple 22.00 35.00
Tyler 34.00 54.00 64.00
3 CUBIC YARD
Dentun 24.69 38.04 54.81 71.52 89.40 107.28
Carrollton 51.00 76.50 102.00 127.50 153.00
Farmers Branch 45.00 70.00 90.00 120.00 150.00 180.00
Fort Worth 83.25 124.90 166.50 208.15 249.75
Garland 38.00 68.00 99.00 129.00 160.00 190.00
Irving
Lewisville 46.71 76.75 101.61 128.70 157.22 186.08
McKinn*y 38.00 55.00 72.00 90.00 107.00
rlano 26.13 52.25 78.38
Richardson
Arlington
Baytown BFI would not release rate information.
Beaumont 44.00 78.00 110.00 140.00 170.00 210.00
eallaire Information not available from the city.
Galveston $1.51 to $1.91 per cubic yard.
Mesquite
Orange 20.40 40.80 61.20 81.60 102.00 122.40
Sherman Information not available from the city.
C Temple 31.'Jl0 52.00 72.00 92.00
1 Tyler 34i .',0 64.00 76.20
i
i
27 -
r
y ~
r
` COMMERCIAL RATE COMPARISON (DUMPSTERS)
1-X_WEEK Z-X WEEK 3-X WEEK 4-X WEEK: 5-X WEEK 6-X WEEK;
4 CUBIC YARD -
Denton 25.36 48.72 71.52
Carrollton _ 95.36 119.0 143,04
Farmers Branch 50.00 80.00 -
Fort Worth 110 .G0 140.00 170.00 210.00
Garland 42.00 76.v0
Irving 110.00 144,00 178.00 212.00
Lewisville 109.00 164.00 218.00 273.00 327.40
McKinney 42.00 70.00 92.00 114.00 136.00 -
Richardson 41.47 69.64 104.56
Arlington 35.00 68.00 103.00 137.00 172.00 205.00
Baytown 55.00 82.00 1122.00 143.00 175.00 229.00
BFI would not release rate information.
Beaumont 48.00 85.00 120.00 148.00 180.00 240.00
Bellaire Information not available from the city.
Galveston $1.51 to $1.91
Mesquite per cubic yard.
Orange 455.00 82.00 110.00 137.50 165.00
27.20 54.40 81.60 108,80 136.00 163.20
Sherman Information not available from the city.
Temple 44,00 70.00 96,00 122.00
{ ryler 44.00 74.00 90.60
6 CUBIC YARD
Den------------
I ton 38.04 71.52 107.28 143.04 177.30 212.76
Carrollton 51.00 102.00 153.00 204.00 255.00 306.00
Farmers Branch 60.00 90.00 130.00 170.00 210.00 250.00
Fort Worth _ _
} Garland 50,00 91.00 133.00 174.00 215.00 257.00
Irving 121.00 181.00 242.00 302.00 363.00
Lewisville 76.75 120.33 167.04 216.28 259.87 306.42
McKinney _
Plano 52.25 104.56 143.33 191.13 238.92
Richardson _
Arlington - 1
~ Baytown
Beaumont 9FI would not release rate information.
Bellaire 52.00 95.00 135.00 180.00 220.00 280,00
Galveston Information not available from the city.
Mesquite $1.51 to $1.91 per cubic yard.
Orange 75.50 113.00 151.00 189.00 226.50
Sherman Information not available from the 60 215.00
' Temple 55,00 86.00 120.06
Tyler 54.00 88.00 122.00 1152.00 184
56.00 190.00 224.00
i
4
-pg..
II
t
p
i
COMMERCIAL RATE COMPARISON (UUMPSTERS)
1_,c-WEEK __%-WEEP- --%-WEEI 4_ ( _'WEE!, r,-'WEEE 6_'t-WEEK
8 CUBIC YARD
Denton 48.72 95.36 143.04 189.12 236.40 83.68
Carrollton 136.00 204.00 272.00 34Ci.00
Farmers Branch 70.00 115.00 1-0.00 190.00 230.00 280.00
Fort Worth
Garland
Irving 133.00 199.0(-l 265.00 332.00 398.00
Lewisville 86.73 146.33 :05.50 265.47 324.69 384.19
McKinney
Richardson 69.69 127.44 191.13 254.87 278.08
- Richardson 68.00 137.00 205.0) 274.00 343.Oii 412.00
Arlington 82,i.>u 138.00 169.O(:) 217.00 274.00 348.00
Baytown BF1 would not release rate information.
Beaumont 60.00 110.00 170.00 200.00 260.00 310.00
Bellaire Information not available from the city.
Galveston $1.51 to $1.91 per cubic ya^d.
Mesquite 96.00 143.50 191.50 239.50 287.50
Orange
Sherman Information not available from the city.
Temple 6B.00 113.00 156.00 200.00 245.00 270.00
Tyler 69.00 10B.00 147.00 166.00 225.00 264.00
10 CUBIC YARD
Denton
Carrollton
Farmers Branch
Fort Worth
darl and
Irving
Lewisville
McKinney
Plano
j Richardson
Arlington
Baytown BFI would not release rate information.
Beaumont 75.00 130.00 195.00 258.00 322.00 387.00
Bellaire Information not available from the city.
Galveston $1.51 to $1.91 per cubic Yard.
Orange
Orange
{ 1 Sherman Information not available from the city. Temple
Tyler 85.00 132.00 179.00 226.04 273.00 320.00
IG
-29-
J
1
i
1
r
{
i
T
t LEWISVILLE Texas Waste will be raising rates effective November. 1, 1988.
Lewsiville has not received a proposal from TX Waste yet cn the amount.
FLAUMONT They currently have non-exclusive franchise agreements with 4 r
private companies. The above rates are the maximum which these companies
can charge. however, they may charge less.
BELLA1kE They have BFI, Waste Management and several other private
haulers in town.
SHERMAN There are 3 private haulers in town.
TEMPLE City provides 2, 3, 4 cubic yd. dumpsters. Private hauler providef
b and 8 cubic yard dumpsters and roll off containers.
w
I
f
I(
1 I ~
i
I ,
111
I
t
-30-
or low
l
)
If
I
I y
POLLOFF RATE COMPARISON
DELIVERY MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGE
FEE RENTAL FEE PER PULL
21 i YARD OPEN rOP
1
Denton 1' .In} 39.53 94.80
Carrollton None 50.00 125.00
Farmers Branch -
Fort Worth
Garland
Irving
Lewisville (24vd OT) 37.78 104.64 130.76
McKinney
Plano 35.00 180.00 130.00
Richardson None 90.00 39.00
Arlington (15yd OT) 29.00 52.00 52.00
Bavtown BFI would not release rate information.
Beaumont
Bellaire Information not available from the city.
Galveston Information not available from the city.
Mesouite 30.00 75,00 46.00
Orange
Sherman information not available from the city.
Temple None 55.00 >60+(Dumping Fee)
Tyler None 65,00 110.00
30 YARD OPEN TOP
`
Denton 50.00 52.50 142.20 1
Carrollton None 50.00 125.00
Farmers Branch see explanation below 125.00
Fort Worth
Garland
Irving
Lewisville 37.78 104.64 163.45
McKinnev
Plano 35.00 180.00 130.00
Richardson None 108.00 59.00
Arlington 29.00 102.00 66.00
Baytown BFI would not release rate information.
Beaumont 165.00
Bellaire Information not available from the city.
Galveston Information not available from the city.
Me.-{cite 30.00 715.00 60.00
Orange
Sherman Information not available from the city.
Templ3 None 65.00 360+(Dumping Fee)
Tyler None 75.00 125.00
- 31 -
r
ROLLOFF RATE COMPARISON
DELIVERY 11ONTHL'i SERVICE CHARGE
FEE RENTAL FEE PER FULL
40 YARD OPEN TOP
Denton 50.CIO 57.7` 189.61
Carrollton None 50.00 125.00
Farmers Branch see explanation below 125.00
Fort Worth
Garland
Irving
Lewisville
McKinney
Plano
Richardson (42 vd OT) None 108.00 83.00
Arlington 29.00 124.00 --60.00
Baytown BFI would not release rate information.
Beaumont
Bellaire Information not available from the city.
Galveston Information not available from the city.
j Mesquite
! Orange
Sherman Information not available from the city.
Temple None 70.00 360+(Dumping Fee)
Tyler None 80.00 150.00
20 YARD COMPACTOR
Denton 50.CIO 115.50 94.80
Carrollton
Farmers Branch see explanation below 128.00
Fort Worth
Garland
Irving
Lewisville (24 yd comp)
Business owns camp. head 37.78 183.39 175.12
Wst Mgt owns head & box 37.79 396.00 175.12
McKinney
Plano
Richardson None 343.00 69.00
Arlington
Baytown BFI would not release rate information.
Beaumont
I Bellaire Information not available from the :ity.
Galveston Information not available from the city.
Mesquite
Orange
Sherman Information not available from the city.
Temple Information not available from the city.
Tyler See below 110.00
i
32 -
l
i
a
kOLLOFF RATE COMPARISON
' DELIVERY MONTHLY SERVICE CH4kG£
_-"FEERENTAL FEE PER PULL
30 YARD COMPACTOR
Denton 50.00 157.80 142.20
Carrollton
Farmers Branch
Fort Worth
Garland
Irving
Lewisville
Business owns como. head 37.78 183.39 175.12
Wat Mgt owns head & box 37.78 396.00 171.12
McKinney None None 110.00 $100 Deposit
j Plano
Richardson None 343.00 103.00
Arlington 29.00 102.00 76.00
Baytown BFI would not release rate information.
Beaumont
Bellaire Information not available from the city.
Galveston Information not available from the city.
Mesquite
Orange
Sherman Information not available from the city.
Temple Information not available from the city.
Tyler See below 125.00
j 42 YARD COMPACTOR
Denton 150.00 176.40 199.09
Carrollton (40yd compactor) None 150.00 159.00
Farmers branch
Fort Worth
Garland
Irving
Lewisville
Business owns comp. head 37.78 183.39 175.12
Wst Mat owns head & box 37.78 396.00 175.12
McKinney None None 189.90 $100 Deposit
Plano 35.00 180.00 147.00
Richardson None 343.00 144.00
Arlington 29.00 202.00 91.00
1 Baytown BFI would not release rate information.
Beaumont
Bellaire Information not available from the city.
Galveston Information not available from the city.
Mesquite 30.00 110.00 84.00
Orange
Sherman Information not available from the city.
Temple Information not available from the city.
Tyler See below 150.00
I
-33-
1
r I
fr "MW
1
`s
FARMERS BRANCH They do not prorate the monthly rental fee. For 30yd
and 40yd open tops, if a business has the container far 1 to 14 days,
the charge is 450. From 15 to 30 days the charge is 4100. For 15vd and
20vd compactors, if a business has the container for 1 to 14 days, the
charge is $40. From 15 to 30 days, the charge is 480.
TEMPLE Dumping Fee is $1.03 multiplied by the landfill charge.
TYLER Pent for each individual compactor is the cost of the
equipment divided by 36 months.
DENTON Charges a one time delivery fee of $50 to new customers
for roll-off service. The City typically awns both the stationary
compactor and the box. If the City does not own the compactor,
only the service charge applies.
i
i
i
s
j
{
I
-34-
I
9
i TIPPING FEES
rI!ngton MLnICIDa I '-and+ III Rate
ar
F I C 1. UP i,0
Trucl. less than 15 it bed 8.00
Truck, over 15 it bed. tandem 16, 0,i
Tinoina fee 5.70 oar ton
Camel of Landf it l
Tipping Fee 1.60 per cubic yard
Will probably increased to $1.75 in December
Carrollton Sanitary Landfill
Residents 0,00
` Commercial pickup or trailer, 30.00
Truck, less than 15 it bed 40.00
Truck, over 15 it bed, tandem 50.00
Semi tractor trailer 60.00
I
Dentcn Landfill
Tipping Fee 2.72 per cubic yard
10.89 per ton
Car 3.00
Pickup 10.00
1 Vehicles, 5 cu vds to 10 cu yds 27.20 l
Vehicles, 10 cu yds to 15 cu yds 40.80
Vehicles, 15 cu yds to 20 cu vds 54.40
Vehicles, 20 cu yds to 30 cu yds 81.60
Vehicles. 30 cu yds to 40 cu vds 108.80
Vehicles, more than 40 cu yds 136.00
Vehicle tires 22.00
i
GFW Landfill
Car 4.00
Pickup 10.00
Tipping feet loose 1.85 per cubic Yard
compacted 1.95 per cubic yard
Fort Worth Landfill
Tipping fee 16.00 per ton
j Garland Sanitary Landfill
Tippinq fee 15.00 per ton
If it has to be unloaded by hand 22.50 pe^ ton
i ,
Laidlaw Sanitary Landfill
Tipping fee to general public 3.10 per cubic Yard
City of Tyler contract amount 1.43 per cubic yard
-35-
V
Non
Mckinnev Saniterv Landfill Resident Resident
~ar C.UO r.urr
Pickup trucl 8.00 16.00
-ruck. less than 15 it 16.00 28.00
'ruck., over 15 Ft 24.00 40.00
Semi-truce 30.00 55.00
Roff off, 20 cu vds cr less 35.00 66.00
Roll off, 20 to 30 cu vds 45.00 85.00
Rol1 off, 30 cu vds or more 55.00 100.00
Trucl; or compactor, 30 cu vds 100.00 100.00
Truck or compactor. 30-37 cu yds 115.60 115.00
Truck' or compactor, 37••41 cu vds 1.7.CIO 137.00
Over 45 cu vds a.bb per cubic yard
i
Mesouite Sanitary Landfill
{ Resident 9.00
Non-resident 11.00
Truck, toss than 15 it 20.00
Truck over 15 it 29.00
Compactor, 30 cu vds or less 77.00
Compactor, 31 to 45 cu yds 91.00
Compactor, over 45 cu yds 133.00
I
4 North Texas Municipal Water District
Car 5.00
Pickup 6.00
Businesses 12.50
Hydraulic truck, single axle 21.50
Hydraulic truck, double axle 31.50
Semi truck 43.50
1 30 to 40 yd open tops 58.00
Compactor & roue trucks 75.00
Front end loaders 92.50
I
- 36 -
I
ORDINANCE N0.
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING AN FRANCHISE
LEWISVILLE,' LXAS AND
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY
WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. 0 EXAS DA NOVEMBER S,
1979, CHANGING THE METHOD OF ING RATES,
OC
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the City of Lewisville, Texas and Waste Management,
Inc. of Texas entered into a franchise agreement dated November
1979, and
WHEREAS, the parties believt that certain changes thereto
l should be made,
NOW, THEREFOREr BE IT ORDAINED BY )-HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LEWISVILLE# TEXASs
That the franchise agreement between the City of Lewisville,
Texas and Waste Management, Inc. of Texas dated November S, 1979
is hereby amended as followee
I. 1
Delete the last two paragraphs as set forth in section 3 of
said franchise, and in its place insert the followinge
The rates shall be adjusted annually and shall increase con-
sistsnt with the s Area Consumer Price index (CPI) rate
c
-37-
1
v
I
E
based upon the latest available figures from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics for a twelve month period preceding the effective date
of the first day of November in each calendar year beginning
November 1, 1g86. In the event the CPI for any such period stall
i' be equal to or less than 51, the franchisee may implement an
increase in the rates charged without additional approval. In
the event the CPI is more than 51, the franchisee must receive
approval from the City Council, after public baring, in order to
I
Increase the rates above the 51 level. The franchise shall
pro-
vide the City with thirty (30) days advance written notice of it:
intention to increase rates as set forth herein, and the amount
of increase. The franchisee shall further publish at least two
notices in a newspaper of general circulation in the City stating
the amount and effective date of such increase, such notices to
be published once at least twenty (20) days prior to the effec-
tive date and once at least ten (10) days prior to the effective
date. Said notices shall be located in an area of the newspaper
other than the classified or legal notice portion of the news-
paper and be at least three inches by three inches in size.
/ There is hereby established a waste collection committee
which shall consist of five persons, two to be a
' ppointed by the
franchisee and three to be appointed by the City Council. Such
i i
I
-33-
I
1
J
4r
i
Ir low
I
committee shall meet quarterly to review the waste collection
operatio, and submit a written report to the City Council. If,
in any quarter the Committee reports that the franchisee's opera-
tion has been substantially substandard, the City Council may r
suspend the automatic rate adjustments as set forth in the
foregoing paragraph, whereupon any rate changes will require
approval by the city Council after public hearing.
r
II.
Effective January 1. 19860 rates for residential and commer-
cial waste collection service shall increase by 4.11 over the
l
I current rates.
IIt.
No other provisions of the franchise agreement are in any way
changed or amended by this ordinance.
IV.
That all ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent or in
conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
4 That this ordinance shall take effect and be in full force
and effect from and after the date of its passage.
i
I
- 39 -
4
T
i
R
1
VI.
If any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or
provision of this ordinance shall be adjudged or for any reason
held to be unconstitutional, void or invalid, the validity of the
remaining portions of this ordinance shall not be affected
thereby.
i
VII.
It being for the public welfare that this ordinance be
passed, creates an emergency and public necessity, and the rule
requiring this ordinance be read on three separate occasions be,
k
and the snae is hereby, waived and this ordinance shall now be
? placed on its third and final reading for its passage, and shall
be in full force, and effect from and after its passage and appro-
val.
PASSED ARD APPROVED by vote of 5 to 0 on this 16th day of
December, 19V5,
i
i
1
1
-41'-
I
I
h
ATTEST:
I
I e.
41t y 14 ~r/ CL~
APPROVED AS TO FORM,
{ City Attorney ,
h I
I
I
~ I a
i
1
I
- 4l -
I
J
~J ~
a ,
AN ACREPNEHT CXANTINC TO WASTS NANAC ENLNT. INCORPORAT[D
OF TEXAS THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT AND CONTRACT TO OPZRATL AND
MAINTAIN THE SERVICE OF GARBAGE AND TRASH COLLECTION AND
HAULING MA. UPON, ALONG AND ACROSS THE PRESENT AND
rUTURE STRL RIDCES AND PUBLIC PROPERTIES OF
THE CITY 111F I.EWISMI.E. ASI AND PROVIDING REGULATIONS
FOR THE RAT10N ID SERVICE,
1. That Waste Nanagement Incorporated o[ Texas ("grantee") .
and assiSns, be and the ease are hereby Scanted by contract the
exclusive right ■nd, Privilege Within the Corporate Limits of the
City of Lewisville, Teams ("grantor") to conduct the business for
the purpose of collection ■ad dLapcssl of solid waste, garbage,
refuse, trash, and rubbish within the Corporate Limits of the City
k of Lewisville, Texas and in any and all tracts, territories and
steam hereafter annexed to, or atauirod by the City of Lewisville,
Taxes, and grantee is hereby granted title to all such garbage, refuse,
trash and rubbish which is collected and disposed of by graates.
I The grantee is further granted the right to construct and maintain
such fittur•a am may be necessary to the conduct of said business.
r
All residential and commarclal establiahasots served by the grestor
i
in the City of Lewisville, Texas shall do their garbage, refuse,
trash and rubbish collection and disposal business with the grantee
during the term hereof. However, this agreement shall not cover has-
ardow Wastes.
2. This agtsesant is to take effect and cautious led resin
in full forte and effect for a period of tea (10) years, and such
Period ehail toarAace O0) days after the due of this ag»eamat.
On the day following the and of the first contract year and an
I
that date for each sucteeding contract year, the tan of this 9006-
mat shall be automatically extended for an additional one year period
to that the remaining balance of the term of this agreement shall
remain the tan (10) Posts.
Should either party desire that said automatic one year renewal
i
j and extension provision be terminated, such party say give the other
written notice of such teraination thirty days prior to the lain
day of any contract year. Such notice shall teniasto the automatic
ow year romwel and srtemalom proviaioo, and this agteeawat shall
- 42 1
r
1
L4
r
I
p
Page 2
( z
i
remain in effect for the remainder of the ten (10) year term then
outstanding.
1. The grantee la authorized to charge reasonable rates for the
service furnished wider this agneeent. it being undo stood and agreed
between the grantor and grantee herein that the following rates ate
I
teasonable under the present conditions for one family rasidtncesi
Twice weekly pick-up from the curb or side of City
street, public road in front, or public alley in rear of
I`r the pick-up site, for slnglr family residences the rate
is 1.n per month for twice weakly pick-up W the ,
agreed monthly rates as hereinafter provided, s(fettive this
date for each commsrclal customer owning or running a
f business, or having a business office in the City of
Levisville, Texse. Residential rates for item requiring
special handling due to site, weight, type of material
of placement may be negotiated at any time by the erestes
sad the generator prior to 40101t4f? Sv•• -Item thall
i
be reasonable for the service furnished. If agrswat tan-
I
not be reschod between the grantee and the generator, the
i
matter mey be submitted to the City Manager of the City of
,
Lewisville, Texas, for final arbitration.
The allow rates me) be adfwateA at any Use by agreement between
the greater and the grantee in the event of unusual changes in grantee's
cost of doing business such as fuel coats, equipment costs, labor costs,
i
landfill costs, revised law, ordinances or regulations. ,'tequeets
by grantee for such rue adlustmou shall not be unrsetonably doled
by the greater, increases to grantee's disposal rates shall be posed
through in a timely atomer to the tolls:tlon rates provided custemera
upon explditoua approval by the grantor.
Commmrcisl rates in effect on the date of this agreement are
hereby approved with grantee providing grantor with a list of grantee's
commercial rates any increase of which shall be subject to the approval
of grantor. Approval shall not be i unreasonably denied by graatorl
1. The grantee estate to comply with all of the itzleting love
of the United States and of this State seed say fuftbar lose which mey
be scouted by the limited Rat" of thin state, and $srmes to ceeply
-43-
9
Pate 1
4
with the regulations of any regulator body or officer authorized to
prescribe or enforce regulations pertaining to the operation of garbage
disposal, it being expressly agreed that nothing in this contract shall
be construed in any manner to abridge the right of the City of Lwwisvllla,
Texas, to pass or enforce necessary police and health regulations for
the protection of tna inhabitants of said city, sndl FUBTHEAKM,
the Srantsa shall furnish good performance bond of Ten Thousand
(610,000.00) dollars, made out to the City of Lewisville, Tessa.
5. The grantee further egress to establish an office with ■
separate telephone listing, under the mane of Waste Manstoment,
Incorporated of Texas, to take and handle all complaints with ryard '
1 1
to garbage and trash collection within the City of Lewisville. All
complaints shall be giten prompt and courteous attention and in the cue
of alleged missed scheduled collections, the grantee shall lavesti6ete
and if such allegations are verified, shall arrant@ for the collection
of the fetus* not collected within 26 hours liter the complaist is
received. This office shall be open Itom St00 a.m. to S:00 p.m.
Monday through Priddy.
6. The grantee estses to Nrolsh brush and trash removal service
at no eattu cost to eligible customers upc request to grantee within
j a reasonable length of time. Said brush or trash must be plead at
the usual place o9 garbage pick-up. Looms trash must be placed in
regular lerbege bale or toceptide, not to exceed 10 gallon of copse-
' tty with proper lifting handles. Brush must be cut to five foot lengtbe
and securely tied to bundles not to weigh more thes SO pounds. Large
objects shall be limited tar reesceeble handiiag by two san and plsud
at the usual place of garbage pick-up. Large objects will be picked
up on second pick-up of the week. Grantee will not be responsible
for hauling human or animal waste, hazardous vests, auto parts, rocks,
concrete, sand, gravel or dirt.
711 7. The grantee agrees as the voluar of garbage intersses at all
coeseercial establishments, industrial establishments, and spartmsst coo-
plazas, that the regular household type garbage tans (if any) will
be replaced by telular commercial type garbage costaisers. An establish-
i
mot ge"rating three cubic yards or more pet week will be required
- 44 -
r f r
5
Pate a 4
t
i
to obtain a commercial type container from the grantee.
S. Bourn of service shy:1 be 7;00 a.m. co 7100 p.m, for residential
collection. Commercial colIertione for commercial areas adjacent to
residential nelthborhood■ shell be 7100 a.m. to 7;00 p.m.. All other
con,sarclal callectinns shall be between 3;00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m..
Gcantae shall not be required to provide service on Sundays and holi-
days, except for essential commercial customers such is hospitals.
All other commercial customers scheduled on holidays will be picku
up the following day,
9. Holidays for the purposes of this contract shall be as
followal Now Year's Day, Xemerial Day, lndepeadeace Day, Labor Day, '
Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day.
10, The service furnished hereunder to said City of Lewisville,
Tease, and its inhabitants, shell be subject to such reeeaeable rules
and regulations as the grantee say make from time to time, subject
to the reasonable approval of the Director of Health. The grantee
may require reauonable security for the psymeat of bills, and my
II require every custimer a contractual right of ingress and estate
from god upon the custom's property. Grantor shall institute s
SS.00 deposit for new residential customers to be included with the
I
initial sever rod water bills, and the same shall hetoby be implemented
I upon the offeztlvs date of this eontiset. Such deposit shall be paid
to grantee in the event of noopsymsat by any such neidential customers.
Grantor agrees to use its best efforts to collect billings from custameee
of grantee and to allow greaten to discontinue service to and institute
collection procedures against any customer in the some canner a voter
and sewer service Is discoatinued or bills collected. Cranter shall
require poymv.: for trash service it the time payment for water and sever
marvice is sago end no partial payments will be permitted. WJA1%atial
billings shall be conducted by the City of Lewisville at the end of Ivory
1 month of service. Commercial billing shall be conducted by the coo-
tractor at the end of every month of service, Remittance of funds shall
be made In accordance with ►arsgriph 13 hereof.
11. This agreement, am well as the rights hereunder my bf assigned
by the granter heroin, as wall as all succmedimg irsatees at their option
-45-
Anew
I
e I I
r
Ngt S ~
vith the approval of the grantor, or the rights of such 1rantaas or
Successes hereunder MAY be transferred under foreclosure proceedings
or Judicial ails, or may be transferred from one holder to a third party
by the aperattax of forfeiture clause of any agreement between such per-
sona In which cue assignees shall succeed to all the rights, duties
and liabilities of the grantee hereunder.
13. As consideration tot the granting of this contract, and far
all the rights, powers and privileges incident thereto in any way apper-
taining and a street rental, and for billing nervics as provided in
Paragraph 10 hereof, the grantee agrees to pay to the grantor ten percent
(101) to the money collected from residential customers and seven and I+
one-half percent (7 4;) money collected from toeaetotal customers as
full payment for the privilege of using and occupying the streets, high-
Ways, a cements, allays, parks and other public places I.t the City of
LevievII14, Tens, whether a rental, conduct and vupervislon of col-
1 latttoo of inspetttea charges. The payment so made shall be In lieu 1
1 of any other tea, amm"ato or other chargto, 4neep• ,4 V}l7r!s
taxes.
V
With respect tt rattdeatial billing, payments of 90g of the
amount collected monthly shall be remitte•1 by the granter to the grants
I
on or before the 15th of the month following the month for which services
i
are rendered by grantee and each succeeding moth thettatter for the
duration of this agreesest.
to respect to additions and deletions of residential customers,
grantor end grantee shall stet in pre-confsreoce on a monthly basis to
determine the numl,er of now residential customers to be added and
the number of resideartal customers to be deleted frea the billing
proves as the basis for monthly billing.
With respect to sac-eereial billing, payment of 7 42 of the amount
collected monthly by the grottos shall be remitted to the grantor on
cr be-ore the 11th of the month following the month for which services
are tendered by the grantee and each succeeding month thereafter for
the duration of this agresstrti said payments to be made on the basis
` of 92 fix of the total amount collected for garbage/trash iarviee with
7 hi of such amount collected to be paid to the grantor in secordamts
I
-46-
less 6
to accordance with the provisions of this agreement.
Grantee will furnish grantor a documented computer un..lysis of
each commercial customer on a monthly basis, revealing customer name,
type of service, (hand collection or containers), by site, frequency
and price as a basis for monthly billing. On s monthly basis, grantee
will furnish {rancor s computer analysis of aged delinquent paywnts
In ccee,ercial custowrs over 30 days.
lt. The grantee shall be responsible for the actions of his am-
r~ ployses during the performance of service under this agreement. He must
assure the grantor that as reprassntatives of the grantor the actions
of all employees must be in the beat interest to the grantor and i's
' cltitena.
i
15. A failure upon the pats of the grantee herein, his successors
and anlgns, to observe the tsrw and rastrictions of this agreement
shall. If continued or persisted in after due notice in vrttiai from
the City Council, signed by the Kayor and attested by the City Secretary
to the grantee herein, and due opportunity to observe this a6reernt
or to remedy nonobservance thereof, be {rounds for the forfeiture and
termination of all rights under this contract.
In the event of materiel default by grantee in the pasfore"te
of this agrsewnt, {cantor shall be entitled to have dumping privileges
at any landfill owed or operated by granted or affiliates at 209
rate reduction from the then current posted gate price.
16. The performance of this contract may be suspended and the Obli-
gations hecauadet excused in the event and during the period that such
performance is prevented by a cause or causes beyond reasonable toatrel
of a party. Such causes shell ieelude, but not be limited to, acts of
God, acts of war, riot, fire, explosion, accident, flood or sabotage
lack of adequate fuel, power at raw wtmrialst judiciSk or {ewrameetel
h lave, regulations, requirements, ardent naticnal defense requitswats,'
i labor strike, lockout or injunction (provided that neither party shall
f be required to settle a labor dispute against its oW but judpnnU.
i
l7. Grantee agrees to provide at cause so affiliate to provide
free dumping privileges for two separate one weak periods, anmislly,
for Lewisville cititaus at any landfill owned or operated by $rural
- 47 -
L J
z 1
t
Pap f
or An affiliate in the Lewisville area. Normal household refuse,
Appliances, material and items which Ara associated with a residential
dwelling may be dumped at any time at the landfill site with proper
identification that the person I$ a Lewisville tosldu.c without charge.
This privilege Is for private residents only and persona hauling for
hire regardless of contents will be charged the late rate fee.
I$. In the event that any dispute involving this contract cannot
be resolved by the parties, either party ui submit the dispute to
arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration I
Aisotiation. Any award of such arbitration may be enforced in any court
{ of competent jurisdiction.
1 19. LLAJILITY IN9UWC9
The Contractor shall provide and maintain during the
life of the contract, Public Liability and Property
Damage Insurance and Umbrella Coverage to the following
amoustsi
Public Liability ES::,:00 Far perso0500.000
4 per occident
property Damage - 6500,000 per any one title
Umbrella Liability - 61,000,000 with a 625,000
deductible and/or base insurance
to protect hirmalf, his agents, and his employees from
claims for damage for personal Injury, Including vtoagful
i
aad accidental death and property damage which may arise
from operations under the contract, whether ouch operations
be performed by himself or his employees. the policy of poli-
ties shall name the City as additional insured and shall
contact a Clouse that the insures will net cancel or decrease
the insurance coverage without first giving the City thirty
(30) days notice in wilting. Greater may require that the
F limits stated herein be calved In the event liability of mrml-
cipal govermmara is increased by amsodmest to Article 6152-19
i Revised Civil Statutts of Texas, or any other State or'fedecel
Legal Requirement.
20. Creates shall defend, idew4fy and hold harmlaso the grantor
-48
-
s
1
WASTE MANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED
900 Jorfs Blvd.
Oak Brook, Illinois, 60521
Comercial Customer Rates
Comarcial Hand Collection
17.50 to 623.00 depending on volume of trash and placed on or off s public
throughfare. When volume of hand collection ruches 3 cubic yards or wars
per week, tontaineriaed oervice muat be used.
r~ commercial container sod, rront-end
I r
1
i
3 6 8
rREQVTNCY Cualc YARD CVatC YARD CUBIC YARD
I 1 28.00 1 46.00 6 52.00
1 46.00 72.13 $7.75
3 60.90 100.15 123.23
4 77.23 129.70 159.40
5 94.25 155.85 196.10
6 111.55 161.75 230.40
Commercial Containerized. Roll-off. 20ffpbic Yeti 30 Cubit To rd. Ooea Tops
16).00 Rental monthly pescoetainer. 6$3.25 Ter Cubic Yard 42 Cubit Yard
EnClesed Compactor Container $110-00 Rental aomthlY 6105.00 -For load.
.
-49-
,
B
Eage d n
1
and each of its' officers, agents, servants and employes. (roc any and
all suits, actions, claims, losses or damages of any character and
from all expensas incidential to the defense of such suite, actions
ur claims boced upon or arising out of any injury, disease, sickaesa
or death of any person at parsons, or any damages to any property
caused by any act or nmission of the grantee or its'af(lcers, agents,
servants, employees, or anyone else under grantee's direction and
control, and •tiaf,ng out of, occuring in connection vith, resulting
(roe, or caused by the performance or failure of parfonlnct of any
work or services called for by this contract or from conditions
created by the performance or non-performants of said wotk or service.
21. This agreement suparcedes any contract which now exists of MAY
l have previously existed betvaes the parties.
V
PASHO AND APPROVED this %ra day of a.,,..~... , 19;9.
1
S
i
V
V
,
Mayer
jh 1 clky of Lewisville
ATT93TI ACCgP' N
J
Bit
City 6 crdury )Ti
- 50 -
s
r
r
i
.
CITY OF RICHARDSON I emorandunt
To: Marshall Haney, Director of Public Services ,
From: David Johnson, Sanitation Superintendent
Subject: Sanitation Rate Survey and Collection Practices
Dates July 5, 1988
Please find attached a rate and collection practices survey
for both residential and commercial refuse collection. Several
cities, both metroplex and nonnetroplex, were surveyed and their
data has been compiled into three areas of information. From this
information, we can determine what others are doing and what they
are charging for their service.
If you need additional information, please let me know.
I,
cc: Bill Keffler, Deputy City Manager
Dan Parker, Assistant City Manager - Finance
David Couch, Assistant Director of Public Services
51 -
LJ
RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION PRACTICES
CARROLLTON: Equipment used consists of sideloaders and trains (jeeps with
four trailers). Sideloaders have two-man crews; trains are three-man crews.
Refuse is collected twice/week. Average householus per route is 13011.
Plastic bags are required. They are provided by the city for a fee. Trash
cans are not allowed. Small brush (under 4ft.).is collected by the regular
crew. All other is collected on a call-in basis. Service is not contracted
out nor is this under consideration.
COLLEGE STATION: Equipment used is rearloaders. There are three-man crews.
Household refuse is collected twice/week; yard trash is collected once/week.
Average households per route is 834. Plastic bags are required. The city
does not provide the bags; residents must acquire them. Some use of trash
cans is allowed. Brush, limbs, bulk items are collected by both the resi-
dential crew and an open top brush truck with a mechanical loader. There is
no separate charge for this. Service is not contracted out nor is this under
consideration.
FARMER'S BRANCHe Equipment used is a sideloader with a two-man crew. Refuse
is collects twice/week. Average households per route is 800. Paper bags are
required and are supplied by the city at no charge. Trash cans are not
permitted. Brush/tree limbs and bulk items are collected weekly using a
knuckle-boom truck. There is no charge for this service. Service is not con-
tracted out nor is this under consideration.
FORT WORTHS Equipment used is a sideloader with a two-man crew. Collection
is twice/week. Average number of households/route is 1100. Plastic bags are
required and are not provided by the city. Trash cans are not allowed.
Brush, tree limbs and bulk items are collected on a once/month basis using
knuckle-boom trucks. There is no charge for this service. Forty (40) per
cent of service is contracted out. There will be no more service contracted
out.
GARLAND: Equipment used is a sideloader with a one-man crew. Collection is
twice/week. Average households per route is 750-400. Plastic bags are
required and the city does not provide them. Trash cans are not allowed.
Brush, limbs and bulk items are collected once/month using knuckle boom
trucks. There is no charge for this service. Service is not contracted out
nor is this under consideration.
LONGVIEW: Equipment used is a rearloader. Both two-man and three-man crews
are used. Collection is twice/week. Average households per route is 862.
Plastic bags are required. They are not supplied by the city. Trash cans
are not allowed. Brush, tree limbs must bp. bundled and will be collected by
the regular crew. There is no charge for this service. Service is not con-
tracted out nor is this under consideration.
MESQUITE; Equipment used consists of both rearloaders and sideloaders.
Rear'%aders have a two-man crew and sideloaders have a one-man crew.
Col: ...ion is twice/week. One-man crew has 750 households per route and two-
man crew has 1000 households per route. Use of plastic bags is optional. The
city does provide bags. Trash cans may also be used. Brush, tree limbs and
bulk items are picked up weekly on Thursday and Friday. Service is not
contracted out nor is this under consideration.
t
52 -
I
1
2
PLANO: Equipment used is a sideloader with both one-man and two-man crews.
Collection is twice/week. one-man crews have 850 households per route and
two-man crews have 1100 households per route. Plastic bags are required.
The city provides two free boxes/year. Other boxes can be purchased at
57.50/box. Trash cans are allowed for sharp objects only. Limbs/brush
bundled and three feet in length are collected by regular crew. Larger
amounts are special collections and a charge of 11.00/cu. yard (510.00
minimum) is levied. Service is not contracted nor is this under con-
sideration.
SHERMANs Couipment used is a rearloader. Crew-size is two-man. Collection
i frequency is twice/week. Average households per route is 625. Use of plastic
M bags is not required. Residents may use two trash cans free. If afore than
two cans are used, residents ar^ charged 52.00/mogth. Limbs/brush must ba
cut in four feet lenghts, bundled and not weigh over 50 lbs. A special truck
is used and the charge for this service is 10.00-85.00 per load. Service is
I not contracted out nor is this under consideration.
WACOs Equipment used is a sideloader with a two-man crew. Some sideloaders
with a one-man crew are used in residential container collection. Also use
single-axle units with a six (6) cubic yard packer for dead-end streets and
cul-de-sacs. Frequency of collection is twice/week. Average households per
route is 798. Plastic bags are optional. City does not provide them. Trash
cans may be used. Brush and limbs are collected by either the regular crew
or with a knuckle-boom truck. A fee for this service will be implemented
in the near future. Service is not contracted out nor is thin, under con-
I sideration.
I
i
i `
i
t
i
I
i,
-53-
3
I
t
I
I
3 z
r ~
1 2 3 4 5 6
2 3yd. 50,00-24.00 50,00 75,
' - y 00 75.00 102,60 123,30
75.00 123.30 173.70 217.80 229.50
1 - 4yd, 24.00
2 4yd• 50,00 50,00 75,00 102.60 123.30 173,70
102.60 173.70 229,50 264.60 311.40
A $6.00/month/container rental fee is charged.
Open tops/Compactors:
20 cubic yard - $ 90.00 each dump
30 cubic yard - 102.00 each dump
40 cubic yard - 110,00 each dump
For open tops, a $3.00 per day rental.
There is not a fee increase expected this year.
The other cities have different types of commercial collection service.
l Longview and Sherman offer very limited rearloader service only. Dallas is
not involved in any commercial service. Grand Prairie and Arlington are
totally contracted out as well.
I ,
i
i
V
C
I
i
-54- J
I
2
I'
FORT WORTH: Utilizes sideloaders only. They provide 3 cubic yard containers
only. They compete with private refuse collection companies. They do not
provide any rolloff service. Fees are as follows:
M 1 2 3 4. 5 6
One container N/A 5 83.25 $124.90 $166.50 $208.15 $249.75
Two containers N/A 166.50 249.75 333.00 416.25 499.50
Three containers N/A 249.75 374.65 499.59 624.40 749.25
Four containers N/A 333.00 499.50 666.00 832.00 999.00
A fee increase is not anticipated this year.
GARLAND: Utilize frontloaders only. They provide 2,3,4,6 and 8 cubic yard
containers. They compete with private refuse collection companies. They do
not provide any rolloff service. They do not anticipate a rate increase
this year.
IRVING: Utilize frontloaders only. They provide 4,6, and 8 cubic yard
containers. They compete with private refuse collection companies. They do
not provide rolloff service. They are currently undergoing a rate study for
an increase in their fees. Study will be complete on September 1, 1988.
MESQUITE: Utilizes both frontloaders and rolloffs. They are a closed city.
For roatloader customers, they provide 4,6, and 8 cubic yard containers.
For rolloff customers, they provide open tops and receiver containers for
stationary compactors; the customer must provide the stationary compactor
and also a self-contained compactor. Rolloff fees are as follows:
Open tops: 30 cubic yard only
Rents $ 2.50 per day
$30.00 set fee
Dump: $60.00 each
Receiver
containers 42 cubic yard only
Rents $110.00 month
Dump: $ 84.00 each
Self-contained
compactor: Dumps $ 60.00 each
They do not expect a rate increase this year.
PLANOs They contract out their commercial service through an exclusive
contract. BFI provides their service. Both frontloader and rolloff service
is available. For frontloader service, BFI provides 2,3,4,6 and 8 cubic yard
containers. For rolloff service, BPI offers open tops and compactors. They do
not anticipate a rate increase this year.
WAM Utilize sideloaders and rolloff equipment. They compete with private
refuse collection companies. For sideloader service, they provide 3 and 4
J cubic yard containers. For rolloff service, they provide open tops only; the
I customer must provide their own compactor. Fees are as follows:
1
55 -
G
a
j COMMERCIAL COLLECTION PRACTICES
I
CARROLLTON- Utilize both frontloaders and rolloffs. They compete with the coll co
FrMWr use
mpactorsand openetops. Feesaare s as F follows: customers, they do provide
0 en toffs: Rent - $ 50.00 /month
Dump - $125.00 each
Compactors• Rent - $150.00 /month
Dump - $159.00 each
I These fees are for all sizes. A rate increase is not anticipated. For front
loader service, they provide 3,6, and 8 cubic yard containers.
COLLEGE STATION. Utilize rearloaders and rolloffs. They are a closed city.
Rolloff customers must provide their own compactors; the city will provide
open tops for clean up and construction. Fees are as follows:
Open t~ ops_ 20 yard - Rent: None
Dump: $36.50 each 1
30 yard - Rent: None
Dumps $41.00 each
40 yard - Rent: None
Dump: $45.50 each
Comp_ a_8i
Dump: $91.00 each
For rearloader service, the city provides 3 and 6 cubic yard containers. ThE
are dumped six days a week, Fees are as follows:
3 cubic yards
$ 57.36 month,
6 cubic yard: $ 93.00 month
There is a fee increase anticipated for rearloader service. Proposed fees ar
3 cubic yard: $147.20 month
I 6 cubic
t yard:
$234.25 month
FARMER'S SRANCR. Utilize frontloaders and rolloffs. They do compete with
private refuse collection companies. They do provide open tops and compactor
for their customers. Fees are as followsr
Open tops:
i 15 , 2 0 cubic yards:
Rent - 1 to 14 days $ 40.00 j
15 to 30 days 80.00 I
40 cubic yardsr
Rent - 1 to 14 days S 50.00
15 to 30 days 100.00
Dump fall sizes) $125.00
Compa_ c_ terar provide stationary only
Rent - $320.00 month
Dump - $140.00 each
They do not anticipate a fee increase. For front loader service, they provide
3,4,6, and 8 cubic yard containers.
1
56 -
I
I
SANITATION PATE SUPvf:y
I,
Contalner Arlington Carrollton Dallas brarmer'a for
1 yJ' eripOh North Gran)
1 Dump/wk 5 67.00 N Car land Praitfr Irving Neaynie.' Piauu plrhnifIsun
2 Dum /A N/A S SD.00
p/wk 62,00 N/A N/A S 47.00 $ 67.00
Dump/wk 111.00 N/A 10.00 N/A M/A
1 $ 11.17 $ 15.00
N/A N/A N/A 81.00
/ Dump/wk 150.00 140.00 100•Q0 5700.00 S SS.00
S Dump/wk N/A N/A N/A 12).00 1)7.00 69.69 61.00
182.00 N/A 110.00 N/A 161.00 119'00 12.00 101.56
6 bump/wk 216,00 N/A 170,00 N/A 175.00 199.00 103.00
l+/A 19e.00 215.00 110.00 N/A 1)7.00
' N/A 270.00 N/A 219.00 137.Su
1 yJ. 215.00 291.00 291.00 N/A 172.00
I Uump/vk 5 11.00 165,1111 N/A
N/A 205.00
2 Dump/wk ]15,00 N/A $ 70.00
3 Dump/wk 1N14.00 /A N/A 1 N/A S 51.00 $100.00
176.00 201.00 15.20 N/A N/A N/A
1 Dump/wk II/A 106,00 161.00 313.00 S 69.) S 68.00
221.00 272.00 IS0.00 N/A 167,00 96.00 127,11
5 Dump/wk 211.00 N/A 190,00 206.00 170.00 1!7.00
` I 6 Dump/wk 110.00 N/A N/A 197.00 743.50 191.111
)55.00 N/A 210.00 N/A 248.00 266,00 227.00 141,50 251,87 205.00
Peeldentls] N/A
S .15 N/A 280.00 296,00 116.00 21),00 278.08 71'00
1 2)9.50
i S 6.10 5 7.00 126.00 340.00 287.50 )11.00
f !DUOS&a N/A S 6,35 S 7.00 N/A 112.00
+f~iiden~fal S 6.86 S B.2S S 6,50
No No S 1.25 S 7.00 t
Commercial Unknown N/A
No No No re.le.ool No
j M/A No No No No Yef No No
Yes No
No
j.
[kyri~
V
I
I 1 r
I
i
I
I
A 1
y Ilk, it
SANITATION RATE SURVEY
NONMIITRDPLI,N CITIES
Container College Station Longview
4 Shuman way u
yd.
I Dump/wk N/A N/A N/A
2 Dump/wk N/A S 21.00
1 Dump/wk N/A N/~ N/A 50.00
1 Dump/vk N/A N/A N/A 75.0
660
21 N/A N/A 121..10
S Dump/wk N/A N/A N/A 1102
6 Dump/wk N/A N/A
N/A 111.76
0 Yd.
I Uump/wk N/A
2 Dump/wk N/A N/A WA N/A
1 Dump/wk N/A N/A N/A N/A
4 Dump/wk N/A N/A N/A N/A
S Dump/wk N/A N/A N/A N/A X/A 6 Dump/wk N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A N/A i
Residential $4.20
15.95 56.00 S1.60 I I_ncreaa
Residential Y06104.9s1
Commercial Yes N Yes($7.00) Yes(Unknown)
~ / N/A No
I
i I I
I
I,
'r
(r
r
1
1
t
ti
i +7
C. It is recaampnded that i t City of Denton continue to operate a
solid waste disposal faclity.
Numerous waste disposal options have been explored including
waste to energy for co-generation, transfer station, direct
hauling to another landfill. Cost estimates were reviewed for
each of the different alternatives. J
After a presentation on Solid Waste Incineration and Steam
Generation by Black and Veatch Consulting Engineers (see copy
of Feasibility Study, Bob Nelson concluded that for the
present value of electricity, the tipping fee for garbage would
have to be raised from the current $10.88
per ton to make a Per ton to $40 to $50
co-generation plant economical. Also at {
Cie
present tima the power plant does not need the added capacity, I
but will probably need the additional power in seven years.
I
A presentation by Appi regarding a privately financed
waste-to-energy facility included the fact that tiplInq fees J
would be in the $50 to $52 per ton range.
' 'ihexe is not a successful co-generation plant in the State of
Tftas at the current time.
If Capital cost to start-up a cogeneration plant is prohibitive
at-the current time.
I
The fuel value of the City of Denton's waste is higher than
most solid waste due to the universities' generation of paper.
t'~ I
j 11
i
-59-
3WS956/4
I
~4
1
MIM
Y ~
F
P
CONCLUSION: (1) As tipping fees go up as a result of federal
and state regulations and land economics, this disposal alter-
native will became more attractive in the next five to seven
years. (2) The ownership of the solid waste system and power
generating system will be crucial at that time to the efficient
development of the co-generation operation.
r
Attachment: Denton Feasibility Study
I( 1
• J
i
I ,
{
i
1
/ ~I I
f
-60-
3WS956/5
11
~I
i I
DENTON FEASIBILITY STUDY
Pion Description $/Ton
A New landfill $12.28
B Add Steam to Existing 52.65
Power Plant Healers
Cl New Remote Mass 55.25
Barn Facility
C2 Replace Boilers 1 & 2 64.41
In power Plant
C3 New Plant with Steam 55,02
to Unit 1 or 2 Throttler
D Transfer Station 18.16
4
low
.I
w-=
~f
I
fA11t J-7. lltrust QUANTITY PROJECTIONS Af I
Annuli At-Received Total Refute total N,tute
Population At-aectlved Rau 1,11014 Available for Avallebre for
Il11 fd ptlb Path Population Rau Retufe Plut
f 10Y1f111129 r(pylA Ta£1~ InclnaratJOn tncrnerntlon to
l11~lss_ Ltl!!!S9__ Ij,d 14wence!'
loop 7.11 61,001 1.077 3
tpd 40 151 ISO Ili SO d
1f 11 7.17 61,31) ).Olt ISO I51 C
flat ){1 l)l )6S ?
1 i 1.17 11071 1.061 lIl 171 4l
I I/fO 7.31 117 17) )IS
t/,171 1.000 ty its
latl ).)0 11.310 311 191
1117{
117 111 lit N
1091 }.)0 70,511 1.161 M
111)
0 111 ft
1.10 77,117 1.701 411 11131 420
gold 1.10 75.791 1.711 117
170 461 10
1 1905 1.30 111713 1.117 111 O H e" ,
loot 3,00 116 111 141
401116 1.170 450 301 1D z n 462 1117 3,00 476 3I0
I1,f11 l.)6D 171 371 i
Y 1111 1.00 116 311
Q
i 11,195 1.101 117 119
11!! 1.00 I!0 357 tj K
471315 11111 Sol $71
7000 1,00 90.111 SOS S,S
1.416 Sit $11
7001 1.00 02,071 510 591
I.SII f U
7001 1.00 all
$52 677
951111 1.574 SI! ~
100) ).DO 111 367 a17
llrS}7 1.17/
7001 1.00 S65 bat 311 ~ J
lO1,/11 1.611 ttl l)1
1005 ).00 101,31) at6 Sat 100 t7
1.171 $19 114 ii
1001 I.OD 101,661 al 174 {
0
1.171 617 1!J all
3007 1.90 110.919 751
7009 1.00 1,111 y1 711 p
1111171 1.817 {10 111 8
loot l.oo Iss its 151 40 81
170
1111151 1.110 all
1010 1.00 17t,f17 1.917 its /U P9 437 p~
417 609 117 u
~ Auumptloner ~ r
O
• aPOpufatlOn Orwttl rat et from Clty of Denton Ut I1 IIy Depart Mani (nA eclat, C
Clone percent compounded growth allowance. o
I
i
J
i
T~F
Jf
e
{
Y9$
4
a
o9-s.a-6e
TABLE 4-IA TIPPI110 FEE SCREENING ANALYSIS PLAN Al
OEVELOPMENT OF NEW SANITARY LANDFILL
PRELIMINARY BREAKEVEN TIPPING FEE DEVELOPMENT (rsvlssa 9/6/66)
CAPITAL COST DEVELOPMENT PLAN A
•
CAPITAL COSTS (SITPO) $10.100.00
LANDFILL DESIGN CAPACITY (TPO) $4,260,000
OIRECT CAPITAL COSTS $425,000
i CONTINGENCY (10 PERCENT) '
SUBTOTAL $4,706.000
LZSCINSING 1500_000
SUBTOTAL $5.206,000
INTEREST OURING CONSTRUCTION 1416,640
(6 PERCENT)
SUBTOTAL 15.624,640
INDIRECT COSTS (15 PERCENT) Se43,696
SUBTOTAL S6,AG6,336
4ON0 EXPENSES (3 PERCENT) $194.050
I TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS 09111 S) $6,662,146
CAPITAL RECOVERY FACTOR 0,1019
I (20 VMS • 6 PERCENT)
ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE 1674,579
0 i M COSTS (FIRST YEAR)
LANDFILL FACILITY (S/TON) 7.00
LANDFILL 19*1 QUANTITY (TPV) 124544
ANNUAL O&M COSTS 16994606
(4 OAVS/MEEK ACID 52 WKSIVR)
BREAKEVEN TIPPING FEE
ANNUAL COST 11.576,367
FIRST YEAR TIPPING FEE (S/TON) 12.26
i
-618-
I
I
I
4
a
A.
FEASIBILITY STUDY 1,, 14113,40.0000
~,7 SOLID WASTE INCINERATION AND STEAM GENERATION70
COD 010688-0
TAI LL 6-), fiPPf NC F[[ $CREEPf NC ANALT%&I'- FLAN 1--ktV .T[ ran t: TT FD{ /10C[tS
STLAAt T9 ~VtT S /It LIMI NAIy YLN ti P11YG Flt D[V[l4MdT
Plan 1
S
Comical Cott cavelyrlu
Capital Coats (S/tpe) 11,000
WTt Design Capacity (tPe) 650
local Construction colt 71,100.000
gyesu meatirs at unit S
6,500,000
Steam ant Caeattiontng Piping -JAMOJM Total Dtract Capital Casts 41,700,000
Contingency (10 Percent) 4.770.000
Subtotal
i ' 41x471,000
Licamoing 106.100
Subcstal 61.070,000
Interest During Construction (1 Percent) ).SSJ.000
Subtotal
SO,N7,100
Indirect Cotes (I1 $arcane) 1,I01.04
Subtotal
S1,7L,N0
good LApeeses U Percent) 1,140.21
local Capital Coca 11091 l)
10,077,11!
Capital Recovery factor 170 years It 1 Perfect) 9.101
Am") Debt l/rvtta 1,117,417r
ON Cues (fine year)
NTt fectltcy (41ton)
VT1 NW Quantity (tpy) 11.60
Amual WE OIM costa !1,401
unit 1 0114 cases at 0.0004 S/aNb 7,10),011
_146.171
Total Anhwi O•el Gets 7,Iaf.141
Amual fuel costs at S2.10 for nleu IO.N 1.47!
Total 64,011 And fuel cater U,40/,711
In i ea_•A`RL
Vale 1 Output (kit)
Whit S e04 Kt Auaillary Peter 11,100
Me S Flat output (kW) _ 5.100
Ambsl Names of 004faccan 6 $.101
Amw1 Wed Ceaarac44 ,S10
Aodlded 1eaen coat Wkwa) 717,007,410
Annual Cress taerly 14VMWI 0.04
lrhu•twh Tlbbtne ►u
Annual RevenMI Shortfall I
Tippi4 Fee Wish) 5,011,710
17,73 1
1
4-1)
- 61 C -
J
r
4) FEASIB[LITY STUDY
SOLID PASTE INCINERATION "OC 11773'40.0000 1
s AND STEAM GENERATION COD 010688-0
i
TABLE +;rr[kC FE_
ELECTiICITy GENERATIONAONLYSPRELIN NARY'81EAX-EVEN
DEVELOPkENT 'EY WTE FACJLITY FOR
TIPPING FEE
I
Plan_
SlivUI Cott Devito int 5
Capital Cott1 (1991 $/tpd)
WIFE Oes(gn Capacity (tpd) 90,685
70 CAL Direct C:aitel Cost 400
Contingency (10 Percent) 36,274,166
Subtotal 1 6_ . 21,411
Licensing )9,901 582
Subtotal 300.000
Interest During Construction (d Percent) 40,401,587
I Subtotal 1 77 177
I! Ind APat t Costs (15 Percent) 41,6710209
Subtotal 6 tS 0 /
Bond Expanses 0
Percent) SO,iJ8,765
Total Capital Coe to (1991 ! 5 s 767
Capital Recovery factor (20 Years ac 8 Percent) 114684,J78
j Annual Debt larv(cs 0.1019
+~L.L i r 5,264,14)
WTI facility Wtoo)
WTt facility Quantity (tpy) 71.00
Annual 001 Colts 96,408
^ r Bldt nut 2402,765
YTE Plant Cross Output (kW)
W" Plant Auxiliary ►orir (10 Portent) 9,100
wTE Plant met output (kW) t0
Annual Mauro of Operation 8.130
Annual kWh Genera m 44570
Avoided Energy Colt (9/kWh) 57,358,100
Annual Energy Revenues 0.04
1-.r!!k_l~fn Tiseiw a 7.794,7 t1
Annual livenue Shortfall
Tipping fax 19/can) 5,512,661
55.25
4-!d
r
5
E
)
r
i
I
FEASIBILITY STUDY NO. 14713,40,0000
~
SOLID WASTE INCINERATION AND STEAM CENERATIONI COD 010688-0
I
/ALE 4-4. TIPPING SEE SCREENINC ANALYSIS--PUN C2--EXISTINC UNII 1 JOCLER REPLACEMEBT
WITH RDFIWTE FACILITY PRELIMINARY IAEAX-EYEN TIPPING FEE DEVELOPMENT
Plan CZ
Capital Ca1t Dewla Mont 1
Jailer Replacement
fabric Filter 11,151,710
1,100.00
f„btoeal-toiler RePlxeawnt
AN protecting facility 17,151,310
l1 44 l r
Total Direct Capital Costa 35,101,911
' Conetnganey (10 pereene)
1 10 P
fultetol
Licensing 39,111,L11
I subtotal -URLM
Interest During Construction (1 Percent) 396111,118
subtotal 173 1
I
tMiriet Celts (15 percent) 41,951,941
subtetal 4~, !3.011
4!,391,077
Iee1 tapeasas (3 percent)
j Total Capital Coat$ (1991 -1.441.011
'
Capital Retevery Factor (10 Years At 1 Percent) 1
0.1019 J
1 Annual Debt Service
00 Coati (rirst year) ),111,173
IN Facility (11ten)
ROF Fretessins Capacity (t/y) 14.11
Anew l R0r 01N Coot, i11,S44
NT1 NA Costs (Fite") 7,)07,051
Annual VTI 01" Coors 17•00
Total Annual 01M Coats )04100111
'
tnarae 8" to 10117,141
wTt Mast Crass output (tw) VTt plant Auatli4ry Power (10 Portent) 9,100
VTt Plant lift output (hw) 6 ~ 41
Annwl (tours e! Operation 1,110
Annual Wh Ceaeratae 1,570
Avoided tunny Cost (F/Wh) 54,3!9,100
Annw1 EnarlF Revenues 0.04
fl l'~ 1,US,114
wl tloslna roe
Annual Revenue thertrall
fippi"1 he (Vton) 1,109,101
14,41
4-19
I
i
,
i FEASIBILITY STUDY vac
LJ /7 „o, 34373.40.0000
L_- SOLID WASTE INCINERATION AND STEAM GENERATION] COD 010688-0
TAILS 4•5. TIPPINC FEE SCREENING ANALStIS--PLAN C)--
Ntie WTE FACILITY TO SUPPLY MAIN STEAM TO UMIT 1
PRELININAIY BREAK-EVEN TIPPING FEE DEY[LAPN[NT
Plan C]
Coital Cott Oevaiemnt S
Capital Cott (1/bpd) II
66,000 WTI Dunn Capacity (tpd) I
Total Construction Cott 40
State and Conditioning Piping II, 400,000
fetal Direct Ca; 1.000.000
al Costs )4,600.000
1 ConcLAsency (10 secont)
` Suutoeal 1.440.000
j ~ Lican a nS )7,140,000
Subtotal 700 "
lntarest During Conttrvccion (1 Percent) )1.]40,000 i
lwbtatal 41-,60017,,200
]00 14 1
Indiract Coats (13 portent)
Subtotal 4?7,, 1111
lend Capeaaee Parcent) ,!10
Total capital costs (1911 l 6 f4
Capital ascovery factor (]0 Yure at 1 Pereenc) 49,016,171
E Annual Debt Sarvics O.lOl9
4,919.311
O0LCasio
WTR Facility II/ten)
WTI Now 0wntltP (err) 17.Oa j
Annual 069 Celts (79 percent Availability) 96,411 I
Luray b wnuu 1160],0)6 II
Unit ) clout (kM) II
Unit I Auaillary pager 110 percent) 9,100
Wile 1 wt output (kW) ----9?0
Aerual wars of OPerdtien (/alas on 73 Percent 1,770
Copaeity Fatter)
Annual hwh Ceneratad 1,310
Awldod Lnerly Cost (!!kWh) 0.04 ,100
Annual Craig IASrgy lewnws 0.04
lillb [wn Tlaain■ L. ),794,144
AMw l lovenuo Shortfall
3,)04,700
TlP/iel /so (1/ten)
53,01 ~
1-=a ~
- 61 F -
1
f
yR 4
y
FEASIBILITY STUDY
PILE
No 14373,40.0000
:n SOLID WASTE INCINERATION AND STEM GENERATION f COD 010688-0
TABLE 4-6. TIPPING FEE SCXtENINC ANALYSIS--PLAN D
DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSFER STATION BREAK-EVEN TIPPING FEE
DEVELOPMENT
Plan D 1
Ca ital Coat DeVelO ent i
Cspi u l Coats (S/tpd)
Transfer Station Capacity (tpd) 41830
r Total Direct Capital cost 600
I
Contingency (10 Percent) 19932,000
Subtotal 1 3 200
Licensing 29125,200
Subtotal SOa_.000
2,625,200 '
Interest During Construction (8 Percent)
Subtotal _210:016
Indirect Costs (15 Percent) 2rB3S,216
Subtotal 25_.282
j Bond E%Peasee 0 Percent) 3,2 0,498
Total Capital Costs (1991 61
~ 3,356,313
Capital Recovery Factor (20 riare at 8 Percent)
Annual Debt Service 011019
011116M 11 COIL! (First Year) 7420032
Transfer Facility (!/ton)
Transfer Station Quantit 1'12
Annual O&M Costs y (rpY) 128,344 ,
Dls 1 CO Lewisville 992,360 - at Disposal Costs ($/ton) (Based on 0,2S ton/cu yd
and Lewisville Tip Fu of $1.95/cu yd--coapscted)
Annual Disposal Costs 1.80
BIs k-Even TI ooin~ a 1,00!,643
i
Annual Coat
i Tipping roe ($/ton) !,331,033
18,1a i
4-22
T-i _7 'w
FEASIBILITY STUDY NO 14373.40.0000
9 SOLID WASTE INCINERATION AND STEAM CENERATIONI COD oima -0
TABLE 4-7. ESTIMATED FIRST YEAR (1991) OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
FOR PLAN B--WT£ FACILITY DESIGN
Cost Comeonent OdM Cost
$1,000
Personnels 1,050
Ceneral OdMb 1,055
Scrubber Additive 53 all
Major Maintenance Reserve Fund 145
k
Ceneral and Adainistrative° ISO
Insurancef ISO
Total 2060)
Variable Cost ($Iton burned) 27.00
aBased on 35 full-time employees and an average cost of $30,000 per
employee including all fringe benefits and indirect payroll costs.
j bIncludes replacuwnt parts and is on 2.5 percent of the estimated
direct capital cost.
cBased on $0.55 per ton of MSW incinerated.
dBased on $1.50 per ton of MSl7.
°Includes miscellaneous utilities (nonelectric) and Is based on
C.5 percent of the estimated direct capital coats of the WE facility.
fBased on 0.5 percent of the estimated direct capital cost of the WTE
II facility.
i
4-24
.I
yg+ s ~
a
FEASIBILITY STUDY
NO~ 14373.40.0000
SOLID WASTE INCINERATION AND STEAM CENERATIONI COD 010669-0 i
'AJL9 +•4. PLAN &..FIAST YGl 11PPINC FEE SENSITIVITY :0 AVOIDED EnEACY COSTS
A.0 4nts/kNn t`7 Cen IkWh
S S 1.0 CfI 'k 111
Capitol Cest Oavue _ S
Camol Caste I5ft N7
11400 11,000 11,000
NTT Oaos{n Co laettr ItpU
ASO ASO
?"al Construeu pn COIL Aso
29,700,000
grease Wearer■ At unit S 79,100,000 71,IOO,OOo
4,700,000 1,500,000 A,S0 a, 000 i
lieu and CeMnton tnp hnnp 1
000,"I 1.000.000 .1.700.000
Direct GµtU Coots A1,700,00 11 ~
Contsndeney (10 satt■nt) 707'900 +7,700.000
lubtetak A•170 000 t-+L?9.t449 t4)7gL
Licensing A/,4JO,D00 A6,A101006 a/.110,000
Srbtstot 700.o0d D7 a7 a o0
+1,9Ja,DOO u,9:a,ooo 7,927,000
i interest Du rtn6 Construction
11 p4reent)
lubteto I J• 17.100 7"Ulim Jds)lpp
$0,611,600
1M frees Coast 117 pueeeel 1011131600 $0,111,00
lubtatat y ! 4 1.601.04 1
S1, J t4,H0
send l■NMea 11 percent) 11,214,640 4.214.444
Total Cgttet Casts (1991 $1 1+ 1/ 1 •71.119
60,017,119 60,017,171
~ C/Iltd Iecewry feet Or 60,071,110
` (10 Yeats of 1 percent) O. IO i9
r` Annual Debt fnvsca O.IOl9 O,ION
1,11),t1I 1,11),+1) 1,31),aU
v J
~ 41l1_Caau IFlrst h
W'm Facility 111ten)
/L ~1 71,00 71.00
YTt! 101111 Owottly (toy) 71,00
91'101 96,409
AMNak VfE Gt Casts 11,101
Unit 1 0411 Gtt$ at 0,0004 11kNk 1,60),011 1.10),01{ 7,601,011
Total Annum 0601 Caste +o _ lAA .12S 64
Wool luotCstta /t 11.6otmack 7,71A,641 1,N1,111 1,117,641
Total OW and Fuel Casts 10,01,427
1),40{.266 U,/01,711 1J,+D6,761
Eaafu 4wrwed
unit 5 Output (w)
unit f and WTI asillary taw r 11,707 /1,101 11,701
vote f Not a,tput IkN) 1.60/ 1.60 6.100
Andwl House of Opfratun $1,101 11.171 75,101
f Imwt kWh GMntel 41510 hf10 1.710
Awlf/1 gnarly Cost If/khm 117,041,{10 117,011,410 711,aN,410
0.04 o.a/s o,05
Anaw1 Cress 1"uly Nranws I
I 14,112,491 11,792,111 t1,lOf,114
Irua•Ewn ttnlAe foe ~ ~
A+vtw1 lawnud skoftlAll
J Tloptel led (1/400) S,/U,130 ),121,911 1,1;6,05
I, S1.7f I1,/1 11.19
II 4.75
_ RS 1 -
i
F
.1
FIGURE 4-5A. BREAKEVEN CURVES FOR
TIPPING FEES AND ENERGY COSTS
A
36
E '
l
4
I .
Goo
ow mom wa
. r . ~r..r...r. ~r.rr. w .w
Energy [mh (Ce"164 it)
d 1 17 li M
legend: veal ad Opers"01
ft. Man 1 tip Ee!
. r Meu A Tip Fee
/reaieven Co
ClnbnWh
i
$lock ! Veelch, Enplnear AmNloclr
Krnrue CNY
I
Y
1
i
TAltt 1.9A PLAN / CASH FLOW
PI AST YEAR AVO10 DAt NIRGYSCOSJ (7 1, OD-S~p-/7
5 CINTf/M►11
IAW NeFUSD PROJfCTlD
RAII RIf USE IANDP}Lt LANOPIII ANNUAL
•YEAR -•.OROMTM AlOU1AINJ CAPACITY OR O[8T ANNUAL ANNUAL
•••••TPY (DlPIC11)P SERVICE 014 CO Sif WEL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL
IN14GY
1911 1,1) COSTS REVlNUE UPPING
124111 TPY (CU. Y0.} •-•RIVINUIS SNOATPAIL P
1112 171023 11 190,141 66.113,167
111] 130030
14111 43/bf 607,011 4{.11 ],113 03,71/./// 410,159,125
1111 149111 412, let 61,117 117 42.911,107 111,560,041 116,262,112 83,11/,O1y ISITONI
1115 152201 /1111 101,915 s1,1i3,167 03.126,12p 112,591,171 811,713,419 62,117,!76 233.48
1 69
141717 63174 1.MO 61.117.467 13.679,052 03.095 .086 $20.112,722 12,490,698 27.
1011 ,73
17113 68 17,111 120,220,015 ,525,159 22144125 it" 19) 18 .10
121,011,11 12
it" 1?1343 1112111 ,169] ( 12712.0.311 117 $4,234.62 9 11
11,1{].415 1 I
1 42,411,5e8 22.01 V
e,20S1 16.711.181 84.063,765 681,130,191 21.869,966 12,641,918 21.0 ~
111154 1f8 (392,201) 46,]11,141 14.303,104 115,319,390 122'711'187 $1 36&.346 4426
7001 182821 90911 (513,b11) 16,311,187 11,I6S.S93 116,132,119 123,6S4,668 62,285,717
2003 200102 8f1e1 (1{9,886) 11e,7r1,147 14,132,!18 118,669,162 S21,600,7's0 .
11632 Is
62,208,193 15.12 240
20404 208781 1
14021 .811'161) 61,317,117 15,131 800 111 .031,030 126,511,1>0 03,131,475 17.04
211201 (1,209,182) fe.ili, 121.108.191 12.065.111 11.70 1
122435 (1,151,162) SS,JIT 030 511 071,711 121'112'117 42,001,110 12,08
1 79418 ~ieaii 110211((1I., 1189)1, 031) 1{,3 0,1l1i1i 14.121,11] s11,313,t 26 /28,118.34,1 s1,947, 702 it to
7003 244131 ,/211 44.311, 11 129
1 10,601.011 s20,169,211 .930,562 $1-491.31 s 10,79
!4171! 148111 f~,`1,.1 421 19317 1 16.906 356 120.40/,985.655 (71,121,106 fl,f/9617
1
211111 49622 (S 61.331.110 ,201 s72.772, 096 $1 , 916.282 9.69
!010 ,111309 180531 3'93{ , ,1 $21
,1431 11 133
.311,101 /1.103.1 J1 122,811 162 .66),612 11,167,110 9.01 +
83,311,231) S1, 311, 167 11,369,034 123.413,110 671.011.424 11,)12,Sr3 else 91./70.681 121,621 831 13/,11$4,105 41, Ias ,19I 7.18 8.13
171,1,11,110 11,102,997
4
fi
FIGURE-58. BREAKEVEN CURVES FOR
TIPPING FEES AND ENERGY COSTS
I
i j
i
IM
Expand
EanH~R
tan"
I
- Develop New
10 DUndfin
_ r
r r r
WOO r
ism qv& m aD rr r rr• rr
1{
. awe moo woo j
MIND WAM
Enerp Cali ICenIsA ft
p 12 is
24
Deaend; Year of Operation
r.r. Han { tip fee
r r r Han A Up fee
~ see Braaieven CentalhlVh
•lace 8 Veatch. Engineers Archilacrs
Kanm Clly
1
IT low
i
4.
T
t
t
I1
I
f
1
17-S~p 44
IABIE 4-60 PLAN 6 CAW FLOW ANALYSIS
FIRST YEAR AVOIDED ENERGY COST IS 4.5 CENTSI M1
PROJECTED PROJECTED LANOFILL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL ANNUAL
RAW REFUSE LANDFILL CAPACITY OR DEBT 0 6 Y FUEL ENERGY REVENUE TIPPING
YEAR GROWTH REQUIREMENT (DEFICIT) SERVICE COSTS COSTS REVENUES SH041PALL FE!
TINY TOY (CU. VD.) ($ITON)
1991 116644 41771 660,166 $6,113,443 62,744,969 $10,949,425 116,292,112 53,224,045 33.41
1693 134023 43556 503,041 16,113,453 $2,974,607 $11,569,046 411,173,470 $2,603,639 26.89
1693 136630 45446 412,152 16,113,463 53,220,129 S12,S91,419 519,442,322 $2,490,696 23.15
1694 146693 61111 309,913 $6,111,463 $3,536,925 513,095,066 120,220,015 $2,625,459 12.10
1993 152206 51439 196,037 $6,113,463 $3,176,052 $13,611,990 $21,026,616 S1,sel,see 22.04
1934 151343 63573 61,660 66013,463 $4,234,610 114,143,646 121,669,969 $2,641,118 21.44
1693 164125 69965 (12,019) 16,311,167 54,063,163 $14,130,191 112,744,767 $2,366,346 19.26
1936 171363 16693 (225.205) 66,311,161 64,303,705 $16,319,399 123,664,SS6 52,245,113 16.77
1993 1712H $3499 (1492,204) $6,317,167 $4,651,193 $15.932,175 $24,900,740 $2,209.195 15.47
3000 111454 90664 (573,971) 54,317,161 14.633,516 116.549,462 $35.514,770 $2,134,435 14.20
2001 193021 93161 4741.116) $4,317,161 15,123,69/ $11,137,240 126,601,141 $2.063,144 13.08
2002 260702 106032 (061,751) $6,311,197 ES,424,660 $11,921,530 521.412,401 $2,001,110 12.06
2002 206191 114031 (1,200,792) $6,317,141 55,747,030 $14,636,391 $21,119.301 $1,443,202 11.19
am 217205 122435 (1,464.412) $6.317,167 $6.121.143 $19,313,926 $26,930,662 $1,192,375 10.39
2009 lassie 131108 (1,717,039) $7.412,346 56,601,017 $20,159,264 631,121,165 $3,024,162 15.65
2000 230044 140394 (1,143,427) $1,402,244 $6.606,364 $20,965.655 $32,372,906 $2,991,361 14.96
2001 244937 140143 (2,297,142) 11,493,244 $1,339.410 $21,404.201 $33,661,012 $2,964,525 14.11
2000 264393 156622 (2,616,404) 51.493.244 11,603,474 122,06.452 $35,014,524 52,967,652 13.49
2000 264644 169314 (2,956,153) 11,413,246 $4,299,024 $23,643,510 536,415,105 $2.930,216 12.90
2010 216309 150539 (3,317,337) 91,462,244 19,930,419 $24,526,931 537,011,110 52,976.016 12.40
Ii
II
i
i
i
1
1
b
r
j
a
TABLE 4-104 BREANEVEN ENERGY REVENUES REQUIRED
FOR MITE AND GAS ONLY !4ECTRICITV
PRODUCTION FROM UNIT S
ANNUAL CENTS/kwH N-T-E
OREAKEVEN ESCALATED 84EAKEVEN GAS ONLY
-YEAR CENTS/KWH
ENERGY REVENUES ENERGVAREVENUES 0 REVENUESAL
j (CENTS/kW) (CENTS/>.r►i)
1991 6.25 4.50
1992 S.JO (19,200,115 $9,638,669 (9,361,447
1993 5.35 4.97 $20,221,570 (10,514,017 $9,708,962
1994 5.53 $21,306,411 $11,SOI,aeB 19,868,523
1995 9 6 $22,105,106 $11,901,961
lose 5.73 5.20 $22.683,960 $10,143,232
1997 5.93 5.17 (23.897.017 $12,440.443 $I0,443,517
399$ 6
6.00 .24 5.69 $24,203,333 $13,455,683 $10,759,657
1999 6.43 6.92 $21,031.135 $13.903.800 $10.937.625
2
2001 001 6.63 6.16 f25,8st,17S $14.553,558
2002 6.84 6.10 $26,183,894 $15.135,701 $11,137,017
0• N $27 $11,338.197
7.OS d ,310,979 $16,741,129
2003 7.20 '9J $28,173,09? (16,370,771 $II,S6p,8S1
:
071 100 e03.11a
Zoos 7.76 oo. 7.$I 7:i; $2°'o1J'391 $17,025,e05
iiz; a e,sse
2006 .01 7.79 $30:993,264 $17,706,629 $12,306,762
2007 0.01 s.t3 $32.015.541 $19.111.694 $12.37$.370
2009 8'29 8.43 $33.002,0$3 $19,161,100 $12,804,055
2009 !!•56 8.77 $31,194.020 $19,917.519 $13.181,533 2010 0.05 o.12 f3S,35S,791 120,711,251 (13,400,569
o.1S 9.19 (38,567,142 $21,542.821 $13,812,972
$22,404,534 $14,162,608
I
I
I
j
I
x
V
r
I
r
i
TABLE 4-1Ob BREAKEVEN ENERGY REVENUES
FOR MTE AND GAS YENUES REQUIRED
PR ONLY ELECT
OOUCTION FROM AtCtTv
UNIT y {
ANNUAL CENTS/kwH
BREAKEVEN ESCALATED M-T-E GAS ONLY
,YEAR CENTS/MWH • 4%/YR BREAKEVEN BAEAKEVEN
_ ENERGY REVENUES ENERGY REVENUES DIFFERENTIAL
1991 (CENTS/kWH) (CENTS/k--- REVENUES
5.25 -
1
993 '5.35 4.68 $20,22f.579 89.830,689 ----$0,561 117
1904 5.53 4.0? S 21.. 4 11 $1,514.617 $9.706.ga2
19
95 5.73 5.00 $22,1305.196 $11.501,008 59466,523
Mto
1997 O5. .26 S22oall3 $11gal964 $10143.232
.09e 5.47 $23,697,pef :12,440,143 $10,443.511
1994 66.43 .24 5.92 $
24,203.333 $13,455,503 $10.759,857
$24 931,431 $10.747.730
2000 6.63 6.16 $25.491,175 $13.993,000 $10,937,825
2001 0.40 $14.553,558 1
2002 74.04 .05 0.66 $27,330,979 $15,135.701 $11.348,193
2003 7.20 6.93 $28,17;+ 891 $16.710,129 St1,569,851
2004 7.51 7.20 $29,0T4..17.029.609 160 $16,370,774 %11,803,118
iooe 6.31 77.49 '79 $32.1141,343 $17.106,029 $12,306,702
2
2000 007 0.50 0.10 533,190,623 $11.404.091 $13,783,449
2009 9.Is 0.77 $35.369.099 $19.917.549 $14.339.012
2010 9.15 99.12 .16 $36.530,873 $20,512.821 $14.055.648
$37,742,221 $22,404,534 $314 98&.051
15,337,686
i
r
~ ay
D. P.ecjcling
A study conducted by the City of Dallas concerning recycling is
attached. In general, the report encourages the use of
existing resources to take advantage of recycling opportunities
rather than initiating large-scale programs in a volatile
market place.
i
I
{
II
a
1
i
-62-
325956/6
5\jR '
CITY OF DALLAS
RECYCLING ISSUE PAPER
i
i
,
63
J
T,
i
AECYCLINS ISSUE PAPER
Tnis report addresses the fto iibiIity of dereloO ng and
ic+plementing a recycling policy for the City of Dallas. It is
one in a series of papers prepared by the Department of Street I
and $ W, tation Services to address an aspect of solid waste
management. Tnese reports, when taken as a whole, are the crux
of a con;renensive waste management plan for Dallas.
I
o3shti.
12/Gg/8%
i
-b3A-
J
{
S
R
r
i
Y
RECD KUDATIONS
1. That the- City Crunch approve a policy for recycling Which includes
recycling as an integral function of solid waste anagement and
approve the resolution at Appendix A.
2. That the City Council approve the use of the Small Load Center at
Bachman Transfer Station, subject to legal reQuirew nts, for use by
a non-profit group as a recycling center,
s
neighborhoods~tion of a neighborhood
in i fie approve
3. Ihat tprogram Council
recycling
1. That the City Staff continue to investigate opportunities to provide
I,
incentives for businesses to cooperate in recycling efforts.
i
5. That the Staff prepare a status report on recycling activities
I, l
annually.
k
i
i
i
I
I
0058Y/2
! 12/09/87
Page 2
- 63 B -
LJ
I. BACKGROUND
The reasons for recovering materials from the solid waste stream are
economical, social and esthetic. From the economical perspective recycling
presents opportunities to reduce the costs of solid waste collection,
transfer and disposal. Significant reductions 'in these costs present
opportunities for refunds to the taxpayers in the fom of reduce4 sanitation
fees or general fund subsidies.
Offsetting possible reductions are any capital investments necessary to
introduce now vehicles, machinery, or facilities for rmycling activities.
Recycling also provides an opportunity to increase revenues through the sale
of recovered materials. The ultimate disposal of the City's waste has
health hampalirdscations
ensurin procese d materials ldepand letes n natural
i resources and in some instances increases the cost of goods to the
} consumer. The esthetic worth of recycling efforts is resultant from
providing alternatives to disposing of Iitter••improperly while. providing
f incentives to collecting litter wherever it is found.
A. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
Inhere recycling efforts have been initiated by governmental
entities, it is largely because of the costs of tipping fees (Table 1)
associated with landfilling. It is often the first recourse taken by
f communities running out of landfill space and is supported in order to
! reduce waste volume regardless of the return on investment. The logic of
this approach is that on the national average each ton of garbage diverted
from the lanotill saves three cubic yards of landfill volume and tipping
fees. As a point of reference, at a rate of two yards per ton 2,265,780
cubic yards were depleted at McComnas landfill in 1985.86; less efficiently
operated landfills would have depleted 3,398,670 cubic yards. With a
remaining life of 35 to 40 years on the currently permitted portion of
MCCoamas, the opportunity to thoroughly explore all dI,,,osal options still
remains and the incentive to implement volume reduction techniques is not
pressing unless there is clearly a positive return on Investment.
In real costs $59.80 was required to collect, transfer and bury a ton
of garbage in Dallas in FY 198646. The cO
$65.70 for collection, $8,90 for transfer and $5.20 fo• burialt Ifiure are
ngreality
the collection phase cannot be enhanced to also collect recyclable materials
with the same trucks and crows because of the marginal costs associate] with
j route sizes. The collection of recyclable material at the collection point
would require additional capital costs. Therefore, utilising current
operating procedures, saving opportunities from recycling occur in
{ reductions in the transfer and burial mhases. To capture these savings in
osts Me
m;; fess an
exceed the start-up androperating
costs.
OO58Y/3
12 49116
Piet 3
_Air
I
4
4 ~
t a S
FEES FEk iCN FY 1385-aril:
LANDFILL TRANSFER STATION
Dallas $ 5.20 $14.10
Gar Iano 22.50 31.28
BFI 8.33
Irving 19.00
Grand Prairie 7;90
Mesquite 8.30
Fort Worth 8.33 - 9.17
San Diego 8.00
Los Angeles 5.00
San Francisco 36.32
Denver -
Hartford 6.00 9.00
Washington, 0. C. 15.1 18
Miami 10.00 14.00
Atlanta 27.00 36.00
9
.75
Chica 0 10.95
Baltimore 30.00
Minneapolis 35,00
St. Paul 19.00
Kansas City 10.50
He* York City 16.00 5230
Islip, New York 18.00
Pniladelpnie 65.00
National Average 13.43 28,26 1
National RanSe 2.07 - 37.27
i
XA.rtneast Average 20.59
Midwest AYtrage 10.86
West Average 10,01
South Avtrage 10.95 +
k
4 1
1 These fees are for landfill disposal and should not bt contused for
tipping fees at Waste-to-Energy facilities which art substantially
higher.
CO MO.,
12/05;8' -
Page 4
-63 D- i
1
J
or INEZ
i
Determining the value of the materials buried in landfills is a
confusing task. There is the present value which is that a ton of material
brings at the point of sale to some buyer. The future value, sometimes
referrea to as "heirloom value", is the worth of irreplaceable natural
resources lost througn burial or burning. Also considered as a future value
is the ultimate cost of creating another disposal option, meaning that every
cubic yard saved today postpones a future expense. There is a value to
protecting the environment from air, water or soil pollution resulting from
burial or-burning. Mother value which is rate but-Anherent at McCoamas
Landfill is the appreciated land value of the site after waste burial
elevates it out on the flood plain.
To determine the potentiality for recycling in Dallas present values are
used throughout this report except for aluninum, which is understated from
the current record high price (Table 2). More importantly prices froar the.
existing Dallas markets are used for near-term projections; whereas,
long-term recommendations are predicated on creating markets or guaranteeing
favorable prices via contractual agreements. Current market prices reflect
not only current economic conditions but also the availability of materials
anc the influence of external factors such 'as container legiSlattW::
Therefore, V massive effort-to- recover all of the materials in the Oallas
waste strein could create a glut on the local markets unless the markets are
nurtured through coordination with local scrap buyers, manufacturers and the
national trade associations.
1. PAPffi
The current market value for paper in Dallas of $40 a ton suggests
' that the present value of the estimated 290,000 tons collected is
$11,601.000 assuming 100 percent recovery. Street and Sanitltion Services
conauctec a newspaper collection program from March, 1972 until June, 1979.
uurins tnat period newspaper was purchased at a contracted price of $30 per
ton. The program, was terminated when the buyer refused to pay the
I contrasted price and the only substituted bids Submitted ranged from SS to
$20 per ton; the City's breakeven price at that time was S40 per ton. A
survey conducted by the National Solid waste Management Association (NSwA)
in 1986 revealed that 41 jurisdictions recycling paper in 1984 were
receiving an average price of $38,55 with a high of $60 in California and a
low of $14 in Wee Jersey. Although paper prices are higher on the west
coast because of the high dean red for paper in countries on LAe Pacific rim,
San Jose's price of $45 when their program started in December, 1984 sunk to
$30 by March, 1985.
005&l'IS
12/09/6
1
Page 5
63 E -
j
J
1
I
1 11
I
4 1Y]
f '
t 1
t
i
TABLE 2. Rrcrct[MG PO MITUlS 8ASE0 ON CITY COUECT[0 R€rusr
M A I Pr i l l i V
Percent Tons Rev/Ten Total /Rwenut' Bog 50% 30% lol.
Of ganIC 55.61 289,145 ~
Ilan {lrtlanic 43,45 274,919
laf,►I 99t MAU
Wass 8.6% 41,517 640
Aluminum 1.1% 5,701 3
66W 61. 780.694 $1,4?1,356 = 890,311 6 531,700 6 1M,Ob9
Paper SS.62 298,300 610 6161, 4/2020, 44 12b }2,1]6,]11 61,110,213 51,026,178 { 34?,a4)
1+c'ud 6, It ]1,7?9 ,53?, 018 9,215,61/ 15 ,166,00) 63,159 bU5
61,153,207 `
8rusl► 10,05 51.82S
Rubber 6.55 33,606
Plastic 31.214
No Other
0 4.3% ?2,181
Total 100.0% 518,216
' Total Recyclable 94.11 196,065
I
f
I
i
I '
i .
C
2. GLASS
The present market value for glass in Dallas is $40 per ton. This
price is rather stable and the total benefits might be improved because of the
willingness of the glass industry to
sort to
initiatives. The estimated 45,000 tons of gli svtine the
vwaste strt mcnsvene
present market value of 51,800,000 per year assuming total recovery, The San
Jose report indicates that their price was constant at $25. The NSWA survey
reported an average Of =24,80 per ton. Our position Is enhanced through
proximity to glass manufacturers in Waco and Oklahoma,
3. ALUMINUM -
The present market price in Dallas of $900 per ton for aluminum is
surprising even to the aluminum industry; therefore, a more conservative price
of $600 is used in this report. At this rate the estimated 5,10) tons of
aluminum collected by the City have.a present value. of 13,420,600, The Ssh
Jose report shows that their market price varied„from-a low-of $500 to a high
of $700 over a two-year period.
d. OTHER RECYCLABLE MATERIA'.$
~~T¢¢hr, r Nrining candidates for recycling; ,'tin, rubber, brush, and
Plastic;, t ' ' ~~!~SLfin,D&llasefad -jnfrgew&,k#-.do not have a
E Theoretically, paper, glass, and aluminum c
city collected garbage and represent omposa 65.3 percent of the
totally effective recovery, techniques, 1001e revenuer of $16,articip assuming ~
a consistent market place, percent citizens patiN pation and
The future value of buried materials is unknown. Certainly paper
J
buried in a landfill I$ lost; however, glass, aluminum, rubber and most
plastics are relatively inert and likely to be recoverable wh:n the economics
make the effort worthwhile. Landfill resources might be likened to oil slate
or uranium- mine tailings. In fact, an argument gist be made that landfilling
as a physical process concentrates resources for future recovery tachniWes.
of land valuecatsMcCommas Bluff. The natural elevations rthis th ere are withintthe
hundred year flood plain; as a result of lamdfilling the 965 acres currently
permitted will be from 2 to approximately 7S feet above the flood line. Thfs
new land built on garbage will at lust double the
present recreation, commercial or manufacturing purposes,value of the area
9. SOCIETAL CONSIDERATIONS
Tne motivational factors for individuals to participat recycling effort are largely concern for the environment, financial±
convenience, and mandated separation,
AD51?1/1
t2rosis~
s Page 7
I
-63 G -
I
r
r
Ma my people who advocate recycling ere
bur'al and burning or refuse depietesthe finiteowountlofcnituraldresources
available in the world. To some extent this is true; a newspaper that is
properly disposed of is not readily available to contribute to the growth of
! another tree. However, it is not landfilling that is at fault. A pparoperly
operated a no regulated sanitary landfill is not inherently evil and is rt of
the total public health t,ystem that separates refuse from
But, the puolic needs to have o the populace.
Public buy-back programs accomplishuthis, too orece me cdegree.verla fac materit. percent of all of the aluminum used in the metroplex is,
according to the
aluminum industry, recovered. The emphssis of sanitation services is to
properly dispose of s011d waste; however-, programs which provide o
to-collect recyclable materiaia can be integrated in waste collectionwastthe ontaine whattcostathoutdcsu h programs be underta elndlCatl. The policy questior
is at
tinantfal,t Strongrmooivation t or earW people to join in recycling efforts is
other identifiable groups, or as aasstrtittegyito reduce benefit
s
fosse ~ln,
it is noted that the private sector buy-back centers provide an rtunity
_ fe• individuals to profit from the collection- and return of aterfals such as
glass, aluminum and paper.
Reducing Dallas' sanitat.iorr. f*es,vby- recycling is a cha1T
the low-cost-of refuse- transfer and disposal and the•need for o high tizen
participation to balance the capital and labor expenditures of a high volume
program.- This does not exclude the possibilities for long-term programs with
rtturns sufficient to reduce saniCation fees. The rtemw editions of this
report provide opportunities for individuals as well as non-profit
organizations to receive cash for their material it a minimal cost to the
city. If sufficient quantities can be recovered, then a reduction in
sanitation fees can be recognized.
Convenience has been shown to encourage people to recycle. The
easier it is for their., the more likely they are to separate material which
otherwise would be discarded. ibcoamendations fi;r the near-torn tug It
locating collection points in nN ghborhoods. Over the long-term methanical
separation at centralized locations can accomplish recovery with no increased
inconvenience to the over.sle citizen.
Mandatory recycling and the establishmtnt of extremely high would require the City to put into place collection means and strataDits which
I
in addition W bting inflexible would also be susctptible to changing..arket 1
prices and increase citizen inconvenieftZ' While the misdated
or
lass and aluminum would break-even if 100 percent Material OrograIn fthf,
waste straw CwId be recovered and sold at today's merket pric s; the return ess
thi
30 theppotential toegenerecoverrateyrevenuerate
at tod y's market aric? off $40rper t n, has
is the City's previous paper collection program slowed in 1979 ad eclinebin
market priCin can rapidly Cause even a moderately successful program to
i 1 become a costly undertaking. The biggest obstacle to a mandated program is
the recalrement to have substantial public support, Such support is likely to
be difficult to generate in Dallas in the moor time frame because incentives
fcr the indivioudl citizen are lacking.
OOSEY/e {
Page 8
-63H-
E ~
t. ESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS
Litter abatement efforts are aided by organizea and publicized
h recycling campaigns. With the proper incentives citizen volunteers can be
motivated to collect aluminum, glass and other materials from roadways and
public areas where they are carelessly discarded. Other motivational factors,
besides cleanliness, can be environment, financial or public service
oriented. Voluntary recycling efforts in the District of Columbia, where they
are organized by the Council of Churches, have resulted in participants going
into Virginia an9 Maryland to find aluminum and glass.
- - n. Ol>JFCfi1YFS FtR A RECYCLING POLICY-
An effective recycling program for the city of Dallas should have the
following objectives (Appendix A):
COMPLEMENT THE COMPLETE WASTE MANAGEKENT SYSTEM
Recycling to the fullest extent possible should hake maximum use of
existing equipment, physical plant, and labor resources. Equipwent
r~ specifications and organizational structure should support recycling is well
as the,basic setYSse,ofti.pfuse.collection. Initiation of recycling should not
be at the expellee of other' initiatiwes• such asp privatin0on - or i"roved
collection, transfer or disposal- mathods...-
I
j ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION BY THE HTIRE COMMUNITY
All citizens of Dallas, individual and corporate, should have
opportunities to participate in the recycling program whether or not they are
provided sanitation services by the City. Incorporated in the program should
be public information elements which educate the public about the worth and
benefits of recycling.
1 PROMOTE ECONDMIC OPPORTUNITIES
A m„lti-material program should be designed to operate at least on a
break-even basis, It should create revenues for individuals, groups and the
City. Ultimately, the program should endeavor to create jobs and cor.tributa
to the city's ecoromic bete.
PROVIDE ALTERNATIVES TO LITTERING
Through incentives and education the program should convince the lublic
to reduce the generation of litter or to render voluntary assistance 1n tht
clean-up of open spaces.
The basis for evaluation of programs instituted to aleet the City's
recycling objectives are:
FISCAL IMPACT - Program breaks even or generates a revenue for the City.
Analyses should include avoided casts and receipts from the sale of recovered
1 materials.
DOSE' 5 1
12/09/67
Page 9
- 63 1
- 1
CITIZEN SUDDOAT
citizen pa programs are Capable of being
r, lc ipAt ion without Changing the margin scaled to the level
costs of program administration. Citizen suin of relative to t+
increas+ng over the life of the program. Dport should
be consistent'
FLEXIBILITY . The optimum program will be easily +adified In fluctuating market prices, Changing solid baste varying levels of
r+sponsc
citizen Participation. procedures, or
11.1- RECYCLING TECHNIQUES
The recycling Methods to be 1
sostrce separation; Thecae park o~ :cussed to this Damper are residential and mechanice, separation central collection identiai
0
collecti point, Mlghborhoo
A. RESIDENTIAL COLLECTION from C0116Ctod
Residential collection
undertaken b or source separation recycling, has heel
sdictions.
Programs-is thhateIndivi Judualris will divide
separate containers for TW PrMisr supPOrting a residential
lterials to be collected intc
Efficient collection Pickup at the ~Ma garbage
collection vehicles with s~para"od requires the. PM eloeft_ttonitlint,
sufficient c+PacitY to service in comportment
be d s for each material,,Ind with
t trucks cost excess of a thousand.~v belo 5~'si
program de
aram Is directly y rel :1006000. The effectiveness of a curbside
ated to the-q
even financially the materials collecteMdey iwst ihatf sere ve mirket c vp tIon;
Capipittal to •nd the Avoided
wh,ch when
operational tra costs. nsportation and landfill costs exceed the program
which break even financial. No existing
the programs have been identified
recogni M as havin Austin a M San Jose, Glilornia heve been
programs; however their
9 two of most successful
respec a vely for ~recycllnnetnCosts Der household served are S8.69 And Sl.l/
would result in projected net co~stsEofrapollting their experiences tc Dallas
C). S1.00 to S5.01 per household (Appendix
6. CENTRAL COLLECTION- POINT'
Central recycling points are OP:rated in two ways. In smaller
Jurisdictions the governmental unit sets up locations where citiYens depotlt
their materials into separate containers for sub+e0uent $ale b}~ the
9overm4*nU 1 entity. The second way 1I to have citizens receive money Tor the
materials which they turn in, succlssful Operations of this t
non-profit organizatio ns in many locations.
In four years has served 47,8" YPa are run by
People, ands collected Over the center
tons hiof
4lass. 1,495 tons of and Men r, and 201 tons of alfaeiniae Is operated by the
texas Mental Health Ment i
al Retardation nt. her programs Ire operated In Nashville, Toledo, andeUkretllaand, Flolda. Althou9~
the non profit groups corporations, Of suDSidlispfrom for the 918s and aluminum Indust fas,they iocal
' COrDOratio ns, and in some casts, the local governments.
i
0056 ~ /1 t i
i 2/Og/b 1
Page 10
II` I
-b3J-
1
J
i
1
F low
r
I
I
Staff has received a proposal (Appendix C) from a "Dallas coaliti to
establish a central recycling point. This group, operating is a committ of
4 Clean Dallas, Inc. is composea of representatives from the League of IN
Voteri, Dallas Audubon Society, Dallas Sierra Club, Texas Coeasittee on Ma al
Resources, Save Open Space, and the Richardson Envirormental Action Le*e.
They have already received or are soliciting support from the Adolphus Hotel,
The Dallas Morning News, Centennial banes, Ebby Halliday, Dr. Pepper,
Coca-Cola, Owens-Illinois Glass Company, Texas Baptist Men, and The Arts
j Magnet High School. Using the mentally retarded, tha homeless, and released
prisoners as employees, the coalition would pay the public for a to ials
turned in and give the profits to the Downtown Dallas Family Shelter IThe
advantages of the City from this group's efforts would be the reducti o of
material requiring transportation and landfill burial.
i
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COLLECTION POINTS
Collection points located at various sites throughout the City 1>fa in I
ii approach which several locales have implemented. In Sacramento and ether 1
"4~ I cities in Northern California these points are operated to benefit the•jOirl 111
Scouts and Boy Scouts. In Washington, D. C. the program is operated by' the
Council of Churches. The concept proposed for Dallas lADpendix D) 11
provide a revenue source for neighborhood groups, promote neighborhood can
up shod provide an incentive for recycling. The neighborhood groups wo be
responsible for sponsoring and locating container sites for alisrwinua and all
collection. The Department of Street and Sanitation Services woul be
responsible for initially providing containers. finding buyers for the
materials, transporting material to the buyers and monitoring the
effectiveness of each collection point. Support in the form of services uch
as publicity and technical rec wm ndations are expected from the buyers. This
program. can be expanded or cut back dependent upon the neighb nd
participation and market prices.
D. MECHANICAL SEPARATION
Once garbage his been collected it is a heterogeneous mixtul of
materials some of which have a value justifying recovery. Materials like
gloss, aluminum, ferrous metals, rubber and sae plastics ass, be it tad
through mechanical processes. The capital outlay required to devel the
capability warrant further study before definitive plans can be made; r.
It is this level of resource recovery which can be most profitable the
City. Garbage must be viewed as a valuable resource or raw material or
manufacturing processes. M example of the opportunities to solve lid
waste disposal problem and spur economic development is the recycli of
tic
tires subsidized by the Minnesota Waste Management board. Using
i it
monies, a tire reclamation plant with an operating capacity of 3 million iiTres
par year was constructed and leased to a private company which offe>fs 30
products made from grounded or powdered tires. The recovered material t sold
to manufacturers who blend it with virgin rubber or plastics to " new
merchandise. In May of this year only two percent of the r*00med as fat
was being solo because rubber manufacturers have been reluctant to ify
existing molos to use reclaimed rubber mixes. The State of Massachusetts 's
0'~SE'~ X11 ~
12/vo/6i
i
i Page 11 ,
. -63 K -
i
I
J
I
I
i
looking to also use the recycling c Marty to reduce their tire refuse.
SimiIar efforts might also be undertaken to market reclaimed plastics And
compost products,
qq Over the next three to fire years, using a A►arketing approach for
uses available
arbage l at a economic
can l be to fostethl red City for a reclycled mAterialsa
Industrial tools
Am
Accompanying the positive benefits for waste manageftnt Would be the Creation
of new Jobs and in increased tax base.. - - -
I
I
N
k
k ~
' I
0058Y/12
12/09/67
i
Page 12
i
-63L-
1)
1
PROJECTED COSTS Of A RESIDENTIAL SEPAUTiON PROGRAM
Tne va•iaws aetnoes of accountin; for recycling in different jurisdictions
comooinc ;me proulem of estimatin; the costs of a rtcyCling program in
Dallas cr evaluatinS the true cost of these programs. An additional
consideration is that in those states considered leaders in recycling,
i.e., California, Minnesota, New Jersey, Vermont; additional funding is
provided by state agencies, special taxes, and deposit fees. Austin's
program is one for which a fair amount of reliable information is
avail W e. Tne Data used in the following analysis was contained in an
article in the Septeroer 1967 issue of •Biocycle", a natioeal recycling
journal.
Total Household Serviced 113967S Households in Program 16,000 (761)
Participating Rate Start Date 1982
Among Program Households 6C!
r- Total Program Per Household in Program
Current Costs for
66,000 Homes $879,000 $10.22
` Total Revenue $140 000 $ 1.63
Net .
1996 Costs for
120,000 Hones
1Proje:ted) $1.2 - 1.5 million $10 - 12.50
Prcje:tec Revenue SAS • .6 million $2.92 - S
Net 1.55 - 9 Mil on) ( - . )
Notwithstanding Austin's decision to accept a program which does not break
1 even. Their experience is used to project tht cost of a residential
1 sepiriv on proSrar, in Dallas.
Austin Gallas (Projected)
Number of Accounts 660000 2309000
Lino Area (SQ. Hiles) 116 380
NumDtr of Weekly Routes
P 1.720 stops each so 133
Two Person Crews 10 27
Truc►s 12 32
Tons Collected:
Glass 11000 20674
metal 100 267
Paper 2 900 7 755
Total _V6 'Oat; 10'.596
E~ Percentage of City
j w ste Strear 31 21
i
OCS61' /1 S
12/OS/67
8.1
i ] -63 M-
1
i
r
S
i
The protected qualities represent sty percent of the glass, three
DercTh"t 01 e p the Paper Ind five percent of the aluminum estir&ted to be in
the refuse collected by the City of Dallas. The revenue generated by the
10,696 tons is:
Glass a $.02 per lb. $106,960
Aluminum a 5.30 per lb. $160,200
Paper 0 $2 per 100 lb. S310,200
Total Estimated Revenue $177,360
Additionally, possibly $150,813 in avoided costs can be recognized by
_ diverting the materials from the transfer and disposal processes. The
total estimated savings are S577,360 offsetting the savings are *stinted
annual operating costs of 511728,161.
Program Per Household
51 personnel 0 $20,000 $1,080,000
12 Trucks 1 $110,000 $1.70
' Initial Costs S 39},111
Equipment Costs 01.02 $1.70
for 252,000 Hoes-
5 25_ 7_OIp 51.12
Annual Costs 311728,151
' $7.52
~
Estimated Casts (51,7389151)
Estimated Revenues _ $77.390 390 ($7,52)
1.51
Net loss {51,160,791)
Using Austin's experiences and understatin expenses by dismating
tk: initial costs of pp i
locations and other miscellaneous Costseasuchoas idvertiMAD $OWnii i1ppuublic
information one supervision,. A similar program In Dallas would not be
Justified from a financial perspectivre. Two other factors influencing the
success of a residential program are fluctuations In the asarket price paid
for materials and the necessity for continuing citizen support.
A similar examination of the widely
recycling program reveals that it also operates itn iosnetur/osie
Information regarding the program was obtained from the City's annual
recycling report dated July 31, 1986.
Total Program Per Household
Cost for 199658 Households (S264,830)
}otsl Revenue _226,525 ($12.92)
11.62
4 Net ($28,295) (S1.44)
0058Y/1E
12/0/V
8.2
-63N-
1
Projecting the San Jose experience, over the Dallas service base
results in an estimated operating loss of $231,280 per year:
San Jose Dallas Wojectedl
No, of Accounts 19,658 230,000
N:, of Routes @ Calculated
Average of 1,966 each 10 116
Two Kan Crews unk. 24
No. of Trucks tank. 27
Tons Col I tr~ttd:
Glass 518.1 60062
Newspaper 10874.1 216927
Aluminum 28.0 327
Tin 61.1 0
Total 2,481.3 28,316
The projected tonnages represent thirteen percent of the glass, eight
percent of the paper and six percent of the aluminum estiuted to be in
the refuse collected by the City of Dallas. The revenue generattd by the
26,316 tons is:
1 1 Glass M $40 per'ton 1242,480
Aluminum 0 $600 per ton 1969200
Paper P $40 per ton 877,08G
Total Revenue $1,3151760
Additionally, possibly $399,255 in avoided costs con be recognized by
diverting the Materials from the transfer and disposal processes. The
total estimated savings are $1,315,760 offsetting the savings are annual
operating costs estimated to be $10547,040. 1
Program Per Household
46 Personnel f $20,00 each $9690000 $4.17
27 Truck% 9 $110,000
initial cost $330,000 $4.43
Equipment Cost 0 $1.02/Pi
for 252,000 Piles $257,040 $1.12
Total Costs $1,547,040 $6.72
(Costs do not include initial costs of collection containers),
Estimatec costs ($10547,040) ($6.72)
t Estimated Revenues/
Savings $1,315,760 $5.72
i j
Net 231,280) ($1.00)
OOSE1/li
i
8.3
J I
-630-
11
J
1
x
i
i
Although both Austin And San Jose hive experienced
the 40 percent level thong households in the plrticipltfon It
collected in San Jose are nearly three times greatirogrlm frees, TonMQes
I
i
I~
i
I
I
r ; I
1 1 1I
0056►'i i E 1
E
B-4 a
-63 P-
` COUNCIL CK"8111 O L
March 9, 1988 F 808 62
1
tiHRFAS, current disposal practices result in the loss of valuable resources, such as glass,
paper ante aluRinum, generally found in the waste stream; and
40EAS, tre recovery by recycling of sucn nsterials presents the City with opportunities to
reduce costs of solid waste collection, transfer and disposal, while salvaging these valuable
resour eg; and - -
WUVS, recycling has the potential for increasing revenues, while increasing enploynent
WGIng segnmts of the population with traCitionally high unerployuaw t; and
WMAS, recyclin3 would also benefit the City by nrducing the wste stream , thereby
extending the useful life of MXcnms landfill and, thus, postponing the cost associated with
creating another disposal option; and
lifJifAS, recycling has the support curd backing of snirmmntal and other Dallas groups who
reoognixe its potential frm reducing urban litter by providing inmtivas for collecting
litter vherewrer it is fail, thereby enhancing the esthe tic appwerorof the City.
Now, Therefore,
I
BE IT Rfi50 VM BY THE CITY CQXIL CF TIrE CITY OF Dal.IAS:
Section 1, To adcrowledge the inportance of recycling in Dallas and its potential for
lolering collection, transfer and disposal oasts of solid vestue.
Section 2. In so acknowledging, to declare a policy establishing recycling cur an trkagral
faction of solid vlaste nernageeent in Dallas, to be fepIou*ed in eonjiumion with other
initiatives such as pHvaLltation or inpio collection, transfer and disposal tedv logies
but rut to their d+'rtuent.
Section 3. To ernarap participation by the entire cmi pity in recycling efforts. All
citims of Dallas, individual and coryorete, should love the opportunity to participate in
recycling progrtne, vfnther• or rot they are provided sanitation services by the City. To
this and, pursue infornation program designed to educate the public about the worth and
benefits of recycling.
Section 4. To prdnote em cm c opportunities thmAo recycling, resulting in mrAmus for
f-Aviduals, gratgs and the City. Ultiuetely, the goal of the mycling progra should be to
kxeate Jobs "eonbrfbute to the City's soonamic base.
Section 5, To direct City staff to investigate opportunities that mould involve the private
sector in recycling efforts,
Section 6. That this resolution shall take effect fanned after its passage in
aocordarce with the provisions of the Charter of t 1 Is accordingly so
i resolved,
{)06/8+1/13 f w
71i/ lrf! ~ WeVw
ukrr+lovro , ,a LY uu~llovsc C ~es
i M/04 00 DlMlirMNT OMlGTpll OF ! C+Tw
4MN►MM ,i• W~IY~
I
"a
i
landsun Productions, Inc.
Advenssing, Public Relauoa*. Communicauuns ,
I '
f
Oct. 3, 1987
TO: -Bill Terry -
City of Dallas
IRON: Joanne Hill
Chair, Recycling Committee Ina., Texas Committee on
League of Women Voters, Clean Dallas,
Nhiural Resources, Richardson Environmental Action League (RLAL),
'.ave Open Space, Dallas Audubon Society, Dallas Sierra Club
RE: Unsolicited proposal for reeyling thsae•.park
r
On Aug. 10, 19970 the above representatives of chair various
organizs.tlots. voted to work under the umbrella of Clean Dallas, Inc,
as an advisorp doeaeittes to build a reayolingw% bss>Mepasl4in Dallas.
It was slso determined that the beneficiary would be the-Downtown
Dallas Family Shelter.
1 So far we have had excellent response•from.citizens and organi-
zations to our proposal which would reduce the waste stream going to
the land fill, help clean up litter, save natural resources, and bene-
fit homeless families.
We are currently working with the Arts Magoet Art Dep►rtmeat who
are designing a Western Town Theme park. It would be built murl like
s movie set with only store fronts which bide the collection bias for
glass, aluminum and newspaper. We are also working with a group of
men including the Texas Baptist Men vho will work with the Arts Magnet
School in building the store fronts, In addition, we are askkingEDr.
Pepper, Coca-Cola, The Adolphus Hotel, the Dallas Morning Newst
Halliday and others to help us with start up costs.
We would like the City of Dallas to assist us with a location
and a Portable office to be used as the bank.
Tae nearest theme park is in Waco, Texas. It bas been success-
ful from the beginning. They have a population of approximately
100,000. They have been open four Q0 yeIbB. of ars and have se 2e~d 9a total of
27,899 people and recycled 10, approx.
Of newspaper and 402,261.6 lbs of aluminum. They are up to app
30L of their potential, It would be difficult to project the amount
Dallas could recycle but it would make a substantW difference in
the amount of litter and the amount of waste going to the landfill.
In addition, it will make a tremendous difference to the Downtown
Dallas 'Family Shelter (in which the City has a vital interest) becnuee
of the revenues generated. Last Tsar, the Waco theme park (run by
the Mentil Health/Mertal Retardation Dept.) received $40,000 over and
above operating costs to benefit their organization.
The theme park would be operated as a non-profit organization,
The p:oceedo from sales of material would be given to the Downtown
1 Dallas Family Shelter, Our non-profit organization has entered into
a contract with Jacobs Iron and !fetal who has agreed n to purchase,
the materials are collect, remove them in a timely
9219 ?lula'ii)' Rd @ Dallas, T%:x.%- 75220 a (214) 333-CK)SG
I
i - 63 R -
I!
1
9
t
i
S andsun Productions, Inc.
Ad%'erusuig, Public Relations. Communicati
tain a clean knd professional atmosphere at all times. We would be
hiring people who also need to be recycled - mentally retarded, re-
leased prisoners, the homeless.
We have been very impresmed from the time we first started Ptudx
ing waste management some two years ago with the knowledge sad inter-
*at-at TFie various people to the sanitation Department of the City of
Dallas. Each person, lrom the ton to the bottom of the department,
has expressed an enthusiasm for their work, entrees efficiency of
operation and in-depth knowledge of tie total raage and poerlbilities
of waste manag"40%. Dallas has a top-notch department and-one they
ccn be very'proud,ot. Wo-look forward to a continuing partse=sbip
' in this and other recyoltng-pro'eots.
h j
I
i
i I
i
k,i • t,,,l~a•. T%:xu- 73220 •1214) 3334YO3
(1 C
F low
NEIGHBORHOOD BASED RECYCLING PROGRAM
To provide recycling opportunities for citizens, the Department of
Street and Sanitation Services recommends a program that has neighborhood
sponsorship or recycling points as a key feature. The department would
serie as a broker between the buyers of recyclable materials and the
neighborhood groups who would receive the proceeds from the sales, _
Color coded fiberglass containers costing approximately SM each
would bs provided by the City at each collection point for aluminum, clear
?lass and colored glass. The neighborhood group would be responsible for
locating the-collection site, keeping the area clean, and notifying the
City when the containers require em tying, The department would empty the
containers and transport the a tarsal to the buyers using a rotobooer and
trpilers from the existing brush sleet. The buyer would provide technical
support and publicity and make payment directly to the neighborhood group.
Owen-Illinois Glass and Reynolds Aluminum Companies have indicMd
that they`'vnl buy all of the materials collecte+ in this progrM
Owen-Illinois will buy two containers and Reynolds will buy one to support
a - pi loVi ,:....a~
Additionally, both companies will have their public relations firms ~
i develop Dromotion advertisements, billboards and flyers. The neighborhood
groups will be encouraged to seek out local sponsors to 'Adopt-an-Igloo'.
The igloo containers suggested will collect an estimated 25 tons of
glass and 10 tons of aluminum per collection point annually. At current
prices the sponsoring group will receive $1,000 for glass and $61000 for
aluminum yearly. Adoitloval benefits are derived by campaigning against
litter and providing funds for groups to undertaken desired community
improvements.
' Several organizations have expressed interest in being member of a J
pilot project. Trey indlude clean Mylie-M oburg, Clean Dallas East,
Neighborhood Housing Services of Dallas, Inc., Lakewood Heights
ighborheod Association, South Dallas/Fair Park Inner City Development
Corporation, Clean South Dallas, Cedar Crest and Cedar Crest Country Club
` Neighborhood Associations, the b.uth Oak Cliff Homeowners Association, and
the Mast Dallas Advisory Board,
OOSBY/19
12/09/67
I ~
I D-1
- 63 T - ~1
1
1
SYSTEM THINKIN V
• = IN RECYCLING
1
' r
I
I
f
katrmm
.e
OUS11V~ESS AVOM
- - -
IV low
1
r
R
Kotrac: Leader to Recycling Systems
r
h snouid nct be surprising that a world t•sdtr in developing recycling sysems is located in Holland This small
country ras iimaed nature resources and is one of the most densely populated places in the world
As a result concern fo+ the environment is a strong personal concern of the Dutch people. Environmental pollutor
aria deg et o*. o! I maed natura resources are vital public issues to The Netherlands
The environmental industry' his developed vigorously in Holland as a resuh, And within that industry. Kooac is thr
ieaoer rn developing economic recycling systems for glass. used till, and domestic wane paper. Kooac also develops
and produces a vsnety of special systems to prevent poUuhon to gas stations, Worldwide patents for as spherical
containers are pending
Kotrac s Used-Oil Contatnert Winner of Rotterdam Business Award
Kotrac recently was awarded the Business Award of the City of Ronerdam for lta spherical collection-container for
used oil The 'ok-sphori has been widely used by gas stations, repair garages, marinas and others to prevent soil
and water contamination In addition to its motor environmental benefits, the collection system for used oil perfecto
by Kotrac has become econornksN profitable for everyone Involved
The Glass Recycling Containers A Ewope•Wide Success
The spherical container was do"11OWorsginaDy for collecting household glass scrap. It wasairoverwltelning success
the glass-sphere' Is a famll roadside to The Netherlands end throughout Western Europe
year express rhea concern for the environment as they provide enormous
Tens ol'm,tliordorcoruumers sac
quarims of scrap glass 1w remekng tnio new glass products
As a resuh. a mator improvement in the environment has been achieved wh an additional attractive econor:rsc
i benefit coristtvai on of both caw materials and energy.
Consumers business and the community profit Mike'
i
Cooperative Networh
Kotrar has close. well- established working relationships with ari sector mwerned wMh environmental control
programs This includes shopping centers (for scrap glass collection), oil companies, and t.')* auto repair Industry.
In addition. Kova: is a partner wtth local and regional government bodies in setting up effective snve"m ntal
programs
Know-How support
Kotric delivers alit more then spherical contalnen. The firm alto supplits what is equally wal: know-how,
Without this. an effective collection and recycling program is impossible
The know-how Kotrac provides includes astabirhing col)tcoon locatwns promotion, regular emptying of container
and setup of regional depots for sersp gty~and waawpaper.
You can count on Kotrac d you are seeking an organtr►tan that thutks systems when it comes to Collection and
recycling'
l
`l
f
-63v- t
1
1
1
1' ~ ~ I r 1 i 1
• ~ , r i' ' 411 { 5.• +.1s1+~ (
46
1 •
i t:a:al;r SALO ll -
i $I:~tll 1 GE
.i 1 I i,. ~ ~ aural S
e . rlrKt ~utnu
Arun
M1
t' 1
h ~ 7
oil
W r ~
1 r ,W
r't
Rr
14
~.•.~•r •,L, ~/,kr~ / 1 fir„ 1,w,~_✓4 1~ rl
it ro%
I ow I, I
• It,
A y 1 66
f
I
i
i
II. What to do when the existing Landfill closes.
After reviewing the various disposal alternatives, the Committee
feels that the most feasible disposal alternative available to the
City at this time is landfilling of solid waste. The City should
act expeditiously to permit a site due to the long lead times
needed. (See Denton Feasibility Study.)
' r
I
I
4
i C
I
I
I
I
i
i
1
64 -
M..Inll 0-.