1 / 28

Mount Olive Township

Mount Olive Township. Trash collection Conversion to automation. Robert Greenbaum, Mayor Mount Olive Township Sean Canning, Township Administrator Sherry Maniscalco, Chief Financial Officer Tim Quinn D.P.W. Superintendant. Mount Olive Township Trash Collection Conversion to Automation.

zeal
Télécharger la présentation

Mount Olive Township

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mount Olive Township Trash collection Conversion to automation • Robert Greenbaum, Mayor Mount Olive Township • Sean Canning, Township Administrator • Sherry Maniscalco, Chief Financial Officer • Tim Quinn D.P.W. Superintendant

  2. Mount Olive TownshipTrash CollectionConversion to Automation An overview How to ensure the successful Conversion from manual collection to automation

  3. Mount Olive TownshipTrash CollectionConversion to Automation • What is our current status? • What is automation • What are benefits • What are disadvantages? • How to implement the program

  4. Mount Olive TownshipTrash CollectionConversion to Automation • Where we are currently

  5. Mount Olive TownshipTrash CollectionConversion to Automation • Workers compensation experience costs 2009-2012

  6. Days lost due to workers comp injuries 2009-2012

  7. Current status through 2015

  8. Upcoming capital costs Aging fleet due for replacement Seven (7) packer and recycling trucks due for replacement due to age Total costs if current methods are maintained are $1,520,000.00 total price tag of replacing current fleet **Note to be fair this price is not all at once

  9. Proposals to improve performance Increase recycling revenue through marketing of material Decrease costs of utility through automation of collection

  10. Marketing of material Current return 2011 from Morris MUA Gross return $38,224.81 Net return approximately $20,000.00 (MUA Charges for dumpster pulls) Solution Market material Estimated gross and net return Dumpster pickup (no charge for pull costs) = $86,544.48 Delivered by Mount Olive = $136,855.20

  11. What were four scenarios examined impact by 2015 +19% +4.6% +8% +7.9% +6.1% -26.1% +5.5% -11.6% +4.6% -1.1% -26.1% -4.9%

  12. What is scenario 4 • Market recyclable materials • Use profits from marketing to purchase roll-off truck • Purchase roll off truck in fall of 2012 • Utilize 2013 recycle profits to assist fund the down payment of three automated refuse packers • Initiate curbside auto refuse program in fall of 2013 • Purchase containers for residents – summer 2013 • Initiate public education campaign early summer of 2013 • 2013 transfer four(4) packer trucks to recycling/ bulk operations, sell up to four (4) large recycling trucks to help offset costs

  13. Current status versus scenario 4Total budget through 2015

  14. Mount Olive TownshipTrash CollectionConversion to Automation

  15. Advantages/ disadvantages auto refuse collection Advantages Disadvantages • Wheeled containers easy for residents to take to curb • Capacity of auto loading cans 3 to 4 times that of regular cans • Reduced workers compensation costs • Capacity of auto refuse truck 700-1200 stops per route • Startup costs (may be mitigated as current fleet needs replacement) • Costs of containers • Public educational component • Special smaller cans for over 55 y.o.a and special handicaps at request

  16. What is automated collection? Single operator pickup and dumps carts using articulated arm Highly productive Increases efficiency Increase workers safety Decreased labor costs

  17. Collection related injury – other towns/ cities Little Egg Harbor NJ 200 days to 0 Santa Cruz, Ca 300 to 0 South San Francisco 700 days to 0 Portsmouth, VA $112,000 to $25,000/ year Seymour, In $52,000 to $0 Woodbridge, NJ $800,000.00 to $150,000.00

  18. Conversion to automation From this To this

  19. Common concerns • Ugly large cans difficult to maneuver, particularly elderly and disabled • Actual practice has not borne this out in benchmarked communities, regardless best practice will be to offer smaller cans for the over 55 and disabled communities • Not enough room for households refuse in single cart • 96Gallon cans have proven to be more than adequate in all towns studied. • Displacement of workers • Current status is opportune time due to period of retirements anticipated without affecting negatively any workers

  20. Enforcement of non compliance • 1st month learning curve and reminders using “oops” tags • “oops” tag to residents whose carts are misplaced along with informative flyer • After 1st month garbage cans not in compliance or not placed in appropriate cans will not be picked up

  21. Next steps how to implement

  22. April 1, 2012 Implement recycle marketing with new contract – Trinity

  23. Fall 2012 Purchase roll off truck Goal is to maximize return on recyclables

  24. Winter 2013 Budget for 3 auto refuse trucks Budget for cans for distribution

  25. Winter 2013 Amend ordinance

  26. Summer 2013 Initiate public education campaign

  27. October 1, 2013

  28. Special thanks • Assist in preparation, corrections and feedback • Christie Stachnick and Lisa Pignataro • Research and delving into archives to produce past studies • Lisa Lashway and Michelle Masser

More Related