PB-239 195
MECHANIZED RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE
COLLECTION
Marc G. Stragier
Scottsdale Department of Public Works
Prepared for:
Environmental Protection Agency
1974
DISTRIBUTED BY:
National Technical Information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
1. Report No.
EPA/530/SW-7Ad
PB 239 195
4. Title and Subtitle
Mechanized Residential Solid Waste Collection
5' Report Date
1974 (oreoaration)
6.
7. Author(s)
Marc G. Straeier
8. Performing Organization Kept.
No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Department of Public Works
3939 Civic Center Plaza
Scottsdale, Arizona 85251
10. Projcci/1 .!sk/Work linn No.
11. ^o/iyra'c^/Grant No.
G06-EC-00202
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
final
1973
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts
This study of automation tested four different types of solid waste
collection equipment. Employed were trucks with telescoping arms
to pick up single family or multi-family plastic containers. The
trucks could also be equipped with a yoke lift for dumping wheeled
containers. Close and convenient transfer operations were made
possible by use of a truck-to-trailer transfer method. Mechanization
showed signifigant cost reductions, increased collection efficiency,
improved city appearance, and better, safer working condittions
for the collectors.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17o. Descriptors
Waste disposal, urban areas
Containers, waste disposal
Refuse
17b. Identificrs/Opcn-F.ndcd Terms
Solid waste collection
17c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
FORM NTIS-33 (REV. 3-72)
19. Security Class (This
Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
|21. No. oj Pages
20. Security Class (This
Page
TJNCLASSIFIED
USCOMM-£c I49S2-P72
-------
6 41018
MECHANIZED RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
This final report (SW-74d) on work performed under
Federal solid waste management demonstration grant no. G06-EC-00202
to the city of Scottsdale, was written by
MARC G. STRAGIER
and is reproduced as received from the grantee.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1974
-------
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Its publication does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of contnercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-74d) in the solid waste
management series.
11
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The development of the mechanized vehicles examined in this report
required the energies and ideas of many people. Hours of hard work with
the experimentdl vehicles and all those associated with the project made
the demonstration a success. The Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, is acknowledged for providing the financial
support and general guidance needed for an experiment in mechanization of
this size.
Equipment manufacturers such as George Morrison, formerly with Western
Body and Hoist Company of Los Angeles, container producers such as Reuter,
Incorporated, Hopkins, Minnesota; County Plastics, Long Island; and Fusion
Rubbermaid, Phoenix; and inventors such as Earl Elton and Howard Smith of
Covina, California; public officials such as Fred Glendenning, Deputy City
Manager, Phoenix, Arizona and many others have contributed substantially to
this project.
Special acknowledgment goes to all the employees of the City of
Scottsdale Refuse and Equipment Maintenance Divisions who have accomplished
the difficult task of implementing a totally new kind of collection system.
Finally, the Scottsdale City Council and City Manager Dale Carter are
acknowledged, for without their complete support and encouragement this
demonstration would not have been possible.
M. G. Stragier
Director of Public Works
City of Scottsdale, Arizona
i i i
-------
MECHANIZED RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary v
Problems in Solid Waste Collection 1
A. Present Collection Systems Lag 1
B. The Scottsdale Demonstration Project 4
Description of Area 6
Current Waste Collection Programs 11
Phase I: Feasibility & Acceptability of Containerized
System 1U
Phase II: Implementing Mechanized Collection 27
Social Impact of Mechanized Collection kS
Economic and Productivity Analysis 57
APPENDIX
A Special Purpose Refuse Containers 72
B Specifications Barrel Snatcher 75
C Citizen Introduction Letter 80
D Survey Form to Evaluate Reaction to Mechanized
Collection System 81
E Resident Attitudes Toward Scottsdale Refuse
Containerization Experiment 90
F Specifications - Refuse Vehicles and collection
Trailers 116
G Phase li Attitude Survey 121
H Refuse Ordinance 169
IV
-------
MECHANIZED RESIDENTIAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
SUMMARY
Scottsdale, Arizona has developed a breakthrough in residential single
family refuse collection with the assistance of the Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Using a new
family of mechanized vehicles, this demonstration project has shown that
twice-per-week refuse collection service can be provided to residents for
less than one half the cost of conventional rear end loader systems.
The mechanized service proved to have many advantages. Cost of collec-
tion was significantly reduced, while the appearance of streets and alleys
was improved. The system includes provision by the City and/or developer of
durable and attractive polyethylene containers backed up by a ten year manu-
facturer's guarantee. Collectors work in air-conditioned cabs and receive
higher pay than manual collection drivers and swampers. The safety record
during the demonstration was impressive. Working in an industry with the
highest 1972 injury rate the mechanized drivers have had no disabling in-
juries.
The concept that brought about these results is automation. The mech-
anized arm and the hydraulic ram does the dumping and transferring. The
driver of the collection vehicle never leaves the cab during collection, yet
he can serve homes more economically and efficiently than a crew of three
men who must work extremely hard.
The family of mechanized equipment was made up of four collection systems.
The workhorse of the family was a collection vehicle named the Barrel Snatcher.
The Barrel Snatcher collects 300 gallon containers located in the alley at a
rate averaging 271 dwelling units per hour of collection. The vehicle is a
35 cubic yard packer body with a telephone booth type cab beside the engine.
A sturdy 8-foot arm attaches to the chassis beside the engine and telescopes
out to grasp containers up to 12 feet from the truck. Containers are en-
gaged, dumped overhead into the body, and replaced by one driver sitting in
the cab.
The second member of the mechanized family is called the Litter Pig. The
Litter Pig is basically a Shu Pak side loading packer equipped with a tele-
scoping arm loader. The telescoping arm unit bolts to the chassis adjacent
to the loading hopper. Without leaving the cab, the single operator can
position the barrel gripping hand to engage a container located anywhere in
a 30 square foot reach area. The hand can be manipulated by controls from
the cab and reaches out and grasps 80 gallon polyethylene containers placc-c
at curbside. The container is mechanically emptied into the hopper and ,-«-
placed at the curb.
-------
The simplest member of the mechanized family was the yoke lift kit de-
signed for use on a rear end loader. The kit was simply a yoke designed to
lift and empty a wheeled container. Tne refuse collector rolls the container
to the lift device, engages the lifting yoke, activates a control that raises,
empties and lowers the container, and returns the container to the curb.
As Scottsdale's collection system became more efficient a need for a
solution to the haul problem became apparent. The cost of haul becomes parti-
cularly critical with mechanized collection systems that collect and fill
the vehicles rapidly. A truck loaded conventionally may haul two 20-yard
loads per day. By contrast, Scottsdale's alley service collects as many as
six 30-yard loads. With a haul of *tO minutes, the collection vehicle spends
half its work day hauling. To minimize haul costs a portable transfer trailer
system named the Trash Hog was developed. The Trash Hog is a specially de-
signed semi-trailer equipped to transfer from truck to trailer through a
simple tailgate assembly. Transfer trailers can be placed close to the col-
lection routes and significantly reduce the haul time for collection vehicles.
Each Trash Mog trailer has a capacity of approximately 1200 homes per load.
Haul savings accrue through the use of the Trash Hog when the haul time for
disposal exceeds 30 minutes round trip.
The interest expressed by Scottsdale residents, other municipalities,
private corporations, prefessional organizations and even foreign governments
during the demonstration was astonishing. Opinion samples indicated that over
75% of Scottsdale's residents preferred a mechanized collection system. Writ-
ten inquiries or personal visits came from interested individuals and organiza-
tions in France, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Scotland, Norway, Japan and
throughout the United States.
We hope that the time and effort spent in answering inquiries and in
showing the system to visitors have helped to publicize the need for future
research in the solid waste collection industry and at- the same time has
helped bring attention to the benefits of mechanization.
The City of Scottsdale will continue to develop mechanized vehicles and
expects to mechanize all residential collection within the city by late 1973.
We encourage interested parties to visit Scottsdale and view the system first
hand. We feel that the benefics of mechanization have been successfully
demonstrated and hope that other communities will take advantage of mech-
anizations' lower cost, better service and improved work conditions.
vi
-------
PROBLEMS IN SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
Solid waste collections is expensive and rapidly becoming more expensive
as wages, working conditions, per capita generation, haul distances, burning
prohibitions, service demands and other factors combine to increase unit cost
of col lect ion.
Each day U. S. communities collect more than 630,000 tons of solid waste
requiring the services of over 350,000 collectors and drivers who collect
about 1.8 tons each per man-day and serve 600 people. The cost to taxpayers
in the U.S. is approximately $5 billion annually of which $4 billion, or 80%,
is spent on collection and $1 billion, or 20%, is spent on disposal.
The problem of solid waste collection and disposal is further complicated
by the fact that the industry has a higher injury rate than most occupation'...
The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that in 1968, the injury rate among solid
waste collectors in the public sector was higher than the rate for coal miners,
policemen, firemen or loggers. In a 196? study in California, the injury rate
among refuse collectors was almost six times the average for all California
industries.
Present Collection Systems Lag
Present residential collection systems include several kinds of equipment.
Many cities use various models of rear loading or side loading collection
vehicles, while a few use a train system of open trailers, towed behind small
trucks, and transferred into large packer trucks. Almost every city uses a
system in which the generator places refuse in a number of relatively small
containers which are often transported, and usually picked up and dumped into
a truck or trailer by a workman who handles each container.
Some cities and private collectors serve a large container by mechanizing
the collection process. But mechanization of collection and use of large
containers has been limited to multi-family residential units and commercial
or industrial generators. Householders have been unwilling to transport refuse
far enough to accumulate enough material to make large containers and service
trucks economically competitive. Based on Scottsdale's costs for conventional
** yard containers, using standard front loaders, residential service would be
economically competitive where each container served an average of about 10
homes. Such se-vice ib acceptable for apartments, but in single family areas
it would be difficult to induce hnuM-lioldf i :i In i ran-.|>oi I irsfiihe i ht= average
100 feet or more from their prop';ily NIK- lo n;.c MU li c«jnl a I Merited
These existing solid waste collection methods have important disadvantages
that must be corrected if residential collection is to be improved and 'O3ts
reduced. They need correction if collection agencies are only going to hold
-------
-
.
•
-------
their own against increasing volumes generated. Many analysts believe that
the current generation rate for municipal refuse of 6 Ibs. per person per day
will double by 1985. .
High labor costs is one major disadvantage of refuse collection systems
that rely on manpower to pick up containers. Labor costs for conventional
systems normally account for two-thirds or more of the total cost.
Some of our larger cities must pay workers over $10,000 per year to
attract people to their collection crews. Even at low wage rates, however,
mechanization means fewer employees to accomplish collection and, thus, re-
duced labor costs.
Another problem encountered in traditional collection methods is the
stigma attached to the job of refuse collector. Few people aspire to become
garbage men nor do they encourage their children to seek the position. Few
occupations require so much exertion. Collectors often walk as much as 11
miles per day and handle 6 or 7 tons of materials including 2 tons of conta.ners.
Normally, householders provide their own containers, which must be small
enough to be easily handled by householders and collectors. These containers
are accessible to dogs, rats, flies, and other animals which tip them over,
strew their contents, create a nuisance, spread disease and contribute de-
preciating effects to the neighborhood.
Taxpayers in general and municipalities in particular, have realized the
effects of an economic dilemma. Taxpayers object more and more strongly to
increased taxes. Income for typical cities increases 5% per year, but cost of
services increases up to 15% per year. Despite the resulting incentive to
increase productivity, little has been done. Few changes have been made in
municipal practice to reduce cost or to increase productivity of increasingly
costly labor.
In the current climate of increased concern about the environment, about
improved standards of living for the poor (including refuse collectors in
many cases), and about unionization of public employees, labor rates for re-
fuse collection have risen fast. Realizing that recruiting willing, capable
workmen at the rate of 1/600 people served is a tough problem, many organized
groups have taken advantage of the situation to demand increased compensation.
The problems, of course, are only beginning. More resources should be put
into the development of reasonable alternatives.
These problems, high labor costs, increasing per capita generation, in-
creasing haul distances, container cost to homeowner, poor sanitation, litter
accumulation and the difficulty in hiring good workmen have all contributed
to a public reaction that demand solutions and cost reductions.
Despite the magnitude and seriousness of the solid waste collection and
disposal problem, little research has been conducted to find better methods
and practices. This report represents an effort by the City of Scottsdale
-------
and the Environmental Protection Agency to attack the problem where the most
savings are to be made in the $** billion spent annually on collection, or the
80% of the total National expeditures on solid waste management.
The Scottsdale Demonstration Project
In March 196U, the City of Scottsdale began providing municipal refuse
collection service. Prior to that time, refuse collection was provided by a
private col lector.
When the city began collecting its own refuse, a train system was estab-
lished. Each train required two collectors and one non-collecting driver that
used a pickup truck and four 5-yard trailers. Thirty-yard front loading packer
trucks were used to transfer the trains for the haul to the sanitary landfill
while the trains returned to collection routes.
Before containerization, Scottsdale collected with eight trains and three
packer trucks on residential pickup. This work force provided twice-a-week
collect ion.
Even though trains are quite economical when compared to other conventional
systems, costs were high, willing workers hard to find, and the oppressive sum-
mer heat very enervating. A better method was required.
After a look at the safety record and particularly of the effects of
Scottsdale's I20°F summer temperatures (several employees had suffered from
heat stroke, dehydration and heat exhaustion), a staff study was initiated.
At this time, a group of Scottsdale officials conceived the ideas for contain-
erization and mechanization, made preliminary economic projections, and applied
for a Federal grant to develop their concepts. The grant was awarded and the
demonstration project extended from March 1, 1969 to June 30, 1972.
In general, Scottsdale proposed to demonstrate the feasibility and economy
of containerizing household refuse and mechanizing its collection and hauling.
This broad objective called for development of a group of new pieces of equip-
ment which would reduce overall costs, improve service to the customer, improve
working conditions, and improve the sanitation and appearance of the collection
stations.
The following objectives were listed in the grant applications:
For the containerization and initial mechanization using Godzilla (mech-
anized collection prototype) and the Barrel Snatcher (telescoping arm-front
loading collection vehicle):
1. Determine the feasibility and public acceptance of a system of con-
tainerizing residential refuse, including an analysis of the size
of container, frequency of service, sanitation, efficiency and
economy and service combinations.
-------
2. Develop a mechanized refuse collection vehicle to handle the
containers and test the feasibility of a mechanized refuse
collection system.
For the Litter Pig (mechanical arm side-loader):
1. Demonstrate and report on the operation of the Litter Pig in terms
of durability, controlabi1ity, maneuverability and training re-
qui red to operate.
2. Measure and report the costs of operation, the speed of pickup,
and capacity under the conditions of service in the experiment.
For the Trash Hog (mobile transfer station):
1. Demonstrate and report on the operation of the Trash Hog in terms
of durability, safety, controlabi1ity, maneuverability and train-
ing required to operate.
2. Collect and report on the costs incurred by the use of the Trash
Hog and the savings and increased productivity for collection
vehicles.
In addition to these stated objectives, the demonstration produced a
good deal more useful data which is included in this report. Scottsdale's
experiences with publicity, with retraining displaced employees, with public
and employee attitudes, with container maintenance, spraying, repair, modi-
fication and specifications, with equipment maintenance and improvement will
be of interest to the reader or potential user. Additional specific data
or information will be furnished on request.
-------
DESCRtPTION OF AREA
Population and Economic Characteristics
The City of Scottsdale is a community of 80,000 people located approxi-
mately eight miles northeast of the center of Phoenix, Arizona. The City
was incorporated in June 195*+ and undertook a major annexation in 1961 that
doubled its population. From I960 to 1970 the City grew from a population
of 10,026 to 67,823 and expanded in size from a small crossroad community to
a city that extends from McDowell Peak on the north, southward 16 miles
almost to the Salt River, and from the city limits of Paradise Valley and
Phoenix on the west, to the boundary of the Salt River Indian Reservation
on the east. (See Table 1)
TABLE 1
SCOTTSDALE POPULATION
- 1970
Area of City
Year Population fSauare Mi I es^
191+0
1950
I960
1970
1972
7^3
2,032
10,026
67,823
85,000 (estimate)
_ _
3.8
75.0
78
SOURCE: U. S. Census, City of Scottsdale, Public Works Department
Although many of its residents work in other parts of the Phoenix metro-
politan area, Scottsdale has several major industrial facilities, is a
popular vacationing site, and serves as a regional shopping center for an
area that substantially exceeds the City's boundaries.
ihe residential collection area consists of homes of middle and rela-
tively high income families on typical 7,000-square-foot suburban subdi-
vision lots. About 80% are served by alleys and 20% served at the curb.
Single-family collection is provided on a twice-per-week basis at no charge
to the resident. Subdivisions have been laid out to provide curvilinear
street arrangements, so that collection routes must include turnarounds
and doubling back.
The City's economic base is evidenced by the fact that the median
income in Scottsdale in 1970 was $12,750 with the largest percentage in
-------
the $15,000 - $2*1,999 range. Table 2 summarizes household income by income
range.
TABLE 2
1970 SCOTTSDALE HOUSEHOLD RANGE
Income Rang.;
(dollars)
Percent of Households
Under 3
3,000
5,000
8,000
10,000
12,500
15,000
25,000
SOURCE:
,000
- <+,999
- 7,999
- 9,999
- 12,999
- 14,999
- 24,999
and over
1970 U. S. Census
2
4
10
1 1
21
15
26
1 1
Of the 21,373 year-round housing units, 78.4% are owner occupied. The
median value of owner occupied homes in 1970 was $22,900. Scottsdale's
population lives in relatively new, medium value homes, and has relatively
higher income than surrounding cities.
Physical Land Features
The topography in Scottsdale is generally flat. The land drains to the
south through a wash that traverses the length of the city. This wash is
the only natural feature that hinders collection when flooding occurs,
normally about once a year. The flat terrain gives Scottsdale an ideal
collection topography.
Climatological Data
The temperature in the City of Scottsdale ranges from freezing to 70°
in the winter and from 70° to 120° or above in the summer. The average
daily minimum and maximum temperatures for each month with the percent
sunshine expected is presented below in Table 3.
-------
TABLE 3
AVERAGE DAILY TEMPERATURES BY MONTH
Scottsdale, Arizona
Month
Average daily max.
temp, (of)
Average daily min.
temp, (of)
Percent
poss ible sunshine
January
February
March
Apr! 1
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
66.1
66.2
72.5
84.7
9^.6
99.4
10^.9
106.1
99.0
83.6
74.0
67.5
43.6
39.8
41.2
52.3
61.9
69.0
81.3
82.7
73.0
55.3
50.2
42.1
83
81
79
92
96
97
85
87
99
91
75
87
SOURCE: U. S. Environmental Science Services Administration
It should be noted that the relatively hot summer temperatures have contri-
buted to Scottsdale's interest in mechanization. It has been difficult to
keep crews working during hot summer months.
The average daily relative humidity at 10:00 a.m., 3:00 p.m., and 8:00 p.m.
varies from 11.9 percent at 3:00 p.m. in June to a high of 59.4 percent at
10:00 a.m. in February. Table 4 summarizes average daily relative humidity
by month and time of day. Scottsdale has a relatively dry climate.
TABLE 4
AVERAGE DAILY HUMIDITY BY MONTH
Scottsdale, Arizona
Month
January
February
March
Apr i 1
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
10:00 a.m.
5*0%
59.4
52.1
28.7
20.8
19.1
34.6
37.3
35.3
34.0
45.8
49.0%
T ime
3:00 p.m.
33.7%
37.4
32.8
17.9
12.8
11.9
24.8
24.4
15-7
18.6
30.3
29.9%
8:00 p.m.
51.4%
54.6
46.7
24.2
16.1
15-0
30.7
31.8
22. 1
32.5
^7-3
46.5%
SOURCE: U. S. Environmental Science Services Administration
8
-------
Precipitation in Scottsdale and the surrounding ar?i is negligible as
evidenced by the low humidity averages in Table k. Rainfall hinders collec-
tion efforts little, unless flooding occurs. Table 5 presents the total
precipitation for 1970, a typical year:
TABLE 5
1970 TOTAL PRECIPITATION BY MONTH
Scottsdale, Arizona
Month Precipitation (inch)
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
T *
.1*3
2.11
.02
.02
.00
.30
1.50
*+.08
.91*
.0^
.30
Total 9.76
SOURCE: U. S. Environmental Science Services Administration
* T - Trace
Wind velocity for the Phoenix metropolitan area has a yearly average of
5.9 miles per hour. Table 6 summarizes average wind velocity and prevailing
wind direction by month. The low velocities have enabled the City of Scotts-
dale to utilize open trailers in its train method of collection. Problems
with blowing trash and litter are minimal. The occasional summer thunder-
shower includes winds of high velocity which reshuffle the trash as well as
some of the real estate.
-------
TABLE 6
WIND VELOCITY AND PREVAILING WIND
Di rection By Month
Phoenix, Arizona
Prevai1 ing
Month Wind Velocity (mph) Wind Direction
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
4.9
5.5
6.2
6.5
6.6
6.6
6.9
6.3
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.8
East
East
East
East
East
East
West
East
East
East
East
East
Solid Waste Generation
Generally growth in amount of solid waste collected has exceeded popu-
lation growth. The following table indicates the amounts of waste collected
each year by the services offered by Scottsdale. Note that commercial col-
lection includes all materials collected from the large steel containers
furnished by the city to merchants, industrial plants, apartments, town-
houses and institutions. Brush collection service is limited to residential
generators served by the residential collection system. In the five years
presented in the table, volume grew 62% over the 1967-68 level. During the
same period, we estimate that population grew from about 6k,000 to 72,000
an increase of about 13% and the volume of refuse collected grew from about
0.70 tons per capita in 1967-68 to about 0.85 tons per capita, an increase
in generation rate of about 20%.
TABLE 7
TONS OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTED IN SCOTTSDALE
Waste Source 1967-68 1968-69 19&9-70 1970-71 1971-72
Resident!
Brush Col
Commercia
Total
al
1 ect ion
1
27
1
16
45
,654
,200
,890
,744
28,
2,
'8,
49,
964
056
201
221
32,
2,
20,
55,
758
562
380
700
36,
-* f
24,
6\
377
256
661
294
39,
4,
31,
7S
105
156
172
M3
SOURCE: City of Scottsdale Refuse Division
10
-------
Current Waste Collection Programs
The City of Scottsdale has a Counci1-Manager form of government with
the City Manager as the executive head of the organization. Working for
the City Manager, the Public Works Director is responsible for a wide range
of activities including solid waste collection and disposal as well as street
and sewer maintenance, equipment maintenance, engineering, building inspec-
tion, water and sewage operations, and traffic engineering. The Refuse Divi-
sion handles solid waste collection and disposal and is the organization unit
responsible for the four solid waste programs described below.
Residential Containerized Program
The Residential Containerized Solid Waste Program is designed to provide
twice-per-week collection service from 80- and 300-gallon plastic containers
utilizing one-man operated refuse trucks and a transfer trailer. This pro-
gram is the heart of the demonstration project as it involves the experi-
mental, mechanized vehicles. Collectors work *»0 hours per week, in four
10-hour days, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. Work and scheduling
problems have been minimized. Three men, classed Equipment Operator III, are
employed in this operation as of December 1972. They operate two Barrel
Snatchers and one Litter Pig. They serve a total of 3078 containers,
300-gallon containers in alleys and 115** 80-gallon containers for curb collec-
tion. They are supervised by the residential collection foreman and receive
container repair, maintenance and assembly, and Trash Hog operation support
from the Commercial collection section. They serve 7253 homes, from alleys
and 115*+ at the curb.
Residential Non-Containerized Program
The Residential Non-Containerized Program collects waste twice-per-week
from homeowner provided containers, utilizing the train system and side-loader.
Collectors now work a standard eight-hour, five-day work week using Wednesday
to clean up backlog, pick up sidewalk litter containers, back up brush collec-
tion, help with container repair and other activities. As of 1 July, there
are four train crews of three men each, one sideloader crew of two men, a
foreman and three Equipment Operator III employees, using six pickups, three
big packer trucks, and two-axle sideloader. They collect from 11,52** resi-
dents.
Commercial Refuse Program
The Commercial Refuse Collection Program is designed to provide for removal
of refuse from apartments, schools, condominiums, industries, and businesses on
a twice-per-week basis utilizing large steel containers, served by 30-yard
front-loading packer trucks. Five trucks regularly collect an average of 130
containers per man day, working on the same four-day, ten-hour schedule as
containerized residential collectors. Six employees, a foreman, five Eouip-
ment Operator Ill's and a three-man container repair and maintenance crew
11
-------
-------
provide this service.
Brush Removal Program
The Brush Removal Program provides for collection of brush and debris
which cannot be placed in containers because of size or weight from public
alleys and other residential collection stations. Service is limited to
areas served by containerized and non-containerized residential services.
It is provided by four three-man crews who use 30-cubic-yard, two-axle dump
trucks towing trailer-mounted chippers. Because of brush accumulation, col-
lection is provided at regular two-week intervals to each home in the city.
In addition to the staff enumerated above, the Superintendent has a
staff of three women specially selected and trained as Service Representa-
tives to handle complaints and to take care of public relations problems for
the Division. Most of their efforts are devoted to residential problems.
Operations of the Division and responsibilities of the public are regu-
lated by a refuse collection collection ordinance patterned after the model
ordinance prepared by International City Management Association. The ordin-
ance provides that appropriate sized containers must be furnished by developers
and builders before service is initiated. All new service in the city is now
containerized.
Disposal service is provided on the neighboring Salt River Indian Reser-
vation under the terms of a contract signed by the City of Scottsdale, Mesa,
and the Indian Community Council. Disposal is by sanitary landfill, using a
modified area method. Material to be disposed is dumped on top of the com-
pleted fill and spread, compacted, and covered by a D-9 Caterpillar bull-
dozer and a large Bros steel-wheeled compactor supplemented by a motor grader,
water truck and self-loading scraper.
13
-------
PHASE I: FEASIBILITY AND ACCEPTABILITY OF CONTAINERIZED SYSTEM
The main objective of Phase 1 was to determine the feasibility and
public acceptance of a system of containerizing residential refuse into
municipally-owned containers. Primary consideration was given to size and
type of container, frequency of service, sanitation, efficiency and economy
of containers, service combinations found to be most desirable to the general
public acceptance through questionnaire and oral interviews.
To determine the level of acceptability of a municipally-furnished
container receiving various levels of service, five sample areas of about
100 homes were selected. The areas were selected as representative of
general conditions in the city and were scattered to reduce effects from
various users comparing the level of service they were receiving.
Contai nerizat ion
Selecting Container Capacity
In order to determine container size, we examined some solid waste
generating characteristics in Scottsdale. Our records show that no signi-
ficant seasonal variation in the generation rate occurs. A random sampling
of 36 homes were observed over a two-week period. The following loose
volume (gallons) was placed for collection:
2nd week
Mean
Std.
Devi at ion
1st
1st
col lect ion
day
52
23
week
2nd
col 1 ect ion
day
31
23
1st
col lection
day
W
21
2nd
collection 2-week
day average
31
21
12
First-day collections were made on Monday or Tuesday, and second-day
collections on Thursday or Friday, depending on location of the house.
Using this information as a base and assuming a normal curve (as the
data fairly well resembles), the following table can be derived:
If a container of tnis
size were provided ...
50 gal.
60 gal.
70 gal.
80 gal.
90 gal.
100 gal.
this percentage of homes would have
adequate capac i ty
On Ist 2nd for 2-week
collection collection period
day day
50%
67%
81%
91%
96%
99%
91%
96%
98%
99%
99%
99%
71%
92%
99%
99%
99%
99%
14
-------
Based on this data and a decision by the city that 90% capacity was an
acceptable level of service on the first collection day, our selection of
80-gallon containers for single families and 300-gallons for Four family
groupings worked well. The probability of getting four homes together to
generate an average of 75 gallons apiece is less than the probability of
one family generating 80 gallons due to the effect of multiplying small
probabi1 it ies.
To test this, using the data gathered, nine random combinations of four
homes were made and the gallonage for the homes was totaled for each day over
the two-week period. This gave 36 different theoretical collections of four
home groups. Of the 36 theoretical collections, one just equaled 300 gallons
and the rest were less. Over the two-week period with a 300-gallon container,
1200 gallons could be collected. The highest total of gallons for any of the
combinations was 850 gallons.
This analysis of generation was on a random basis and does not take into
account factors that may cause variations: for example;
a) Higher income areas tend to generate a higher volume of refuse.
b) Vacation times, holidays and summer yard work increase volumes.
c) Large families sharing a container may generate at higher levels.
d) With a large convenient container householders may dispose of
materials, such as grass clippings left on lawns or papers
burned, that they previously did not throw away.
Although we do not know the exact effect of these variables, they did
not adversely affect any of our experimental areas. However, containers
were filled more often than the data predicted. Lack of sufficient capacity
is a frequent complaint. We have also found relatively more volume on the
first collection day than predicted.
With the generation rate determined, we outlined a program for level of
service in each of the five areas using three container sizes as follows:
Container size gal. Families per container Collections per week
80 1 2
160 1 1
160 2 2
300 2 1
300 k 2
Container Design Specifications and Costs
We studied several materials for containers. They can be fabricated
feasibly from steel, fiberglass or polyethylene. Steel has the advantages of
long life, permanence, and numerous fabricators. Satisfactory 300-gallon
15
-------
containers could be delivered for about $90.00 each. They would have the
disadvantages of high maintenance and being noisy and less pleasing in
general appearance. Also, experimental steel containers were clumsy and
difficult to grasp and dump quickly.
Fiberglass containers would require less maintenance and would be pleas-
ing in appearance, but would cost about $120.00. Fabricators indicated that
the material is brittle and might have limited impact resistance. We are
investigating use of fiberglass products molded using sand as a filler. This
method reduces cost and improves strength. Manufacturers have indicated that
prices will be competitive, approximately $75.00 per unit. Fiberglass con-
tainers failed in use as they cracked when handled repeatedly.
Several experienced manufacturers indicated that polyethylene had the
best potential as a container material. It could be cheaply molded, could
be protected from ultra-violet radiation, would be pleasing in appearance and
would be flexible and strong. Fusion-Rubbermaid of Salinas, California, pro-
vided a sample pickle vat which could be modified and handled satisfactorily.
County Plastics of Farmingdale, New York, agreed to fabricate a polyethylene
160-gallon container to our specifications provided we would pay for the mold.
Accordingly, the project paid the $**00 mold cost and received four sample
containers using various grades of polyethylene. Tests were run on the mod-
ified vat and the sample containers to determine their endurance. Some were
filled with 300 pounds of water and dropped from a fork lift. The thinner
ones split. We tried a steel ring to reinforce the containers. It tore
loose. Plastic tubing was used and it also failed to strengthen the con-
tainer.
Such experiments and our own judgment helped us determine that a poly-
ethylene container with a minimum thickness of three-sixteenths of an inch
would be required to hold up under field use.
We prepared specifications (Appendix A) and received bids on the 350
containers needed for the Phase I experiment. Since County Plastics offered
to fabricate containers according to our specifications, and since their
price was most favorable, the contract was awarded to them and containers
began to arrive the first of August 1969.
The basic patent idea that we were demonstrating included only general
conception of the container and a few aspects were left for development.
Further, the manufacturer was limited in the materials and facilities avail-
able. We were also anxious to proceed and therefore worked out a design for
the Phase I containers which was simple to mold and which our forces could
modify to test the desirability of furnishing vents.
The 350 polyethylene containers furnished in three sizes - 80, 160, and
300 gallon - were similarly shaped and molded. Lids were separate and were
reinforced, equipped with hinges and fastened to the containers by a city
16
-------
crew. The crew installed lanyards to hold lids erect during loading and
installed vents in those containers to be vented. Vents consisted of an
arrowhead shape about 8 inches long fabricated from about lU-mesh hardware
cloth fastened in the middle of the lid. The arrow was to be pointed to-
ward the collection truck when the container was properly oriented. Lids
were reinforced with pieces of plywood and hinged with hardware store
hinges. The hinges and container were fastened to the lid with £" bolts.
We also experimented with the "polyhinge" (a plastic extrusion, continuous
hinge). T.iis proved to be too light and failed repeatedly. Latest designs
use a piano-type hinge, reinforced with steel plates inside.
Containers were cone-shaped to accommodate stacking them and dumping
refuse from them. They were limited to k$ inches high so they could be
conveniently loaded by small children. The containers for curb service
were limited to 33 inches wide so they could be wheeled through gates and
doors; those in the alley were limited to 48 inches in width to leave ample
room to maneuver the collection vehicle beside them in our 16-feet wide
at leys.
Containers for curb service were equipped with casters so they could
be moved to the curb by generators on collection day. Experience has shown
that the casters have some limitations. They did permit use of a simpler
container and were easily attached by our assembly crew. On the other
hand, they were expensive, costing about $10 per set, and made it difficult
to use the container in unpaved areas. Latest container designs provide
two 8-inch semi-pneumatic wheels and a handle to facilitate moving the con-
tainer much 1ike a hand truck.
Our latest specifications permit offers in any material and encourage
bidders to warrant the life of containers. Thus, we can compare various
materials on the basis of their economics as well as qualitative considera-
tions. The polyethylene costs about $90 for 300-gallon containers.
Several manufacturers have reassured us that the 5-year life expect-
ancy of polyethylene containers is entirely reasonable. Containers cur-
rently in use are guaranteed for ten years. On the other hand, containers
supplied by our first manufacturer began to show signs of premature failure.
Some 20 or 30 of our 350 containers failed in their first year service.
Failure in most cases appears to be due to embrittlement from the outside
of the container due to ultra-violet degradation of the plastic. The
smaller, thinner containers have failed more frequently than larger,
thicker containers. We expect that thicker sections and better ultra-
violet resistance will provide longer life. Future experience in this
area will refine the economic feasibility. More recent containers have
been fabricated from new cross-linked material that is working much better.
Acceptable Sanitation
Since we were reducing the frequency of collection from twice per v»eek
to one per week in two of the sample areas, we agreed with the Health De-
partment to work under their supervision and to eliminate the once per week
17
-------
-------
• ••-• •>-•. '-ftf.**-. - .. n »-^ -Jrjtfcx. ->t-v- •— ••' - " • - r. .• - ..T~"W i»
i - H^t
4
-------
service if they found sanitation problems were created. The Health Depart-
ment designed a spray program and took fly counts to evaluate the extent of
the sanitation problem. Since the lids were fixed to the containers and
were normally kept closed, their preliminary conclusions were that the
reduction in service did not create a sanitation problem. Periodically
spraying lids and interior surfaces with a diluted adulticide also sub-
stantially reduced the fly.population in the experimental areas. The
complete spray program provided for spraying either the container exterior
or interior at 2 and U week intervals. No containers had serious fly pro-
blems. As measured by Maricopa County Health Department, the worst group
averaged 1.85 flies per container per week. Larger containers and unvented
containers attracted fewer flies. The concentration seemed to be independent
of the variations in the spray program. Spraying seemed less significant
than nearby fly attractions like dog droppings or spilled garbage.
The Health Department findings show that no changes in the program are
required and that, from a sanitation point of view, the new system is gen-
erally superior to the old conventional system. The Health Department
continues to evaluate the new container system and has encouraged its use
and implementation. The staff reported no adverse remarks from citizens
contacted during their work.
Prototype Mechanized Collection Vehicle
Modifying Front-End Loader
Container capacities precluded manual collection, and while they were
being selected, the City shop worked to modify an existing front-end loader
to equip it to handle the containers. A crude sketch of the modification is
included in Appendix B. We fabricated a hydraulical1y-controlled swing arm
set in a forklift frame. We turned the frame sideways and attached it to
the front-end loading mechanism. The swing arm and opposing hand were
fastened to the inner frame of the forklift frame so they could be moved
sideways across and out beside the front of the truck. With this modifica-
tion, the truck was equipped to handle containers from alongside. The truck
stops beside and behind the container, the operator moves the pickup unit
sideways to engage the container, closes the arm, lifts the container, moves
it back to center and dumps it in the conventional way over the cab. He
sets the container down by reversing the above process, retracting the inner
frame and arm, without having to back up.
The shop developed the control system to give the operator the most ef-
ficient combination of controls. The hydraulic system is connected in series
since loads are light and in order to give positive control for each action.
The controls are separated so the operator can use both hands; one on each
side of his seat. Controls operate in the same direction as the correspond-
ing movement of the arm. During each loading cycle, the operator uses four
20
-------
*^
^k.
This page is reproduced at the
back of the report bj a different
reproduction method to provide
better detail.
21
-------
controls to perform these functions:
1. Move inner forklift frame right to grasp or return container
and left to center it in the discharge hopper.
2. Move swing arm in or out to grasp or release container.
3. Move top of forklift frame forward or back to level container
while it is being raised and to dump it into the hopper.
k. Raise and lower the arms to dump container.
In addition, the truck contains hydraulic conventional controls to pack or
eject the load and to open and close the tailgate.
The truck was not built for speed or efficiency, but only to do a job
that couldn't be done by hand. It proved to be economical in operation,
however, as the section on economics shows. It has done well and has been
retained as a standby unit during Phase II of the experiment.
The truck was completed and ready for normal operation about the first
of August 1969. Collection routes were established by choosing the areas
that would be representative of the economic spectrum of the city. We
chose neighborhoods that were far enough apart that different levels of
service could be provided without neighbors becoming concerned by compar-
ing various levels of service in their areas. Two other considerations
were:
1. Areas that were convenient for the truck.
2. Needs of existing refuse system.
Containers were placed in the field during August and September 1969,
and collection began. The 80-gallon containers were delivered right to the
doors of the people who were not on alleys. They had to roll them from their
homes to the curbside on the days of pickup. The 160-gallon and 300-gallon
containers were placed in the alleys behind the homes on the routes. There
is plenty of room in the 16 feet alleys for pickup so the families did not
handle nor make room for the 160-gallon or 300-gallon containers.
Comparative Costs; Mechanized Vs. Train Collection
Although Phase I was not intended to provide data regarding the economics
of the system, we did find that the cost of collection with Godzilla was less
than with the conventional system. Our conventional train system cost about
$1.75 per home per month. Amortizing the $90 cost per 300-gallon container
over its expected five-year minimum life and paying all costs of a collection
22
-------
City Of
Scottsdale
Arizona
iTi
Demonstration Locations:
Area I 160 gal Ion 1 X Week
Area 11 160 gal Ion 1 X Week
Area I I I 300 gal 1 on 1 X Week
Area IV 300 gallon 2 X Week
Area V 80 gal 1 on 2 X Week
Areas I-V were selected for the first
mechanized collection experiment.
23
-------
vehicle like "Godzilla", including labor, amortization, haul cost, mainten-
ance, and operation costs to serve the various service areas are tabulated
as follows:
Area
V
1
II
1 II
IV
Train
Homes
per
container
1
2
1
2
k
Container
size (gal.)
80
160
160
300
300
Col lections
per week
2
2
1
1
2
2
Cost per month per home
Service
$1.42
0.82
0.58
0.51
0.64
1.75
Container
$0.80
0.60
1.20
1.06
0.53
0.00
Total
$2.22
1.42
1.78
1.57
1.17
1.75
Obviously even a crude adaption like Godzilla will provide a savings where
alleys are available and refuse from several generators can be combined or
where homeowners or developers can be induced to provide containers. Note
from the tabulation that it is more economical to provide twice-per-week
service to a small container than to enlarge the container and provide
once-per-week service for alley service. As an illustration, two families
sharing a 160-gallon container picked up two times per week, would cost $1.42.
If those same two families shared a 300-gal Ion container picked up once a week,
the cost would be $1.57. Providing the larger container would cost $0.46
more than the 160-gallon, while the decrease in service saves only $0.31. As a
result, twice-per-week service is more economical and the sanitation advan-
tages of more frequent services will accrue to users.
Public Acceptance of New Collection Concept
Pre-Test Interviews
While the containers were being placed in the field, we took care to
visit each generator to explain the purpose of the experiment and the use of
his container. We also asked him a number of questions which were used with
a post-test questionnaire to determine the level of acceptance of the con-
tainer system. Samples of the questionnaire and instruction sheets, as well
as an analysis of the interviews and description of user attitudes are in-
cluded in Appendixes C, D, and E. We found that about 98% of the partici-
pants were willing to cooperate in the experiment. Less than half of the
people interviewed felt that the old conventional collection service was
adequate although many were hesitant about trying the new system or sharing
a municipally-owned container. Those who were unwilling were kept on the
regular collection system until the experiment was underway when several of
them then agreed to participate. We made special accommodations to furnish
extra containers or to relocate containers to overcome objections.
24
-------
Operating Experience
We prepared a carefully maintained log of each call from any residents
participating in the study. The log indicates the problems we encountered
during the early days of operation. When a resident objected to a local
newspaper complaint that his neighbors were being used as guinea pigs in
the experiment, the newspaper conducted a telephone survey of some 25 persons
included in the experiment. None objected and many praised the new system as
a considerable improvement over conventional collection. As home owners be-
came accustomed to the new system, we found fewer and fewer objections. We
were so encouraged by results, in fact, that we requested permission to order
the special collection vehicle to be used in Phase II ahead of schedule.
Post Test Interviews
As explained in Dr. McGaw's report in the Appendix E, "Residential Atti-
tudes Toward Scottsdale Refuse Containerization Experiment", every level of
service provided with the container system was preferred by users over the
conventional system. Attitudes toward the city and the collection service
considerably improved during the experiment. Apprehensions were allayed and
users heartily endorsed containerization after experience with it.
The report points out that whereas 60% of the users agreed that the city
was doing an excellent job of refuse collection before the experiment, Sk%
agreed afterward. Users felt that containers should be made more durable,
and 8% felt that they should be enlarged. Some users felt that lids should
be lighter to accommodate children and some objected to the extra distance
they had to walk. Users indicated they most liked adequate capacity (32%);
cleaner alleys (21%); and the fact that containers stay covered and don't
tip over (12%).
Before the experiment, 55% of the interviewees thought city employees
were doing a good job of refuse collection. After the experiment, 9k% agreed.
Willingness to share a container with a neighbor increased from 55% to 78%,
after the experiment, those who had shared, were more likely to agree than
those who had not shared.
In all, the staff was pleased with results of interviews. Interviewers
were welcomed into homes and reported enthusiastic reception for the experi-
ment. The data and the contacts indicate that containerization achieved
among the users.
To compare data obtained in the pre-test interviews with that obtained
in post-test interviews and to compare data collected from the various levels
of service provided, we developed a simple rating system. The rating system
was used to summarize some of the data regarding attitudes to create a crude
index of the favorability of the various levels of service. Using 1,000 as
25
-------
a perfect service which every user would agree would be satisfactory, the
following indices were developed and arranged in the order in which service
was favored (See Appendix E):
Level of service Favorabi1ity Index
1. 160 gal., one per home, once per week 0.932
2. 80 gal., one per home, twice per week 0.919
3. 300 gal., two homes, once per week 0.90^
k, 300 gal., four homes, twice per week 0.868
5. 160 gal., two homes, twice per week 0.860
6. Conventional train service, twice per week 0.651
All levels of service using mechanization and furnished containers
achieved a higher level of acceptance among users than conventional service.
Note that once-per-week service achieved a higher level of acceptance than
twice-per-week. We feel that this difference results from the extra capacity
that is available to the users since containers were sized for first-of-the-
week col lections.
Based on analysis of the results and considering the economics, we
decided to use levels of service numbers 2 and k in Phase II.
26
-------
PHASE II: IMPLEMEN1'! NO MFCnANIZEC COM^CTION
Phase I determined that a system of cor. I ainer: «:ir.g residential refuse
in municipally owned containers collected hy a mechanical vehicle was both
feasible and acceptable to residents. Pnase II was an extension of the
successful research of Phase I. Stated generally, the broad objective of
Phase II was to demonstrate the feasibility of various mechanizations of
residential solid waste collection. With the prototype equipment on hand,
the plan was to work on modifications which would improve productivity.
With these improvements, we expected to demonstrate the projected economics
by analyzing performance and documenting costs. Corollary objectives of
Phase II included the development of techniques to improve public accept-
ance, publicize the demonstration, measure and find solutions to safety
problems and improve sanitation and working conditions.
The specific objectives for Phase II were clearly stated in the appli-
cations and are listed below;
Barrel Snatcher (Telescoping Arm Loader)
A. Demonstrate and report on the operation of the Barrel
Snatcher in terms of durability, safety, control-
ability, maneuverability and training required to
operate.
B. Collect and report on the costs incurred by the use of
the Barrel Snatcher, the speed of pickup, and capacity
under the conditions of service in the experiment.
C. Work to improve the Barrel Snatcher in terms of design,
construction, safety, durability and economy.
Litter Pig (Articulated Arm Loader)
A.
B.
C.
Demonstrate and report on the operation of the Litter
Pig in terms of durability, controlabi1ity, maneuver-
ability and training required to operate.
Measure and report the cost of operation, the speed of
pick up, and capacity under the conditions of service
in the experiment.
Make improvements in the Litter Pig
durability, economy and sanitation.
in terms of safety,
27
-------
Trash Hog (Mobile Transfer Station)
A. Demonstrate and report on the operation of the Trash Hog
in terms of durability, safety, controlabi1ity, maneuver-
ability and training required to operate.
B. Collect and report on the costs incurred by use of the
Trash Hog and the savings and increased productivity for
collection vehicles.
C. Report improvements to the Trash Hog in terms of safety,
durability and economy.
For all mechanized vehicles, our objective was to implement their use in
as much of the city as possible to reduce the cost of service and compare the
various vehicles to identify the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Collection Equipment
Mechanizations demonstrated in Phase II in addition to old Godzilla pre-
viously described, included five pieces of equipment,
Modified Rear- or Side-Loader
Description. The simplest mechanization is a kit to modify a rear- or
side-loading packer truck to equip it to dump the 80-gallon curb containers.
The kit is a U-shaped rack into which the container is inserted from the side.
The rack is pivoted by a pneumatic or hydraulic ram to dump its contents into
the loading hopper. It costs less than $1,000, has a container handling cycle
time of about 10 seconds, handles 80-gallon containers, and is fed by hand.
Two units may be mounted on each truck so the truck can serve both sides of a
street or alley. This mechanization is useful for a small community or one
starting a containerization program. It is economically competitive only
where homeowners, subdividers or others provide containers.
Final Modifications. To provide a back-up to the Litter Pig, the modi-
fied rear-end loader was employed. The operation required two men. One
workman would drive and the other would place the 80-gallon container in the
yoke, dump the container, and return it to the curb. The vehicle was re-
cently replaced with a Shu-Pak side-loading truck with the yoke mounted on
the side. The operation now requires only one man who steps out of the cab,
dumps the container, returns to the cab, and drives to the next container.
Barrel Snatcher - Telescoping Arm Loaders
Descript ion. This truck, the backbone or workhorse of the mechanizatior
family, provides the least expensive collection system, is fast, flexible,
and has high capacity. It is presently in operation in Scottsdale and known
28
-------
-------
-------
as the "Son of Godzilla". (Our modiiiuJ f.ont lor.ci&r was called "Godzilla".)
It empties containers into a 35-yard pa-'l-cr boi
-------
service and studied for improvements. It was soon noted that the grip hand
which grasps the container was open toward the front. The driver could
drive up to the container, grip it for dumping, and lift it. When releasing
the container to swing the boom away, however, the thumb would hit fences
beside the 300-gs11 on container. The container grip was rebuilt so that it
would grasp the container from the alley side of the fence instead of the
side toward the truck. The thumb would then open toward the truck instead
of toward the fence.
The first Barrel Snatcher required the largest number of changes as ex-
pected. Below is an item by item discussion of the major modifications made.
Those who are interested in more technical information are invited to con-
tact the Superintendent of Equipment Maintenance.
1. Wiring System. The wiring system of the Barrel Snatcher controls
was the cause of constant electrical failures. The system was
built with push on connectors. Bolt and nut connectors and larger
wire were installed and relays were eliminated to give the truck a
heavier duty electrical system.
2. Boom Mounting. The main frame of the boom mounting and the center
pin of the boom could not stand the shock of the boom moving and
broke several times. A complete new mounting was built from £ inch
rather than 3/16 inch steel. Extra gussets were added and a
3x5x5 inch oblong tube was extended to the left side of the
frame rail. The center pin was extended five inches so that it
could fasten to both the top and bottom of the frame. A £ inch
steel plate was added on the bottom of the frame to accommodate
the extended center pin.
3. Boom Swing Motor. The hydraulic rotary motor which swings the
boom was broken off several times because it couldn't withstand
the inertia! force of the moving boom. Several sets of bolts
were sheared off. A hydraulic ram and bell crank was installed
to provide more positive action.
U. Control Handle. The control handle delivered by the manufacturer
was bulky and difficult to operate efficiently. To provide a
framework for a better and less bulky handle, the control stick
utilized in helicopters was obtained and adapted for the Barrel
Snatcher. The control has ten separate motions and can be oper-
ated with one hand.
5. Boom Speed. In order to increase the speed of the boom and there-
by decrease the time needed to grasp and empty the container,
1 inch hydraulic lines were installed from the pump to the control
valve. The control valve itself was also replaced with a larger
valve. This adjustment proved successful as the boom can now be
moved faster and yet not too fast to be a safety hazard. Cycle
32
-------
time to dump containers Was reduced from 18 to 15 seconds.
6. Boom Bearing. The carrier bearinq on the inside and of the ex-
tension section of the boom wore out faster than would be ex-
pected. The bronze plate bushing was replaced with two ball
bearings.
7. Container damp. To grasp the container, the first truck had
to approach the container, extend the boom and clamp, dump, return
the container to the ground, retract the boom and clamp and move
to the next container. To eliminate the extension and retraction
time, the inside finger of the clamp was extended and the outside
thumb was cut back. Thus, when the container was returned to the
ground, the operator could open the thumb and swing the boom away
from the container rather than retracting the entire boom and
clamp. This modification reduced the cycle time by several seconds.
8. Boom Stroke. One of the first observations made on the new truck
was that the refuse was not being properly dumped into the hopper
on the top of the truck. To correct this problem, the apron along
the top of the truck had to be cut back and the upper end of the
hydraulic hoist ram bracket had to be remounted to give the boom
a longer stroke in the up position. This correction also raised
the boom off the ground to the level desired for container grasp-
ing when the boom was depressed. Previously, the boom would touch
the ground fully depressed. We substituted a foot at the top for
a foot at the bottom of the stroke.
9. Air Control Valve Lines. The truck was delivered with nylon lines
for all air control valves. These proved to be inadequate and
were replaced with copper tubing.
10. Main Hydraulic Pump. The hydraulic pump which powers the boom
was changed from a 19-gallon pump to a 29-gallon pump. The
higher volume pump provided more power to the entire boom
mechani sm.
11. Thumb Hose. The hoses to the thumb and wrist of the clamp orig-
inally went through oblong tubing to guide it while the arm
telescoped in or out. In this device the hose would double up and
wear against itself. A separate pipe was installed for each hose
to stop this type of wear and increase hose life.
The second barrel snatcher required many of the same adjustments that the
first truck required. The truck was rewired, the boom mounting was strength-
ened, and the control handle was installed by the shop.
There were many problems, however, which were different primarily because
the second Barrel Snatcher was designed to transfer its refuse to the Trash
Hog. The back door of the Barrel Snatcher, for example, was not strong
33
-------
a
Iff"
-------
enough to take the force of compact ioii f-\n sections, of the back door have
been replaced. The other modifications w-ie as fallows:
1. Side Rails. The side rails which cai ry the packer were modified
to carry the packer up and away from the Floor. The bearing sur-
face was extended from one Foot to three feet and a phenolic
plastic was used instead of wood for the bearing. The channels
in which the bearings rode also had to be reinforced. These
changes enabled the packer to move smoothly on a strong framework.
2. Door Chain. The ram compacted refuse against the door with enough
force to keep the door from opening. A two incn hydraulic ram
operated a chain arrangement which had one chain to pull up and one
chain to close the door. This system was replaced with a five inch
ram and two chains for the up motion and two chains for the down
mot i on.
3. Transfer Device. The Trash Hog proved to be too long for the mount-
ing of the centering device for transferring. The centering device
was, therefore, mounted on the Barrel Snatcher. The hooks which
connect the Barrel Snatcher to the Trash Hog were modified to change
the stroke of the arms and the angle of connection.
4. Quick Coupling Unit. Rather than draw power for raising the rear
door from the Trash Hog's tractor, a unit was designed which enabled
the transfer to be accomplished with hydraulic oil from the Barrel
Snatcher. Two hydraulic hoses at the right rear of the trailer
connect to the hydraulic system of the Barrel Snatcher. A control
panel at the left rear of the Barrel Snatcher has enabled the driver
to stand at the point of connection, control the engine and ram speed
and open and close the rear door of both the Trash Hog and Barrel
Snatcher. The Litter Pig was similarily equipped for transfer.
Litter Pig - Articulated Arm Loader
Description. The Litter Pig is shown in an accompanying drawing
(Appendix F) and photo (Figure 2 ). It consists of Western Body and Hoist's
Shu-Pak side-loader equipped with an articulated, back-hoe style arm that
reached over parked cars to grasp containers. It had a right hand drive to
accommodate manual loading and good visibility. It was operated by a simple
one-hand control that worked through electric switches to operate solenoid
valves in the hydraulic system. The equipment handled 80-gal Ion containers
and was equipped with an optional orange peel bucket to grasp plastic or
paper bags, boxes, piles of shrubbery clippings or other material. It has
a cycle time of dround 30 seconds. An important design feature was that
containers are turned before being released so the operator drove the truck
up to a container and away from it without clearing the mechanism away from
35
-------
-
*T •
-------
the container. The hopper is cleared «.oi,L i nuously i.y a reciprocating ram.
Final Modifications. The driver of *he Litt-;r r'.g discovered that the
back-hoe style arm was difficult to operate. A *oi«sc,op
-------
Transferring does not keep collection vehicles away from their routes
for longer than about ten minutes. The Trash Hog is served by a tractor
equipped with hydraulic and electrical equipment. It can be handled and
set up by one man who must leave the cab only to make electrical and hy-
draulic connections. He may have a small amount of litter to pick up near
the tailgate, but littering is minimal.
Trailers cost around $23,000 each, the tractor about $20,000 and the
tailgate and ejection plate modifications start at about $3,000. The system
is much less expensive than conventional transfer stations and much more
economical in use since the station may be set up in temporary, convenient
locations. Scottsdale set up the transfer station in parks, church parking
lots, on streets adjacent to vacant lots, on vacant lots and in similar
locations.
Final Modifications. The Trash Hog required modification to eject its
load properly at the landfill. The truck was designed to eject in two steps.
The ram would engage the ejection plate and push the load one half the dis-
tance to the door of the trailer. It would then retract and reengage the
ejection plate to force the load the rest of the way out. In two motions,
however, the ram did not have enough power to eject the load completely.
This problem was solved by making holes in the ejection plate for another
coupling with the ram. Now the trailer ejects in three motions with enough
force to empty the trailer.
As in the case of the second Barrel Snatcher, the mechanism which opens
the rear door had to be strengthened. To solve the problem, the door opener
chain sprockets were fastened to the hydraulic yoke rather than on each side
of the shaft and a larger cylinder and four chains were installed. To ac-
commodate transfer, hydraulic lines were installed so that the Trash Hog
could draw its power from the Barrel Snatcher or Litter Pig as noted earlier.
The strengthened door mechanism and new hydraulic arrangement with the con-
trols for transfer at the rear of Barrel Snatcher and Litter Pig have greatly
improved the transfer process.
Experience With Manufacturers
During the demonstration period we worked with many various industries
to develop specialized products. Because we were demonstrating a system with
a much higher capital cost than conventional collection systems, and a system
which would favorably compete with the best available on the basis of eco-
nomics, productivity, convenience, safety or sanitation, we expected to have
the kind of aggressive interest in product development that would make our
task an easy one. We were generally disappointed, however, and a few comments
about our experiences may be of interest.
We met with the company several times during 1968 and finally worked
out the original concepts for the Barrel Snatcher as a first step in a series
of mechanizations that would finally produce a non-stop collection vehicle.
38
-------
Western agreed to undertake the design and development costs provided the
city would purchase containers and demonstrate the equipment in use.
Western indicated its intent to patent the idea and to manufacture the
equipment as part of its line of refuse collection equipment.
Accordingly, the demonstration grant application was filed and finally
granted. After Phase I had demonstrated the success of the concept, we
ordered the first Barrel Snatcher and met several times with Western to
refine details of the design. Meanwhile, we also applied for grants for
the Litter Pig and Trash Hog and received supplementary authorization to
demonstrate them. Western agreed to manufacture these pieces of equipment
also.
In December 1970, with the first Barrel Snatcher delivered and operat-
ing, the second ordered,and the Litter Pig and Trash Hog on the drawing
board, Western was purchased by Maxon Industries. After study, Maxon agreed
to fill its obligation to deliver the prototype Litter Pig and Trash Hog
but indicated no interest in further development, sales or orders for those
items. We received numerous postponements and finally threatened to sue for
breach of contract. Subsequent deliveries have been delayed to the detri-
ment of the project. The city is now awaiting its third Barrel Snatcher
almost two years after the order for it was placed.
During the demonstration period we received less and less interest in
our problems and very little support from the manufacturer. Modifications
and improvements have been constructed by our equipment maintenance personnel.
To assure a continuing source for improved equipment, we have approached
several other manufacturers to try to work out a basis for joint development.
Driver Training
With the receipt of the first Barrel Snatcher, the city was faced with
the unique task of training a driver to operate a vehicle that differed
considerably from refuse collection vehicles of the time. To accomplish the
task, it was decided that a competent, skillful driver would be selected from
the refuse crew and essentially, be allowed to learn by doing. A number of
containers and obstacles were placed in the refuse yard to create a working
situation similar to what the driver would encounter in a typical alley and
street. For a week, the driver practiced grasping, lifting, dumping and
returning containers to the ground.
When we felt confident that he could control the powerful arm of the
Barrel Snatcher, he was sent out on a collection route. Initially, it took
the operator as much as an hour to do several blocks of an alley, but within
39
-------
a month he was able to cut the collection time in half. After the initial
period of considerable improvement, the operator continued to become more
proficient with the arm and truck and settled into a period of slow but
steady improvement. In September 1971, for example, the operators of the
two Barrel Snatchers were averaging 263 homes per hour of collection. In
June 1972, this rate had increased to 271 homes per hour of collection.
The operator of the second Barrel Snatcher went through the same learn-
ing process except that he had the advantage of assistance from the first
driver. Both operators shared experiences, have helped each other improve
performance, and solved driving problems.
The Litter Pig's first driver found the articulated arm quite a challenge.
The arm was designed with one more pair of movements than the Barrel Snatcher.
The hand and arm was clumsy and frustrating to learn to operate. The driver
continued to work hard to master the arm and, after several months, was able
to become proficient. The replacement telescoping arm was significantly
easier to master. The driver is now averaging over 125 homes per hour of
col lection.
The 65-feet long Trash Hog poses a different type of driver training
problem. The operator must be able to negotiate the sharp turns found
throughout the city with safety. During Phase II the Trash Hog was driven
by two equipment operators who were selected on the basis of their skill and
experience with trailer driving. The drivers learned to handle the long
trailer through experience in the yard and in the field and have had no
accidents with the vehicle. Part of their success in learning to drive the
Trash Hog was their concern for safety and their careful selection of routes
to move about the city.
Our Personnel Department has worked out a comprehensive program of in-
struction and training for new and prospective drivers. Future drivers will
be the product of that program and will come to the position with all of
the skills except the manual dexterity to operate the controls. We have
trained a number of back-up drivers and have found that most drivers de-
velop sufficient dexterity in about two weeks.
PHASE II: CONTAINERS
80-Gallon Container Design and Fabrication
During Phase II, the 80- and 300-gallon containers were modified con-
siderably In both design and construction. The Phase I 80-gal Ion container,
manufactured by County Plastics, consisted of a circular lid, container, and
four caster wheels fastened to the bottom. The container was designed to
keep the mold simple and to make a container at minimal cost that would do
the job. The lid was molded in one piece, reinforced by p'.ywood, cut so that
hinges could be installed, and bolted to the container. These improvements
40
-------
made the container usable, but, after a year, breakage of the light 8
-------
could not withstand the punishment of containing large amounts of refuse and
being picked up and dumped by the Barrel Snatcher. The cost of the 300-gallon
container was $90.00.
To obtain the advantage of the stronger piano hinge, the back side of
the container and lid were flattened. Ropes were again installed to control
the lid, but cutting of the ropes by juveniles became a problem. The lids
were more than four feet in diameter and were awkward and heavy to handle.
The container was made of the cross-lined polyethylene. To solve these pro-
blems, a new lid was designed which returned to the original lid in that the
lid was cut and the hinge installed along the cut on the top. The small sector
was bolted to the container. The movable portion of the lid was molded so it
would open to about 100° and stand open. This modification has eliminated
the rope lanyards and made the lid much lighter, easier to handle and more
efficient. The lid has proven to be light enough for children and oldsters
to easily lift with one hand.
Experience With Manufacturers
The biggest capital investment in the system is for containers. In a
"set" of containers and collection vehicles, the equipment costs about $^0,000
and the containers about $120,000. Further, the set up costs of designing and
fabricating molds is much less than the cost of designing and prototyping
equipment. So it has been relatively easier to find interested container
manufacturers.
Our first contacts were with County Plastics of Long Island, who quickly
developed the containers for Phase I. During Phase I we had also contacted
Fusion Rubbermaid. Fusion showed a continuing interest in the program and
worked with us to develop a suitable 80-gallon container. We purchased 100
of these containers in the Spring of 1970. That company has offered subse-
quent proposals to furnish containers, but has not offered as competitively
attractive a life-price combination as Reuter.
The Reuter Company has worked to develop a functional product and to
meet the requirements for guarantees. They fabricated and furnished several
trial containers, initiated use of cross-linked polyethylene and have done
many experiments to develop and improve their products. They furnished con-
tainers guaranteed tor five years in 1970, and ten years in 1971. Approxi-
mately 1800 300-gallon and 700 80-gallon Reuter containers are now in regular
use in Scottsdale.
Interested container manufacturers have been somewhat easier to find and
they have worked harder to develop quality products than equipment manu-
facturers.
Sani tat ion
Phase I research into the fly problem concluded that, although spraying
controlled fly population, the predominant factor in fly concentration is
odor created by solid waste on or around containers. In a climate that
42
-------
features temperatures in the 120's, odors can and have accumulated in the City
provided containers, especially in the 300-gallon alley containers, which are
subject to the hot sun. Drawing from our experience from Phase I, we decided
to look for ways to control odor rather than embark on an expensive, compre-
hensive spraying and container cleaning program.
Since a large portion of households follow the ordinance requiring putres-
cible materials to be wrapped separately, there are many City provided con-
tainers with no odor problem. On the basis of this observation, we decided
that our program to control odor and flies would be based on citizen complaints
and/or problem areas identified by our service representatives in the field.
Initially, we used the spraying of containers and lids with liquid in-
secticides. This service required one of our men, a truck and spray unit to
go into the field in response to a complaint and spray the container. The ser-
vice was effective but costly. Chemicals used had to be nontoxic to children
who frequently play around the containers.
We were contacted during Phase II by Danner Industries, Inc. of Phoenix,
Arizona, who offered Scottsdale a product for testing that could reduce fly
control costs and do an adequate control job. This project, called an Ecopsk,
consists of a plastic container, a powder for controlling odor and perfora-
tions in the plastic. The unit has tape on one side and is installed on the
inside of the lid of the container. When the lid is opened and closed, a
small amount of the powder falls through the perforations into the container.
This powder kills bacteria inside the refuse container and thus eliminates
all odors, including the cause of most odors, bacteria from food spoilage, etc.
Two hundred units were installed in the 300-gallon alley containers for
observation. Our experience with the experiment has been that the powder and
the method of dispersion is effective against odors and, therefore, flies.
We are waiting for a complete analysis by the Maricopa County Health Depart-
ment to support or reject our observations. In the meantime, we have pur-
chased additional Ecopaks from Danner Industries, Inc., and are using them
in response to fly and odor complaints.
The units cost $.90 each and will last approximately three months. Since
few containers need treatment and usually only during the summer months, this
relatively high unit cost is small in comparison to the total number of con-
tainers in service. The Ecopak can be installed quickly by one person with
a hand stapler. We found during the experiment that the tape that came with
the Ecopak was not strong enough to hold the unit to the lid. This method
has worked satisfactorily and will be used unless Danner develops a better
adhesive tape or a new method to secure the unit to the lid.
The alleys which have the 300-gallon polyethylene containers generally
have less litter and refuse scattered around than alleys with household pro-
vided containers. The 300-gallon containers and lids make the refuse in-
accessible to dogs and cats and there are consequently no overturned City
43
-------
provided containers. The polyethylene lids are connected to the container by
a strong piano-style hinge and therefore, cannot be removed by the wind, dogs,
cats, etc. Homeowners on the other hand, tend to become negligent with their
metal and small plastic containers and lose their lids or forget to keep them
on their containers. The result of uncovered refuse is more flies, odors and
1itter.
At the curb, the 80-galIon polyethylene container displays the same advan-
tages over conventional metal and small plastic containers. It is attractive,
inaccessible to dogs, cats, and insects and has an attached lid.
From the point of view of pick up, the polyethylene containers are handled
by the mechanized vehicles in such a way that little if any refuse is spilled
in dumping. The lid does not fall completely open until the container is di-
rectly over the hopper. When workmen pick up homeowner provided containers,
they inevitably dump some too early or incompletely and spill refuse in the
street or alley. Their collection pace is fast and they tend to leave refuse
where it is spilled.
The sanitary and litter conditions surrounding the mechanized system and
polyethylene containers in summary, have been superior to those areas of the
City under the train or rear end loader method of collection. The City is
anxious to containerize more of the City to take early advantage of these
improved sanitary conditions.
Status of Patents - Equipment and Containers
Any patentable ideas conceived and developed by the demonstration become
part of the public domain and are available for use by any one interested.
Most of the equipment configurations and the mechanizations demonstrated in
this grant, however, were conceived before the grant was awarded and the
patent rights have remained with the inventors. The modified front loader,
Godzilla, was developed by the grant and plans for this equipment are avail-
able on request from the City of Scottsdale. The appendix includes a copy
of these plans.
The remaining equipment and the containers were developed outside the
scope of this grant. There are two inventors who have applied for patent pro-
tection. George Morrison of Western Body and Hoist Company is the inventor
of the Barrel Snatcher. His rights to the invention were purchased by Maxon
Industries and now vest in that company. The second inventor is M.G. Stragier,
the director of this project. He conceived a basic idea for non-stop collec-
tion and has applied for patent protection for the device. The application
includes protection for the container and the Litter Pig loading equipment.
Those two devices are now available for license under the pending patent. Two
manufacturers, Reuter and Plastifoam of Denver, Colorado have been licensed to
sell containers. John Pickrell of Scottsdale has been licensed to manufacture
a loading device similar to the Litter Pig arm and protected by the same pend-
ing patent. Otherwise, there are no licensed manufacturers of equipment.
44
-------
The third inventors are Earl Elton and Howard Smith of Covina, California
who own an issued patent for the Trash Hog. The patent gives broad protection
for mechanical transfer of cargo between vehicles and is presently available
for 1icense.
Social Impact of Mechanized Collection
Residents
Acceptance of Program. The Phase I attitude survey conducted by Dr.
Dickinson L. McGaw, Director, Survey Research Center, Arizona State University,
showed that participants in the experiment were willing to share and use con-
tainers jointly and position containers properly at the curb. The survey also
found that before the experiment 55% of the interviewees thought city employees
were doing a good job and after the experiment Sk% agreed that city employees
were doing a good job. These findings were all encouraging and were the basis
for our decision to proceed to Phase II and more sophisticated equipment. We
felt that it would also be important to examine the attitude of participants
after an extended period of use and without the novelty of participating in a
new experimental collection system.
During Phase II, Mr. Dennis Schweiger, a graduate student, and members
of the city staff conducted a survey (Appendix G), to determine the attitude
of mechanized collection customers toward the service provided by the new col-
lection system. Specifically, the survey sought to determine attitude on two
quest ions;
1. Is the new mechanized method an improvement over the old method?
2. Is the refuse being collected satisfactorily by the new system?
The survey was conducted in December 1971 in two separate residential
areas that had been receiving the service for at least one year. There was
ample time, therefore, for the residents to develop attitudes based upon per-
formance for an extended period. One area was served by the Barrel Snatcher
and the 300-gallon containers in the alley and the other area by the Barrel
Snatcher and 80-gallon containers at the curb. Both areas were occupied pre-
dominately by white, middle class families and were previously serviced by
the train system of collection. The survey was conducted after a period in
which several equipment failures with the Barrel Snatcher had resulted in er-
ratic service.
i
The cumulative attitude toward the question, "Is the new method an im-
provement over the o'd method" was strongly positive with 72.9% expressing a
favorable attitude. In other words, almost three-fourths of those questioned
felt mechanization was an improvement over the city's fast train system of
collection. Consistent with these results, 75% favored keeping the mechan-
ized system rather than returning to the old manual collection service.
The favorable reaction to mechanization evidenced by the Phase II atti-
tude survey has continued as the Public Works Department has received many
45
-------
inquiries from residents desiring to know when their neighborhood will receive
the mechanized service. These inquiries have come especially from householders
who are displeased with their alley and have noticed that the alleys with the
300-gallon containers are generally cleaner.
Complaints. An analysis of the complaints received by the Refuse Divi-
sion in the month of June 1972, revealed that there were fifty complaints
pertaining to containerized areas and thirty seven to the non-containerized
areas. The larger number of complaints from containerized areas is largely
attributable to the fact that the city has been placing a number of new con-
tainers in the field each month. It takes several months for homeowners to ad-
just to sharing a container with neighbors. Of the fifty complaints received,
for example, twelve pertained to inadequate container size, six concerned neigh-
bors who weren't us'ng their alley container properly, three residents complained
that the container in the alley was too close to their back yard, two that the
container in the alley was too far away, and several that the Barrel Snatcher
broke the telephone 1ines.
The complaints from the non-containerized areas predominantly concerned
sanitary conditions such as papers in the alley, flies and garbage spread
around. These complaints arise because of the open trailer method of collec-
tion, transferring by dumping trailers and the numerous small containers which
can be tipped over by animals.
All complaints are investigated by Refuse Division "Service Representa-
tives", whose sole job is to handle problems such as those discussed. In
containerized areas, complaints such as "the container is too close to my
pool," the "container is too far away," and "the Barrel Snatcher broke my
telephone wire" are resolved by the service representatives by moving the
container to a better location or assigning a household to another container.
Messy alley complaints are resolved by issuing clean up orders to the parties
concerned or, if the city is responsible, having the city crews clean the alley.
Although the change to mechanization creates an initial surge in the com-
plaint rate, the long range effect showed a reduction in complaints, and an
improvement in attitude.
In the Spring of 1972, the Mayor and three of six Councilmen ran for re-
election against a slate that belittled the mechanized system, claiming the
costs involved were far greater than manual collection. The slate was soundly
defeated. Voters demonstrated their attitudes toward the innovative mechani-
zation by reelecting its implementors.
In Spring 1971, the Council began requiring developers of new housing
units in Scottsdale to purchase and provide refuse containers with new units.
This requirement has met no resistance although neighboring cities are in
court for similar changes for park and capital improvements. Several de-
velopers have made furnished containers a sales incentive.
In general, the mechanization receives strong public support. The two
46
-------
formal attitude surveys, the requests for service extension, the willingness
of developers to provide containers, the willingness of new neighborhoods to
accept service, the compliments and general conversation all show that the
system produces substantially improved public attitudes. As new habits are
formed to accommodate the system, attitudes improve.
Collect ion Workers
Improved Safety and Working Conditions. As noted in the introductory re-
marks, statistics show the occupation of refuse collector to be a hazardous
one. The solid waste industry, in fact, had the highest injury frequency of
any industrial category in 1971 according to the "Work Injury Rate" pamphlet.
This fact is not surprising in light of the nature of the work of the re-
fuse collection. Workmen must jump on and off collection vehicles continually
in conventional collection systems. Each day they handle hundreds of con-
tainers, many overweight and easy to drop. Some containers have jagged edges
that can cause cuts. The possibilities for injury are, in short, numerous.
The frequency rate of disabling injuries is one major criteria to eval-
uate the safety of an industry. The frequency rate is determined by multi-
plying the number of disabling injuries times 1,000,000 and dividing the
result by the total number of hours worked. For the United States, this fre-
quency rate for refuse collection in 1970 was 90.0 accidents per million man
hours worked.
During the period July 1, 1970 through January 31, 1972, or approximately
a year and one half, the frequency rate for all four Scottsdale refuse pro-
grams was 6k accidents per million man hours worked. This average is con-
siderably less than the 90.9 for 1970 for the industry as a whole and a credit
to the Refuse Division's efforts in stressing safety and in the benefits of
mechanizat ion.
There are, however, significant differences among our programs. Scotts-
dale1 s brush collection program proved to have the highest frequency rate at
99 accidents per million man hours worked. These men, who collect materials
including tree trimmings, stumps, and cacti, are subject to a variety of in-
juries such as flying materials from their chippers.
The next highest frequency rate for the year and one half period is found
in the city's conventional collection system which utilizes the train method
of collection. The workmen ride the trailers between pickups and can be in-
jured if they fall off or jump off carelessly. They must also lift and empty
the containers over the side of the trailer. The frequency rate for this
program was 89 accidents per million man hours worked, only slightly less than
the 90.0 for the industry for the nation in 1970.
The city's two mechanized systems, Commercial Refuse Collection and Con-
tainerized Refuse Collection, demonstrated one of the most important benefits
47
-------
TABLE 8
ACCIDENT FREQUENCY RATE OF DISABLING INJURIES
1969 - 1971
SELECTED INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRY
Automobile Manufacturing
Chemical Acid Manufacturing
Structural Steel Fabrication
Highway Construction
Structural Metal Work
Logging
General Building Construction
Municipal Employees
Coal Mining
Parks & Recreation Departments
Fi re Departments
Pol ice Departments
Refuse Collection
FREQUENCY RATE PER
MILLION MAN HOURS WORKED
1.53
6.37
15.07
16.13
16.58
17.94
18.33
29.1+2
34.29
36.04
^7.32
48.15
98.80
48
-------
of mechanizing solid waste collection. In the year and one half period, there
were no disabling injuries in either program. A man riding in a cab emptying
containers by controls in the cab simply is not subject to the dangerous con-
ditions that confront workers in conventional systems. He is also more atten-
tive to his work as his working environment is more pleasant. Our Barrel
Snatcher, Litter Pig, and most of our commercial drivers work in air condi-
tioned cabs. In a climate that can have temperatures as high as 120°, this
certainly is ol" benefit. The Barrel Snatcher drivers even have stereo tape
players to make their work a little more enjoyable.
Less injuries mean, of course, less time away from work, fewer payments
for hospitalization and other benefits, and, of course, a better attitude among
employees and their families. Although we did not include a cost benefit from
safety in our economic analysis, it is a factor that should be weighed heavily
in favor of mechanization versus conventional collection when municipalities
or private firms compare and study the two systems.
Displaced Workmen Programs. Since the Barrel Snatcher replaces about
eight men and the Litter Pig replaces four men, we put special effort into pn -
viding for the employees who were being displaced. Some of these experiences
may be of interest. Temporary employees have been used to replace employees
lost through normal attrition, college students for a special Saturday collec-
tion crew, Public Service Careers (PSC) training resources have been tapped
and promotion and transfer have been utilized to take care of employees dis-
placed by mechanization. Since most of the displaced employees have advanced
to more attractive work and to higher paying jobs, mechanization has been ac-
cepted by our employees. They are eager to assist us to implement the remain-
der of the program.
Use of employees on a temporary basis to do the work performed by per-
manent employees who have terminated, transferred or received promotions is
the simplest method of accommodating containerization. The temporary employee
fills the position until he is no longer needed and then is terminated. He
is hired for a limited period and knows when he starts work that he can count
on employment for only a limited time. During his temporary employment he
receives limited fringe benefits and is paid only for the hours actually
worked. Many of these temporary employees have eventually received perman-
ent appointments to fill vacant positions. The system works well and offers
advantages for training and selection. Supervisors have a chance to work
with the man before he receives a permanent appointment, to train him, ob-
serve his work habits and acceptance by the rest of the crew. If he is not
productive on the job or if no vacancy is available, he is terminated at the
end of his temporary appointment.
Several years ago, we began using college students for summer work. We
found that they were willing, capable workers, set high standards of depend-
ability and performance and were a good example for the rest of the crew.
When they returned to school, we rearranged our work schedule to keep some
49
-------
of them employed working Saturdays.
Full time employees strongly prefer this standard Monday through Friday
workweek. It gives them an opportunity to be with their families on the
same days off as their working wives, to have two consecutive days off on a
regular basis, and to have the same working hours as their friends and asso-
ciates.
Because of their interest, we worked with our college students and their
friends to set up a Saturday crew of college students. Many were athletes
who used their Saturday work experience to keep in shape as well as to earn
money for gasoline, tuition, board, dating, and so forth. It was a popular
and effective program.
We continued to give the front loader truck drivers and the foremen
staggered days off and use them on Saturdays to support the college students.
After several years of experience, we began to encounter a few problems.
Inconsistent supervision had frustrated the college workmen. The program had
become a burden on the foremen because of the personnel handling problems and
because none of the four wished to accept the major responsibility to overhaul
the program. We placed more containers in the field to eliminate the need for
the program and now no longer provide refuse collection service on Saturdays.
The Public Service Careers program, funded by the United States Depart-
ment of Labor, has helped us provide new employment for employees displaced by
mechanization. PSC retrains these employees for jobs in other departments.
The program, for example, has trained one of the refuse collectors for the
position of Street Maintenance Man i in the Street Division. This employee
was subsequently given on-the-job training for work on complex traffic sig-
nals and was recently appointed to the position of Traffic Signalman. In-
stead of collecting refuse, he is now servicing electronic traffic control
devices. In another instance, a workman was transferred to the Sewer Divi-
sion and trained as a Sewer Serviceman. Both employees ended up in higher
paid jobs because of the Public Service Careers program and their own interest
in self improvement.
Promotion and transfer, in addition to the PSC program, have assisted in
our efforts to retain employees no longer needed. Vacancies created in the
Refuse Division itself, by retirement, or individuals who have quit their job
are one source of placement. Some displaced workmen have been promoted into
positions in Brush Removal, Commercial Collection, and Non-Containerized
Col lection.
Workers have also been transferred into vacant positions in other de-
partments. Men who formerly collected refuse are now found in positions such
as sewer serviceman, sweeper operator, parts man, and parks maintenance man.
In most cases, their transfer has been to a higher paid job.
Our careful placement of displaced employees in good jobs has kept morale
high in the Refuse Division. Employees know they will have an opportunity to
50
-------
apply to become one of our mechanized vehicle operators or that the staff
will make every effort to locate for them another employment opportunity in-
cluding the provision the training required for jobs at higher skill levels.
Aids to Phase II Implementation
Public Relations
Solid vinste generators in Scottsdale as in all cities in the U.S. take an
intense personal interest in their refuse collection service. The service is
visible as residents can observe both the refuse crews and the results of their
work several times each week. Solid waste collection, in short, is one of the
most important ways citizens judge the efficiency and effectiveness of their
local governments.
The City of Scottsdale, therefore, has been cautious and thorough in its
public relations program. Throughout the experiment, extensive use was made
of local and national press, radio, and television stations, magazines, and
professional publications.
To begin with, interest catching and somewhat unique names were selected
for the various vehicles in the mechanized family. The modified front end
loader used in Phase I was called "Godzilla" and became known nationally as
Scottsdale's trash eating monster. The first Barrel Snatcher was given the
label "Son of Godzilla" to draw a connection with the original Godzilla and
to take benefit from the popularity of that name. The side loading mechan-
ized vehicle was called the "Litter Pig" and the mobile transfer station was
named the "Trash Hog." These names created a more positive attitude toward
the mechanization project.
When the first Barrel Snatcher was delivered to Scottsdale, City Council
member Mrs. Warren Gentry established a first for the solid waste collection
industry by holding a tea party in honor of the new arrival. The party, which
drew more than 100 local women, was held in the Council Chambers of Scotts-
dale's City Hall, and was characterized by candles, sterling silver, cookies,
floral arrangements, and even piano music from the balcony. The "Son of
Godzilla" was cordoned off in the parking lot where it could be inspected by
the ladies. The Mayor and Public Works Director addressed the women explain-
ing how the mechanized vehicle and containers will work and Mrs. Gentry fol-
lowed the presentations with a film, shown on a split screen, of a race between
the Son of Godzilla and a manual collection crew. Each provided service to 28
homes. The Barrel Snatcher won by 2^ minutes. The party gained national
attention for its uniqueness and generally aided the reputation of the new
collect ion vehicle.
The "Son of Godzilla" was also introduced to the children of the com-
munity by demonstrating it at several schools and parks. The children were
allowed to get behind the controls and get a feeling for how it operates from
the cab. It was felt that the children would communicate to their parents
their exciting experience at the school or park and once more bring the tax-
payer's attention to their mechanized vehicle.
Before containers were placed in a new area, employees of the Refuse
51
-------
Division originally called on each home to explain the new system, emphasiz-
ing its advantages and offering to return to work out any problems. Since
the system received such wide and favorable publicity, we found that this
practice was no longer essential. Instead, if the resident is not at home, a
letter is left at the door. The letter (Appendix C) explains that the resi-
dence has been selected to receive "Scottsdale's unique containerized refuse
collection system" to assure better collection service. It describes how to
dispose of refuse, how to handle the new container, and what to do with extra
refuse. Finally, the letter gives the name and telephone number of the service
representative to contact if there are any problems, recommendations, or com-
plaints.
We have found that the best way to handle the containerization of new
areas, enforcement of refuse ordinances, inquiries, or complaints on any of
the city's collection program is to employ service representatives. Our ex-
perience has shown that women are significantly more effective in this posi-
tion than men. A large part of the day-to-day refuse service work is with
housewives who are home during collection hours. Men, even dressed in a city
uniform, tend to frighten housewives who frequently are home alone and often
embarrassed by their appearance. When our lady service representatives knock
on the door, housewives are more inclined to be receptive, cooperative and
less frightened. In dealing with men, female service representatives are
again more effective than male representatives. Men can be argumentative and
resent the city telling them, for example, "to clean the alley." When a woman
approaches them regarding a littered alley, however, they tend to be embar-
rassed that they allowed their alley to get that bad and, generally, politely
agree to comply. As citizens learn that they can reach these service repre-
sentatives at any time of the working day to ask questions or present com-
plaints and because service representatives have been able and tactful en-
forcers of the city's solid waste regulations, the service representative
position has been a valuable and successful part of our public relations pro-
gram.
Locally, Scottsdale has taken advantage of the public relations capa-
bilities of newspapers and radio and TV stations. Opportunities to publicize
the mechanized collection system have seldom been allowed to pass. During
the recent celebration of 1972 Public Works Week, for example, the local news-
paper was invited to run a photo page on the Public Works Department. Pre-
dominant on that photo page were pictures of the Barrel Snatcher, Trash Hog
and Litter Pig. The Mayor, City Manager, and Public Works Director have been
invited to discuss Scottsdale's mechanized program on radio and TV programs.
They have also made presentations to local civic groups such as the Chamber
of Commerce, League of Women's Voters, and Earth Day Forums. These presenta-
tions have been an important means to expand the community's knowledge of the
mechanized refuse program.
The City of Scottsdale publishes a quarterly brochure called "Steps
Forward" which contains information and pictures of the various activities of
the city. Steps Forward is made available to many of Scottsdale's citizens
as a utility bill filler and is used by the staff as a mailing item answer
52
-------
to written inquiries. As early as Summer 196?, the Public Works Director was
preparing Scottsdale for the mechanization experiment through an article in
Steps Forward entitled "City Organizes Trash Revolution." In the Spring 19&9
edition, an article notified the public that they would be questioned on their
reaction to Phase I of the experiment. Other articles on the progress of the
experiment have appeared periodically to keep Steps Forward readers informed
of our progress.
The Scottsdale mechanization experiment has received nationwide attention
that indirectly has helped our local public relations program and perhaps,
more importantly, raised interest in mechanization and its possibilities in
other communities. Scottsdale's program has been discussed in over fifteen
articles which have appeared in such magazines as "Fortune," "The American
City," "Waste Age," "Nation's Cities," "Public Works," and "Western City."
It has also been featured in "Weekly Reader" and the "Christian Science
Monitor". A bibliography of these articles is included. Public Works
Director, Marc Stragier, recently appeared on a talk show on a Seattle TV
station and Jias made a number of presentations to nationwide professional or-
ganizations such as the Western Division of Governmental Refuse Collection jnd
Disposal Association, and the American Institute of Aeronautical and Astro-
nautical Engineers at Albuquerque, New Mexico, the southeastern chapter of
International City Manager's Association, to seminars at the University of
Houston, University of Wisconsin and University of Washington. He will pre-
sent results of our work to the '72 Fall conference of the American Public
Works Association (APWA). APWA selected Marc as one of the top ten Public
Works Men of the Year in 1972, partly on the strength of this work.
A unique Innovation Conference was held in 1969 in Scottsdale which, al-
though not designed as a public relations effort, certainly drew interest to
our program. The conference was sponsored jointly by the U.S. Conference of
Mayors, the National League of Cities and "Western City" magazine. Each regis-
trant at the conference was required to present one of his own innovations.
Scottsdale demonstrated the Barrel Snatcher and explained its collection systems
to the visiting Mayors, Managers, and Department Heads from across the country.
The city also prepared a special summary report describing its work. This
report has been mailed or distributed to over 400 cities, private haulers,
manufacturers, consultants and others. In addition more than 100 people have
visited Scottsdale to watch equipment operate. Numerous slides and movies have
been distributed.
Refuse Ordinance
In November of 1970 the City Council thoroughly revised, updated and adopted
a comprehensive ordinance regulating refuse handling in Scottsdale. The or-
dinance (Appendix h) defined the various types of solid waste, gave the city
exclusive right to collect refuse and authorize franchises, permits, or licenses,
described how refuse is to be contained, established collection procedures,
regulated collection from commercial establishments, listed prohibited sub-
stances, provided for rufusr! «.hnr«|fs-., t-M ahl KN«-d rlif- jinlir to lien for ml lec-
tion charges, and lifted unlawful .KI-.. I IK- m ilinnm «- |ii n'/lilr?1: I I in I new
-------
generators will provide their own containers, suited for the mechanized system
and conforming to city specifications.
According to the ordinance, bulk rubbish and brush are to be placed next
to containable rubbish on the scheduled pick up day. No more than ten loose
yards can be set out at one time and plants, such as cactus, which are hazard-
ous for collection, must be contained in lengths of less than three feet. The
purpose of the bulk rubbish provision is to remove brush, furniture, appliances
and other similar materials from the mechanized collection system.
Residential generators are required to place their household or 80-gal Ion
containers on the scheduled collection day. Containers cannot be placed at
the curb before six o'clock on the day preceding the day of collection and
must be removed by six o'clock on the day of collection. This provision has
helped minimize the problem of unsightly containers at the curb on days other
than collection days. Where the collection station is located in the alley,
containers may be left in place.
The ordinance also requires that city provided containers serving more
than one residence be positioned along the rear or side alley not more than
one hundred feet from the property line of any residence. The one hundred
feet limit was included in the ordinance because it was felt that it would be
unreasonable and inconvenient to require a homeowner to carry his refuse further
than that distance. In most cases, the 300-gal Ion containers are within ten
feet of the properties they serve.
Since the Barrel Snatcher and Litter Pig cannot lift containers that have
been filled with rocks, sand, chunks of concrete or other prohibited heavy
materials, a provision of the ordinance sets a five hundred pound weight limit.
Unfortunately, overweight containers are encountered daily as residents show
poor judgment in their estimation of the weight of their refuse. A truck and
crew have to be dispatched to empty the container by hand or remove enough
refuse so the collection truck can return. The service representative is
also dispatched to talk to the residents concerned.
The resident is responsible for the maintenance of sanitary conditions
in the container and in the area surrounding the container. Putrescible
materials must be wrapped before placement in the container and liquids must
have been drained from the waste. There have been many violations of these
provisions which have been investigated and corrected by the service repre-
sentatives in the Refuse Division. These violations are especially evident
In the hot summer months when odors develop.
Two important amendments have been made to the Solid Waste Ordinance and
subdivision ordinance that have saved the taxpayers a considerable sum of
money. The refuse ordinance was amended to require owners or developers of
new construction not regulated by the subdivision ordinance to supply, at
their expense, refuse containers which become the property of the city. The
same requirement was placed on development covered by the subdivision ordin-
ance. The effect has been the containerization of new areas of the city with
no investment by the city in containers. The city will, of course, replace
54
-------
the original containers at city expense once they wear out. This require-
ment has reduced our cost for twice-a week service per home by $.67 per month
for areas with curb collection and approximately $.30 per home per month for
areas with alley collection.
Scottsdale Plans Advances in Mechanization
Scottsdale expects to continue work to develop and improve the mechanized
system.
We are now constructing our own chassis with a midship engine in and under
the frame and between the axles. Using this chassis design, with a cab ar-
rangement similar to the Barrel Snatcher, we expect to locate a receiving hopper
beside the cab and a mechanism that will dump refuse from beside the truck into
the hopper. The shorter travel for containers should greatly improve produc-
tivity.
We look forward to the day when we can find a manufacturer ready to work
with us to construct a non-stop collection vehicle. Conceptual drawings have
been prepared and patent proceedings started on such a mechanization which will
serve our existing 80-gallon containers.
We hope to induce a manufacturer to make additional tailgates and Trash
Hog trailers so we can expand our use of this equipment. We are anxious to use
it on our commercial collection routes.
The last portion of the city will be containerized during the Fall of
1973. Over a third of the city is now served by the mechanized system. Con-
tainers and equipment for the next third are on hand or on order and for the
last third will be proposed in next year's budget.
We will continue to make the system available for study by prospective
users. We can make reservations and coordinate visits for anyone interested
and will also provide data sheets and other materials.
Our Council and citizens are satisfied that the improved services and
reduced costs provide substantial benefits.
Conclusions
Based upon our experiences and observations in Phase I I, we have reached
the following conclusions:
1. Containers. The 80-gallon and 300-gallon cross-linked polyethylene
containers went through a number of modifications in Phase II. The
containers which resulted are strong, attractive, easy to open and
dump. They are resistant to the effects of sunlight and are, there-
fore, especially suited to Arizona's environment. The manufacturer
has guaranteed the containers for ten years.
55
-------
2. Consumer Reaction. In a Phase II attitude survey, nearly three-
fourths of the respondents felt that the mechanized system is an
improvement over the old system. Complaints change from the subject
of sanitary conditions to temporary adjustment problems with the new
containers. Mechanization has received strong public support with
the reelection of a City Council which has avidly supported mech-
anization.
3. Public Relations. A strong public relations program can greatly
assist in the introduction of a mechanized system, A tea party,
school visits, an innovation conference, personal contact by service
representatives, newspaper and magazine articles, TV programs,
speeches, reports, demonstrations, visits by other officials, and
good complaint follow-up have all contributed to a successful public
relations program in Scottsdale.
4. Ordinance Provisions. To back up the mechanization program, the City
of Scottsdale has adopted an ordinance which regulates containers and
their use. The ordinance requires new developers to provide con-
tainers for the households in the development.
5. Driver Training. Scottsdale initially trained drivers by setting up
a training course and allowing the drivers to learn on their own.
Once the first few drivers became proficient, the experienced opera-
tors trained the new operators. The system worked well and will be-
come more formalized as new mechanized vehicles are received.
6. Manufacturer Experiences. The support from equipment manufacturer's
has generally been disappointing. The interest of Western Body and
Hoist in the experimental program dissipated when the firm was pur-
chased by Maxon Industries. We are working with other manufacturers
to develop new sources of equipment.
7. Patents. All patentable ideas conceived and developed by the demon-
stration are a part of the public domain.
8. Safety. Scottsdale's two mechanized programs, Commercial Refuse
Collection and Residential Containerized Refuse Collection, had no
disabling injuries in Phase II. This impressive record was accom-
plished in an industry that had the highest injury frequency of any
industrial category in 1971.
9. Sanitation. The introduction of the mechanized system with the poly-
ethylene containers has resulted in improved sanitary conditions.
Alleys are neater and more sanitary where the 300-gallon containers
are used. Flies were controlled in Phase II by reducing odors with
a powder unit that is installed on the inside of the container lid.
10. Displaced Workmen. The careful placement of displaced employees in
good jobs has kept morale high in the Refuse Division and generated
employee support for mechanization.
56
-------
ECONOMIC AND PRODUCTIVITY ANALYSIS
Perhaps the most important objective of this demonstration project was
to evaluate the oroductivity and economics of each of the mechanized vehicles.
To be meaningful, this analysis should compare conventional types of refuse
collection vehicles with what, in this report, are called mechanized. We have
attempted in this study to make these comparisons based upon our best know-
ledge of conventional systems and the data we have collected on the mechanized
vehicles. Wu encourage the reader to use data on his method of collection and
compare it with the data contained in this report. Only in this way, can the
information be of use to your community or firm.
We also encourage the reader to note the assumptions we have based our
analysis upon and change these assumptions according to your particular situa-
tion. If, for example, the haul time in your area averages .37 hours and the
assumption of our analysis is 1.00 hours, the cost per home per month we have
tabulated for the mechanized system in relationship to your method of collec-
tion will change considerably.
Vehicle Capacity
The vehicles compared in this report are the rear end loader, the modified
rear end loader, Godzilla, the Litter Pig, and the Barrel Snatcher. The Trash
Hog is discussed in a separate section.
The rear end loader is one of the most commonly used refuse collection
vehicles in the United States. The truck normally has a driver and two work-
men. The workmen pick up the container or plastic bags, dump them in the
hopper in the rear of the truck, and return the containers to their original
location. When the hopper is full, a compaction plate cleans the hopper and
compacts its contents. The truck has a capacity of up to 25 cubic yards and
can contain 250 homes per load in twice per week collection.
The modified rear end loader is a rear loader with a yoke attachment on
the rear that will accommodate containers. In Scottsdale's case, these are
the city-provided 80-gallon containers. The crew consists of a driver and one
workman. The workman grabs the 80-gallon container at the curb, pushes it into
the yoke, the yoke dumps the container, and the workman returns the container
to its curb location. Like the rear end loader without the yoke, the truck
has a capacity of approximately 25 cubic yards and can serve 250 homes per
load.
Godzilla, the Litter Pig and the Barrel Snatcher are all one man operated
vehicles. Godzilla, the prototype mechanized vehicle, had a capacity of ap-
proximately 28 cubic yards and could serve 280 homes per load. The Litter Pig
has a capacity of 22 cubic yards and can contain 277 homes per load, whereas
the Barrel Snatcher holds 35 cubic yards and will serve 357 homes per load.
The data for the mechanized vehicles was acquired by totaling the number of
homes served in a specific period and dividing that number by the number of
trips to the landfill. The figures are, therefore, averages and the actual
57
-------
number of homes per load at a given time would depend on the circumstances.
First of the week collections are heavier and trucks serve less than the
average. Second day collections produce more homes per load than the average.
Rate of Col lection
Another important factor in evaluating productivity of a collection truck
is the rate of collection. The rate of collection may be defined as the number
of homes that can be collected in one hour of regular operation with no allow-
ance for haul ing.
For the rear end loader, we estimate the rate of collection for typical
crews at 85 homes per hour of collection from the curb. These homes, of course,
utilize plastic bags, boxes, or small metal containers and there may be more
than one container per household.
The modified rear end loader serves 90 homes per hour of collection in
Scottsdale. The homes collected utilize the city provided 80-gallon plastic
containers and place their container at the curb for collection. The two-
man crew using the mechanized loader produces at a faster rate than conven-
tional three-man crews, loading the variety of small containers furnished by
each householder.
The Litter Pig, which is designed to pick up the 80-gallon polyethylene
container, has a rate of collection of 131 dwelling units per hour of collec-
tion. The original Litter Pig design using the back-hoe articulated arm design
proved to be slow and cumbersome. The initial Litter Pig design had a dis-
appointing collection rate of 61 dwelling units per hour. With the redesigned
telescoping arm assembly, production was significantly increased.
The Barrel Snatcher can serve both the 80-gallon plastic containers at
the curb and 300-gallon containers from the alley by simply changing the grasp-
ing mechanism. It has an average rate of collection at the curb (80-gallon
containers) of 61 homes per hour. In the alley, however, we have found it
much more productive. Moving down the alley, the truck can empty 82.1 300-
gallon containers per hour of collection. Since each container serves 3.3
homes, the truck actually serves 271 homes per hour of collection.
The faster rate of pick up in the alley can be attributed to the fact
that, for curb collection, the truck must negotiate parked cars. Although
narrow, there are few obstacles in alleys and containers are located at
roughly equal intervals. The driver in the alley is able, in a sense, to
establish a rhythm of pick up.
Home-Container Ratio
The home-container ratio is crucial to the costs of the alley collection
of the Barrel Snatcher and its prototype, Godzilla. In our original estimates,
we assumed that the 300-gallon polyethylene container would serve four house-
holds, two on each side of the alley. In actuality, there proved to be several
58
-------
reasons why our average number is less than k.O per container.
In establishing our initial routes, we found that there were few blocks
in Scottsdale which contain a number of homes evenly divided by four. Fre-
quently, there would be one, two, or three extra homes at the end of the block
that would not be in a group of four. Since our policy is not to assign more
than four homes to one 300-gallon container, we placed another container, in the
alley. If there were three extra homes, they were directed to utilize the
additional container. If there were two extra homes on the block, one home-
owner in the adjacent group of four was assigned to the new container creating
two groups of three homes per container at the end of the block. If there was
one extra 'home, one homeowner in the adjacent group of four was assigned to the
new container forming one group of three homes per container and one group of
two homes per container.
Another factor which lowered our average number of homes per container was
the one sided alley. In Scottsdale, there are new developments'which, on one
or more sides, have vacant land. Consequently, we have been faced with the
task of serving only one side of the alley. Where it is possible to place a
container within one hundred feet of the user's property line, we have set out
one container for three homes. In all other cases, we have been required to
assign two homes to one container.
These two situations have lowered our average number of homes per con-
tainer from *».0 to 3.6 and later 3.3. Economically, the effect has been to
increase the cost per home per month by spreading the cost for service and
containers among fewer homes and reducing the rate of collection in homes per
hour for the Barrel Snatcher.
Investment Costs
In order to calculate the cost of refuse collection service, a determina-
tion must be made of the investment required to purchase the needed equipment
and the cost to operate that equipment.
To determine the total investment cost, we have acquired cost information
from various communities in the Phoenix metropolitan area and from our own
experience, and have assumed three year financing at 10% interest. This rate
is not unusual although most municipalities utilize bidding procedures and
purchase vehicles outright.
The least expensive vehicle to purchase is the rear end loader at a cost
of $27,000 plus $4,050 in finance cost for a total purchase price of $31,050.
The yoke attachment to serve the 80-galIon polyethylene containers can be
purchased and installed for $1,000 bringing the purchase price of the modified
rear end loader to $28,000. Adding $4,200 in financing expense, the total
price is $32,200.
Godzilla, as a prototype, is not available on the market. We estimate,
however, that it could be constructed by a manufacturer at this time for a
59
-------
cost of $30,000 plus $4,500 in interest expense.
would be $34,500.
The total purchase price
Although a Shu Fak can be purchased for approximately $34,500, includ-
ing interest, the Litter Pig, which is a modified Shu Pak, costs considerably
more. The adjustments to the truck and the construction and installation of
an articulated arm account for an additional $13,000. The vehicle costs
$43,000, including adjustments, and, adding the interest of $6,450, the
total cost is $49,450.
The Barrel Snatcher is the most expensive member of the mechanized family
because of its high performance capabilities. The first truck was purchased
for $36,733 in 1970, but our most recent bid for the vehicle was in excess of
$50,000. Since this huge increase in purchase price can hardly be accounted
for in increased labor and material costs to the manufacturer, we can only
assume that the manufacturer is passing some developmental costs on to the
customer. Should the vehicle become mass produced, as we feel it will, the
cost should drop considerably, perhaps to as low as $40,000 per truck. We
will use $45,000, however, for this vehicle. Adding $6,750 in finance charges
to this amount, the truck would cost $51,570.
Table 9 shows the comparative equipment investment costs.
TABLE 9
VEHICLE INVESTMENT COSTS
VEHICLE
PURCHASE PRICE FINANCING COST TOTAL COST
Rear End Loader
Modified Rear End Loader
Godz ilia
Litter Pig
Barrel Snatcher
$27,000
28,000
30,000
43,000
45,000
$ Mso
4,200
4,500
6,450
6,750
$31,050
32,200
34,500
^9,450
51,570
Operating Costs
The operating cost for a solid waste collection vehicle is determined in
our analysis by totaling the cost of labor, administration and overhead,
operating and maintenance, and amortization of the purchase.
In our tabulation, we have used the present salary schedule of the City
of Scottsdale and added 33 percent of the salary to cover fringe benefits.
We have also used the job classifications that we would assign to the various
members of the crew of each vehicle. The rear end loader is driven in Scotts-
dale by an Equipment Operator I who makes $656 per month. The other two mem-
bers of the crew are classified as City Workmen and are paid at the rate of
$580. Adding fringe benefits, the total labor cost per month is $2,4l6. The
60
-------
modified rear end loader utilizes one less City Workman and has a total
monthly cost for salary and fringe benefits of $1,636. The Godzilla,
Litter Pig and Barrel Snatcher are more complicated to operate and there-
fore have been assigned to the Equipment Operator III classification. The
Equipment Operator III makes $?80 per month and another $250 in fringe
benefits. The monthly cost for tabor for Godzilla, the Litter Pig and
Barrel Snatcher is, therefore, the same or $1,030 per month.
To cover the expenses of administration and overhead, 30% of the total
labor expense has been added. By using a percentage, we have in essence
placed the highest administration and overhead expense burden on the system
using the most manpower. In this case, it would be the rear end loader where
three employees are required. We feel this is a fair assumption as more
administrative effort and support is required for the three-man crew than
the one-man crews of the mechanized vehicles. The higher pay of the mech-
anized equipment drivers, however, offsets some of the effect of applying
the straight percentage. The highest administration and overhead expense
belonged to the rear end loader at $725 per month followed by the modified
rear end loader at $**91 per month. Again, Godzilla, the Litter Pig and
Barrel Snatcher had the same expense at $309 per month.
Operating and maintenance costs for the collection vehicles studied
varies. This cost includes gasoline, oil, lubrication and other routine
servicing and repair work. For the rear end loader, our experience has
shown that approximately $1,000 per month is needed to keep the truck in
good operating condition. Godzilla, when it was in service, required
slightly more than the rear end loader or $1,100 per month. The Litter
Pig has the monthly average for operating and maintenance expense of $1,005.
The Barrel Snatchers have required the highest monthly investment for this
purpose because of the many modifications that have been made to improve
their report. The two trucks have averaged $1 ,780 per month but, since a
large part of this monthly average has been one time modifications, we have
used $1,500 per month in the cost analysis.
The final cost category of operating cost is amortization of the pur-
chase price of the vehicle. For this item, we have assumed straight line
depreciation of seven years with no resale of the truck. The resale value
was not included because of the difficulty in assigning a value to a vehicle
that has been in heavy use for seven years. In many cases, refuse trucks
with this much service are worth little more than their scrap value. The
amortization cost of the Barrel Snatcher was highest because of its high
purchase price followed by the Litter Pig, Godzilla, the modified rear end
loader and the rear end loader.
Totaling these costs we find that the highest monthly operating cost
was the rear end loader's at $4,511 per month, primarily because of its
high labor cost. The operating cost of the modified rear end loader is
61
-------
$1,000 less per month because it needs one less crew member. High mainten-
ance requirements and amortization cost placed the Barrel Snatcher next in
line at $3,^55 per month. The Litter Pig's total was $2,933 and Godzilla's
was $2,850.
Table 10 graphically indicates the comparative monthly vehicle operat-
ing costs.
TABLE 10
VEHICLE OPERATING COST
PER MONTH
Administration Operating & Amortization
VEHICLE Labor & Overhead Maintenance of Purchase Total
Rear End Loader $2416 $725 $1000 $370
Modified Rear End Loader 1636 k$\ 1000 383 3510
Godzilla 1030 309 1100 Ull 3850
62
-------
Cost Per Home (Dwelling Unit) For Service
The basis of the economic evaluation of the various collection systems
if the monthly cost of service per home (dwelling unit). To arrive at the
monthly cost, a simplified yet valuable costing formula is applied. The
formula indicates relative economic performance.
The formula to determine the cost per home (dwelling unit) per month is
as follows:
(No. of Pickups/Month)(Cost of Operation/Month) ((Capacity) + (Rate)(Haul time)J
(Work hours/month) (capacity) (rate)
+ container cost - cost per dwelling unit
By factoring the equation an even more simplified formula can be obtained:
Cost » (No. of Pickups) (Cost of Operation)
(Work hours) (Rate)
+ (No. of Pickups) (Cost of Operation) (Haul Time)
(Work hours) (Capacity)
+ Container cost
The factored equation shows cost as the sum of collection cost, haul cost,
and container cost or
UNIT COST = Collection cost + Haul cost + Container cost
Comparative cost of cervice can be determined using the following formula:
Cost - (No. of Pickups) (Cost of Operation [(Capacity) + (Rate) (Haul time)]
(Work hours) (Capacity) (Rate)
+ Container Cost.
63
-------
The cost elements of the formula are defined below;
Number of Pick ups Per Month. The number of pick ups per month is the number
of times service is provided to the generator. In Scottsdale, as in
many communities, refuse pick up is provided on a twice per week basis.
Although the number of pick ups per month would average 8.6 for twice a
week service, we will assume there are nine pick ups per month for sim-
plification. For once per week service, the number would be *t.5.
Cost of Operation. The cost of operation is the total of labor, administra-
tion and overhead, operating and maintenance and amortization expenses
for each vehicle expressed as a monthly figure.
Capacity. The capacity of a vehicle is the number of homes the vehicle can
serve per loaded trip to the landfill. The capacity varies with the
amount of generation per household.
Rate of Collection. The rate of collection is the number of homes the vehicle
can serve in one hour of collection excluding haul time.
Haul Time. The haul time is the time required for the vehicle to make a round
trip to the landfill. This time depends on the speed of the vehicle and
the distance of its route from the landfill. In Scottsdale, the Litter
Pig averaged .83 hours for a round trip to the landfill and the Barrel
Snatcher .57 hours but the Litter Pig's route was considerably further
from the landfill. To make comparison of the various vehicles possible,
we have assumed a 1.00 hour haul time.
Work Hours Per Month. The work hours per month is the number of labor hour re-
quired to operate the vehicle five days a week, eight hours a day. Since
preparation and personal time is relatively constant from one vehicle to
the other, we have not deducted these amounts and have simply multiplied
kO hours per week times *t.3 weeks per month for a total of 172 hours per
month.
Applying the data we have assembled on the rear end loader to the formula,
the cost per home per month is $3.72.
(9 pick ups) ($^511 cost of operation) (250 homes per load + (85 homes (1.0 hours
_______^ ^_^__ per hour) haul time)
(172 work hours per month)(250 homes per load)(85 homes per hour)
+ .00 container cost
(9) (**5H) (250 + (85) (1.0) = $3.72
(172) (250) (85)
By changing the operating cost per month to $3510 and the rate to 90 homes
per hour, the cost per home per month for the modified rear end loader is $2.78.
Since the city is providing an $80 eighty-gallon container, however, the amor-
tization of the container must be added to the monthly cost. The containers
64
-------
in Scottsdale are guaranteed for ten years which gives Scottsdale a monthly
amortization cost of $.67 per container. The total cost per month per home
for the modified rear end loader is $3.^5, $.27 less per month for the rear
end loader.
The reason for the cost advantage of the modified rear end loader is
evident in the operating cost data. Although the vehicles perform similarly
in most aspects, their labor costs are quite different. The rear end loader
required three operators whereas the modified rear end loader only requires
two. During the unproductive one hour round trip to the landfill, three
employees are drawing their wages on the rear end loader while only two
workers are on the modified rear end loader.
The application of the formula to the costs and capabilities of Godzilla
for curb collection reveals that it is $.05 more expensive per home per month
than the rear end loader. This fact, however, Is not surprising when it is
noted that Godzilla was designed only to demonstrate the principle of mech-
anization and not as a high performance collection vehicle. The total cost
per home per month of $3-77 includes $.67 for amortization of the polyethylene
containers. The savings incurred through the use of only one employee, there-
fore, is more than offset by the higher rate of collection of the rear end
loader and the cost of providing the container.
The Litter Pig with the telescoping arm side loader proved to be the
most productive collection system for curbside service. With a collection
rate of 131 dwelling units per hour, the Litter Pig cost of curbside col-
lection including container amortization was $2.25 per home for twice per
week col lection.
The cost per home of curbside service using the Barrel Snatcher was
$^.1^. The high operating cost, container amortization and low rate of col-
lection made the Barrel Snatcher far less economical for curbside service
than the Litter Pig. However, the Barrel Snatcher provides valuable back
up when the Litter Pig is out of service.
Our analysis of curb collection shows that the Litter Pig demonstrates
a low cost per home per month. For cities interested in taking advantage of
lower manpower costs and improved sanitary conditions resulting from con-
tainerization of refuse in 80-gallon containers, the Litter Pig is a col-
lection system worth investigating.
The picture for mechanization is quite different in our analysis of
alley collection by Godzilla and the Barrel Snatcher. Instead of serving
one home per container pick up, these two mechanized vehicles serve an
average of 3.3 homes per container pick up.
Godzilla, which could serve $8 homes per hour at the curb, served 160
homes per hour from the 300-gallon containers in the alley. The cost per
home per month is $1.82, including $.36 for amortization of the $90.00 -
300-gallon container among 3.3 homes.
65
-------
The Barrel Snatcher is even more productive. It can serve an average
of 271 homes per hour in the alley compared to 61 at the curb. Applying this
data to the formula along with the vehicle's high capacity of 357 homes per
load, the cost per home per month is $1.53 including amortization of the
container.
In terms of economics and productivity. Godzilla and the Barrel Snatcher
can serve the average household with alley collection for less than one half
the cost of service for the rear end loader. In addition to these savings,
the citizen is given an attractive container, his alley is cleaner, and his
waste is collected by a higher skilled, higher paid collector worker in a
safer and more pleasant working environment. These factors combine to make
the mechanization of alley collection, and we expect in the near future to
include curb collection, an attractive alternative for municipalities whose
waste collection expenditures are surpassing revenues at an ever-increasing
rate.
Trash Hog
During Phase II we intended to place in the field one tractor and two
transfer trailers and study the economics of their use. The manufacturer
was unable, however, to deliver the second trailer for Phase II so our ex-
perience is based upon the use of one tractor with one trailer.
To implement our transfer trailer program, a standard tractor was pur-
chased along with a transfer trailer. The tractor cost $16,500 and the
expecially designed trailer $23,000. Both were purchased from the Western
Body and Hoist Company, Los Angeles. Transfer mechanisnswere installed on
one Barrel Snatcher and the Litter Pig.
Capacity
The transfer trailer has a capacity of approximately 1200 homes per load
depending on the day of the week and the combinations of trucks transferring
into it. It can hold three loads from the Barrel Snatcher, six loads from
the Litter Pig or combinations of loads from both trucks. The tractor and
trailer weigh 5',300 pounds and carry average loads of 18,500 pounds.
Transfer Time
The Barrel Snatcher and Litter Pig require an average of eleven minutes
to transfer their loads into the transfer trailer. The operator must back
up to the trailer, engage the hooks, attach the hydraulic hoses, open the
doors, push the load into the trailer, ciose the doors, disengage the hoses
and return to the cab of the collection vehicle. The average time required
to transfer is slightly longer than the average time spent by collection
trucks dumping at the landfill as more actions are needed to accomplish a
transfer. As the drivers become more proficient, we expect the transfer to
reduce to five minutes and the time away from the route to 11 minutes.
66
-------
.
- <*l*iJ* •!» »* at. Ji«c. . Tt • r -j
>-•''* ,
-------
Haul Time
We found that the time required to deliver a trailer to the landfill, eject
the trailer's load and return it to the transfer location is approximately the
same time that the Barrel Snatcher and Litter Pig can leave their route, dump
at the landfill and return to their route. Although the trailer is long and
difficult to move through residential streets, transfer locations have been
selected on major arterials using curbside parking, parking lots or other re-
latively level areas.
Time Away From Route
The Barrel Snatcher and Litter Pig average 30 minutes eway from their
routes for load disposal at the landfill. Utilizing the transfer trailer,
their time away from their route is reduced one half to 15 minutes. The ex-
periment with the Trash Hog, however, was conducted in the southern section of
the city near the landfill. This 15 minute savings by use of the trailer could
be as much as 25 to 30 minutes in the northern sections of Scottsdale. When the
second transfer trailer is delivered, it will be located to serve the northern
collection routes. We expect to reduce the time away from the route to 11 min-
utes as drivers become more proficient in the transfer process.
Economics
The economics of the use of the Trash Hog are not favorable when it is
employed on a part-time basis with short haul distances as it presently is in
Scottsdale. The time saved by its use is not enough to offset the cost of pur-
chase and operation. An operator or supervisor must be taken away from his
regular job to drive the full trailer to the landfill and return it to the
transfer location.
When three trailers are in use and the tractor and driver are employed
full time to haul trailers back and forth from the landfill, the picture is
different. Below we have made an analysis based upon this situation.
Estimated Cost of Operation
The purchase cost of our system using the cost of the tractor and trailers
purchased for Phase II are as follows:
Tractors $ 16,500
Trailers (3) 69,000
Collect ion Truck
Tailgate Kits (5) 25,000
3 Year Financing & 10% 11,OOP
Total Purchase Expense $121,500
Operating Cost/Month
Amortizing the purchase cost of the tractor, trailers, tailgate kits and
financing over seven years with no resale value, the monthly cost would be
68
-------
The Trash Hog is normally operated by an Equipment Operator III who
makes $1,030 per month including fringe benefits. Adding to these expenses
$309 for administration and overhead and $700 per month for operation and
maintenance of the equipment, the total cost of operation per month is $3,485.
11.
The comparative cost of truck haul and transfer system is shown in Table
TABLE 11
COST PER HOME PER MONTH
TRANSFER SYSTEM
For 1 Hour Haul
Trucks Haul ing
Transfer System
For 2 Hour Haul
Trucks Haul ing
Transfer System
For 3 Hour Haul
Trucks Haul ing
Transfer System
For 4 Hour Haul
Trucks Haul ing
Transfer System
BARREL SNATCHER
300 Gallon
1.53
1.26
2.04
1.41
2.55
1.56
3.05
1.71
LITTER PIG
80 Gallon
2.25
1.71
2.74
1.86
3.23
2.01
3.72
2.15
Cost per home per month includes container amortization.
Maximum Number of Homes Served
The number of homes the transfer system can serve in a day's operation
depends on the generating characteristics of the service area and on the time
required to travel to the landfill. Below are the maximum number of homes
that the system can serve for different times required for the round trip to
the landfill and assuming that the tractor is in continuous operation ten hours
per day with a capacity load each trip.
Time Required for Round Trip
to LandfilI (Hours)
1
2
3
4
Maximum Number of Homes
Served
24,000
12,000
8,000
6,000
-------
Cost Per Home/Month
Using the monthly operating cost of $3,^85, the cost per home per month
can be determined by dividing the monthly cost by the number of homes served.
For a one hour round trip to the landfill, the cost per month per home for
twice-per-week pick up would be $3,**8$ or $.15 per home per month.
24,000
By applying tne formula previously discussed for the collection trucks
and using 11 minutes for the time a collection vehicle will take to haul, trans-
fer to the trailer and return, we can compute the cost of collection. The cost
of the transfer system is then added to arrive at the total cost.
For alley collection by the Barrel Snatcher, the cost per home per month
is $1.11 plus the cost of the transfer system. If the haul time is one hour,
the cost per home per month is $.15 plus $1.11 or $1.26. Without the transfer
system the cost would be $1.53. The use of the transfer system thus has the
potential of saving $.27 per home per month by returning trucks to their col-
lection routes sooner and combining loads in a trailer for hauling to the land-
fill. Table 11 shows the cost per home per month with and without the transfer
system. Note the increase in savings as haul distances and time increase.
Since three trailers can serve 18,000 to 22,000 homes, we would presently
be operating a transfer system with excess capacity. Within the next two
years, the number of households in Scottsdale will approach 20,000 and the haul
time will increase to k$ to 60 minutes as these households are constructed in
the northern parts of the city farther from the landfill. At this point,
Scottsdale will then be able to take full advantage of the transfer system
which worked so successfully in this demonstration project.
Conclusions
Mechanization of residential single family refuse collection as demon-
strated in this experiment has tremendous potential in terms of saving tax
dollars for municipalities and increasing profits for private collectors. The
most successful member of the mechanized family proved to be the Barrel
Snatcher in alley collection. Serving the 300-gallon polyethylene containers,
this impressive vehicle has a capacity of 357 homes per load and can serve 271
homes per hour of collection. The high monthly operating cost of $3,^55 is more
than offset by its high performance. The cost per home per month is only $1.53,
including container amortization, less than one half the cost of providing
service with a rear end loader.
The Litter Pig with the modified telescoping arm side loader proved to
be the most productive, least expensive curbside service. Utilizing the 80-
gallon polyethylene container, the Litter Pig collected 127 homes per hour at
a cost of $2.25 per home per month for twice-a-week service.
The Trash Hog transfer system demonstrated its capabilities in Phase II.
70
-------
The trailer can serve 1,200 homes in one load and requires collection trucks
to be away from their routes fifteen instead of thirty minutes. We expect to
reduce this time to about 11 minutes. One tractor and three trailers can
serve a community of 20,000 households with the Barrel Snatcher in alley col-
lection for approximately $1.30 per home per month. This represents a savings
of $.23 per home per month in spite of the added expense of purchasing a
tractor and three trailers and employing a driver. Although it is not pre-
sently economical for Scottsdale to use the Trash Hog, by the time the third
transfer trailer is purchased, the city will be in a position to take full
advantage of the system.
71
-------
APPENDIX A
SPECIAL PURPOSE REFUSE CONTAINERS
GENERAL INTENTION & SPECIFICATIONS
The general intent is to obtain containers for a new mechanized system for
handling containerized family refuse Bidders are encouraged to participate in
the program by offering containers which can be used advantageously It is pro-
posed to load the containers with mechanical loaders which will grip the round
containers around part of its circumference. Reinforcing, is, therefore, re-
quired. The City proposed to add any local fabrication and modification costs
as well as maintenance costs to the bid price and to award the contract to the
supplier or suppliers for whom the total cost is least. It is desirable that
the containers be shaped with a conical section to permit nesting and conven-
ient emptying and that they have a thickened, reinforced rim or an offset approx-
imately a foot from the top to resist lateral buckling from the lifting device
It is also required that the containers be furnished with a tight hinged lid.
Insofar as they apply, all containers shall comply with the minimum standards
of the National Sanitation Foundation Standard No. 21 relating to plastic refuse
containers. Requirements with regard to fitting of lids will be waived, since
lids must be hinged, and must open by gravity for dumping.
Containers shall be manufactured by the rotational molding method from high
density polyethylene or an alternate plastic specified and proven by the supplier,
containing a UVR inhibiter guaranteed effective or from other suitable materials,
using suitable fabrication techniques, which shall be approved by the City after
trials with sample containers.
The containers shall be manufactured with surfaces typically obtained by the
rotational molding process using materials conforming to a sample submitted with
the bid.
Containers shall be provided in a color required by the City. Each bidder
shall submit a set of color cards or other indication of colors available with
the bid. The City prefers the green avocado shade presently in use.
Containers shall be fabricated from a cylindrical or conical shape with the
bottom smaller, and shall empty across smooth surfaces free of any lips, indenta-
tions, projections or other obstructions to the smooth flow of refuse from the
container. Scottsdale will approve the container design prior to fabrication.
Containers shall conform to the dimension limits specified by Scottsdale.
Due to the nesting construction of the containers, half of the hinge will be applied
to the cover and one half to the container, using rivets or bolts with final ap-
plication of inserting connecting hinge rod to be done at the destination by City.
As an alternative, lids and hinges may be pre-assembled and furnished ready to
attach to the container.
72
-------
The City has worked out the container and mechanization system working with
Government Innovators of 8201 East Monterey Way, Scottsdale. The City understands
that the Company owns patents which cover the containers. Although no royalties
would be required for any deliveries to Scottsdale, a license and royalties for
other users are required by the Company. Bidders shall make their own arrange-
ments with the Company and shall hold the City harmless from any liability for
patent infringements in the use of their containers.
The City expects delivery to be completed within 120 days after award of the
bid. Any variance from this requirement should be stated and will be a considera-
tion in the award. Payments will be made monthly for containers delivered during
the preceding month.
The containers must be designed to meet the following requirements:
a) 80-gallon containers shall be furnished complete with 8" x 1^" or larger
semi-pneumatic wheels with axle and attaching means and shall be designed
to be conveniently moved by the user.
Container shall be designed to be stable, loaded or unloaded, with a
portion of its weight supported by wheels. They shall also be furnished
with a handle to accommodate moving. Handle shall be fabricated to expose
only plastic surfaces to the hands of the user.
b) Lids shall be curved or built up to drain, and shall be light and stiff
for convenient handling.
c) Lids shall overlap sides, but shall flare out so they will not bind
against sides when the container is distorted by the gripping means.
d) Lids shall be fastened to containers and shall be hinged to open by
gravity as the container is dumped.
e) Containers shall be designed to regularly receive and dump 500 Ibs. in
the case of 80 and 1000 Ibs. in the case of 300 gallon containers.
f) Containers shall be designed to be picked up and dumped by a gripping
device that applies 200 Ibs. radial force at a point one-third the
height below the top edge of the container. The container shall be
designed with an offset at about that point which shall reinforce the
container against buckling under the radial gripping load and shall
serve as a lifting shoulder to keep the container from falling out of
the gripping device.
g) Containers shall be round in horizontal section in the area of the
gripping device and capable of being lifted and dumped from any angle.
h) Containers shall function normally and regularly with the City's
mechanized collection system.
73
-------
GUARANTEE - Each bidder shall guarantee his containers from failure in normal and
regular use in Scottsdale. The City will replace any containers damaged through
negligence or abusive use. Any other containers which fail by reason of improper
or inadequate materials or defective workmanship, or insufficient resistance to
weathering or for any cause other than negligent or abusive use shall be replaced
by the bidder. During the first year from the date of delivery he shall replace
all such containers. Each bidder shall state in his bid the period of time during
which he guarantees his containers. This period will be an important consideration
in evaluation of bids. During the second year, and during subsequent years up to
the time of the guarantee, the bidder shall replace a proportionate share of any
containers which fail according to the following formula:
Remaining yrs. in guarantee
No. replaced by bidder = No. failed X Years Guaranteed
Thus, if 10 containers failed during the third year of a 5-year guarantee, the
bidder would replace 10 X 3/5 or 6 containers, if during the last, or 5th year,
10 X 1/5 or two containers, etc.
Containers which fail during the year shall be accumulated by the City and re-
placed by order in convenient lots from the bidder. The bidder may, at his con-
venience, inspect any such containers and may challenge his obligation to replace
the container on the basis that the failure resulted from negligent handling or
abusive use. If such is the case, then the bidder shall not be required to re-
place any such containers. If the City and the bidder disagree regarding the
reason for failure, then they shall select a third party skilled in the use and
fabrication of the materials involved and shall ask his determination on the
source of the failure. His determination shall be binding on both parties and
they shall abide by it.
The successful bidder shall provide a performance bond in the total amount
of the bid for the period of time in the guarantee which shall assure the City of
the faithful performance of requirements of these specifications. The bond shall
be approved and accepted by the City prior to delivery.
74
-------
APPENDIX B
SPECIFICATIONS
BARREL SNATCHER
One each front-end loading compactor type collection unit: Complete and ready
for regular and normal use in the City's mechanized collection system.
Front-end loader 1,000 pound capacity of the lifting arm to accommodate 80 and
300 gallon containers furnished. Controls shall be one-hand operated and the loader
capable of picking up containers centered 12 feet from the truck and dumping them
with a maximum cycle time of 15 seconds. The loading mechanism will pick up loads
in a segment of 1^0 degrees from straight out on the right side to 50 degrees left
of center line, and shall be equipped with limit switches to prevent spurious dump-
ing. Hydraulic system shall be operated by damped or featherable solenoid controls.
Bulk-head type compactor with thrust ejection.
Hydraulic Compactor with 85,000 pounds thrust, minimum.
Body construction to be of high tensile steel. Body top to be a minimum of
12 gauge steel. Side walls above guide rails, 12 gauge nubunyn steel. Bottom
floor plate and side walls 10 gauge steel. Body to be sufficiently supported with
steel cross members to assure long life and prevention of sagging, buckling or
perforation of floor plate due to constant dumping of containers and unnecessary
wear due to compaction action.
Equipped with cab controls, manual or mechanical operated tailgate opener.
Hopper cover which will compress the load under it, and which will open to
form a windbreak and chute to guide material into the hopper.
Light to illuminate the packer plate.
Hydraulic system equipped so that loader may be operated from either auxiliary
engine or power take-off.
Limiting valve or device to prevent dumping into hopper unless the packer
plate is fully retracted.
Ejection and Transfer System
The ejection system shall be capable of ejecting material from the storage
body into the special transfer trailer or at the disposal site and of pushing
material against the ejection plate at the opposite end of the trailer. The
vehicle will also be equipped with a transfer system that will permit the opera-
tor to link with a special trailer, raise the tailgates of both the trailer and
the vehicle, and transfer material from the collection vehicle to the trailer
without requiring assistance and without requiring the operator to leave the cab
of the collection vehicle.
Tailgate shall be operated by minimum of 5" hydraulic cylinder and dual
chain drive for each direction.
75
-------
Auxiliary Diesel Engine
Four cylinder four cycle minimum 236 cu. in. Perkins preferred. Min. continu-
ous H.P. 65 <® 2250 Min. intermittent H.P. ?8 2500.
Oil Filter
Manufacturer's standard full flow engine to be equipped with direct reading
oil pressure and watei temperature gauges mounted at engine.
Air FiIter
United tri-phase - 1 size larger than air filter manufacturer recommends.
Cool ing
Maximum size coolant capacity and fan. Fan to be shrouded if needed.
Throttle Control
Air cylinder actuated by electric - air solenoid valve. All starting, stopping
and throttle speed shall be controlled from cab.
Engine Speed
Maximum engine speed to be set to pump manufacturers recommend operating R.P.M.
Fuel
Fuel to be drawn from main engine fuel tank. (No separate tank). Fuel filters
as recommended by engine manufacturer.
All equipment called for in this bid shall carry six months or IOQO hour
factory guarantee, whichever occurs first, of maintenance free operation (excluding
normal preventive maintenance) excepting confirmed negligence on part of user. All
gauges, hardware and fabrication to be manufacturer's standard, unless otherwise
specified.
Truck & Chassis Specs
G.V.W. 36,000 Ibs.
W.B. l*tO inches
Engine
Caterpillar, Model 1150 or approved equal.
200 H.P. 3000 R.P.M.
Full flow oil filter with replaceable paper element.
Model 750 luberfiner auxiliary by-pass oil filter.
United tri-phase or Donaldson spin type air cleaner with automatic
dirt ejector.
76
-------
Cool ing
Manufacturers maximum cooling system guaranteed to under all operating con-
ditions in ambient temperatures of 120 degrees.
Perry water conditioner, with throw-away element, or equal.
Fuel Tank
60 gallon safety tank.
Transmi ssion
Allison M.T. **1 Automatic matched to engine. Engineered to maximum operating
speed of 60 M.P.H. Hayden transmission, cooler mounted in front of radiator in
direct fan air travel. Transmission cooler not to be connected into radiator.
Drive Lines
Heavy duty for landfill operations.
Front Axle
Timken FL 901,18,000 lb.,wide track. Extra heavy duty shock absorbers.
Front Spring
Adequate for 18,000 Ib. axle and loading.
Rear Axle
Timken L100 wide track, or equal. 18,500 Ib. minimum 7-0 to I or slower
ratio. Warn Industries safety bell mounted on right side rear axle.
Tires & Wheels
15 X 22.5 - 16 ply premium nylon tires on front. 18 X 19-5 premium nylon
tires on rear. All mounted on 10 hole disc wheels. One of each size, spare front
and rear tire and wheel to be furnished with each vehicle.
Steering
Hydraulic power assist, with pump driver, independently from water pump or fan.
Brakes
Full air with the largest size linings and drums available. 12 C.F.M. Com-
pressor. Hand control to actuate brakes on all wheels. Piggy back safety brake
with auximilary air tank and cab controls for emergency release of safety brakes.
No drive line parking brake, Aeroquip type hose on all air lines. No copper
tub ing.
77
-------
El ectr ical
12 volt, 65 amp alternator, minimum. Delcotron, Autolite, Motorola or
Pristolite only. Leece Neville not acceptable. Four (^) 6 volt group k batteries.
NO EXCEPTIONS. Transistorized voltage regulator. Electric or air windshield
wiper. Hobbs hour meter mounted in dash. Engine oil temperature gauge mounted
in dash. Fresh air heater and defroster. Dual electric horns. Complete turn and
hazard signal system. I.C.C. Cab, Clearance and Tail Lights. Kysor automatic
high coolant temperature and low oil pressure cutoff controls with warning bell
and light. Mechanex Corporation Electronic speedometer and electronic tachometer.
Mi rrors
"Retract" type 6 X 16 mounted each side of front of truck.
Tow Hooks
Front only.
Cab
All steel - one (I) man cab. Sun visor. Roof mounted air horn - SAE & CAA
approved safety belt. Premium drivers seat. Tinted glass all around. Single
throttle and brake controls (dual controls not mandatory).
Air Conditioning
Frigid King - Mark IV or equal.
Paint
DuPont Fawn Beige #U85^D or closest beige color.
General
Unit and all components shall meet all applicable federal regulations.
78
-------
V..
-------
APPENDIX C
CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA
Dear Citizen of Scottsdale:
Your home is part of one neighborhood area selected for an experimenta) program
to improve refuse collection practice. Scottsdale is working with the Office of
Solid Waste Management Environmental Protection Agency on a series of experiments
to determine the feasibility of mechanizing the refuse collection process. Our
first phase objective, which we are asking you to help with will be to determine
public acceptance of the basic requirement that refuse be contained in standard
containers in order to implement the mechanization. Later experiments will deter-
mine the best mechanization technique, the economics of the program and other con-
siderations. We must first determine public response to containerization.
The first phase will involve the use of standard containers. Most participat-
ing households will be asked to share a container which will be furnished by the
city for the six month duration of the experiment. We have done some preliminary
work to determine the best size and have selected containers which we are confident
will be large enough for any normal waste accumulation. We have mounted on a refuse
truck a crude lift mechanism which has a lifting limit of 500 Ibs. and we must ask
that you limit the weight of each load to 500 Ibs. With that limit in mind, how-
ever, you may put containers of extra material on the lid to be dumped with the
containers. Containers are polyethylene plastic, which is tough, durable, long-
lived, and the most attractive and suitable material we have found. They will be
furnished with lids which must be closed to protect against flies. They have been
designed to resist access by animals, to be convenient for you and your family to
use, and to be utilitarian, as well as easy for our equipment to handle.
We will be working closely with the County Health Department to study and
control the sanitation aspects of our containerization work. We expect to treat
the containers periodically to eliminate insects and will study other ways to
improve the sanitation of the containers.
We plan to serve your home for approximately six months with these special
containers. At the end of that time we will conduct another survey to determine
how the containers have worked in use and then will decide whether or not to pro-
ceed with further phases of the work.
Now, we need your help. We encourage you to contact us if you have any sug-
gestions.
Your home will be served with the following service;
Size of Container
Pickups per week
Total Households Using Container
Note that containers must be pointed toward the truck to be picked up properly.
Please don't relocate your container without contacting us. If your container has
casters, we have painted an arrowhead on your curb to help you set your container
for us. Please call me for further information or to discuss our proposal, at
Department of Public Works
80
-------
APPENDIX D
SURVEY FORM TO EVALUATE REACTION
TO
MECHANIZED COLLECTION SYSTEM
81
-------
ADDRESS:
INTERVIEWER:
CALLS:
INTERVIEW NO.
SCOTTSDALE REFUSE CONTAINERIZATION EVALUATION
(CONFIDENTIAL)
1. SAMPLE NUMBER:
2. PICKUP:
3- CONTAINER SIZE:
U. CONTAINER:
5. DWELLING UNIT:
1.
2.
Alley
Curb
1 Individual
2. Collective
1 . House or Duplex
2. Apartment or Flat
3. Rooming House
U. Other (specify)
82
-------
PRETEST INTERVIEW
INTRODUCTION:
A. "Hello, I'm representing the City of Scottsdale.
B. As you may have heard, the City of Scottsdale is going to try a new system
of refuse collection. By refuse collection, we mean the normal garbage and
trash which you dispose of.
C. We want to find out your opinions about present refuse collection service.
D. I'm going to read a few statements, and I would like to know if you strongly
agree with them, agree with them, disagree, or strongly disagree with them."
(SHOW CARD)
CIRCLE CORRECT ANSWER:
Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree
6. First, the city is doing an 4321
excel lent job of collecting
refuse.
7. The city could do a better job 4 3 2 1
of collecting refuse than it is
presently doing.
*8. I would not be wi11 ing to try a 4 3 2 1
more mechanized way of collect-
ing refuse.
9. Using more machines in collecting 4 3 2 1
refuse would probably result in
better service.
10. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
*1I. The people who collect the refuse 4 3 2 1
are doing a poor job.
12. I could use more refuse container 4 3 2 1
capacity than I presently have.
13. I would not mind using a container 432 1
which is owned by the city.
14. Collecting refuse by hand rather 432 1
than by machine probably costs
more money.
*15. Collecting refuse by hand rather 432 1
than by machine probably is faster.
-»I6. I would not share a refuse container 432 1
with a neighbor even if it is big
enough.
17. Refuse is collected just about often 432 1
enough for me.
83
-------
Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree
18. The city employees collecting 5321
the refuse are doing a good
job.
19. The refuse cans are usually ^32 1
replaced properly.
20. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
21. The container covers are usually ^32 1
placed back on the cans after
emptying.
22. The area where the refuse con- k 3 2 1
tainers are placed smel1s pretty
bad.
23. It's easy to keep all the refuse k 3 2 1
in the cans so it will not make
the area messy.
Now I would like to ask you for your comments on a few questions.
2k. What do you like most about the way refuse is presently being collected?
Write in verbatim
Anything else?
25. What do you d i s1i ke most about the way refuse is presently being collected?
Write in verbatim
Anything else?
84
-------
26. How do you think the city could improve its collection of refuse7
Write in verbatim
27. How many refuse containers do you presently use?
One I
Two 2
Three 3
Four or more 4
28. How well would you say you like the way refuse is being collected?
Dislike it very much 1
Dislike it somewhat 2
Indifferent 3
Like it somewhat k
Like it very wel 1 5
29. How long have you lived in this house?
Less than 6 months 1
6 months to 1 year 2
1 to 2 years 3
3 to 5 years k
5 to 10 years 5
over 10 years 6
30. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
31. What is your telephone number'
32. Time Day of Week Date
Thank you very much for your cooperation.
85
-------
POST TEST INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
33. Respondent
Same as Pretest 1
Different but same household 2
Different household 3
3k. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
INTRODUCTION:
A. "Hello, I'm _ representing the City of
Scottsdale.
B. You may recall that I talked with you (or someone in this house) about
the new way we are trying to contain and collect refuse.
C. I would like to ask you your opinion about how the new system works.
35. First, what do you 1 i ke most about the way refuse is contained in the
new cans?
Write in verbatim
Anything else?
36. What do you dis1i ke most about the way refuse is contained in the new cans?
Write in verbatim
Anything else?
37. What do you 1i ke most about the new way refuse is being collected?
Write in verbatim
Anything else'
86
-------
38. What do you d i s1i ke most about the new way refuse is being collected?
Write in verbatim
Anyth i ng else?
39. Do you think the city should stay with the old way or the new way of
collecting refuse';
Old way 1
New way 2
Don't know 3
40. How well would you say you like the new way of refuse collection7
Di si ike it very much 1
Dislike it somewhat 2
Indifferent 3
Like it somewhat 4
Li ke it very we 1 I 5
41. How do you think the city could improve on the new way of collecting
refuse?
Write in verbatim
Anything else?
87
-------
INSTRUCTIONS:
Now, | will need a few statements and I would like to know if you strongly agree
with them, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with them. (SHOW CARD)
42.
43.
*44.
45.
The city is doing an excellent
job of collecting the refuse.
The city could do a better job of
collecting refuse than it is
presently doing.
1 would not be wi 1 ! ing to cont inue
the new way of collecting refuse.
Using more machines in collecting
refuse would probably result in
better service.
Strongly
Agree
4
4
4
4
Agree
3
3
3
3
Disagree
2
2
2
2
Strongly
Di sagree
1
1
1
1
46. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
-•47. The people who collect the refuse are 4 3
doing a poor job.
48. I could use more refuse container 4 3
capacity than I presently have.
49. I do not mind using a container 4 3
which is owned by the city.
50. Collecting refuse by hand rather 4 3
than by machine costs more money.
*51• Collecting refuse by hand rather 4 3
than by machine probably is
faster.
"52. I will not share a refuse container 4 3
with a neighbor even if it is big
enough.
53. Refuse is now collected just about 4 3
often enough for me.
54. The city employees collecting the 4 3
refuse are doing a good job.
55- The refuse cans are usually 4 3
replaced properly now.
88
-------
Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree
56. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
57. The container covers are usual ly 432 1
placed back on the cans after
emptying.
58. The area where the refuse cans 432 I
are placed smel1s pretty bad.
59. It's easy to keep all the refuse 432 1
cans so it will not make the area
messy.
60. Dogs and cats are gett ing in the 432 1
cans a lot now.
Thank you very much for your cooperation.
* These questions were asterisked to provide information on negative feelings
toward the system. Used for statistical computation only.
XXXXXXXXX Used for keypunch purposes in computer program.
89
-------
APPENDIX E
RESIDENT ATTITUDES
TOWARD
SCOTTSDALE REFUSE
CONTAINERIZATION EXPERIMENT
Dr. Dickinson L. McGaw
Director, Survey Research Center
Political Science Department
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
90
-------
THE PROBLEM
The evaluation of the success of the containerization experiment depends
partly upon resident attitudes toward the system. T* what extent will the resi-
dents comply with a change in the system of refuse collection? Will residents
mind sharing containers with their neighbors? Is larger containers capacity
wanted or is more frequent pickup desired? Are odors reduced? These are some
of many questions an evaluator must answer to identify system weaknesses for
improvement.
METHOD
Five areas of the City were selected as experimental areas. Randon selection
of household units was not feasible due to collection costs. The areas selected
represented middle-middle class and lower-middle class residential areas in the City.
Three employees trained at interviewing conducted before and after interviews
with mature residents in each of the selected households. An Administrative Assist-
ant Introduced the system by thorough explanation after the interview. A written
explanation was left with each resident (Appendix C).
More than 500 homes were used in the experiment. Only 259 were used in the
statistical analysis due to difficulty of obtaining a complete before or after
interview from the same resident.
The interview schedule contained structured and open-ended questions. It
took approximately 10-15 minutes for completion. The interview scheduled is con-
tained in Appendix D. Questions 1-32 were used for the pretest and questions
39-74, the posttest.
Four independent variables were used in this study: (1) Container size;
(2) Container ventilation; (3) Pickup frequency; and (4) Number of homes shar-
ing the container. Eight treatments were applied:
Container Size Pickups/Week No. Homes Ventilation Total Homes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
80 gal.
80 gal.
160 gal.
160 gal.
160 gal.
300 gal.
300 gal.
300 gal.
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
Yes 34
No 21
Yes 23
No 22
Yes 60
Yes 26
No 17
Yes 56
TOTAL HOMES 259
RESULTS
The 259 observations are analyzed in the eight treatment groups mentioned
in the previous section and together as a group. A difference of proportions
test is applied to the test for statistical significance. We test the null hypo-
thesis Ho:P^ = P2. The level set for achieving statistical significance is .05.
The formula used for the test is:
91
-------
- 2 -
nl Pl + n2 P2
P
1 - P2
y/PQ(l/n1 + l/n2)
The first item included in the test (Table E-l) is, "The City is doing an
excellent job of collecting refuse." Percent agreement increases in all treatment
groups and t:he total sample. Statistical significance is not achieved, however,
in the seventh treatment group. Sixty percent in the before test agreed with this
item, while ninety-four percent agreed after the completion of the experiment.
Treatments 2, 3, and 4, yielded 100% agreement in the post-test.
The second item concerns whether the City could do a better job of collect-
ing refuse than it is presently doing. If the experiment was effective, then we
would predict lower percentage agreement on the post-test than on the pretest.
Again all of the treatment's effects point in the predicted direction. Only
treatment seven lacks statistical significance. 67% of the whole sample agreed
with the item on the before test and 30% agreed on the after test (Table E-2).
How many residents would not be willing to try a more mechanized method of
refuse collection? Table E-3 indicates that fewer residents are willing to agree
with this statement after the experiment than before, thus indicating acceptance
of the method introduced. Treatments 3, 5, 6, and 7 were pointed in the predicted
direction, but failed to achieve statistical significance.
In Table E-4 we ask: "Using more machines in collecting refuse would pro-
bably result in better service." Many residents did not feel qualified to answer
this auestion and did not respond. The only treatment reaching significance was
number five.
Several items are worded such that a person who has a high positive attitude
toward the experiment must say "no" to several questions. This technique is used
to control for response set.
In other words, many people are psychologically predisposed to say either
"yes" or "no" to almost any kind of question. By reversing the direction of the
question (i.e., from "The program was great" where a positive score would be a
"yes" answer to "The program was a failure" where a success score for experiment
would be "no"), we can identify persons who are susceptible to the response set
tendency and analyze them separately.
All treatments except number six achieved significance with a one-tailed
test.
The residents were asked to suggest how the new containerization method
could be improved. Table E-5 demonstrates some satisfaction with slightly more
than half not responding. The most frequent suggestion was to make more durable
containers (10%). The second most frequent suggestion was to increase the fre-
quency of pickups.
92
-------
- 3 -
What did Scottsdale residents dislike most about the old and new systems
of refuse collection? Table E-6 indicates that complaints against the old system
were: 31%, poor collection, containers, and messy alleys; 13%, small containers;
7%, Infrequent collection of boxes and branches; 14%, irregular pickups; and 4%,
noise.
In Table E-7 we discover what residents dislike most about the new system.
The most frequent complaint was inadequate capacity (14%); second was the incon-
venience of greater walking and the difficulty children have in lifting lids.
The third most frequent complaint was neighbor sharing which was tied with poor
containers and messy alleys.
We asked before the experiment began how the old system could be improved.
Tab?.e E-8 shows that 16% of the residents thought mechanization might help; 10%
favored more frequent pickups; 9% favored more careful collection; and 5% wanted
better workers with more pay.
In Table E-9 we examine whether refuse could be kept in containers to keep
the area from being messy. In each treatment category we find a significant
increase in satisfaction in the post-test from the pretest in maintaining a clean
refuse containment area.
Residents wer^ asked what they liked most about the old system (pretest)
and the new system (post-test) of refuse collection. For the whole sample of
the pretest (Table E-]0), 42% liked regular and frequent collection most, while
others expressed diffuse satisfaction with the old system. In the post-test,
residents were more specific about what they liked about the experiment. 32%
mentioned adequate capacity; 21%, a cleaner alley; and 12%, containers stay
covered and do not tip over (Table E-ll). In treatments 1 and 2 the ability to
move containers were frequent responses.
Did the experiment affect attitudes toward frequency of collection?
Table E-12 indicates a tendency for the experiment to al]eviate demands for more
frequent collection.
Are City employees collecting refuse perceived as doing a good job?
Before the experiment began, 55% thought refuse collectors were doing a good
job; but after the experiment 96% thought the employees were doing a good job
(Table E-13).
The experiment shows dramatic results concerning replacement of refuse
cans (Table E-14). In all cases the experiment improved the attitudes toward
the system. In the total sample 55% agreed with the statement in the pretest,
but 96% agreed in the post-test. Explanation: agreed refers to adding both
the "strongly agree" and "agree" categories.
A frequent complaint of the old system was the failure to replace con-
tainer covers. 73% of the sample was dissatisfied with cover replacement. With
the introduction of the experiment, however, only 3% expressed dissatisfaction
with cover replacement (Table E-15).
In Table E-16 we examine whether the experiment minimized the odors around
the containers. The data are inconsistent among the various treatments. The
whole sample results indicate improvement after the introduction of the experi-
ment.
93
-------
In Table E-17, the question stated is: "I could use more refuse container
capacity than I presently have." Fifty percent of the total group agreed in the
pretest but only thirty-four percent in the post-test wanted more container
capacity. Treatments five and eight demonstrated strongest need for more container
capacity. People in these treatment areas wanted more container capacity than
those persons exposed to the other treatments.
Would residents mind using a container owned by the City? Table E-18
illustrates only 14% in the pretest and 4% In the post-test preferring not to
use City containers.
Do citizens perceive a savings through mechanized containerization? Table
E-19 indicates that citizens perceive the hand collection method is more costly
than the mechanized method of refuse collection. The City may produce more educa-
tional information concerning relative costs to gain greater acceptance.
Which is perceived as being faster—collection by hand or collection by
machine? Table E-20 indicates that residents do not have consistent attitudes
toward time savings in machine collection.
A majority of the respondents tend to feel that machine collection is
faster than hand collection.
Would residents be willing to share containers with neighbors? Table E-21
shows that 53% of the sample in the pretest and 78% in the post-test were willing
to share containers. The data indicate the residents who have had sharing exper-
iences in the experiment were slightly more likely to accept sharing than those
residents who had individual containers.
CONCLUSION
Two-hundred fifty-nine residents were exposed to eight different combina-
tions of collection services:
(1) 80-, 160-, or 300-gallon containers
(2) 1 or 2 times a week pickup
(3) Ventilated or non-ventilated containers and
(4) 1, 2, or 4 homes sharing.
All eight treatments produced statistically significant effects measured
by interview responds on before and after tests. Treatment seven showed the
weakest relationship of the eight treatments. The major improvements needed as
perceived by the residents were more durable containers and more frequent pickups.
94
-------
TABLE E-l: Before and After Percentage Distributions and Tests of Statistical Significance for:
"The city is doing an excellent Job of collecting refuse."
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
NO ANSWER
TREATMENT NUMBER
1
B
9%
41
44
6
0
A
12%
85
3
0
0
2
B
5%
47
43
5
0
A
19%
81
0
0
0
3
3
4%
61
26
9
0
A
4%
96
0
0
0
L
B
9%
41
41
9
0
A
9%
91
0
0
0
s
B
12%
53
30
5
0
A
15%
77
8
0
0
6
E
8%
58
34
0
0
A
4%
88
4
0
0
7
B
18%
59
23
0
0
A
6%
82
12
0
0
R
B
2%
61
34
3
0
A
9%
84
2
1
4
AJT
B
7%
53
35
5
0
A
10%
84
4
2
0
TOTAL %
CASES
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
(34) (34) (21) (21) (23) (23) (22) (22) (60) (60)
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
(26) (26) (17) (17) (56) (56) (259) (259)
DIFFERENCE OF PROPORTIONS TEST OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE BASED ON % AGREEMENT:
Treatment 3: p < .001
Treatment 2: p < .001
Treatment 3: p < .001
Treatment 4: p < .001
Treatment 5: p < .01
Treatment 6: p < .01
Treatment 7: p < .2
Treatment 8: p < .001
All: p < .001
-------
TABLE E-2: Before and After Percentage Distributions and Tests of Statistical Significance for:
"The city could do a better job of collecting refuse than it is presently doing."
RESPONSE
STRONGLY AGREE
AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
NO ANSWER
TOTAL %
CASES
1
B A
15% 3%
56 26
26 65
0 6
3 0
100% 100%
(34) (34)
2
B A
29% 0%
56 24
10 76
0 0
5 0
100% 100%
(21) (21)
TREi
3
B A
4% 4%
35 13
57 87
0 0
4 0
100% 100%
(23) (23)
4
B A
14% 0%
64 18
23 82
0 0
0 0
100% 100%
(22) (22)
MMENT NUMBER
5
B A
8% 3%
57 42
30 52
3 3
2 0
100% 100%
(60) (60)
6
B A
8% 0%
58 35
35 65
0 0
0 0
100% 100%
(26) (26)
7
B A
12% 0%
47 35
41 65
0 0
0 0
100% 100%
(17) (17)
8
B A
16% 0%
55 21
25 71
2 2
2 5
L00% 100%
(56) (56)
ALL
B A
13% 2%
54 28
30 67
1 2
2 1
100% 100%
(259) (259)
DIFFERENCE OF PROPORTIONS TEST OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Treatment 1: p < .001
Treatment 2: p < .01
Treatment 3: p < .05
Treatment 4: p < .001
Treatment 5: p < .05
Treatment 6: p < .05
Treatment 7: p < .08
Treatment 8: p < .01
All: p < .001
-------
TABLE E-3: Before and After Percentage Distributions and Tests of Statistical Significance for;
"I would not be willing to try a more mechanized way of collecting refuse."
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
DISAGREE
AGREE
STRONGLY
AGREE
TREATMENT NUMBER
12345 6
B A
18%
70
12
0
NO ANSWER , °
18%
79
3
0
o
B
19%
52
24
5
0
A
10%
85
5
0
0
B A
0%
57
9%
83
30 : 4
0
13
4
i
0
B A
5%
59
32
0
5
9%
86
5
0
0
B A
17%
57
23
2
2
17%
67
13
2
2
B A
4%
77
12
0
7
4%
88
4
0
4
B
6%
82
12
0
0
7 8 ALL
A
35%
59
6
0
o
B A
16%
64
13
0
7
11%
82
4
0
4
B A
12%
64
18
1
5
13%
77
6
1
3
TOTAL 7,
CASES
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
(34) (34) (21) (21) (23) (23) (22) (22) (60) (60)
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
(26) (26) (17) (17) (56) (56) (259) (259)
DIFFERENCE OF PROPORTIONS TEST OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Treatment 1: p < .05
Treatment 2: p < .01
Treatment 3: p < .3
Treatment 4: p <: .01
Treatment 5: p < .08
Treatment 6: p < .10
Treatment 7: p < .3
Treatment 8: p < .05
All: p < .001
-------
TABLE E-4: Before and After Percentage Distributions and Tests of Statistical Significance
"Using more machines in collecting refuse would probably result in better service."
RESPONSE
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
NO ANSWER
1
B A
3%
55
18
24
6%
62
26
6
0
2
B A
19%
52
5
0
14
10%
66
24
0
0
3
B A
4%
39
43
0
13
0%
57
35
0
9
4
B A
0%
73
14
0
14
OZ
64
36
0
0
5
B A
7%
47
40
2
5
TOTAL % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
CASES (34) (34) (21) (21) (23) (23) (22) (22) (60)
2%
67
23
3
5
100
(60)
6
B A
0%
63
19
4
11
0%
58
27
0
15
7
B
0%
76
18
0
6
A
0%
65
29
0
6
8
B A
9%
46
20
2
23
5%
52
34
0
9
ALL
B A
5 3
54 61
24 29
1 2
15 5
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
(26) (26) (17) (17) (56) (56) (259) (259)
DIFFERENCE OF PROPORTIONS TEST OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Treatment 1: p < .2
Treatment 2: p < .4
Treatment 3: p < .2
Treatment 4: p < .3
Treatment 5: p < .05
Treatment 6: p < .4
Treatment 7: p < .3
Treatment 8: p < not significant
All: p < .12
00
-------
TABLE E-5: What residents suggested for improving the new method - Post test
MORE FREQUENT PICKUPS
LARGER CAPACITY
MORE MEN AND BETTER PAY
MAKE LIDS LIGHTER
AND EASIER TO LIFT
MAKE INDIVIDUAL CANS
NO SHARING
MAKE MORE DURABLE CONTAINS
OTHER
NO ANSWER
TOTAL
CASES
5%
8
1
2
3
10
15
54
100%
(259)
-------
TABLE E-6: What residents disliked most about old system.
o
o
RESPONSE
POOR COLLECTION/CONTAINERS/MESSY
ALLEYS
CONTAINERS: TOO SMALL/
PILL UP TOO FAST/
THROWN AROUND
NOISE
INFREQUENT COLLECTION OF BOXES
AND BRANCHES
IRREGULAR PICKUPS
NOTHING
OTHER
NO ANSWER
TOTAL PERCENT
CASES
%
31%
13
4
7
14
17
i
1
5
9
100%
(259)
-------
TABLE E-7: What residents disliked most about the system.
RESPONSE
Inconvenience :
Walking/Children can't use
Inadequate
Capacity
Odor
Neighbor Sharing
Infrequent Collection
of Boxes & Branches
Messy Alley/
Poor Containers
Heavy Lids
No Answer
Other
TREATMENT NUMBER
1
18%
9
9
0
3
6
3
44
9
2
07.
29
0
0
0
14
0
48
10
3
0%
4
0
9
4
4
4
61
13
4
5%
9
9
5
0
9
0
55
9
5
5%
17
5
5
0
13
2
45
8
6
152
19
0
8
4
12
4
35
4
7
18%
0
12
0
6
6
6
53
0
8
5%
14
2
9
4
18
0
41
7
All
8%
14
4
5
2
5
2
46
8
TOTAL %
CASES
100
(34)
100
(21)
100
(23)
100
(22)
100
(60)
100
(26)
100
(17)
100
(56)
100
(259)
-------
TABLE E-8: What residents suggested for Improving old method - Pretest
O
ro
MECHANIZATION
CONTAINERS :
MORE AND LARGER
SATISFIED
MORE CAREFUL
COLLECTION
BETTER MEN AND
MORE PAY
MORE PICKUPS
OTHER
NO ANSWER
TOTAL PERCENT
CASES
I
16%
3
5
9
5
10
18
33
100%
(259)
-------
TABLE E-9: Before and After Percentage Distributions and Tests of Statistical Significance for:
"It's easy to keep all the refuse In the cans so It will not make the area messy."
RESPONSE
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
NO ANSWER
1
B A
9% 9%
65 85
26 6
1
0 0 ,
0 0
2
fi A
5% 5%
48 86
38 5
9 0
0 5
3
B A
4% 9%
57 91
35 0
4 0
0 0
TREATMENT
4
B A
5% 0%
73 100
18 0
5 0
0 0
NUMBER
5
B A
8% 7%
52 87
27 7
13 0
0 0
6
B A
0% 4%
62 92
35 0 .
4 0
0 4
7
B A
12% 0%
47 94
35 6
6 0
0 0
8
B A
4% 5%
52 88
34 7
11 0
0 0
ALL
B A
6 5
56 89
31 5
8 0
0 1
TOTAL % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
CASES (34) (34) (21) (21) (23) (23) (22) (22) (60) (60)
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
(26) (26) (17) (17) (56) (56) (259) (259)
^Difference of Proportions Test of Statistical Significance:
Treatment 1: p < .01
Treatment 2: p < .001
Treatment 3: p < .01
Treatment 4: p < .05
Treatment 5: p
-------
TABLE E-10: What Residents Liked Most About Old System — Pretest Answers
RESPONSE
REGULAR & FREQUENT
COLLECTION
LID & CAN REPLACEMENT
SATISFACTION WITH
PRESENT SYSTEM
GOOD COLLECTORS
QUIET COLLECTION
NOTHING
OTHER
TREATMENT NUMBER
1
26%
0
12
15
0
15
12
2
29%
0
14
10
0
0
10
3
35%
4
17
0
0
26
0
4
32%
5
14
0
5
32
9
5
55%
3
13
3
5
5
8
6
62%
0
23
4
0
4
0
7
35%
12
35
12
12
0
0
8
43%
0
5
2
2
11
16
ALL
42%
2
13
5
2
11
8
i
TOTAL %
CASE
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
(34) (21) (23) (22) (60) (26) (17) (56) (259)
-------
TABLE E-ll: What Residents Liked Most about New System — Post test
RESPONSE
ADEQUATE
CAPACITY
CLEANER
ALLEY
CANS COVERED
DON'T TIP OVER
EASY TO MOVE
SATISFIED
NOTHING
OTHER
NO ANSWER
TREATMENT NUMBER
1
47%
12
9
15
12
0
6
0
2
38%
14
0
19
5
0
24
0
3
43
17
4
0
35
0
0
0
4
•', 36%
27
13
0
14
5
0
5
5
25%
25
13
0
23
10
3
0
6
35%
23
15
0
4
8
12
4
7
24%
6
29
0
12
6
24
0
8
23%
27
13
0
13
5
12
7
ALL
32%
21
12
3
15
5
9
2
TOTAL*
CASE
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
(34) (21) (23) (22) (60) (26) (17) (56) (259)
-------
TABLE E-12: Before and After Percentage Distributions 6- Tests of Statistical Significance for:
"Refuse is collected just about often enough for us."
RESPONSE
Strongly Agree
Agree
Di sagree
Strongly
Di sagree
No Answer
TOTAL %
CASES
TREATMENT NUMBER
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ALL
B . A
9%
79
12
0
0
1 00%
(3*0
9%
91
0
0
_ 0
1 00%
(34)
B
5%
71
24
0
0
1 00%
(21)
A B A B A B A
0%
95
0
0
5
100%
(21)
0%
61
22
17
0
1 00%
(23)
0%
91
8
0
0
1 00%
(23)
9%
59
23
9
0
100%
(22)
0%
91
9
0
0
100%
(22)
7%
67
20
7
0
1 00%
(60)
10%
78
12
0
0
1 00%
(60)
B
8%
85
8
0
0
1 00%
(26)
A
0%
77
15
4
l*
1 00%
(26)
B
0%
88
6
0
6
1 00%
(17)
A
0%
82
18
0
0
1 00%
(17)
B A
5%
82
11
2
0
1 00%
(56)
0%
91
5
0
/t
100%
(56)
B
6%
7^
15
4
1
1 00%
(259)
A
3%
86
8
1
2
1 00%
(259)
-.v DIFFERENCE OF PROPORTIONS TEST OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Treatment 1:
Treatment 2:
Treatment 3:
Treatment 4:
Treatment 5:
Treatment 6:
Treatment 7:
p <= .05
p < .05
p <= .05
p < .05
p < .05
p < .05
Not sig.
Treatment 8; Not sig.
All: p < .001
-------
TABLE E-13: Before and After Percentage Distributions and Tests of Statistical Significance for:
"The city employees collecting the refuse are doing a good job."
RESPONSE
Strongly Agree
i\gree
Di sagree
strongly
Di sagree
'Jo Answer
TOTAL %
:ASES
TREATMENT NUMBER
1 2 3 ** 5 6 7 8 ALL
B
15%
65
18
0
2
100%
(3M
A
187,
82
0
0
0
1 00%
(3*0
B
0%
81
lit
0
5
1 OO-/,
(21)
A
0%
100
0
0
0
1 00%
(21)
B
!*%
k8
35
9
k
1 00%
(23)
A
0%
96
if
0
0
1 00%
(23)
B
5%
64
27
5
0
1 00%
(22)
A
07
100
0
0
0
1 00%
(22)
B
7%
65
25
3
0
1 00%
(60)
A
7%
92
2
0
0
1 00%
(60)
B
0%
85
15
0
0
1 00%
(26)
A
8%
88
k
0
0
100%
(26)
B
6%
32
12
0
0
1 00%
(17)
A
12/j
76
12
0
0
1 00%
C7)
B
*»%
6k
23
5
k
1 00%
(56)
A
7%
Bk
2
0
7
100%
(56)
B
2%
53
29
16
0
100%
(259)
A
7%
89
2
0
1
100%
(259)
DIFFERENCE OF PROPORTIONS TEST OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Treatment 1:
Treatment 2:
Treatment 3:
Treatment k;
Treatment 5:
Treatment 6:
Treatment 7:
Treatment 8:
All:
«= .01
< .05
*= .001
< .01
*= .05
•=.06
Not Sig.
P < .05
p <= .001
-------
TABLE E-14: Before and After Percentage Distributions and Tests of Statistical Significance for:
"The refuse cans are usually replaced properly."
RESPONSE
STRON'GLY
AGREE
AGREE
DISAGREE
STROXGLY
DISAGREE
KG ANSWER
TREATMENT NUMBER
1
B A
9% 9%
56 91
29 0
6 0
0 0
2
B A
0% 5%
57 95
24 0
19 0
0 0
3
B A
9% 0%
52 100
22 0
26 0
0 0
4
B A
0% 0%
59 100
32 0
9 0
0 0
5
B A
3% 5%
52 88
28 3
17 3
0 0
6
B A
0% 02
54 96
38 4
8 0
0 0
7
B A
0% 0%
76 94
24 6
0 0
0 0
8
B A
27, 0%
43 93
29 5
26 0
0 2
All
B A
2% 3%
53 93
29 3
16 1
0 0
TOTAL % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
CASES (34) (34) (21) (21) (23) (23) (22) (22) (60) (60) (26) (26) (17) (17) (56) (56) (259) (259)
DIFFERENCE OF PROPORTIONS TEST OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Treatment 1:
Treatment 2:
Treatment 3:
Treatment 4:
Treatment 5:
Treatment 6:
Treatment 7:
Treatment 8:
All:
p < .001
.001
.001
p <
p
-------
TABLE E-15: Before and After Percentage Distributions and Tests of Statistical Significance for;
"The container covers are usually placed back on the cans after emptying."
RESPONSE
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
NO ANSWER
TREATMENT NUMBER
1
B A
3% 9%
38 91
41 0
15 0
3 0
2
B A
0% 0%
14 95
38 5
33 0
14 0
3
B A
0% 0%
30 96
30 4
30 0
9 0
4
B A
0% 0%
23 91
45 9
32 0
0 0
5
B A
2% 5%
22 85
50 5
27 2
0 3
6
B A
0% 4%
15 92
62 0
19 0
4 4
7
B A
0% 0%
35 100
59 0
6 0
0 0
8
b A
0% 0%
18 95
43 4
38 0
2 2
ALL
B A
1% 3%
24 92
46 3
27 0
2 2
TOTAL % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
CASES (34) (34) (21) (21) (23) (23) (22) (22) (60) (60) (26) (26) (17) (17) (56) (56) (259) (259)
DIFFERENCE OF PROPORTIONS TEST OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Treatment 1:
Treatment 2:
Treatment 3:
Treatment 4:
Treatment 5:
Treatment 6:
Treatment 7:
Treatment 8:
All:
p < .001
p <: .001
p < .001
p < .05
p < .001
p < .01
p < .01
p < .001
p < .001
-------
TABLE E-16: Before and After Percentage Distributions and Tests of Statistical Significance for:
"The area where the refuse containers are placed smells pretty badly."
RESPONSE
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
NO ANSWER
TREATMENT NUMBER
1
B A
0% 6%
18 18
Ik 71
8 5
0 0
L 2
B A
0% 0%
33 10
48 81
19 9
0 0
3
B A
0% 4%
22 0
78 91
0 0
0 4
4
B A
9% 0%
14 14
68 82
9 5
0 0
5
B A
2% 2%
20 7
70 75
8 15
0 2
6
B A
0% 0%
12 12
69 85
19 4
0 0
7
B A
0% 0%
6 18
76 76
12 0
0 6
8
B A
5% 4%
14 7
64 84
11 5
5 0
All
B A
2 2
17 10
68 80
10 7
3 1
TOTAL % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
CASES (34) (34) (21) (21) (23) (23) (22) (22) (60) (60) (26) (26) (17) (17) (56) (56) (259) (259)
DIFFERENCE OF PROPORTIONS TEST OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Treatment 1: p < .27
Treatment 2: p < .05
Treatment 3: p < .05
Treatment 4: p < .3
Treatment 5: p < .05
Treatment 6: not significant
Treatment 7: p < .13
Treatment 8: not significant
All: p < .01
-------
TABLE E-17: Before and After Percentage Distributions and Tests of Statistical Significance for:
"I could use more refuse container capacity than I presently have."
RESPONSE
TREATMENT NUMBER
1 1 2
i
B A ! B A
' STRONGLY
I AGREE 9% 6%
AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
NO ANSWER
56 18
32 65
3 11
0 0
29% 5%
42 24
29 66
0 0
0 5
3
B A
4 5
B A
9% 9% 14% 9%
39 9
52 83
0 0
18 14
64 77
5 0
i
0000
B A
12% 10%
40 32
45 58
3 0
0 0
6
B A
0% 8%
42 23
i 1
7 | 8 ALL
B A
18% 0%
47 35
i
54 54 35 59
0 0
4 15
0 0
0 6
B A
0% 5%
36 41
57 46
0 0
2 7
B A
10 7
40 27
47 60
2 2
1 4
TOTAL % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
CASES (34) (34) (21) (21) (23) (23) (22) (22) (60) (60) (26) (26) (17) (17) (56) (56) (259) (259)
DIFFERENCE OF PROPORTIONS TEST OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Treatment 1: p <.001
Treatment 2: p < .01
Treatment 3: p <.01
Treatment 4: p < .23
Treatment 5: p <.15
Treatment 6: p < .3
Treatment 7: p < .05
Treatment 8: p < .05
All: p < .01
-------
TABLE E-18: Before and After Percentage Distributions and Tests of Statistical Significance for:
"I would not mind using a container which is owned by the city."
RESPONSE
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
NO ANSWER
TREATMENT NUMBER
1
B A
6% 18%
82 82
12 0
0 0
0 0
2
B A
28% 14%
62 86
10 0
0 0
0 0
3
B A
0% 0%
61 100
35 0
0 0
4 0
4
B A
5% 5%
73 85
18 0
0 0
5 0
5
B A
13% 22%
70 68
15 7
2 3
0 0
6
B A
0% 4%
96 92
4 4
0 0
0 0
7
B A
24% 0%
65 88
12 12
0 0
0 0
8
B A
21% 14%
73 82
5 2
0 0
0 2
ALL
B A
13 12
73 83
13 3
1 1
0 1
TOTAL % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
CASES (34) (34) (21) (21) (23) (23) (22) (22) (60) (60) (26) (26) (17) (17) (56) (56) (259) (259)
DIFFERENCE OF PROPORTIONS TEST OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Treatment 1:
Treatment 2:
Treatment 3:
Treatment 4:
Treatment 5:
Treatment 6:
Treatment 7:
Treatment 8:
All:
p < .01
p < .07
p < .05
p < .12
not significant
not significant
not significant
not significant
p -s .001
-------
TABLE E-19: Before and After Percentage Distributions and Tests of Statistical Significance for:
"Collecting refuse by hand rather than by machine probably costs more money."
RESPONSE
STRONGLY
AGREE
AGREE
DISAGREE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
NO ANSWER
TOTAL % 1
CASES (
1
B A
3% 0%
47 47
21 21
0 3
29 29
.00 100
34) (34)
2
B A
19% 10%
48 28
0 14
0 0
33 48
100 100
(21) (21)
3
B A
0% 0%
48 22
22 13
0 0
30 65
100 100
(23) (23)
TREATMENT
4
B A
0% 0%
68 27
23 23
0 0
9 50
100 100
(22) (22)
NUMBER
5
B A
2% 3%
55 40
35 8
2 5
7 43
100 100
(60) (60)
6
B A
4% 0%
62 31
15 12
4 0
15 58
100 100
(26) (26)
7
B A
6% 6%
35 18
29 12
6 0
24 65
100 100
(17) (17)
8
B A
11% 2%
55 45
14 13
0 0
20 41
100 100
(56) (56)
ALL
B A
5 2
53 36
21 13
1 2
19 47
100 100
(259) (259)
DIFFERENCE OF PROPORTIONS TEST OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Treatment 1: p not significant
Treatment 2: p < .05
Treatment 3: p < .05
Treatment 4: p < .05
Treatment 5: p < .05
Treatment 6: p < .05
Treatment 7: p < .05
Treatment 8: p < .05
All: p < .01
-------
TABLE E-20: Before and After Percentage Distributions and Tests of Statistical Significance for:
"Collecting refuse by hand rather than by machine probably is faster."
RESPONSE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
DISAGREE
AGREE
STRONGLY
AGREE
TREATMENT NUMBER
]_
B A
0% 6%
38 57
35 24
3 0
1
NO ANSWER !24 15
2
B A
19% 14%
48 62
14 14
0 0
19 0
3
B A
0% 4%
39 48
43 17
0 0
17 30
4
B A
5% 0%
5Q 68
32 9
0 0
14 23
5
B A
5% 12%
47 58
38 18
0 3
10 8
6
B A
8% 4%
73 54
12 15
0 0
8 27
7
B A
0% 0%
65 29
24 6
0 0
12 65
8
B A
9% 5%
52 61
16 11
2 0
21 23
ALL
B A
6% 6%
50 56
27 15
1 1
16 22
TOTAL % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
CASES (34) (34) (21) (21) (23) (23) (22) (22) (60) (60) (26) (26) (17) (17) (56) (56) (259) (259)
DIFFERENCE OF PROPORTIONS TEST OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Treatment 1:
Treatment 2:
Treatment 3:
Treatment 4:
Treatment 5:
Treatment 6:
Treatment 7:
Treatment 8:
All:
p < .01
p
-------
TABLE E-21: Before and After Percentage Distributions and Tests of Statistical Significance for:
"I would not share a refuse container with a neighbor even if it is big enough."
RESPONSE
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
I
DISAGREE
AGREE
STRONGLY
AGREE
NO ANSWER
TREATMENT NUMBER
1
B A
9% 0%
29 53
41 12
21 12
0 24
2
B A
5% 0%
24 71
48 19
19 4
5 5
3
B A
4% 0%
48 70
48 22
0 9
0 0
4
B A
9% 0%
32 59
50 32
9 9
0 0
5
B A
5% 13%
45 77
35 5
15 5
0 0
6
B A
4% 8%
62 69
31 15
0 4
4 4
7
B A
12% 12%
82 76
6 12
0 0
0 0
8
B A
13% 9%
52 82
29 4
7 2
0 4
ALL
B A
8 7
45 71
36 12
10 5
1 5
TOTAL % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
CASES (34) (34) (21) (21) (23) (23) (22) (22) (60) (60) (26) (26) (17) (17) (56) (56) (259) (259)
DIFFERENCE OF PROPORTIONS TEST OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE:
Treatment 1: p < .10
Treatment 2: p < .01
Treatment 3: p < .09
Treatment 4: p
-------
APPENDIX F
SPECIFICATIONS
MECHANIZED REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE & 2 TRANSFER TRAILERS
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
Equipment shall be specially designed and fabricated to perform two unique
functions in the city's special mechanized system. First, it shall expeditiously
pick up and dump the city's 80-gallon residential containers, and second, the
collection vehicle shall work together with the transfer trailers to transfer
large accumulations of refuse for delivery to a disposal site. The general intent
is to obtain high quality, dependable, efficient equipment ready for regular and
normal use in the city's collection and disposal systems.
The Council will carefully consider any proposal offered, will compare the
cost of operation, the level of service provided, the system flexibility, and will
determine which proposal provides for the best interest of the city, may waive
specified requirements and will award the bid accordingly.
Specifications For Collection Vehicle:
Collection System:
The vehicle shall be equipped to collect refuse mechanically. It shall be
simple to operate and shall meet the following performance requirements.
1. It shall be capable of collecting an 80-gallon container weighing at
least 200 pounds, located with its nearest edge no less than 10 feet
from the nearest point of the truck. It is desirable that the equipment
be capable of engaging the container over the top of a passenger car
with a roof height of 5 feet.
2. It shall be capable of engaging, dumping and replacing a container in
normal operation with the 200 Ib. container within 3 feet of the truck
with a cycle time of no more than 10 seconds. Cycle time shall be from
truck stop to truck start with an experienced operator.
3. It shall be capable of simple, convenient operation by the vehicle
operator without leaving his normal truck operating station and without
using more than one hand and one foot to operate controls. The normal
operating station shall be from the right-hand drive.
4. It shall operate without straining or damaging the containers and with-
out subjecting them to a radial force in excess of 200 pounds, nor
abrading the surface, nor otherwise damaging or discoloring the
containers.
Compaction and Storage Systems:
The compaction system shall be capable of continuous operation to remove
refuse from the dump hopper at a rate of no less than 1 cubic yard of dumped
material per minute. The hopper shall be cleared continuously in such a way
that the collection work can proceed uninterrupted.
116
-------
The storage body shall have a capacity no less than 25 cubic yards and the
vehicle shall receive in normal operation, collecting ordinary household refuse,
no less than 12,000 pounds payload without overloading either axle.
The body shall be fabricated from high tensile steel with a floor no less
than ten gage, side walls no lesj than 1A gage and top no less than 16 gage, but
in any case no less than the manufacturer's standard for similar equipment. Weld-
ing, painting, reinforcing and other standards of construction shall be at least
equal to that of the bodies currently in operation in the city's system and
furnished by Western body and Hoist in their Wesco Jet.
Ejection and Transfer System:
The ejection system shall be capable of ejecting material from the storage
body into the special transfer trailer or at the disposal site and of pushing
material against the ejection plate at the opposite end of the trailer. The
vehicle will also be equipped with a transfer system that will permit the operator
to link with a special trailer, raise the tailgates of both the trailer and vehicle,
and transfer material fioia the collection vehicle to the trailer without requiring
assistance and without requiring the operator to leave the cab of the collection
vehicle.
Collection Vehicle Chassis;
The collection vehicle chassis shall conform insofar as is practical, with
the following detail specifications:
34,000 pound minimum
Approximately 120" of frame to be altered. See frame and drain
line specs.
160 to 180 H.P. A cycle diesel. Full flow oil filter. Luber-
finer 750 by-pass filter or equal. Dual filters (primary and
secondary). United Tri Phase air cleaner or equal Donaldson.
(Must be spin type filter with dirt ejector).
Manufacturers maximum cooling system available. This unit will
be operating starting and stopping in low gear ratios at approx-
imately 100 feet intervals on streets without benefit of higher
engine R.P.M. or high speed air flow.
Aii operated radiator shutters optional as required by engine
manufacturer. Perry throw-away type cooling system conditioner.
Sixty gallon (60) mounted on right side frame rail.
Allison Mt. Al automatic matched Co engine. Uayden transmission
cooler mounted in front of radiator in direct engine fan air system.
Heavy duty for off highway operation. Must be two (2) piece drive
line with courier and hanger bearing.
12,000 pound Extra heavy duty shock absorbers.
Engine
Cooling
Fuel Tank
Transmission
Drive Lines
Front Axle
Front Springs Adequate for 12,000 pound loading.
117
-------
- 3 -
Rear Axle 22,000 pound single speed.
acceptable.
Minimum 7.0-1 ratio wide track axle
Tires & Wheels 15 X 22.5 - 16 ply nylon premium tires on 10 hole disc wheels. If
front and rear axle wheels are not interchangeable, one (1) spare
wheel and tire shall be furnished for each axle.
Steering
Frame
Brakes
Electrical
Tow Hooks
Cab
Auxiliary
Engine
Hydraulic power assist with pump drives independently from water
pump or fan.
Single channel, no reinforcements.
reinforced by body builder.
Frame is to be modified and
Full air, 12 cubic foot compressor minimum piggy-back safety brakes
with auxiliary air tank for emergency release of safety brake and
dash mounted release control. No drive line parking brake. Aeroquip
type base on all air lines. No copper tubing. Wet air tank to be
equipped with #281923 Bendix automatic drain valve.
12 volt, 55 amps alternator minimum. Motorola, Prestolite, Delco or
Autolite only. Transistorized voltage regulator. Four (4) 6 volt
group 4 batteries mounted together on frame rail away from cab. Dual
electric or air operated windshield wipers. Hobbs hour meter mounted
in dash. Engine oil temperature gauge mounted in dash. Factory
installed air conditioning system or approved package equal to Mark
IV or Frigi-Klng. Fresh air heater and defroster. All head, tail
and clearance lights to conform to 1 C.C. specifications. Minimum
six (6) inch back up lite at rear of frame with independent cab
switch control.
Single or dual air horn.
6 X 16 Retractable type on each side of cab.
Tow hooks on front of frame.
Steel or fiberglass tilt cab. Two (2) grab handles one at each
door. Cab shall be modified to provide right hand drive. Dual sun
visors. Premium driver's seats, one (1) to be on each side of cab.
(Passenger seat to be premium type driver seat). Safety belts for
driver and passenger. CAA and SAE approved. Tinted glass all
around. Floor covering to be heat resistive pad under aluminized
back carpeting for maximum heat restriction to operator. Cab to be
low mount type for easy access of operator for numerous exit and
entrances.
Real wheel mounted reverse warning bell.
Fawn Beige. Eupont //4854D, or equal, on cab and body.
Perkins 4-236 preferred. Oil pressure and wcter temperature gauges
to be mounted on engine. 500 Luberfiner by-pass oil filter. United
Tri Phase or Donaldson spin type air cleaner with dirt ejector.
Primary and secondary fuel filters. Shall be started, stopped and
speed controlled from the normal right hand drive operator's station.
118
-------
- 5 -
Specifications For Transfer Equipment
Transfer Trailers
Transfer trailers shall be designed to be compatible with and to work in con-
junction with the collection vehicle. The transfer system shall be capable of ex-
pansion to other pieces of equipment in the city's fleet. The system shall deliver
no less than 90 cubic yards of compacted material and no less than 45,000 pounds
from the collection vehicle specified above.
Trailers shall be equipped to operate with a standard tractor equipped with a
fifth wheel. They shall be equipped to be simply and easily connected to the hydraulic,
air and control system of the tractor and use interchangeably with it. The trailers
shall normally be used by storing one on a convenient street or parking area while
the other is in transit to the landfill. The bidder shall include in his bid the
cost of installing the hydraulics and control system in one tractor. The system
shall operate so that all functions involved in removing and disposing of refuse
can be accomplished by the operator from his cab without leaving his operating
station in the cab except to make quick-connect connections or disconnections of the
hydraulic, air and electrical operating and control systems between the tractor ai.d
the trailer. The linking system and tailgate system shall accommodate the transfer
without spilling refuse. Trailers shall be equipped with special feet hydraulically
operable to lift the trailers off of the tractor and to replace them on it.
Trailers shall be welded, painted, fabricated, reinforced, and otherwise con-
structed to standards at least equal to that of bodies currently in operation in
the city's system and furnished by Western Body and Hoist in their Wesco Jet.
Trailers shall be fabricated in accordance with the following detail
specifications:
TRASH HOG TRAILER DETAIL SPECS
Approximately 55 feet to be indicated on Purchase Order.
Maximum legal. Capacity shall be no less than 120 cubic yards
inside volume.
Rear Axle 34,000 Ib. capacity tandem with Neway non-lubricated suspension.
Wheels & Tires Nine (9) 1000 X 15 - 14 ply premium tires on 10 hole disc wheels.
Brakes Largest size available with self adjusting wedge type air actuation.
To be equipped with all automatic safety controls to comply with
I.C.C. regulations.
Kingpin Approximately thirty-six (36) inches from front of trailer. To be
designated on Purchase Order.
Hydraulics Trailer hydraulic system shall be coupled to tractor with quiet
detachable, self sealing couplings. Power source shall be from
P.T.O. of Allison MT 41 Transmission on truck tractor with all
controls in cab of truck. Pump size, hose sizes, and valving shall
be of adequate size to give fast operation and long life with minimum
maintenance. Hydraulic system shall have throw away type filter.
Sixty (60) gallon hydraulic oil reservoir will be installed on truck
by truck Manufacturer. Bidder shall furnish power take-off and all
119
-------
Landing Gear
- 5 -
other hydraulic and control equipment, mounted on the tractor.
Hydraulic operation of trailer shall be, rear door, ejector plate
and landing gear. System shall be designed so rear door can be
opened and closed manually when trailer is not connected to truck
tractor. Control valving shall be electric-hydraulic mounted on
trailer with electric switches mounted in truck cab and connected
to trailer with standard trailer electrical quick connect plug of
same type as used for trailer lights.
Hydraulically operated from truck tractor cab, with oversize sand
pads. (No wheels). Lift capacity shall be in excess of 30,000 Ibs.
Landing gear shall be so constructed to withstand horizontal shock
of connection of refuse truck as it is coupled at rear end of
trailer in order to transfer load.
Electrical All lights shall be installed to comply with I.C.C. regulations.
The Following Schedule Shall Be Observed In Conformance With These Specifications;
1. Prior to award, the city may require preliminary conceptual drawings of
the proposed system in order to compare and evaluate proposals. The
bidder should expect to submit such drawings with his proposal or within
10 days after the bid opening should his offer be considered for evalua-
tion.
2. Within 45 days after the bid award the bidder shall submit detailed
engineering drawings (but not necessarily fabrication drawings) which
shall show the sizes and particular components proposed to be used.
These plans will be reviewed and approved, conditionally approved or
disapproved by the city within 15 days after receipt.
3. Within 120 days after the bid award the collection vehicle shall be
delivered.
4. Within 150 days after the bid award the first transfer trailer shall be
delivered. The bidder may use the city's tractor, which shall be de-
livered to his shop for modification, to transport the trailer. The
contractor may then work with the city for 30 days to modify or improve
the transfer system to assure that it works satisfactorily.
5. Within 200 days after the bid award the second transfer trailer shall be
delivered. The city will haul the trailer at it's expense up to 500 miles
and will haul for $0.50 per mile any additional distance.
The bidder shall bear responsibility for patent protection and shall
have the responsibility to provide the city with equipment which can be
regularly used without patent liability. The bidder shall make his own
arrangements to secure any patents or licenses needed to provide the
equipment required by these specifications.
120
-------
APPEXDIX G
PHASE II - ATTITUDE SURVEY
The following is an extract from an attitude survey during Phase 2 by Dennis
Schweigert, a graduate student.
Survey Data
Object ive. A survey was conducted to determine the attitude of customers toward
the service provided by this new refuse collecting system. Specifically the
survey sought attitude responses to the following two questions:
I. Is the new mechanized method an improvement over the ula
method?
2. Is the refuse being collected satisfactorily by the new
system?
Nature of the Survey Universe. Scottsdale, Arizona is locatud in the Salt River
Valley 8 miles Northeast of downtown Phoenix. It covers 63 square miles and
has experienced a rapid growth rate since 1950. In 1965 the population was 5
with an average per household of 3.6 persons. In 1970, the population was 71,800.
In 1965 the City had 16,183 residential dwellings. The following table lists the
breakdown by housing type:
Category Number of Units
Single Family 12,317
Multiple Family 3,613
Mobile Homes 253
In 1966 the median family income was over $9,000 and serves as a measure of the
community's wel1 being. The I960 census shows the median years of school com-
pleted by residents over age 25 was 12.7-
Sampling Units - Description and Characteristics. The survey was conducted in
two different residential areas that have been receiving the mechanized refuse
collecting service for at least one year. Group I was served by the Barrel Snatcher
and 300-gallon containers and had alley service. The homes in Group I were built
by Allied Construction Company in 1959 and I960 and are all single family dwellings.
Group II was served by the Barrel Snatcher and 80-gallon containers and had street,
curb-side service. The homes in Group II were built by Hallcraft Construction
Company in 196^ and 1965 and all are single family dwellings. The two residential
groups may be described as white, middle class neighborhoods. Both groups were
formerly served by 3-man crew collection trucks and train type transfer stations
Figure G-l illustrates the area and location included in Groups I and II.
Sample Size. The total number of units in Groups I and II is 7^2; Group 1 has
houses and Group II has 299 houses. The survey sample size in Group I was
units or about 10% of the total group population. The Group I I sample size
121
-------
was 42, or about I 4% of the group's pcpi.' - \. ' i1" • " • ' c •• :,IP<:
arbitrarily based on two considerations. The iir^L •-• ' ••- jCmple si^e ovtr
30 units was needed so that the data could be analyzed as a large sample; the
second was that a time limitation was imposed by outside factors so a large
sample could not be taken.
Survey Design and Method. The sample units were selected by choosing every 10th
house in Group I and every 6th house in Group II from a city plat. In so doing
the areas surveyed were evenly dotted with sample units. Although this is not a
probability sample, the sequential sampling method used is thought to be a re-
presentative sample for the purposes of this report.
The survey form featured 24 questions. The first was a multiple choice question
to determine the respondent's awareness of relative operating expense of his
refuse collecting service. Two other questions were open-ended and the remain-
ing 21 questions were objective type featuring a rate scale response. A pretest
on the survey form w^s conducted and modifications were made. The survey was
conducted by the writer and a staff member of the Public Works Department of
Scottsdale. Because cf the time limitation, no call backs were made to not-at-
home units. In the case of a not-at-home unit, the interviewer called on the
house next door. It is recognized that the use of the house next door may be
biasing because the family structure may be different and different attitudes
may exist; however, the time limitation for completion of the survey was the
overriding factor. About 31% of the resonses in Group I were not-at-home; the
proportion of not-at-home responses was about 20% for Group II.
Questions 3, 4, 10 and 11 on the form was used to determine the attitude toward
the basic question: Is the refuse being collected satisfactorily by the new
system? Questions 5 through 9 and 12 through 17 were used to determine the atti-
tude toward the question: Is the new method an improvement over the old method?
Two independent variables were used in this study: (1) Container size; (2)
Number of homes sharing a container. The frequency of pick ups was constant
(twice/week) for all units and all containers were city-owned.
The four response choices for each question have been categorized into two basic
groups that reflect either a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the new
mechanized refuse collection system. No provision was made in the rated scale
response for a null or indecision answer to encourage the people to commit
themselves to an attitude about the subject. however, where a null response
was given, it was recorded and is included in the analysis; no attempt is made
to hide it or ignore it. The effect of the non-response bias is thought to be
small because the number of null responses is relatively small.
Survey Results
The responses of the 86 observations are categorized into two groups correspond-
ing to the two basic attitude questions staled in the survey objective. These
grouped responses are further divided into categories representing the two
different survey areas -- those having 300-gallon containers and those having
122
-------
80-gallon containers. This Appendix contains bar charts illustrating the
responses to all the rated scale questions for Group 1 and Group II (Figures
G-2 through G-37).
A student "t" analysis was applied to the data to determine significant dif-
ferences in the responses and is summarized in Table G-l of the Appendix. A
test of significance was not performed on all questions; rather only the cumu-
lative responses (Figures G-2 through G-7) and those questions with the smallest
difference between favorable and unfavorable responses were tested. All others
are found to have a higher level of confidence that a significant difference in
attitude exists For most of the responses, we are more than 99% confident that
a difference exists between the number of favorable and unfavorable attitudes
and we may say that we are 99% sure of the validity of our results. Table G-l
in the Appendix lists the results of the student "t" analysis.
The cumulative attitude response of both Group I and Group II is 72.9% favorable
to the question: Is the new method an improvement over tlie old method7 In other
words, 72.9% of all the people surveyed favored mechanized collection over the
previous collection system.
Most of the people surveyed thought the refuse was being collected satisfac-
torily; 87.6% of the responses were favorable to this question.
Only three questions in this survey received insignificant response results. The
questions are Nos. 10, 13, and 16 shown in Figures G-10, G-18, and G-21 of the
Appendix. These responses represent divided opinions or attitudes and all came
from Group II. These results are explainable: The response to question 10 con-
cerning proper container replacement after emptying is likely to be critically
judged when you consider the customer has to retrieve the container from the
street curb after the refuse has been collected. If the container isn't exactly
where the customer left it, he may develop a negative attitude about container
replacement; in any case, he's more likely to be conscious of replacement than
the customer served by the 300-gallon containers. The larger containers require
no retrieval by the customer and are located in the alley as opposed to the front
yard for collection.
The response to question 13 regarding the reduction of noise when collecting
refuse is related to the exposure time of the noise. In Group I where 300-gal-
lon containers are used, the truck stops once for every fourth house thus trans-
porting through a neighborhood faster than it does when it must stop for every
house as it does on Group II for the 80-gallon containers.
The response to question 16 about the prestige to the neighborhood brought by
the new refuse collecting system may be related to the younger age of the people
surveyed in Group II (mean age = 30.^ years in Group II and mean age = 38.8
years in Group l) and to the newer homes in Group II. Group II showed a higher
null response (no answer given) than Group I which is interpreted to mean that
fewer people took the question seriously in Group II than in Group I.
123
-------
When asked if they thought the new collection system resulted in a cost savings,
71.^% of the response in Group I and 70.5% in Group II indicated yes. In Group I
78.6% and in Group II, 88.6% thought there was a savings in time with the
mechanized system. Figures G-12, G-13, G-27, and G-28 in the Appendix graph-
ically display these responses.
The responses to questions 7 and 17 asking if the customer would prefer going
back to the old method of refuse collection are more than 75/C in favor of keep-
ing the new system.
Tables G-2 and G-3 in the Appendix list the predominant complaints of the people
in Groups I and II. Also listed area tabulation of responses to questions 18
through 23 and replies to the initial survey question: Which of the city ser-
vices consume the largest portion of the city's budget7
The predominant complaints of the customers in Group I concerned insufficient
container capacity or the need for more frequent pick up, and the need for a
container sanitation program. Eight of the twelve complaints about container
size came from households having four or more people.
The predominant complaint from Group II centered on broken or cracked containers.
Five of the six complaints came from families of three or more people The
customers blamed the truck for the breakage. Only three customers complained
of container capacity, and they had four or five people per family There were
no complaints from Group II about container cleanliness, sanitation, or odors.
Tables G-*+ and G-5 list demographics of Groups I and II.
Survey Conclusions
A significant majority of the 86 Scottsdale residents surveyed believe the
mechanized system of refuse collection is an improvement over the previous
system after one year's experience with the new system. The majority of the
people surveyed are satisfied with their refuse collection service. Three
needed improvements cited by the residents were more container capacity (or
more frequent pick up) for containers shared by four households, a sanitation
program for the 300-gallon size containers, and more durable 80-gallon size
containers. Most of the customers see savings in time and money with the
mechanized system.
124
-------
SCHEDULED HOUSE SHEET NO.
DATE
DIFFERENT HOUSE TIME
ATTITUDE SURVEY
OF
MECHANIZED REFUSE COLLECTION
IN
SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA
STREET NUMBER
DWELLING TYPE: HOUSE TOWNHOUSE
RESPONDENT: AGE SEX FAMILY POSITION: Father
Mother
Child
EVER INTERVIEWED BEFORE FOR THIS PROGRAM? YES NO
HOW MANY LIVING AT THIS ADDRESS?
1. Which of the City services consume the largest portion of the City budget?
Fire Protection
Pol ice Protect ion
Refuse Collect ion
Administrative Overhead
Street Repair & Construction
2. Are you satisfied with your refuse collecting? Why or Why Not?
AGREE 123** DISAGREE
3. The City is doing a competent job
of refuse collecting.
4. Your refuse is collected often
enough.
5. You think it costs less to collect
refuse by hand than by machine.
6. You think it is faster to collect
refuse by hand than by machine.
7. You would prefer going back to the
former method of refuse collection.
125
-------
AGREE 1 2 3 V DISAGREE
8. The noise of collecting refuse by
the former method bothered you.
9. The new cans help reduce odors
around refuse containers.
10. Refuse cans are replaced properly
by machine after emptying them.
11. The City employees who collect refuse
are doing a good job.
12. The area around the new refuse con-
tainers is easier to keep clean with
the new system.
13- Use of the new system reduces noise
when col 1ect ing.
1^. Use of the new system helps improve
the appearance of the neighborhood by
having fewer containers and by keep-
ing it cleaner.
15. This new system is more sanitary than
the previous system.
16. Use of the new system adds prestige
or status to the neighborhood.
17- The City should go back to the old
method of collection.
18. Who takes the garbage out? Father Mother Child
19. Do you mind using a City provided refuse container' Yes No
20. Do you have a garbage disposal7 Yes No
21. Have you ever had a delay in service with the new system?
Yes No Sometime
22. Are the refuse container lids closed after emptying7
Yes No Sometime
23. What kind of container did you use previously7
Metal Plastic Other
2k. How can the service of collecting your refuse be improved7
126
-------
TABLE G-l
TEST FOR SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN SURVEY RESPONSES
The difference test used here is the Student- "t" Test.
Sample Calculation:
S, =
P' °"P') = (-733) (1-.733) = .0*17112
n - 1 88-1
P, (1-P2)
S2 ' _ _ = -237 (1-.237) = 0^558
n '
t = I ~2 = -733-. 237
S, + s2 - -ol»7^2 + .0^558
Confidence Level = 99.98%; this value was taken from a table of the cumulative
normal distribution function.
P. = proportion of favorable responses taken from Figure k.
P = proportion of unfavorable responses taken from Figure k.
S. = Standard deviation of the favorable response.
$2 - Standard deviation of the unfavorable response.
Confidence That a Significant
Figure No. _ Difference Exists _
~*i 99.98%
5 99. M
6 99.99 +
7 99.99 +
3 99-99 +
10 33.18
15 99.99 +
18 52.80
21 6.17
25 99-99 +
31 99-99 +
33 80.35
36 95.15
127
-------
TABLE G-2
CUSTOMER RESPONSE TABULATION FOR GROUP
Response to the Question: Which of the city services consume the largest
portion of the city's budget7
Choice
Fire Dept.
Pol ice Oept.
Refuse Collect ion
Sewage Disposal
Street Repair £• Construction
No. Responding
0
19
6
4
15
Choice & Response
Father
6
Yes
4
Yes
Mother
8
No
40
No
Child All
13 17
20
Ranged from 1 day to
Response to the Questions 17 through 22:
Question No.
17
18
19
20
21
22
Most frequently listed complaints:
1. Need more capacity = 12
Family size distribution for the 12 respondents = 2, 2, 2, 3,
**, **, 5, 5,
5, 6, 6, 7
2. Need a container sanitation program = 13
Family size distribution for the 13 respondents: 1, 2, 2, 3,
3, 4, 4, 5,
5, 5, 5
Yes
17
Yes
36
Metal
37
No
26
No
2
Plastic
5
Time 1
Rangei
2 wee
Other
2
128
-------
TABLE G-3
CUSTOMER RESPONSE TABULATION FOR GROUP II
Response to the Question: Which of the city services consume the largest
portion of the city's budget?
Choice
Fire Dept.
Pol ice Dept.
Refuse Collect ion
Sewage Disposal
Street Repair & Construction
Response to the Questions 17 through 22:
Quest ion No.
No. Responding
0
17
7
2
16
Choice & Response
18
20
21
22
Most frequently listed complaints:
I. Broken containers = 6
Family size distribution for the 6 respondents = 2, 3, 3,
**, 5, 7
Father
12
Yes
3
Yes
41
Yes
26
Yes
33
Metal
35
Mother
8
No
39
No
—
No
16
No
*
Plastic
/*
Child
9
Time
1 day
Somet
5
Other
3
All
12
Delayed
to 1 week
ime
129
-------
TABLE G-4
DEMOGRAPHICS FOR GROUP I
House Population = M*3 houses
Sample Size = Mf houses
Sex of Respondents:
Family Position of Respondent;
Age Range:
Mean Age:
Median Age:
Tri-Mode Age:
Male
10
Father
k
14-7^ years
38.8 years
42.5 years
35, 43, and 4f
Family Size
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
years
Number
1
6
11
12
8
2
0
0
0
Fema 1 e
Mother
33
Child
7
130
-------
TABLE G-5
DEMOGRAPHICS FOR GROUP II
House Population = 229
Sample of Size = k2
Sex of Respondents:
Family Position of Respondent
Age Range:
Mean Age:
Median Age;
Bi-Mode:
1/1-68 years
30.** years
**1 years
38 and 40 years
Family Size
Male
II
Number
1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
k
10
8
9
7
2
1
0
1
Female
31
Father
8
Mother
26
Child
8
131
-------
City Of
Scottsdale
Ari zona
NOITI
Figure G-l .
132
-------
80
70
Cumulative Attitude Response of
Both Groups to the Question:
Is the new method an improvement
over the old method7
60
50
CD
z
2 ^0
O
Q.
LU
ce
1-
UJ
o
£ 30
Q_
20
10
0
¥
vO
^ M 1 WM ^ | w ** I ^r*tiff i j
(300-gallon & 80-gallon
S ^
-3-
X ft« vO
• •
O"N SO
Favorable Unfavorable Nul
FIGURE G-2. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
133
-------
OC
LU
O.
80
70
60
50
30
20
10
CO
oo
Favorable
G-3.
cr>
Cumulative Attitude Response of
Both Groups to the Question:
Is the refuse being collected
satisfactorily by the new system9
(Group 1 & Group Il)
(300-gallon & 80-gallon containers)
Ijrifavoi
flu I I
134
-------
80
70
Cumulative Attitude Response to the
Question: Is the new method an
improvement over the old
method?
60
50
o
= 40
M
@
o
(A
" 30
w
otf
w
o- 20
10
0
a*
oo
•0
(Group I -
*•«
IA CO CM
• •
fl -* *H
•
vO
FIGURE G-4. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
135
-------
80
70
60
50
8
1 A°
to
3
§ 30
u
PL,
20
10
0
Cumulative A
Question: I
ON
vD
i
IT
(Group II
0
•
r**» vD 10
improvement over the old
method?
FIGURE G-5. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
136
-------
80
70
.60
50
g
§ ^o
to
a
PERCENT
OJ
0
20
10
0
vO
CO
sD
in fr< fr« •
iH O> O>
Cumulative Attitude Response to the
Question: Is the refuse being
collected satisfactorily
by the new system?
(Group I - 300-Gallon Container)
FIGURE G-6 RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
137
-------
80
70
Cumulative Attitude Response to the
Question: Is the refuse being
roller ted satisfactorily
by the new system?
(Group II - 80-Callon Container)
60
50
o
2s
M
2 40
C/J
a
H
| 30
20
10
0
sr
oo
c>
CM
£< \O
O* rH
1 1
FflUnraVll 0 4 te- Tln-Faim-i-oKl o Mt.11
FIGURE G-7. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
138
-------
o
P*
CO
w
P-.
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
No. 2 The city is doing a competent
job of refuse collecting.
(80 Gallon)
Favorable*-
-MJnfavorable
Null
FIGURE G-8. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
139
-------
80
70
60
u
a:
o 50
Z
O
ft
CO
g 40
CJ
Brf
W
On
30
20
10
0
gsg
•H
co
oo
No. 3 Your refuse is collected
often enough.
(80 Gallon)
co sr oo
sr CM sr o
1
FIGURE G-9. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
140
-------
80
70
60
I 50
g
CO
s
i
40
30
20
10
co
CM
No. 9 Refuse cans are replace
properly by machine after
emptying them.
(80 Gallon)
e-s
o
co
CO
Favcrable-*-
-* Unfavorable Null
FIGURE G-10. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
141
-------
80
70
60
p 50
| *°
§ 30
PL,
20
10
0
No. 10 The city ancle
refuse are doi
(80 Gallc
s-s
r-i
•
m
B-S 5?
oo
CM
S "' f-1
FIGURE G-ll. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
142
-------
80
g
t-l
o
z
W4
S
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
No. 4 It costs less to collect
refuse by hand than by
machine.
(80 Gallon)
m
ON
m
s«e
ON CM !>. &*
• -in
f-H rH ON
FIGURE G-12. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
143
-------
80
70
60
50
i
§ 40
PL,
(A
8
PERCENT
10
O
20
10
0
PI
\o
No 5 It is faster to collect
refuse by hand than by
machine .
(80 Gallon)
ft*
oo
•
«* -» B-S
• • co
ev» CM
rn rn
FIGURE G-13. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
144
-------
80
70
60
50
o
z
1 1
r RESPOND]
*>
0
g 30
PU
20
10
0
vC
no
No. 6 You woul
to the f
refuse c
(80
CO
o en •
• fNJ
rH
rn
FIGURE G-14. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
145
-------
80
70
No. 7 The noise of collecting
refuse by the former
method bothered you.
60
50
2 40
H
PERCENT !
Ul
0
20
10
0
\o
VO
SO
(80 Galloi
*
CM
^-1 • •
1« i-l i-l
r.
FIGURli G-15. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
146
-------
80
70
60
o 50
t-4
O
PU
w 40
w 30
PU
20
10
0
No. 8 The new cans help reduce
odors around refuse con-
tainers.
vO
\n
(80 Gallon)
6-9
oo
.» .*
b e
-------
80
70
60
o 50
S3
M
£
§ 30
20
10
0
vO
00
No. 11 The area a:
refuse cont
easier Co i
the new sy;
(80 Gai:
oo
!•• mm •
P
-------
80
70
60
No. 12 Use of the new system
reduces noise when
collecting.
(80 Gallon)
o 50
M
I
M 40
u
1 30
Ptl
20
10
0
frS
•
GO
CO
iH
iH
rH
iH
CO
CO
OO
sr
FIGURE G-18. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
-------
80
70
No. 13 Use of the new system halps
impiove the neighborhood by
having fewer containers and
by keeping it cleaner.
o
o.
a.
60
50
30
20
10
00
vO
oo
Favorable
Unfavorable
(80-Gallon)
Nul 1
FIGURE G-19. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
150
-------
80
70
60
50
CD
Z
ca
to
LU
S 30
0 J"
Ul
O_
20
10
0
No. \k This new s^
J
san i tary tf
system.
(80-Gc
—
-------
80
70
60
50
o
Q.
CO
LU
ce.
No. 15 Use of the new system adds
prestige or status to the
neighborhood.
(80-Gallon)
ce
UJ ~n
a. 30
20
10
0
?
Favorab
5
-:
PM
vO
CN
CO
•
-3-
e^ ^Unfavorable Null
FIGURE G-21. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
152
-------
80
70
60
50
z
Q
*Z uO
f^ *TU
Q-
LU
OC
S 30
0
UJ
20
10
0
00
No. 16 The c
back
of co
(8
£
^ H
*e ~
0
Favorable Unfavorable Null
back to the old method
(80-Gallon)
FIGURE G-22. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
153
-------
80
70
60
No. 2 The citv is doing a competent
job of refuse collecting.
(300 gal Ion)
50
o
a
UJ
S 30
DC.
LU
a.
20
10
0
IS
•
Favorable ^*
o
-------
80
70
60
No. 3 Your refuse is collected
often enough.
(300 gallon)
z
1 50
o
OL
CO
LU
a:
LU
cc
OL
30
20
10
0
5
So
(V\
1" 1
Favorable ^
«?
—
fc
o
CM
k. Unfavorable Nul 1
FIGURE G-24. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
155
-------
80
70
60
50
t-4
g 40
Ul
OS
1 30
u
PU
20
10
0
O
No. 9 Refuse cans are replaced
properly by machine after
emptying them.
(300 Gallon)
if\
*&
vO CO O
en i-i
rH iH
F.nvnr.ihl o <* 1* T?n^«..«__u i _ XT.. 11
FIGURE G-25. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
156
-------
80
70
60
50
0
a
§ 40
(X
CO
3
^ 30
1
(x
20
10
0
£:
CM
No. 10 The city ompJoyeos who
rolled refuso /ire dnLng
rt j-'oocj u>b.
(300 C.jl J.-m)
in
CM tN CM
00
!
FIGURE G-26. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
157
-------
80
70
No. 4 It costs less to collect
refuse by hand than by
machine.
(100 Cnllcn)
60
50
S
t-i
1 40
On
<*
§ 30
u
w
0.
20
10
0
*e
vO
r-4
*
co
o
-k-lln
0
CM
eg
Fn\?^i r-iVvlrt Mill
FIGURE G-27. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
'58
-------
80
70
60
50
ss
o AQ
cu ~
c/i
S
H
| 30
04
w
a.
20
10
0
"•• —
oo
r-l
oo
No. 5 It is faster to
collect refuse by
hand than by machine
OOO Gal Ion
K
Ts l »^
oo oo
vO \O
FIGURE G-28. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTLM
-------
80
70
No. 6 You would prefer going
back to the former method
of refuse collection.
60
o 50
M
RESPOND
*•
o
H
O
e30
20
10
0
6«
rH
OO
(300 Gal
^
00
** . **
~~~~" ' CM .
K 00
CO i-4
<£>
Favor able-«» k-Unf avorahl P Nul 1
FIGURE G-29. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
160
-------
80
70
No. 7 The noise of collecting
refuse by the former
method bothered you.
(300 Gallon)
PERCENT RESPONDING
M is: LJ *- m o»
o o o o o o o
6*8
-------
80
70
No. 8 The new cans help reduce odors
around refuse containers.
(300 Gallon)
60
1 50
g
V)
H
§
PS
£ 30
20
10
0
i
1
•
m
sf
in
vO
1-1
6-S
sr
Tn-Fai
f^
CM
OJ
in
sr
rrkvol^l ^ KT<*1 ",
FIGURE G-31. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
162
-------
80
70
60
£50
M
1
CO
§40
§30
20
10
0
•
No. 11 The area a
refuse con
easier to
the new sy
(300 Ga
(M
8*
•* CM
00 f-H 00
• *~H • 1
VO NO |
FIGURE C-32. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
163
-------
o
B
I
V)
80
70
60
50
40
No. 12 Use of the new system
reduces noise when
collecting.
(300 Gallon)
»S
£ 30
20
10
0
&*
i-i
-------
so
70
60
o
Z
M
£ 5°
in
3
u
PL-
30
20
10
0
No. 13 Use of the new system helps
improve the appearance of
m
o
the neighborhood by having
fewer containers and by
keeping it cleaner.
(300 Gallon)
m
• fi*ff
"^ O*l
. &< a\ cJ
fH
* 3 1 I
FIGURE G-34. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
165
-------
80
70
60
o 50
NT RESPONDI
*»
o
Cd
8 30
PL<
20
10
0
No. 14 This new system is
•
CM
more sanitary than the
previous system.
(300 Gallon)
6* &«
CM CM
vO CM CM
1 1*1 1
FIGURE G-35. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
366
-------
80
70
60
o
g 50
o
85
30
20
10
CO
re
CM
CM
No. 15 Use of the new system adds
prestige or status to the
neighborhood.
(300 Gallon)
re
Ot
CM
re
CM
CM
n
Favorable4-
-* Unfavorable
Null
FIGURE G-36. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
16?
-------
80
70
60
o 50
ys.
RESPOND]
is
O
PERCENT
u>
o
20
10
0
No. 16 The city should go back to the
old method of collection.
sr
o
(300 Gallon)
CM B-S CM
8*5 . \O •
ST CM .CM
en
i-l iH
1 I 1
FIGURE G-37. RESPONSE TO THE NEW SYSTEM
168
-------
APPENDIX H
REFUSE ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO. 538
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTSDALE,
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, RELATING TO THE COLLECTION OF GARBAGE,
TRASH AND REFUSE: PRESCRIBING CERTAIN DUTIES OF REFUSE GENERATORS:
PROVIDING FOR COLLECTION CHARGES: PROVIDING FOR ASSESSING THE
COSTS OF SUCH COLLECTION AGAINST THE PROPERTY; PROVIDING FOR
MAKING THE ASSESSMENT A LIEN AGAINST THE PROPERTY; PROHIBITING
THE DEPOSIT OF SPECIFIED SUBSTANCES; PRESCRIBING UNLAWFUL ACTS;
PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS; REPEALING SECTIONS 10-1
THROUGH 10-10 OF ARTICLE I OF THE SCOTTSDALE CITY CODE AND
ORDINANCES NOS. 116, 263, 2?8; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCOTTSDALE,
ARIZONA, that Article I, of Chapter X of the Code of the City of Scottsdale be,
and the same is hereby amended to read as follows:
Section 10-1, Short Title
This Article shall be known and may be cited as the "Refuse Ordinance."
Section 10-2, Definitions
In this Article, unless the context otherwise requires:
I. Assessment means the fee imposed for recovery of garbage collection
costs incurred for benefiting particular property of any person which is levied
on pursuant to this article.
2. Brush means tree limbs and shrubbery clippings exceeding three
feet in length.
3. Buik rubbish means wooden and cardboard boxes, crates, appliances,
large items of household furniture, and other refuse items which by size and
shape are not readily containable.
U. Collect ion employee means any individual employed by the City of
Scottsdale for the purpose of effectuating the provisions of this article.
5. Commercial refuse generator means any person in charge of, owning,
leasing, renting or occupying any business, industrial or commercial building
other than a private residence, including, but not limited to a store, office,
factory, hotel, tourist court, motel, motor court, motor hotel, trailer court,
apartment hotel or residential building ordinarily leased for a period of less
than three (3) months.
169
-------
6. Construction waste means material from construction, remodeling,
construction site preparation, including, but not limited to rocks, trees,
debris, dirt, brick, fi 11., plaster, and all types of scrap building materials.
7. Containable rubbish means all putrescible and non-putrescible
solid wastes including, but not limited to wrapped garbage, wrapped small dead
animals, wrapped or boxed ashes, wastepaper, excelsior, rags, bottles, crockery,
bedding, clothing, carpets, leather, tin cans, metal scraps, small mechanical
parts, shavings, floor sweepings, grass and weed clippings, twigs, tree limbs
not exceeding three feel in length and other similar waste or debris.
8. Fi1th means manure, excrement, or similar substance.
9. Garbage is putrescible and vegetable wastes resulting from the
handling, preparation, cooking and consumption of food.
10. Lien means a charge which attaches in favor of the City to real
property benefited by the collection of any brush, trash, bulk rubbish, contain-
able rubbish, filth, construction waste, or refuse; said lien also attaches to
any other real or personal property of a person or any refuse generator, owning
or in charge of benefited property, to secure the payment of unpaid monthly col-
lection costs as hereinafter described.
II. Open area means any park, street, gutter, sidewalk, sewer, boul-
evard, alley, greenbelt, square, vacant lot, space, ground or other area where
refuse material may accumulate.
12. Person means any individual, firm, partnership, corporation,
institution or other entity acting as principal, agent, officer, servant or
employee for himself or itself, or for any other individual, firm, partnership,
corporation, institution or other entity, who owns, leases, rents or occupies
any real property within the city limits.
'3. Prohibited substance means any liquid, solid, or gas with an igni-
tion temperature or flash point of less than 200° F, including but not limited
to gasoline, benzine, naptha, or other flammable or explosives; any material
having a pH lower than five and one-half (5i) or higher than nine (9) or having
any other corrosive property that could be injurious or hazardous to city col-
lection employees or which could cause damage to equipment; any noxious or
malodorous substance offensive to the senses and depriving a neighborhood or a
considerable number of persons of the comfortable enjoyment of life or property;
or any hypodermic needle or syringe.
14. Refuse means all putrescible and non-putrescible solid wastes
(except body wastes), including garbage, rubbish, ashes, street cleanings, dead
animals; abandoned, wrecked or junked vehicles or parts thereof; brush, and
containable rubbish, filth, construction waste and prohibited substances when
these terms are not specifically noted in this article.
170
-------
15. Residential refuse generator means any person in charge of, owning,
leasing, renting or occupying any building or buildings used solely for a family
or private residential domicile, including, but not limited to single and multiple
family dwelling units, apartments, townhouses, cooperatives, condominiums, board
and rooming houses.
16. Superintendent of Sanitation means the head of the Department of
Sanitation or his duiy authorized agent
17. Trash means rubbish, waste, debris or refuse.
18. Vicious animal means any animal of a vicious species or an animal
of a domesticated species.Tncluding but not limited to cats and dogs, which
without provocation is prone to attack persons.
Section 10-3, Authority to collect refuse; unauthorized hauling; permit.
A. The City of Sr.ot tsdale, its duly authorized agents, servants, or employees,
have the exclusive right to collect refuse within the city without limitation to
the city's authorization of collectors by license, franchise, permit or contra't
B. Persons not hauling for hire may be issued a permit to deposit a maximum
of one and one-half (l£) cubic yards of refuse per day in the City-designated
disposal area.
Section \0-it, Refuse to be placed in receptacles or containers; specifications.
A. It shall be the duty of every person, commercial or residential refuse
generator to place or cause to be placed all refuse accumulating on the premises
in suitable receptacles or containers provided by such person or by the City.
B. All refuse containers shall be waterproof and equipped with tight-fitting
covers resistant to disburbance by animals and insects. Plastic bags or other
containers approved by the Superintendent of Sanitation may be used.
Section 10-5, Residential refuse generators, col Iection procedures; Private
and City-owned containers.
A. Bulk rubbish and brush shall be placed next to containable rubbish
located in the manner hereinafter prescribed in Paragraph D of this section. No
more than ten (10) loose yards of brush shall be collected from a single resi-
dence on a scheduled brush collection. Century plants, cacti, and similar
plants hazardous to collection employees shall be contained in lengths of less
than three (3) feet
B. The Superintendent of Sanitation may require any residential generator
regularly exceeding eighty gallons (80) or one-hundred twenty (120) pounds of
refuse within a collection period, or any resident regularly generating refuse
requiring special handling, to use a commercial disposal system or to make other
approved disposal arrangements.
171
-------
C. Residential refuse generators, not equipped with City-owned containers,
shall place containable rubbish in cardboard boxes, refuse cans or other approved
containers having a gross weight not exceeding sixty (60) pounds, suitable for
handling by two (2) collection employees.
D. Residential refuse generators shall place refuse containers on the sche-
duled collection days in the alley located at the rear or side of their property
or if there is no alley, at the curbline in front of the residence. Containers
shall not be placed for collection at said curbline before six o'clock P.M. on
the day preceding the day of collection and after such containers are emptied,
they shall be removed from the curbline by six o'clock P.M. on the day of col-
1ect ion.
E. City-owned containers shall be distributed and positioned as scheduled
by the Superintendent of Sanitation. Containers serving more than one residence
shall be positioned along rear or side alleys not more than one-hundred (100)
feet from the property line of any residence so serviced. If there are no
alleys, individual portable containers may be supplied by the City.
F. Residential refuse generators equipped with City-owned containers shall
first place, or cause to be placed, in such containers all garbage followed by
other containable rubbish.
G. To insure optimal use of the City-owned containers and the ancillary
equipment used therewith, the contents of the individual containers shall not
exceed five hundred (500) pounds weight limit.
H. Each residential refuse generator is responsible for the maintenance of
sanitary containers.
Section 10-6, Commercial refuse generators; duties general1y; use of City-owned
containers.
A. All commercial refuse generators shall maintain their alleys and the
area surrounding the refuse containers free from refuse and other potential
hazards to the public health, safety, or welfare. Where unusual or inordinate
waste material is generated, special collections shall be arranged therefor
with the C ity.
B. Commercial establishments may, by contract receive City refuse collection
services and City-owned containers. These containers shall be positioned by the
City no more than three-hundred (300) feet from an entrance to the commercial
structure as designated by the commercial refuse generator; provided, however,
that collection employees shall at all times have convenient accessibility to
said containers.
Section 10-7, Prohibited substances; method of collection; exception.
A. No person shall deposit or cause to be deposited in any refuse container
which is serviced by the City any prohibited substance as defined in Section
10-1 (13). All prohibited substances shall be separated from containers used
for regular collections and placed in special containers and the contents thereof
shall be clearly labeled.
-------
B. Every refuse generator shall call the Superintendent of Sanitation for
special collection of these items; provided, however, that this section shall
not apply to any refuse generator who has secured the prior written approval of
the Superintendent.of Sanitation for otherwise disposing of prohibited substances.
Section 10-8, Collection rates; uniformity; lime for payment; penalty.
A. Periodically the City Council by resolution published and posted, shall
establish appropriate rates for the various categories of refuse collection
service.
B. The rates charged for collection service shall be uniform for the various
classes of users; discrimination as to rates is hereby prohibited.
C. All charges shall become due and payable at such time as shall be established
by resolution of Lhe City Council, and if such charges are not paid within twenty
(20) days when the same shall become due and payable, a penalty of ten (10) per-
cent shall be added thereto.
Section 10-8.1, Collection charges personal debt; civil suit for payment;
cumulative remedy.
Every charge, rental or collection fee levied by or pursuant to Section 10-8
shall become, from and after the time it is due and payable, a personal debt of
the person, commercial or residential refuse generator, receiving collection
service, and may be collected by civil suit instituted in tne name of the City,
by its City Attorney, upon the request of the City Manager at any time after
the penalty as provided in Section 10-8 (C) attaches to the aforesaid charges,
rentals or fees. Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, the
remedy provided by this section shall cumulate and supplement other remedies
provided under this article.
Section 10-8.2, Right to lien for collection charges; notice and claim of lien;
contents; form; perfection; duration; release.
A. A right to a lien shall arise immediately upon the providing of collec-
tion service. If said charge, rental or collection fee is not paid thirty (30)
days after il has become due and payable, the City may issue a notice and claim
of lien setting forth the following information:
I. Name of the person, commercial or residential generator owing said
charge, rental or collection fee;
2 The amount owned;
3. The penalty accrued to date;
b. The calendar period (s) for which said charges, rentals or
collection fees are due and owing;
5. A statement that the City claims a lien therefor.
173
-------
B. The notice and claim of lien shall be issued under the official seal of
the City, signed by the Mayor and recorded in I lie olfice of the County Recorder
of Maricopa County, Arizona. The amount stated in said lien shall be a lien
upon all real and personal property of the person, commercial or residential
refuse generator, located in Maricopa County. Such lien shall be subject and
inferior to the lien for general taxes and to all prior recorded mortgages and
encumbrances of record.
C. A lien claimed under this section shall not continue for more than three
(3) years after it has been recorded, unless an action is brought within such
period to enforce the lien.
D. Any lien claimed pursuant to this section shall, upon payment of the
entire amount due, be released by the City in the same manner as mortgages and
judgments are released.
E. A prior lien, recorded for the purposes of this section, shall not con-
stitute a bar to the recordation of a subsequent lien or liens for such purposes.
Section 10-9, Unlawful Acts.
It is unlawful for any person to:
I. Place or cause to be placed any refuse upon any public or private pro-
perty not owned or under his control;
2. Place or cause to be placed any unwrapped putrescible waste in any refuse
container, unless all liquid shall have been drained therefrom;
3. Place or cause to be placed more than a limited amount of filth in a
refuse container; limits to be set by the Superintendent of Sanitation or his
agent;
4. Place or cause to be placed any unwrapped filth in any refuse container,
unless the container is used only for that purpose;
5. Place or cause to be placed any unwrapped, small, dead animal in a refuse
container.
6. Fail to make arrangements for the removal of construction waste within
thirty (30) days after it is generated, but in no case before;
a. Final building inspection;
b. Clearance of public utilities;
c. Issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
7- Place or cause to be placed refuse in a container not owned or maintained
by him;
17*1.
-------
8. Burn or cause to be burned any refuse without the written permission of
the Superintendent of Sanitation and the Fire Marshal;
9. Permit or cause, wilfully or negligently, the escape or flow of water in
such quantity as to result in flooding, and impeding of vehicular or pedestrian
traffic, thereby causing damage to public rights-of-way, private premises not
owned by said person responsible for such generation, and creating a hazard to
such traffic and a threat to the public health, safety and welfare.
10. Fail to restrain any vicious animal and prevent interference with collec-
tion employees acting in the course of their employment;
II. Close or obstruct any right-of-way, impeding the normal operations of the
Division of Sanitation, Public Works Department, Fire Department, or the Police
Department, unless a special permit has been granted by the Superintendent of
Sanitation, Superintendent of Streets, Fire Chief or Chief of Police, at least
three (3) days prior to closing the right-of-way.
12. Close or obstruct an alley for more than twenty-four (2*») consecutive
hours, unless such closing is for the purpose of making sewer, gas or water
utility installations;
13. Remove, haul or cause to be removed any refuse, on or along any City
right-of-way, street or alley, unless the same is contained in water-tight con-
tainers so constructed as to prevent any such refuse from falling, leaking or
spi11 ing therefrom.
Section 10-9.1, Duty to enforce article.
It is the duty of the Superintendent of Sanitation or his authorized representa-
tive to enforce the terms of this article.
Section 10-10. Penalties.
A. Violation of any provision of this ordinance shall be deemed a misde-
meanor, and a violator upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in an amount not
exceeding three hundred dollars ($300.00) or be imprisoned for a period not
exceeding thirty (30) days or be both fined and imprisoned.
B. Each day such violation is committed or permitted to continue shall con-
stitute an offense and shall be punishable as such hereunder.
175
-------
ORDINANCE NO. 579
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SCOTTSDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 538, THE REFUSE ORDINANCE, BY ADDING
A NEW SECTION, NUMBER 10-^.1, RELATING TO REFUSE
CONTAINERS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Council of the City of Scottsdale.
Arizona, as follows:
The Scottsdale City Zoning Ordinance Number 538, the refuse
ordinance, is amended by adding Section 10-^.1, as follows:
SECTION 10-^.1 - It shall be the duty of the owner or developer
of all new construction and development within the City
of Scottsdale, when such development is not subject to
the provisions of the Scottsdale Subdivision Ordinance
No. 5^0 with respect to refuse containers, to supply at
his expense refuse containers which shall become the
property of the City. The type of such containers shall
be approved by the City Engineer.
ORDINANCE NO. 580
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY
SCOTTSDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 5^0, SECTION kOk.]k, RELATING TO
SUBDIVISIONS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
OF
BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Council of the City of Scottsdale,
Arizona, as follows:
The Scottsdale City Zoning Ordinance Number 5^0, the Subdivision
Ordinance, Section 40^.1^, is amended to read as follows:
SECTION
lj» - Refuse Containers: Each lot or combination
of lots shall be supplied with a refuse container, at
the expense of the developer or subdivider, to be
owned by the City, as approved by the City Engineer.
176
------- |