Submitted by Eric Bartelt
April 21. 2016 3:29 p.m.
A presentation at last Tuesday’s City Commission meeting highlighted the challenges of maintaining a recycling program for the City. Making the presentation was Greg Huntington, Municipal Marketing and Government Affairs Manager for Advance Disposal in Florida, along with Jody Jackson, Advance Disposal’s General Manager for Nassau County and Fernandina. In addition to providing residential, commercial and special event trash collection; yard waste collection; and cleanup after storms, Advance provides curbside collection of recyclables.
During the time Advance has provided these services to the City, recycling has switched from providing a source of revenue to becoming an ever increasing expense. Prior to May of 2013, the City received a rebate of $10 per ton of recycled material. By 2015, the rebate had turned into a cost of $20 per ton. Since then, that cost has steadily risen to this year’s $70 per ton. Since Advance Disposal has a contract with the City, they have absorbed that cost. Their presentation on Tuesday was meant to inform the Commission about the cost trend for recycling and to indicate their desire to revisit their contract, which has been in effect for almost eight years and expires in 2018. Their contract currently has no provisions in it for sharing the cost with the city.
The reasons why recycling has become a cost instead of a revenue source, according to Mr. Huntington, are because of:
1. A slowing global economy. Recycling is a global business and much of our recycled material is exported. In the slowing global economy, demand for certain recycled commodities is decreasing.
2. A large amount of our recycled material is exported to China. With their economy slowing, they are taking less recycled material. At the same time, they are becoming more particular about the recycled materials they receive and the degree of contamination present in the material.
3. Lower fuel prices. Since petroleum is used in making plastic, it has become cheaper to make plastic products from virgin material like petroleum than using recycled plastic.
4. Increased contamination. It is more convenient to put all recyclable material into a single recycling cart rather than pre-sorting it. With that more convenient approach, contamination increases because it is easier to put material that isn’t recyclable into the cart. Those unrecyclable materials then have to be removed at the processing facility, and that increases cost.
After the presentation, the Commission explored whether Advance’s contract could be revised or whether, as Commissioner Poynter suggested, a new RFP (Request For Proposal) should be issued. Commissioner Smith and City Attorney Bach both agreed that given the 8 years Advance’s contract has been in effect, it would be appropriate to put the contract out for bid. Commissioner Kreger thought a recommendation by the City’s Fleet and Maintenance Director Jeremiah Glisson to form a committee to look at service levels, including twice weekly trash pickup, was a good idea before issuing an RFP. Commissioner Lentz questioned how the contract would be structured if declining recycled commodity prices reversed and again became a rebate. Mr. Huntington replied that a new contract could specify sharing of either a rebate or the cost.
Editor’s Note: Eric Bartelt retired as a corporate design consultant and moved to Fernandina Beach in 2004. His previously lived in Wisconsin. Since Eric’s arrival in Fernandina Beach, he spends his time volunteering. We thank Eric for his contributions to the Fernandina Observer.
Excellent coverage.
Interesting topic. Fact is there will be a high price to pay should the City decide to discontinue our recycling program. That is a battle I don’t think any elected official really wants to wage. What if the City sent out an information notices to all City residents and ask them a simple question. If Garbage was picked up only once a week, would that work. I understand that some areas that cater to renters such as the homes on Fletcher may not be able to live with once a week pick up and that should be adjusted accordingly. I would think that the vast majority of residential homes could live with once a week pick up now that we have an active re-cycling program in effect. With respect to re visiting the existing contract, I would offer that it is a contract, and as such both parties should adhere to it. I also feel that once a contract has to be renewed it should go out for bid. If a new vender can come in do the job and save the taxpayers money it is the Commissions responsibility to do so.
Welcome to the real cost of recycling. Recycled materials have rarely benefited the environment but have increased profits for recycling businesses. It’s sad when the good will of the public can be manipulated into thinking they’re helping, when they are not.
When the recycling program began I worried that it would eventually reduce garbage collection, a genuine health and environmental safety service. May we expect our bills and taxes to increase so we can continue to feel good about ourselves?
Dennis, thanks for your spot on remarks. Recycling has always been nothing but a feel good, politically correct exercise. But the politicians and much of the public have no interest in the facts.
So very sad to read that some don’t share the knowledge of recycling. It is strange than when most modern cities as well as most of the developed nations in the world understand the importance of it, some just think it is a politically correct move. Not sure how the collection of garbage will become an environmental issue of any great importance, but recycling isn’t?
What does the contract say? A deal “going south” is still a deal, if it’s in the contract.
The issue of once a week garbage pickup has been examined several times in the past. The plans were for houses along Fletcher and First Avenue (and a couple of others that have a high concentration of rentals) remain at twice a week. The cost savings to the household based on the proposal from Advance was about $3/month and the expression of the community was that they would rather continue the twice a week pick-up if that was all the reduction in their costs. Advance argued that the once a week pick-up didn’t really save them much as the same tonnage of garbage would be picked-up and the tipping fees at the landfill were the majority of their cost. They acknowledged there would be some incremental savings from reduced truck mileage/maintenance costs; but again that was partially offset by a truck filling up faster and having to make more frequent runs to the landfill.
Recycling is a worthwhile endeavor if the materials can be diverted and reused in some other form. Even if there is a net cost, how do those costs compare to the materials going to the landfill and the landfill reaching capacity faster as well as the tipping fees.
I don’t see why the contract should be renegotiated but I do recognize that Advance has been a good partner with the City with excellent service levels. It should also be noted that the existing 8 year relationship includes a least one contract renewal (no RFP) so this has been looked at before.
Dave, I agree with much of what you say. It never hurts however to go out for competitive bid. For some reason It seems labor would be saved should there be a once a week pick up as opposed to twice a week. This is where some homework has to be down and a breakdown of costs are analyzed by the City to assure us that we are getting the best deal. When this was looked at the last time the issue of re cycling was not on the table. I can’t imagine that discontinuing our re cycle program would even be an option, but hey we all have seen crazier things happen here.
Tony,
Certainly nothing wrong in going out with an RFP six months before the end of the contract with Advance, but there is no value to the City now since Advanced is “eating” the net cost of the recycling program and it certainly appears that everyone wants that program to continue. One would think there would be some labor cost savings but Advance indicated that it would be minimal in that the trucks would still have to run 5 days a week due to the more frequent trips to the landfill.