HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/26/2017 - Workshop Agenda Packet - City CouncilCity Council Workshop
College Station, TX
Meeting Agenda - Final
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
City Hall Council Chambers4:30 PMThursday, October 26, 2017
1. Call meeting to order.
2. Executive Session will be held in the Administrative Conference Room.
Consultation with Attorney {Gov’t Code Section 551.071}; possible action. The City Council
may seek advice from its attorney regarding a pending or contemplated litigation subject or
settlement offer or attorney-client privileged information. Litigation is an ongoing process
and questions may arise as to a litigation tactic or settlement offer, which needs to be
discussed with the City Council. Upon occasion the City Council may need information from
its attorney as to the status of a pending or contemplated litigation subject or settlement
offer or attorney-client privileged information. After executive session discussion, any final
action or vote taken will be in public. The following subject(s) may be discussed:
Litigation
a.Kathryn A. Stever-Harper as Executrix for the Estate of John Wesley Harper v. City of
College Station and Judy Meeks; No. 15,977-PC in the County Court No. 1, Brazos
County, Texas
b. McCrory Investments II, LLC d/b/a Southwest Stor Mor v. City of College Station; Cause
No. 17-000914-CV-361; In the 361st District Court, Brazos County, Texas
c. City of College Station v. Gerry Saum, Individually, and as Independent Executrix of the
Estate of Susan M. Wood, Deceased; Cause No. 17-002742-CV-361; In the 361st District
Court, Brazos County, Texas
Legal Advice
a.Legal advice concerning property acquisition generally west of the intersection at Cain
Road and Wellborn Road in College Station, Texas
Personnel {Gov’t Code Section 551.074}; possible action - The City Council may deliberate
the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of a
public officer. After executive session discussion, any final action or vote taken will be in
public. The following public officer(s) may be discussed:
a. Council Self Evaluation
b. City Manager
6:00 p.m.
Page 1 College Station, TX Printed on 10/20/2017
October 26, 2017City Council Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final
3. Take action, if any, on Executive Session.
4. Presentation, possible action and discussion on items listed on the consent agenda.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update on
the City’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and annexation plans, including
the status of current non-annexation development agreements.
17-05935.
Sponsors:Simms
Non-Annexation AgreementsAttachments:
Presentation, possible action, and discussion concerning the City
Internal Auditor’s Audit of the Public Works Sanitation Division.
17-06336.
Sponsors:Elliott
Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a sanitation rate
study.
17-06147.
Sponsors:Caler
Sanitation Audit ReportAttachments:
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the creation of
an Architectural Advisory Committee.
17-06408.
Sponsors:McNutt
9. Council Calendar - Council may discuss upcoming events.
10. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Animal
Shelter Board, Annexation Task Force, Arts Council of Brazos Valley, Arts Council
Sub-committee, Audit Committee, Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board,
Bio-Corridor Board of Adjustments, Blinn College Brazos Valley Advisory Committee,
Brazos County Health Dept ., Brazos Valley Council of Governments, Bryan /College Station
Chamber of Commerce, Budget and Finance Committee, BVSWMA, BVWACS,
Compensation and Benefits Committee, Experience Bryan -College Station, Design Review
Board, Economic Development Committee, FBT /Texas Aggies Go to War, Historic
Preservation Committee, Interfaith Dialogue Association, Intergovernmental Committee,
Joint Relief Funding Review Committee, Landmark Commission, Library Board,
Metropolitan Planning Organization, Parks and Recreation Board, Planning and Zoning
Commission, Research Valley Partnership, Research Valley Technology Council, Regional
Transportation Committee for Council of Governments, Sister Cities Association,
Transportation and Mobility Committee, TAMU Economic Development, TAMU Student
Senate, Texas Municipal League, Twin City Endowment, Walk with the Mayor, YMCA,
Youth Advisory Council, Zoning Board of Adjustments, (Notice of Agendas posted on City
Hall bulletin board).
11. Adjourn
Page 2 College Station, TX Printed on 10/20/2017
City Council Workshop Meeting Agenda - Final October 26, 2017
The City Council may adjourn into Executive Session to consider any item listed on this
agenda if a matter is raised that is appropriate for Executive Session discussion. An
announcement will be made of the basis for the Executive Session discussion.
I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted at College Station City Hall, 1101
Texas Avenue, College Station, Texas, on October 20, 2017 at 5:00 p.m.
��
Dep.�y City Secre�
This building is wheelchair accessible. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this
meeting and who may need accommodations, auxiliary aids, or services such as
interpreters, readers, or large print are asked to contact the City Secretary's Office at (979)
764-3541, TDD at 1-800-735-2989, or email adaassistance@cstx.gov at least two business
days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. If the City does
not receive notification at least two business days prior to the meeting, the City will make a
reasonable attempt to provide the necessary accommodations.
Penal Code§ 30.07. Trespass by License Holder with an Openly Carried Handgun.
"Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (Trespass by License Holder with an Openly
Carried Handgun) A Person Licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411,
Government Code (Handgun Licensing Law), may not enter this Property with a
Handgun that is Carried Openly."
Codigo Penal§ 30.07. Traspasar Portando Armas de Mano al Aire Libre con Licencia.
"Conforme a la Seccion 30.07 del codigo penal (traspasar portando armas de mano
al aire libre con licencia), personas con licencia bajo del Sub-Capitulo H, Capitulo
411, Codigo de Gobierno (Ley de licencias de arma de mano), no deben entrar a esta
propiedad portando arma de mano al aire libre."
College Station, TX Page3 Printed on 10120/2017
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
College Station, TX
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:117-0593 Name:Annexation Update
Status:Type:Presentation Agenda Ready
File created:In control:9/28/2017 City Council Workshop
On agenda:Final action:10/26/2017
Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update on the City’s Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction and annexation plans, including the status of current non-annexation development
agreements.
Sponsors:Lance Simms
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Non-Annexation Agreements
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update on the City’s Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction and annexation plans, including the status of current non-annexation development
agreements.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
·Good Governance
·Financially Sustainable City
·Core Services and Infrastructure
·Diverse Growing Economy
Recommendation(s): Receive staff’s presentation and provide direction as desired.
Summary: This workshop presentation will provide an overview of the City’s Extraterritorial
Jurisdiction (ETJ) and annexation plans with an emphasis on the status of non-annexation
development agreements. Given several non-annexation development agreements are expiring
soon, staff will also seek direction regarding the next steps.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
1.Map of Non-Annexation Development Agreements
College Station, TX Printed on 10/20/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
N ROSE M A R Y DRWELLBORN RDDEACON DR TEXAS AV SF & B RD BOYETT STPENBERTHYBLTEXAS AVOLSEN BLOLD WELLBORN RDFOSTERAV WOODCRESTDRFAIRVIEW AVHICK S L NROSS STDISCOVERYDR
PEBBLE CREEK PWEDGEWOOD BRIARCREST DR BOONVILLERDUNIVERSITY DR EFRANCISDRMANUEL DRKRENEK TAP RDNAGLESTPOLORD
N A V A RRO D R STEXASAVWCARSON ST
WILLIA
M
DFITCHPW
TREEHO USETR
GRAHAM RD
HARV E Y R D
ROCK PRAIRIERD W
BAKER AV
H A R LAN RDWESTWARDHO DOMINIK DRTURKEYCREEKRD
APPOMATTOXDRWOODCREEK DR
S COULTER DRFINFEATHER RDGLADESTPATE RD
HOLLEMAN DR SSH6SFRONTAGERDEBROTHERSB LB R OADMOORD R HILLSIDEDR3RDSTS ENNIS ST
SEBESTA RD
ETONBURY AVUNIVERSITYOAKS BLLYNNDR
D RAKEDRGREE NSPRAIR IE TR
QUAIL RUN ECHOLS STCASTLEGATE
DRWELSH AVBEN TW O OD DR
EAGLE AV BIRD PO NDRDFOUNTAINA VLANGFORDSTLAWY
ERST P A RK PLACE S GORDON ST VISTA LN
HENDERSON RDOLIVESTMESAVERDE MEMO RIA L D RBRISTOLSTAGRONOMYRD
FOXFIR E D RNIMITZ STHOLIKDR LUZA ST
S
H 3
0PURYEARDRRAYMONDSTOTZERFRONTAGELEE AVDEER RUNROBINDR ALL EYLUTHER ST W
CLA Y PIT RD
TEE D R
WSPHILLIPSPWR
O
C
K
P
R
AIRIE
RDCHAC O C A NYON DRWOODL
A
KE
DRNUNNJONESR D
SOAKSDR
TIMBER L IN E D R
WI N D Y RYONRD
DEERPARKDR
COLE LNENCHANTE D OAKS DR
B LUERIDGE DR
HIGHPRA IRIE RDR O SSRDPAINT TR TURKRD
DAY RDFO RESTDRSTOUSLANDRDLAVADALNWARD RDSEBESTALNQU ALITYCRRIVERRID GEDR
OLDE N L N
HOOSIER LNKOPPEBRIDGERD
BATTSFERRY R D HOPESCREEKRDNAVA
S
OTARIDGE
NUC LEARSCIE N CERDLONGMIREDRALEXANDRIA AVBIZZELLSTLAKEWAYDRSPRINGLOE 27TH STE 25TH STF
M
2
1
5
4
TAN GLEWOODDRRAINTREE
DRN DOWLING RD BARAKLN
CAIN RD
STANDREWSDRWILLIAMSCREEK
DRROYDER RDSADDLECREEKDRB R A D L E Y R D
SH6SFRONTAGERDWCAMELOTDRCHISOLMTR
USD A CRTONKAWAYLAKERDO
L
D H
W
Y 6UNNAMEDC
LAYS T
WILD HORSERUN FM158
MATTWRIG
HTRD OLDTIRDW EED O N LOGOLDENTR
SH6SRESEARCHPW
SH 6 SSH 6 SI&GNRDHARDY W EEDON R D
CAPSTONEDR
FM 2154CHEROKEE DRSH6SP E A C H C R EEK R D
Non-Annexation Agreements
Brazos Streets
Non-Annexation Agreements
City Limits
ETJ
0 10.5 Miles ¯
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
College Station, TX
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:117-0633 Name:Sanitation Audit Report
Status:Type:Report Agenda Ready
File created:In control:10/13/2017 City Council Workshop
On agenda:Final action:
Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion concerning the City Internal Auditor’s Audit of the Public
Works Sanitation Division.
Sponsors:Ty Elliott
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion concerning the City Internal Auditor’s Audit of the Public
Works Sanitation Division.
Reasons for the Audit: Sanitation services are one of the most direct and frequent ways a citizen
interacts with the City of College Station. Moreover, the Sanitation Division has not receive audit
coverage since the formation of our Office in 2007.
Results from the Audit:
In general, we found that the Sanitation Division effectively provides a very high level of service to its
commercial and residential customers. While not inappropriate, this culture of customer
appeasement leads to increased costs for the City of College Station. These cost increases are
driven by the following obstacles:
Slower Collections.We noted that many collection services are hindered by “obstructions” created
by customers. These obstructions typically make it more difficult for a route manager to efficiently
pick up their canisters each day. This being said, the Division does not have an effective enforcement
method in place to curb these behaviors. Furthermore, as the City continues to grow collections will
take more and more time, requiring effective route balancing on which hiring strategies are based.
Acceptance of Risks.These obstructions also tend to increase the frequency with which route
managers engage in risky behaviors (i.e. dismounting and backing up). Moreover, we noted that
other that other citizen behaviors - including reckless driving and pedestrian interaction - can
increase the risk of harm to City property, employees, and citizens themselves.
City Regulations.We found that these obstructions are occasionally exacerbated by some City
development standards. Additionally, residential customers can request additional services (refuse,
bulk, brush, and recycling) at no charge. Finally, the City’s commercial business routing methodology
limits the Division’s flexibility and decreases efficiency.
College Station, TX Printed on 10/20/2017Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:17-0633,Version:1
Recommendations from the Audit:
We offered eight recommendations that we feel will aid the Division in addressing our findings. These
are summarized below:
1.Covering recommendations 1 and 2: Investigate routing methods to increase employee and
citizen accountability.
2.Covering recommendations 3 and 4: Adjust some workforce management strategies including
hiring guidelines and employee advancement systems.
3.Covering recommendations 5, 6, and 7: Revise some City policies to better reflect Sanitation
needs including collection scheduling and construction and development standards.
4.Covering recommendation 8: Develop Sanitation safety videos for the public.
College Station, TX Printed on 10/20/2017Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
College Station, TX
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:117-0614 Name:Sanitation Rate Study
Status:Type:Presentation Agenda Ready
File created:In control:10/7/2017 City Council Workshop
On agenda:Final action:10/26/2017
Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a sanitation rate study.
Sponsors:Pete Caler
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Sanitation Audit Report
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion on a sanitation rate study.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
·Core Services and Infrastructure
Recommendation(s): Staff recommends the Council receive the presentation and provide direction.
Summary: The City engaged Burns & McDonnell in 2016 to perform a rate study for the commercial
collection operation. Based on the results of that study, a residential collection rate study was also
requested. In 2017, Burns & McDonnell updated the 2016 commercial rate study and completed the
residential rate study. The presentation will provide the results of both studies.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments: N/A
College Station, TX Printed on 10/20/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
Performance Audit of
Public Works: Sanitation Division
October 2017
City Internal Auditor’s Office
City of College Station
File#: 17.04
Why We Did this Audit
Sanitation services are one of the
most direct and frequent ways a
citizen interacts with the City of
College Station. Moreover, the
Sanitation Division has not received
audit coverage since the formation
of our Office in 2007.
In fiscal year 2016, the Division
collected about 77,000 tons of
waste through a combination of
services provided by City employees
and contractors. The Division was
budgeted to expend about $9
million in fiscal year 2016, which
would be covered by a revenue of
about $9.5 million.
What We Recommend
Recommendations 1 & 2
Investigate routing methods to
increase employee and citizen
accountability.
Recommendations 3 & 4
Adjust some workforce management
strategies including hiring guidelines
and employee advancement
systems.
Recommendations 5, 6, & 7
Revise some City policies to better
reflect Sanitation needs including
collection scheduling and
construction and development
standards.
Recommendation 8
Develop Sanitation safety videos for
the public.
Audit Executive Summary:
Public Works: Sanitation Division
What We Found
In general, we found that the Sanitation Division
effectively provides a very high level of service to its
commercial and residential customers. While not
inappropriate, this culture of customer appeasement
leads to increased costs for the City of College Station.
These cost increases are driven by the following
obstacles:
Slower Collections. We noted that many collection
services are hindered by “obstructions” created by
customers. These obstructions typically make it more
difficult for a route manager to efficiently pick up their
canisters each day. This being said, the Division does
not have an effective enforcement method in place to
curb these behaviors. Furthermore, as the City
continues to grow collections will take more and more
time, requiring effective route balancing on which
hiring strategies are based.
Acceptance of Risks. These obstructions also tend to
increase the frequency with which route managers
engage in risky behaviors (e.g. dismounting and
backing up). Moreover, we noted that other citizen
behaviors – including reckless driving and pedestrian
interaction – can increase the risk of harm to City
property, employees, and citizens themselves.
City Regulations. We found that these obstructions are
occasionally exacerbated by some City development
standards. Additionally, residential customers can
request additional services (refuse, bulk, brush, and
recycling) at no charge. Finally, the City’s commercial
business routing methodology limits the Division’s
flexibility and decreases efficiency.
Sanitation Division Audit
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Audit Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 1
Scope and Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 1
Background ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Findings and Analysis ................................................................................................................... 8
Customer Actions Hinder Collection Efficiency .................................................................................. 8
High Service Level Leads to Poor Customer Behavior .................................................................... 8
Customer Behavior Leads Route Managers to Accept Risk ......................................................... 12
Enforcement Efforts of Sanitation Regulations are Ineffectual ................................................... 16
High Service Level Comes at a Cost .................................................................................................. 18
Division Hiring Policy may be Unsuitable for its Intended Use .................................................... 18
Obstacles to Overtime Mitigation Exist ........................................................................................ 20
City Demographics and Policies Impede Route Balancing Efforts .................................................... 22
Accommodating Customers Disrupts Balanced Routes ............................................................... 22
Mitigating Routing Risk has Unintended Consequences .............................................................. 23
Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 25
Appendix A: Ride-a-Long Experiment .......................................................................................... 27
Appendix B: Management Responses ......................................................................................... 31
Sanitation Audit 1
Introduction
The Office of the City Internal Auditor conducted this performance audit of the Sanitation Division
pursuant to Article III Section 30 of the College Station City Charter, which outlines the City Internal
Auditor’s primary duties.
A performance audit is an objective, systematic examination of evidence to assess independently
the performance of an organization, program, activity, or function. The purpose of a performance
audit is to provide information to improve public accountability and facilitate decision-making.
Performance audits encompass a wide variety of objectives, including those related to assessing
program effectiveness and results; economy and efficiency; internal control; compliance with legal
or other requirements; and objectives related to providing prospective analyses, guidance, or
summary information. A performance audit of the Sanitation Division was included in the fiscal year
2017 audit plan based on direction given by the Audit Committee.
Audit Objectives
This audit addresses the efficiency and effectiveness of the City’s solid waste management activities
and answers the following questions:
Do City policies, procedures, and practices promote effective solid waste management?
Does the Sanitation Division align with best practices, as stated by the Environmental
Protection Agency?
How does the Sanitation Division mitigate inherent solid waste management risk?
Scope and Methodology
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards (with the exception of a peer review).1 Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. The following
paragraphs further detail the audit procedures used to obtain this evidence:
1 Government auditing standards require audit organizations to undergo an external peer review every three years. We are scheduled to
receive a peer review in fiscal year 2018.
Sanitation Audit 2
Interviews. To obtain general and background information on the Sanitation Division’s operations,
we interviewed Public Works and Sanitation administrators. We discussed operations more
specifically with Sanitation staff including: route managers, container coordinators, the recycling and
environmental compliance manager, and customer service representatives. Finally, we interviewed
staff within the City’s Code Enforcement and Traffic Divisions to learn about street parking and code
enforcement as related to Sanitation.
Documentation. To identify criteria, we examined the work of auditors in other jurisdictions and
researched professional literature including: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines,
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality regulations, and web design rules. We also reviewed
City policies and procedures including: College Station annual budgets; Sanitation collection
guidelines based on the City’s Sanitation Ordinance Section 11-5; Sanitation policies and mission
statement; customer satisfaction survey results; collection maps; recycling service contracts; and a
draft copy of Sanitation’s most recent Cost of Service and Rate Design Study.
Work Orders. To further explore the types and effects of reactive services (i.e. services initiated by
requests) on the Sanitation Division, we obtained work order data for fiscal year 2016. Work orders
are typically generated by a customer service representative after a customer calls the Division to
request something. To better analyze these effects, we categorized each work order into the service
types listed below.
Service Requests Extra Services Extra Collections Complaints
New Service Damaged Container Commercial Missed (Brush)
Remove Service Dead Animal Residential Missed (Refuse)
Extra Container Request Return Charge Bulk/Brush Missed (Recycling)
Service Change Daily Rental Roll Off Missed (Bulk)
Misc. Service Request Recycling Kit/Bags Request Missing Container
Install Dumpster Lock Bar
Lost Compactor Key
Overtime. To examine the Division’s ability to cope with short staffing, we retrieved pay stub
overtime data for fiscal years 2013 through 2016. We adjusted this information to reflect the
number of hours actually worked during the correct time period and analyzed it by year and month.
We also identified all route manager employees and compared overtime for this position to the
Division’s overtime policy. Additionally, we constructed a regression to identify variables that had a
significant effect on overtime hours. Finally, we analyzed overtime by service type and evaluated the
Division’s decision making practices.
Truck Maintenance. To investigate the operational impact of vehicles breaking down, we procured
truck maintenance records from the Fleet Division after verifying a truck list with Sanitation. We
then identified instances where more than one vehicle of the same type was out of service at the
same time for at least a day.
Sanitation Audit 3
Insurance Claims. To examine the Division’s risk, we obtained insurance claims data from the Risk
Management Division for fiscal years 2013 through 2016. For each claim, we identified the following
categories: fiscal year, service type, who was at fault, employee activity during the incident, type of
incident, and type of loss. We then combined claims that were made for the same accident into
“incidents” and analyzed these by each category. There were 186 claims and 166 incidents during
this time.
Single Stream Recycling. To explore the effects of single stream recycling, we obtained waste
disposal data including recycling, refuse, and number of households summarized by month from
fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2016. We then calculated the average number of recycled,
refuse, and waste2 pounds per household and tested if the average of each was significantly
different before and after single stream implementation in January 2016.
Collection Information. To explore the feasibility of changing collection days, we conducted an
experiment to test the ease with which individuals could locate their collection day using the City’s
MyWaste Directory. See Appendix B for further details and results from this experiment.
Ride-a-Longs. The bulk of our audit work and evidence was collected during a two week period (July
17th through July 28th) wherein the entire audit staff rode with Sanitation’s route managers during
their daily collections. During this time, all collection services were observed for at least one full day
– with most being observed for two days. During this observation period, audit staff collected
several pieces of information: general times, weights, and pickups separated by trips to the landfill;
and the time it took to collect obstructed pickups. Appendix A further details this process and the
subsequent analysis.
It is important to note that this ride-a-long experiment was conducted during the summer. Due to
the City’s large transient student population, observations from this experiment most likely
underestimate the effects and amounts of obstructions route managers face during fall and spring.
For this reason, our office plans on conducting a follow-up audit to repeat this procedure during the
Division’s busier times.
2 Where waste is the total recycled and refuse pounds collected.
Sanitation Audit 4
Background
Sanitation is a division of the City of College Station’s Public Works Department and is devoted to
managing and collecting the municipality’s solid waste. This Division is funded out of a separate
enterprise fund and, in fiscal year 2016, employed 37.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) employees. The
table below shows the breakdown of these FTEs:
Table 1: Division FTE Summary
Position FTE
Sanitation Superintendent 1.0
Can Coordinator 2.0
Sanitation Foreman 2.0
Recycling & Environmental Compliance Manager 1.0
Customer Service Representative 1.0
Staff Assistant 1.0
Route Manager 27.0
Equipment Operator 2.0
Public Works Intern 0.5
Route manager’s make up the bulk of the Division’s work force and are supervised by the Sanitation
foremen. These individuals perform the actual collection each day – that is they drive the Sanitation
trucks that pickup customer waste – and manage customer issues in the field. They are divided into
two collection categories: Commercial and Residential. The table below shows how much waste was
collected in the last three fiscal years per category.
Table 2: Division Workload Summary (Tonnage)
Fiscal
Year
Residential Commercial Recycled
Waste Refuse Customers Refuse Customers
2014 21,396 20,866 37,856 1,122 17,147
2015 21,602 21,526 39,291 1,160 14,136
2016 21,577 22,291 40,302 1,172 19,063
Average: 21,525 21,561 39,150 1,151 16,782
Within these collection categories, the City provides a number of services using several different
truck types to current utility customers. These services are listed below: 3
Commercial Dumpster Service. City collection of a two, four, or eight
cubic yard container or compactor between one and six times each
week as decided by the customer. These canisters are collected by
vehicles that lift the dumpster up and over the truck cab before
3 Collection times listed throughout this section are based on actual observations.
Sanitation Audit 5
continuing to the next location. On average, it takes about twenty-five seconds to collect a
dumpster.
Commercial Cart Service. City collection of 90, 300, or 400 gallon carts
between one and six times each week as decided by the customer.
These canisters are collected by vehicles which lift the cart using a
semi-automated gripper on the right side of the truck, just behind the
cab. They then return the cart to the ground and continue to the next
location. On average, it takes about seven seconds to collect a cart.
Commercial Roll Off Service. City collection of 20,
30, or 40 cubic yard roll off open top or
compactor containers scheduled or by request.
These canisters are collected by vehicles that
must load a roll off onto the truck’s bed before
unloading the contents at the landfill and
returning the canister to its original location.
Collection times depend upon the position of the
canister and surrounding environment.
Residential Refuse Cart Service. City collection of 70 gallon carts weekly. Refuse is collected by trucks
that, similar to the commercial cart service, lift a cart using a semi-automated gripper on the right
side, just behind the cab. On average, it takes about seven seconds to collect a cart.
Residential Large Bulk and Brush Service. City collection of large
bulky items and brush weekly. Bulk and brush are collected by
a two-vehicle team: one truck carries an open top canister and
follows another that uses a claw-like grappler that lifts objects
from the ground and into either its own open top or the other
vehicle. This two-vehicle system allows the Division to separate
bulky items and brush, the latter of which can be composted
and sold back to the public. Collection times depend on the size
and make up of items set out.
Residential Small Bulk and Brush Service. City collection of smaller bulky items and brush weekly.
These items are loaded into the rear of a vehicle which automatically compacts the items collected
by a two-person route manager team – one employee drives and the other rides on the back of the
vehicle to speed pickups. Collection times depend on the size and make up of items set out.
Residential Satellite Service. City collection of refuse and small bulky and brush items for households
unable to move their carts to the curb due to disability and households in rural areas; also responds
to citizen requests and complaints for pick up. Residential carts are moved by the driver to the back
of the truck and then lifted into the compactor by a gripper similar to other cart services; bulky
Sanitation Audit 6
items and brush are lifted into the compactor by the driver. Collection times vary depending on the
service being provided.
Residential Recycling Service. Contractor collection
of 96 gallon carts every two weeks currently
provided by Brazos Valley Recycling. This contract
was approved in October 2015 and went into
effect in January 2016. It will cost the City about
$840,000 annually for the next two years.
From these services, the Division collects about
6,500 tons of waste each month, which are delivered to Twin Oaks Landfill each collection day.4
While commercial customers generate the most waste per canister, residential customers drive the
total number of pickups each day. Typically, the Division collects an average of 1,470 commercial
canisters each day, while it collects about 3,260 residential canisters each day;5 however, these
estimates were made during the summer.
Due to Texas A&M enrollment, the City of College Station’s population typically drops during the
summer. For example, during the summer of 2016 Texas A&M had about 21,000 enrolled students;
however, during the fall and spring semesters Texas A&M had about 60,000 enrolled students. This
transient population can create route balancing issues as work load is more likely to fluctuate and
can make educational efforts more costly and difficult to maintain.
For each of these services, the customer is charged a monthly fee detailed in the City’s Sanitation
Ordinance Sec. 11-5. Commercial fees are based on the type, size, and frequency of collection and
range from $18 per month for weekly collection of a 90-gallon cart to $1,494 per month for six-day-
a-week collection of a six cubic yard compactor. For residential customers, the fee includes provision
of one (1) 70-gallon cart, refuse, recycling, bulky items and brush collection, and costs $14.40 per
month. Additional carts can be procured for an additional fee dependent on the cart’s size (70 or
300 gallons). Figure 1 below shows the Division’s revenues and expenditures for the last five fiscal
years.
4 Recycling collections are not taken to the landfill but are sorted by BVR.
5 These estimates do not include non-canister pickups – in other words bulk & brush services or satellite pickups.
Sanitation Audit 7
Figure 1: Sanitation Enterprise Fund6
The revenue and expense increases seen in Figure 1 can mostly be attributed to customer growth.
This being said, the large spike in fiscal year 2017’s budget is attributed to vehicle replacement
costs. Over the last five fiscal years, the Division has replaced three vehicles with the help of the
City. These costs are then repaid by the Division, most of which was budgeted for fiscal year 2017.
The table below shows the average cost for each vehicle type the City purchases:
Table 3: Vehicle Purchase Price
Vehicle Type Average Purchase Price
Automatic Side Loader $317,000
Rear Loader $221,000
Grapple $163,000
Open Top $113,000
Satellite Rear Loader $131,000
Roll Off $222,000
Frontend Loader $271,000
In 2016 and 2017, the City hired Burns & McDonnell, a “full-service engineering, architecture,
construction, environmental and consulting solutions firm,” to conduct a cost of service and rate
design study for the Sanitation Division. This study found that using the City’s current fee schedule,
Sanitation would fall below its 15 percent working capital target by fiscal year 2019. After reviewing
the consultant’s methodology, we believe its estimates in this regard are reasonable. The consultant
recommends increasing fees to offset these rising costs, however, we have several
recommendations we believe could help cut costs if implemented.
6 Service revenue and expenditures reflect the “Residential” and “Commercial” revenue and expense line item for each fiscal
year.
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
$10,000,000
2013 Actual 2014 Actual 2015 Actual 2016 Estimated 2017 Budgeted
Operating Rev.Total Rev.Operating Exp.Total Exp.
The following report contains hyperlinked
videos that require internet access to view.
Sanitation Audit 8
Obstructions
add about six
and half hours
to residential
cart collection
every week.
Findings and Analysis
Customer Actions Hinder Collection Efficiency
According to their mission statement, the City’s Sanitation Division endeavors “to provide safe,
efficient and cost effective solid waste and recycling collection . . . with world class customer
service.” During our review, we found evidence that providing such exemplary customer service
hinders the Division’s ability to meet its other goals.
High Service Level Leads to Poor Customer Behavior
Residential cart collection faces many customer-driven obstructions. Each week, the Division receives
about 21 complaints. We observed residential customer behavior throughout the
entire City for a week (one route cycle). Of the 8,409 canisters we documented during
this period,7 about 14.4 percent involved some violation of the City’s residential
collection guidelines (as codified in the City Ordinances Sec. 11-5). While this is not
necessarily a large percentage, these “obstructions” add an estimated six and a half
hours of time to collections each workweek. The video linked below compares pickup
of a typical unobstructed canister to a canister too close to a recycling bin.
Video 1: Residential Cart Collection Comparison
Using data collected on obstructions from our ride-a-long observations, we ran a regression to
identify the average time it took to collect a residential cart given a certain obstruction8 and found
that all types were significant above the 95 percent level. The results can be seen in Table 4, and a
more complete regression methodology and output is detailed in Appendix A.
Table 4: Residential Cart Obstruction Observations
Obstruction Percent of Pickups Avg. Seconds
Car 0.92% 14
Other Cart 2.90% 16
Recycling Bin 6.30% 14
Bulky Item 0.07% 13
Telephone Pole or Mailbox 0.19% 14
Overloaded Canister 2.93% 13
Canister Facing the Wrong Direction 0.63% 14
Prohibited Item 0.34% 14
Other 0.36% 27
7 This included half (2) of the residential routes Monday-Thursday and all (1) Friday routes for a total of nine observed collection routes.
8 No unobstructed cart observations were included in this regression.
Sanitation Audit 9
Single stream recycling is
a system in which all
recyclables (including
newspaper, cardboard,
plastic, aluminum, etc.)
are placed in a single cart
for recycling.
Moreover, traffic affects the time it takes to collect canisters. In particular, many vehicles are forced
to sit at stop signs as citizens drive by causing delays – especially during Texas A&M’s Fall and Spring
semesters. We found that on average, residential route managers spend about 22 minutes each day
(about five percent of a work day) transitioning from neighborhood to neighborhood.
Same-day residential recycling slows residential waste collection. From Table 4,
we can see that recycling bins are the most common obstruction and generally
double the time it takes for a route manager to collect an obstructed canister.
While observing residential route managers collecting carts on recycling days, it
was clear that same-day recycling makes collection more difficult, not only
because it obstructs refuse carts, but because it increases the chance a cart will
be obstructed. Using a regression, we found that there are likely to be about 13
more obstructions on a recycling day versus a non-recycling day per 100 carts
collected. For this reason, we believe separating residential recycling collection
and residential refuse collection to different days would improve efficiency.
The single stream process has significantly impacted recycled waste disposed. On the other hand,
the implementation of single stream and same-day recycling increased recycled material per
household from about seven to eighteen pounds per month (157 percent increase). Though this is a
significant increase in pounds recycled, there was not a statistically significant decrease in refuse
material (see Table 5). This is most likely because recycling on average makes up a small percentage
of residential waste collected in carts as seen in Table 5. Moreover, the rejected material rate – or
material collected to be recycled that cannot be – has increased almost seven times since single
stream recycling began.
Table 5: Single Stream Impact on Cart Collection by Month
Measure Pre Implementation Post Implementation
Recycled Lbs./Customer 6.86 18.19
Refuse Lbs./Customer 167.28 157.43
Average Rejection Rate 3.74% 34.81%
Percent of Waste Recycled 3.98% 10.06%
This is not to say that single stream recycling is ineffective, only that the City’s current culture does
not fully embrace recycling efforts. This can most clearly be seen in the City’s diversion rate (i.e. the
percentage of total waste recycled, or diverted from the landfill). On average, the City’s annual
diversion rate is about 21.6 percent, which is slightly higher than the average municipal diversion
rate for the state of Texas of 18.9 percent.9 However, the Environmental Protection Agency
estimated that in 2013 the United States diverted about 34.3 percent of waste.
Collection information is difficult to locate. The City switched to same-day recycling at the same time
they switched to single stream recycling with the hopes to improve setout rates. The MyWaste
9 Based on 2013 data collected by the Texas Recycling Data Initiative
Sanitation Audit 10
Directory application was developed to aid residential customers in identifying their waste collection
days, as most have at least two per week – one for cart collection and one for bulk and brush. To
explore the feasibility of changing collection days, we conducted an experiment to test the
effectiveness of the Division’s communication of collection information – particularly regarding
recycling (see Appendix B for more detail).
While we found that this application was generally easy to use, it is not easy to locate on the
Internet. Of a 31 person sample, about 30 percent were able to locate the MyWaste Directory and
use it to their advantage, while a little over 15 percent gave up trying to find the information. On
average, it took these individuals a little over three minutes to identify an address’ recycling
collection day. Moreover, several individuals expressed surprise at learning recycling was every
other week instead of weekly and frustration at the difficulty they experienced in locating the
information.
Additionally, we attempted to locate the MyWaste Directory ourselves. When googling “City of
College Station collection day,” this application originally appeared fifth on the results page. We also
noted that even when we knew exactly how to identify the collection day, the information required
four clicks and about thirty seconds of time (see Video 2). This violates the “three-click” rule of web
design. For this reason, developing a method to adequately communicate collection information is
crucial to changing collection days.
Video 2: MyWaste Directory
Sanitation communication efforts have been extensive. This being said, the Division has devoted
significant resources to communicating major collection changes. For example, when switching to
single stream recycling, the Division communicated this collection change in a number of different
ways including posting on social media, appearing on local news stations (both radio and television),
distributing collection guideline posters and collection schedule refrigerator magnets, updating the
MyWaste Directory and the City’s website, and even creating public service announcements (see
Video 3).
Video 3: Single Stream Recycling Guide
Other service types face similar obstruction problems. Though we spent the most time observing
residential cart collection, we also observed two routes for all other collection types except the
small bulky item and brush route. Table 6 shows the number of pickups uncollected for each service
type due to obstructions:
Sanitation Audit 11
Table 6: Collection Pickup Summary
Collection Type Uncollected Total Pickups Percentage
Commercial Dumpster 2 240 0.83%
Commercial Cart 0 576 0.00%
Commercial Roll Off 1 11 9.09%
Large Bulk & Brush 3 253 1.19%
Small Bulk & Brush 0 251 0.00%
Satellite10 N/A N/A N/A
Other Residential Collections. We noted that some customers combined bulk items and brush into
the same pile. While this may not negatively affect pickup times, it prevents the Division from
composting this brush. Moreover, placing bulky items and brush too close to stationary
obstructions, such as cars, poles, mailboxes, etc., can increase the time a crew spends trying to
collect the waste, as well as increase the risk of employee injury or property damage.
The small bulky item and brush collection service seemed to be least affected by obstructions;
however, if items could not be picked up by the large bulk and brush crew, these employees would
be called in to collect them – potentially putting them at risk for personal injury. Similarly the
satellite service was not highly affected by obstructions. However, this route also completes most
work orders for residential collections. For this reason, some carts left due to obstructions may be
collected later in the day by this service.
Commercial Collections. Commercial dumpster and cart services begin at 4 AM on workdays. There
are two reasons for this earlier start time which are avoiding traffic and reducing the risk of
reversing in business and multi-family parking lots. This being said, the landfill does not open until 7
AM, which can occasionally force a full commercial vehicle to sit and wait for up to an hour to dump
its load. Moreover, the City of College Station’s Noise Ordinance (Sec. 7-2) prevents these
commercial trucks from collecting multi-family dumpsters before 7 AM, forcing route managers to
double-back on their route later in the day, which limits efficiency.
Additionally, these drivers must occasionally dismount to move bulky items out of the way so a
canister can be collected – increasing risk of employee injury. Sometimes, prohibited material or
bulky items are placed inside the canister so they cannot be collected – frequently requiring a route
manager to return after the property manager has removed the item. Moreover, the City’s Unified
Development Ordinance requires many businesses to store their dumpsters in gated enclosures.
While this provides citizens with a more pleasing aesthetic, it forces route managers to dismount
their vehicles twice each time they collect a dumpster. This not only increases the time it takes to
collect these dumpsters but also increases the chance that an employee is injured on the job.
Likewise, the City requires many roll off containers and compactors to be covered by a roof to limit
the amount of precipitation that enters the sanitary sewer system. However, we observed that
10 This percentage could not be calculated due to data inconsistencies.
Sanitation Audit 12
these roofs occasionally impede the route manager’s ability to load and unload canisters from their
trucks. These roofs not only make Sanitation’s job more difficult and time consuming but also
increase the risk of damaging customer property – particularly the roof itself.
Furthermore, some businesses have canisters where the compactor or container door is facing the
incorrect way when initially loaded (i.e. the door out of which waste is dumped at the landfill is next
to the cab). This forces the route manager to first load the canister onto the truck to pull it away
from the building, unload the canister in the parking lot, and then reload it before driving to the
landfill. This process is then repeated after dumping the contents at the landfill so the canister is
more easily returned to the pickup location.
Customer Behavior Leads Route Managers to Accept Risk
Division policy could be adjusted to reduce risk further. While some collection services are inherently
higher-risk than others, the Division has taken steps to limit employee risk where possible. For
instance, commercial dumpster and cart service as well as residential cart services are fully
automated, preventing injury by limiting physical movement and decreasing the weight manually
collected by employees each day. This being said, we noted that risk of personal injury persists.
Specifically, most route managers must dismount or back up while completing their routes. These
activities place the employee at risk. For example, climbing into and out of the cab for every pick up
places the driver at a higher risk of injury than only dismounting at the end of the day or for breaks.
Similarly, all Sanitation trucks are large vehicles with limited visual range – especially when backing
up. To mitigate this risk, the Division has backup cameras installed on front end loaders and
automatic side loaders, however, engaging in this activity still puts the City at a higher risk of
property damage or injury to pedestrians. While these activities are necessary for some service
types, they should be reduced. We found that citizen behavior and the City’s high service level leads
to route managers engaging in these risky activities more often than necessary.
Dismounting. For most service types dismounting is necessary, however, the automation of
residential cart service and commercial dumpster and cart service should prevent a route manager
from dismounting their cab while on-route. This being said, we observed instances of route
managers dismounting for all automated service types – these are summarized in Table 7:
Table 7: Automated Collection Dismounts
Collection Service Dismounts Pick Ups Percentage
Commercial Dumpster 93 240 38.75%
Commercial Cart 1 576 0.17%
Residential Cart 106 8,409 1.26%
While ideally dismounting should be nonexistent, we found this activity is unavoidable due to citizen
obstructions. For instance, the most common cause of dismounting for residential cart collection is
another cart (either recycling or refuse) being too close to the cart being collected. This can
Sanitation Audit 13
occasionally cause a route manager to spill the contents of the canister, forcing them to dismount
and clean the polluted area. In this way, the Division’s goal to deliver high service to customers (i.e.
always collect their canisters even if they are in violation of City ordinance) leads to a higher level of
risk as route managers are forced to dismount more often.
In terms of commercial dumpster collection, the most common cause of dismounting was gated
dumpster enclosures. As mentioned previously, these enclosures force a route manager to dismount
twice during collection. This policy – though more aesthetically pleasing – does not have a functional
effect on disposal, and encourages riskier behavior.
Backing Up. Similarly to dismounting, backing up is necessary for some collection services. For
instance, due to the way commercial dumpster trucks are designed, the driver must back up each
time a dumpster is collected. Moreover, commercial roll off collection requires a driver to back up to
a container or compactor to load it on the back of their truck (see Video 4).
Video 4: Commercial Roll Off Loading
This being said, most collection services should not require backing. Table 8 presents the percent of
time spent backing up during each collection service on average each route.
Table 8: Backing Up by Collection Service
Collection Service Avg. Number of Backups Percent of Time Backing
Commercial Cart 50 2.41%
Residential Cart 58 1.91%
Large Bulk & Brush 54 0.92%
Small Bulk & Brush 23 0.59%
Satellite 10 0.30%
Construction standards may put the Division at a higher risk. From our observations, many of these
back ups are due to routing inefficiencies or developments ill-designed for Sanitation vehicle
navigation. For instance, we observed several neighborhoods and streets where a Sanitation vehicle
was unable to safely turn around, requiring the driver to back up for large stretches of road (at most
backing up continuously for over two minutes). This can be seen in Video 5:
Video 5: Backing Up in a Tight Area
Similarly, Sanitation vehicles often had to slowly navigate between parked cars to collect residential
waste. These tight spaces increase the likelihood a vehicle will cause damage to both City and citizen
property. This being said, route managers are inclined to accept these risks, as leaving a canister
may impact their performance review and going around may be impossible or take too much time.
Furthermore, trucks are often forced to back up to accommodate cars – both moving and parked.
For instance, the large brush and bulk service often takes up the whole width of a neighborhood
Sanitation Audit 14
street since it requires two trucks to be parked side-by-side. During our observations, we noted that
occasionally, citizens would pull up to the vehicles and honk, urging a route manager to back up and
move out of the way.
Furthermore, street parking is detrimental in cul-de-sacs. Due to the dense nature of these areas,
obstructions – including parked cars – are more likely to occur. Moreover, developers are
incentivized to build cul-de-sacs with smaller diameters (i.e. they use less material and less land),
further condensing the area and forcing trucks to make tighter turns, many of which result in
backing up.
According to staff, cul-de-sacs were more efficient for Sanitation in the past because there was less
distance between canisters. However, the Division has begun using larger vehicles with looser
turning radii, causing this efficiency to be lost and typically making cul-de-sac collections less
efficient than collection on a straight road (see Video 6). Since this change, the City’s cul-de-sac
standards have not been revised to incorporate the needs of Sanitation.
Video 6: Cul-de-sac versus Straight Street Collection Comparison
When we investigated the City’s procedure for removing parking on one side of a street, we noted
that the City’s largest consideration in this process was emergency vehicles – specifically fire trucks.
After comparing the specifications for both fire and sanitation trucks we found that their widths
were very similar, indicating that Sanitation trucks are at least inadvertently benefited. However, if
parking is not removed for safety reasons, residential Sanitation trucks must still maneuver through
these tight spaces, stopping every few feet to collect a canister. The difficulty and risk of this activity
is more accurately shown in Video 7.
Video 7: Street Parking as an Obstacle
Solid waste collection is an inherently high-risk function. Based on insurance claims, the Sanitation
Division is one of the riskiest in the City.11 Moreover, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) cites refuse
and recyclable material collection as one of the top ten most dangerous occupations, with a fatal
injury rate of 38.8 deaths per 100,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers – over ten times the
average fatal injury of all occupations (3.4 deaths per 100,000 FTE).
On average, the City receives about 46 Sanitation related claims each year, averaging $5,118 each.
This being said, a major Sanitation incident – where a number of claims are related to a distinct
accident – can cost the City considerably more money than a typical claim. During fiscal years 2013
through 2016, three of these major incidents occurred, totaling $732,574 – a little over 86 percent
of all money paid out during this period for Sanitation claims. All of these incidents involved a motor
vehicle accident.
11 Compared to all other areas of the City in 2016, the Sanitation Division received the second highest number of claims per employee.
Sanitation Audit 15
Figure 2: Sanitation Claims12
When we reviewed incidents by service type, we found that commercial dumpster collection had
the most frequent incidents (see Table 9). Based on our observations, this is most likely due to the
nature of the trucks this service uses – front end loaders (FEL). These trucks must pull the dumpster
up and over the cab before setting them back on the ground. If large bulky items remain stuck in the
dumpster as it is set down they can break or crack the windshield resulting in City property damage.
This is supported by claims data, as 40.8 percent of all FEL accidents occurred during dumpster
pickups, which is slightly higher than the percentage of pickup incidents of all other services not
including commercial dumpster incidents (32.1 percent).
Table 9: Incidents by Service Type (FY13-FY16)13
Service Type Incidents Employee Injuries Amount Paid
Commercial Dumpster 49 6 $252,310
Large Bulk & Brush 24 2 $296,349
Residential Cart 18 2 $264,954
Commercial Roll Off 15 0 $5,765
Small Bulk & Brush 11 5 $3,542
Commercial Cart 7 1 $4,778
Satellite 4 2 $657
Total: 128 (of 166) 18 (of 46) $849,554
We also noted that both large and small bulk and brush collections were generally more risky for
City employees than other services. These typically require route managers to pick up large piles of
bulky, potentially heavy objects or brush, in which sharp or hazardous objects may not be visible.
Moreover, route managers must dismount each time they collect refuse. Finally, during small bulk
and brush collection a route manager rides on the rear of the truck gripping only a handle as they
12 “No Loss” Claims – The City received an insurance claim, but did not pay out any money.
13 Due to the nature of the data service type could not be identified for all incidents. Additionally, some incidents were not due to the
service being provided (i.e. bee stings, truck maintenance, etc.)
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
0
10
20
30
40
50
2013 2014 2015 2016 Amount PaidClaimsFiscal Year
"No Loss" Claims Paid Claims Annual Amount Paid
Sanitation Audit 16
stop to collect heavy items on the sides of busy streets. This is the most dangerous activity
performed by route managers and can be seen further in Video 8.
Video 8: Small Bulk & Brush Collection
Citizen actions occasionally put themselves and City employees at risk. While many Sanitation risks
are either inherent to the job or can be mitigated, citizen actions are one of the riskiest and most
costly variables affecting Division safety. While conducting our observations, we noted that often
times citizens exhibit reckless behavior when driving near Sanitation vehicles. Indeed, about 33.3
percent of motor vehicle accidents are the fault of citizens instead of City employees. An example of
this can be seen in Video 9.
Video 9: Reckless Driving
Additionally, we observed two separate incidents where a child attempted to grab the residential
cart collection gripper. While both route managers were able to stop the equipment before an injury
occurred, this piece of machinery is potentially deadly and should never be touched while in use.
Although these were the most troubling incidents we also observed many other instances of citizens
acting recklessly around Sanitation vehicles. This indicates that the City may need to provide
additional education to citizens about safety around Sanitation vehicles.
Enforcement Efforts of Sanitation Regulations are Ineffectual
Sanitation enforcement methods focus on educating
residential customers. Though residential obstructions are
specifically prohibited via City ordinance and result in the
City taking on more risk, no additional fees may be charged
to customers who violate these regulations. Instead, the
Division has two procedures meant to modify these
behaviors – tagging carts and levying fines.
Tagging is most readily available to residential cart route
managers and is meant to inform and educate customers as
to why a canister was not collected. To tag a cart, a route
manager must first identify the issue on the tag (see Figure
3) and then dismount their vehicle to place the notice. We
found that while drivers have the option to tag carts in
violation, few chose to do so (0.02 percent of pickups
observed).
This appears to be for several reasons. First, route managers often do not wish to take time out of
their day to tag carts. Also, many route managers feel that tags are not effective behavior modifiers,
as the refuse is often collected even if the cart is tagged – either by the driver who placed the tag, or
later (after a citizen calls into the office) by the satellite service. We found evidence that tagging an
Figure 3: Residential Tag
Sanitation Audit 17
already obstructed canister adds about 1 minute and 19 seconds to collection time14 – over eleven
times longer than the 7 seconds needed to collect an unobstructed can.
Moreover, there is evidence that the Division does not consistently communicate problematic
customers or properties to the City’s Code Enforcement Division. According to City staff, there have
been fewer than five Sanitation related citations issued in the last few years. While this is most
directly due to a lack of communication between the two divisions, we were told that Code
Enforcement is most focused on educating customers when they violate an ordinance. Additionally,
some ordinance violations are not caused by the owner of the property and thus it would be unfair
to fine them.
Finally, though the City ordinances allow for a fine when there is a violation, there is no charge
prescribed for extra residential pickups. This policy discourages compliance with the Ordinance as
customers can have their refuse collected for free at any time. On the other hand, the City does
charge commercial customers for extra pickups. Table 10 below shows the number of extra
collection work orders by whether or not a fee is charged.
Table 10: Extra Collections by Fee (Fiscal Year 2016)
Service Work Orders Percentage
Fee
Extra Collection – Commercial 1,101 29.7%
Return Charge – Commercial 51 1.4%
No charge
Extra Collection – Residential 1,457 39.3%
Complaints – Residential 1,091 29.4%
Complaints – Commercial 6 0.2%
Total: 3,706 100%
As can be seen in Table 10, the majority of extra collections are requested by residential customers.
Based on the City’s policy of not charging residential customers for extra services, we estimate that
the City does not charge for extra collections 70 percent of the time.
The ordinance also allows for a fine of $19.85 to be charged to “any location (other than residential)
where the container was blocked and the collection vehicle must return to provide service.” We
found 51 instances of this “return charge” being levied throughout fiscal year 2016; however, we
also observed a route manager return to a commercial dumpster without calling in to charge the
business. This is most likely because there is no easy way for route managers to report blockages
due to their 4 AM start time. Moreover, route managers may experience poor reactions from
customers who have been levied a return charge if they feel it was unwarranted.
14 The total time to tag an obstructed can is greater than 1 minute and 19 seconds and depends on the type of obstruction.
Sanitation Audit 18
High Service Level Comes at a Cost
Apart from regularly scheduled pickups, the Division provides a variety of additional services on
customer request; these range from collecting waste for the City’s “Adopt-A-Street” program, to
retrieving dead animals, to replacing lost compactor keys. A break out of these reactive services can
be seen in Table 11.
Table 11: Fiscal Year 2016 Work Orders
Type Annual Weekly
Extra Collection 4,828 93
Roll Off 2,270 44
Residential 1,172 23
Bulk & Brush 1,121 22
Commercial 265 5
Extra Service 1,911 37
Container Rental/Damage/Return 1,820 35
Dead Animal 49 1
Other 42 1
Service Requests 1,770 34
Service Adjustment 1,570 30
Extra Container 200 4
Complaints 1,274 25
Missed Collection 1,099 21
Missing Container 175 3
Internal Services 168 3
Total: 9,951 191
Work orders significantly affect overtime. Given that most collection services take the same amount
of time each week (with some variability due to set out rates), work orders are the most significant
factor in determining overall workload. To verify this, we regressed overtime hours with several
variables and found that the number of work orders and the number of route managers were the
most significant. Since the number of work orders is driven by customers and thus cannot be
controlled,15 adding a new employee is the most straightforward method of decreasing overtime
hours. This being said, paying out overtime can be a more cost effective option than hiring
additional staff and an appropriate cost benefit analysis should be conducted before beginning the
hiring process.
Division Hiring Policy may be Unsuitable for its Intended Use
According to staff, the Division requests a new route manager position in the budget process once
overtime reaches 1,040 hours for a specific service type. In fiscal year 2016, the Division requested
and received funding for two additional route managers, which significantly reduced overtime per
15 Unless the City decides to offer a lower level of service.
Sanitation Audit 19
pay period from 168 hours to 121 hours. That being said, the Division exceeded its overtime budget
in fiscal year 2015 and 2016 by about 54 and 27 percent respectively.
Figure 4: Route Manager Overtime16
Division hiring guidelines should not be based on overtime. As can be seen in Table 12 (see next
page), it is unlikely that overtime costs specific to a particular service type could increase enough to
warrant the cost of a new route cycle.17 For this reason, overtime may not be an appropriate
method to determine when a new route manager should be hired. Instead, routes and route cycles
should be added once the daily work load is too large to be completed before the landfill closes.
If route managers are unable to make it to the landfill by 5 PM, this presents a risk to the City
because they must leave their trucks with collected waste in the Division’s yard overnight. In
addition to causing odor problems, this can be dangerous for drivers as it attracts pests and
prevents them from performing daily maintenance. Of the 28 routes we observed two, (seven
percent) did not make it back to the landfill before the end of the day.
For this reason, route manager hiring decisions should most directly be informed by route balancing.
This being said, adding a “spare”, or an employee who is trained on multiple service types to
complete the collection for each day, is an effective temporary method to decrease overtime as it
does not require purchasing a new truck and spares can cover multiple route types – increasing
Division flexibility.
16 One pay period accounts for two weeks of collection services.
17 A route cycle is a collection of routes assigned to a single driver and vehicle each week specific to one service type.
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2013 2014 2015 2016 Pay Period HoursYearly HoursAvg. Hours/Pay Period
Yearly Hours
Sanitation Audit 20
Table 12: Additional Service Cost versus Overtime Costs
Service Est. Annual Cost Overtime Hours Actual Overtime Costs
Commercial Dumpster $143,711 913.00 $24,343
Commercial Cart $145,996 335.75 $7,365
Commercial Roll Off $81,230 81.75 $2,305
Residential Cart $126,042 768.75 $20,196
Large Bulk & Brush $87,333 242.50 $6,386
Small Bulk & Brush $67,276 253.00 $6,127
Satellite $54,103 14.00 $418
Spare $29,141 386.50 $8,411
Total: 2,995.25 $75,552
Obstacles to Overtime Mitigation Exist
In our investigation of overtime, we found that route managers and foreman had an average
turnover rate of about 14 percent - placing it lower than the state and local government average as
well as similar industries.18 This being said, the Division had three route managers (of twenty-seven)
during our observation period who were not able to drive vehicles for the Division due to legitimate
circumstances.19 While this level of absence is not typical, we also found that the average route
manager takes about 378 hours of paid leave annually – about 18 percent of the average work year.
This, along with overtime levels, indicate that the Division may occasionally be short staffed on
particular services or truck types.
Short staffing mitigation methods could be improved. To relieve these circumstances, the Division
utilizes spares; however, they generally have less experience with routes and thus are less effective
than the typical route manager. In the past, training on multiple vehicles and becoming a spare was
incentivized by a skill-based pay system, which rewarded route managers for each truck they trained
on with a pay raise. However, this system has been eliminated making these spare positions more
difficult to fill. We estimated it took a spare over one and a half times longer to collect each canister
than a more experienced route manager (see Table 13). Increasing cross-training and working to
ensure that route managers are knowledgeable about the routes they run will allow the Division to
more effectively mitigate the effects of short staffing.
Table 13: Effects of Spare Drivers
Service Type Avg. Experienced Time Spare Time Multiplier
Residential Cart 26 sec. 36 sec. 1.38
Commercial Dumpster 219 sec. 389 sec. 1.78
All Observed: 1.58
18 Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data and including the transportation, warehousing, and utilities industry.
19 Two drivers are out due to injury and illness, and the other is a management decision.
Sanitation Audit 21
Vehicle maintenance is adequately mitigated. Currently, the Sanitation Division maintains one spare
truck for each service type provided. Using fiscal year 2016 maintenance records, we evaluated the
adequacy of this policy. From Table 14, we can see that this is sufficient for most truck types,
however, roll off and front end loaders may need additional contingency methods.
Table 14: Maintenance Time by Truck Type
Truck Type Spare Trucks Total Trucks Time Out of Service20
Roll Off 1 6 21.98%
Front End Loader 1 5 17.58%
Rear Loader 2 6 4.12%
Automatic Side Loader 2 7 2.20%
Grapple 1 4 0.00%
From conversations with staff, we learned that when more than one roll off truck is out of service
the Division does not run the complete large bulk and brush service. Instead, only the Grapple truck
is driven, requiring the Division to complete its roll off and large bulk and brush services less
efficiently. While this adequately mitigates roll off vehicle time out of service, it also prevents the
Division from splitting brush and bulk into separate canisters, prohibiting composting.
Occasionally, when there are more trucks out of service than spares, Sanitation coordinates with the
City of Bryan to use their spare vehicles. The City also allows Bryan to use their spare vehicles when
necessary. An agreement is made on a case-by-case basis for these events. However, during our
review period, the City had to rent a front end loader when four trucks needed maintenance.
According to staff, this was the first time the City rented a Sanitation vehicle in decades.
20 Calculates the percentage of days two or more trucks of the same type were out of service for maintenance.
Sanitation Audit 22
City Demographics and Policies Impede Route Balancing Efforts
Based on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Heuristic Routing Guidelines, “total collection plus
handling times should be reasonably constant for each route.” While we found most collection types
were balanced, residential cart service and commercial dumpster and cart collection were not. As
we can see in Figure 5 below, there is much variation around the eight-hour workday (dashed line),
where each dot represents the time one employee spent on a route each day.
Figure 5: Service Time Map
Accommodating Customers Disrupts Balanced Routes
The City’s rapid growth and transient population impedes residential route balancing. Due to the
geographical nature of routing, the houses in new developments are generally incorporated into the
nearest route without thoroughly evaluating the impacts on route balance. This generally aligns with
the EPA’s heuristic guidelines – specifically regarding routes “consisting of street segments clustered
in the same geographical area” – which assumes any slight inefficiency would typically be corrected
when routes were rebalanced every one to two years.
However, over the last few years many residential developments have sprung up in southern
sections of the City (i.e. Castlegate, Pebble Creek, etc.) – all generally adding new collection
locations to one particular pick up day. The density and quantity of these additions may make the
Division’s infrequent (every five years or so) rebalancing attempts inadequate.
Moreover, the City of College Station is unique in its large university population. Since our
observations were made during the summer, routes may be particularly unbalanced due to student
vacancies. For instance, we estimated that only about 67 percent of residential carts were set out by
customers at the curb21 as opposed to typical set out rates of about 90 percent. In order to test this
further, our office plans on conducting a follow-up audit of Sanitation during Texas A&M’s school
year to better assess the impact students have on Sanitation’s operations.
21 This estimate is based on two residential cart route, where cans that were not at the curb but were visible were counted.
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 1 2 3 4 5 6MinutesResidential
Commercial
Sanitation Audit 23
Allowing commercial customers to control collection demand hinders route balancing. As a courtesy
to commercial customers, the Division allows them to decide what days and how frequently their
refuse is collected. While commercial customers are charged an increased monthly fee for more
frequent collections, this limits the Division’s scheduling flexibility. This is most apparent in
commercial dumpster service. While the City generally allows businesses with dumpsters to select
their own collection frequency and day, multi-family dumpster collections are scheduled by the
Division. The evidence of this unbalance can be seen in Table 15.
Table 15: Route Balance of Commercial Dumpster Service
Day of Week Number of Dumpsters
Multi-Family Business Total
Monday 181 426 607
Tuesday 226 249 419
Wednesday 144 319 460
Thursday 180 252 256
Friday 230 389 559
Saturday 183 238 424
Average: 191 312 454
Range: 86 188 351
Std. Dev.: 30 73 112
Though other factors affect commercial route balance (i.e. weight collected, distance between
locations, etc.), the number of dumpsters assigned to each route is most significant. Limiting when
and how frequently businesses can request collection, or charging a higher price for collection on
busier days may aid the Division in balancing these routes.
Mitigating Routing Risk has Unintended Consequences
Subjective routing decreases efficiency. Moreover, we found evidence that route managers do not
typically follow a designated heuristic route as defined by the EPA’s guidelines. While most
commercial vehicles have a route book on board, they first collect businesses and then must double
back to the assigned apartments due to the City noise ordinance (Sec. 7-2) that prohibits noise
exceeding 56 decibels in residential areas between 10 PM and 7 AM. Moreover, the route book is a
list of addresses, which is not necessarily ordered for efficiency or safety.
On the other hand, most residential routes do not have a route book on board. Instead route
managers must be knowledgeable about their area and then decide how it is best run. This not only
decreases efficiency, but can also put the driver at a higher level of risk (e.g. making more left-hand
turns, turning around more often and in hazardous conditions, stalling on-route because of
confusion, etc.). While employee experience can decrease the effects of this type of routing, spares
do not have this advantage – increasing the chance that carts will not be collected from some areas
of the City.
Sanitation Audit 24
Route manager synergy promotes Division efficiency. The Division recently hired a consultant to
develop route maps, which will aid route managers in their collections. Furthermore, the Division
has developed a policy that would place route managers at fault for any accidents they are involved
in that occur off-route – incentivizing route compliance. While this policy would limit the City’s
liability and may increase driver efficiency, there could be some unintended consequences.
Specifically, we noted route managers of some service types collected canisters assigned to other
drivers. Towards the end of the day, employees providing the same service would check in with each
other on the status of their routes. If an employee was running behind, another route manager
would typically aid them in finishing their route, enabling the Division to more quickly complete all
routes for each day. This also allows route managers to demonstrate their dedication to the
Division’s mission statement. Unfortunately, this new policy would discourage these cooperative
efforts.
Sanitation Audit 25
Recommendations
As exemplified in this report, the City’s Sanitation Division provides a high level of service to College
Station citizens including not only the frequency and type of collections offered, but also their
responsiveness to customers’ requests. This service level is not necessarily inappropriate, however,
it comes at a cost to the City. As mentioned previously, solid waste collection is an inherently
dangerous function and providing this level of service can result in employees making riskier
decisions. When faced with risk, an organization typically has three options: acceptance, mitigation,
or transference. There are advantages and disadvantages to all three; however, we will discuss
transference in more detail.
Transferring risk may allow the City to rid itself of potentially expensive personal injury and property
damage claims and could increase the City’s ability to respond to changes in technology. On the
other hand, the City must be willing to lose control over many operational facets if risk is
transferred. Specifically, the City may be unable to continue to offer citizens the same high service
level of solid waste management. For this reason, a thorough examination of costs and benefits is
necessary when examining risk transference.
This being said, the City may feel accepting the risks presented in this report is the best course of
action, however, if mitigation is chosen we have developed the following recommendations:
1. Investigate accountable routing methods. Recently, the City hired a consultant to develop
new routes. While this will help with route balancing, it does not ensure that routes will be
driven as designed. For this reason, we recommend investigating on-board computers for
Sanitation vehicles. These systems have many benefits including accountability for drivers
and customers, potential integration with billing, and turn-by-turn route directions. This
being said, on-board computers would require several operational changes to be most
effective including: placing customer service representatives as the main educator of
customers; changing policy to embolden drivers to leave obstructed canisters as defined by
the Division; and increasing scheduling flexibility through additional cross-training.
2. Develop stronger enforcement methods for obstructed canisters. Tagging residential carts
is not an effective deterrent to disregarding collection guidelines since carts are typically
collected anyway. For this reason, a process should be established that compels customers
to follow guidelines. For this process to be effective, the Division must communicate the
change in procedure to the public before it goes into effect, and an “obstruction” must be
clearly defined by the Division. This recommendation could be fulfilled through
recommendation 1.
3. Develop hiring guidelines based on route balancing. At this time, Sanitation typically
requests new positions once overtime exceeds a certain level, however, overtime is not a
Sanitation Audit 26
suitable method for identifying hiring needs. Instead the Division should develop route
balancing standards based on current collection times, heuristic guidelines, and managing
experience to signal a need for new route cycles, new employees, and investment in
equipment and vehicles.
4. Institute a hierarchal promotional system for route managers. The Division is currently
faced with short staffing issues, which are compounded by single-service drivers. Creating a
hierarchal system for route managers based on the vehicle types they can operate will
increase scheduling flexibility for the Division and may indicate employee motivation levels.
Moreover, this system could give employees a further sense of direction and growth in a
Division with few opportunities to advance.
5. Separate residential recycling and refuse collection days. Residential refuse and recycling
cart collection are negatively affected by same-day collection. Splitting the two collections
to separate days would increase efficiency for both the Sanitation Division and Brazos Valley
Recycling. This being said, adequate communication of this change is critical, and collection
information is currently difficult to find. It is key that the Division not only run
communication campaigns, but make collection information easier to locate if either the
recycling or refuse collection day is to be changed. These communications will help to
mitigate confusion and criticism from customers.
6. Review Sanitation’s role in the City’s construction and development process. Many City
construction standards delay the Division in their collection efforts. Currently, Sanitation
reviews some development plans before they are approved, but these comments are not
always fully incorporated into the final plan set. Greater consideration of Sanitation
requests and comparing the costs and benefits of some construction standards could
increase the Division’s efficiency.
7. Adjust commercial customer scheduling procedures to aid route balancing. As a courtesy,
the City allows commercial customers to control what day their refuse is collected, which
creates inconsistency in commercial routes throughout the week. Ending this practice would
help balance routes, however, we understand that some business may need collection on a
certain day. For this reason, an appeal process should be established to allow these
businesses to request a certain collection day.
8. Design and communicate videos addressing safety surrounding Sanitation vehicles to the
public. Sanitation has developed videos in the past to educate the public on collection
standards. We believe developing a video showing the risks Sanitation vehicles present
could increase pedestrian safety.
Sanitation Audit 27
Appendix A: Ride-a-Long Experiment
In our audit of Sanitation, we wanted to answer the following questions about each service type:
How efficient are they?
o How much time do obstructions add to routes?
o Do route managers have to dismount to deal with these obstructions?
o How much time does inappropriate garbage add to route times?
o How long do route managers spend off-route?
How effective are they?
o How many cans are route managers forced to leave behind?
o How many cans or piles do route managers return for?
o Why are these cans left or returned to?
To answer these questions, we conducted an experiment to identify the different obstacles
Sanitation’s route managers face and how they handle these obstacles. To do this, we observed
each of the following service types:
1. Commercial Dumpster (2 routes)
2. Commercial Cart (2 routes)
3. Commercial Roll Off (2 routes)
4. Residential Refuse Cart (9 routes)
5. Residential Large Bulk and Brush (2 routes)
6. Residential Small Bulk and Brush (1 route)
7. Residential Satellite (2 routes)
For this experiment, we used a stop watch, counter, and ride-a-long observation worksheets. The
uses for these items are further explained in the following pages. The most important is the ride-a-
long observation worksheet (a truncated example worksheet is shown below). We recorded all
experiment data in these worksheets as shown in the example. These terms and data points are
explained on the following pages.
Figure A-1: Ride-a-Long Observation Example Worksheet
# Category Time # Category Time # Category Time # Category Time # Category Time # Category Time
1 BLK - D 1.26 1 HIB – L 0.00 1 DIR – T 1.19 1 MNT 2.03 1 BLK - D 1.34 2 CAN 0.42
1 CON 3.45 1 OVL – L 0.00 1 BIN 0.46 1 OVL – D 10.27 1 POL – L 0.54 2 CON 4.36
1 CAN – T 2.01 1 CAR 0.29 1 BIN 0.39 1 CAR 3.02 2 CAN 0.25 2 DIR – D 1.15
WT Time CT
Trip 1 Trip 2 Trip 3 Trip 4 Trip 1: 11037 02:59 462
BREAK: 00:00 BREAK: 00:15 BREAK: 00:00 BREAK: Trip 2: 11489 03:03 487
TO: 00:23 TO: 00:25 TO: 00:24 TO: Trip 3: 598 01:36 239
LANDFILL: 00:13 LANDFILL: 00:19 LANDFILL: 00:14 LANDFILL: Trip 4:
BACK: 00:27 BACK: 00:26 BACK: 00:25 BACK: Total: 23124 07:38 1191
TOTAL: 01:03 TOTAL: 01:25 TOTAL: 01:03 TOTAL: Maintenance:
Sanitation Audit 28
Trip Totals: These can be seen at the bottom of Figure A-1 in the right hand corner.
Trip – consists of all activities and time between leaving the
garage in the morning to when the collected waste is dumped at
the landfill. Subsequent trips will start when a truck is back in-
service (picks up its first new canister, bulk, or brush pile).
WT – the total weight in tons that a truck collects during a trip.
For most trucks, the drivers will receive a receipt indicating the
weight they were carrying upon entering the landfill.
Time – the total time it takes for a driver to make one complete trip, starting either from the
garage (trip 1 only) to beginning a subsequent trip or from beginning a subsequent trip returning
to returning to the garage. Time-keeping starts over for each new trip, and is recorded as
hh:mm.
CT – the total number of canisters, bulk, or brush piles collected in one trip. Counting starts over
for each new trip and a running tally is kept on the counter.
Maintenance – the amount of time route managers spend cleaning and performing work on
their truck at the end of the day after their routes are complete.
Out of Service Time Calculations: This section can be seen on the bottom of the table starting from
the left. They are labeled with trip (as defined previously) numbers. All times in this section are
recorded as hh:mm.
BREAK – recorded any time drivers are not actively picking up canisters or driving to the next
area (EX, lunch break).
TO – recorded time it takes from the last pickup to when the truck enters the landfill (passes
through the gates).
LANDFILL – recorded total time it takes for the truck to enter the landfill (pass into the gates),
dump its load, and exit the landfill (pass out the gates).
BACK – recorded time it takes from exiting the landfill gates to when the truck begins its next
round of pickups or returns to the garage.
TOTAL – the total out of
service time taken by the
driver (includes the TO,
LANDFILL, BACK, and
BREAK times).
Obstruction Observations: This section consists of most of the worksheet and is on top of the other
two sections – a small example is shown on the next page. This consists of six columns of forty-five
observation slots on the front and six columns of 50 observation slots on the back, as well as an area
for the auditor’s name, the date, and the route.
# – this number indicates the trip number during which the observation
was noted.
Category – indicates the type of obstruction the route manager
encountered. A list of obstruction codes is provided below. An
obstruction code reference sheet was attached to the clip board
Sanitation Audit 29
auditors took into the field.
Time – indicates the amount of time taken for the route manager to handle an obstacle. These
were timed using a stop watch and were recorded as mm.ss.
Table A-1: Obstruction Codes
Code Description Code Description
CAR Indicates cars or other modes of
transportation
CON Indicates construction work
CAN Indicates garbage cans or dumpsters OVL Indicates an overloaded can or
dumpster
BIN Indicates recycling bins DIR Indicates can was positioned
incorrectly
BLK Indicates bulky items HIB Indicates inappropriate or
prohibited items in can or dumpster
POL Indicates telephone poles or
mailboxes
MNT Indicates maintenance on the truck
while in the field
HIT Indicates truck has hit an obstacle
(ex: gas/water line, mailbox, car, etc.)
OTH Indicates any obstruction not listed
To indicate a can was left place a “- L” on the code
To indicate the driver dismounted due to an obstacle place a “- D” on the code
To indicate a can was tagged (implies a dismount) place a “- T” on the code
Residential Cart Regression: After completing the ride-a-long experiment observations, we entered
and verified the data collected into a spreadsheet by service type. The number of obstructions and
pickups by each service is recorded in Table 4 in the report. We then wanted to estimate the effects
of each obstruction type on residential cart collection based on the codes identified in Table A-1.
Table A-2 shows a summary of each code.
Table A-2: Residential Cart Obstruction Summary
Obstruction Num.
Left
Num.
Dismounted
Num.
Tagged Total % of Total
Pickups
Car 1 12 0 77 0.92%
Can 0 18 0 244 2.90%
Bin 0 28 0 530 6.30%
Bulk 0 0 0 6 0.07%
Mailbox or Pole 0 0 0 16 0.19%
Hit 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Construction 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Overloaded 1 15 1 246 2.93%
Direction 3 20 0 53 0.63%
Prohibited Item 1 5 1 29 0.34%
Other 2 7 0 30 0.36%
Total: 8 104 2 1,214 14.44%
% of Total Pickups: 0.10% 1.24% 0.02% 14.44% 8,409
We added a variable for each obstruction type (except “Other” due to multicollinearity), along with
indicating if a canister was left, tagged, or if a route manager had to dismount. In this way, we
Sanitation Audit 30
accounted for all these factors and were able to estimate the effects of each obstruction type
individually. The table below shows a simplified regression output.
Table A-3: Regression Output
Regression Coefficients Regression Statistic
Coefficients P Value Multiple R 0.5608
Intercept 0.46 0.0000 R Square 0.3145
Tagged 1.32 0.0000 Adjusted R Square 0.3082
Left -0.31 0.0028 Standard Error 0.2449
Dismount 0.53 0.0000 Observations 1214.0000
CAR -0.22 0.0000 F Statistics 50.1365
CAN -0.19 0.0000 Significance F 0.0000
BIN -0.22 0.0000
BLK -0.24 0.0234
POL -0.22 0.0022
OVL -0.24 0.0000
DIR -0.22 0.0000
HIB -0.23 0.0001
It is important to note that the coefficients above represent time in minutes (i.e. the intercept
equals 28 seconds). For this reason, we have included Table A-4 below with coefficients converted
into seconds.
Table A-4: Average Seconds
Obstruction Seconds Obstruction Seconds Obstruction Seconds
CAR 14 POL 14 OTH (Intercept) 28
CAN 16 OVL 13 Tagged 107
BIN 14 DIR 14 Left 9
BLK 13 HIB 14 Dismount 59
Sanitation Audit 31
Appendix B: Management Responses
TO: Ty Elliott, City Internal Auditor
THROUGH: Kelly Templin, City Manager
FROM: Donald Harmon, PE, PMP, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Management Response to Sanitation Audit
DATE: October 16, 2017
The following is the response from the Public Works Department to the recommendations made in
the Sanitation Audit Report by the City Auditor’s Office. Each of the eight recommendations includes
a response describing how the recommendation will be addressed by the Public Works Department.
1. Investigate accountable routing methods. Recently, the City hired a consultant to develop new
routes. While this will help with route balancing, it does not ensure that routes will be driven as
designed. For this reason, we recommend investigating on-board computers for Sanitation vehicles.
These systems have many benefits including accountability for drivers and customers, potential
integration with billing, and turn-by-turn route directions. This being said, on-board computers
would require several operational changes to be most effective including: placing customer service
representatives as the main educator of customers; changing policy to embolden drivers to leave
obstructed canisters as defined by the Division; and increasing scheduling flexibility through
additional cross-training.
Management Response:
Management concurs with this recommendation. The division will investigate on-board computer
systems and associated operational changes in order to improve safety, accountability, and
efficiency in solid waste operations.
2. Develop stronger enforcement methods for obstructed canisters. Tagging residential carts is not
an effective deterrent to disregarding collection guidelines since carts are typically collected
anyway. For this reason, a process should be established that compels customers to follow
guidelines. For this process to be effective, the Division must communicate the change in procedure
to the public before it goes into effect, and an “obstruction” must be clearly defined by the Division.
This recommendation could be fulfilled through recommendation 1.
Management Response:
Management somewhat concurs with this recommendation and will be investigating best practices
in the industry to determine an effective method of communicating collection guidelines. However,
regardless of the reason for an uncollected cart, returning for collection of that cart is a customer
service issue and prevents issues with the next scheduled collection.
Sanitation Audit 32
3. Develop hiring guidelines based on route balancing. At this time, Sanitation typically requests
new positions once overtime exceeds a certain level, however, overtime is not a suitable method for
identifying hiring needs. Instead the Division should develop route balancing standards based on
current collection times and industry guidelines to signal a need for new route cycles, new
employees, and investment in equipment and vehicles.
Management Response:
Management concurs with this recommendation. Staff will research industry best management
practices to revise hiring guidelines to reflect metrics associated with route balancing.
4. Institute a hierarchal promotional system for route managers. The Division is currently faced
with short staffing issues, which are compounded by single-service drivers. Creating a hierarchal
system for route managers based on the vehicle types they can operate will increase scheduling
flexibility for the Division and may indicate employee motivation levels. Moreover, this system could
give employees a further sense of direction and growth in a Division with few opportunities to
advance.
Management Response:
Management concurs with this recommendation. The division is working on a hierarchal system by
updating job descriptions that will allow employees to advance based on their ability to operate
different vehicle types.
5. Separate residential recycling and refuse collection days. Residential refuse and recycling cart
collection are negatively affected by same-day collection. Splitting the two collections to separate
days would increase efficiency for both the Sanitation Division and Brazos Valley Recycling. This
being said, adequate communication of this change is critical, and collection information is currently
difficult to find. It is key that the Division not only run communication campaigns, but make
collection information easier to locate if either the recycling or refuse collection day is to be
changed. These communications will help to mitigate confusion and criticism from customers.
Management Response:
Management concurs with this recommendation. Dual collection schedules were initially
implemented for citizen convenience. The division conducts a city wide balancing project every five
years in order to help balance collection routes between all operations. The next city wide balance
will occur around mid-year of 2018. As part of this city wide project, the division plans to separate
recycling days from refuse days in order increase efficiency in both areas.
6. Review Sanitation’s role in the City’s construction and development process. Many City
construction standards delay the Division in their collection efforts. Currently, Sanitation reviews
some development plans before they are approved, but these comments are not always fully
incorporated into the final plan set. Greater consideration of Sanitation requests and comparing the
costs and benefits of some construction standards could increase the Division’s efficiency.
Management Response:
Management concurs with this recommendation. Some examples of standards that hinder
collections are cul-de-sac streets that are not wide enough for our collection vehicles to make a
complete turn without backing up and dumpster enclosures that have been grandfathered from the
Sanitation Audit 33
old conventional rear load collection system that the city used prior to moving to an automated
system. Sanitation staff will continue to communicate with planners on changes to the design
guidelines and standards needed for efficient and effective solid waste collection operations.
7. Adjust commercial customer scheduling procedures to aid route balancing. As a courtesy, the
City allows commercial customers to control what day their refuse is collected, which creates
inconsistency in commercial routes throughout the week. Ending this practice would help balance
routes, however, we understand that some business may need collection on a certain day. For this
reason, an appeal process should be established to allow these businesses to request a certain
collection day.
Management Response:
Management concurs with this recommendation. Staff will be investigating various methods to
balance the commercial customer demand across the work week.
8. Design and communicate videos addressing safety surrounding Sanitation vehicles to the public.
Sanitation has developed videos in the past to educate the public on collection standards. We
believe developing a video showing the risks Sanitation vehicles present could increase pedestrian
safety.
Management Response:
Management concurs with this recommendation. Staff will be working closely with our Public
Communications department to develop educational videos with the intent of improving pedestrian
and vehicular safety.
City Hall
1101 Texas Ave
College Station, TX 77840
College Station, TX
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:217-0640 Name:Presentation, possible action and discussion
regarding the creation of an Architectural Advisory
Committee
Status:Type:Presentation Agenda Ready
File created:In control:10/18/2017 City Council Regular
On agenda:Final action:
Title:Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the creation of an Architectural Advisory
Committee.
Sponsors:Tanya McNutt
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the creation of an Architectural Advisory
Committee.
Relationship to Strategic Goals:
Good Governance
Recommendation(s):
Summary: Based on feedback given at the October 2, 2017 special Council Meeting, staff is bringing
forward an item to discuss the creation and composition of an Architectural Advisory Committee.
Budget & Financial Summary: N/A
Attachments:
College Station, TX Printed on 10/20/2017Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™