Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA040 - Residential Curbside Recycling Program Limited Alley Opt-Out CriteriaITEM #:43 DATE:10-13-26 DEPT:PW SUBJECT:OPT-OUT ELIGIBILITY FOR ALLEY-ADJACENT CURBSIDE RECYCLING CUSTOMERS COUNCIL ACTION FORM BACKGROUND: At its August 25, 2026, meeting, the City Council was presented with a Council Action Form (see attached) regarding alternatives for residential curbside recycling collection in alleys. The Council directed staff to continue with recycling services as-is and to prepare modifications to the recycling program ordinance allowing alley-adjacent customers to opt-out of paying the mandatory monthly fee in limited circumstances. The opt-out eligibility criteria discussed at the August 25 meeting were (all five must be met to be eligible): 1. The property must abut an alley, 2. The property must not have a driveway access that goes to a street frontage, 3. The property must receive garbage collection (if any) in the alley, 4. The property must have a physical impediment that does not allow access from the alley of the property to the front of the property (e.g., a fence with no gate, landscaping with no pathway, zero lot line building, etc.). The absence of a paved or establish path does not meet this criteria (a cart can be moved through a grass side yard), and 5. The nearest property line must be more than 60 feet from the curb line of the nearest street frontage, measured along the alley (this is approximately the median distance from the garage door to the curb of a random sample of Ames residential properties). In the time since the August 25 meeting, staff has closely evaluated each of the 913 properties that are in alley-adjacent blocks. Staff used aerial and street-level photography and conducted in-person investigations where necessary to better understand the potential impacts and to be prepared for questions from individual property owners. Based on the five criteria originally discussed on August 25, only three of the 913 affected properties would be eligible to opt-out. Because the criteria would result in so few properties being eligible, staff is recommending that the City Council consider modifying the criteria before the draft ordinance is prepared to provide additional latitude for customers whose properties present challenges to curbside service. Staff is now recommending modified criteria to be eligible to opt-out of the curbside recycling program and its associated fee: 1 1. The property must abut an alley, 2. The property must not have a primary driveway access that goes to a street frontage ("primary" means the only driveway if only one driveway exists, or the driveway connecting to the garage if more than one exists), and 3. The property must not be receiving recycling collection service in an alley. Removing items 3 through 5 from the original criteria would eliminate concerns regarding how physical impediments are interpreted (such as slopes or landscaping materials), whether access paths currently exist, and whether those paths would need to be created and maintained during the winter. There are a handful of affected properties that have driveways both on the street-side and the alley-side. Adding the concept of a primary driveway (one that leads to a garage or generally serves as the location where vehicles are parked) allows each property to be evaluated based on how it is currently utilized rather than on access scenarios that may not reflect the practical use of the property. The addition of clarifying that the property must not be receiving recycling collection service in an alley is intended for those alley customers where Aspen has agreed to collect recycling in the alley with their Automated Side Loading equipment. Those properties would not be eligible to opt-out of the monthly fee. The elimination of the garbage collection, physical impediment, and distance requirements would expand the number of properties that could qualify for the opt-out from 3 to as many as 333 of the 913 properties. This more closely aligns with the proportion of properties that staff had originally envisioned would be eligible for opt- out. Additionally, prior to the August 25 meeting, staff and/or City Council had received communication from 27 alley-adjacent properties expressing concern about the recycling pickup location. Under the modified criteria shown above, 24 of those 27 properties would have the opportunity to opt out if they so desired. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance allowing recycling opt-out if the property: a) abuts an alley, b) does not have a primary driveway access that goes to a street frontage, and 3) is not receiving recycling collection service in the alley (estimated 333 opt-out eligible properties). Once prepared, staff may request completing the readings of the ordinance in an expedited fashion to avoid further delay in offering the opt-out options. 2. Direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance allowing recycling opt-out based on the five criteria discussed August 25 (estimated 3 opt-out eligible properties). 3. Direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance using another combination of eligibility criteria as identified by City Council. 4. Refer this item back to staff for further information. 2 CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: After completing a detailed property-by-property review, the original criteria suggested by staff in August to allow for alley-adjacent customers to opt-out of the recycling program and fee in certain circumstances resulted in very few properties being eligible to opt-out. Staff believes a modified set of criteria more closely meets the intent of the City Council to provide relief from paying the fee in circumstances where participation in the curbside program is truly impractical. The revised criteria allows for an opt-out for the majority of alley-adjacent customers who have contacted the City with concerns about the pickup location. Directing staff to modify the language will allow staff to bring back a revised ordinance for consideration at a future date. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 1 as described above. ATTACHMENT(S): Alley Recycling CAF August 25 2026.pdf Draft Ordinance Recycling Opt-out.pdf 3 ITEM #:37 DATE:08-25-26 DEPT:PW SUBJECT:UPDATE ON RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE RECYCLING COLLECTION - ALLEYS COUNCIL ACTION FORM BACKGROUND: On March 10, 2026, the City Council awarded a contract to Aspen Waste Systems of Iowa, of Ames, IA to begin residential curbside recycling collection. Service began on July 2, 2026 to all single-family and multi-family properties of up to four or fewer units. This totals 13,461 properties in the City of Ames. Under the contract, the City pays Aspen for each eligible property whether the household chooses to participate in the program or not. Therefore, the fee charged by the City to the eligible properties ($7.75 per month) is likewise charged whether the household participates or not. Aspen relies on the use of automated side-loading (ASL) trucks for the program. This equipment utilizes a robotic arm to reach the recycling cart, lift, and tip it into the hopper of the truck. The cart is then lowered and replaced at the curbside. This allows the ASL trucks to be operated by a single driver and provide highly cost-effective service delivery. In comparison, garbage service in the community is provided by separate private haulers. Those haulers that collect garbage in alleys use rear-load collection trucks for that purpose. These trucks can be significantly smaller and rely on both a driver and helper,. The helper physically moves the carts from curbside to the semi-automated lifter on the back of the truck, then returns the emptied cart back to the curb. As the recycling collection program began in July 2026, it became apparent that servicing the recycling carts was an issue for customers whose properties were located along alleys. After carts were delivered, these customers were instructed to place their carts along the street side for collection (not in the alley). To date, staff has received concerns from 27 residents about not being able to have their recycling carts serviced in an alley. An additional eight customers who have alley access have voluntarily chosen to opt-out of the collection program and have had their cart removed. These include residents that have reached out to City Council members in addition to staff. ALLEY CHARACTERISTICS AND CHALLENGES There are 82 city blocks that have alley access. These 82 blocks contain roughly 1,000 total properties. The type of access varies from property-to-property. Even in the same alley there can be a mix of properties that have: 1 4 1. Alley access, but no street access, 2. Street access, but no physical alley access (the property does not physically abut the alley), 3. Street access, but no practical alley access (the property touches the alley, but the garage faces the street and the yard is separated from the garage by fencing or landscaping), or 4. Both alley access and street access. The result is that there are only a few alleys where "all street" or "all alley" service will be satisfactory to the residents. Thus, finding a solution that not only meets the needs and preference of all customers while balancing the efficiency and cost for collection is difficult. Additionally, operating the recycling trucks in some of the alleys is physically impossible or is significantly challenging to do so safely. These physical and safety issues include: 1. Most of the alleys have overhead power and communication lines, which interfere with the ability of the trucks to safely lift the recycling containers. 2. Many alleys are also only slightly wider than the collection trucks and contain encroachments such as fences, landscaping, or temporary obstructions such as parked vehicles. 3. Some blocks have T-shaped alleys, where one segment of the alley continues through to the next street but the other segment dead ends without enough room to turn the truck, thus requiring dangerous backing maneuvers. 4. Some of the alleys are complete dead-ends, resulting in the same issue with backing the large vehicle up. EXPLORATION OF SOLUTIONS: With the noted concerns regarding alley access, staff engaged with Aspen to find methods to serve the alley customers under the terms of the collection contract. The contract does contemplate that there will be properties that are required to be picked up in alleys. Aspen's RFP proposal also indicated that most alleys would be able to be served with their equipment. Following the initial discussions, Aspen has agreed to collect from the alleys in 13 of the 82 blocks where alleys exist. These are primarily alleys that have been more recently reconstructed (and therefore benefit from a better-defined pavement area and fewer encroachments) or those that are newer and, therefore, meet modern alley width standards. Aspen will utilize its ASL trucks to do so. Since the program start in July, City staff and Aspen have walked or driven each of the alleys, tested driving large trucks through select alleys, and reviewed aerial and street-level photography to identify driveway locations and obstructions. Although Staff and Aspen have worked to find solutions to address the remaining alleys, there remain concerns about whether Aspen can serve all of the remaining alley-adjacent customers from the alleys due to inefficiencies in routing, additional time required due to physical constraints of equipment, and 2 5 risk/damage to property that is likely to occur from operating in the alleys. It is important to note that during these discussions, Aspen has remained engaged in finding solutions that meet the needs of residents. They continue to be an active partner in working through the challenges. Additionally, it has become clear through the discussions that providing a blended service (redundant alley collection and street collection on the same block to match all possible resident preferences) for all 82 affected blocks would be infeasible due to the logistical and cost impacts. Staff is now presenting four alternatives from which the Council could choose to address alley-adjacent customers. Once an approach is identified, staff will work customer-by-customer to communicate cart location options that are acceptable for pickup. The four alternatives are: Alternative 1: CONTINUE WITH CURBSIDE SERVICE AS-IS (Street-side only, except for the 13 blocks where Aspen can serve the alleys with ASL trucks) No change to any current service locations (all service remains curbside except for 13 alleys that are currently serviced) No change to the contracted price with Aspen No improvement for the 27 properties that have expressed concern that their recycling should or must be collected in the alley. Alley-adjacent residents would need to find a way to place their cart at the curbside. This could either be in front of their house or they could bring their cart down the alley to the right of way where the alley meets the street. However, t here are concerns this approach could continue to be challenging during winter months when the right of way is used for snow storage. There are likely more than the 27 known properties that have alley concerns. However, by observation over the past two months, many properties that do have alley access are continuing to bring carts to the curbside for service. This option would provide the most predictable service outcome and consistency from the start of the program as there would be no changes to the location of the service for any property in the program. Alternative 2: APPROACH THE ISSUE IN THE SAME MANNER AS ALTERNATIVE 1, BUT IDENTIFY LIMITED CRITERIA TO ALLOW FOR A FULL OPT-OUT OF THE FEE No change to any current service locations (all service remains curbside except for 13 alleys that are currently serviced) No change to the contracted price with Aspen No improvement for the 27 properties that have expressed concern that their recycling should or must be collected in the alley. Staff prepares an amendment to the curbside recycling ordinance that would allow for certain alley-adjacent customers to opt out of the program and paying the mandatory $7.75 per month recycling fee. The opt-out of paying the fee would provide relief for customers who do not have a reasonable way to participate in the program, even through taking the container a short distance to the nearest street frontage. Staff proposes that the only properties that 3 6 would be eligible to opt out of the fee would be those that meet the following requirements: 1. The property must abut an alley. 2. The property must not have a driveway access that goes to a street frontage. 3. The property must receive garbage collection (if any) in the alley. 4. The property must have a physical impediment that does not allow access from the alley of the property to the front of the property (e.g., a fence with no gate, landscaping with no pathway, zero lot line building, etc.). The absence of a paved or establish path does not meet this criteria (a cart can be moved through a grass side yard). 5. The nearest property line must be more than 60 feet from the curb line of the nearest street frontage, measured along the alley (this is approximately the median distance from the garage door to the curb of a random sample of Ames residential properties). Staff believes that this evaluation would provide a equitable review for those properties that simply cannot be serviced at the curbside due to limitations in the layout of the property. It is important to note that the City remains liable to Aspen for the payment of the contracted monthly collection fee for each eligible customer. This amount is $4.00 per month in the first year of the contract, escalating annually. Therefore, the loss of $7.75 in revenue plus the payment obligation of $4.00 to Aspen results in a net cost to the recycling program of $141 per household per year. Staff is not certain how many eligible properties would exercise the right to opt out of the fee. For illustrative purposes, of the approximately 1,000 alley-adjacent customers, roughly half are primarily accessed via the alleys and not the street frontage. Assuming half again of those (250) met the requirements and requested exclusions, staff estimates the net loss to the recycling program to be $35,250 in the first year. Alternative 3: CONTINUE WITH CURBSIDE SERVICE AND ADD IN TARGETED ALLEY SERVICE 13 alleys that are currently serviced in the alley remain served via the alley An additional 29 alleys convert from curbside to alley service All other blocks remain curbside only Cost increase of $40,383 for each year of the Aspen contract Improvement for 19 of the 27 properties that have expressed concern that their recycling should or must be collected in the alley. Aspen would use its larger ASL trucks to serve these additional alleys. The majority of these alleys run north-to-south. As such there would not be curbside service on those blocks that have alley service. However, because of the manner in which Aspen's trucks are routed across town, any property fronting on an east-west street would continue to receive service curbside. Corner lots that do not have alley access would be asked to place carts on the east-west street side of their property in order to continue receiving curbside service. Additionally, there would be at least 15 properties that would be asked to place their carts in a pickup location that is one to two properties away in order to be serviced either curbside or in the alley. This is necessary because there is a small number of lots that front on a north-south street but are in the middle of a block, and do not abut 4 7 the alley (see attached presentation for examples). Staff would reach out individually to those properties to aid in identifying locations for curbside service. There are likely properties in these blocks identified for alley service that are currently satisfied with their curbside service and would not want to switch to alley service. This may result in creating an even larger number of complaints by converting to all alley- service as opposed to the current all-street service! Staff does not have an estimate as to the number of those properties. Eight properties that have communicated with the City about a lack of alley access would still not have alley access under this alternative. This is primarily due to one of two factors: either 1) the alley is a dead-end or tee that does not allow for the ASL equipment to operate all the way through the alley without a dangerous backing operation, or 2) the property is the only location within that block requiring alley service, whereas all the neighbors in that block have street access. As in Alternative 2, the Council could create criteria in conjunction with this alternative to exclude some individual properties from the monthly fee for the residential curbside recycling program. Alternative 3 would require a contract amendment with Aspen for an additional cost of $0.25 per customer per month. The increased fee applies to all eligible properties (13,461 citywide), resulting in a cost increase of $40,383 for each year of the contract. The additional expense can be absorbed into the current $7.75 per month fee structure and would not require an immediate change of recycling rates charged to residents. Staff believes that rates can remain stable for several years before potentially needing adjustment to maintain adequate fund balance to cover program expenses. This is, however, highly dependent on fuel costs, which are variable with the market during the term of the contract and which are currently high. Removing some vegetation and other obstructions, and trimming trees is likely necessary for this alternative to work. The majority of this vegetation is located on private property, where trimming is the responsibility of each property owner. Staff would need to work with each property owner on a case-by-case basis, which may delay the start of service in the alleys. ALTERNATIVE 4: PROVIDE ALLEY-ONLY SERVICE IN ALL BLOCKS WITH ALLEYS All 82 blocks with alleys convert to alley-only service Cost increase of $80,766 for each year of the Aspen contract Improvement for all 27 properties that have expressed concern that their recycling should or must be collected in the alley. Aspen would add rear-load equipment to its service delivery, which would be used only for the purpose of servicing the alleys. Because the contract requires reliable collection, Aspen would need to dedicate a backup rear-load truck to recycling collection. As described earlier, rear-load service is more labor- and cost-intensive than automated side-loader service. Similar to Alternative 3, the east-west streets would continue to be serviced at the curbside. 5 8 Any corner lots would need to place carts along an east-west street. No streetside service would occur on north-south streets. This alternative would be able to service all 27 of the properties that reached out regarding alley service. This approach, however, would change the service location for at least 400 of the approximately 1,000 properties that are adjacent to alleys. Those properties would need to find a way to move their carts to the alley or to a nearby east- west street in order to be serviced. As with Alternative 3, this may result in creating more problems than it resolves! Alternative 4 would require a contract amendment with Aspen for an additional cost of $0.50 per customer per month. The increased fee applies to all eligible properties (13,461 citywide), resulting in a cost increase of $80,766 for each year of the contract. The additional expense would likely require an adjustment to recycling rates in Year 2 or Year 3 of the program to maintain an adequate fund balance. There would also likely be additional vegetative maintenance required of adjacent property owners, though not as extensive because rear-load trucks are smaller when compared to an ASL truck. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Direct staff to continue with recycling services as-is. 2. Direct staff to continue with recycling services as-is and to prepare modifications to the recycling program ordinance allowing alley-adjacent customers to opt out of paying the mandatory monthly fee in limited circumstances (estimated loss of up to $35,250 annually to the recycling program). 3. Approve a change order with Aspen Waste Services of Iowa in the amount of $40,383 to provide alley service for 29 additional alley-adjacent blocks. 4. Approve a change order with Aspen Waste Services of Iowa in the amount of $80,766 to provide alley service only for all 82 alley-adjacent blocks. CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION: Providing the curbside recycling service to customers on city blocks that contain alleys has proven to be a significant logistical challenge. There is no consistency from block to block regarding the residential properties that have access to alleys, access to the street frontage, or both. Serving these customers in each of their preferred locations (alley or street frontage) would result in a substantial number of increased collection truck trips. This, in turn, would 1) increase costs to the overall program in a manner that would necessitate premature customer rate increases and 2) present safety and property protection challenges. The solutions involving conversion of some or all of the alley-adjacent blocks may address the concerns received to date from several dozen residents. However, staff is concerned that such a conversion would generate a new batch of communications from customers that are satisfied with the current collection approach (streetside) and become dissatisfied with the 6 9 alternative (alley collection). The approach that maximizes the potential customer satisfaction without creating significant risks for the overall program costs or creating a new set of dissatisfied customers is the approach described in Alternative 2. Staff will continue to regularly meet with Aspen to discuss ways in which the recycling service can be effectively and efficiently delivered to residents. Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt Alternative No. 2, as described above. ATTACHMENT(S): Recycling_Alley_Update.pptx 7 10 ORDINANCE NO. ____ AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF AMES, IOWA, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 10 THEREOF, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING LIMITED ALLEY COLLECTION OPT-OUT FOR SOME CUSTOMERS REPEALING ANY AND ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH CONFLICT; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ENACTED, by the City Council for the City of Ames, Iowa, that: Section One. The Municipal Code of the City of Ames, Iowa shall be and the same is hereby amended by amending Chapter 10 as follows: “ CHAPTER 10 GARBAGE, REFUSE AND RECYCLING *** Sec. 10.27. RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE RECYCLING COLLECTION. *** (4) Limited Alley Collection Opt-Out. Notwithstanding Sections 10.27(2) and 10.27(3) above, a single-family residence or unit of a multi-family residence containing not more than four (4) units shall be entitled to elect not to receive a receptacle for recyclable materials and be relieved of the responsibility to pay for the recycling service if all of the following criteria are met for that residence: (a) the property abuts an alley; (b) the property does not contain a primary driveway that connects to a street frontage. For the purposes of this subsection, the primary driveway shall be considered the only driveway if only one driveway exists, or the driveway connecting to the garage if more than one driveway exists; (c) if the property receives garbage collection services from a private hauler, the garbage collection must occur in the alley; (d) the property must contain a physical impediment that does not allow a recycling cart to be moved from the adjacent alley to the front curb of the property (including but not limited to obstructions such as a fence with no gate, landscaping other than turfgrass across the width of the lot, structures, or a combination thereof); and (e) the distance from the nearest property line to the nearest curb, as measured along the alley, is greater than sixty (60) feet. ” Section Two. All ordinances, or parts of ordinances, in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict, if any. Section Three. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law. Passed this day of , . 11 _____________________________ ___________________________ John A. Haila, Mayor First Reading: Second Reading: Third Reading: Passed on: I, Renee Hall, City Clerk of the City of Ames, Iowa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of Ordinance No. ______________, passed by the City Council of said City at the meeting held on ______________________and signed by the Mayor on ___________________________, and published in the Ames Tribune on ___________________________. ________________________________ Renee Hall, City Clerk 12