Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAudit Reports - Public - Bulk Trash Performance Audit - 3/19/2025 This report is intended for the internal use of the City of Glendale, and may not be provided to, used, or relied upon by any third parties. Proprietary & Confidential FINAL REPORT City of Glendale BULK TRASH P ERFORMANCE AUDIT March 19, 2025 Moss Adams LLP 999 Third Avenue, Suite 2800 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 302-6500 Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 A. Introduction 1 B. Statement of Compliance with Standards 1 C. Conclusions 1 D. Commendations 3 Introduction 4 A. Introduction 4 B. Background 4 C. Objectives 4 D. Scope and Methodology 5 Findings and Recommendations 6 Appendix A: Definitions of Assessment Finding Rankings 25 Appendix B: Peer Benchmarking 26 Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 1 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As a part of the fiscal year (FY) 2025 City of Glendale, Arizona (the City) internal audit program, Moss Adams LLP conducted a performance audit to assess bulk trash services within the City’s Solid Waste Division (the Division). The objectives of this performance audit were to: • Review costs of bulk trash services to determine what percentage of Division costs the bulk trash program comprises • Assess opportunities for reducing operational costs of bulk trash services while maintaining customer satisfaction • Evaluate a transition away from a monthly bulk trash pickup to potentially appointment only or reduced frequency of bulk trash pickup to quarterly or semi-annually, including consideration for how the percentage of households using bulk trash services might be impacted • Review staffing (including overtime pay), fuel costs, acquisition and maintenance of vehicles and equipment, and rates charged for services when considering efficiencies in bulk trash pickup • Analyze the current collection schedule and enforcement activities for efficiencies • Compare bulk trash services, fees, fines, and rates to similarly situated cities in the Valley To complete this performance audit, Moss Adams analyzed tonnage trends, enforcement and accident data, rules and guidance documentation, and bulk trash costs. We interviewed those involved in bulk trash within the Division to understand current practices and challenges. To complete our analysis, we conducted peer benchmarking with five cities in the region and researched industry best practices to inform our recommendations. This engagement was performed in accordance with Standards for Consulting Services established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Accordingly, we provide no opinion, attestation, or other form of assurance with respect to our work or the information upon which our work is based. This engagement was also performed consistent with the guidance issued by the Institute of Internal Auditor’s (IIA’s) Global Internal Audit Standards (GIAS). This report was developed based on information gained from our interviews and analysis of sample documentation. The following findings assess the City’s bulk trash program risks and inefficiencies from the program schedule, illegal dumping, bulk trash rules, and enforcement of the program. Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 2 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY Recommendations are intended to help the Division improve operational efficiency and effectiveness. All findings are ranked as medium-rated findings. Refer to Appendix A for definitions of finding rankings. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MEDIUM-RATED FINDINGS 1. Finding The City’s current bulk trash collection schedule is reportedly appreciated by residents but presents several inefficiencies including increased staffing needs, inefficient collection processes, off-week inefficiencies, and unbalanced boundaries. Recommendations A. Consider switching to an appointment-based collection schedule to enable increased planning, resulting in potential cost savings from more predictable staff needs, collection routes, and reduced off-week constraints. B. Rebalance collection sections to even out the volume of tonnage collected each week. 2. Finding Illegal dumping is a challenge in the City, which can result in additional costs, service delays, and can impact the reputation of the City. Recommendations A. Consider setting up security monitoring or adding signage, landscaping, or public art in areas most prone to illegal dumping. B. Analyze the illegal dumping contract and consider if it’s still cost-effective to contract out this service and, if so, which division should manage the contract to ensure contractor performance. 3. Finding Changes and clarifications to the bulk trash program rules could enhance operational efficiency. Recommendations A. Continue efforts to update the Code including requirements around containment, object size, and placement of piles. B. Consider changes around pile size and prohibiting items such as construction materials and glass to align with peers, provide clarity to residents, and improve collection efficiencies. 4. Finding The City’s enforcement efforts appear to be ineffective due to the enforcement fee, enforcement list process, inspector capacity, and the process for charging fees. Recommendations A. Conduct a rate study to assess if the enforcement fee should be increased to account for the applicable costs and is at a level that discourages residents from violating bulk trash rules. Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 3 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS B. Continue educating residents and enforcing bulk trash rules to prevent repeat violations and reduce the number of enforcements. C. Consider dedicating some Code Enforcement staff to bulk trash enforcement who will work with inspectors to hold residents accountable for bulk trash rules. D. Document the process for waiving or not charging the enforcement fee to ensure the process is understood by staff and consistently applied. Although the focus of this performance audit was to identify opportunities for improvement, it is important to note the areas of commendable operations. The Division should be commended for the following accomplishments: • Adaptability: The Division is committed to improving the efficiency of the bulk trash program. For instance, staff reported Division leadership regularly reviews its collection methods and equipment to ensure it is using the most up-to-date and effective processes. Adaptability is essential for maintaining program effectiveness and meeting the evolving needs of the community. • Customer Satisfaction: The Division demonstrates a strong commitment to customer service and consistently prioritizes responsiveness to customer needs. • Education Efforts: The Division places a strong emphasis on customer education to promote customer awareness of bulk trash rules. For example, the Division mails out bulk trash magnets with the City’s bulk trash schedule to residents annually. The Division also maintains a bulk trash website with information about the program, including rules and regulations. Finally, Division provides regular updates about the program through the City’s social media account. We would like to thank Division staff and leadership for their willingness to assist with this project. Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 4 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY INTRODUCTION The City contracted Moss Adams to conduct a performance audit of bulk trash services within the City’s Solid Waste Division. We assessed the bulk trash program and services, performed a peer cities comparison, and conducted best practice research to develop our findings and recommendations. This performance audit was conducted as part of the FY 2025 Annual Audit Plan developed by the City’s Independent Internal Audit Program (IIAP). Our performance audit took place between October 2024 and February 2025. Refer to Appendix A for definitions of finding rankings. The City’s Solid Waste Division provides street sweeping services, collects residential and commercial trash on set daily/weekly schedules, and picks up bulk trash as a separate task each month. Historically, bulk trash pickup and overall solid waste services have been important topics for the mayor and city council. Bulk trash service, which accounts for about 17% of Division’s budgeted expenditures, involves collecting residential bulk trash from each of the City’s four sections on a monthly basis. Bulk trash crews consist of three people, and the City has two inspectors who travel the collection routes—either before or after crews have completed collections—to assess items that were put out early or late, identify prohibited items, and educate residents on bulk trash rules. Bulk trash service is included in the City’s monthly solid waste rate of $28.60, which is charged as part of residents’ utility bills. The City also charges a $99.00 enforcement fee for bulk trash violations, such as prohibited items or piles that were put out early or late. Residents can also dispose of bulk trash at the City’s landfill, where they are allowed to drop off up to one ton of waste per month at no additional charge. Our objectives for this performance audit were to: • Review costs of bulk trash services to determine what percentage of Division costs the bulk trash program comprises • Assess opportunities for reducing operational costs of bulk trash services while maintaining customer satisfaction • Evaluate a transition away from a monthly bulk trash pickup to potentially appointment only or reduced frequency of bulk trash pickup to quarterly or semi-annually, including consideration for how the percentage of households using bulk trash services might be impacted Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 5 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY • Review staffing (including overtime pay), fuel costs, acquisition and maintenance of vehicles and equipment, and rates charged for services when considering efficiencies in bulk trash pickup • Analyze the current collection schedule and enforcement activities for efficiencies • Compare bulk trash services, fees, fines, and rates to similarly situated cities in the Valley In order to obtain an understanding of current practices and assess performance of the City’s bulk trash services, we conducted the following procedures: • Interviews: We conducted interviews with personnel in the Solid Waste Division involved in bulk trash. • Document Review: We reviewed multiple documents, including but not limited to: ○ Budgets ○ Tonnage reports ○ Set out reports ○ Accident reports ○ Rules and guidelines ○ Communication pamphlets ○ Customer surveys ○ Organization charts • Benchmark Analysis: We met with five cities in the region (Avondale, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tempe) to evaluate service schedules, fees and fines, enforcement activities, and service offerings. Peer data around program costs (e.g., staffing, fuel costs, acquisition and maintenance of vehicles and equipment) was not available. Results from our benchmarking activity are summarized in Appendix B of this report. • Industry Best Practice Research: We conducted industry best practice research from entities such as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to help inform our recommendations. We worked with bulk trash personnel and leadership to obtain the most currently available information and insights. We conducted this performance audit between October 2024 and February 2025. Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 6 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Finding The City’s current bulk trash collection schedule is reportedly appreciated by residents but presents several inefficiencies including increased staffing needs, inefficient collection processes, off-week inefficiencies, and unbalanced boundaries. Recommendations A. Consider switching to an appointment-based collection schedule to enable increased planning, resulting in potential cost savings from more predictable staff needs, collection routes, and reduced off-week constraints. B. Rebalance collection sections to even out the volume of tonnage collected each week. Criteria An effective bulk trash service balances effective collection routes, predictable collection schedules for planning staffing and costs like fuel and maintenance, and customer satisfaction. Condition The City currently offers monthly bulk trash collection services for residential Division customers. Each week, collection crews pick up bulk trash from one of four sections in the City. Each section has scheduled collection on a regular cadence to maintain consistency each month. For months that have five weeks, the City schedules an off-week for training and equipment maintenance. Crews, which consist of truck and tractor drivers and ground crew, go down each street of the assigned section to collect piles left out by residents. The crew foreperson determines which route to take, which can vary depending on the day. The service also has two dedicated inspectors who go out before and after crews to identify issues like improper placement or to tag piles for violating bulk trash rules. Along the way, inspectors also educate residents on bulk trash rules. The current state of Glendale’s bulk trash service is reportedly appreciated by residents, but has operational inefficiencies: • Staffing Needs: Since bulk trash collection does not require residents to schedule an appointment, staff reported it can be difficult to predict staffing needs for the bulk trash program because there is no way to effectively estimate how much bulk trash will be set out by residents in any given week. Though staff reported the City is adequately staffed with bulk trash crews and there are strategies in place to manage fluctuating workloads (e.g., using temporary staff in peak times and providing training during lower volume Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 7 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY times of the year), due to the inherent unpredictable nature of bulk trash collection needs, it can be difficult to plan how many staff are needed each week. • Inefficient Collection Processes: Collection routes are inefficient. Since crews do not know in advance which residences will have bulk trash set out, they must drive through all residential streets in the section of the City scheduled for bulk trash pickup each week. • Off-week Inefficiencies: To maintain a consistent schedule for residents, the City’s bulk trash program has an off-week four times a year (in months that have five weeks). Staff reported these off-weeks can lead to a significant accumulation of bulk trash, resulting in higher volumes for collection. In reviewing tonnage data, we found total tonnage is higher in the months impacted by an off-week in comparison to months without an off- week. Months impacted by an off-week includes the month in which the off-week occurred unless the off-week occurred in the last week of the month, in which case the following month is the impacted month. In calendar years (CY) 2022-2024, there was 40% to 43% more tonnage in months impacted by an off week. A VERAGE T ONNAGE P ER M ONTH CY 2022 CY 2023 CY 2024 Months impacted by an off week 2,395 2,282 2,183 Months not impacted by an off week 1,594 1,488 1,412 Percent difference 40% 42% 43% • Unbalanced Boundaries: In reviewing tonnage data, we found bulk trash tonnage volumes are unequal across the four sections. Section 4 has had more bulk trash tonnage than the other three sections over the last four years, while section 3 has less tonnage. Staff reported that, due to these unbalanced boundaries, some sections take longer to collect bulk trash, which can increase workloads and may result in overtime. Staff reported they are aware of the unequal tonnage across the sections and are working on addressing this issue. However, changing boundaries take time and the Division has other priorities. Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 8 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY * 2024 data only includes January through August. Peer Analysis Bulk trash collection services vary in different cities depending on a variety of factors. Of the five peers reviewed for this audit, two cities have an appointment-based schedule while the other three have monthly or bi-monthly collection pick up (also see Appendix B: Peer Benchmarking). CITY CRITERIA COLLECTION SCHEDULE NUMBER OF COLLECTION SECTIONS DOES THE PROGRAM HAVE WEEKS WHEN BULK TRASH COLLECTIONS ARE NOT PICKED UP, I.E., OFF WEEKS? Glendale Monthly collection, by section 4 Off-week for training and maintenance Avondale Monthly collection, by section 4 Off-week for training or odd jobs Mesa Appointment-based No sections No off-week Phoenix Appointment-based (switched from quarterly collection) 5 No off-week Scottsdale Monthly collection, by section 4 Off-week for training, maintenance, and to get ahead on collections Tempe Every other month collection, by section 8 Off-week for special collections or to get ahead on collections - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 2021 2022 2023 2024 Bulk Trash Tonnage Trend Per Section Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 9 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY The cities of Phoenix and Mesa both offer appointment-based services for bulk trash and reported this model is beneficial in predicting staff resources, equipment, and maintenance needs, which can reduce program costs. This collection schedule can also help reduce missed collections and increase operational efficiency as crews know specifically where to pick up bulk trash rather than having to drive all residential streets to determine which residences put out bulk trash. While there are many benefits to an appointment-based schedule, a switch to a new scheduling process requires ample customer education and can be a challenge for residents to adapt to in the short-term. Phoenix switched from monthly to appointment-based collection in 2024 and continues to run old routes in addition to appointment-based routes to ease residents into the new schedule. This requires additional staff time to run the routes as well as resources to educate residents about the change. As a result, Phoenix doesn't anticipate cost savings for about a year and is still evaluating the effectiveness of the schedule. Mesa has always been appointment-based and did not report any major challenges with the appointment-based schedule. None of the peer cities with a monthly or bi-monthly schedule are actively considering moving to appointment-based bulk trash pickups. Instead, several of these peers reported a bigger challenge has been unequal boundaries among service areas that impact staff capacity and overtime. Avondale, Scottsdale, and Tempe all reported rezoning/balancing sections are a priority focus to ease inefficiencies. Scottsdale recently adjusted boundaries and Avondale and Tempe are currently looking into rebalancing boundaries. Cause The City has prioritized resident satisfaction and convenience over operational efficiency. Many staff reported residents appreciate the current bulk trash service, as it is customer focused and allows ample opportunities for residents to easily dispose of bulk trash. However, these benefits to residents can hinder the City's efficiency and effectiveness in providing bulk trash services. Effect These inefficiencies can lead to staffing challenges, inefficient collections, higher costs, and may ultimately impact customer rates or customer service. Specifically, the inefficiencies identified above have the following impacts: • Staffing Needs: Crews may be understaffed or overstaffed based on the volume of bulk trash each week, which can lead to inefficient or costly operations. • Inefficient Collection Processes: Inefficient collection can result in longer travel times and increased fuel and equipment maintenance costs, which currently account for 4% and almost 10%, respectively, of the total bulk trash costs in FY24. • Off-week Inefficiencies: Off-weeks can lead to increased tonnage and collection needs, which can strain resources, increase overtime costs, and lead to delays in service as crews struggle to keep up with demand. In the last fiscal year budget report Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 10 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY (FY24), actual overtime pay was less than budgeted but accounts for about 11% of salary costs and 5% of the total estimated program costs for the fiscal year. Staff reported one reason for overtime costs are to account for extra collection days needed to support heavy tonnage months due to off-weeks. • Unbalanced Boundaries: When sections are not appropriately balanced, it can lead to unnecessary staffing costs because crews may have to work overtime to collect bulk trash some weeks. Recommendations Consider switching to an appointment-based schedule Several of the inefficiencies identified may be addressed or reduced by switching to an appointment-based schedule. Moving to an appointment-based schedule may help the City better predict staffing needs each month or week as well as which routes to take, which can reduce staff time, fuel costs, and equipment wear and tear. In addition, moving to an appointment-based schedule will eliminate the need for an off-week to maintain a consistent schedule across the City. However, the City may consider keeping some off-weeks or block off certain days to continue training or address other needs of the Division. These blocked off days likely will not result in the same increased tonnage as most residents will not anticipate collection during this time. If the City decides to switch to an appointment-based schedule, it should continue evaluating the appointment-based schedule at Phoenix. Phoenix also has four sections which are each assigned a different week for residents to schedule a bulk trash pick-up appointment. This keeps collections in the same area so that crews do not need to drive all over the city to service appointments. All households that use bulk trash services will be impacted by the switch to an appointment-based bulk trash pick-up, which is likely to impact customer satisfaction throughout the change process. Household impact will depend on various factors including the effectiveness of the City’s communication, the availability of appointments, and residents’ perceptions of convenience. Due to the strong focus on customer satisfaction, this switch will take time and planning to ensure there’s a system in place to schedule appointments, update crew processes, and most importantly, educate residents on the logistics of the switch and the potential benefits. Rebalance the collection sections Whether or not the City decides to move to an appointment-based schedule, the City should rebalance the collection sections. We recommend increasing the boundary of section 3 and reducing section 4 to even out the volume of bulk trash collected in these sections. This can help improve workloads throughout the month and potentially improve staffing costs in instances where staff must work overtime to finish a section. This recommendation is supported by several peers who are also considering the same change and may help address other inefficiencies like staffing needs and off-week tonnage increases. In addition, rebalancing sections is not as significant as changing the frequency Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 11 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY of collection, which will require additional staff time and resources to be successful and gain the support from residents. MANAGEMENT R ESPONSE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT Partially Concur with first recommendation. Concur with second OWNER Michael Carr TARGET COMPLETION DATE October 31, 2025 ACTION PLAN Monitor the large valley City that recently went to appointment-based service. Review challenges and lessons learned from changing before recommending this option. The division is currently implementing the rebalancing of the collection zones. 2. Finding Illegal dumping is a challenge in the City, which can result in additional costs, service delays, and can impact the reputation of the City. Recommendations A. Consider setting up security monitoring or adding signage, landscaping, or public art in areas most prone to illegal dumping. B. Analyze the illegal dumping contract and consider if it’s still cost- effective to contract out this service and, if so, which division should manage the contract to ensure contractor performance. Criteria Illegal dumping is the disposal of trash without legal permission. This is prohibited by City’s Municipal Code section 8.32 (Code), which bans littering in public places in the City. This includes throwing or depositing garbage or rubbish in a gutter, alley, parkway, or sidewalk. Illegal dumping services in a city are intended to collect and clean up illegal dumping sites identified by city staff or reported to the city. Staff for these services also typically provide enforcement and education efforts to prevent illegal dumping or work with other divisions or departments on enforcement and education. Condition Illegal dumping is a challenge in many communities and is difficult to address. Staff reported numerous concerns about illegal dumping throughout the City, particularly in alleyways. Illegal dumping in alleyways is a big concern, as the City has many alleyways around downtown. The Division is specifically responsible for illegal dumping in alleyways. Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 12 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY In addition to these industry-wide challenges, the City currently uses a contractor to pick up trash and address illegal dumping in its alleyways, which staff reported is not always timely. The City contracted out illegal dumping in its alleyways because no department/division in the City had the capacity to manage this program. The Transportation Department originally managed the contract as part of the contract is for landscaping services, but the Division took over the illegal dumping portion in July 2024. Management reported they are still understanding the current issues and gathering data on how to best respond to illegal dumping. Peer Analysis Illegal dumping is common in peer cities. In reviewing peer practices, all peers manage this service internally rather than through a contractor. In addition, the management of illegal dumping is organized in different departments amongst peers (e.g., housing illegal dumping enforcement within the departments of the Division, Transportation, or Police). CATEGORY GLENDALE AVONDAL E MESA PHOENIX SCOTTSDA LE TEMPE Organization of Illegal Dumping Contracted out and overseen by the Division Police Department Transportation Department Solid Waste Department Solid Waste Department Solid Waste & Recycling Department Where is Code Enforcement located? Code Enforcement Division Police Department City Manager’s Office Solid Waste Department Solid Waste Department Community Development Department Does Code Enforcement Support Enforcement Efforts? No Yes, if illegal dumping Yes, if private property Yes Yes Yes Education Efforts In-person inspectors and ground crew, pamphlets, and brochures Tags, property notices Customer education during scheduling Operators and crew door- knocking, door hangers, customer care team Tags, website information Crews, inspectors, Code Enforcement team Which department responds to illegal dumping informs which types of response actions are taken, but typically this includes notifying an alleyway collection team to collect the items, issue fines, and deploy educational efforts to mitigate repeat offences. Levels of fines and methods of education vary by peer. Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 13 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY Illegal dumping in alleyways is prevalent in peer cities. Peers, similar to Glendale, have alleyway gating programs to gate off alleys where illegal dumping is prevalent. When possible, peers may penalize illegal dumping through property notices with attached fines, by fines attached to water bills, or by identifying and directly fining dumpers. Peers vary significantly in the dollar amount of their fines and the extent of fine enforcement. Some peers pair fining with education. It is not possible to compare fines directly between peers, as there is no uniformity in fines created specifically for illegal dumping—some fines may exist to deter a variety of behaviors related to bulk trash or other solid waste collection at once. Like Glendale, peer practices also include a focus on educational efforts. Many residents don’t realize they are out of compliance with the Code and are dumping illegally, which is why it is a best practice to focus on education first. Operators or crews will sometimes knock on resident doors, but more typically a team follows up with offenders through phone calls or emails. It is also common for Code Enforcement or collection crews to leave door hangers, tags, or other physical notices that direct residents to a website with information on legal and illegal dumping policies. Larger cities, such as Phoenix, may have a customer care team who performs follow-up in these instances. Alternatively, some cities provide education when the service is requested. Cause Three common reasons for illegal dumping are to avoid collection fees for commercial businesses, dump items that are unallowable for bulk trash pickup, and for residents of other communities to avoid fees and fines. The City has gated some alleys to deter illegal dumping. This program is partially based on resident request and partially based on the City’s assessment of need. The City gathers various information on illegal dumping from Glendale 1 calls or other reported incidents to determine if an alley should be gated. However, illegal dumping is often hard to enforce because it occurs anonymously, mostly in alleyways. In addition, once illegal dumping occurs, the contracted collection service may not be as timely as in-house services because it takes time to notify the contractor and for the contractor to send out crews to clean up the alleyway. Challenges with communication, contractor volume, and pressure to respond quickly can all impact a contractor’s timeliness. Effect Illegal dumping has several negative impacts on the City including cleanup costs, which are currently contracted out, as well as staff resources to manage these contracts, respond to dumping alerts, and ensure that alleyways are cleaned up promptly by the contractor. Untimely service requests can result in resident requests being escalated (i.e., requests increase from a level 1 issue to a level 2 or 3 issue). Furthermore, illegal dumping can create safety concerns and negatively affect the appearance and reputation of the City. Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 14 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY Recommendations Preventive Methods As mentioned previously, Glendale has already engaged in several preventive measures such as the gated alley program. This program should continue with increased education and awareness provided to residents who are the most likely to catch and report illegal dumping. In addition to this initiative, there are several illegal dumping preventive measures the City can take to reduce the risk of illegal dumping. The University of Michigan and its community partners conducted a study on maintaining vacant lots that included pilot-tested strategies to prevent illegal dumping in the area. This study found several strategies to prevent illegal dumping: • Set up security monitoring through cameras, audio alerts, and lighting to monitor and potentially catch those who illegally dump waste • Install barriers such as small boulders to physically block access to specific sites • Add signage, landscaping, and public art to inform the public about illegal dumping and encourage people to keep existing spaces clean and cared for The City should evaluate the costs of these strategies as security monitoring can be expensive. Contract Improvements To reduce costs and improve service delivery, Glendale should continue analyzing the illegal dumping contract and consider which division would be best to manage the contract. Staff reported they plan to analyze the contract throughout the contract period. This analysis should consider the following: • Staff capacity • Contract knowledge/understanding of service needs • Communication mechanisms to respond to issues and communicate effectively with the contractor and other related departments or divisions Whichever division is responsible for the contract should ensure the contractor is responding to requests in a timely manner. This may include ensuring there are no issues or delays with the request process and keeping the contractor accountable. The City may consider establishing response metrics and incorporate these metrics into future contracts or amendments with the vendor. Similarly, the City should assess whether it’s more cost effective to continue contracting out the service or perform the service internally. This would involve comparing the cost of the contracted service to the internal costs and staffing capacity. The best internal division to organize illegal dumping response should possess the ability to absorb these hours efficiently, an understanding of how to respond to illegal dumping activities, and the appropriate equipment and materials for response. In addition to cost considerations, the internal division must have staff capacity to respond or manage the contract and collaborate with related departments or divisions. Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 15 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY Implementing other recommendations contained in this report, like adjusting the collection schedule to appointment-based or providing additional community collection events, may also reduce illegal dumping risks. MANAGEMENT R ESPONSE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT Partially concur with both recommendations. OWNER Michael Carr TARGET COMPLETION DATE June 30, 2026 ACTION PLAN The Division will research and discuss with other cities what methods have worked, and what did not work. We will consider how we may prevent illegal dumping. Each of the recommended monitoring options will have a cost that will need to be approved by Council. The Division recently took over the contract for illegal dumping removal in July of 2024. We will continue to monitor and evaluate the program for cost effectiveness and service. 3. Finding Changes and clarifications to the bulk trash program rules could enhance operational efficiency. Recommendations A. Continue efforts to update the Code including requirements around containment, object size, and placement of piles. B. Consider changes around pile size and prohibiting items such as construction materials and glass to align with peers, provide clarity to residents, and improve collection efficiencies. Criteria There are no specific federal or industry specific requirements cities must follow in regard to bulk trash collection rules and requirements. However, it is best practice to follow the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) direction of providing efficient, effective, and transparent guidance. Additionally, as noted in the peer analysis section, the City’s peers have bulk trash rules that the City does not have in place, which could reduce risks to the City. Condition Chapter 18 of the City’s Code details the bulk trash rules. However, the City does not have certain bulk trash rules in place. For example, there are no defined size rules on bulk trash piles and residents are not required to put bulk trash on the curb. In addition, there are opportunities to clarify rules around bulk trash containment. Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 16 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY Division staff have proposed some changes to the Code to clarify some of these rules, however, these revisions have not yet been approved or implemented. This process of revising the Code has created some confusion and uncertainty about the City’s bulk trash rules as the proposed changes are not in place yet. Peer Analysis In general, Glendale aligns with peer bulk trash rules. However, there are several rules Glendale does not have that most peers do including: • An established pile size limit: All peers specify a pile size, with most limits around 10 cubic yards or a small vehicle. Size limits can help crews pick up individual piles faster. • Prohibiting construction materials: All peers specifically prohibit construction materials from bulk trash collection. Glendale states they will not pick up items such as shingles, bricks, dry wall, and tile but does not explicitly state construction materials are unallowable. • Prohibiting glass: Three of the five peers specifically prohibit glass from bulk trash collections. Some of these peers also specify that windows and mirrors are unallowable. This can help keep crews safe from glass injuries. Glendale and Scottsdale, which do allow glass, require containment of glass to help prevent injuries. In addition, some peers specify some unique unallowable items such as the following: • Prohibiting community piles: Phoenix specifically restricts residents from combining piles from different households. This is particularly important for Phoenix, which has an appointment-based schedule. • Overweight item ineligibility: Mesa specifically restricts items, bundled or single, that weigh more than 60 pounds. This can improve the efficiency and safety of crews from picking up very heavy items. • Prohibiting animal waste: Avondale specifically prohibits animal waste from bulk trash but specifies this waste may be included in weekly garbage collection. • Prohibiting car parts: Phoenix and Tempe specify that metal and car parts are unallowable for bulk trash pickup. Phoenix clarifies that these items cannot be in excess of 20 pounds or 4 feet long. • Prohibiting landscapers from placing green waste for collection: Tempe specifically states landscapers cannot place green organic material for collection. Cause The lack of clarity in bulk trash rules is partly due to proposed changes to the Code by the Division that have not yet been approved or implemented. These changes largely apply to the placement of bulk trash piles, which can lead to property or personal accidents. In addition, there are some additional areas where the Code and/or informational materials may further clarify rules including pile size limits and prohibited items such as construction materials and glass. Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 17 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY Effect Without clarity about City bulk trash rules, staff may not enforce rules effectively or consistently. In turn, residents may inadvertently violate the Code, which increases risks and inefficiencies for the Division. In addition, insufficient bulk trash rules can result in accident claims. For example, the placement of bulk trash can result in property damage. The current practice of setting bulk trash piles on one’s property can result in property-related damage if piles are placed on or near property such as electrical boxes, sprinkler systems, or cars. In reviewing bulk trash accident data from FY23–FY25, we found the number of bulk trash accidents remained relatively steady across the three fiscal years. Though most accidents were reported as not preventable in the current environment, changes to bulk trash rules could prevent property- related accidents in the future. Reducing accidents can improve resident satisfaction, and result in decreased staff time reporting incidents. Recommendations Changes and clarifications to the bulk trash program rules could reduce risks to the City and enhance efficiency. The City should continue efforts to update the Code. Some proposed changes include clarifying definitions, requiring residents to bundle or tie bulk trash, and limiting the size of bulk trash objects, which would increase the efficiency of pickup. It also includes requiring residents to place their bulk trash on the street near the curb as opposed to on their property, which reduces the risk of the City being liable for property damage. The City may also consider updates to align with or clarify the following in the City’s bulk trash rules in accordance with peers. • An established pile size limit: Glendale should consider establishing a pile size limit to help keep piles to a manageable size and speed up collections. • Prohibiting construction materials: Glendale may consider specifying construction materials are unallowable on the website and on the Bulk Trash Pamphlet to reduce Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 18 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY large piles of construction materials. Glendale defines construction waste in the Code and on the Enforcement Tag and includes examples of construction materials, such as shingles, bricks, dry wall, and tile, on the website. However, the website and pamphlet don’t explicitly state construction materials are unallowable. Though there is some information about construction materials, since staff reported many instances of construction materials included in bulk trash piles, specifying construction materials are prohibited on education materials may provide some clarity to residents. The Division should also go forward with the proposed clarifications to the construction definition in the Code. • Prohibiting glass: Glendale may consider prohibiting glass if injuries related to glass occur. As there have not been any reported glass accidents in the last three years, keeping the current glass containment rule may be sufficient to keep crews safe. In addition, the City may consider updates to items peers specify (e.g., community piles, overweight items, animal waste, car parts, landscaper organic waste) to provide clarity to residents and improve efficiencies in the program. MANAGEMENT R ESPONSE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT Concur with recommendation 1, and partially concur with recommendation 2. OWNER Michael Carr TARGET COMPLETION DATE October 31, 2025 ACTION PLAN We will continue to review the code for improvements, and any recommendations will be discussed with Council. Changes to the code will depend on Council approval. Changes to pile size and prohibited items are at the direction of Council. Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 19 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY 4. Finding The City’s enforcement efforts appear to be ineffective due to the enforcement fee, enforcement list process, inspector capacity, and the process for charging fees. Recommendations A. Conduct a rate study to assess if the enforcement fee should be increased to account for the applicable costs and is at a level that discourages residents from violating bulk trash rules. B. Continue educating residents and enforcing bulk trash rules to prevent repeat violations and reduce the number of enforcements. C. Consider dedicating some Code Enforcement staff to bulk trash enforcement who will work with inspectors to hold residents accountable for bulk trash rules. D. Document the process for waiving or not charging the enforcement fee to ensure the process is understood by staff and consistently applied. Criteria The City’s bulk trash rules are governed by Chapter 18 of the Code and are enforced by inspectors and collection crews. Similar to bulk trash rules (see Bulk Trash Rules), there are no specific federal or industry specific requirements for enforcing bulk trash rules. However, bulk trash enforcement should be effective in promoting compliance with the Code through clear communication to ensure all residents are aware of rules, regular monitoring of compliance, and established consequences such as warnings, penalties, or fines to hold residents accountable. Setting bulk trash fees, including enforcement fees, requires a fee study to assess current and projected costs. The bulk trash fee should cover all costs to fund the service for a city. Enforcement fees should also cover current costs but should also consider deterrence and practicality to ensure the fee is high enough to cover costs and deter certain activities, but not too high to be impractical to pay. Condition Enforcement efforts in the City are largely conducted by inspectors and collection crews. Inspectors leave enforcement tags at residents when piles violate City rules. These tags include the violation and an overview of the bulk trash rules. If a resident is home, an inspector may speak with and educate them on proper practices. Collection crews may similarly educate residents when they are picking up piles. Enforcement is further supported through a $99.00 fee. According to the bulk trash rules, this fee is charged in any of the following situations: • Piles are placed before or after scheduled week of service Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 20 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY • Piles are placed incorrectly, blocked, or cause crews to collect material in a way other than normal method • Residents request special pick ups Despite these enforcement practices, the City’s enforcement efforts appear to be ineffective. Staff reported several concerns of residents not following bulk trash rules. For instance, some residents reportedly dispose of commercial waste through the City’s bulk trash program, which is intended only for residential needs. Additionally, some residents reportedly dispose of unallowable waste (e.g., hazardous materials) by hiding the waste with other allowable items. There are several factors that reduce the effectiveness of the City’s enforcement efforts. These include: • Enforcement Fee: Staff suggested the bulk trash enforcement fee for rule violations is set too low to incentivize residents to adhere to the rules and regulations, since the cost is nominal compared to the convenience of placing large amounts of waste out for collection. This can lead to increased instances of rule violations and place additional strain on bulk trash resources. • Enforcement List Process: The City’s practice is to place residents who violate rules on an enforcement list and provide them with a notice about what to fix via an enforcement tag. Each week, when bulk trash crews finish their routes, they revisit the residences on the enforcement list. Staff reported that even when residents do not address the issues, the standard practice is to educate residents, when able, and to still pick up the bulk trash to avoid it sitting out too long. Forepersons have some leeway in picking up these piles, though staff reported a common practice is to pick up piles that don’t address the violation as they are already onsite and to maintain a positive reputation with residents. Additionally, staff reported that when piles are placed on the City street, they become City property. This practice, while well-intentioned, can undermine the enforcement process by sending mixed messages about compliance and accountability, potentially enabling further violations. Though enforcements to total tonnage over the last three years is relatively low, below 4% in CY22 and CY23 and below 7% in CY24, enforcements can place additional strain on resources and may lead to increased costs for the City, as crews are required to manage repeat offenders without effectively addressing the underlying issues. Additionally, it can lead to increased employee safety concerns and property damage claims if crews pick up unallowable materials or materials placed on property that is easily damaged by collection equipment. • Inspector Capacity: The City has two inspectors dedicated to bulk trash who support enforcement of the bulk trash program. The Division has a total of seven inspectors. Though the Division has many inspectors, staff reported two dedicated bulk trash inspectors are not enough to effectively manage bulk trash enforcement needs. Many cities, including all peers, use Code Enforcement staff to manage bulk trash enforcement, which can improve overall compliance. Code Enforcement officers typically have increased capacity for enforcement, broader authority, and specialized training and Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 21 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY expertise. Additionally, using Code Enforcement staff can promote a more integrated approach to compliance across the City and allow the City to monitor code compliance trends more effectively. • Charging Fees: The City sometimes does not charge the enforcement fee for residents. Staff reported this is generally done one time only but may not be enforced more often. While this can support a positive resident experience, especially for residents who do not frequently violate program rules, staff reported decisions about fees enforcement are not necessarily consistent, and the City does not have documented guidance for not charging fees, which can lead to a lack of clarity around when to not charge fees. This can undermine the effectiveness of the program and result in inequities if decisions are not made consistently. The City has focused on education rather than punitive actions to help residents understand the rules and prevent future violations. This can be an effective way of supporting residents while encouraging compliance throughout the City. Peer Analysis Peer cities enforce bulk trash rules in different ways including support from Code Enforcement, penalties and fees, and education efforts (also see Appendix B: Peer Benchmarking). • Code Enforcement: All other peers have at least some level of support from Code Enforcement in enforcing bulk trash rules. Two of these peers have a Code Enforcement team within the Division to provide dedicated support for the department. • Solid Waste Fee: All peers that provided rate data (and do not have an appointment schedule) consolidate the bulk trash rate with the solid waste rate. These solid waste rates are similar in amount, ranging from $27.00 to $30.27. Glendale’s solid waste rate is in line with these peers with a rate of $28.60. Avondale also charges $43.00 for two refuse containers. Mesa, which has an appointment-based collection schedule, charges a fee of $29.00 per load to customers and $37.59 per load to noncustomers. • Penalty Fees: Some peers enforce rules through fines and fees, though Glendale has the highest violation fee at $99.00. Scottsdale charges $50.00 for late put outs and charges a variable fine for piles that exceed city rules, depending on pile size. Avondale has not initiated a fee yet but plans to in the future and established a practice of providing three warnings before charging a fee. CITY COLLECTION TYPE SOLID WASTE/BULK TRASH RATE PENALTY FEES AND FINES Glendale Monthly collection by section $28.60 solid waste rate (bulk trash included) $99.00 Avondale Monthly collection by section Two solid waste fee options $27.00 for one refuse container/one recycle container $43.00 for two refuse containers/one recycle container Fees/fine has not been established yet. Staff reported once the fee is established, the city will institute a three strikes, you’re fined process. Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 22 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY CITY COLLECTION TYPE SOLID WASTE/BULK TRASH RATE PENALTY FEES AND FINES Mesa Appointment-based collection Customers: $29.00 fee per load of bulk trash Noncustomers: $37.59 fee per load of bulk trash $29.00 fee for missed pickups, failure to properly contain load, or unacceptable items in load Phoenix Appointment-based collection Not provided Not provided Scottsdale Monthly collection by section $30.27 solid waste rate (bulk trash included) $50.00 for late put outs Fee varies for piles that exceed pile limit size Tempe Every other month collection by section Not provided Not provided • Education Efforts: Similar to Glendale, all peers primarily educate residents through enforcement/educational tags when prohibited items or piles are set out. Most peers use several different positions including ground crews, inspectors, and Code Enforcement, to educate residents. Phoenix also has a city-wide customer care team that helps track educational efforts and follows up with residents when needed. Cause Enforcement of rules appears to be ineffective and unclear because the City has historically prioritized resident satisfaction in the bulk trash program. In addition, rules are not consistently enforced. Several staff reported the bulk trash service consistently receives high satisfaction results from residents and proposed changes are met with resistance. This can make changes and enforcement difficult. Though the solid waste rate is reviewed regularly, the enforcement fee has not been assessed in years because there is no requirement to include this fee in a regular review. Rates, fees, and fines tend to increase over time, as various costs including labor, fuel, and supplies have all increased in recent years. Fines that do not increase may not cover current costs. In reviewing the $99.00 penalty fee compared to landfill costs, the current penalty cost only becomes more expensive than bringing bulk trash to the landfill for residents who have less than seven tons of waste per month. However, staff reported this fee may not be acting as a deterrent as many residents opt to pay the fee over rectifying bulk trash tags and taking prohibited items or piles to the landfill. The $99.00 penalty fee, though more costly than going to the landfill, may not be expensive enough to incentivize residents to haul items to the landfill rather than leaving piles for the City to pick up. Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 23 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY Effect Overall, ineffective enforcement efforts may fail to deter residents from violating bulk trash rules. This can lead to safety concerns for City staff and negatively impact the overall appearance of the community. Insufficient enforcement of bulk trash rules, which are intended to ensure safety for everyone, can lead to ongoing violations. Over the past three fiscal years, there have been 24 reported accidents related to bulk trash (also see Bulk Trash Rules). While the Division has indicated that most of these accidents were not preventable under current conditions, better enforcement of bulk trash rules could help reduce accidents in the future. In considering the enforcement fee, if bulk trash violation costs exceed the fee amount, this suggests that the overall solid waste fee charged to all residents may be higher to help cover excess costs associated with violations. When fees reflect the costs of providing individual services, charges are equitable among community members and the City can maintain high-quality service delivery, invest in necessary resources and infrastructure, and effectively manage operational expenses. Additionally, a lack of enforcement hinders efficient operations if inspectors must consistently leave tags and crews must consistently cycle back to pick up corrected piles. This can take additional time for crews as well as additional fuel and wear and tear on vehicles. Recommendations We recommend the following to address the specified enforcement inefficiencies: • Enforcement Fee: Glendale should conduct a rate study of the $99.00 penalty fee or include this fee in the next solid waste rate study, to assess if this fee is high enough to cover operational costs. This assessment should assess the additional labor cost of picking up early or late put outs, inspector time leaving and following up on tags, and the additional fuel and equipment costs needed. The City should also assess if adjustments to the fee are high enough to deter residents from violating bulk trash rules. There are no standards for how to assess this, though comparing the enforcement fee to landfill costs or other activities are useful metrics. The City may also consider scalable fees that escalate based on the frequency or severity of the offense and repeat offenders face higher fines. This practice helps deter repeat offenders who may need incentives beyond educational efforts. • Enforcement List Process: The Division should continue educating residents and enforcing the bulk trash rules by not picking up piles that violate City rules. This can help prevent residents from repeating violations over time and may reduce the number of enforcements crews must address. • Inspector Capacity: The City should consider dedicating some Code Enforcement staff to support the enforcement of bulk trash rules. These staff should work with inspectors to hold residents accountable to bulk trash rules. Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 24 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY • Charging Fees: Document, through a written procedure, the process of enforcing the $99.00 enforcement fee. The Division should have clearly defined processes for working with residents, when it’s allowable to not charge the fee, and how to document when fees are not charged to promote more consistency in enforcement activities. This documentation should be consistent with other informational materials (e.g., website, magnets, pamphlets, tags) as enforcement should be applied uniformly to all individuals. To do this, rules and enforcement practices should be clear, transparent, and consistent. MANAGEMENT R ESPONSE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT Concur with first two recommendations, partially concur for the third, and concur with the fourth. OWNER Michael Carr TARGET COMPLETION DATE June 30, 2026 ACTION PLAN 1. As part of our annual rate analysis we can determine whether the fee covers costs associated with enforcement and service. A recommendation will be presented to Council. 2. Continue performing basic function of inspector duties. 3. We will look at internal staff to assist with enforcements, Solid Waste is responsible for enforcing Ch. 18 of the City Code. 4. We will develop an SOP for processing the enforcement fee. Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 25 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY APPENDIX A: DEFINITIONS OF ASSESSMENT FINDING RANKINGS We utilized the City’s IIAP risk rankings, presented below, and assigned rankings to our findings based on our professional judgment. A qualitative assessment of high, medium, or low helps to prioritize implementation of corrective action, as shown in the following table. H IGH Findings with a high likelihood of causing significant negative impact (i.e., pose a threat to achieving organizational objectives) if not promptly addressed. Recommendations from high-risk findings should be implemented (preferably within three months). M EDIUM Findings with a medium likelihood of causing negative impact if left unaddressed. These should be prioritized for corrective action to improve performance. Recommendations arising from medium-risk findings should be implemented in a timely manner (preferably within six months), to address moderate risks and strengthen or enhance efficiency. LOW Findings with a low likelihood of causing significant negative impact (i.e., pose a threat to achieving organizational objectives) if not promptly addressed. Recommendations arising from low-risk findings should be implemented within 12 months. Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 26 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY APPENDIX B: PEER BENCHMARKING The City of Glendale engaged Moss Adams LLP to conduct a performance audit of its bulk trash service to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of this service. As part of this work, we reached out to five peer cities to learn about how they operate their bulk trash service: Avondale, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale, and Tempe. Our discussions focused on bulk trash service schedules, collection frequency, illegal dumping, Code Enforcement, education initiatives, and other challenges or successes with their programs. The table below provides an overview of key characteristics of each city, and a summary of lessons learned and best practices based on our conversations. TOPIC QUESTION GLENDALE AVONDALE MESA PHOENIX SCOTTSDALE TEMPE Background Info Solid Waste Budget (FY24-25) $23,986,625 $6,343,700 $48,000,500 $188,516,150 $39,248,178 $30,393,777 Background Info City population (2023, Census QuickFacts) 253,855 93,545 511,648 1,650,070 244,394 189,834 Background Info Land area in square miles (2020, Census QuickFacts) 61.6 47 138.7 518 184 39.94 Background Info Solid Waste FTE 78.5 27.5 163 639.5 106.4 110 Background Info Do you have in house trash pickup? Yes, internal solid waste pickup Yes, internal solid waste pickup Yes, internal solid waste pickup Yes, internal solid waste pickup Yes, internal solid waste pickup Yes, internal solid waste pickup Background Info How many people are on a pick-up crew? 3 people per crew 3 people per crew, 4 crews total 2 people per crew 2 people per crew, about 30 crews total 4 person crew, 1 crew per pick up with 2 people per crew, 6 crews total (one of these is Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 27 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY TOPIC QUESTION GLENDALE AVONDALE MESA PHOENIX SCOTTSDALE TEMPE around 27 people total dedicated to green waste) Schedule What pick-up frequency does your city have? (monthly, quarterly, appointment only) Monthly pick-up, by section Monthly pick-up, by section Appointment- based Appointment- based Monthly pick- up, by section Every other month pick- up, by section Collection Sections How many collection sections does your City have? 4 4 No sections 5 4 8 Schedule Does the program have an "off or free week"? Off-week for training and maintenance Off-week for training or odd jobs No off-week No off-week Off-week for training, maintenance, and to get ahead on collections Off/Open- weeks for special collections or to get ahead on collections Enforcement Does your city have certain placement requirements (on property vs. street? Street/curbside (switched in January 2025) Street/curbside Street/curbside Street/curbside (switched in September 2024) No curbside requirement (Concerned that cars would block piles and some streets don’t have a curb) Street/curbsid e Enforcement Does your city have pile size requirements? No pile size requirement 3 cubic yard limit per pile 4 load limit, each load is approximately 4'x8'x4' (or approx. 5 cubic yards) 10 cubic yards per residence 10'x6'x4' per pile (approx. 9 cubic yards) 10 cubic yards per pile Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 28 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY TOPIC QUESTION GLENDALE AVONDALE MESA PHOENIX SCOTTSDALE TEMPE Enforcement Where is the city’s Code Enforcement located? Solid Waste Division Police Department City Manager's Office Department of Solid Waste Solid Waste Department Community Development Department Enforcement Does Code Enforcement support bulk trash enforcement efforts? No Yes , if illegal dumping related Yes, if private property Yes Yes Yes Enforcement Will piles be picked up even if they are against rules/regulations? Yes No No Yes Yes Yes, only if crew is in the area System What system do you use to track bulk trash data? Rubicon Sanitation Violation App SWAPPS (internally developed) Rubicon Excel Accela Rate and fees What rates or fees does your city have related to bulk trash? $28.60 solid waste rate (bulk trash included) Two solid waste fee options $27.00 for one refuse container/one recycle container $43.00 for two refuse containers/one recycle container From website "Customers: $29 fee per load Noncustomers: $37.59 per load” Not provided $30.27 solid waste collection fee, which includes brush services Not provided Penalty Fees and Fines What penalty fees or fines does your city have $99 fee The fee has not been instituted yet. The city will institute $29 fee for missed pickups, failure to properly Not provided Fee enforcement is case by case. Late Put Outs - Not provided Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 29 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY TOPIC QUESTION GLENDALE AVONDALE MESA PHOENIX SCOTTSDALE TEMPE related to bulk trash? a three strikes you’re fined process contain load, or unacceptable items in load $50.00 Exceed pile limit - varies on size Illegal Dumping Where is illegal dumping organized at your city? Contracted out Police Department Transportation Department Within Solid Waste Managed by the trash program Code Enforcement Staffing Do staff frequently use overtime to complete pickups? Yes Yes No Yes, but staff are hoping OT will reduce with the switch to appointment- based collection Yes Sometimes Special Programs The City of Mesa offers two special programs to support bulk trash efforts for residents. The first is a Neighborhood Cleanup Program (NCU) where the city provides large trash and green waste recycling containers to allow residents to clean their yards, remove litter from the neighborhood, and haul off old furniture, mattresses, and other unsightly debris. The city also has similar program, Community Cleanup Program (CCU). where the city provides free roll off containers to housing projects/low to moderate income areas as an opportunity to dump large items. The city reported they initiated these programs at the request of residents who wanted more free trash programs. Mesa reported the programs are paid for by a $0.47 fee added onto utility bills. Enforcement The City of Scottsdale equips trucks with a camera to capture property damage. Staff reported this has helped significantly with property damage claims. Bulk Trash Performance Audit Draft Report | 30 FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY Illegal Dumping All peers also experience challenges with illegal dumping. Most peers have a gated alleyway program similar to Glendale's to prevent illegal dumping in some alleyways. Avondale and Tempe both reported working with Code Enforcement to clean up the area. In Avondale, if the dumping occurred along a bulk trash route, bulk trash will handle it. Otherwise, the police department will handle it. Education Similar to Glendale, all peers primarily educate residents through enforcement/educational tags when prohibited items or piles are set out. Most peers have a combination of ground crews, inspectors, and Code Enforcement who education residents. Phoenix also has a city-wide customer care team that helps track educational efforts and follow-up with residents when needed.