Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solid Waste topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Audit finds inefficiencies in Glendale bulk‑trash service; staff to study appointment model and code changes
Summary
An independent performance audit and staff review found variable participation and imbalanced routes drive inefficiency in Glendale’s monthly bulk‑trash service. Staff recommended rebalancing routes (already done), studying an appointment‑based model, reducing setout days to two, adopting pile‑size limits, and raising enforcement fees; council asked for additional research, advisory‑commission review and more outreach.
A Moss Adams performance audit presented to the Glendale City Council found bulk‑trash operations are hampered by inconsistent weekly participation and imbalanced collection sections, and staff recommended a set of operational and code changes that the council asked staff to study further.
Deputy Director Michael Carr, who summarized the audit findings on April 14, said the two primary problems are highly variable participation/tonnage and route imbalances. “The solutions are less about small adjustments and more about how the overall system is structured,” Carr said.
Staff reported they have completed a rebalance of route sections to better reflect household growth and travel distances. The audit recommends three types of changes for council consideration:
- Move toward an appointment‑based collection model to give staff predictable stops and reduce the time piles remain at the curb; staff said appointments could preserve monthly service while improving predictability. - Reduce the permitted setout period. Glendale currently allows residents to place bulk materials up to four days prior to collection; staff recommended two days prior to collection to reduce windblown litter, scavenging and neighborhood blight. - Add a pile‑size limit (staff proposed a 10‑foot long by 6‑foot wide by 6‑foot tall maximum, roughly 13.3 cubic yards) to aid route planning and safety, and increase enforcement fees (currently $99 for special pickup) to provide a stronger deterrent against premature setouts or repeated noncompliance.
Several council members pushed back on immediate adoption of some measures. Property owners with acreages argued a fixed pile size would not fit large‑lot landscape cycles (tree trimming), and multiple councilmembers said a mandatory appointment system could create access problems and complexity for residents who depend on predictable, automatic monthly service. Others supported further study, saying appointments could prevent long curb sit times and reduce scouting by crews.
Council gave staff direction to research appointment‑based options (including peer‑city experiences and implementation and outreach plans), return with proposed Chapter 18 code revisions on enforcement fees and setout timing, and bring those items to advisory commissions for additional feedback before any final council vote. Council did not reach consensus to adopt a pile‑size standard at this time.
What’s next: staff will develop an implementation plan, stakeholder outreach strategy and cost analysis for any appointment program and will return with proposed code amendments on fees and setout timing for further council review and advisory‑commission input.
